Shock the poor into prosperity

Rob Roy said:
Do you have a core philosophy and if you do, does it embrace or disavow involuntary human interactions ?
Click to expand...

my core belief is don't do to others what you wouldn't want have done to yourself.

i don't embrace or disavow "involuntary human interactions", they just happen, like turning a corner and bumping into someone.......it's called the politics of being alive and is unavoidable.
 
MisterBouncyBounce said:
my core belief is don't do to others what you wouldn't want have done to yourself.

i don't embrace or disavow "involuntary human interactions", they just happen, like turning a corner and bumping into someone.......it's called the politics of being alive and is unavoidable.
Click to expand...


I like your core belief, but think it may be a bit incomplete.

What if another person didn't share your belief about something, would you leave them alone (assuming they were leaving you alone) or would you insist that they be subjected to something that you are okay with but they are not ?

The kinds of involuntary human interactions which don't "just happen" but rely on initiatory force to create and maintain, are you okay with those kind ?
 
Rob Roy said:
I like your core belief, but think it may be a bit incomplete.

What if another person didn't share your belief about something, would you leave them alone (assuming they were leaving you alone) or would you insist that they be subjected to something that you are okay with but they are not ?

The kinds of involuntary human interactions which don't "just happen" but rely on initiatory force to create and maintain, are you okay with those kind ?
Click to expand...

i don't believing in imposing my will or morals on anyone who is minding their own business.
but if they had agreed prior that whatever the group decides that is what we are going to do, but then doesn't like what the group decided, and refuses to do it, then they should be made to live up to their agreement, whether they like it or not.


if someone is invading my space, they initiated the confrontation, then i have to impose my will.

what is the point of this?
 
MisterBouncyBounce said:
i don't believing in imposing my will or morals on anyone who is minding their own business.
but if they had agreed prior that whatever the group decides that is what we are going to do but then doesn't like what the group decided then they should be made to live up to their agreement, whether they like it or not.


if someone is invading my space, they initiated the confrontation, then i have to impose my will.

what is the point of this?
Click to expand...

The point is, to foster a discussion. Maybe I can learn something I didn't get from a fortune cookie.

What if a person decided not to participate in "the group" but still left you and others alone, should they then still be left alone?
 
Rob Roy said:
The point is, to foster a discussion. Maybe I can learn something I didn't get from a fortune cookie.

What if a person decided not to participate in "the group" but still left you and others alone, should they then still be left alone?
Click to expand...

these things are often complex, so one does have to tread lightly and mindfully discussing them.

if a group was formed or just arrived somehow and one person did not want to be a part of the group then they should be left alone.

like for example, the american indians, they should have been left alone while at the same time the "white man" had to tend to his needs. then when conflicts would rise, we should have respected them and worked things out nicely.

even if the US Gov. felt it was entitled to the land because it was duty bound to look after it's people's interest. still we did not have to dominate them and drive them towards extinction.

if you mean an individual wants to drop out of the governmental system, then they have to go very far far away. you can't drop out of a culture or system that you are still in. it means you're still interacting with it, effected by it and effecting others and in some kind of way likely still benefiting from it.

so that person can't be left alone when a conflict arises between them and the group.
 
Rob Roy said:
Is this your rejection of "tacit consent" or is tacit consent something you think is real and applicable ?
Click to expand...

i don't understand what you mean by "tacit consent". if "tacit approval" is approving without actually giving approval, then is "tacit consent" consenting without actually giving consent?

i don't quite understand what you mean.
 
Rob Roy said:
Is this your rejection of "tacit consent" or is tacit consent something you think is real and applicable ?
Click to expand...
Sprout-guideline.jpg
 
MisterBouncyBounce said:
i don't understand what you mean by "tacit consent". if "tacit approval" is approving without actually giving approval, then is "tacit consent" consenting without actually giving consent?

i don't quite understand what you mean.
Click to expand...


I mean do you think individual people can be assumed to have joined an organization without those individuals actually providing their explicit consent ?
 
Rob Roy said:
I mean do you think individual people can be assumed to have joined an organization without those individuals actually providing their explicit consent ?
Click to expand...

it depends of course. if you walk into a bar with a hat on and above the door was a sign that said "no hats allowed", you would be expected to remove your hat whether you read the sigh of not.
in that same way if you are in the midst of a group, like in their territory, then you have respect and follow their rules or leave.

just like here, follow the rules or Rollitup will boot you, whether agreed to the rules or not. so you are treated as if you have consented, whether you have explicitly consented or not. so whether you're in the US or a Hells Angels club house, you are expected to follow the rules.

you only other course besides leaving is to rebel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top