Responsibility vs Authority

[Anders Lindman]

Let's look at responsibility and authority in relation to law. I have the responsibility to follow the law, and I have the authority to act according to the law.

Compare this to responsibility and authority in relation to lawless activity. I am then responsible to nobody and have the authority to do whatever I want. If my moral standard is somewhat lacking, I can rob somebody because I have the authority to do so.

So we see here that laws are needed to ensure responsibility. At least as long as we have tendencies to behave in mischievous ways.

A secret organization, whether it is a secret government, a secret society or any other form of secret activity, is responsible to nobody. Within a secret organization there are often strict rules, but that is something detached from open society and this actually makes the situation worse since then there is one set of laws for the secret organization and a totally separate set of laws for the open society.

If a secret organization grows in power, then it easily becomes an enemy of the state. This is simple to see. It is only rules that are not acceptable in the open society that have any meaning to the secret society, because if the secret rules were the same as the laws in the open society, then they would not have to be secret. This is not a problem as long as the secret rules are following the same moral codes as in the open society. Unfortunately, those within secret organizations are prone to the same mischievous behavior as the rest of the population, and hence a secret organization can easily become an enemy of the state.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
...
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
...
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
...
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary." -- JFK

[Anders Lindman]

The what about an organization like the CIA for example. If CIA gathers information according to the laws of the United States, then that is no problem as long as the laws are accepted by the open society. In theory that looks good. In practice however......well, you get my drift.

[dondaz]

How about when there are no laws and authorities lie in order to put through a hidden agenda!

As in the police who tried to get me to stop filming them.

There is no way that they made a mistake. They repeated their lies and false accusations quite a few times.

You don't do that unless you have another agenda.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[Anders Lindman]

How about when there are no laws and authorities lie in order to put through a hidden agenda!

As in the police who tried to get me to stop filming them.

There is no way that they made a mistake. They repeated their lies and false accusations quite a few times.

You don't do that unless you have another agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

Governments who do not follow the law will not last. At least not in the information age. Authority and law go together. And law and responsibility go together.

[dondaz]

How about right and wrong. Should they also come into the law?

[Anders Lindman]

How about right and wrong. Should they also come into the law?

Laws must be healthy. If the laws begin to diverge from the moral backbone of an open and free society, then the government is moving into an Orwellian state dictatorship.

[Anders Lindman]

Fortunately, national security has an inferior business model which can only be upheld by taxation or illegal money. The information age as it matures will force businesses to rely on value-adding services and products within a flood of penetrating information. National security will become as obsolete as 8-inch floppy disks are today. :D

[dondaz]

National security will become as obsolete as 8-inch floppy disks are today.

National security will only become obsolete if we go into this one world government. Doesn't sound too positive a future to me!:eek:

[cruise4]

We have law called CommonLaw.

This has been usurped by the use of language definition and specialists in this area. By information suppression the 'real' law has been largely forgotten.

Both Money and Law are now illegal constructs. Both constructs have to be dismantled. All gains made by some over others must be cancelled out.

[Anders Lindman]

National security will only become obsolete if we go into this one world government. Doesn't sound too positive a future to me!:eek:

Business interests will take over. Governments in nations will become smaller. No world government needed.

[Anders Lindman]

Business interests will take over. Governments in nations will become smaller. No world government needed.

Only value-adding business will survive. All forms of usury will collapse. Usury means making money out of money. The banking elite has made usury something to strive for. Even ordinary people think of usury as something natural. But it's not.

Usury - the opportunity to make money out of money - does not add any real value to the economy. And that includes all forms of making money out of money, such as interest on loans and credits, stock market shares, funds and so on. Stock markets will still exist, but they will have a role similar to casinos and online poker sites.

[oceanwave]

Let's look at responsibility and authority in relation to law. I have the responsibility to follow the law, and I have the authority to act according to the law.

but,..

