British society is ridden with rules and regulations, its constantly changing the way we live to make our environment "safer". The law is being used as a tool by the government to govern the way we live and not what it was meant for: protecting society from criminals, now it is being used to protect society from itself.

If you drive a car then you are being watched by the state all the time incase you go over the speed limit which I'm told is extremely dangerous for health, if your caught you only have so many chances before you lose your license and get a ban. On the television you will see a road tax advert which basically tells you if you don't pay road tax you will crash and kill babies - the advert has a crashed car with an empty pram next to it and it happened not because of poor driving but because the owner didn't pay his road tax, therefore automatically not having insurance and MOT.
The police is being used by officials either of the EU or the British parliament to carry out this war on the motorist thus diverting their reasorces to catching criminals.
The end justifies the means and thats to make driving safe while other aspects of criminal law are being neglected to such a point that people are disillusioned with the system.

We are told that all drugs will threaten your life, they are bad for you and if you use them you will turn into a raging drug addict who will do anything to get some drugs. You are told not to use them as its against the law and if your caught you will have to deal with the harsh consequences, thats to say you will go to jail and or pay a fine.
Again the end justifies the means, people will not use drugs therefore society will be better in the long run but what the government has failed to notice is people still use drugs and by making it illegal; drug barons will keep on getting richer without paying tax into the society they are destroying. They are destroying the society because its illegal as its illegal status makes it expensive because its hard to get - drug addicts cannot then fund their problem driving them to crime.

The question I'm trying to illustrate is if you believe that rules and regulations as well as laws aimed at protecting society are necessary. Do you not believe that they are self defeating?
Do we need a state to decide what is good for us? Do we need to be told what to do by the state?

If the regulations were taken away do you believe that society will worsen or actually become better? Also, wouldn't society not be better off without this government regulatory bullshit?

If the regulations were taken away do you believe that society will worsen or actually become better?

Worsen. The regulations enhance society on average. Except the ones that don't--it's an evolving process. Society puts the regulations upon itself for its own good.

"The masses are asses"

Most people need rules, otherwise they wouldn't know what to to. I am a rebel. I dislike any form of government.

I hate many things made by humans....

But yes, I think society needs rules, many people are too dumb to survive otherwise. Look at those idiots who eat at McDonalds every day. After some years and about 250 pounds extra they start complaining that they did not know that the fat-dripping food at McDonalds is so unhealthy.
There are loads of people who like to live without using their brains because it is easier. Without rules they would soon fuck up.

Just remember, Big Brother IS watching...

rules and regulations are a bitch but i know that without them their would be chaos and i'ld be right in the middle of it! :D

Chaos.....hehe nice.... and genocide.....

Without rules we would just go about killing each other for a time.

The fucked up part is that some people actualy would do that just cause they could

I guess the problem with society and rules is that it conflicts with our right to freewill. There are alot of people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want at anytime and the fact that rules and regulations exists is preventing them from achieving that complete right. Rules could be seen as a strict parent keeping their 16 year old kid from doing the things that other 16 year olds are doing.

I will say that it is best that these rules have to be in place to keep certain people from committing genocide or anything of the likes ... but there are alot of rules and regulations which are just plain stupid and has no business being in the law books.

I also find that society tends to break the more common rules and the more ridiculous ones. They also tend to break the rules that are rarely inforced due to lack of supervision or lack of interest. Basically society sees these rules as the government's way of restraining them of achieving their entire right to freewill and its becasue of this that people are more then likely to circumvent them or go as far as breaking them entirely. No one wants to be the government's 16 year old kid.

Perhaps you are right Singularity, but some people cannot really live without some kind of guidelines. If they were free, some would die because of their own freedom. Because this ultimate freedom entails a social network, meaning help for those who are in need of it. Furthermore, without rules our
whole society is bound to go down in chaos. No rules mean anarchism and I do not think that humans are able to live in such a state.

There is a definite need for rules.

But I agree that many rules and laws are useless, some even ridiculous.
But than, you should start to work for a change instead of performing a senseless rebellion of stubborness.

