I have my reservations, but nonetheless see the valid points you are getting at. Here's the part I respectfully differ (with all courteous acknowledgement of your heartfelt sincerity, of course, Amaterasu): when it comes to government vs. anarchy, the question ultimately boils down to whether all of civilization should be under the authority of a government or none at all.
See, the thing is that for the minuscule fraction of us who understand morally sanctioned, well-discerned self-restraint and demonstrate it our lives, we could hypothetically speaking thrive in an anarchic setting. However, most of our peers are morally unqualified to live in such an anarchic utopia because they would very quickly exploit its no-government-authority nature to harm other people. Whether money is "de jure" abolished wouldn't change human nature: it's the problem of greed, covetousness, and impulsive lusts.
When it comes to governance, my own perspective at this point is that no "proper" governance in our fallen human existence is ever perfect, but the old paternalistic-Herodian model that we lived under in pre-COVID-19 times was far more preferable to today's realm of false "freedom" ultra-populist umbrellas raising the banner of "for the people" liberation while heralding cultic mental enslavement of millions. The key "open secret" to understand here is that traditional models of Herodian paternalism weren't built to unnecessarily repress the morally upright, but to ensure the immoral rabble-rousing, violence-indulging mobs would be curtailed and kept in check.
Yes, the old Herodian model of governance was painfully burdensome to put up with, but life back then felt *normal*: because of how nakedly coldhearted the rulers of society were back then and how they were honest enough to not pretend to be the liberators they weren't, human interactions in those days still meant something -- friendships were based far more on genuine solidarity than they are nowadays, and many people sifting through oceans of natural tumult learned to think for themselves and become upright, independently thriving, constructive individuals. The governing model of old ensured life felt functionally normal because back then it served its fundamentally *designed* role: preserving societal order by suppressing ungodly mob agitations.
First, what is Your definition of "morally?" And what makes anyOne "unqualified" relative to it?
And abundancism is not a "utopia," as there will always be problems to solve for. But with a solutocracy. problems will be solved the best way, Ethically, by Those who are affected.
You are missing the fact that the three Laws of Ethics will be at the fore, and they will be just as effective (and likely much more so) than the psychopathic legal/governmental system We're under Now.
Greed is a symptom of energy accounting (money use) as I go into here:
And I must ask... How does covetousness work in a world where We can have all We need and most of what We want? I guess there may be a case where someOne owns a Picasso and anOther really wants that original, coveting it... But statistically, it will be nil.
As for "impulsive lusts," can You give Me an example? Not sure what You mean.
On to governance... What I propose does not preclude groups choosing to consent to the rule of anOther, as there is no problem created when it is consensual. The thing I would eliminate is forced "rulership." No One has the right to give "authority" to anOther over any third party(ies). I go into that here:
And I ponder what would make a society, all living richly, sovereign under the three Laws of Ethics, become "immoral rabble-rousing, violence-indulging mobs?"
And one thing I think You are not accounting for is the fact that Humanity is groomed by the moneyed psychopaths in control. What We see today (and for at least a century on - and likely far further back in time) is a product of the indoctrination and grooming They have applied to Us. You are assuming the violence and hatred are the natural choices of Humans, and I can assure You, they are not.
They incite, with agents provocateurs, 99% of the "ungodly mob agitations."
When We all are living richly on Our planet - as We should be but for the machinations of moneyed psychopaths in control, the motive to break the three Laws will drop to nigh zero. Maybe a jealous lover might kill competition... But even today, that rarely happens. And so, though I cannot say that such problems will vanish 100% absolutely, the motive will statistically vanish.
Watching now, but We’re talking legal (Human created) precedents and I am not yet seeing where there is an issue with an anarchy that is based in abundancism (no need for money) with the three Laws of Ethics applied, and the Betterment Ethic in place of the industrialists’ slave’s creed, the work “ethic.”
In a solutocracy.
What problems to You envision in that setup, where We consent to something better?
Yeah, got to the end and it’s still propping a government. I just cannot see why I need to relegate My sovereignty to any Other for any reason as long as I do not break the Laws of Ethics.
We are the government. The final arbiter of law is the people through the jury. It's always been this way since time immemorial.
'Government' today, as we know it, are supposed to be administrators kept in check through the jury. In other words, the existing system is perfect, were it operating under natural law through jury independence.