...what if you don't accept the law?...

just being rhetorical, like

[cruise4]

'Community' interests will take over. You really should forget about 'rich' and 'business' Anders... thats so last century!

[Anders Lindman]

but,..

...what if you don't accept the law?...

just being rhetorical, like

Then the police can catch me. If I don't accept healthy laws, then I will only increase my own sense of insecurity. Even national 'security' is not real security at all. In a country with more and more national security, the people living in that country will not feel more secure. National security is a scam.

[oceanwave]

Then the police can catch me. If I don't accept healthy laws, then I will only increase my own sense of insecurity. Even national 'security' is not real security at all. In a country with more and more national security, the people living in that country will not feel more secure. National security is a scam.

i said accept, not disobey

...and also,..

isn't 'healthy' subjective?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4254/dunnoya3.gif

[Anders Lindman]

i said accept, not disobey

...and also,..

isn't 'healthy' subjective?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4254/dunnoya3.gif

Ah! If I don't accept the law, then either the law is not healthy or I myself am immoral.

A healthy law is a law that is not immoral. In some cases there can be different opinions about what is immoral and what is not. But that's not a too difficult problem to solve using voting or other techniques.

[i am all i am]

I LOVE YOU.

Laws are in place so that one group or individual can impose upon another group or individual, therefore taking away the freedom of choice of those being imposed upon. Laws are an attempt to remove the responsibility of an individual from making their own choices when determining what they would choose to think, say or do, in relationship to what they are experiencing. By removing this responsibility of making their own individual choices, the PTB and the laws that they have set in place, can be seen as what they truly are, a tool for enslaving others.

FUCK ALL LAWS !!!

And fuck all those that desire to impose their arbitrary demands upon me, in whatever shape or form that they attempt to do so, through whatever medium they attempt to do it.

I AM ME, I AM FREE !!!

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[Anders Lindman]

Laws are ... a tool for enslaving others.



Some laws such as traffic rules are helpful so that we don't have to invent our own ways of driving in traffic.

Then there are laws that make it illegal to steal and kill and so on, and those laws are also helpful since we sometimes still behave in mischievous ways.

Most people would even say that all the messy laws for national/Homeland/Fatherland security are good. I say that these laws are baaaad, really awfully baaaaaaad!

A healthy law is a law that is not immoral. Are the national security laws immoral? Not according to most people. I think they are immoral. Threats from other nations are manufactured by the banking elite. Terrorists threats are manufactured by the banking elite. Therefore, all national/Homeland/Fatherland security laws are immoral imo. I could be wrong about this, so I accept that most people think these laws are not immoral. If these laws are built on a scam, as I suspect they are, then sooner or later that will become more and more obvious, and then the whole pyramid of cards will collapse. :mad: :)

[i am all i am]

Some laws such as traffic rules are helpful so that we don't have to invent our own ways of driving in traffic.

Then there are laws that make it illegal to steal and kill and so on, and those laws are also helpful since we sometimes still behave in mischievous ways.

Most people would even say that all the messy laws for national/Homeland/Fatherland security are good. I say that these laws are baaaad, really awfully baaaaaaad!

A healthy law is a law that is not immoral. Are the national security laws immoral? Not according to most people. I think they are immoral. Threats from other nations are manufactured by the banking elite. Terrorists threats are manufactured by the banking elite. Therefore, all national/Homeland/Fatherland security laws are immoral imo. I could be wrong about this, so I accept that most people think these laws are not immoral. If these laws are built on a scam, as I suspect they are, then sooner or later that will become more and more obvious, and then the whole pyramid of cards will collapse. :mad: :)

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Anders.

MORAL adj. concerned with right and wrong conduct.

How can any thought, word or action, be considered right or wrong in advance of the circumstances taking place ???

Who is it that determines what is right or wrong for another before they have encountered an experience ???

For example, would it be wrong of me to break the law of 'no stopping' on a highway/freeway, if the person in the vehicle with me has had a heart attack ???

