In Defense of Bisexuality

In Defense of Bisexuality & Why It is a Natural and Socially Beneficial Sexual Orientation

It is true that one might utilize the argument that only members of opposite genders may reproduce in a natural manner, and the argument can be made that this is the sole purpose of sexual activity, but to do so means that one must consider there to be no other purpose for sexual activity and that any means of sexual activity outside of that very small exception are unnatural in themselves. Kissing, caressing, licking, and other forms of sexual affection, as well as masturbation, oral and anal sex would all have to be considered unnatural sexual activities if one holds to this argument and philosophical position. Birth control would also have to be considered unnatural (including the ingestion of plants that naturally cause abortion), and a very extreme position would have to be taken to truly believe in and hold to this position on the nature of sexual activity.

I do not believe most reasonable people could truly take the aforementioned position on the nature and purpose of sexual activity, nor do I believe the evidence provided by Nature supports such a narrow viewpoint. In fact, nature shows us that kissing, caressing, many forms of sexual affection, masturbation, oral and anal sex are all wholly abundant and rampant throughout the animal kingdom, meaning they are both natural and normal forms of sexual expression and stimulation. Since this is so, it therefore follows, that Nature does not support the idea that sexual activity is merely for reproductive purposes. In fact, Nature appears to show that most sexual activity is initiated, guided, and driven by both the quest for self-pleasure and emotional and social interaction.

If Nature provides overwhelming evidence for various forms of sexual activity which cannot support and do not directly promote reproduction, then it logically follows that all forms of sexual activity are not designed or intended for such a purpose, but rather that some, indeed most forms of sexual activity, are designed and intended for non-reproductive purposes; and if they are intended for non-reproductive purposes, then the argument assuming that only sexual activity between members of opposite genders is natural and correct because of the necessity of both genders in reproduction becomes invalid and illogical. This is so because:

1. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than oral sex among members of opposite genders in that all the necessary components are there and the idea that all forms of oral sexual activity should take place between members of the opposite gender is merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider oral sex itself to be.

2. Anal sex between two male members is no less natural than anal sex between a male and a female in that, once again, all the necessary components are there for the precise same sort of sexual activity, and the concept that all anal sexual activity should only take place between members of the opposite gender is, once again, merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Furthermore, anal sex between two females is no less natural than anal sex between a female and a male, where the female takes the active rather than passive role. Anal sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider anal sex itself to be.

3. Kissing, caressing, and showing forms of sexual affection to the same gender is no less natural than kissing, caressing, and the showing of sexual affection to a member of the opposite gender, in that all the necessary components for indirect sexual stimulation and affection are present and capable of fulfilling the exact same purpose. Hugging, licking, petting, or passionately kissing a member of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider those forms of sexual affection to be in the first place.

It seems obvious to me that many forms of sexual activity are natural and for various reasons, some of which are not supportive of the idea that sexual activity is meant for the sole purpose of reproduction. However, of all forms of sexual activity, I do believe that the case can be made that anal sex is unnatural (in all cases) in that it almost always does immediate damage to the recipient, but this position can only be taken if one has concluded that immediate harm to the self is never a natural and acceptable condition of both self pleasure and social as well as emotional interaction. Such an argument could only be helped by evidence for permanent damage caused by either all forms or certain forms of anal sex. That is it! In my mind there is no other argument which could ever be leveled against any form of sexual activity which makes any logical sense other than that just mentioned concerning sodomy.

Personally, I believe sodomy and other forms of anal sex to be natural forms of sexual expression, but unfortunately I must admit I do not have any solid arguments for this sort of reasoning, at this time, at least in the form of arguments involving Nature.

I believe the evidence for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual activity in Nature is overwhelming and very prevalent. All three forms of sexual activity are rampant everywhere within Nature and are therefore natural; however, I do not believe this is where the crux of the debate lies – it is actually a moral and social issue, which makes it not a debate as to whether or not certain forms of sexual activity and orientation are natural, but whether or not they are good for both society and the spiritual nature of humankind.

Perhaps the greatest argument against homosexuality (not necessarily bisexuality) is that it is a form of sexual activity which is harmful to the social organism, in that it does not promote or provide reproduction, which is essential to the continued evolution of a society. Fortunately, I do not need to confront this issue, as a true bisexual sexual orientation does not harm society in any way; in fact, the argument can be made, and will be made by me, that bisexuality is more helpful to society than either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality.

Bisexuality promotes both reproduction and birth control, which are both essential to an efficient and workable society. Bisexuality promotes birth control merely because it does not, by nature, view all sexual activity as for the sole purpose of reproduction, and it promotes reproduction because it certainly does not exclude the natural sexual intercourse of both genders which enables reproduction. In other words, true bisexuality does the very best and most efficient job for not only the individual (it provides the greatest options for sexual pleasure) but also the society (it provides and promotes the dual need of growth and control of growth within a society). In my mind, bisexuality is clearly the best option for any society and the greatest form of individual sexual expression provided by nature.

Furthermore, a true bisexuality is, it seems to me, the most beneficial means of social and emotional interaction, in that it allows for the greatest possible human expression and emotional interaction within any society, which can only promote and drive cohesion and commitment. What sort of evidences can be leveled against the natural existence of bisexual activity and orientation, or against the social utility and practicality of bisexuality? Much more could be said under either nature or society against strict heterosexuality or homosexuality than could ever be said of bisexuality. From the greatest logical viewpoint as well as very human and emotional viewpoint, bisexuality provides the greatest and most efficient means for all things which sexual expression and sexual necessity demand on both the natural and societal levels.

Bisexual expression promotes the greatest form of human expression in love and interaction, it aids in birth control, it promotes natural sexual behavior, it supports and promotes the natural drive for self replication, it provides the greatest spectrum of variation in experience and pleasure, it provides a great form of individual liberty and the expression thereof, it, by nature, promotes the concept of polyamory and open relationships which are arguably the best form of relationship for over-all social unity and natural selection. It is, in my mind, clearly the most natural and socially beneficial form of sexual expression and interaction. That is not to say that if one feels they should be strictly heterosexual or homosexual that they are somehow wrong or inferior, but that bisexuality seems to make the most sense in all truly intellectual examinations concerning nature, society, and sexual orientation and expression.

To me, bisexuality is the norm, and all other forms of sexual expression and orientation are either personal norms or social constructs. I believe the evidence and logical arguments overwhelmingly support bisexuality among non androgynous species. In fact, the very existence of androgynous species seems to promote bisexuality in nature by itself!

Should a male choose to sexually please or interact with a male, or a female choose to do such with a female, or a male and female choose to do such with one another, the natural evidence as well as the societal evidence seem to indicate to me that all of these choices are equaly valid, natural, and beneficial; however, the restriction of these forms of sexual activity to a specific "rightness" may arguably be considered harmful to the individual, the preservation of nature, and the benefit of all societies. In other words, to say that only men belong with women, men with men or women with women, is to say that only certain "kinds" of the same species belong interacting with each other in certain ways. Such a world view is ridiculous and the heart of bigotry, prejudice, and racism.