Anarchists are advocating for freedom under natural law with no organisation and no mechanism for justice or important decision making.
Anarchists forget that life is complicated and we are interconnected through community living.
Trial by jury is submission to the conscience of the people.
Anarchists need to be careful what they wish for because they are advocating for the wild west.
Re: "1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)"
Does "anOther" refer to humans only, or are other beings included in that ethical imperative?
Also, who decides what belongs to whom?
If it only includes humans then that would leave open the potential for your framework to potentially approve of a group of anarchists getting together to do somethin like this:
These are Laws for Those who can comprehend them, and You may note the cap in there, “O.” These are for Humans and if We try to go further We will bring in baggage that will tear it down.
Humanity on Our planet is in deep yogurt, and We need these implemented amongst Us first. Because this legal/governmental mess has got to go.
Let’s not quibble over historically eaten food and building a functional and happy society for Humanity.
As someone that has written about how all involuntary governance structures are immoral and someone that included an entire chapter in my first book on voluntaryism, I am fully capable of comprehending what you are speaking about.
That said, I do not share your anthropocentric values. I see our non-human kin on the Earth (and beyond) as my animist ancestors did (as elders, teachers and beings with their own agency). The ethical compass I choose to let guide my path (which honors all life as sacred and deserving of respect) is not related to dietary choices. Rather it is based on an acknowledgment of humanity as an adolescent species with much to learn from our elder species on this world.
Of course, we all hurt and kill the flesh of plants (vegans included) and those are also beings, so avoiding killing all together as a human is not possible, however many cultures chose to have laws and/or ethical compasses that guided how they kill, how often and for what reason. That is what your framework lacks.
As I stated in this post ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-spiritual-poverty-of-statism ) I propose it is the trends that arise from the statist religion (see link below for more info: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-i-do-not-celebrate-canada-day ) which are the most significant factor in deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, water poisoning and many other degenerative trends. Vegans and Beef eaters can live regeneratively or they can be devout statists and follow blindly as multi-generational racketeering operations continue to pillage the Earth.
It is also worth noting that anarchists can also theoretically be techno-optimists, anthropocentric thinkers, exploitative of their local bioregion and agents of degeneration on the Earth. Thus, if you're "Ethical Anarchy" model only acknowledges the violation of other humans as unethical (and leaves abusing, enslaving, mass murdering and commodifying any and all non-human beings as totally fine) it is a model that still leaves open the potential for the "concrete world" potential I explore in this post ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/are-there-limits-to-growth ) to become a reality.
If the "happy society for humanity" you intend on building could result in turning the planet earth into one giant deforested toxic waste dump, gmo feeding lot and mining operation, I would say that it is a society I am diametrically opposed to, and will actively sabotage from coming into being.
For more on my views on involuntary governance and ethical lenses of perception, read:
Well, I do wish You luck in Your pursuits. I clearly do include ET, and any Other that can (or the group can) grasp the Laws.
We have psychopaths in control and a good start on solving for Them is to establish Our own society, and those issues can be ironed out in the solutocratic way.
I will not subordinate to any Other, but will gladly cooperate to Ethically solve problems as needed and capable. As long as subordination is given without coercion, I have no issues with Others choosing to subordinate Themselves.
And I think when We all are approaching things that way… Humanity will thrive.
This pertains to your rule number 2 ("Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone").
Who has the authority to declare what belongs to a human and what does not?
It is those with the biggest guns and the sneakiest scams?
What about indigenous people that lived on, tended and shaped the land where we live for centuries or perhaps millennia before nation states rose up and removed, killed or displaced them?
Rights are basically property rights. You can absolutely own something that no one has a right to take. That's why immorality all falls under the bracket of theft.
In regards to land. The Indigenous peoples had no concept of land ownership and I agree with that. It should be responsibility over land, not ownership. We are all shepherds of the earth and are beneficiaries of it.
All the things being discussed on this thread is why the court of court of conscience, or the trial by jury is so important because life is complex so there needs to be equity. Equity is the check on free will.
Well… I think land ownership - as in having the right to keep Others out of Your space - is necessary. Otherwise One might discover Some who walk into houses or set up camps outside bedroom windows or… The like.
If I use this house, and the land (Our acre of land?), it is Mine, and Others must ask permission to enter the property.