Ultimately it comes down to the point of why do you desire to control/pre-determine anothers thoughts, words and actions, in any given circumstance that they have chosen to experience ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[Anders Lindman]

G'day Anders.

MORAL adj. concerned with right and wrong conduct.

How can any thought, word or action, be considered right or wrong in advance of the circumstances taking place ???

Who is it that determines what is right or wrong for another before they have encountered an experience ???

For example, would it be wrong of me to break the law of 'no stopping' on a highway/freeway, if the person in the vehicle with me has had a heart attack ???

Ultimately it comes down to the point of why do you desire to control/pre-determine anothers thoughts, words and actions, in any given circumstance that they have chosen to experience ???


Laws have grown to a monstrosity. Those laws are needed because society is so much built and dependent on them. We need a more light-weight set of laws.

The best approach to clear up this mess is to start from the top. This means laws such as fractional reserve banking. In fact, fractional reserve banking is the top target since it is the root of the banking elite's power.

To be a bit patriotic, I want the monetary system in Sweden to change. But that will take decades if not longer. Unless Ron Paul somehow succeeds to become president. He can then change the Federal Reserve system and since the U.S. economy is such an important part of the world economy, Sweden could easily follow the U.S. example and thus changing the Swedish monetary system can then be done much much faster than if for example Al Gore becomes the next American president.

Go Ron Paul, Go Ron Paul, Go Ron Paul! :)

[i am all i am]

I LOVE YOU.

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend towards each other. Between depriving a man of one hour of his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphimisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy."

Addenda to Orders in Council
The Emperor Paul Muad'Dib

Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert


Every law is an attempt to make individuals conform - 'con' = controlled, 'form' = shape. Any attempt at controlling an individuals form, or shape, is an attempt at feeding on the energy of that individual.

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[Anders Lindman]

Every law is an attempt to make individuals conform - 'con' = controlled, 'form' = shape. Any attempt at controlling an individuals form, or shape, is an attempt at feeding on the energy of that individual.


We need laws. We want laws. Because when healthy, they are convenient and set limits for how to behave.

Let's look at fractional reserve banking. Is that a healthy law? Who benefits? Do all people benefit from this law in an equal manner? Or, does this law only benefit a tiny clique of elite bankers? What fuels wars? What makes the power in the world become more and more centralized and seized by the hands of a few puppet masters at the top?

[i am all i am]

We need laws. We want laws. Because when healthy, they are convenient and set limits for how to behave.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Anders.

"We need"..."We want"...

Why do you attempt to speak for others by using the inclusive of "We" ???

I'll repeat this for you again so that you understand.....

FUCK ALL LAWS !!!

If YOU choose to "need" and "want" laws to govern YOU and what YOU think, say and do, then enjoy the experience YOU have chosen, but why do YOU want and need others to do the same ???


"set limits"...

If YOU choose to limit yourself by conforming to laws, why do YOU expect that others should join YOU in your self created prison ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[Anders Lindman]

G'day Anders.

"We need"..."We want"...

Why do you attempt to speak for others by using the inclusive of "We" ???

I'll repeat this for you again so that you understand.....

FUCK ALL LAWS !!!

If YOU choose to "need" and "want" laws to govern YOU and what YOU think, say and do, then enjoy the experience YOU have chosen, but why do YOU want and need others to do the same ???


"set limits"...

If YOU choose to limit yourself by conforming to laws, why do YOU expect that others should join YOU in your self created prison ???


But don't you also want laws? Or do you want to be free to choose on which side of the road to drive? :D

[i am all i am]

But don't you also want laws? Or do you want to be free to choose on which side of the road to drive? :D

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Anders.

No.

Yes.

Do you desire to impose your will upon others by making laws for them to live by ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[Anders Lindman]

Do you desire to impose your will upon others by making laws for them to live by ???


I am willing to outsource the law-making to politicians. Especially Ron Paul, since he will create a new law for the Federal Reserve.

