RE: Dutch Court Orders Bill Gates to Appear in Person to Defend against Charges of Crimes Against Humanity
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hi again,
thank you.
I will refer to the subject of 'governing'. Maybe I will find my time to also include what else you said, not sure.
i believe in non-coercion thoroughly. which is why i reject government entirely. there is no logic behind a government, other than the fear narratives we keep hearing, the "but ifs"
I do believe in coercion, but in a well measured and most responsible way. I will exchange the term with other words, like: 'consequence', 'discipline', 'consistency' - which I all connote positively, not negatively in this context.
What if you break your thought in that sentence down to the smallest unit of human existence? The family.
Are you also in favour of 'no government' where the family is concerned? That I cannot imagine.
In my view, ‘governing’ begins there and means having an authority that you have as a father and mother through life experience and through your past experience as former children of your parents who exercised authority.
In this family alliance, those who have the best qualifications and have proven their life skills through their lifestyle and behaviour are in charge. Those who have not built up anything, who are not doing any useful family work, who are scraping by or who are still children (i.e. have yet to earn their right to co-determination) do not have a say.
Since a family always exists in a larger working net, the hierarchy here is that it is the municipal, then the metropolitan, then the state and then the federal government (I'm leaving out the EU).
When you talk about ‘no government’, which one do you think is superfluous?
I now assume that you nevertheless consider a set of rules for the coexistence of many people to be accepted. Is that correct?
Who in the family's local neighbourhood is responsible for upholding the rules, i.e. who is the executive and the judiciary? Who brings thieves, murderers, cheats, etc. to reason?
If, on the other hand, you are against the need for something like official police and courts, you would have to be in favour of self-justice.
Are you in favour of self-justice?
If every individual were authorised to carry out vigilante justice, what situation would that create?
As a matter of fact, there are reasonable and unreasonable minds in the world. Agreed?
The unreasonable must be persuaded by the reasonable not to get out of hand. This is only possible if they have to bear the consequences of their unreasonable actions themselves. Who denies them this experience is, in my view, acting unwisely themselves. It doesn't work without a conscientious form of enforcement.
Do you believe that all people, without exception, are capable of learning without pressure?
I definitely don't. (A so far lack of) Learning takes place by involuntarily receiving a consequence. If it were voluntary, there would be a paradox. Anyone who voluntarily bears a consequence for their actions - without any external influence - is already acting responsibly. This is my most important argument.
Do you agree?
In my view, enforcement, or rather consequences, are for sure necessary, because I know that there are foolish, evil, ignorant, unintelligent and stubborn minds. This consequence, measured as best as possible, must be understood as educational by those who receive it. It must humiliate them. It only so makes sense.
There are, have always been and will always be characters who, if they had to grow up as children without the intact healthy authority of their parents, will subsequently need to be educated as adults. Those who deprive them of this in turn think immaturely themselves because they fail to understand ‘consistency’ as something positive and out of love, they fear 'coercion' as something deeply bad. They may assume that something like this is not possible or not necessary and hinder the person being disciplined from receiving something extremely valuable.
Back to the beginning.
We have a federal government, as we engage in international trade far beyond our personal relationships. Which is modern standard.
If it is the case that you want to give up this standard (?), for example, you say that the federal government can go, but at the same time you would have to face the reality that other nations will want to keep/defend their national governments and we as small Germany (or whatever small country) would not have the slightest chance of protecting ourselves against invasion and takeover of our moral and physical values.
The German government is the one that must regain - from my current standpoint - both diplomatic skills and the responsibility for security in its own country at its external borders. At the moment we have no such government and it looks as if they are now anarchists. Indeed, all signs point towards that in reality, they have given up governing.
I would want to keep a republic, since going back to smaller units would be unwise - to say the least - and to go up to a world government is even scarier. What do you think?
Greetings.
a reply will have to wait some more, my apologies. but i will come back to it!
blessings
i am still fascinated by our differing views on... life (?) although we see so many things similarly. it is both interesting and a little tiring ahahhaa.
i do fully agree that family has an authority structure, simply because i know from experience that children look to their parents how this "being a human" works. kids learn from their parents and they have - or SHOULD naturally - have a say even if he kids don't yet understand. which is why governments target and erode family structures first in order to bolster their own importance in shaping the minds of both kids and their parents, but that is an aside.
what we see differently, it seems to be at least two major things here:
they seem to do so today because there is a vested interest by the supra-tribal institutions (governments) to become all invasive and self-evident, as in "where would we be without government" which is plain superstition to me, and unreasonable. if people would get over the notion of government-everything, neighbors would get together and build a road. you do not need a federal siphoning system for this. you need COMPETENT doers who exercise their innate freedom. that is it.
of course we would not have learnt anything without the tyrants! of course experience from this is valuable! but you cannot seriously take that as a justification to keep the state of affairs like it is. let-downs come natural to human existence and the existence of these power structures forces us to wake up from the nonsense idea that we must be governed by people to begin with. it is quite silly but it looks oh so serious. because people take it seriously.