Granted, there is a strong argument against interspecies sexual expression (for those who prefer extremist positions and who will make bisexuality into total pan-sexuality), and I do not deny this or even attempt to argue against such, but species specific bisexual activity and sexual diversity is an entirely different matter. There really is no good argument against species specific pan-sexual activity on either the natural or social level. Bisexuality, seems to me, very human, very natural, and very socially beneficial. To go beyond the species specific level is to go beyond the initial examination and invalidates any argument against bisexual behavior, as it no longer becomes merely a question of bisexual expression but interspecies expression, which is an entirely different argument. Likewise, raising concerns of age and consent is not specific to the argument, and sex with minors of the opposite gender is not normally considered a sexual orientation specific debate, so why should any form of bisexuality concerning minors be included in the debate of the best and most proper or natural form of sexual expression?

It seems to me, that if there is a natural and normal form of sexual orientation and a correct and beneficial form of social sexual expression and activity, then bisexuality is the most natural and logical fit. In other words, in my mind, everyone is and should be bisexual to one degree or another dependent upon their individual needs and preferences. No other form of sexual expression provides the optimum means for self-pleasure, self-preservation, social interaction, the fulfillment of social and individual needs, and the greatest spectrum for the adequate expression of human emotion and interaction.

I am bisexual and this is the basis of my argument in defense of myself and those like me. Bisexuality is as normal and natural as it gets, in my opinion, and I really don't think any truly intellectual arguments can ever disprove that fact. If a male or female wish to be true to themselves they should, in my opinion, embrace and commit to their bisexuality, even if they have a preference in gender for whatever psychological or biological reasons. In fact, for homosexuals or heterosexuals to say we (bisexuals) are confused is more assinine than saying we are confused in our breathing – such people deny reality, in my opinion. If anyone is more right, it is the bisexuals, but I do not say bisexuality is the only and right way – only that if one must be, it must logically and socially be at least equivalent.

Bisexuality makes natural sense and it makes social sense. It is the greatest form of human emotional expression and love for other humans. Bisexuality benefits both the individual and their society on many levels. The only obsticle to true bisexual expression is the concept of monogamy, and consequently, it may just be monogamy which makes certain people believe one must either be homosexual or heterosexual and not ever bisexual. However, I will leave this debate to a later discussion on the natural and social truth and benefits of polyamory and open-social relationships – one I hope to take up at a later date.

Bisexuality is natural in that it is a great expression given from one to another, regardless of gender, it seeks to provide great pleasure and emotional interaction to all for all, and it helps society to both evolve through reproduction, and stabilize due to non-reproductive sexual behaviors. It is really the best of both worlds – balanced, harmonious, and beneficial!

Furthermore, it seems to me that members of the opposite gender, unless severely mentally wrecked by distorted social norms, always find the sexual interaction between members of the same gender sexually appealing and arousing. I submit that this is so because it is not only natural for both genders to show bisexual sexual expressions, but because it is natural for both genders to be sexually aroused by bisexual activity – we find it both normal and appealing unless taught otherwise by society. Even supposedly homosexuals will find sexual expression between a male and a female arousing unless taught to think otherwise! Likewise, supposed heterosexuals will always find the homosexual behavior of at least the opposite gender sexually arousing unless indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Can a man who loves seeing two women in an act of sexual expression be considered truly heterosexual, or a woman witnessing two men in an act of sexual expression, who finds it appealing, be considered truly heterosexual? How could a true heterosexual find a homosexual act appealing? And what supposed heterosexual would not find a homosexual act of the opposite gender appealing without social standards telling them they should not? Furthermore, what supposed homosexual could witness a heterosexual act and not be aroused in some manner or form unless they were taught or told they should not find such appealing?

I could be wrong, which makes things all that much more complicated, and I apolgize if my incorrect analysis insults you, but this is simply how I see it, and it does not detract from the force of my arguments – there is a place for bisexuality.

There are many arguments against bisexuality from both heterosexuals snd homosexuals – why I do not know. It seems that they both fear something in admitting it is normal and natural; however, I feel it is the normal and natural function of myself, so I offer this defense and argument. I believe all men and women are inherently bisexual and should be. I believe we, all humans should accept and learn to live with our bisexuality, regardless of which gender, if any, we prefer. I believe bisexuality is extremely beneficial to all individuals and to the progress of society. I further believe that anyone who denies their bisexuality denies their own human nature, which is bad for Nature and society, and such an attitude should be quietly observed and of concern to others (as it is not natural). We should not deny the feelings of those who feel they are strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but we should fear those positions if a bigoted and prejudice spin is being promoted by those individuals.

I realize I am in the supposed minority, but I believe this is all social show and most believe as I do, especially since the natural evidence and logic falls in the favor of those who think like me. So I present this argument here in the hopes that it will be spread forth either in its eintirety or in various personal forms. I give permission this instant for anyone to use this article in its entirety for whatever purpose or argument they choose, especially those who feel as I do and who wish to promote the validity of bisexuality!

I love both males and females equally, and I do not think this wrong, abnormal, or socially destructive. I think sexual expression to both men and women is moral and right, and I see no good argument against it. I believe we should all embrace our bisexuality, express it, and promote it. I think all social concepts against bisexuality or in thinking that a male is less manly or a female is less womanly because they practice bisexual behavior is insane, illogical, and bad for society and the ultimate preservation of nature.

Bisexuality is true human sexuality and I promote and support it.

The Natural Rights of All

These are the natural rights of all living things:

1. All conscious beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and any culture/society/civilization which attempts to hinder this beyond natural bounds is not only regressive, but criminal and terroristic in nature.

2. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to the free access, foraging, and harvesting of organic food for the sustainment, growth, nutrition and health of their individual mind and body. If a society must take possession of land in order to acquire what it deems as “progress” it does not have a right to do so in such a way that all living creatures may not exercise their natural right to such free access and use of organic medicines and foods. Furthermore, such activities of “progress” have a moral and ecological duty to give back to the Earth and all of its inhabitants a greater or equal share of free resources than what it took to acquire “progress”, or such activities may not be considered, by any right, to be a form of “progress”, but rather are and should be deemed theft and rape.

3. All living creatures have a natural right to hunt, fish, and/or harness other life forms, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence in such an unregulated manner as to allow the full sustainment of their individual livelihood in a free and unhindered manner. If a society/culture/civilization attempts to regulate this to the point where such cannot be done freely both inside and outside of society and/or in accordance with nature it amounts to regress of nature and is the equivalent of rape and theft.

