That's some serious cognitive dissonance you have going on there and borders on some of the crazy hair splitting schizophrenic stuff that people use to justify all kinds of weird interpretations of law. Like those folks trying to say that maritime law trumps US Law (ask anyone being extradited to the US to faces charges under US law, what it is that trumps US Law).
Law is never about "I". "I" alone do not need law of any kind, neither do you.
Law is only required when people interact and is always entirely 100% about WE.
Law is about how WE interact, and what is OUR social contract and OUR obligations to one another.
When people get buried in "I", they start to believe that they are an island unto themselves. They use this line of thinking to justify every kind of agressive thought as somehow "I" is greater than "We".
It's a fear based narrative driven by a fear that you don't fit in and thus you are somehow an outsider to society, despite partaking in everything that society has given you every single day.
You forget the sole purpose of law. Accountability to others
I'm going to make a reading suggestion for you, though I doubt you'll take it (even though the work is free online). Bastiat- The Law PS- Your law is legalized plunder of the individual to conform to something that doesn't exist. You might also take a peek at the video synopsis I left by Professor David Friedman, though I doubt you'll do that either.
"Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? f this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”
@maytons. You can doubt as you wish. You are free to do so. But compare your first statement "law is nothing more than legalized plunder" to your second "organizing for the common defense'
This is what i mean by cognitive dissonance. There is no individual natural universal law. Law only exists when two or more people are involved.
Sorry if i sounded more harsh than i intended. I was exhausted when i wrote the above and not functioning at my highest levels.
Very typical statist response. Misquote my words then claim cognitive dissonance applies. You've committed numerous logical fallacies throughout William. Good day.
I'm sorry you don't feel that you own yourself. Who told you that others own you?
Who told you that "I" represents PROPERTY?
That's some serious cognitive dissonance you have going on there and borders on some of the crazy hair splitting schizophrenic stuff that people use to justify all kinds of weird interpretations of law. Like those folks trying to say that maritime law trumps US Law (ask anyone being extradited to the US to faces charges under US law, what it is that trumps US Law).
Law is never about "I". "I" alone do not need law of any kind, neither do you.
Law is only required when people interact and is always entirely 100% about WE.
Law is about how WE interact, and what is OUR social contract and OUR obligations to one another.
When people get buried in "I", they start to believe that they are an island unto themselves. They use this line of thinking to justify every kind of agressive thought as somehow "I" is greater than "We".
It's a fear based narrative driven by a fear that you don't fit in and thus you are somehow an outsider to society, despite partaking in everything that society has given you every single day.
You forget the sole purpose of law.
Accountability to others
I'm going to make a reading suggestion for you, though I doubt you'll take it (even though the work is free online). Bastiat- The Law PS- Your law is legalized plunder of the individual to conform to something that doesn't exist. You might also take a peek at the video synopsis I left by Professor David Friedman, though I doubt you'll do that either.
"Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? f this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”
@maytons. You can doubt as you wish. You are free to do so. But compare your first statement "law is nothing more than legalized plunder" to your second "organizing for the common defense'
This is what i mean by cognitive dissonance. There is no individual natural universal law. Law only exists when two or more people are involved.
Sorry if i sounded more harsh than i intended. I was exhausted when i wrote the above and not functioning at my highest levels.
Very typical statist response. Misquote my words then claim cognitive dissonance applies. You've committed numerous logical fallacies throughout William. Good day.