im more so talking about how an individual decides to use their free will whether or not free will is allowed exist…
its all about inherent human nature…
either humans are bad and needs to be kept in check
humans are good and will most often do the right thing
humans are both good and bad so we need laws just to be on the safe side
so why give a something like a charity building homes for the homeless, or governmental program negative pr if they are trying to do something positive, if its suggestion of how do things better thats one thing, but if its just
nonsensical criticism for the sake of criticism
people using free speech to obtain power for powers sake by using the system so that they can have control over free will…
it depends on the actions of the establishment towards individuals and how they are allowed to be in society and the actions of individuals…
and everyone has their own ideas about how to be so…-shrug-
and im not talking about politics, trying to have a more holistic discussion about stuff
Is that what you meant by anti-establishment ideology in the above post, something like non-sensical criticism? But how does that relate to the evaluation of ideology and the question if establishment allows for reasonable expression of free will?
Or should the following be interpreted on the level of individual decision-making? And how so?
sort of…i dont think im doing a good job at explaining the idea, or making things clear… so as an example look at what happened in this thread…
i guess if you want it can be interpreted on the level of individual decision making…ideology often determines ones course of actions when presented with certain situations…so if someone decides to be a troll, or just be an asshole because of reasons…are their reasons warranted? tbh im not sure of what the circumstances are that would warrant such behavior…
Tbh this occurred to me when I was watching the series godfather of harlem
Interesting example, I think now I get it!
I would say though that looking for weak points in arrangements, structures, systems or arguments just for doing it can have its benefits in the long run. If you want to make a system safer, a good way to do it is to get a hacker to find the holes and weak points. If the system, arguments or whatever is to endure, it should be able to stand internal criticism. Maybe you can say that it might get problematic if the criticism is propagated systematically for external benefits even when the actual content has been internally discussed and solved, but imho that would be more of a structural problem and less of an individual one.
That’s radical… I’ve heard some versions of this but this particular one is relatively concise. It’s easy enough to dismiss as mental trickery and illusion… but something about the reality of the Möbius strip makes it ring true.
You are describing Libertarianism … and describing it better than most Libertarians.
Usually Libertarianism is described as “minimal government”… a sort of kinder gentler anarchy. But minimal government is inadequate government… True Libertarianism is minimal in the sense of “right-sized” government! with adequate (not excessive!) laws and regulations that (as you point out) “… best protects the life, liberty, and property of its individual citizens and makes a reasonable social contract with them…”
They key phrase is “individual citizens”… not “society” not corporations, or “good ol’ boy” clubs or any other mob, especially politicians and government in general.
Rights belong to the individual… the “best and right-sized” government serves to protect that alone… anything else is corruption.