[i am all i am]

I am willing to outsource the law-making to politicians.

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Anders.

Then you have given up your free will and choice, giving your power away to another, becoming enslaved to their laws.


Governments, if they endure, always tend toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been know to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

Politics as Repeat Phenomenon: Bene Gesserit Training Manual

Children of Dune by Frank Herbert

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[cruise4]

Note on Law:

I've been looking into this lately and I reckon this is another scam as bad as the Money/banking one.

In the UK we have Commonlaw, the equivalent to the US Constitution I guess.
Fine and Dandy on the whole. They try to enshrine our God Given right to exist as free human beings on the earth as equals, (My rough stab at it). The Governments are not supposed to create laws that oppose this basis.

What 'they' have done is create a whole series of treaties, amendments or whatever that act as a hiding layer to this real underlying Law. Then they suppressed knowledge about the 'real' law.

This new layer of law is comprised of 'definitions' only deciperable by those trained in Law, the Lawyers, Barristers and Judges. Thats why its all gobbledegook.

BUT this new layer of law they have created is 'false'. It never supercedes Commonlaw. They only get you because of our, deliberately caused, lack of knowledge on this new layer of law and how it really works.***

And of course the people we are supposed to trust in, to help us in these situations are the very people charged with preserving the cover up. In fact their very job existence depends on it.

So its not a question of breaking the law. We need to become knowledgeable about how NOT to be ensnared in their created 'layer of law' and so be able to rely on Commonlaw again.

Easier said than done:), they have an awful lot resting on these Law and Money scams.

***How do they get you?

Words like Statement, Bill, Receipt, Representative, Value, Notice etc etc.
All these words have very specific meanings in Law and have to be responded to in the apropriate manner. You cannot ignore them as that deems acceptance. In nearly all cases we respond in the incorrect way. At that point we 'make ourselves' subject to their so called law.

Its another Smoke and Mirrors trick.

[Anders Lindman]

G'day Anders.

Then you have given up your free will and choice, giving your power away to another, becoming enslaved to their laws.


On the contrary. By outsourcing responsibility I don't have to do the job myself. The outsourcing has to be done to someone who is willing to do the job, and preferably someone who is better than me to do the job.

When we outsource responsibility, we are still responsible for the actions taken by those we have outsourced responsibility to.

[Anders Lindman]

Its another Smoke and Mirrors trick.

That's why I like to cut to the chase, or whatever it's called in English.

Yoda: "Focus all your firepower on the nearest starship"

The nearest starship in this case is fractional reserve banking. Don't let people lead you down into messy details. Focus like a laser beam on fractional reserve banking.

[i am all i am]

I LOVE YOU.

Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security.

Bene Gesseritt Coda

Chapter House Dune by Frank Herbert

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[limelady]

I LOVE YOU.

Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security.

Bene Gesseritt Coda

Chapter House Dune by Frank Herbert

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

I hate my life being governed by so many unnecessary laws and regulations, but something happened yesterday that got me wondering about some of them. Then I read the quote you pasted in your post above. Would this sentiment apply to cases of child abuse? If there were NO laws, would people be inclined to abuse children more (to the point of it becoming exceptable) or would abusing children happen less?

My sister is a teacher-aid, and yesterday she had to deal with a 6 year old girl who was being regularly sexually violated (sodomised) at home by her older step brother, and possibly step-father as well. The child's home life was not good, to say the least, and her physical health was appalling. But if there were no child protection laws in place so that the child could be legally removed from the home of her abuser(s) and taken into care where she can be safely loved and nurtured back to health (she has a Gonhorreah infection and ruptures in her rectum), how would we as a society deal with such things when they occur?

[infinitetruth]

I hate my life being governed by so many unnecessary laws and regulations, but something happened yesterday that got me wondering about some of them. Then I read the quote you pasted in your post above. Would this sentiment apply to cases of child abuse? If there were NO laws, would people be inclined to abuse children more (to the point of it becoming exceptable) or would abusing children happen less?

