Drugs

I want to expand on Tik-Tok's excellent point on Liberalism. The self-contradiction of tolerance and freedom remains unsolved. The contradiction arrives from truly taking the claim ''everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their lives'' and exposing it for the hatred of truth that it is. What if I was an Egoist, viewing the entire world as either my property or property that should be mine but I have insufficient control or power over it? I would please my own ego by taking part in acts that ''harm'' others, not from my point of view, however. Obviously, the liberal quoted above wouldn't tolerate me or fellow fans of Max Stirner going around murdering, enslaving and whatnot. So where is the line drawn? A possible explanation would be the ever-changing concept of muh bodily autonomy. That's just taking the problem a step back, you dare restrain my body from throwing some shuriken at you? Tough luck kiddo, but autonomy is a spook like any other ''right'' is. There is also a difficulty in measuring and comparing the quality of autonomous decisions. Anywho, Karl Popper tried to solve this problem of tolerating the intolerant. His proposition was that in order to conserve tolerance, you need to be intolerant of intolerance. However, once you do this, you admit that you don't value tolerance as a virtue in of it's self. You value whatever you tolerate. Tolerance presupposes intolerance. Tolerating Liberalism while not tolerating, say, Fascism, is identical to Fascism tolerating it's self while being intolerant of Liberalism

I am a human being i got the right to choose my style of life as long as i dont harm public property or anyone else. Why cant i do it? The more you say to someone to not do something the more he wants to do it.Just educate the kids better at schools with real examples and learn them everything.Let them choose.Let them try.If you let them try from young and learn them to not do it they wont.Same for sex education.

Scritto da JUGERS2, 09.06.2019 at 15:52

.Let them try.If you let them try from young and learn them to not do it they wont.Same for sex education.

xaxaxa

Scritto da Tik-Tok, 09.06.2019 at 15:25

Scritto da Columna Durruti, 27.05.2019 at 11:47

Matter of choice. Why to impose a "normality"?

Because 'normality' is a well-defined center point which everyone recognizes. It is NOT normal to be coked out, naked in the streets and screaming at 4am. It's not normal to be zoned out in a classroom. It's not normal to change your state of mind everyday to cope with problems.

Scritto da Columna Durruti, 27.05.2019 at 11:47

Some very productive intelectuals and artists consume(d) drugs, ranging from marihuana to cocaine, from LSD to opiates... even booze.

And a good majority of them are dead for that reason. It wasn't the drugs that gave them this ability. They achieved popularity through their talent and once they reach a level of fame, the drugs are offered. The drugs come AFTER the talent, not before. The drugs are usually a coping mechanism for childhood trauma. Look at the damage alcohol has done and still does.

Scritto da Columna Durruti, 27.05.2019 at 11:47

Fun with drugs stops where they take control over the user... then he/she is screwed.

But they almost always do. Either they have to go through years of hell and rehabilitation or they die. None of them come out clean and say "Yeah, I'm still swimming in mountains of cocaine like scarface OR celebrating their daily bottle of vodka habit" There are outliers who can cope but the masses cannot. Intellectuals aren't strong or smart enough to cope which is why most celebrate their sobriety.

Scritto da Columna Durruti, 27.05.2019 at 11:47

"Rather than a "zero tolerance" and abstinence I would suggest a "sustainable use of drugs" (¡even a right to get high!)."

Perfect! Don't deal with your issues or the causes of social dependence on a narcotic, lets just privatise drugs and let people buy them and get shit-faced.

Scritto da Columna Durruti, 27.05.2019 at 11:47

But this requires education and maturity.

Maturity would be addressing the conditions which cause people to seek drugs in the first place. The fundamental problem is a liberal democratic society that is utterly corrupt and in bed with cartels. Drugs are a form of control over a populace and a 'right to get high' society would be a capitalists wet dream. A society of individual hyper-consumers getting zoned out and incapable of addressing a radically changing world which gets more centralised by corporate internationalists year by year. Drugs are form of population control in every dystopian nightmare. There's a reason weed is legal and prevalent in North Korea.

