Rules and Rulers?
What makes one, “one?”
Is there an answer to the individual? Psychology would make us believe so, but it bases itself on the idea that there is subjectivity of the human experience that needs to be compared to the objective mentally stable mind. Yet, it is uncertain what the basis of a healthy mind is. If we are our minds, as many philosophies and psychology would agree, then who among us is the control to the rational? The irrational? The logical? Must we always base things on what others have said? How can we trust their conclusion? If science is what we must follow, yet we are only able to experiment within the rules of others to duplicate their conclusions, how, then, can mankind be expected to grow using science in the way it is described today? If one states the rules, then they are claiming authority. Who is the authority of science? Of inquiry? Being? If we can answer these, outside of the mind, then we can answer mankind. However, if every man is different, then, too, will be the inquiries. If one cannot question, one cannot know beyond what is told to them.
I open my first piece with some nonsense to demonstrate that I can be as droning as a mule carrying the carcass of a camel while bringing another perspective into the conversation. What is a rule? What is the ruler? If we’re being facetious we may ask “Metric or Imperial?” While we proceed to giggle about the stigmas associated with either. If we are to answer in good faith, we claim a rule is a way to behave and a ruler is one whom makes the rules. If one were to ask an anarchist what the rules are, they’ll gladly give you an explanation on their favorite philosophers version of what would constitute as a ruler-less society with functioning rules. All of which is justified by some form of morality or another. Be it Egoist or of a Faith. The subjective often claiming ground of the objective, and vise versa. Existence is absurd, yet we love it. We also hate it. That is what makes us want to control it, so we can love it “our” way.
“…in Order to form a more perfect Union..,” are the words written in The Preamble of The United States Constitution. Perfection may be strived for by man, and often is. This strive is nothing that I ignore, as I have my own goals to obtain and often I take what I can achieve and call it perfect. This means you cannot criticize me. I only joke, of course, but that is what perfection is. A joke. The founders of a country that many would call one of the best countries to have been founded, seemed to understand perfection as unobtainable as well, so they loaded it to be a “more perfect union,” having seen the follies of governance. They knew that governments are not perfect, nor would they be, however, they had to establish rules. These rules are often ignored, and even worse, are used to exploit the very people the rules were meant to be protecting and claiming who they were for; “we the people.”
I’m not one to think as if I am part of any bigger group than myself, perhaps my friends. I know I can affect the communities I interact with as well as they can affect me, however, I am “me,” I am not “you,” so there can be no “we” in the sense of “one” of “us.” The founders of the United States of America were individualist, but had to construct a collective claim of governance. During the time, I can see why it may have been necessary for one to think that governance done this new way would make things different, however, we all know that children are quite silly and a baby government will grow to be an adult government one day and take your whole wallet because you exist within the house your ancestors helped build. It’s the governments. “We” wrote the rules through votes and legislation. “We” have to live with how “we” made it, even though “we” cannot change it for “us” now, only for “us” in the future.
Rules keep people locked in the past where their present has to solve the problems of their future, rather than mankind moving with time itself. Some people like to argue in favor of objective morality. Most of the time these claims are made through faiths, however, some also claim that objective morality is explained in mathematics. Both are equally claiming the high ground and they both claim to know what is right for man and how mankind ought to behave. They explain away any contradictions to their objective claims by calling them tests of the wicked or outliers in the bell curve. Some may argue that I am making a claim of how mankind ought to act, however, I am only relaying my observation and proposing another possible solution. I cannot control mankind, and mankind cannot control me. I cannot claim what is right for anyone other than myself, and when I propose solutions in the realm of what is “better,” it is coming from my perspective. Yes, it is much like the claims of objective morality in the sense that those claims, and my proposals, are filtered through fallible beings. People can strive to grow, but striving to be more than what they are seems to bring out the worst of mankind in the forefront, when being wholly mankind brings about balance. The perceived “good” and “evil.” One of the worst evils is only available through collective thought of what is objectively good, and attempting to eliminate the challenging thoughts entirely.
War…. and… rules of war? People generally think that because they have rules they are better than nature. Nature is violent. Oh, but the people put rules on their violence. War crimes… Violence is okay, but only a certain way, because some people claimed it to be that way. Do as they say. Especially when you’re killing for them. They wouldn’t want their dogs to be seen as feral animals. You’re trained. Act like it. See that country over there? Well, that is where your freedom is currently being threatened. Give me the scraps I let you have so I can get back your freedom. I’ll give you a nice big biscuit when I get back. You won’t care how long I’m gone, and you’ll even forget that you’re hungry, but as long as daddy comes back with a twig, not a biscuit, you’ll eat the twig because you’re happy daddy is back and brought you home a snack. Freedom? Oh, yea, well, now it’s in your backyard being threatened by a family of mice. You can’t take care of them, you’re starving. Let daddy take care of them so he can feed you. These are the rules. It’s for your safety. You consented to them by eating out of his hand. You wanted the rules because he said he could change them at a whim because you barked loud.
Dear reader, you’re not a bitch. I mean no offense in that manner, however, I do mean offense to get you thinking about things. This is what I do here. From my opinion, such as this piece, to discussion pieces, and actual journalism, I hope to let the world know that there is a lot out there, and that the people can see it, or they can ignore it. You can see me, or ignore me. “We” exist, so “we” will be as we will. No one made you read my nonsense, no one made you curious. You can choose more than just clicking on this article too. Believe it or not, you’re not a dog, and the government is not a master. If you hold yourself in the past, and think the rules of others before you are better for yourself or others, then you truly do not trust yourself, or others, so how can you trust others to look out for yourself? However, this is just my thoughts on the matter. I am merely an idiot with queries.