Then by your definition, all of what is now called North America was already being used, and thus, owned, before Europeans got here, so you are saying that anyone that does not have indigenous blood owns nothing here?
It is good that you acknowledge the agency and intelligence of myriad interstellar civilizations that are all around us, yet you appear to fail to recognize and acknowledge the agency and intelligence of our non-human kin here on the Earth, that is a problem.
Through your failure to see our elder species on the Earth as deserving of recognition and having any protection within your ethical framework you walk down a path that can swiftly degenerate into exploitation, crippling the ecosystems you depend on to survive, stripping the living Earth of beauty and meaning and creating a "concrete world".
Just because you are unable to recognize the language, conscious mind and intent of a 1000 year old tree, does not mean that he or she is unable to recognize your language, laws and intent.
My indigenous ancestors recognized the intelligence of our elder rooted kin in their Brehon Laws and in the Ogham Script, they referred to the elder trees as "Nobles Of The Wood" and those beings were protected by laws that prevent the violation of other beings just the same as humans. Your indigenous ancestors likely had similar laws and recognition (yes you have indigenous ancestors, no matter what color your skin is).
In this article I outline some of the results that can occur when a society and what the dominant culture defines as "ethical" is guided by anthropocentrism.
If you focus narrowly only on ethics that protect humans, while disregarding all the other beings on this Earth (that you depend upon to survive) you are disrespecting the gifts you were given in this life and squandering your time here.
I do not fail in that…You assume it. I have great compassion for all Conscious beings (and Beings - the sapient Ones). But I’m not going to get caught up in arguments over whether We should eat natural diets or not.
Morality, which is objective and farming etc is a natural science that requires we align our perception and behaviour to natural law. In farming, this is best displayed and practiced in biodynamics, working with hermetic principles such as rhythm and corresponding etc.
True spirituality is aligning with truth - the knowledge of how nature works regarding behavioural consequence and the natural laws that govern our reality.
That is a very interesting you would react in such a dramatic fashion and threaten to censor me.
The compulsion to resort to Censorship when people are expressing something you do not want to hear is usually a sign that one has a proclivity to align with tyrants or become a tyrant if given the chance.
Though conflated, I see morality as subjective and Ethics as objective. Morals are built on societal norms, while Ethics are the expression of Natural Law... In some places it is moral to stone a woman to death for wearing a bikini in public. It others, not so much. But it is NEVER Ethical.
Nature proves otherwise because the effects of immorality are observeable. Morality is objective. Moral relativism, such as the example you describe, is the 2nd level of satanism which is in opposition to natural law. Ethics are subjective.
For instance, if I go the supermarket and after shopping I don't put the trolley back where it is supposed to go, my actions would be unethical but not immoral.
Immorality is that which causes harm. Such as murder, rape, assault, theft, trespass, coercion and fraud (willfully lying). Ethics are subjective across the entire world.
We shall agree to disagree. I offer My 60 years of experience and observation, research and study.
Your shopping cart example shows that Ethical consequences would be minimal if any at all. You robbed the market of the employee’s time to collect it, which breaks the second Law, but it is so minor a break that no One would be arresting You for it.
That would create more problems than You caused.
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Yes, natural law is objective morality and the effects of not aligning our behaviour with natural law are observeable in the natural world. Such as the physical manifestation of chaos and slavery.
True spirituality is the knowledge that freedom, self governance and achieving the things that we say we want, only comes about through aligning to these truths.
In a true anarchy, things will be based on those Laws. So, no... But the point was to illustrate for Any who hear "anarchy" and envision pandemonium that anarchy is NOT pandemonium. [smile]
Someone recently broke all those 3 ethical laws against me, and I did nothing to them whatsoever to deserve those transgressions. When I cut them off rather than keep engaging, which is the only way to deal with lying narcissists and abusers, I was then sent an abusive email, messages, they even set up an account to abuse me personally and they also contacted my subscribers to lie about me and smear me.
How do we deal with psychopaths or narcissistic abusers? Because I feel like the majority of humanity are in an abusive relationship with the psychopaths in charge: With people that not only believe in false hierarchy but aren’t going to stop actively abusing and even culling the majority of us. Until they get the numbers they want and the control of all our actions and wealth. Allodial title is one problem. The private, for-profit corporations posing as governments have allodial title to the land.
So how many people are we going to have to educate about natural law principles before we see a real pushback?