-

Scritto da Alexis, 27.05.2019 at 12:45

80 % of Red Hot Chilli Peppers songs are about their experiences with drugs, and yet their music is so good

That's because they spent around 1000-10,000 hours into practising their instruments. The drugs have little effect on musical expression. They practice, they learn, they listen to others, they mimic and expand on it. It's not the drugs.

Scritto da Alexis, 27.05.2019 at 12:45

"native tribes from different parts of the world have been using them to "connect" with their gods and spirits"

And most of them practise cannibalism while living in a pre-civilization society where they practice self-harm and sacrifice.

Scritto da Alexis, 27.05.2019 at 12:45

My actual point radicates in that the majority of citizens use them due to their incapability to physically and mentally develop themselves in a healthy way.

But they don't, it just messes them up further. Most do these drugs to avoid their problems and just adds another issue on top of others.

Scritto da Alexis, 27.05.2019 at 12:45

"everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their lives and how to have fun"

But they don't and nor should they. This Liberal notion that we are all atomized individuals isn't true. Your poor choices effect everyone around you, they effect you, your family and your community. People have to pay for your poor choices and if we are to live in a society of welfare and socialised healthcare and other socialised mass-decisions making then you don't get to do as and when you please if others have to deal with it or pay for it.

Jesus christ Tik tok is back

Scritto da JUGERS2, 09.06.2019 at 15:52

I am a human being i got the right to choose my style of life as long as i dont harm public property or anyone else. Why cant i do it? The more you say to someone to not do something the more he wants to do it.Just educate the kids better at schools with real examples and learn them everything.Let them choose.Let them try.If you let them try from young and learn them to not do it they wont.Same for sex education.

Whence your ''right''? Why don't I have the right to teleport behind you and decapitate you with iaijutsu?

Scritto da brianwl, 25.05.2019 at 07:17

Never tried it, but it is said by several spiritual/truth seekers, that if used responsibly, and just once, it can aid in spiritual growth by connecting your consciousness to the consciousness of others. It let's you see a larger perspective, and then from there, you begin exploring without the 'drug'.

(If you think of consciousness like a web browser, it's like being on another person's (or several people's) browser, visiting web pages from a place you've never seen, in a language you've never heard... if you think of consciousness in terms of virtual reality, it's like switching the VR from one 'game' to another 'game' or 'games' you've never played before.)

So in other words, the demons are playing you, putting images in your head, thinking you're experiencing something real. Spooky.

Man i'm glad i don't do drugs, alcohol and cigars, i even stay away from painkillers when i can (i can't when i injure sciatic nerve), because they cloud your mind. I don't get it why it is so popular to dislocate your brain for few minutes or hours in modern age.

Scritto da brianwl, 25.05.2019 at 07:17

Never tried it, but it is said by several spiritual/truth seekers, that if used responsibly, and just once, it can aid in spiritual growth by connecting your consciousness to the consciousness of others. It let's you see a larger perspective, and then from there, you begin exploring without the 'drug'.

Joe, is that you?

Scritto da Guest, 09.06.2019 at 21:09

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 09.06.2019 at 16:05

That's a godawful comparison, drug abuse is a victimless crime but killing someone would result in someone else's death, which you of course do not have the right to infringe upon another's life.

1. You're telling me that you cannot be the victim of yourself? What about self-mutilation? Being a lazy bastard that couldn't find work so you starve? Drug abuse is absolutely a crime with a victim, and yourself doesn't have to be the only victim. Never heard of alcoholics or drug addicts killing others because they were under an influence? The obvious decrease in agency when being a drug addict, what if the father who supports the family becomes a junkie? His work competence decreases so bad that he gets fired and his family, which depended on him is in a very bad situation.

2. Explain to me why I don't have the right to infringe upon someone else's life. The entire argument I was making was pointing out the arbitrariness of allowing someone to the right to live (their bodily autonomy) but disallowing my right to direct my own self, person, body, whatever, to killing another person. I already know what you people think, and I even explained that in the post. The point is that your position leads to a self-contradiction no matter what. Whether it's about tolerance, equality, ''freedom'' or ''autonomy'', you are lead to the conclusion that you cannot believe in ''Freedom'' it's self as a virtue in of it's self but merely as an expression of what your own ideology tolerates.