I understand and agree that we need rules to maintain some kind of order. Our mentality would lead us to our own dispair if we had no rules to follow but maybe I should have stated that my main point was that a large portion of the rules we have today are completely useless and it's these rules which are hindering a good portion of our freewill.

With that, I agree.

We still have some laws from the early medieval times. Utterly outdated.
Even the laws from 40 years ago are no longer valid and useful, or even 20 years ago. But it all keeps piling up.

The problem with those old laws is that they don't want to pay the money to remove them. They would rather spend the money on rewriting the law book to keep it up to date with the new laws then rather pressing the delete button when editing it.

reminds me of rubber on playgrounds but instead of just it being on the playgrounds it metaphoricly extends to everything so that we couldn't hurt ourselves even if we wanted too in any sphere. Sort of like we know whats best for you , you are just a dumb citizen who needs to be used like a horse with vizors on its eyes so it goes straight no matte rwhat.

I guess the problem with society and rules is that it conflicts with our right to freewill.

Free will was not subverted. Rather society (that is, all of us, or our representatives) used its free will to create the rules.

There are alot of people who believe they have the right to do whatever they want at anytime and the fact that rules and regulations exists is preventing them from achieving that complete right.

Presumably these people live amongst us. So what they really believe in is having their cake (utilize society’s advantages) and eating it too (complete individual freedom). They are selfish.

They also tend to break the rules that are rarely inforced due to lack of supervision or lack of interest.

If society isn’t interested then it’s a rule in name only. Such rules should be expunged from the books but I wouldn’t lose any sleep either waiting for that or worrying about the risk of such rule being enforced for the first time in a long time against me.

Again the end justifies the means, people will not use drugs therefore society will be better in the long run but what the government has failed to notice is people still use drugs and by making it illegal; drug barons will keep on getting richer without paying tax into the society they are destroying. They are destroying the society because its illegal as its illegal status makes it expensive because its hard to get - drug addicts cannot then fund their problem driving them to crime.

The drug war is nothing more than another form of prohibition. While it is certainly true that drugs can cause serious mental and physical damage, does that outweigh the cost of lives and money wasted each year trying to crack down on drugs? If drugs are truly as awful as the media would want you to think, why are people still using them? I think drug zoning would be a better solution: create an area in a town where people can drink, smoke, and shoot up without causing a problem to the rest of society. I don't drink or smoke, but I don't see a problem with other people doing it only so far as it doesn't harm others (abuse of others, disruption of society and economy.)

I think drug zoning would be a better solution: create an area in a town where people can drink, smoke, and shoot up without causing a problem to the rest of society.

Such zone would need to be surrounded with high walls topped with concertina wire. Participants would need to pre-pay their share of the facility and for the testing (to make sure they’re clean) when they leave. Unlikely they’d willingly pay for it. It seems most smokers will not even deign to use an ashtray.

If we gave drug users the opportunity to do their drugs in peace, I think they would gladly give their time and effort to such an endevour. Then again, I might be too optomistic. What's the point of screening and concrete walls? People walk around high illegally everyday, it only becomes a problem when they get pulled over or have to get a job.

Such zone would need to be surrounded with high walls topped with concertina wire.
Why?

We are most certainly over regulated. During a small business course I was doing the ATO (Australian Tax Office) rep' said there were 85,000 tax laws:eek:
I would imagine for criminal law etc would it would be even more. Here in NSW you even need a license to go fishing!

What's the point of screening and concrete walls? People walk around high illegally everyday, it only becomes a problem when they get pulled over or have to get a job.

The problem only becomes noticed when they get pulled over or mess up on the job or kill someone. That’s why the screening and high walls.

Here in NSW you even need a license to go fishing!

If a license were not required do you think there’d be any fish left? In my area it is obvious there would not be.