4. All living creatures, capable by their very nature and existence, of acquiring and storing food and water for individual use in a natural manner which accords with their natural existance, within and for a definitive time frame in accordance with natural cycles in which such is plainly and absolutely necessary is entitled to do so, by nature, and any hinderance and attempt to control such a right is unnatural, anti-life, and pro-authoritarian.

5. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to free access and use of freshwater and saltwater resources for the purposes of self-sustainment, nutrition, hygiene, and medicinal application.

6. All living creatures, regardless of gender, but in accordance with natural processes, have the natural right to uncontrolled reproduction and/or the natural means of birth control and reproduction which are available by means of nature up to the point of actual birth.

7. All living creatures have a right to acquire, build, and utlilize natural means of shelter and warmth, according to their capability, without social/cultural/civil influence so long as such means are not a voluntary part of the society/culture/civilzation (meaning the individual being can opt entirely out if they so choose and are capable of such a choice). If such cannot be done without risk to society/culture/civilization, by virtue of intellect, the society/culture/civilization must be considered inferior, unadaptable, and flawed, as a superior form of existence should always be capable of existing without controlling or tampering with the supposed inferiority of a lesser state of existence. How can one claim "progress" if they must control (beyond their own individual and direct influence) what nature already declared favorable and evolved in accordance with local and natural ecological standards as a whole?

8. All living creatures have a natural right, by their very nature and existence, to the total, complete, and unrestricted freedom of movement in accordance with their natural abilities and knowledge, and no society/culture/civilization has a right to restrict such movement in members who have not volunteered to relinquish it.

9. All living creatures, especially those who require it, have a natural right to free and unhindered access to sunlight in accordance with nature and natural phenomena.

10. All living creatures have a natural right, in accordance with their very nature and existence, to the free use and access of natural and local resources, in accordance with their current individual needs, without hinderance, so long as such living creatures have not volunteered to give up such rights on behalf of a society/culture/civlization (meaning they can freely opt out). If any society/culture/civilization feels the need to hinder such access to involuntary members, such a society/culture/civlization is clearly inferior to the natural process and should be considered totalitarian and clearly flawed in character, outlook, and initiative.

11. All living creatures have a right, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence, to free and mutual association. Attempting to control the associations of any creature is an attempt to control that very creature, and amounts to ecological, individual, and social "regress" not "progress".

12. All living creatures, by virtue of the realization and knowledge of self-identity inherent in humans, have a right to their own body and mind. Furthermore, if we are to expect recognition and respect for the guidance of our own vessel we should do the same for all others by virtue of the same reasoning.

13. All living creatures, by their very nature and existance, have a natural right to defend all the rights which they deem existent in whatever manner they are capable of doing in accordance with their own individual nature and through their own individual actions.

14. All living creatures, through free association, have a natural right, in accordance with their individual means and existence, to choose to participate in or not participate in a human-made and manufactured society/culture/civilization, and not to be unnaturally hindered or punished for such a free decision.

15. All living creatures, in accordance with their nature and existence, have a right to free expression, free protest, free thought, and free belief by very nature of their ability to do or have such.

16. All living creatures have a natural right to legislate their own constitution and to reap the pleasures or suffer the consequences of the decisions they make in accordance with their core beliefs and principles.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of natural rights, but a list which is fair, level-headed and aware of natural phenomena as well as man's respective place in the environment. In this list a 'right' is defined as that which comes from nature and does not require social or political influence in order to sustain it as a right.

On Society and Authority

Today, I watched as a young child, perhaps three of four, took a stick, which he had found, and began beating a bush with it. This made me think: if many would think this action wrong due to the unnecessary effects to the bush and owner's property, or if others would call this unnecessary violence, then how can any say we are born naturally peaceful or innocent? Furthermore, how do we know the child is wrong in what he is doing and we are correct in our assessment, and furthermore in correcting him? Finally, what does the act of the child (and therefore other acts which are deemed wrong or immoral) mean concerning the many beliefs of the afterlife and judgment if his actions are not learned, but natural?

Surely the child was only “having fun” and he was also driven to improve his motor skills, and likely he had no intentions of harm, but how can we know? If he did or did not have intentions of harm, would this mean that intentions and not actions are the fulcrum of judgment, or is it that our actions have consequences regardless of our intents and these consequences teach us right from wrong? And if proper actions must be learned through consequence or taught, then how can any say that humans (or any living thing) are inherently good? And if some would say we are born inherently bad or sinful, then from where does our goodness and morality emerge, for “from nothing, nothing comes”, and goodness and morality cannot come from badness, immorality, or indifference.

When I was a small child I got into a lot of trouble one day because some friends and I decided to build a fort in a neighbor's tree without their permission. We cut many branches in the tree and damaged it badly for the sake of fun. I learned this was wrong, and I even got to be a very scared five year old being interviewed by the state police. This happened because our society said it was wrong, but where did our society get this idea from? Was it learned through consequence? Did it emerge from a deep recess? Was it inherent, yet denied? Or was it created by the wrong, for the wrong, for all the wrong reasons?

I did not get into trouble for what I did to the tree, but I got into trouble that day because that tree was the neighbor's property. As a child I had no concept of anything like owning a tree. I had learned one can own a house, a toy, a car, furniture, a bed, and even a pet, but "owning a tree" or the very earth everyone walks on had never crossed my radar. The key phrase here, I think, is "I had learned".

There was nothing "naturally" wrong with what my friends and I did to the tree that day, in fact, any animal or natural force could have done the same and no police would have been called. Had an animal built a nest in the tree, insects come and devoured the tree, or a lightning strike or whirlwind come and destroyed the tree, no police would have been called despite the owner's belief that they "owned" the tree. So what is the difference between natural forces and the actions of a few small boys? The answer, I believe, is simply that small boys are humans, who are a part of a human society which invented the idea of "ownership", and thus, as small boys we were expected to learn the necessary and entirely created moral concept of recognizing and respecting "ownership". What we did was not inherently wrong, it was socially wrong.

This revelation, if true, leads to many other questions: Do social wrongs trump natural actions? Is there such a thing as a natural right or wrong? Can a social system be considered natural, since for instance, humans are a part of nature and humans are inherently social creatures? Is human society natural to the whole, or is it only natural to humans and, if so, are its moral guidelines and boundaries only applicable to humans? How can invented social standards justifiably override natural human actions, and where does this authority come from? Who decided that artificial social standards trump the concrete and natural? By what natural element is the idea of social law and acceptable behavior derived which allows for the artificial and often varying social standard to be elevated above the natural standard and still be rationed from out of the natural standard which is the only concrete point of origin from which one can begin to reason?

The problem here is very simple, yet not entirely obvious as to how it can be resolved, if it can even be resolved. Simply put, the social arises from the natural, yet it appears to turn the philosophical concept of superiors and inferiors or greater and lesser things on its head. How can the child come from their parent and justifiably claim to have a superior origin? What sort of reasoning is being used to assert the power of social law over what is otherwise deemed to be natural?

