The philosophy of minding your own business

nightlight7

zeroBelief
Notice this thread is in the PHILOSOPHY section?

Not the LEGAL section?

Notice I didn't say "EVERYONE HAS TO THINK THIS WAY?"

It is wrong headed philosophically and legally. The fundamental principle is that your right to pursue your happiness, however you evaluate it, provided your pursuit doesn't violate the same right of others, should not be infringed by the state. It doesn't matter whether the state or (junk or real) science declares that your pursuit is harming you -- that is entirely your business.

The above fundamental principle is a special case of more general harmonization unfolding in universe at all levels. For example, biological systems do not violate laws of physics pursued by their building blocks, atoms and molecules. Generally, the harmonization operates by higher levels accepting the fundamental rules and laws of operation of the lower systems or their components. We as individuals are to society what molecules are to the cells and our inherent urge and creator given right to pursue our happiness as we see fit should not be overridden by the state or social organism (via tyranny of majority), provided it doesn't harm the same right of other individuals.

The beauty of it is, pal, you may feel free to read it any way you see fit.

Enjoy yourself. No, really...ENJOY yourself.

reply to post by zeroBelief


I live by two rules, cause no harm (including psychological) and cause no loss.

iRoyalty
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

I live by two rules, cause no harm (including psychological) and cause no loss.

I was going to say similar. Do no harm.

The next part is directed generally.

As for the people that complain about limiting their access to others, well, they just like minding other people's business. No other reason why you would care. I don't care what you do on your side of the fence, as long as it does no harm to me and mine, and vice-versa. Anything else is a cop-out, or an ego trip.

zeroBelief

Bone75
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Name something you can do that won't have any kind of negative effect on anyone else. I can only think of a couple, but I'm interested in what you might come up with.

This is not a debate, this is a personal credo.

Well in that case... No. I don't agree with any of them.
Is that better?

reply to post by zeroBelief


when i was a kid, i aim to grow as a good person (won't harm anyone)
but then i got bullied by friends, things change after that, lol

i kinda agree with all you said.
but the only thing i wonder,
should we also judge 'evil' actions of others?
for me, everyone deserve 'second' chance (i said 'second' because everybody makes mistakes after mistakes, one day they will realise it is wrong, and accept and stop)

peace.

Bone75

zeroBelief

Bone75
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Name something you can do that won't have any kind of negative effect on anyone else. I can only think of a couple, but I'm interested in what you might come up with.

This is not a debate, this is a personal credo.

Well in that case... No. I don't agree with any of them.
Is that better?

Fantastic, bub...live your life...however you see fit.

Just don't interfere in mine...as I won't be interfering with yours.

Really rather simple.

dodol
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

when i was a kid, i aim to grow as a good person (won't harm anyone)
but then i got bullied by friends, things change after that, lol

i kinda agree with all you said.
but the only thing i wonder,
should we also judge 'evil' actions of others?
for me, everyone deserve 'second' chance (i said 'second' because everybody makes mistakes after mistakes, one day they will realise it is wrong, and accept and stop)

peace.

Well, that's a good point you bring up.

First of all, I'd like to reiterate, I don't see this as being any kind of legal system. Really, just a personal approach to life.

Much like Christianity, I do agree with giving second chances. To deny this, is to deny that you yourself may or may have made your own mistakes. Acknowledging this fact is a huge personal step.

nightlight7

zeroBelief
Notice this thread is in the PHILOSOPHY section?

Not the LEGAL section?

Notice I didn't say "EVERYONE HAS TO THINK THIS WAY?"

It is wrong headed philosophically and legally. The fundamental principle is that your right to pursue your happiness, however you evaluate it, provided your pursuit doesn't violate the same right of others, should not be infringed by the state. It doesn't matter whether the state or (junk or real) science declares that your pursuit is harming you -- that is entirely your business.

The above fundamental principle is a special case of more general harmonization unfolding in universe at all levels. For example, biological systems do not violate laws of physics pursued by their building blocks, atoms and molecules. Generally, the harmonization operates by higher levels accepting the fundamental rules and laws of operation of the lower systems or their components. We as individuals are to society what molecules are to the cells and our inherent urge and creator given right to pursue our happiness as we see fit should not be overridden by the state or social organism (via tyranny of majority), provided it doesn't harm the same right of other individuals.

Thanks for the chuckle!

reply to post by zeroBelief


To the point.

I like it!

I'd be curious as to see why some would dislike it, though.

beezzer
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

To the point.

I like it!

I'd be curious as to see why some would dislike it, though.

Frankly, I'm not all that surprised to see the contrarians out in force. There are always those out there that enjoy attempting to stick a finger into someone else's eye for the fun of it. And there are those who simply get off on the idea of a "mental victory" by way of trolling a debate over a fairly simple and straightforward idea.