If you get to stage 4 you can see aliens

Scritto da JUGERS2, 09.06.2019 at 15:52

I am a human being i got the right to choose my style of life as long as i dont harm public property or anyone else. Why cant Let them choose.Let them try.If you let them try from young and learn them to not do it they wont.Same for sex education.

let them try communism again, they are young, they wont starve as fast as the older people.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 09.06.2019 at 17:05

Scritto da brianwl, 25.05.2019 at 07:17

Never tried it, but it is said by several spiritual/truth seekers, that if used responsibly, and just once, it can aid in spiritual growth by connecting your consciousness to the consciousness of others. It let's you see a larger perspective, and then from there, you begin exploring without the 'drug'.

(If you think of consciousness like a web browser, it's like being on another person's (or several people's) browser, visiting web pages from a place you've never seen, in a language you've never heard... if you think of consciousness in terms of virtual reality, it's like switching the VR from one 'game' to another 'game' or 'games' you've never played before.)

So in other words, the demons are playing you, putting images in your head, thinking you're experiencing something real. Spooky.

Man i'm glad i don't do drugs, alcohol and cigars, i even stay away from painkillers when i can (i can't when i injure sciatic nerve), because they cloud your mind. I don't get it why it is so popular to dislocate your brain for few minutes or hours in modern age.

Non chronic drinking is good for the brain, especially beer, prevents alzheimers, and relieves stress.
Weed also has numerous health benefits.

Brain fog doesent happen from painkillers, root of the problem is lack of brain stimulation, ex. no excersize, eating junk food; also having a lot of body fat.

Scritto da 4nic, 10.06.2019 at 11:26

Non chronic drinking is good for the brain, especially beer, prevents alzheimers, and relieves stress.
Weed also has numerous health benefits.

Brain fog doesent happen from painkillers, root of the problem is lack of brain stimulation, ex. no excersize, eating junk food; also having a lot of body fat.

A few studies have shown that alcohol is bad for the body even at small amounts. But it does relieve stress. I'm not sure about the preventing alzheimers part though.

Overuse of painkillers can cause serious neurological effects. But the other factors you mentioned are ones that people must handle as well, to have a healthy life.

Scritto da 4nic, 10.06.2019 at 11:26

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 09.06.2019 at 17:05

Scritto da brianwl, 25.05.2019 at 07:17

Never tried it, but it is said by several spiritual/truth seekers, that if used responsibly, and just once, it can aid in spiritual growth by connecting your consciousness to the consciousness of others. It let's you see a larger perspective, and then from there, you begin exploring without the 'drug'.

(If you think of consciousness like a web browser, it's like being on another person's (or several people's) browser, visiting web pages from a place you've never seen, in a language you've never heard... if you think of consciousness in terms of virtual reality, it's like switching the VR from one 'game' to another 'game' or 'games' you've never played before.)

So in other words, the demons are playing you, putting images in your head, thinking you're experiencing something real. Spooky.

Man i'm glad i don't do drugs, alcohol and cigars, i even stay away from painkillers when i can (i can't when i injure sciatic nerve), because they cloud your mind. I don't get it why it is so popular to dislocate your brain for few minutes or hours in modern age.

Non chronic drinking is good for the brain, especially beer, prevents alzheimers, and relieves stress.
Weed also has numerous health benefits.

Brain fog doesent happen from painkillers, root of the problem is lack of brain stimulation, ex. no excersize, eating junk food; also having a lot of body fat.

I doubt weed has significant health benefits if you smoke it regularly for recreation. I also prefer mental/spiritual strength over physical.