Is it that human social standards are not claiming to have a superior origin, but rather these various "systems" are claiming to have a superior future? If this is so, by what rational basis is this assertion being made? By what measure can one claim they are better, superior, or more pleasantly evolved other than by pure arrogance?

Society is a very complex structure, but the justification, and therefore necessity and purpose for it, lies in the answer to this problem: From where does it come; from where does it derive its authority; and can it justifiably claim both superiority and authority over its origin?

Finally, if social law is derived from the consent of those it governs, how can the governed be expected to consent to unnatural standards such as not stealing when hungry, the institution of marriage, peacefully accepting one's own offspring being taken by State institutions, consenting to the restriction of movement, the honoring of borders, and other social laws and customs which are nowhere to be found in nature? How can humans be expected to do what is not found in any nature, let alone human nature? What sort of madness is this unless the idea is to "change" human nature?

In my mind, most social laws and customs are entirely artificial, derived from nothing but human imagination, and therefore have no moral imperitive outside of human society. Some social laws and customs may indeed be based upon a sort of natural law which presides as an undercurrent in all things, but a very large portion of social laws and customs are as unnatural as a fetus in the womb of a male mammalian – they are insanely derived with highly unreasonable expectations, and it is quite probable that all social ills and problems can be traced to such unreasonable and unnatural expectations.

The only reasonable conclusion I am able to come to concerning the creation and implementation of seemingly unreasonable and unnatural social laws and customs is that they are intended to change human nature, but for whom or what, for what end, by what authority, and in accordance with what manner of reason? The answer may be pleasant or it may be too scary to face, for the only time humans try to change nature is when they intend to control it.

The purpose behind all social law and custom is control, this is obvious to anyone and agreed to be necessary by most; however, actually altering human nature rather than merely managing and containing it is an altogether different and potentially dangerous or disasterous undertaking. As individuals we owe it to ourselves, our environment, and our neighbors to question the wisdom of such an undertaking and to postulate not only the end result, but the "who", "what", "where", "when", "how", and "why" which lies beneath the surface of this undertaking. Altering human nature, if even possible, is something which should not be taken lightly, and we need to have an open discussion about it.

Peace,

Alraune

Why I Am a Cynic

Statue of the Unknown Cynic (public domain)

Why I Am a Cynic

By Alraune

I'll readily admit that I have entertained the idea of anarchism, but I will also admit that after following those thoughts through I quickly realized that true anarchism is a breeding ground for all sorts of evil. In an anarchist society (with humans anyway) the crazies and the truly evil are going to take over and enslave everyone to their society - it's just a matter of time. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the civilization arose from the minds of crazy and evil people who took the first leap to bring it into being and point to history as my evidence, particularly the form of governance known as the State, if it wouldn't get the lovers of society so riled up they would miss the point of this post.

Laws, laws, laws! That's the problem and the joke. We don't require so many and we all know it, yet we find ourselves living under more and more. Sure, we require some laws or else we'd have anarchy, so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater I'd like to just take a look at laws and bring to your mind what I mean when I say they are the problem.

Who makes laws? People. And in a democratic society who makes laws? The people (supposedly). And since laws are nothing more than universally accepted decrees by people how does one go about making a law that is accepted by the majority? You change public opinion. So essentially society is governed by a set of agreements on things called "laws" that are decided by public opinion which can easily be influenced, changed, or altered by nothing more than a seemingly convincing arguement, or a couple billion dollars and a huge media operation. Does this realization make me bad for declaring myself a Cynic?

But let's look at the core of society and civilization and ask ourselves...Why do we need laws? We need them because the crazies and the truly evil will hurt us and rule over us without them. So we need government whether we like it or not. If we don't have some form of governance a form will be given to us by the crazies and the truly evil.

So, with that in mind, what sort of laws do we really need? And here is why I am a Cynic...We only truly need a handful of laws - that is it. I'd think 99.9% of people would agree we need a law to say "This is our form of governance", another law forbidding murder, one forbidding all forms of rape or forceful and violent bodily harm, one forbidding theft, one forbidding swindling, one protecting the planet from being raped, and that's about it. The rest can sort itself out in anarchist type fashion without turning into Hell on Earth.

Plain and simple. We only need a handful of laws that cannot ever be changed or altered, which are absolute and eternal (unlike other laws), which require no interpretation. If a jury of peers says it happened, it happened - end of story, and they even get to create the punishment to fit the crime.

Yeah, you're still going to have wrong-doing, but at least you won't have anyone telling you what to put in your own body, to wear your seat belt, or to please stand over here while you protest (such laws are put in place to prevent death and harm, supposedly, but personally I'd rather take my chances at being self responsible and responsible for my offspring, as well as responsible for whether or not I kill or hurt anyone through my actions than have more laws telling me or anyone else what to do. Unlike some, I have faith that in such a society common sense will eventually win out and be a dominant trait rather than nonexistent like it is in our modern society.

Some might cry, "But what about equality? How would we guarantee all people are treated equally?" To that I answer, "You can't do it. We can't even do it in this hellhole we call modern society." It's not laws that make people equal - it's morals. So long as murder is murder and harming others is seen as one of the universal laws, that's about all that "government" can and should do - the rest is up to us. Less laws and more self involvement through responsible action and moral integrity - that's the ticket!

And still some would say, "You said theft should be outlawed, but how would we know what belongs to who without more laws?" A jury of peers. Your neighbor isn't going to want to see you lose your property anymore than you want to see him lose his, and if dishonesty emerges, everyone will understand that what comes around goes around, because some day it will be your turn on the jury deciding your neighbor's fate, which promotes honesty and integrity.

In my humble opinion, life is complex and hellish because we have so many complex and hellish laws and hoops to jump through and sort out in the name of "safety and security" - it is always in the name of safety and security. All of this forced prevention stuff has to end and we have to bring back self responsibility. For example, we have to make people not want to drive drunk and kill people (through the creation of moral integrity, a reason to live, and maybe even wanting to live sober, as well as have self responsibility) rather than forbidding them to drive drunk, which then brings on checkpoints and all sorts of ridiculous laws which invade our privacy, our lives, and our peace.

And forced preventitive "pre-crime" laws are just one category of laws destroying society rather than helping it. Basically, in my opinion, if it doesn't land under one of the handful of necessary laws I suggested - it is unnecessary and tyrannical. Educational laws and tax laws would be two other forms that simply shouldn't be, in my opinion. Who's going to build the roads then? Whoever the hell wants too. And how are we guaranteed a right to use that road? You're not, but you would be guaranteed you couldn't be killed or beaten or swindled for trying.

We need to simplify. It shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit, rip-off people, or sell worthless junk, and have all the laws that come with those decrees, it should just be unlawful to swindle others - one law says it all. Let a jury decide if any instance amounts to swindling. Don't allow government or some agency to interpret the law - let the people do it, and only let the people do it in small numbers on a case-by-case basis!