I can see where you are coming from and perhaps we should regulate what drugs are specifically used. Mass production of insanity-producing drugs wouldn't sit well with anyone I'm sure. There is always a high risk of crack addicts running around with machine guns, but we already allow people to get drunk and crash their cars into people and beat their family. Should we build walls around drunk people? I think not.

I think it would be reasonable for people to be required to pass a breath test before leaving a bar. If that were the law then many lives would be spared.

I agree. That's not a bad idea. Perhaps it could be implimented.

New Mexico has an alternate idea. The public there seeks to mandate the installation of ignition interlocks in every vehicle registered in that state. Drivers will have to pass a breath test in order to start their car. It seems overboard but apparently the citizens of that state are desperate for a solution.

Chaos.....hehe nice.... and genocide.....

Without rules we would just go about killing each other for a time.

Nothing new there.. ;)

Well if what you are saying is that society imposes rules on itself for it's own benefit:

Those who wish to not be smothered with the morals/concerns of others should be spared from having to obey the laws.

In a nutshell: if I don't vote for this law, i shouldn't have to follow it.

Without that, there is NO freedom and the individual chooses freedom, the masses choose slavery. I'm sick of the masses getting whatever they want. Idiots.

If we can just think that 'nature law is truely Supreme' which have made us (a most complicated creature) & kept us in existance for so long like 'mother', any thing which opposes it (nature law) should be attended first. These are good words:"Drug addicts should be put in a hospital, not a prison" as well as other addicts.
Now the main question: Is society stupid? Do we need to be told whats good for us? God is said to be in everyone, so all may be knowing everything which is true, but HE may be be awakened or slept can be a matter to deal with it. Some society's law may be made to resist some nature's or true laws like ' might is right ' or ' surrvival of the fittest '. Whether it is right or wrong is a matter to judge, compare and apply accordingly. :)

If a license were not required do you think there’d be any fish left? In my area it is obvious there would not be.
Yes of course, the recreational anglers are to blame:rolleyes:
This was brought about by the commercial fishing industry which is quite large around here.

Drugs... Any time a government outlaws or regulates any "substance" or "item" it simply creates a black market for that substance or item and elevates the price. Forbiding drugs does nothing but make bad people rich. Drug addicts should be put in a hospital, not a prison. I am not advocating that everthing be legal. For instance, I would not want it to be legal for everyone to have Anthrax or Plague or Weapons Grade Plutonium in their home - WMDs - however, I think outlawing a naturally growing, native, weed (pot) is ridiculous.


Harder drugs could be mail ordered, so they are less of a problem to public places. www.newspeakdictionary.com has some good information on the correlation between prohibition and the war on drugs.

Speeding for instance is punishing people before they harm someone else or punishing them because they might harm someone else. This never works.

It does work. Speeding is a risk to others before it harms anyone. The punishment is for the risk.

Forbiding drugs does nothing but make bad people rich.

It also removes those involved from society. Not all of them though.

Drug addicts should be put in a hospital, not a prison.

The first couple times maybe, for which they should subsequently have to reimburse the public. After that they deserve prison like any other offender who puts the public in harm’s way.

I think outlawing a naturally growing, native, weed (pot) is ridiculous.

There is ample evidence that pot can be responsibly used, so I agree.

Yes of course, the recreational anglers are to blame:rolleyes:


The licenses pay for fish & game wardens who verify, for example, that fishers are not using nets. If not for the licenses some recreational fishers would surely use nets and so yes, the fish would soon be depleted. In the backwoods you’ll find people who like to fish with dynamite. They think it’s an imposition when the public doesn’t allow them to kill 500 fish simultaneously so they can cherry-pick the best one.

Do people actually fish with dynamite?!

In a nutshell: if I don't vote for this law, i shouldn't have to follow it.

Go for it SouthStar. You’ll be writing us from an internet terminal in prison.

I'm sick of the masses getting whatever they want. Idiots.

You’re sick of majority rule? Try minority rule. Check out North Korea. I hear bark tastes good when you’re starving.

Do people actually fish with dynamite?!

I’ve known people who have done it. The shock wave stuns the fish so they float on the surface for a while.