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 12.06.2019 at 11:49

Scritto da 4nic, 10.06.2019 at 11:26

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 09.06.2019 at 17:05

Scritto da brianwl, 25.05.2019 at 07:17

Never tried it, but it is said by several spiritual/truth seekers, that if used responsibly, and just once, it can aid in spiritual growth by connecting your consciousness to the consciousness of others. It let's you see a larger perspective, and then from there, you begin exploring without the 'drug'.

(If you think of consciousness like a web browser, it's like being on another person's (or several people's) browser, visiting web pages from a place you've never seen, in a language you've never heard... if you think of consciousness in terms of virtual reality, it's like switching the VR from one 'game' to another 'game' or 'games' you've never played before.)

So in other words, the demons are playing you, putting images in your head, thinking you're experiencing something real. Spooky.

Man i'm glad i don't do drugs, alcohol and cigars, i even stay away from painkillers when i can (i can't when i injure sciatic nerve), because they cloud your mind. I don't get it why it is so popular to dislocate your brain for few minutes or hours in modern age.

Non chronic drinking is good for the brain, especially beer, prevents alzheimers, and relieves stress.
Weed also has numerous health benefits.

Brain fog doesent happen from painkillers, root of the problem is lack of brain stimulation, ex. no excersize, eating junk food; also having a lot of body fat.

I doubt weed has significant health benefits if you smoke it regularly for recreation. I also prefer mental/spiritual strength over physical.

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Scritto da 4nic, 12.06.2019 at 17:43

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Good quote, but if Plato's dialogues such as Phaedo are anything to go by, I'm not in conflict with Socrates with saying that it's better to die good but weak rather than evil and strong.

Scritto da Guest, 12.06.2019 at 23:49

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 10.06.2019 at 02:28

Apologies for the late reply.

1. Possibly but either way it shouldn't be up to the govt to decide what people do to their own bodies, as it sets a dangerous precedent. Valid point about alcoholics killing others, but honestly further precautions could be taken to avoid such incidents (for instance, prohibiting smoking weed in a public square so others do not smell your smoke) is probably the best solution, and being drunk while driving is its own crime. Drinking alcohol is currently legal in the US but kill someone while driving and you are a criminal.

2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but I'll say that doing something which would harm yourself, even if it is terrible (cutting or suicide, for instance) is your own business. But as soon as you bring others into it, then it is not. And this would include things like drinking while driving and crashing, which is a DIFFERENT CRIME than drinking would be, if it was illegal. If the person does not use these things responsibly, then they are not responsible people regardless and trying to "fix" them through laws will not fix that.

1. Governments already have set precedents such as not allowing my body to kill another's body, which was an argument in point 2 and my original post supporting Tik-Tok. Everything you've proposed and pointed out in this point are literally all duties of a government. You tell me that govs should infringe on muh bodily autonomy but propose and point out further infringement. Which one is it?

2. What I am saying here for a bit now is that rights and autonomies infringe upon other rights and autonomies. If you have the right to life, that contradicts my right to kill. If your autonomy includes some personal space I cannot invade without consent, then you are removing space where my body can go to, therefore limiting it's autonomy. I don't care about ''it's ur own biz'' because it's not just your business. Another very important thing to say is that our actions affect others without exception, it just differs in direction and when. Parents suiciding while having children depend on them makes them guilty of abandoning their children and traumatizing them. If a worker is a junkie or an alcoholic and because of the incompetence brought upon by influence he indirectly or might even directly affect someone. Which is why virtually all employers don't want degenerates and distrust people with some kind of history with the law, whether it's some small-time shoplifting or downright felonies. You're distrusted, you're seen as some kind of liability which will affect the organization you work for inevitably. Get this idea out of your head that people are individual isolated atoms. We're all cells in an organism, and if cells don't properly adhere to their duties then you get health issues including cancer, a result of cells not behaving normally.

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 06:15

...
1. Governments already have set precedents such as not allowing my body to kill another's body, ....

Strictly speaking, the government views you as their property, so it's not so much about 'allowing' one body to 'kill' another, but that they can't have one part of their property damaging another piece of their property.

