Obligations and Rights

[Serpent]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

Nick_A -- Rather than making rules, a government protects already established unalienable rights that are natural to universal existence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom doesn’t come from a government making rules but by a system which protects people from government rules and prevents feeling the value of universal rights.

You merely overlooked the key phrase: We hold.
It's a statement of consensus. We, the undersigned, have agreed to base the laws of our new government on these principles*
*north of the Mason-Dixon Line; westward to be determined at a later date, say about 1863

Every constitution and charter - of nations, of international organizations, of sporting clubs, craft guilds and charitable committees - has such a statement of basic principles on which the signatories have agreed. I's all about what people decide will work for them, what rules they agree to abide by. That's what you agree to when you take an oath of citizenship, or office or professional conduct.
Gods and bibles are optional.

[Nick_A]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

Nick_A -- Rather than making rules, a government protects already established unalienable rights that are natural to universal existence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom doesn’t come from a government making rules but by a system which protects people from government rules and prevents feeling the value of universal rights.

You merely overlooked the key phrase: We hold.
It's a statement of consensus. We, the undersigned, have agreed to base the laws of our new government on these principles*
*north of the Mason-Dixon Line; westward to be determined at a later date, say about 1863

Every constitution and charter - of nations, of international organizations, of sporting clubs, craft guilds and charitable committees - has such a statement of basic principles on which the signatories have agreed. I's all about what people decide will work for them, what rules they agree to abide by. That's what you agree to when you take an oath of citizenship, or office or professional conduct.
Gods and bibles are optional.

It isn't a matter of options but of potentials. Freedom is only possible if it is natural for universal existence and if its value can be remembered. If it isn't true then nothing is possible other than chaos and the tyranny that results from the attempt to establish order in chaos..

[Serpent]

It isn't a matter of options but of potentials.

What isn't? When you swear an oath, you may do so on a bible, or without a bible: optional. There is nothing potential about that: the oath is equally binding, either way; the penalties for breaking it are exactly the same, either way.

Freedom is only possible if it is natural for universal existence and if its value can be remembered.

Freedom is possible only insofar as one's physical capability and environmental circumstances permit one to exercise autonomous action. It's not dependent on universality, value or memory.

If it isn't true then nothing is possible other than chaos and the tyranny that results from the attempt to establish order in chaos..

... except for imposed order with popular consent and rational organization - ie law.

[Nick_A]

It isn't a matter of options but of potentials.

What isn't? When you swear an oath, you may do so on a bible, or without a bible: optional. There is nothing potential about that: the oath is equally binding, either way; the penalties for breaking it are exactly the same, either way.

Freedom is only possible if it is natural for universal existence and if its value can be remembered.

Freedom is possible only insofar as one's physical capability and environmental circumstances permit one to exercise autonomous action. It's not dependent on universality, value or memory.

If it isn't true then nothing is possible other than chaos and the tyranny that results from the attempt to establish order in chaos..

... except for imposed order with popular consent and rational organization - ie law.

Laws are made to be broken. it has become human nature. Have you noticed why communes fail? The idea of a commune sounds nice. A bunch of guys are sitting around fire talking about brotherhood and then that cute girl walks by shaking her behind and it is every man for himself.

Voluntary obedience to laws is unnatural for animal man. It requires conscious Man opening to conscience. They are very rare. It is rejected by the majority in favor of arguing opinions. Nothing taking place in the present suggests the future will be any different.

[Serpent]

Laws are made to be broken.

No. Laws are made to create order and equity. Not all laws are sound in their principle, nor fair in their application, but every one that's passed is intended to be obeyed, and generally enforced. Most of them are obeyed by most people most of the time. Obedience is the norm; lawbreaking is the exception.

it has become human nature.

When did any single tendency become human nature? Whatever human nature is, it's inherent in all humans from the origin of the classification "homo sapiens". The making of rules for social organization is very much in keeping with human nature. Yes, some people always think the law doesn't apply to them, and a few actually do outsmart the enforcement agencies. But if what you said were true, you couldn't safely walk on the street, drive on a road, shop in mall or eat in a restaurant.
And yes, it's also true that societies - particularly empires - in decline have an increasing incidence of bad legislation, patchy enforcement and popular law-breaking as the order breaks down.

Have you noticed why communes fail?

They don't all; when they do, each has its own specific problems - very often originating in the greater society around them. I'm not aware of any failing specifically due to disagreement among the male members over one female member. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-experimental-towns-and-communes.php

Voluntary obedience to laws is unnatural for animal man.

Where did you get that piece of horesepucky? All social animals practice voluntary adherence to the laws, mores, status structure and etiquette of their group.

[Nick_A]

Laws are made to be broken.

No. Laws are made to create order and equity. Not all laws are sound in their principle, nor fair in their application, but every one that's passed is intended to be obeyed, and generally enforced. Most of them are obeyed by most people most of the time. Obedience is the norm; lawbreaking is the exception.

it has become human nature.

When did any single tendency become human nature? Whatever human nature is, it's inherent in all humans from the origin of the classification "homo sapiens". The making of rules for social organization is very much in keeping with human nature. Yes, some people always think the law doesn't apply to them, and a few actually do outsmart the enforcement agencies. But if what you said were true, you couldn't safely walk on the street, drive on a road, shop in mall or eat in a restaurant.
And yes, it's also true that societies - particularly empires - in decline have an increasing incidence of bad legislation, patchy enforcement and popular law-breaking as the order breaks down.

Have you noticed why communes fail?