The licenses pay for fish & game wardens who verify, for example, that fishers are not using nets. If not for the licenses some recreational fishers would surely use nets and so yes, the fish would soon be depleted....
Oh of course your from around here and know the issue inside out, thanks for the education, I'll leave me money on the fridge:rolleyes:
Nets have always required a license and dynamite is not readily available. There were already rules on the number of rods, size of catch etc before the licensing. The commercial industry wanted more fish for export so squeezed a large number of people out of the hobby who don't believe you should need a license to feed yourself.

Go for it SouthStar. You’ll be writing us from an internet terminal in prison.

I'm talking about the below scenario smartypants.


You’re sick of majority rule? Try minority rule. Check out North Korea. I hear bark tastes good when you’re starving.

The alternative to majority rule is not necessarily minority rule.

Try "self-rule". Blame no one but yourself for your own mistakes.

Unfortunately in practice those who preach self-rule instead leech off others. They want self-rule when it comes to paying taxes, then they drive on public roads. The only way it would work is if each self-ruled person lived on their own planet.

Oh of course your from around here and know the issue inside out, thanks for the education, I'll leave me money on the fridge:rolleyes:

No, it’s just common sense. Here is why you need a fishing license:

From NSW Fisheries (http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/rec/guides/cooma_monaro.htm):
Regulations are designed to protect and conserve our fish stocks and their habitats. Expect to see Fisheries Officers patrolling foreshores, ramps and waterways. They will be keen to help and advise, but they’ll also have an eye out for illegal fishing.

Your fishing licence supports your sport! All licence fees are put into special trusts overseen by angler committees to improve recreational fishing by:
- Protecting and restoring habitat
- Promoting responsible fishing
- Creating recreational fishing areas
- Stocking from fish hatcheries
- Investing in more research.

So there is a concern with illegal fishing in your area, requiring patrols by wardens. Your fishing license really does help you. You really would be leeching off others without it. How about that?

I like to look at it this way - Where does a person draw the right to tell another what to do? Were all born the same, naked and wriggling.

In an absence of authority, people would be forced to co-operate for mutual gain, if not survival. The idiots who eat at McDonalds every day would either co-operate with everyone else, or starve to death.

And drugs were not illegal till some middle class liberal decided they were an evil, before the wars you could buy cocaine at the local drug store. Funnily enough, it wasnt a problem either. Because it had no criminal attachments. If you took it and then died, that was your problem.

And there were no fisheries wardens either, till the government decided that needed regulating too. But strangely enough, in a time where people may have eaten their catch, the fish didnt die out...

It comes down to this, its funny how everyone thinks they dont need laws to restrict them, but everyone else needs to be controlled. People are definately smarter than they get credit for. And if theyre not, in the absence of authority they would just die or be thrown out anyway.

Unfortunately in practice those who preach self-rule instead leech off others. They want self-rule when it comes to paying taxes, then they drive on public roads. The only way it would work is if each self-ruled person lived on their own planet.

There is nothing unfortunate about it.

In a world of self-rule, the only rule is 'Survival of the fittest'. No such concept as "leeching" off others.

How about this as an example; in construction, people will soon have to wear hard hat, asbestos (substitute) gloves, steel toe-capped boots, eye and ear protecters regardless if they are doing anything through their job that would make them particulary at risk in any of these areas that would normally warrant this protection.

This is happening because the government has set targets that aim to reduce the amount of injuries/deaths that are directly related to the construction trade as it is one of the most dangerous industries in Britain, if not the most dangerous. If an accident happens on a site that is controlled by a particular contractor then they will get taken to court, heavily investigated and sued if necessary.

It is apparent to me that lawyers are having a field day and have everything to gain by the grasp of the law, the law is increasingly becoming a commercial business.

The law should be revised, with all laws that are populary broken being repealled. The law should go back to what it was originally therefore to punish murderers and theives etc. A basic set of rules should be drawn up and kept very basic.

