Life choices

[I'm Frank!]

It's my belief that life is too big for any one person to fully comprehend. We choose what we know, simple as. In other words, no one person can say or do something that is 100% perfection or truth. Not to say it isn't something to strive for, far from it.

Therefore, no-one can be completely right or wrong, anything is possible so to speak. How do we ever get by??? Well, the answer in my eyes is we don't, or more to the point we don't try.

I see people every day arguing over the question that they fail to see they agree on the answer, or visa versa. I do it myself!

We can only see the world through our own eyes, no-one elses. And this is what i think has happened. We've simply become selfish and lazy. We set ourselves apart from everything, nature, other people. We personalise everything. And we sure as hell don't like to restrict our freedom.

Would it resrict our freedom to follow this rule, "no action of man can cause an adverse reaction on nature".....You bet! I'm sure you get where I'm going so, love to hear some comments good or bad

peace and love

frank

[SteveA]

Would it resrict our freedom to follow this rule, "no action of man can cause an adverse reaction on nature".....You bet!

It's impossible to avoid these adverse reactions in everyones mind. Some people will see smoking a cigarette alone on a beach as a threat to something. Or even building a home from wood as a problem etc.

A good way to do something similar though would be to enforce rights to life, property, including land, and liberty and when someones actions cause harm to it, have a government that enforces reparations or reconstitution of it. (There's little that can truly be undone but at least if we deter people from harming others vested interests, it would help limit damages done)

That way people don't even need to agree on what an "adverse reaction on nature" is because everyone is free to use their own definition for themselves, these are arbitrated when there's a dispute (we have issues with jury selection and judges and lawyers leading jurors etc., and there might be a better way to arbitrate things but I'm sure you get the idea). That way a person is free to deny or allow whatever they want within some realm (quite likely their home).

This same thing can be expanded to have people pool their resources or make agreements with others to set common standards for a larger area, if they desire.

The best part is that this works in a non-violent, voluntary and beneficial fashion. If/when someones actions elsewhere affect this through, that's when government or another form of arbitration comes into play to resolve the dispute but it's unneeded until that occurs.

[Boetie]

SteveA posts good way to do something similar though would be to enforce rights to life, property, including land, and liberty and when someones actions cause harm to it

But when an individual owns only his labor, in a society that does not give him or her the right to work, rather the individual is subject to another party that has the right to fire at will, which is how it works in my state, then harm is caused because you have left that person in a state of homelessness. The comfort story the right fanactics gives themselves comes from repeating to themselves like parrots that the fault must be the individual whom is unemployed.
Yet we all know that it is ideal for the business sector of our society for there to be high unemployment because it will cause the workers to compete with each other for jobs i.e taking lower pay. On the other hand the business sector of our society will not want to compete for workers ie giving higher pay and benefits in order to get workers.
The rights fetish ignores completely the concept of function.