They don't all; when they do, each has its own specific problems - very often originating in the greater society around them. I'm not aware of any failing specifically due to disagreement among the male members over one female member. https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-experimental-towns-and-communes.php

Voluntary obedience to laws is unnatural for animal man.

Where did you get that piece of horesepucky? All social animals practice voluntary adherence to the laws, mores, status structure and etiquette of their group.

The ideal that justice is blind and people are treated equally under the law is a fine ideal which would be normal for conscious Man supporting freedom. But it is obvious that animal Man is incapable of it. Political ideology, business, and all other institutions fall into bribery and corruption devolving blind justice into "might is right." Am I wrong? Do you really believe that the concept of blind justice is the dominating force in political ideology and or business? Do you really believe that fine words supporting blind justice are more influential than bribery or intimidation destroying the ideal?

[Serpent]

Am I wrong?

About a great many things.

Do you really believe that fine words supporting blind justice are more influential than bribery or intimidation destroying the ideal?

What's this blind justice non-sequitur in aid of? Why did you change the subject from the organization of social animals to the poor business practices of a particular empire in decline?

[Nick_A]

Am I wrong?

About a great many things.

Do you really believe that fine words supporting blind justice are more influential than bribery or intimidation destroying the ideal?

What's this blind justice non-sequitur in aid of? Why did you change the subject from the organization of social animals to the poor business practices of a particular empire in decline?

You wrote:

Where did you get that piece of horesepucky? All social animals practice voluntary adherence to the laws, mores, status structure and etiquette of their group.

You can dogmatically believe in voluntary adherence but there is no evidence for it. Were these mothers caught bribing colleges to accept their children practicing voluntary adherence? Were the colleges who accepted the bribes practicing voluntary adherence? No. They were just being normal for the human condition.

People voluntarily adhere to the law when it supports them. When it doesn't, then people ignore it. Blind justice asserts that people should be treated equally under the law. Those days are over. Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and now it appears so is Lady Justice. Who will replace her? I shudder to think what the experts will come up with.

Society has lost the ability to feel the value of the balance of obligations and rights in the cause of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. The struggle is now for power and prestige. To the victor belong the spoils"

[Serpent]

You can dogmatically believe in voluntary adherence but there is no evidence for it.

Other than the entire field of animal behaviour? Probably not.

Some laws are bad and impossible to obey - this would be especially true of religious commandments. Laws also become outmoded and need to be replaced as conditions change. Societies lose their cohesion for various reasons and need extensive reform or revolution. Change is inevitable; adaptation is necessary. Yet, throughout, societies need rules of behaviour to function.
Your silly examples of rule-breaking don't negate that constant.

People voluntarily adhere to the law when it supports them.

Which is most of them, most of the time, as previously stated.

When it doesn't, then people ignore it.

Some people sometimes ignore one or another particular law, while adhering to the other 98% of the law.

Blind justice asserts that people should be treated equally under the law.

Since there is no such thing as blind justice - still a non-sequitur - it asserts nothing.
The US constitution stipulates equality under the law. (Not all systems do, btw.) Again, as previously stated, Not all laws are sound in their principle, nor fair in their application, but every one that's passed is intended to be obeyed, and generally enforced.

Those days are over.

What days?

Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and now it appears so is Lady Justice.

Who?

Society has lost the ability to feel the value of the balance of obligations and rights in the cause of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Which was the last year that was in effect? And in which country?

[Nick_A]

If Simone Weil is right and a balance between voluntary obligations and rights is essential to sustain it, it raises the obvious question is what can serve to enable people to “feel” the value of voluntary obligations that is lacking now? The answer IMO is the quality of metaxy or sometimes spelled metaxu that a culture expresses. First I’ll provide a description how the concept is used in the Symposium

The word “metaxy” (μεταξύ) is a Greek preposition, meaning “between.” Normally, Greek philosophers use “metaxy” much as we use “between” in numerous everyday settings, without great significance. However, there is a line in Plato’s Symposium in which Diotima defines Eros as “a great daimon,” adding that “the whole of the daimonic is between [metaxy] god and mortal” (202d13-e1). In that line, and in the surrounding passages that explicate it, the preposition acquires the status of a symbol or an index of the ontological rank of Eros, the mysterious reality that Diotima and Socrates regard as the most important force animating our lives.

Now I’ll quote how Simone Weil uses it. Excerpted from Gravity and Grace:

This world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through.
Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. It is the same with us and God. Every separation is a link.

Of course this is meaningless for secularism restricting itself to earthly realities but for universalists who are open to levels of reality, it explains a lot. Metaxu connects levels of reality.

The senses can reveal so much but become closed to reality beyond their potential to experience. Metaxu is the intermediary between the visible and the intelligible worlds. The art and ideas of a growing culture will present a healthy metaxu which invites its citizens to contemplate the intelligible world and the higher values natural for it. A healthy metaxu awakens a person emotionally much like a text on physics awakens us to physical relationships. A healthy metaxu serves the connection between above and below, the intelligible and visible realms in the collective psych of Man. It is no longer respected by the majority enchanted with fragmentation within the visible realm.

The loss of a healthy metaxu and the modern fixation on earthly values explains why the acceptance of voluntary obligations is now an impossibility. It is rejected emotionally as is natural for a society in decline goberned by the desire for power and prestige..

[Serpent]

So... let me guess...
You're never going to talk about anything in the real world?
OK
Good night, Simone. Good night, John-boy. Good night, Nick.

[charon]

.