i hear certain assumptions that are plainly not accurate in my experience. we would have to dive into natural law to set the stage. can anyone claim to be in power when - even after his own rules - a mere minority of those to-be-governed agreed to have them in that role, in absolute numbers? no he cannot.
we cannot reasonably assume somebody to be a legitimate ruler over anyone else unless the latter has given his consent to be governed. which is what everybody who votes does automatically, authorizing someone else to make decisions for them. participation in somebody's game is acceptance of the connected rules so if you went to vote for their game you rightly have no ground to complain about what comes out (regardless of which party you voted for).
the trend is undeniable in my experience, that governments are not a servant of those they claim to represent but rather their tyrant, making self-enriching deals that 'their citizens' suffer under, or brainwashing "their" populations with this that or the other myh of the day. some use religion, others use hollywood, others use a false and fictional historical narrative to justify any current atrocity people have ceased to regard as one, because we are bamboozled by organized lies. and we can't see the forest for the trees.
this works only because people give their consent away voluntarily and now think governments are a natural extension of natural systems. ot also works because the lies are part of a grander network of liesy robbing us of our own (common) senses in favor of fictional ideas.
we also seem to talk past one another on
Of course i realize that there are criminals, and malign beings, on more levels than one. so what? that justifies putting a gang in charge who provably defraud and steal from "their" constituents constantly?
it would be better to not shift the responsibility but to live it ourselves, in the immediate not the distantly removed. is that easy? no it is hard. calling the police to deal with your angry loud neighbor is easier than going over there and facing him and potential consequences face to face when complaining.
but easy doesn't make it right to have somebody else do for us what is naturally our job. freedom is not easy nor convenient. it is hot, it can sting and it can be mighty dangerous. but it is free and unconstrained. it is direct.
we do not need police, we need social competency and backbone. we need courage and to stand by what we feel, see and experience. and we need to step in when crimes are committed and not delegate our responsibility as sovereign and soulful beings away to some institution.
atrocities happen every day even in countries where there are police and military. having a government and an executive and judiciary branch doesn't help to set things right, they help to further the power structure's interest. they do not automatically equate justice, as you can plainly see in germany. and anywhere you look these days, really.
as such of course i am for self justice as long as i can define what justice means to me, which of course i can. is revenge justice? maybe, but revenge will not solve anything and i know that. so i might choose to exercise a different remedy than revenge. at least i can decide that, not some far away people who don't know me and whom i have never met.
self defense is in my jurisdiction. it is self justice in that sense.
but of course i realize that the with the state of social conditioning today, I will then be perceived as the aggressor for not delegating that job to some formal gang and will myself be invited to go to prison if i don't play by the system's rules.
i fundamentally see and have experienced people in most
countries in southern and eastern europe as good. people are helpful more often than not. they share my problems and help me when they can and have the will. and i help when i can and have the will. it is simple when things are voluntary as they should be.
"the existence of bad people does not legitimize an entire coercion structure to subjugate all people!
you and me seem to be going in and out of different frames of reference. which is why i will leave this here and not comment further on the poor dude's hijacked comment section, look what we have done erh, ahahahahhaa.
i am stating my ideal, and what i will work towards as best i can. at the same time i do take the world as it is and realize that people are apparently not ready to rethink everything, which i have to accept.
it is fine, as long as they don't try to coerce me into their silly little game. because they have no ground to do so.
when a hostile army from another "country" comes to convince me with violence, there is nothing i can do. but even moreso to stand on principle and trust that their violation of my sovereignty will one day find its balancing out in the cosmos. but that goes too far offtopic now.
i am going to bed.
if we do this in the future we should probably do it on your blog or mine rather than on other people's, but it did come naturally didn't it?
sorry @valued-customer
and @erh.germany, thanks for reminding me what i believe in and why. as always i remain open to change my mind. but for that the merit of natural law would have to fall for me, which i have not seen done and logic'ed through successfully by anyone. maybe i will some day, most my perspectives have changed many times. as such this is merely where i am currently at.
blessings
I'm plumb tickled to be able to benefit from your discussion here.
<3
Thank you. I have read all what you've answered. I find it most importantly, that we agree on the family-level. Though, I disagree that,
Since that is, from my standpoint, the way forward. Because all else includes in comparison a lot of violence, unrest and misery (death). Integre men and women and kids, it could be that this will not happen in our lifetime. Instead, far more unpleasant and frightening things might come to pass.
Can I summarise your answer by saying that you
I. you would like to see all governments as they currently exist abolished?
II. that instead of a deputy police and judiciary, there should be self-justice instead?
If so,
III. what kind of system in terms of vastly accepted rules amongst the 'peoples of self justice' you'd want to establish after such reset? Since you cannot really assume that every one is running by a correct book of rules, when it's all up to them.
