MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 10:34am:


No, we need rule of law to adjudicate between nature's naturally competitive, territorial, and self-interested individuals, to avoid the endless wars and entrenched poverty ruining our world.

"All men must submit to rule of law, for all to be free": Cicero. 

But your "equality before the law"  - based on your 'natural individuals rights' delusion, results in  law which cannot engender shared prosperity; by definition, you are promoting individual success regardless of the egregious effects of competitive instincts.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 10:51am:

So law does not exist in nature, then. And yet...

The foundation of democracy that a government will accept the will of the people as clearly expressed in a plebiscite, and will not proceed to over-ride that will by attempting to function in areas related to that plebiscite via decree that creates the opposite of that referendum result.

This WAS called a 'convention' and generally speaking, governments here have historically pretty much abided by it.

Enter the Infamous Nineties - the 1990's of now fabled folk lore.

A plebiscite to remove firearms from the community was defeated.  What did governments do?  Well - rather than going quietly into the night over this non-issue, they chose instead the fine art of anally raping democracy and the will of the people.  Posing as the fearless defenders of the apparently endless array of women being killed at home with legal firearms, governments such as New South Wales at State level determined to set about a path of 'controlling this epidemic of domestic violence' by killing two democratic birds with one stone.

They began by anally raping Law by establishing by decree the rather twisted and tortuous idea that it was perfectly in order for a court to impose upon one party in an alleged domestic issue, and on the basis of a complaint being sufficient evidence amounting to proof that such anal rape of legal rights was not only required, but demanded for the protection of specified individuals belonging to one side of any domestic issue.

These governments  then determined that, since the plebiscite had gone against arbitrary removal of firearms from households, the way to anally rape this will of the people was to decree that, by 'regulation' of the police force, once such an anal rape of legal rights 'order' as outlined above was set in place, it was now mandatory to prevent any potential violence, something previously never in evidence in any practical sense, by removing legally held firearms from that household.

This was done under the guidance of the Bold Paul Keating, who decreed to the states that unless they installed 'universal domestic violence laws' their cut of GST money would be reduced.

Enter the Broad Arrow Cafe Massacre - apparently the work of a single man who had no previous criminal history and nothing to gain - and who - in Tercius style - apparently set about becoming the meanest mo-fo in the Legion.  Side-note - has anyone ever actually met a family member of a victim or a surviving victim?

In any case, enter the fearless and peerless Bold John Howard, who took advantage of the hugely emotional backlash and confusion over such an alleged event to impose, by decree, 'universal gun laws' that effectively removed firearms from the very vast majority of the populace, who were and are, in the main, guilty of nothing.

And so the anal rape of our democracy, otherwise known as rule by decree of the elected government as opposed to the informed will of the people, became reality.

And now what do we see?  And endless array of closures and private deals done behind closed doors to impose on the general populace, who opposed these very things at a very recent plebiscite, ANY demands made by Aboriginal groups throughout the land.  the same tactics are employed - using the States to implement what was not acceptable to the people at Federal level, while providing massive funding and even one-sided 'hearings' of 'interested parties' to benefit any Aboriginal version - while excluding all others from any fair consideration in any way.

Then massive immigration amounting, by government decree again and without reference to the people, one and a half million extra people a year.  Predictions in the United States, where a similar approach was taken using government decree, indicate that very soon, if not already, born Americans will be the minority in their own country, but unlike our around 2% adult Aboriginal minority, will not have the support of any 'government by decree', but rather the opposite.

If you do not see government by decree in this country as THE greatest clear and present danger to our form of democracy and our lifestyle, you are blind, deaf and dumb and /or are on the side of evil.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 10:53am:


So we must create it, for "all men to be free"  from nature's slaugterhouse.

But your "equality before the law"  - based on your 'natural individuals rights' delusion, results in  law which cannot engender shared prosperity - the goal of law; by definition, you are promoting individual success regardless of the egregious effects of competitive instincts.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 11:12am:

Does freedom exist in nature?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

Nations who resisted the will of Yahweh, you mean, including the Israelites, which is why Yahweh sent them into bondage in Babylon.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 18^th, 2024 at 11:01am:


expressed by mere majority vote, regardless of the knowledge (or lack of)  of the individual voters?

..hmm...good results not guaranteed, look around you.

Whereas individuals attracted to the concept of  community well-being, as well as the success of individuals, might engender good results, depending on the quality of their knowledge.