I’ve been thinking about alternative types of commodity-barter-labor exchanges. Open source. That could be set up in individual communities. A model that wouldn’t be taxable. Set up as either a charity or trust, to utilize some of the legal loopholes the controllers use.
And anything in that psychopathic legal/governmental hell has no affect on Ones who do not consent to it. The only affect will be bullying and yes, while We are Few, They can bully Us. When there are enough of Us protecting Self and Others from bullies... They will have no power at all.
No clue how long it will be. I have been at this for 20 years now. Thought the ideas would be joyously embraced when I started. Heh. A bit naive I was back then.
I just keep on plugging and hope People share the work far and wide (enriching Me greatly!).
Excellent.
🤗 💜 🤗 I am humbled in Your payment of appreciation!
I have my reservations, but nonetheless see the valid points you are getting at. Here's the part I respectfully differ (with all courteous acknowledgement of your heartfelt sincerity, of course, Amaterasu): when it comes to government vs. anarchy, the question ultimately boils down to whether all of civilization should be under the authority of a government or none at all.
See, the thing is that for the minuscule fraction of us who understand morally sanctioned, well-discerned self-restraint and demonstrate it our lives, we could hypothetically speaking thrive in an anarchic setting. However, most of our peers are morally unqualified to live in such an anarchic utopia because they would very quickly exploit its no-government-authority nature to harm other people. Whether money is "de jure" abolished wouldn't change human nature: it's the problem of greed, covetousness, and impulsive lusts.
When it comes to governance, my own perspective at this point is that no "proper" governance in our fallen human existence is ever perfect, but the old paternalistic-Herodian model that we lived under in pre-COVID-19 times was far more preferable to today's realm of false "freedom" ultra-populist umbrellas raising the banner of "for the people" liberation while heralding cultic mental enslavement of millions. The key "open secret" to understand here is that traditional models of Herodian paternalism weren't built to unnecessarily repress the morally upright, but to ensure the immoral rabble-rousing, violence-indulging mobs would be curtailed and kept in check.
Yes, the old Herodian model of governance was painfully burdensome to put up with, but life back then felt *normal*: because of how nakedly coldhearted the rulers of society were back then and how they were honest enough to not pretend to be the liberators they weren't, human interactions in those days still meant something -- friendships were based far more on genuine solidarity than they are nowadays, and many people sifting through oceans of natural tumult learned to think for themselves and become upright, independently thriving, constructive individuals. The governing model of old ensured life felt functionally normal because back then it served its fundamentally *designed* role: preserving societal order by suppressing ungodly mob agitations.
First, what is Your definition of "morally?" And what makes anyOne "unqualified" relative to it?
And abundancism is not a "utopia," as there will always be problems to solve for. But with a solutocracy. problems will be solved the best way, Ethically, by Those who are affected.
You are missing the fact that the three Laws of Ethics will be at the fore, and they will be just as effective (and likely much more so) than the psychopathic legal/governmental system We're under Now.
Greed is a symptom of energy accounting (money use) as I go into here:
Greed is a Symptom of Energy Accounting (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/greed-is-a-symptom-of-energy-accounting
And I must ask... How does covetousness work in a world where We can have all We need and most of what We want? I guess there may be a case where someOne owns a Picasso and anOther really wants that original, coveting it... But statistically, it will be nil.
As for "impulsive lusts," can You give Me an example? Not sure what You mean.
On to governance... What I propose does not preclude groups choosing to consent to the rule of anOther, as there is no problem created when it is consensual. The thing I would eliminate is forced "rulership." No One has the right to give "authority" to anOther over any third party(ies). I go into that here:
I Have Authority Over You (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/i-have-authority-over-you
Wearing Black on Thursdays (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/wearing-black-on-thursdays
And I ponder what would make a society, all living richly, sovereign under the three Laws of Ethics, become "immoral rabble-rousing, violence-indulging mobs?"
And one thing I think You are not accounting for is the fact that Humanity is groomed by the moneyed psychopaths in control. What We see today (and for at least a century on - and likely far further back in time) is a product of the indoctrination and grooming They have applied to Us. You are assuming the violence and hatred are the natural choices of Humans, and I can assure You, they are not.
They Groom Us to Hate One AnOther (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/they-groom-us-to-hate-one-another
They incite, with agents provocateurs, 99% of the "ungodly mob agitations."