My sister is a teacher-aid, and yesterday she had to deal with a 6 year old girl who was being regularly sexually violated (sodomised) at home by her older step brother, and possibly step-father as well. The child's home life was not good, to say the least, and her physical health was appalling. But if there were no child protection laws in place so that the child could be legally removed from the home of her abuser(s) and taken into care where she can be safely loved and nurtured back to health (she has a Gonhorreah infection and ruptures in her rectum), how would we as a society deal with such things when they occur?

the laws did not prevent the abuse from happening. Laws cannot prevent. Even in states where there is the death penalty, the crime rate does not go down.

In the case of child abuse, laws don't mean anything - I hear what you are saying, that the law can take the child away etc. But the law does not prevent child abuse. What we need is solutions to social problems rather than laws. Why did he abuse the child? That is the biggest most difficult question to answer and the responsibility really lies with the individual. I don't have any answers and there are no quick fixes. The law is a quick fix and really does nothing for that poor child and poor father and poor step brother. What situation made them behave the way they did? Do they realise they are doing wrong? If they don't what good is a law? If they do, the situation is even more complex. What drives people to abuse??

Completely ridding laws in an instant would lead to crime. Its like someone on a diet. When you tell them they can eat whatever they want, they eat everything - just because they can. What is needed is self responsibility - we need re-education.

Did you know it is now compulsory for businesses to number their invoices? It is a crime not to. And there are many other stupid ridiculous laws.

At school I was given detentions for not tucking my shirt in. I think i had 3. I remember my mum speaking to the teachers telling them that 'when they focus on little stupid things like dress code, whats to stop my daughter from smoking, or skipping school - she's already had 3 detentions, she's seen it all'

Its a very interesting discussion, and I can see it will delve very deep.

[i am all i am]

I hate my life being governed by so many unnecessary laws and regulations, but something happened yesterday that got me wondering about some of them. Then I read the quote you pasted in your post above. Would this sentiment apply to cases of child abuse? If there were NO laws, would people be inclined to abuse children more (to the point of it becoming exceptable) or would abusing children happen less?

My sister is a teacher-aid, and yesterday she had to deal with a 6 year old girl who was being regularly sexually violated (sodomised) at home by her older step brother, and possibly step-father as well. The child's home life was not good, to say the least, and her physical health was appalling. But if there were no child protection laws in place so that the child could be legally removed from the home of her abuser(s) and taken into care where she can be safely loved and nurtured back to health (she has a Gonhorreah infection and ruptures in her rectum), how would we as a society deal with such things when they occur?

I LOVE YOU.

G'day Limelady.

Yes, it applies for all laws.

People will only act, as in the above example, because they do not understand their interconnectedness with ALL THAT IS. If each generation understood that what they do to another they are doing to themselves, then violence, in any shape or form, would be a thing of the past. Without this knowledge given and shared to all generations, then we will continue to see these examples of disconnection with ALL THAT IS.

It is through LOVE, ALL THAT IS, that we are all connected, and it is the way that we will heal the human species from these self destructive patterns that are physically manifested from thoughts of seperation from ALL THAT IS, LOVE.

No law protected this child from the circumstance that she experienced. If laws actually protected people, then not one thing would ever happen to anyone that was outside of the laws that are in place. Cycles of violence, whether sexual abuse, domestic violence, or any other form, are perpetuated because people know that the law can be broken without consequences if no one finds out about it. Responsibility of ones own thoughts, words and actions are the key to realising that we express and experience our own self-creation that is interconnected with ALL THAT IS, and therefore are merely interacting with another aspect of ourselves.

If you understood that what you do to another you are doing to yourself, for we are all one, would you enact any form of violence towards that other ???

THANK YOU.



http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S34.gif With LOVE http://www.lifeshore.com/smiley/data/media/3/3D_emoticon_S36.gif

[mightiswrong]

When we outsource responsibility, we are still responsible for the actions taken by those we have outsourced responsibility to.

