Rules don't have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.

Your conception of "natural tendencies" and "the strong eat the weak" smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.

You're wrong, plain and simple

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

More than wrong, second order wrong, drawing the wrong bad conclusions from ideas that are themselves nonsense and wrong. So they have to reconsider not only a conclusion, but fundamental ideas. Its a big ask, I'm not sure its worth the interaction.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

If you refuse to take power, someone else will.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You are beyond stupid if you cannot fathom how my explanation of nature was to SEPARATE out the good intentions of societal rules ... right? The fact you take an allegory literally is just pathetic communication skills. Try to understand what I'm saying, not what some sub-selection of my words returns you from Google...

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

Do you have empirical evidence that societal rules are borne of good intentions and not complete fabrications, made up entirely to suit the needs of those in power? Social organization (including rules) are a human concept that are malleable and changeable. Can you prove that enforcement is needed to have a functioning society? You're so confident in your assertions, how about you put up some proof behind it?

Your allegory is used by social darwinists. It's a bad allegory. If it doesn't accurately convey the sentiment you were attempting to express it's your own fault. Write with intent and be precise