>I cannot believe that quaint, obsolete moralisms like "rugged
>individualism" and ideologies like "Social Darwinism" designed as
>propaganda by our rugged industrial revolutionaries to justify human
>exploitation still have currency, here or anywhere. Or that members of a
>group whose existence depends precisely on mutual support would express
>themselves in anarchist terms.
You are obviosly mistaken by my terms. I'm very familuar with anarchism having known a few extreme anarchists but that is not what I'm talking about when I say logical morals.
>Have you who retrogressively advocate these positions ever read Hobbes or
>Locke in order to understand the historical and conceptual background of
>"THE SOCIAL CONTRACT", and why the originators of democracy. which protects
>the greatest individual freedom compatible with the social organization
>that makes this freedom possible, based their creation of democratic social
>organization on it precisely?
I'm familiar with the subject.
>What on earth is a "logical moral"? What happens the minute everybody
>begins to live "any way it pleases"? Think about it -- what quality of
>life would you expect? I expect exactly what Hobbes did -- "a life that is
>nasty, brutish and short".
I'm describing a new type of rationalism. A rationalism I'm sure noone here has ever heard of because I thought it up only a few years ago. There is only one other person who ever completely understood the practicle applications of this new thought. The rest of the world isn't ready for it, but since I'm communicating with some extremely intellegent and well informed people here I'll discuss it.
The most important thing to an individual is pleasure. Naturally it is desirable for everyone to have the most pleasure possible. In order have the most pleasure one must be free to do as he/she pleases. Now there are some draw backs. One may not want to be in pain as part of ones pleasure plan. This person knows what happens to somebody else may also happen to him/her. So this person doesn't hurt others to avoid retaliation. This person may also show others the logic of this peace who, because they are rational, agree that it is desirable to not be inflicted pain. They agree on a law that no person may harm another. They also recognize that a person who breaks the law has a reason for doing so. If the reason is it is pleasurable for them to inflict pain but not pleasurable to receive pain they can be taught indisirableness of receiving pain and the logic of retalliation as a protective measure of ones individual pleasure.
Well I need to head off. You can see how it builds and can be applied to practicle use and laws. The point is do what you want just don't involve anyone who doesn't want to be involved. In anarchy there is no law, in my rationalism, I'll call Clintism for the moment, there definately is law so they are differen't in thought and practice.