This is classic use of the first person plural. You can outsource responsibility for things that effect your life but you can not rightfully outsource i.e. elect people to make decisions for other people who have not entered into an agreement with you or those you have delegated responsibility too.

But if there were no child protection laws in place so that the child could be legally removed from the home of her abuser(s) and taken into care where she can be safely loved and nurtured back to health (she has a Gonhorreah infection and ruptures in her rectum), how would we as a society deal with such things when they occur?

Firstly a 'law' against abusing children in no way prevents abuse from occuring. Also a lot,even posibily most abuse occurs within the 'care' system. A system that rests on theft (taxation) and imposing ones will on other people (democracy) destroys a societies understanding of what is right and wrong in the process of convincing them that taxation and democracy are legitimate. It is morally wrong to steal and it is also morally wrong to elect a group of people or convince people to elect a group of people to rule over and steal from other people. Because our understanding of morals is destroyed especially in the state education system statism actually causes a massive increase in crime and disorder in the society not to forget the acts of genocide that individuals participate in the financing of thru taxation without acknowledging their responsibity.

Simply you do not need a law to remove a child from an abuser. What you need is people who care.

[Anders Lindman]

This is classic use of the first person plural. You can outsource responsibility for things that effect your life but you can not rightfully outsource i.e. elect people to make decisions for other people who have not entered into an agreement with you or those you have delegated responsibility too.


Yes, it's easy to misuse outsourcing of responsibility, because I'm not so personally affected by the actions taken by other people. So one has to be careful when doing that.

[limelady]

I think I may have been a little misunderstood on this thread. I was well aware that the law didn't prevent the child from being abused in the first place, and was therefore ineffective. But the laws that says a child can be taken from an abusive home (once the abuse is discovered) were inacted in the end to make sure the child was not further abused, and was given the necessary medical treatment etc. It just seems to me very problem - reaction - solution.

The child was faced with a terrible problem (abuse), the school recognised this and reacted (called authorities), who then came in and offered the solution (special care).

We DO need to find a way to prevent the abuse in the first place, and I'd love to see a time when humanity is 100% governed by self responsibility. But I can see it would take some time to evolve into a society of spiritually aware law-free citizens when considering the scale of the types of abuse so many inflict upon others..... like the generational child-abusing family I mentioned in my post.

So where do we start to get this ball rolling? The problems just seem so HUGE, I can't see a starting point. :confused:

[Anders Lindman]

So where do we start to get this ball rolling? The problems just seem so HUGE, I can't see a starting point. :confused:

I can. :) Start from the top, and create a smaller government. Go Ron Paul!

[infinitetruth]

I think I may have been a little misunderstood on this thread. I was well aware that the law didn't prevent the child from being abused in the first place, and was therefore ineffective. But the laws that says a child can be taken from an abusive home (once the abuse is discovered) were inacted in the end to make sure the child was not further abused, and was given the necessary medical treatment etc. It just seems to me very problem - reaction - solution.

The child was faced with a terrible problem (abuse), the school recognised this and reacted (called authorities), who then came in and offered the solution (special care).

We DO need to find a way to prevent the abuse in the first place, and I'd love to see a time when humanity is 100% governed by self responsibility. But I can see it would take some time to evolve into a society of spiritually aware law-free citizens when considering the scale of the types of abuse so many inflict upon others..... like the generational child-abusing family I mentioned in my post.

So where do we start to get this ball rolling? The problems just seem so HUGE, I can't see a starting point. :confused:

Just like anything else, these behaviours are learnt and taught. Breaking up families may stop the abuse but it doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't stop the cycle either. New behaviours need to be learnt, the cycle broken. It is a huge problem, and with solutions being brought forward such as hormonal castration etc etc - we can see that people are still missing the point. It has to be a choice. The abuser has to choose not to abuse - for the good of him/herself and those around them.