When We all are living richly on Our planet - as We should be but for the machinations of moneyed psychopaths in control, the motive to break the three Laws will drop to nigh zero. Maybe a jealous lover might kill competition... But even today, that rarely happens. And so, though I cannot say that such problems will vanish 100% absolutely, the motive will statistically vanish.
More...
80% of Us Merely Move Money (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/80-of-us-merely-move-money
Abundancism – It’s Not Working for a Living; It’s Loving the Work You’re Living (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundancism-its-not-working-for-a
The Whole Package! – The Abundance Paradigm novella chapter links! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-whole-package
I have come to realise that there is a blind spot to anarchy...
https://youtu.be/i6elALgDydo?si=9GOUv_2Sz_FJT4qb
Watching now, but We’re talking legal (Human created) precedents and I am not yet seeing where there is an issue with an anarchy that is based in abundancism (no need for money) with the three Laws of Ethics applied, and the Betterment Ethic in place of the industrialists’ slave’s creed, the work “ethic.”
In a solutocracy.
What problems to You envision in that setup, where We consent to something better?
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
Yeah, got to the end and it’s still propping a government. I just cannot see why I need to relegate My sovereignty to any Other for any reason as long as I do not break the Laws of Ethics.
.
We are the government. The final arbiter of law is the people through the jury. It's always been this way since time immemorial.
'Government' today, as we know it, are supposed to be administrators kept in check through the jury. In other words, the existing system is perfect, were it operating under natural law through jury independence.
Anarchists are advocating for freedom under natural law with no organisation and no mechanism for justice or important decision making.
Anarchists forget that life is complicated and we are interconnected through community living.
Trial by jury is submission to the conscience of the people.
Anarchists need to be careful what they wish for because they are advocating for the wild west.
We are the sovereigns who have practices to determine guilt and innocence.
The Society Of Ethical Sovereigns (SOES) Justice Way (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-society-of-ethical-sovereigns
Thanks for sharing this.
Re: "1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)"
Does "anOther" refer to humans only, or are other beings included in that ethical imperative?
Also, who decides what belongs to whom?
If it only includes humans then that would leave open the potential for your framework to potentially approve of a group of anarchists getting together to do somethin like this:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/death-by-a-thousand-clearcuts
These are Laws for Those who can comprehend them, and You may note the cap in there, “O.” These are for Humans and if We try to go further We will bring in baggage that will tear it down.
Humanity on Our planet is in deep yogurt, and We need these implemented amongst Us first. Because this legal/governmental mess has got to go.
Let’s not quibble over historically eaten food and building a functional and happy society for Humanity.
Thanks for elaborating.
As someone that has written about how all involuntary governance structures are immoral and someone that included an entire chapter in my first book on voluntaryism, I am fully capable of comprehending what you are speaking about.
That said, I do not share your anthropocentric values. I see our non-human kin on the Earth (and beyond) as my animist ancestors did (as elders, teachers and beings with their own agency). The ethical compass I choose to let guide my path (which honors all life as sacred and deserving of respect) is not related to dietary choices. Rather it is based on an acknowledgment of humanity as an adolescent species with much to learn from our elder species on this world.
Of course, we all hurt and kill the flesh of plants (vegans included) and those are also beings, so avoiding killing all together as a human is not possible, however many cultures chose to have laws and/or ethical compasses that guided how they kill, how often and for what reason. That is what your framework lacks.
As I stated in this post ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-spiritual-poverty-of-statism ) I propose it is the trends that arise from the statist religion (see link below for more info: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-i-do-not-celebrate-canada-day ) which are the most significant factor in deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, water poisoning and many other degenerative trends. Vegans and Beef eaters can live regeneratively or they can be devout statists and follow blindly as multi-generational racketeering operations continue to pillage the Earth.
It is also worth noting that anarchists can also theoretically be techno-optimists, anthropocentric thinkers, exploitative of their local bioregion and agents of degeneration on the Earth. Thus, if you're "Ethical Anarchy" model only acknowledges the violation of other humans as unethical (and leaves abusing, enslaving, mass murdering and commodifying any and all non-human beings as totally fine) it is a model that still leaves open the potential for the "concrete world" potential I explore in this post ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/are-there-limits-to-growth ) to become a reality.