Once you see the nature of how you are viewed from the government's point of view, basically everything above makes sense and is consistent. For instance, the individual might say 'i can ingest what i want if it hurts my body, but no one else's' as Beast correctly points out. But the government views that as an entity damaging their property, so they can justify a law, and proceed to charge the entity (which also profits the government, as they do collect on those charges in one way or another.)

Just an aside on free will violations... from a cosmological sense, free will violations lead to degradation of the information system of which we are a part. We do bump into one another, true, but it is intent that matters... if you intend to kill someone, it is a free will violation. If you intend instead to build them a house, you not only do not violate their free will, but you help evolve your own skills, as well as improve conditions for the other person, increasing both of your 'potential' and thus decreasing entropy in the social system. This is the essence of evolution (the gradual progression from randomness to increasing complexity with greater potential.)

Scritto da 4nic, 12.06.2019 at 17:43

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Alzheimer is prevented by brain exercise. But you cannot exercise your brain just by exercising your right byceps. You actually need to use it to solve a problem, of any kind.

Scritto da Guest, 13.06.2019 at 07:37

Scritto da 4nic, 12.06.2019 at 17:43

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Alzheimer is prevented by brain exercise. But you cannot exercise your brain just by exercising your right byceps. You actually need to use it to solve a problem, of any kind.

Biceps*

Fun fact; Physical activity requires the most brain function due to muscle memory and coordination, oh and reading too much books can rot your brain, ever read Don Quixote? Unless the books are mentally stimulative in a way that they require your addition to them, math books and equations for example. Or playing games, excellent way to stimulate your nervous system.

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 06:01

Scritto da 4nic, 12.06.2019 at 17:43

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Good quote, but if Plato's dialogues such as Phaedo are anything to go by, I'm not in conflict with Socrates with saying that it's better to die good but weak rather than evil and strong.

never mentioned morality

Scritto da brianwl, 13.06.2019 at 07:05

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 06:15

...
1. Governments already have set precedents such as not allowing my body to kill another's body, ....

Strictly speaking, the government views you as their property, so it's not so much about 'allowing' one body to 'kill' another, but that they can't have one part of their property damaging another piece of their property.

Once you see the nature of how you are viewed from the government's point of view, basically everything above makes sense and is consistent. For instance, the individual might say 'i can ingest what i want if it hurts my body, but no one else's' as Beast correctly points out. But the government views that as an entity damaging their property, so they can justify a law, and proceed to charge the entity (which also profits the government, as they do collect on those charges in one way or another.)

Just an aside on free will violations... from a cosmological sense, free will violations lead to degradation of the information system of which we are a part. We do bump into one another, true, but it is intent that matters... if you intend to kill someone, it is a free will violation. If you intend instead to build them a house, you not only do not violate their free will, but you help evolve your own skills, as well as improve conditions for the other person, increasing both of your 'potential' and thus decreasing entropy in the social system. This is the essence of evolution (the gradual progression from randomness to increasing complexity with greater potential.)

Free will violations are completely inevitable if wills are in conflict with each other. Me intending to kill someone is a free will violation, but so is preventing me from killing that someone. My will is being violated, and you need to justify why my someone's will should be preferred and not my own. I guess you tried to solve this saying that the government views us as property, which makes the point of view of limiting some wills consistent. I'm not entirely sure whose side you're one, but my problem with Beast's position is that he should explain why some wills are favored over other wills. Once he does, he concedes the position of 'muh freedom' in favor of stability and order.

Nor do I agree with the ancient Hellenic (and even alchemical, debatably) idea that complexity necessarily arises from simplicity. Especially if you are not accounting for an intelligent designer to provide telos. Rather, I am of the view that there is a devolution while there is a sort of 'evolution' in other domains; both the simplifying and complexifying (not a word but I couldn't think of a better one) of morality and material domains respectively might testify to the simultaneous multiplicity and unity of God.

Scritto da 4nic, 13.06.2019 at 10:52

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 06:01

Scritto da 4nic, 12.06.2019 at 17:43

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

― Socrates

Good quote, but if Plato's dialogues such as Phaedo are anything to go by, I'm not in conflict with Socrates with saying that it's better to die good but weak rather than evil and strong.

never mentioned morality

You weren't disagreeing with me or was it because I said ''mental strength'' which doesn't actually mean ''good''? Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 15:10

...