But when you delve into this you soon find that its not a small problem, its a huge problem that encompasses every other problem we have in life. The same problem that drives someone to suicide could drive someone to abuse, or drive someone to take drugs, or bully, drink, eat, smoke. The starting point is here and now - changing our mindset to finding real solutions.

[mightiswrong]

So where do we start to get this ball rolling? The problems just seem so HUGE, I can't see a starting point.

Start with yourself because you are the only person you control. Abuse, crime and so on are all symptoms of the cult-ural disease we are suffering from which seperates us from the whole due to divisive, ideas and beliefs. By discovering what is false (all ideas, beliefs etc.) we can find the truth which is always there in the moment and it is love.

Since I feel like it I might suggest that you consider moving or setting up a small local community that is inkeeping with your desire for a spiritually aware "society". Foget about changing the UK which is merely a illusionary political belief construct. You might like this site: www.simondale.net/house


I can. Start from the top, and create a smaller government. Go Ron Paul!

There is an ongoing discussion in places like www.strike-the-root.com about the issue of minarchism. My own view is that history has shown that the US constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. Once you accept the notion that government has authority over you it will naturally evolve to become a fascist state. Without the support of the corporate media it will be difficult if not impossible to get the masses behind Ron Paul and you still have the issue of reinforcing peoples belief in democratic government that comes with promoting Ron Paul in election. When he fails to be elected (likely) all those who voted will feel that they tried something, that they have done their bit, that the 'majority' didn't agree, that the majority have legitimately over ruled them, and take no further action to change 'society' and further more they will have been mislead into believing that change comes from the top. It is the foundations of the pramid that need to be taken out! I would consider promoting and teaching something like http://www.tolfa.us a far more effective thing to do than reinforcing statism thru Ron Paul. I would add that while I find the libertarianism interesting (the philosophy of liberty http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf ) and I support it far more than socialism I think there is a flaw in the issue of property ownership and am adament that love is the only answer, the only truth and is on a higher plane. The means are the ends and all we need is love.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0304spiritpsych/030418.beyond.himalayas.pdf

[Anders Lindman]

Without the support of the corporate media it will be difficult if not impossible to get the masses behind Ron Paul

Certainly. It will be interesting to see if the corporate media will start to support Ron Paul. It would be in their own best interest to do so.

[mada88]

With great power comes great responsibility - Stan Lee

[Anders Lindman]

With great power comes great responsibility - Stan Lee

"With great responsibility comes great power" -- Anders Lindman

:D

[cruise4]

I think in the near future we do need laws and to say otherwise is ingenuous.
There are people who's behaviour needs to be controlled at present. The point that laws do not prevent crime is wrong. But who can measure the level of deterrence. If an accepted crime is committed what is to be the outcome? Vigilantism? How do you plan for large scale public utilities like roads.

Maybe a time will come where everyone is personally responsible enough to be get rid of laws. That time is certainly not yet.

However most of the current laws are completely bogus.

[Anders Lindman]

Maybe a time will come where everyone is personally responsible enough to be get rid of laws. That time is certainly not yet.


Yes, and even then some laws can be handy, helpful for making things run smoothly and efficiently in society.

[mada88]

"With great responsibility comes great power" -- Anders Lindman

:D

LOL I suppose quotes are like equations things can be carried over.

Government=Control of the mind

Govern=Control

Ment=Mind

So does mentgovern=mind control???

[Anders Lindman]

LOL I suppose quotes are like equations things can be carried over.

Government=Control of the mind

Govern=Control

Ment=Mind

So does mentgovern=mind control???

No, no. We have to turn the power pyramid upside down. When I say: "With great responsibility comes great power" it means that the power comes through responsibility. Not power first, achieved or given to someone who can sit in an ivory tower and think about how to be responsible. So when we say: "With great power comes great responsibility" then that is the hierarchical, alpha-male old-school baboon type of power given to someone 'up there'. That's for fascists and communists. First responsibility, then power.