As for all the stangling regulations that are imposed on every aspect of life that isnt covered by the law, they should be revised too. I think youll find that most people would be lost without a set of rules governing them at every hurdle.

In a world of self-rule, the only rule is 'Survival of the fittest'. No such concept as "leeching" off others.

That’s just rationalization. In ‘survival of the fittest’ you take advantage of others. You leech off them. The average person is much worse off in such a world. It is highly likely you’d be worse off.

A basic set of rules should be drawn up and kept very basic.

It is obvious to me that this would result in a much lower standard of living for the average person. Most of the laws exist for good reason. Some don’t serve us; it’s an evolving process.

Even my homeowner’s association needs several pages of rules to keep the property values optimal. If it were not for the rule, for example, that vehicles cannot be parked on one’s lawn, then someone surely would, and that’s just what happened when one homeowner thought it appropriate to park 3 bulldozers on his lawn. It was only because of the rules that we were able to get him to move, thus restoring our property values.

If you took [cocaine] and then died, that was your problem.

No, it was other peoples’ problem. The public paid for that death.

And there were no fisheries wardens either, till the government decided that needed regulating too. But strangely enough, in a time where people may have eaten their catch, the fish didnt die out...

Sure, when the human population was 10% of current levels. The fish haven't increased in population like humans have, hence the need for regulations.

That’s just rationalization. In ‘survival of the fittest’ you take advantage of others. You leech off them. The average person is much worse off in such a world. It is highly likely you’d be worse off.

I beg to differ, esp. since I'm advocating it. :cool:

I'm normally conservative, but illegal drugs are just stupid.

If drug users paid their fair share of their vice, I’d agree. But they pay only a fraction of it. I, a non-drug user, pay for the methadone clinics and crack babies and survivor’s social security payments and prisons (for when they murder someone while high, not for drug use per se) and higher prices (because they are less productive and more prone to accident at work) and increased insurance (like protection against uninsured drivers, which drug users are more likely to be) and on and on. I have my own hobbies but I don't make other people involuntarily share the cost of them.

That’s just rationalization. In ‘survival of the fittest’ you take advantage of others. You leech off them. The average person is much worse off in such a world. It is highly likely you’d be worse off.
In "survival of the fittest" - which in my opinion wouldnt happen anyway, people would find that co-operation was best, and work together. In a sense, theyd all be leeching off each other, so it would be ok. And no one would take advantage of others, because those "others" wouldnt let them!

The end result of 'survival of the fittest' is civilization. You say they'd work together and wouldn't let others take advantage of them. Well, that's just what is happening today. Regulations are all about not letting others take advantage. Rather than duke it out with clubs every time someone leeches off another, a system of laws, enforcement and courts prevents leeching with higher efficiency. People have cooperated in developing a system to prevent people from taking unfair advantage.

It comes down to this, its funny how everyone thinks they dont need laws to restrict them, but everyone else needs to be controlled. People are definately smarter than they get credit for. And if theyre not, in the absence of authority they would just die or be thrown out anyway.

As the Dead Kennedy's put it: "Anarchy is fun until someone has to fix the sewers. Then what?"

The end result of 'survival of the fittest' is civilization. You say they'd work together and wouldn't let others take advantage of them. Well, that's just what is happening today. Regulations are all about not letting others take advantage. Rather than duke it out with clubs every time someone leeches off another, a system of laws, enforcement and courts prevents leeching with higher efficiency. People have cooperated in developing a system to prevent people from taking unfair advantage.

How is taking advantage unfair?

By "take advantage" I mean "take unfair advantage." So it's unfair by definition as the public decides that.

In "survival of the fittest" - which in my opinion wouldnt happen anyway, people would find that co-operation was best, and work together. In a sense, theyd all be leeching off each other, so it would be ok. And no one would take advantage of others, because those "others" wouldnt let them!

Scenario: Enter someone with a kalashnikov, he and says to all the other people; "Farm my crops for me or Ill mow you all down with my AK." as he stand there brandishing it. Out the window then goes cooperation in favour of forced labour.