If the "happy society for humanity" you intend on building could result in turning the planet earth into one giant deforested toxic waste dump, gmo feeding lot and mining operation, I would say that it is a society I am diametrically opposed to, and will actively sabotage from coming into being.
For more on my views on involuntary governance and ethical lenses of perception, read:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures
Well, I do wish You luck in Your pursuits. I clearly do include ET, and any Other that can (or the group can) grasp the Laws.
We have psychopaths in control and a good start on solving for Them is to establish Our own society, and those issues can be ironed out in the solutocratic way.
I will not subordinate to any Other, but will gladly cooperate to Ethically solve problems as needed and capable. As long as subordination is given without coercion, I have no issues with Others choosing to subordinate Themselves.
And I think when We all are approaching things that way… Humanity will thrive.
Also, are you familiar with The Doctrine Of Discovery? (for reference: https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery )
This pertains to your rule number 2 ("Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone").
Who has the authority to declare what belongs to a human and what does not?
It is those with the biggest guns and the sneakiest scams?
What about indigenous people that lived on, tended and shaped the land where we live for centuries or perhaps millennia before nation states rose up and removed, killed or displaced them?
Rights are basically property rights. You can absolutely own something that no one has a right to take. That's why immorality all falls under the bracket of theft.
In regards to land. The Indigenous peoples had no concept of land ownership and I agree with that. It should be responsibility over land, not ownership. We are all shepherds of the earth and are beneficiaries of it.
All the things being discussed on this thread is why the court of court of conscience, or the trial by jury is so important because life is complex so there needs to be equity. Equity is the check on free will.
Well… I think land ownership - as in having the right to keep Others out of Your space - is necessary. Otherwise One might discover Some who walk into houses or set up camps outside bedroom windows or… The like.
If I use this house, and the land (Our acre of land?), it is Mine, and Others must ask permission to enter the property.
Own What You Use (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/own-what-you-use
Then by your definition, all of what is now called North America was already being used, and thus, owned, before Europeans got here, so you are saying that anyone that does not have indigenous blood owns nothing here?
Thanks for the well wishes.
It is good that you acknowledge the agency and intelligence of myriad interstellar civilizations that are all around us, yet you appear to fail to recognize and acknowledge the agency and intelligence of our non-human kin here on the Earth, that is a problem.
Through your failure to see our elder species on the Earth as deserving of recognition and having any protection within your ethical framework you walk down a path that can swiftly degenerate into exploitation, crippling the ecosystems you depend on to survive, stripping the living Earth of beauty and meaning and creating a "concrete world".
Just because you are unable to recognize the language, conscious mind and intent of a 1000 year old tree, does not mean that he or she is unable to recognize your language, laws and intent.
My indigenous ancestors recognized the intelligence of our elder rooted kin in their Brehon Laws and in the Ogham Script, they referred to the elder trees as "Nobles Of The Wood" and those beings were protected by laws that prevent the violation of other beings just the same as humans. Your indigenous ancestors likely had similar laws and recognition (yes you have indigenous ancestors, no matter what color your skin is).
In this article I outline some of the results that can occur when a society and what the dominant culture defines as "ethical" is guided by anthropocentrism.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
If you focus narrowly only on ethics that protect humans, while disregarding all the other beings on this Earth (that you depend upon to survive) you are disrespecting the gifts you were given in this life and squandering your time here.
Please help me to understand how your set of ethics will prevent the Earth from turning into an Ecumenopolis (for reference: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/stumbling-into-the-ecumenopolis-or )
I do not fail in that…You assume it. I have great compassion for all Conscious beings (and Beings - the sapient Ones). But I’m not going to get caught up in arguments over whether We should eat natural diets or not.
I never mentioned diets, yet you keep on bringing it up (like a robot).
Please prove you are human.
Morality, which is objective and farming etc is a natural science that requires we align our perception and behaviour to natural law. In farming, this is best displayed and practiced in biodynamics, working with hermetic principles such as rhythm and corresponding etc.
True spirituality is aligning with truth - the knowledge of how nature works regarding behavioural consequence and the natural laws that govern our reality.
Do you think there is a chance that this "Amaterasu Solar" Substack profile is a bot?
Seeking to be blocked, then, are Ye?
That is a very interesting you would react in such a dramatic fashion and threaten to censor me.
The compulsion to resort to Censorship when people are expressing something you do not want to hear is usually a sign that one has a proclivity to align with tyrants or become a tyrant if given the chance.