No, actually we do not disagree here. My last sentence from my former comment should have made that clear:
That includes the long and tedious way back into the institutions and the parliament (including major changes from a new governing party). As much as it sucks.
If we talk about bigger than family units, but smaller than national government, what size do you have in mind? Villages, cities?
How would you make sure that these villages or cities stay safe towards other, still bigger units than them? How to guarantee a functioning interrelationship between all of them? You'd have to say good bye to modern standard, is it not so? You did not refer to that.
I welcome our differences, did I say that? HaHa .D
Greetings to you.
P.S. I think that valuedcustomer does not mind to have us littering his comment section. :)
finally arrived in a new life chapter and i can get back to your reply <3
the communication and conversation we are having is exemplary for exactly the type of society i have in mind, where people are able to talk to one another and learn from each other rather than force the other to adopt a viewpoint.
again i do see major difficulties to change the system as a whole because everybody is used to it being he way it is.
without the spiritual insight one cannot be expected to operate ethically in a system devoid of authority. so abolishing governments over night is definitely not the answer.
i can see though that the meddling of government in people's affairs could be winded down slowly over a generation or two, utilizing more self-justice type structures like neighborhood defense groups of volunteers who want to protect their fellow brothers and sisters from violence. it's the main reason people want to become cops, to feel they participate in defending those who cannot defend themselves, of arbitrary crime.
every supra-local bond is voluntary. as such it is no problem linking towns, counties or even countries, as long as the people living in it are not coerced into following the then-established rules. it is this automatic forcing of the individual into the frame of he giant collective that creates problems.
i have explored the topic for a long time now, and the best solution i can offer is based on natural law and recognizing that we only ever have to follow one rule that is not made by men but by circumstance of being a human individual in this world: do not steal.
do not steal someone else's property, liberty or life. or as it has been put by some eastern spiritual movements: do not take what is not given. all the rest follows and leaves people to do as they wish as long as they do not steal from someone else. it is really a variant and a concretization of the golden rule.
limiting the rules to that one major rule, automatically makes redundant most governmental institutions. it also allows a community to help mitigate when two individuals are in disagreement.
@amaterasusolar writes regularly about a society based on ethics, which in turn is based on natural law. i find it never ceases to amaze me how clear it can be seen.
but i totally grant that we we not there yet and that the road to such a world will be bumpy due to all our conditioning. opening the cage of a beaten wolf will be a dangerous moment initially, due to all the accumulated trauma. as such, discussions like this can maybe help to spread the knowledge and or help find the catch in such a proposed system based on the one rule alone. it might - like anything - be another spiritual trap to fall into. however i have not found the catch in all these years so it remains the most viable longterm goal in my view.
saying bye to the modern standard, hmm. i am always surprised at how well and friendly communication in smaller communities, and even in other countries works. i feel without the overregulation and government's meddling in people's affairs communities and even countries would come together much more, not less. we are uman beings, most of us want to improve the quality of lives, not just for us but for those around us.
what we then do with the psychopaths who have killed, stolen and tortured generations of the common man is an ethical question. i am a believer in forgiveness, as long as it comes with the absolutely necessary insight on the other's part and unmistakable efforts to "repay" their inhuman behavior as best they can.
germans will yet have to face being in a situation of having to forgive a LOT. i have prepared myself accordingly and am ready. somebody has to make a cut in order to finally heal old trauma that is holding everyone back. but while it would be such a victim's right to retaliate, we have to be stronger and better than that. for this stance jesus is such a glorious example.
i gope that answers your questions.
my blessings to you from central italy ;)
🙏 🙏 🙏 You and other readers might enjoy My latest....
I Have Authority Over You (article): https://peakd.com/informationwar/@amaterasusolar/i-have-authority-over-you
The idea that every human being is ‘naturally’ endowed with inalienable rights is an absurd notion in my thinking. Who or what endows people with such rights? From what reality do people derive such rights? Surely they do not derive them from an ideal situation in which nobody steals from anyone else. They only derive them from a non-ideal situation, from the fact that people steal from other people, to use your term.
How I see it:
There is no such thing as 'natural right'.
There is the nature of a given situation.
In which a person who eyes me and my ability to defend or run away or to seek help, is being estimated. If the estimation turns out to be against me, I will be robbed or raped or killed if someone wishes to do so.
So, we need rules or commandments. Fact is, that they were, are and will being violated.
It is also a practical and pragmatic question.
Would you want a psychopath to die, if evidence is given that he killed out of lust or other low motives? Would you be able to be that person yourself who brings death to such a killer? If your answer is "no", what would that mean for you and others who say "I couldn't do that"? Who then shall be put into place to do justice in the names of those who won't?
To what do you refer? Not sure, what you mean.
Anyways, expression is limited and I do not want to make the comment too long.
Greetings to Italy! Where exactly are you? I have fond memories of Italy :) You plan to visit Martijn Doolaard? Just joking.
very well said!
Very well reasoned. I am happy to see this interaction here.