As to the ones who "dislike" (if you can genuinely say you "dislike" being left to your own devices to live life the way you'd like to live so long as you don't harm others) it, they seem to be overtly examining with a fine toothed comb where truly none is needed. Simple, easy basics. Not exactly a complex thing I'm conveying.

reply to post by zeroBelief


The people on the opposite side of the road from me had their big trees selectively cut. They had two forties of land that extended about a sixth of a mile towards town. The first big storm we had, I lost three big pines, one knocking the power off the house. All along the road there were trees crisscrossed and power lines sitting all over. The logging had changed the way the wind hit the remaining trees, they changed the lay of the land. They had the right to cut their trees, I can't argue about that, but it effected all their neighbors and some motorists who were trapped between the trees on the road, one tree even landed on a car.

Seems that the forest works together to make it strong against the winds. Now the remaining trees on my land are ok, the wind punched a path through so the wind now has a place to go. Nature's correction occurred. I don't hold this against them because they didn't know. My question is do loggers know this happen and not say anything. I would bet some do know this happens.

I was talking to the old county Road commission supervisor and he said that happens a lot. He also told me it is not good to cut trees on hillsides

reply to post by zeroBelief


That's what bothers me. Reality is not nearly as straight forward and simple as these ridiculous principals would want you to believe.

There are FAR too many exceptions which utterly destroy it's effective usefulness.

This kind of mindset brings the bar too low for my standards.

+Simple as that+

LOL

rickymouse
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

The people on the opposite side of the road from me had their big trees selectively cut. They had two forties of land that extended about a sixth of a mile towards town. The first big storm we had, I lost three big pines, one knocking the power off the house. All along the road there were trees crisscrossed and power lines sitting all over. The logging had changed the way the wind hit the remaining trees, they changed the lay of the land. They had the right to cut their trees, I can't argue about that, but it effected all their neighbors and some motorists who were trapped between the trees on the road, one tree even landed on a car.

Seems that the forest works together to make it strong against the winds. Now the remaining trees on my land are ok, the wind punched a path through so the wind now has a place to go. Nature's correction occurred. I don't hold this against them because they didn't know. My question is do loggers know this happen and not say anything. I would bet some do know this happens.

I was talking to the old county Road commission supervisor and he said that happens a lot. He also told me it is not good to cut trees on hillsides

edit on 10-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Well, as annoying as I'd personally find that, the simple fact is, they owned that land. They don't own the wind....and therefore I don't think they can be held responsible for the loss of your trees.

Personally, if I were building on property I owned....I'd pay the extra amount to have the construction efforts take place around as many of the existing trees as possible. I *love* trees. I'd live inside a freaking forest if I could.


Now, I'm certain this will inspire a spate of folks wanting to take similar scenarios and somehow look to "win" a "debate" about my personal credo. I can feel it coming as I type.......

reply to post by zeroBelief


I will caveat that sometimes, life is not cut and dried. It is complex.

But not everything needs to be complex.

The Declaration Of Independence was 1300 words.
The Magna Carta was 1161 words.
The Bill of Rights? 462 words.

Obamacare? 11,588,500 words.

Brevity may not only be the soul of wit, it may also indicate intelligence far beyond what we are accustomed to today.



There is nothing wrong with keeping things simple and to the point. Usually, when people try to obfuscate, they are looking for ways to bend or break these simple edicts.

reply to post by zeroBelief


In the spirit of the OP, I will shoot from the hip on this one.

- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin

Provided that the rights of third parties are also respected.

- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others

Unfortunately, it sometimes requires an independent review to determine whether or not harm is done. If no harm is done, no problem.

- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others

Absolutely. No-one does.

- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo

Agreed as amended.

reply to post by zeroBelief


I learned from that. I just want to let others know that it can happen. If the neighbor would have known that was going to happen to about five of their neighbors, they may not have had the trees cut.

webedoomed
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

That's what bothers me. Reality is not nearly as straight forward and simple as these ridiculous principals would want you to believe.

There are FAR too many exceptions which utterly destroy it's effective usefulness.

This kind of mindset brings the bar too low for my standards.

+Simple as that+

LOL

edit on 10-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Pal, I have no idea what your beef is with me. But kindly take it elsewhere.

Double post...sorry...

rickymouse
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

I learned from that. I just want to let others know that it can happen. If the neighbor would have known that was going to happen to about five of their neighbors, they may not have had the trees cut.

Yeah, that would have been cool if they'd known that and opted not to do it for the sake of others...I agree...

Unfortunately, I have precious little faith in most people to actually do something selflessly like that though

reply to post by zeroBelief


Well, you did tell me to stick my opinions up my deepest orifice, for starters.

You also said I didn't have the right to them.

I was simply trying to show you where your reasoning was off, and you got angrier and angrier.

Just curious, is all.

Continue to state my opinion.