I'm not sure but it always looks dodgy when there's no face to the profile.
You hear that man, we are bots! What a fascinating example of "I know you are but what am I!" haha
I think the two of You are bots.
Though conflated, I see morality as subjective and Ethics as objective. Morals are built on societal norms, while Ethics are the expression of Natural Law... In some places it is moral to stone a woman to death for wearing a bikini in public. It others, not so much. But it is NEVER Ethical.
Nature proves otherwise because the effects of immorality are observeable. Morality is objective. Moral relativism, such as the example you describe, is the 2nd level of satanism which is in opposition to natural law. Ethics are subjective.
For instance, if I go the supermarket and after shopping I don't put the trolley back where it is supposed to go, my actions would be unethical but not immoral.
Immorality is that which causes harm. Such as murder, rape, assault, theft, trespass, coercion and fraud (willfully lying). Ethics are subjective across the entire world.
I did a short video on objective morality.
https://youtube.com/@calvinperrins?si=3P9esDj2UCNdDVT-
We shall agree to disagree. I offer My 60 years of experience and observation, research and study.
Your shopping cart example shows that Ethical consequences would be minimal if any at all. You robbed the market of the employee’s time to collect it, which breaks the second Law, but it is so minor a break that no One would be arresting You for it.
That would create more problems than You caused.
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/He-OTxMi7GQ
Thanks for the comment brother.
So based on your understanding and perception of natural science, truth and morality, would you say that this aligns with natural law?
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/death-by-a-thousand-clearcuts
Yes, natural law is objective morality and the effects of not aligning our behaviour with natural law are observeable in the natural world. Such as the physical manifestation of chaos and slavery.
True spirituality is the knowledge that freedom, self governance and achieving the things that we say we want, only comes about through aligning to these truths.
Is there any other kind of anarchism ?
Well there is Zenarchy
In a true anarchy, things will be based on those Laws. So, no... But the point was to illustrate for Any who hear "anarchy" and envision pandemonium that anarchy is NOT pandemonium. [smile]
What would you think if a person comes up to you and says: I'm Exceptional! I'm Superior to you!
https://geopoliticaldiscussions.substack.com/p/what-would-you-think-if-a-person
I will be happy to accept that if You prove it’s true. (There is no proof.) See, I don’t create controversy. Haha!
Creating Controversy (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/creating-controversy
That makes no sense.
How so? It makes sense to Me...
Very well written Amaterasu. The 1st time I've seen 'legalates' so TY.
Most welcome! I coined that term, so… Haha! And humble thanks for Your payment of appreciation! You enrich Me!
You may think I’m delusional but sometimes I think I’m the king of the anarchists .
LOL! An oxymoron if ever there was one! Hahaha!
Someone recently broke all those 3 ethical laws against me, and I did nothing to them whatsoever to deserve those transgressions. When I cut them off rather than keep engaging, which is the only way to deal with lying narcissists and abusers, I was then sent an abusive email, messages, they even set up an account to abuse me personally and they also contacted my subscribers to lie about me and smear me.
How do we deal with psychopaths or narcissistic abusers? Because I feel like the majority of humanity are in an abusive relationship with the psychopaths in charge: With people that not only believe in false hierarchy but aren’t going to stop actively abusing and even culling the majority of us. Until they get the numbers they want and the control of all our actions and wealth. Allodial title is one problem. The private, for-profit corporations posing as governments have allodial title to the land.
So how many people are we going to have to educate about natural law principles before we see a real pushback?
I’ve been thinking about alternative types of commodity-barter-labor exchanges. Open source. That could be set up in individual communities. A model that wouldn’t be taxable. Set up as either a charity or trust, to utilize some of the legal loopholes the controllers use.
Well... As far as dealing with unEthical behavior, I offer:
The Society Of Ethical Sovereigns (SOES) Justice Way (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-society-of-ethical-sovereigns
And anything in that psychopathic legal/governmental hell has no affect on Ones who do not consent to it. The only affect will be bullying and yes, while We are Few, They can bully Us. When there are enough of Us protecting Self and Others from bullies... They will have no power at all.
No clue how long it will be. I have been at this for 20 years now. Thought the ideas would be joyously embraced when I started. Heh. A bit naive I was back then.
I just keep on plugging and hope People share the work far and wide (enriching Me greatly!).