Questions about anarchy

[sjw]

I know your question is rhetorical, but many people have found writing treatises a useful way to spend their time. It depends on the person. John Locke apparently thought it was worth his effort. I suppose the motivation comes from believing you have something valuable to contribute society.

Locke said a lot of great things, and they led to great things, but it didn't take long for them to get perverted and obliterated. I can't argue with you though, I'm just playing cynical devil's advocate.

What era of mankind are you talking about? There are certain assumptions followed in physics and mathematics that distinguish it from reality. The applicability comes to play when the assumptions closely mimic reality. I am assuming that the era of mankind you are talking about does not closely mimic reality and therefore doesn’t provide any real useful rules for governing our society (I don’t want to use “principle” until I know what you mean by it). Also, given the fact that it is so difficult to create assumptions that mimic our current era, I doubt that we can predict with any accuracy how they will apply to a future era.

I find your characterization of math and physics odd. We can land man on the moon and we can build incredible computational devices at extremely small scales with our knowledge of math and physics. These are extremely powerful and reality-oriented ideas.

In my opinion you are confusing rules and principles. Everything you say is accurate concerning rules. Most human beings only comprehend principles as rules. Like I said, principles may not be appropriate to this era of mankind.

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004):

principle, n. A basic rule, law, or doctrine.

rule, n. 1. Generally, an established and authoritative standard or principle; a general norm mandating or guiding conduct or action in a given type of situation.

I’m not going to argue semantics. I know these definitions are not the only definitions. What do you mean by principle and rule? What is the difference in your opinion?

Why are you quoting a law dictionary? That profession would be the last to be able to understand a principle. The legal profession wouldn't know a principle if it sued them.

A rule is a prescription, something to obey or follow. A principle is a generalization, something induced from reality. But many people have no concept of a principle, they are taught in public schools as if principles are rules, they can't think creatively or inductively, and the distinction is therefore meaningless to them.

[Bones]

I find your characterization of math and physics odd. We can land man on the moon and we can build incredible computational devices at extremely small scales with our knowledge of math and physics. These are extremely powerful and reality-oriented ideas.

Yes, but they still exist outside of reality because the assumptions used are not identical to reality. On certain levels our nature acts in a regular manner. When applying principles/rules of physics, our assumption is that nature will continue to act in the regular manner which we have observed. In a controlled environment, predictions based on these assumptions can be fairly precise. Unknown factors lead to less precise results. Principles/rules of government also rely on the concept of regularity. However, the behavior of people is not regular, and we do not exist in a vacuum. You can observe the world as it behaves or you can observe the world how you think it should behave. In physics and mathematics with assumptions closely mimicking reality, what you think should happen and what does happen may not be that different. In government there is likely to be a larger rift. Making governing principles in advance of the real issues is like predicting the weather months in advance. Does this help you understand what I meant with regards to math and physics? Or does my characterization still seem odd?

Why are you quoting a law dictionary? That profession would be the last to be able to understand a principle. The legal profession wouldn't know a principle if it sued them.

A rule is a prescription, something to obey or follow. A principle is a generalization, something induced from reality. But many people have no concept of a principle, they are taught in public schools as if principles are rules, they can't think creatively or inductively, and the distinction is therefore meaningless to them.

I used that dictionary because of accessibilty and those definitions because they were similar to my interpretation of the meaning of the words. I think that your definition is reasonable, however, I don't see how it helps with what you were saying. By your definition, you need to induce principles from reality, therefore they do not answer questions. They are formed after the question is answered. They make a precise answer into a generalization that should not be followed because then it would be a rule.

[sjw]

Bones, I think we're hitting the "agree to disagree" point, not necessarily because there's nothing to say but because it's pretty hard to say it in this context. We could have this conversation for hours in a bar and not be done. Actually it's probably more like "college philosophy course" level stuff, not something you can pack into a post or an evening.

Sometimes it's really hard to make a new leap in science, as when Newton first came on the scene. And once the leap is made then things that were vague and difficult before become crystal clear. I think the whole universe is open to human understanding, including how we should socially organize. And I don't mean we'll end up knowing everything, or that there's only one true way to socially organize. What I mean is that our form of organization is so radically bad and the truth (for those who see it) is so radically clearly better that the difference is akin to Dark Ages physics vs. Newtonian physics.

But this can only be offered in this context as an opinion, I can't possibly give all the reasons why. Thanks for the discussion.

[Bones]

Fair enough... I felt that we were getting to that point as well. Though I don't necessarily think that you are "wrong" per se, I agree to disagree.