Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?

Do you think that it is because the worst punishment that is in law for self-destruction is integration into a self-destructive organization?





People know what is good for their own survival, but when they begin to mingle with more people they begin to make major errors in judgement. Why can%26#039;t people get along with each other? Is it because everyone always wants someone to claim as their servant and life is some sort of pyramid scheme?





How do you define anarchy? I think that anarchy arises from the breaking of one%26#039;s own rules. Based on that premise, that would make us all anarchists. However, only those people who are honest enough to admit that they are anarchists are punished. Do you agree? Does that make us all %26quot;bad people%26quot; or just the dishonest ones?





If a society makes its living by exploiting another society and a member of the first society refuses to cooperate then does that make the outcast a %26quot;bad%26quot; person for not leaving the society and joining the ranks of the abused?
Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?
I%26#039;m not saying you dont%26#039; have a point in there--somewhere. But your entire proposition has so many fallacies of logic, it%26#039;s impossible to address your question.
Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?
okay, I%26#039;m going to tie a few of your points in to answer your general question.


As I see it, human nature is flawed. it is human nature to take the easiest and most pleasurable, for the moment, route out of any situation. Due to the fact that we are here to learn to do otherwise, I don%26#039;t think that it%26#039;s a big deal.


The fact is that people are comfortable with their contribution to their own self destruction when they don%26#039;t know any better. When they do know better, they are not comfortable with it, but often despair gets ahold of them and takes them spiralling further and further down the wrong path they began.


What do you think?
Reply:woah! difficult question, erm. I%26#039;m drinking so prepare for crap answers!! Q.1 It%26#039;s easier not to care about something important apposed to something you care about(whatever it might be)


q2. Depends on how vulnerable you are socially- (Something you can%26#039;t measure yourself)i.e bad company


Q3. Error is the only way to learn in a practical sense, you learn from your mistakes or/and some people fear you, even if your the nicest guy in the office so they put you down. Ignore them as best you can...


q4. having been involved in some school riots a few years ago I would define that as anarchy!!! windows smashed, fires,


seafood all over the corridors... you get my point!


q5. Depends on why really
Reply:You don%26#039;t get anarchism. It does not mean hypocrisy; anarchism supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy. (At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).





There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.





People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.





Highleyman, %26quot;An introduction to anarchism:%26quot;


http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp00155...





%26quot;An anarchist FAQ:%26quot;


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... or


http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (same text)
Reply:Here I quote what you say that I believe are most telling points about human nature:





%26quot; People know what is good for their own survival, but when they begin to mingle with more people they begin to make major errors in judgement [...]





[So...true...the test where theory meets practice, that the effort can be made genuine or not]





%26quot;I think that anarchy arises from the breaking of one%26#039;s own rules [emphatically so, true]. Based on that premise, that would make us all anarchists [in fact, this result is what should be made to yield truth]. However, only those people who are honest enough to admit that they are anarchists are punished. %26quot; [yes, and this is the great arbiter any way and unfortunately or not is a result that has to be, and is a mandate and the healer both, that few if any choose to confront] Denial can be likened to a disease.





Your train of thought is curious, which subtlety is so easily overlooked. There is much beneath it. Surely it does not misbecome us to look to ourselves first, which is truly the test of how deeper pomp and circumstance are and must be brought to bear, for which one is led to know just %26quot;where the rubber meets the road,%26quot; that is, where platitude has first to be tested for its utility and made or not made practical and genuine by proof; and made evident to any the observer%26#039;s heart that has been so without such gift.
Reply:Oh, I thought this was going to be a lecture on the ills of tobacco smoking.





%26#039;Do you think that it is because the worst punishment that is in law for self-destruction is integration into a self-destructive organization?%26#039;





The punishment, then, is before the wrong deed; we are born into such an organization, but formerly in criminal punishment the organization (prison), is concerted destruction (less so in these modern times).





%26#039;Is it because everyone always wants someone to claim as their servant and life is some sort of pyramid scheme?





Class society.








%26#039;How do you define anarchy? %26#039;





Class less society with individualism as the ego ideal. There are teachers and the taught (the students), a class organization, Could any society perpetuate its self having no organized education.





%26#039;If a society makes its living by exploiting another society and a member of the first society refuses to cooperate then does that make the outcast a %26quot;bad%26quot; person for not leaving the society and joining the ranks of the abused?%26#039;





Is your subject national society or class society. If national, then such a person is a traitor, if class society, then such a person is proletariat. Conscientious objection is legal, but where is one to go if not to be self destructive.








%26#039;If a society has wronged an individual member then the individual has the right to remove their contributions entirely from the society.%26#039;





Assuming the individual did not wrong the society, when that property is sold, the right of ownership passes over to the other. Self property is not sold but rented for a term specified in a contract, but stolen in slavery. Product property, the personal property sellable or alienable from the producing human as producer for that product, is not self property but an extension for self property for that self%26#039;s purpose. When that product is sold the right for ownership is sold with it and passes over to the other purchaser or buyer.





%26#039; I believe that for the individual to descend themselves on behalf of those who have wronged them is to set an exploitive example.%26#039;





Do you mean sell self%26#039;s labor and forfeit limited terms unrevokable? Yes, that is unconscienable.





%26#039;Perhaps the nation will recognize its wrong-doings only if the contributions from individual are removed; the contributions taken for granted as they are.%26#039;





It has been done, it does not work.





%26#039;I don%26#039;t intend to imply that the society is never supportive to its members. I do intend to imply that the wronged, setting a strong example, will assist the members of society in building a more stable system of liberties. Let the worth of the contributions be evaluated by those who collaborate for them and with them. At any rate, it is immaterial whether the contributions have the magnitude that any member of society deems to them. It is only important that the contributing member be liberated to come and go as he/she pleases regardless of the deeming. If this rule is followed then people will settle in comfort with their proximity; where that proximity is, is not critical except to those people who hope to remove his/her liberties and exploit him/her.%26#039;





The real magnitude is scientific and objective and measurable and any other sense for magnitude is purely subjective and lacks the necessary competency, though it has the value for initiating the value concept, need.