Free will violations are completely inevitable if wills are in conflict with each other. Me intending to kill someone is a free will violation, but so is preventing me from killing that someone. My will is being violated, and you need to justify why my someone's will should be preferred and not my own. I guess you tried to solve this saying that the government views us as property, which makes the point of view of limiting some wills consistent. I'm not entirely sure whose side you're one, but my problem with Beast's position is that he should explain why some wills are favored over other wills. Once he does, he concedes the position of 'muh freedom' in favor of stability and order.

Nor do I agree with the ancient Hellenic (and even alchemical, debatably) idea that complexity necessarily arises from simplicity. Especially if you are not accounting for an intelligent designer to provide telos. Rather, I am of the view that there is a devolution while there is a sort of 'evolution' in other domains; both the simplifying and complexifying (not a word but I couldn't think of a better one) of morality and material domains respectively might testify to the simultaneous multiplicity and unity of God.

The source of intent becomes key in preserving free will. Preserving free will is not a violation of free will, as you suggest in this case. It can be made clear if we consider this in linear terms: Your intention to violate someone else's is the primary violation. In other words, the moment before you intend to violate someone's free will, everyone's free will is being preserved and respected (low entropy state). If the person you wish to kill intends you no harm, then you are the only entity committing a free will violation, and you are then the only person promoting an increase in entropy (or increase in chaos, towards randomness and destruction of the information system of which you are a part.)

The intervention by others is an effort to preserve the free will of the victim. It is not a violation of your 'free will' since your intent was in itself a free will violation. So, for example, if i see you attempting to kill someone who is not violating you in any way, i have a choice. I can do nothing, in which the potential of your target is reduced to 0 (i.e. no further exercise of free will once dead). Or i can intervene, greatly increasing the potentiality of the victim and preserving everyone's free will by correcting your primary violation at the same time.

In other words, preserving free will of another is not the same as violating free will (of the violator) since the violation is itself the error which leads to the choice of whether or not to intervene. One choice leads to destruction and chaos, while the other leads to greater potentiality, evolution, and moving away from chaos.

=====

I'll leave the 'complexity from simplicity' view for another time, but just so you know, i do assume an intelligent consciousness exists, and you can follow that chain (i.e. an even more intelligent consciousness may exist to bring about that consciousness) but all of those chains, necessarily, create a more complex system. I absolutely agree 'evolution and de-evoluton' exist simultaneously, but the overall direction is in the positive direction, away from randomness. It has to be. To go the other way eventually returns back to randomness, with no information at all. All information systems either continue to evolve, or devolve back to randomness. They can 'whither and dither in the middle' for a time, but eventually they have to evolve, or else the natural background degradation will move them back to randomness and collapse of the information system.

Scritto da 4nic, 13.06.2019 at 10:52

Reading develops your imagination more than any video game, watching movies or staying on fb, insta can etc. There are a lot of studies proving this. Don Quixote is an example of reading too much, while you are broke/without luck in love and obviously, it's an extreme case. And reading is hard, especially long books without pictures, but I thin pewdiepie is a good example of a non-reader, becoming an avid reader.
I'd say to do it all with measure and to be temperate.

Scritto da brianwl, 13.06.2019 at 20:03

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 13.06.2019 at 15:10

...


Free will violations are completely inevitable if wills are in conflict with each other. Me intending to kill someone is a free will violation, but so is preventing me from killing that someone. My will is being violated, and you need to justify why my someone's will should be preferred and not my own. I guess you tried to solve this saying that the government views us as property, which makes the point of view of limiting some wills consistent. I'm not entirely sure whose side you're one, but my problem with Beast's position is that he should explain why some wills are favored over other wills. Once he does, he concedes the position of 'muh freedom' in favor of stability and order.

