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.