So why am I cynical of society besides some of the reasons mentioned above? Because you can't drive 65 in a 55 because it is unsafe, but it is perfectly safe for a cop with flashing lights to drive 80 in a 55 just to catch up with you to pull you over and give you a fine - it makes no sense. If the point is that you might kill someone by driving at such an unsafe speed, then why is the cop driving at an unsafe speed and potentially threatening lives just to pull you over? Yeah, he might be taking more precautions, but for what? The presumption that you "might" kill or hurt someone? It's kind of stupid when you think about it, especially when you realize that people still speed, so all the speeding laws are really doing is placing double the lives in jeopardy for a pre-crime concept, and of course, generating money for the criminal State. Maybe more people would drive safely if more people cared about life, and maybe more people would care about life if they had more self-responsibility, and maybe more people would be responsible if they had more self-responsiblity on their plate and less laws made by the State to provide them with "safety and security"?

So, I am an extreme minimalist on many levels, and one of them is when it comes to laws and governance. In this society, the one we have, I am a Cynic. I laugh at it and see it all as one huge joke. Like Diogenes of Sinope, you might think of me as a dog or a poor and lowly creature for not loving this magnificent civilization, but like Diogenes, I think the dog a nobel creature who needs but a few rules to govern his life, a life with more dignity and care for the self and others than any so-called civilized society in existence on this planet. Sure, a dog might do some pretty disgusting things, but then again...who decided those things were disgusting - it wasn't the dogs. But don't worry, even if you happen to think your dog does some disgusting things he'll still greet you with enthusiasm and love when you return home after your most recent outing in this magnificent hellhole we call modern civilization, and be there to remind you that someone still gives a damn and he (or she) didn't need any damned laws to teach them how to love others.

On the Nature of Society

The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On the Nature of Society

by Alraune

Our conversation continues in the small apartment occupied by our young couple, somewhere in Pennsylvania.

Kim: Here is another mass-produced beer.

Jeff: Thank you.

Kim: Since you claim the way things are run are so horrible, why don't you just make your own home-brewed beer and be a small bug in the system?

Jeff: You make an excellent point, and I move closer every day to implementing such things, but the fact of the matter is (for example), if enough people simply made their own beer, the people for which this society was truly designed and intended to benefit would outlaw the making of such. They'd never allow it if it really threatened their money and their power.

Kim: I don't know about these elite people you speak of, but I think you are probably correct in thinking that someone (probably the major beer manufacturers) would push to outlaw home-brewing if it got to be a threat to their profits.

Jeff: Yes. Thankfully it is not a threat because it costs too much, so if one chooses they may take that route, at least as things currently stand.

Kim: But couldn't we just say that they dominate because they make a good product for cheap and so people are willing to pay for it?

Jeff: Yes we could, and I would go for that, but the fact of the matter is that corporations and individuals—I'm not really speaking about beer right now—still use government to make profits by outlawing things or suppressing things, and that is not right. It is no longer the law of supply and demand when they use their money and power to squash the competition.

Kim: Yes. I suppose you are right.

Jeff: Such people are no longer playing by the rules of supply and demand, but instead are trying to cheat the game by buying off the referee. And that speaks directly to why I say society is not designed to benefit us, but to benefit a small few.

Kim: So are you going to tell me what society is supposed to be for and why it is not being used for that purpose already, or are you going to make me wait all day?

Jeff: Yes. I will. Now, what did we say the purpose of man was?

Kim: If by the purpose of man, you mean our purpose as humans in this life..."The purpose of this life is to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature."

Jeff: And by the “least intrusive manner necessary” we mean "the least intrusive manner of necessary self-sustainment,” correct?

Kim: Yes.

Jeff: Well, society has no useful purpose to any individual human being unless it is purposed to aid in the acquisition of the purpose of man; that purpose being what we just cited.

Kim: So you are saying that the purpose of society is also to sustain our existence in the least intrusive manner necessary in order to help attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature?

Jeff: Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.

Kim: Well, wouldn't progress be part of that?

Jeff: Yes it would.

Kim: Then I do not see what your problem is. I mean, I understand there are imperfections which need fixed, but you claim the entire thing is broken and never was intended for that. I just don't see it. Furthermore, it seems kind of hypocritical for you to be accusing society of all these wrongs while sitting in a house, drinking a beer, sitting on a chair, and listening to the radio.

Jeff: Look. Just because some dude who works for a major radio or television station tells you something, you shouldn't just go out and repeat it, because frankly, that's what that accusation of "hypocrasy" of your's just was, and we both know it. I am not saying the things we produce are wrong. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. I am saying it is how we obtain them and who benefits that is wrong. Furthermore, so long as I or anyone else has no choice in the matter, arguing that I utilize things made in the system is a meaningless argument.

Kim: You do so have a choice!

Jeff: Tell me, I'd love to hear.

Kim: Just leave. Drop out of society if you don't like it!

Jeff: And be arrested as a criminal, a vagrant, or mentally ill. Yeah, sure. Because that's leaving it. Having society come and lock you away for refusing to be part of it is hardly what I call a choice.

Kim: Well, then move to another country.

Jeff: It's all the same wherever you go. Different governments and cultures, but the same system. There is no where to go, Kim, so don't play that card. The fact is, I don't have a choice, and neither do you.

Kim: You're sounding like an anarchist again.

Jeff: What is it going to take to get through your head that I am not bashing your precious television or your running water or any of that? It's the root purpose of it all, don't you get that? I'm saying it is what stands at the heart, not what you see on the surface. I don't hate society, I despise the wrongful and manipulative purpose it is used and intended for.

Kim: So you want society to fall?

Jeff: No.

Kim: Then what do you want? You are confusing the hell out of me.

Jeff: That's because you are giving me all your pre-programmed defenses before you even bother to hear what I'm actually going to say. It's alright. You can get them all out and then we can have an actual conversation.

Kim: Don't do that to me.

Jeff: What?

Kim: Your "you are being programmed" hoo-dee-do. Don't even start.

Jeff: Fine. I am sorry if I offended you. I just want to speak without being labelled an "anarchist" or accused of hypocrasy or any number of things. Can we debate the matter and both leave attacks on the messenger out of it?

Kim: Yes. Let's do that.

Jeff: Fine. So tell me then who you think society is supposed to benefit?

Kim: I suppose the majority.

Jeff: And why so?

Kim: Because you can't make everyone happy, so the best thing would seem to be that society should seek to aid the purpose of this life by doing what is best for the majority.

Jeff: So if you believe society is supposed to benefit the majority, then why do you suppose anyone would "sign-up" for it, knowing that sooner or later they would not be in that majority?