So you then say that people like those wont be allowed to do these sort of things so who would stop them? The other people with guns? What happens when the other people with guns win victorious (the goodies always win in my scenarios), who then controls the good guys once they realise they could do exactly the same thing as the bad guy in the first place?

In the world of guns, you dont have to be "fit" to pull that trigger.

The end result of 'survival of the fittest' is civilization. You say they'd work together and wouldn't let others take advantage of them. Well, that's just what is happening today. Regulations are all about not letting others take advantage. Rather than duke it out with clubs every time someone leeches off another, a system of laws, enforcement and courts prevents leeching with higher efficiency. People have cooperated in developing a system to prevent people from taking unfair advantage.
Unfair advantage is the lynch-pin of capitalism, the bosses dont do the work but they still make the money.

Scenario: Enter someone with a kalashnikov, he and says to all the other people; "Farm my crops for me or Ill mow you all down with my AK." as he stand there brandishing it. Out the window then goes cooperation in favour of forced labour.
But you would have your own gun. The AK wielding authoritarian would come up to you, and someone would kill him. Eventually, there would be no more AK wielding authoritarians. Or even better, before that the concept of authority over another person would become so disgusting that no one would excercise it.

And whats to say you would control people? Your a nice person, and so are the majority of others. And if you tried to do that, theres no reason that the controlled wouldnt kill you too. One of the points of co-operating is for security, that one gunman could easily be shot down by 20 angry co-operators. Alot of people are getting killed here arent they?

By "take advantage" I mean "take unfair advantage." So it's unfair by definition as the public decides that.

Which is again rejecting self-rule.. :rolleyes:

"The public" is not self-rule.

How is taking advantage unfair?

Why don't you work 21 hours in a korean sweat-shop for 1.50 a day, go home to 12 kids and a roach infested shack, and then tell me how it is'nt unfair.

Unfair advantage is the lynch-pin of capitalism, the bosses dont do the work but they still make the money.

No, in a democracy all the voters agree on the rules for capitalism. The voters agree that those at the top can have as much money and time off as they can horde as long as they follow the rules. So no unfair advantage taken. The voters can change the rules at any time.

Capitalism does get ugly when democracy isn't there or it's been corrupted, as SaddamnYouAll points out. That's why I favor strong democracy.

Which is again rejecting self-rule.. :rolleyes:

I think self-rule is too far-fetched to consider much further. You'd have to show how it's not. Like give some example of how you think it would work in practice. What would you do about your neighbor's complaints about, say, the smell of your poop wafting into their camp? Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

Why don't you work 21 hours in a korean sweat-shop for 1.50 a day, go home to 12 kids and a roach infested shack, and then tell me how it is'nt unfair.

First off, what does that have to do with "advantage"?

Secondly, such a "plight" won't necessarily be yours in a system of self-rule. If you are good enough, that is.. ;)

I think self-rule is too far-fetched to consider much further. You'd have to show how it's not. Like give some example of how you think it would work in practice. What would you do about your neighbor's complaints about, say, the smell of your poop wafting into their camp? Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

Isn't that why it's called survival of the fittest? It has worked for a lot of years and I don't suppose it will stop today.

I've lost you. Can't you just answer the questions?

It's still survival of the fittest Southstar. Now it's just dressed up in 'society'.

The bigger guy still wins... now it's only brains and money (mostly money) instead of brawn.

I think self-rule is too far-fetched to consider much further. You'd have to show how it's not. Like give some example of how you think it would work in practice. What would you do about your neighbor's complaints about, say, the smell of your poop wafting into their camp? Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

If my neighbors were complaining about smells in their camp, it wouldn't be my problem since it's their camp in the first place. If they don't like it they can move simple as that.

If such a world will come to pass, I would be prepared.

What do you mean "fighting shape"?

It's still survival of the fittest Southstar. Now it's just dressed up in 'society'.

The bigger guy still wins... now it's only brains and money (mostly money) instead of brawn.