Nor do I agree with the ancient Hellenic (and even alchemical, debatably) idea that complexity necessarily arises from simplicity. Especially if you are not accounting for an intelligent designer to provide telos. Rather, I am of the view that there is a devolution while there is a sort of 'evolution' in other domains; both the simplifying and complexifying (not a word but I couldn't think of a better one) of morality and material domains respectively might testify to the simultaneous multiplicity and unity of God.

The source of intent becomes key in preserving free will. Preserving free will is not a violation of free will, as you suggest in this case. It can be made clear if we consider this in linear terms: Your intention to violate someone else's is the primary violation. In other words, the moment before you intend to violate someone's free will, everyone's free will is being preserved and respected (low entropy state). If the person you wish to kill intends you no harm, then you are the only entity committing a free will violation, and you are then the only person promoting an increase in entropy (or increase in chaos, towards randomness and destruction of the information system of which you are a part.)

The intervention by others is an effort to preserve the free will of the victim. It is not a violation of your 'free will' since your intent was in itself a free will violation. So, for example, if i see you attempting to kill someone who is not violating you in any way, i have a choice. I can do nothing, in which the potential of your target is reduced to 0 (i.e. no further exercise of free will once dead). Or i can intervene, greatly increasing the potentiality of the victim and preserving everyone's free will by correcting your primary violation at the same time.

In other words, preserving free will of another is not the same as violating free will (of the violator) since the violation is itself the error which leads to the choice of whether or not to intervene. One choice leads to destruction and chaos, while the other leads to greater potentiality, evolution, and moving away from chaos.

=====

I'll leave the 'complexity from simplicity' view for another time, but just so you know, i do assume an intelligent consciousness exists, and you can follow that chain (i.e. an even more intelligent consciousness may exist to bring about that consciousness) but all of those chains, necessarily, create a more complex system. I absolutely agree 'evolution and de-evoluton' exist simultaneously, but the overall direction is in the positive direction, away from randomness. It has to be. To go the other way eventually returns back to randomness, with no information at all. All information systems either continue to evolve, or devolve back to randomness. They can 'whither and dither in the middle' for a time, but eventually they have to evolve, or else the natural background degradation will move them back to randomness and collapse of the information system.

Which is it, a ''primary violation'' meaning my will is in fact being violated (but secondary), or is there only one violation, the ''violation'' of me killing someone because he ''violates'' me? You talking about preferring stability and order (opposites of chaos) exactly proves my point that the ideology at hand isn't about preserving freedom at it's foundation but preserving something else. If you want to give an argument as to why we shouldn't quite murder people willy nilly, you don't need to. What you need to do is just concede that your primary principle isn't ''Liberty'' but 'Order'. I don't actually believe in killing people whenever I want, in case you were having the slightest doubt. My argument has always consistently been that the Liberalism Beast is arguing for is self-contradictory.

Quota:

Scritto da QuasiCasual, 14.06.2019 at 08:46

...

Which is it, a ''primary violation'' meaning my will is in fact being violated (but secondary), or is there only one violation, the ''violation'' of me killing someone because he ''violates'' me? You talking about preferring stability and order (opposites of chaos) exactly proves my point that the ideology at hand isn't about preserving freedom at it's foundation but preserving something else. If you want to give an argument as to why we shouldn't quite murder people willy nilly, you don't need to. What you need to do is just concede that your primary principle isn't ''Liberty'' but 'Order'. I don't actually believe in killing people whenever I want, in case you were having the slightest doubt. My argument has always consistently been that the Liberalism Beast is arguing for is self-contradictory.

I did say it was linear - so primary refers to the first instance in this case.

For systems to evolve, they require elements of free choice. So when you say the primary principle isn't Liberty but Order, i would say both are necessary.
Free choice is the dynamic process in which the system changes state. I suppose 'Order' would be (if i am correctly interpreting your meaning) the state or quality of the system at a given moment in time. I'm not sure they can be isolated and ranked as one is a component of the mechanism which leads to the other (i.e. without 'Liberty (or free choice), evolution cannot occur, and so order could not be achieved.