Kim: Well, maybe it's not supposed to only benefit the majority then. If the purpose of each and everyone of us is to live as long as possible in order to have as many positive experiences as possible, in the least intrusive way, then I don't see how anyone in their right mind would want to be part of something which only benefited the majority, since you are correct. Sooner or later you will not be in that majority, and the benefits do not necessarily outweigh the negatives if the majority chooses to benefit itself in a way that greatly screws you.

Jeff: Like taking their tanks and their bombs and blowing people up so they can heat their homes in the winter?

Kim: Yeah.

Jeff: And maybe locking you away "just in case" because they just so happen to be blowing up your grandparents over in some foreign country where you originally immigrated from?

Kim: Yes.

Jeff: Or maybe taking your children because you smoke pot, and the majority don't think you should?

Kim: Well yeah, but the majority don't care if people smoke pot.

Jeff: Which would be evidence of why society is not meant to benefit the majority.

Kim: But it can't be intended to benefit the minority, because that's just as bad as benefiting the majority! Society should be in place to benefit the whole.

Jeff: Now we're cooking! It is my belief that the purpose of society is to aid in the sustainment of the existence of the whole of its members, in the least intrusive manner necessary, in order to help as many of its members as possible (all preferably) attain the greatest possible abundance of personal and communal experiences of a positive nature. And if possible, to improve upon the ways in which it seeks to carry out that mission.

Kim: Okay. I can agree with that, and I knew that's what you were eventually going to say, but how is our society (or any society for that matter) not doing that?

Jeff: Well, first let's look at how society aims to achieve anything in the first place. Our civilization, our society, is made up of four great pillars: economy, government, morality (or religion), and science and the arts as well as the dissemination of them (ie. education, language, etc.). Those four things are the tools any civilization uses to achieve its purposes.

Kim: Okay. Now, I'm not accusing you of being an anarchist, but are you suggesting that we should do away with those things?

Jeff: No.

Kim: Good.

Jeff: But I am suggesting they are all used improperly and that is why the world is screwed up. I would also suggest a complete revamping of the pillar of economy. I would not recommend any economic system that currently floats around out there as a solution (especially socialism). I would suggest something entirely different. Furthermore, I would state that the heart of the problem I speak of is that economy, government, religion, and the arts and sciences, particularly the dissemination of them via education, are all used to control us in a very intrusive, ignorant, and malicious manner.

Kim: That's quite the statement. What do you have to back it up?

Jeff: How about two very well respected and prominent philosophers, just for starters.

Jeff reaches for his cell phone and thumbs through it.

Jeff: Here's Socrates...I'll read to you directly from Plato's Republic. Socrates is speaking with Glaucon.

Socrates: And how can marriages be made most beneficial? That is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?

Glaucon: In what particulars?

Socrates: Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?

Glaucon: True.

Socrates: And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?

Glaucon: From the best.

Socrates: And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?

Glaucon: I choose only those of ripe age.

Socrates: And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly

deteriorate?

Glaucon: Certainly.

Socrates: And the same of horses and of animals in general?

Glaucon: Undoubtedly.

Socrates: Good heavens! My dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!

Glaucon: Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill?

Socrates: Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.

Glaucon: That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?

Socrates: I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.

Glaucon: And we were very right.

Socrates: And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of

marriages and births.

Glaucon: How so?

Socrates: Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

Glaucon: Very true.

Socrates: Had we better not appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

Glaucon: Certainly, he replied.

Socrates: We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

Glaucon: To be sure, he said.

Kim: Oh my God! That sounds like eugenics. And what was that about using medicines on the general public and lying about it? And that stuff about festivals and sacrifices and the pairing of the less worthy with the less worthy. That's not freedom! That's total control.

Jeff: Oh, you're quick. But hold it there one second. Allow me to quote a man who is considered one of the greatest philosophers of modern time. I am sure you have heard of Bertrand Russell, the man who wrote A History of Western Philosophy?

Kim: Yeah. I know who that is.

Jeff: Here's Bertrand Russell in his book, The Impact of Science on Society, where he says on pages 49-50: "Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy...It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche [Fitche, as you know, was a prominent philosopher of the German Idealist school, and a proponent of German nationalism] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

Kim: Holy s—!

Jeff: Hold on. I'm not done yet. Here's Mr. Russell in his book, The Scientific Outlook, "In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry will be brought into play...All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."

"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative..."

"On the rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."

Kim: Did he just say they need to kill anyone who gets too smart for their breeches?

Jeff: Yes. That is exactly what he said.

Kim: Okay. I'll have to let these quotes you just read me sink in for a little bit. That's some pretty wild stuff. I can hardly believe such prominent and well-respected men really said those things. And to think, so much of our modern society is based upon and shaped around the ideas of these men.

Jeff: Precisely my point.

Kim: But just because they said some crazy things doesn't mean we are really doing them, does it?

Jeff: Just because Socrates and Russell actually did make those statements, does not mean they are being implemented, but they are being implemented nonetheless. However, that is not the point I am trying to make anyway, so it doesn't matter whether you believe those things are actually being carried out or not (although they are and have been for quite some time, and I urge you to research the matter for yourself). Those quotes were read to you to give you a glimpse of those things, but more importantly to show you that our society, our civilization, is a well-thought-out machine. It is planned and ordered, and neither you nor I are anywhere near those who do the actually planning and running of society. Furthermore, if you read the works of those who mold and shape society with their philosophical arguments, you will see that the four pillars we spoke of are not used to achieve the ends we stated society should seek to achieve. Society is not for the benefit of the whole, it is for the benefit of the guys up top.

Kim: I think you are hitting me with too much at once, Jeff. Let's stop for a little bit, maybe even call it a night. I really need to let this stuff sink in.

Jeff: Okay.

Kim: You'd better stay here tonight. You've been drinking for quite a while now, and you look like you are ripped out of your mind.

Jeff: It's the only way to live.

Kim: Alright then. Let's crash out and we can continue this discussion tomorrow.

On Society & Morals: The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim

The Dialogues of Jeff & Kim: On Society & Morals

by Alraune

Our conversation begins in a small apartment somewhere in Pennsylvania. A young man and woman, both in their twenties, are sitting at a round oak kitchen table. It is daylight outside, but the evening has set. The two had just finished playing rummy and chatting about metaphysics. The young woman, named Kim, is shuffling a worn deck of cards while the man leans back in the wooden chair in which he is seated and stairs out the kitchen window onto the busy street below.

Kim: What are you thinking about, Jeff?

Jeff: I was thinking about how there are people who say we make our own world. And if that is so, and I think the world is a messed up place—like how that guy just cursed out that lady down there—then what does that say about me?

Kim: Well, what if we don't make our own world? What if someone or something else is making it? What would that say about that someone or something else?

Jeff: And if we all make our world, what does that say about us?

Kim: I guess no one is perfect, and we are all messed up.

Jeff: But we all know it, and yet some are more messed up than others. And still some think they are barely messed up and the bulk of our problems are the fault of those who are more messed up.