But in self rule, brains and brawn keep your neck above water. Being born with lotsa money isn't any more "fair" than being born paralyzed and if that's the case, we should opt for what is natural.

My thoughts for a penny please!

If my neighbors were complaining about smells in their camp, it wouldn't be my problem since it's their camp in the first place. If they don't like it they can move simple as that.

They would make it your problem. They’d come over to your camp in the middle of the night and you’d awake to gunfire. There’s no sense wasting time arguing when it’s survival of the fittest. They’d just kill you. You’d have to be prepared for that. And they won’t move unless you’re stronger. Now can you answer the questions?

Being born with lotsa money isn't any more "fair" than being born paralyzed and if that's the case, we should opt for what is natural.You are going to be better off or worse off depending on your parents. Even without money, people still have worth and ownership.

They would make it your problem. They’d come over to your camp in the middle of the night and you’d awake to gunfire. There’s no sense wasting time arguing when it’s survival of the fittest. They’d just kill you. You’d have to be prepared for that. And they won’t move unless you’re stronger. Now can you answer the questions?

What questions? I thought the question about neighbors and being prepared were addressed to me? :confused:

You are going to be better off or worse off depending on your parents. Even without money, people still have worth and ownership.

Don't worth and ownership point back to money though? Which points back to inheritance, much like physical ability.

Which points back to inheritanceNo. You had worth, ownership, and inheritance long before you had money.

Nobility is a good example.

What questions? I thought the question about neighbors and being prepared were addressed to me? :confused:

The questions are: Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

You can't avoid fighting in 'survival of the fittest.' Without laws the fights are presumably all death-matches. If you think you can avoid fighting, explain how.

No. You had worth, ownership, and inheritance long before you had money.

Nobility is a good example.

Eh..

But nobility points to? Inheritance.

Of course there are those who worked to "achieve" nobility, but then they weren't dirt poor either. Which points to money. Which points to inheritance.

All I'm saying, so we don't go in circles, is that since this system is unsatisfactory and unfair, let's go back to natural self-gov'ment. That way there is no blaming anyone for your own blunders.

The questions are: Do you expect to win every fight? How would you survive when you're spending most of your time trying to stay in fighting shape for the next inevitable fight?

You can't avoid fighting in 'survival of the fittest.' Without laws the fights are presumably all death-matches. If you think you can avoid fighting, explain how.

Again, what do you mean by "fighting shape"?

All I'm saying, so we don't go in circles, is that since this system is unsatisfactory and unfair, let's go back to natural self-gov'ment.We naturally form social structures... hence inheritance.

Also, when people talk of money, they mean something VERY specific. Inheritance does not specifically point to money. It points to possesion and ownership, which have always existed,

Again, what do you mean by "fighting shape"?

That would be things like, staying cat-quick so you can better dodge bullets, frequently checking your tripwires (needed to sound the alarm when they come to kill you) and booby traps, keeping guns oiled & ready to go, practice shooting, caching food & water (in case they put you under seige to weaken you before they kill you), etc. I think that would take up a lot of time each day, leaving little time for hunting & gathering.

That would be things like, staying cat-quick so you can better dodge bullets, frequently checking your tripwires (needed to sound the alarm when they come to kill you) and booby traps, keeping guns oiled & ready to go, practice shooting, caching food & water (in case they put you under seige to weaken you before they kill you), etc. I think that would take up a lot of time each day, leaving little time for hunting & gathering.

Zanket... You cracked me up: I was giggling for a couple of min :D

The question I'm trying to illustrate is if you believe that rules and regulations as well as laws aimed at protecting society are necessary. Do you not believe that they are self defeating?
Do we need a state to decide what is good for us? Do we need to be told what to do by the state?

If the regulations were taken away do you believe that society will worsen or actually become better? Also, wouldn't society not be better off without this government regulatory bullshit?
No, we don't need the government to make choices for us. What we need is education. Not an education that teaches us rocket science, but an education that teaches us how to make better choices.

If people knew how to make good choices, the world would probably be a perfect place to live.