Kim: Well, doesn't the killer and the warmonger do more wrong to our world than the liar?

Jeff: I think my gut reaction would be “yes,” but any sort of reasoning would inevitably conclude that's probably not true.

Kim. Are you saying a little girl who lies to her mother is just as bad as a psychopath who kills hundreds of thousands of people? You can't be serious! Besides, maybe if we could stop the big problems we'd have time to correct the little ones.

Jeff: But the little ones add up.

Kim: Yes, but they are nowhere near as destructive as some.

Jeff: I don't know. A thousand little bugs make one big tick. Imagine if everyone or even 25% of people lied to everyone on a regular basis. Could they not wreak more havoc than most bullets or bombs?

Kim: I just don't believe lying is as bad as killing. Maybe in some instances, like huge lies where someone lies to the fireman and tells him there is no one in the building, or if the majority are lying the majority of the time, but certainly not always.

Jeff: Likewise, killing is not always the greater evil. We kill to eat, life must feed on life. And we kill for self defense. Killing for the preservation of life is considered good, for the one who's life it preserves. But can you really be all that certain a little “white lie” is as harmless as you think?

Kim: What if I told you that you were one of the most attractive men I've ever seen, but I was only telling you that to make you feel good about yourself (no offense), would that be so bad?

Jeff: Well, supposing I took you seriously, so that I thought more highly of myself than I ought too. And suppose I went out after a much more attractive woman than yourself (no offense), and I was shot down in a really mean and rude manner so that I developed some sort of complex, or depression, or worse. Would any of that be your fault?

Kim: No. It would be the ignorant woman who did that to you, who must have been much uglier inside than myself. You see, I was trying to be nice, but she was not. I couldn't have known the future, so I can't be held responsible for what you did with the information I provided you, or how that caused others to affect you.

Jeff: I see. Push it off on me and the other woman. You had no part in it.

Kim: I didn't say I had no part in it, but that I cannot be held responsible for what ocurred because I cannot tell the future. Not to mention, I would not be the only cause. If anything I was merely an indirect cause among many others.

Jeff: Ok, but do you see my point then?

Kim: No. I do not.

Jeff: A thousand little bugs make one big tick. You might be a good bug, just doing your “buggy thing,” maybe even trying to help out a little, but you're still a bug.

Kim: First off, don't call me a bug. Second off, even good intentions that are not lies can sometimes go horribly wrong. Supposing you told your best friend you saw his girlfriend cheating on him. You did not lie, and you did the socially acceptable thing and told him (him being your best friend and all), but then he went and beat her and the guy up. Would that not be at least partially your fault, using your logic?

Jeff: No. Because in that instance I was the only one actually doing the right thing. He did the wrong thing and his girlfriend and the other guy did the wrong thing. The truth, by definition, cannot be the wrong thing. Lying would have been the wrong thing for me to do. Besides, what good would I have done by lying or holding my tongue? At least there was the possibility of some good in me telling the truth and caring enough about my friend to do so.

Kim: I see. So it's not just the intention which counts with you, but right or wrong. And how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Jeff: Experience!

Kim: I'm waiting...

Jeff: Like I said, “experience.” It is right for me to tell you the porch is icy so you do not fall and hurt yourself. It is right to do that which saves pain, sorrow, suffering, death, and generally protects happiness and well-being.

Kim: So how would my telling you that you are more attractive than you actually are be wrong under that definition? And how would telling your friend his girlfriend is cheating on him be right by that definition?

Jeff: Immediate necessity. It would not have been an immediate necessity for you to tell me I was very attractive in order to save me from loss of well-being. On the other hand, it would have been an immediate necessity to tell my friend his girlfriend was cheating on him to potentially save him pain and suffering. She could have given him a disease!

Kim: Ok, so you are saying that right and wrong is something you learn by experience, and that to do right is to save yourself or others from a loss of well-being by acting out of an immediate necessity to do so.

Jeff: Precisely.

Kim: But what about his girlfriend? Surely you did her wrong because you caused her a loss of well-being.

Jeff: Ah, I knew you were going to bring that up!

Kim: Of course.

Jeff: Well obviously, given the fact that we must kill to eat or preserve our own lives in certain situations, then I would say that an immediate and personal care is also a part of immediate necessity.

Kim: In other words, if you care for someone and you do not want their well-being to be endangered, you would do what you learned from experience to be the correct thing to do under such a circumstance to prevent a loss of well-being provided it was an immediate necessity.

Jeff: Yes. I would do unto them what I wanted done unto me.

Kim: But what if I would have wanted you to lie to me and tell me I was the most attractive woman you ever saw, even though I know that to not be the truth? Would I then, by your definition, be guilty of doing you wrong by telling you what I would have wanted to hear myself?

Jeff: I think you make a good point, and the answer is that morality cannot be totally subjective, otherwise problems such as you mention would arise.

Kim: If it is even a problem. You are trying to say that my little “white lie” can cause big problems. You called me a bug, remember.

Jeff: Oh yes, I seem to have forgotten about that. And there is your answer! Morality is both a subjective thing such as: Do unto others as you want done to yourself, and a form of social order in which you do what is best for society. In other words, don't be a bunch of fleas biting the dog! If everybody is telling little “white lies”, then nobody is telling the truth and society is bogged down and hindered in its progression.

Kim: There you go again you jerk!

Jeff: What?

Kim: You called me a bug again!

Jeff: Ah, sorry about that. Don't worry, I'm a bug too. We all are! And if one of us little bugs gets too annoying society swats us and squishes us, just like bugs.

Kim: Well, you might be a bug anyway, but if you are right, then how does society make such a judgement? Besides treating others as we would want to be treated how do we, as a society, decide what is right or wrong for its progression? And can one outweigh the other? For instance, supposing you were a social and political activist who the majority could all agree on a subjective and personal level really was no threat and certainly not deserving of imprisonment, but your ideas were a threat to the current social structure? In such circumstances it seems that society always wins and the individual is done away with. Just look at Christ, Ghandi, Mandella, and Martin Luther King, Jr., or on the other side of the coin: Hitler, Mao, or Stalin.

Jeff: I think you are confusing the force of government with society in many of your examples, but I get your point. Although we need to be careful not to confuse government with society.

Kim: But why? Isn't government what establishes and maintains social order?

Jeff: Hence why the world is messed up.

Kim: So what, now you want anarchy?

Jeff: No, but I don't think a government should be telling me what to do anymore than I would want another person telling me what to do.

Kim: Maybe that's the problem? Everybody has an opinion, even governments and whole societies.

Jeff: No opinions are not the problem, it is when they are enforced or hindered with force which is the problem.

Kim: I think you might be right.

Jeff: Of course I am.

Kim: About what? That I am a bug?

Jeff: I said I was sorry. I didn't mean it that way. Would you let it go already?

Kim: I'll let it go for now, just don't let it happen again.

Jeff: Agreed. Now, where were we?

Kim: Forcing or hindering opinions.

Jeff: Ah yes.

Kim: But what if one is of the opinion that they should hurt another group?

Jeff: You mean like a government?

Kim: No, I mean like a hate-group.

Jeff: Oh, you can see my obvious confusion.

Kim: There you go again. You really do want anarchy don't you?

Jeff: No, just peace.

Kim: So what of it?

Jeff: I believe they should be allowed to voice their opinion, but that they should be dealt with if they try to force their opinion on others by hurting others or hindering their well-being.

Kim: But what if their opinion hurts someone's well-being, like their feelings?

Jeff: That's not a good enough reason to force them to do anything.

Kim: But isn't their opinion dangerous, or potentially so?

Jeff: Yes, and that is the chance a free society is supposed to be willing to take. Otherwise, any government or majority could say anything is potentially dangerous and before long no one would have any freedom, and no opinion. At least not any opinion that ever mattered, in which case why have one?

Kim: But we still haven't resolved when it is that the moral opinion of society should supercede that of the individual, or even if so.

Jeff: The society is an organism like the individual, and like the individual it will ultimately place itself above all others if it comes down to it even if it means breaking the Golden Rule.

Kim: You mean eventhough no well functioning human being would want to be killed by another for self preservation they would still kill if they had to in order to preserve their own life, such as where self preservation overrides the Golden Rule in the case of eating or self defense. You mean a society will do that to?

Jeff: Yes. Eventhough it does not appear to be an organism like you or I would normally think of, it is still an organism and behaves exactly like one.

Kim: Well then it seems as if everything is really just “survival of the fittest” then. Why do we even bother?

Jeff: I think we bother because there is something else about our humanity that we are trying to figure out, something which rises above the animalistic survival-of-the-fittest mentality such as in the case of one who gives their life for another.

Kim: Self-sacrifice for a loved-one or for society is noble, but when have you ever known a society to be willing to sacrifice itself? And what does it really get you except dead? Is a child whose mother died saving her from a burning building better off than a dead child and a living mother? Who will raise her? How could she possibly not be messed up for the rest of her life? And what of sacrificing your child to save your own life (due to medical complications), is it any less noble to save yourself, whom you also love and others love? Maybe the mother has children already who need her?

Jeff: So you think sacrifice of the self is the same as sacrificing another, and it's really just a different expression of survival?

Kim: Yes. All it is really saying is, “Ok. I know we all have to eat, so I'll tell you what, how about you eat me today instead of fighting over it?” I mean, even if a mother dies saving her child, and especially if she knew it was going to turn out that way, wasn't she really just doing it to preserve her offspring? So in the end, she was really just doing it for herself eventhough we'd love to think she was some super noble and loving mother, she was only doing what she thought was in her own interest of self-preservation.

Jeff: Wow! And all of this coming from a mother. I'll never look at my own mother the same again! So a loving mother is nothing more than a woman who knows her time has come and gone so she offers to let her young eat her rather than eating her young. How depressing is that?

Kim: Hey, if it really is all survival-of-the-fittest then that is the reality, and “yes,” it is depressing. So maybe we bother with things like the Golden Rule because it is better to lie to ourselves in order to preserve our own happiness and well-being? I mean who could really find happiness knowing that that mysterious force we call love is nothing more than the depressing situation I described above?

Jeff: I think you just described the ultimate problem with the world and why it is so messed up.

Kim: I did?

Jeff: Yes. We all know we would not want to be used by another for its own preservation, yet we must and do use others for our own preservation. Even societies are built on that premise where it uses all of its members to preserve itself. We are all walking in a constant state of hypocrisy from which there is no escape if we love our own lives. All of our morals are really just “niceties” we do to make ourselves feel less hypocritical because in the end we are all just killers.

Kim: So now I am a killer because I want to live. Is there no difference between killing for fun and killing for necessity?

Jeff: Yes. And the difference we created is what makes our existence bearable, and it also helps to preserve our own lives by maintaining a sense of order where a bunch of psychopaths are not running around killing for sport.

Kim: Wow! And you said I was depressing. I get your point, but I don't agree with it.

Jeff: How so?

Kim: Well, I just don't believe that the only difference between me and some guy who hacks people up and eats them for breakfast is that I am well behaved. For starters, I do not eat people.

Jeff: Good point, and I was hoping you would say that, otherwise I would have had to of ended this conversation and ran to a public area for my own self-preservation.

Kim: But you do look tasty. I think I have some salt and ketchup packets in my purse.

Jeff: I make a better lollipop than a cheesburger.

Kim: Behave yourself, and get back to why you think I am a psychopathic cannibal bug, yet are perfectly willing to make corny passes at me.

Jeff: Oh that's easy! I'm a man. We'll make a pass at anything if the mood is right.

Kim: Gee thanks. You sure know how to charm a lady. So now I'm just anything too. You're a real Romeo there, Jeff.

Jeff: Why is it that everything I say to you is taken as an insult?

Kim: Because it is.

Jeff: Ok, let's drop it and get back to the discussion.

Kim: As I was saying (and some of your comments make me wonder why), I believe there is a basic good in humanity, so I just don't buy your estimation that we are all somehow walking hypocritical killers.

Jeff: I hear that a lot. What does that even mean? Where is this basic good? There are wars everywhere, the majority of the world's population is in poverty, corporate banks are out to make a buck and rob the little man at every turn, children are kidnapped and worse, women and men are kidnapped and worse, governments are killing people every day in the name of “civility”, an enormous number of people are doped up on some sort of prescription drugs because there is supposedly something wrong with everyone's mind or body or something or other, and the list could go on for days. Where is this basic good you are talking about?

Kim: Well, you don't have to fear for your life every time you leave your house do you? You can basically enjoy yourself and basically live your life, right?

Jeff: Living is not necessarily “good” living, and “basically enjoy” means what? That I can get up at 5am, be stuck in traffic, put up with people who hate their job, grab a cheeseburger for lunch, put up with more people who hate their job, get stuck in traffic again, go home take a hot shower, drink a beer, eat a steak, read a book and then go to bed only to do it again for five sometimes six days?

Kim: So what do you want, a free ride?

Jeff: See. You complain that I insult you, but so far you've called me a jerk, an anarchist, and now a free-loader.

Kim: Well all is fair in love and war.

Jeff: Yes it seems so, and “no” I do not want a free ride, but I do not believe what passes for a “basically good” life is basically good. I think it is tolerable for most people, and some can't take it, which is evidence that it can't be all that good. Look at the suicide, homocide and crime rates in a society and let that be your judge as to whether or not life is “basically good” and there is a “basic good” in the hearts of humanity. That's probably why our society is so quick to put everyone on meds, so they can mask how shitty it really is.

Kim: So then what do you believe is good and what is your grand idea?

Jeff: Grab some papers and I'll go get some beer. This is going to take awhile.