15 Comments
User's avatar
Doreen's avatar

With all due respect, in a democracy 51% of the majority can take away the rights of 49% of the minority. That’s not freedom.

Outer reality mirrors individual and collective choices. In other words, reality improves through better quality choices. Giving our power of attorney away in a voting booth is consent for politicians to make decisions in our absence that become the norm like SARS-CoV2 never proven to exist https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification

Climate alarmism that omits planes discharging chemicals 24/7 that transform forests into tinder boxes, contaminate food, water, air, block sunlight vital to all life https://climateviewer.com/

Weather modification steering hurricanes, triggering earthquakes, etc. https://rumble.com/v5h4m49-how-nexrad-haarp-works-turning-natural-storms-into-biblical-floods-weatherw.html

Overall, people say they want change however most people are unwilling to change themselves, unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices, unwilling to look at information beyond what society considers normal, unwilling to release attachment to beliefs that limit their potential to transform this dark construct and in so doing save themselves through cooperation and meaningful contributions.

Expand full comment
don findlay's avatar

This has absolutely nothing to do with my request for support but I do agree that democracy is simply a camouflage for dictatorship. Voluntaryism is a much better option. Check out Liberty on the Rocks - a Voluntaryism conference and consider registering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICW6PtSCJJc

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Thank you, Don. I watched the video.

In my opinion, all relations between people are contracts. Everyone has freewill choice to make an offer and everyone has freewill choice to accept or reject the offer. An offer and acceptance form a contract.

The essence of voluntaryism is a better quality choice when individuals are accountable for liabilities as well as benefits of their choices.

Maxim of law: Ignorance of those things one is bound to know does not excuse.

Expand full comment
don findlay's avatar

Responsibilities are an integral part of voluntaryism but contracts are not. I can volunteer to like you whether you agree to it or not... no contract involved. Contracts add unnecessary rigidity to mutual consent and voluntary cooperation.

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Good point about rigidity.

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

My solution to demo(n)cracy and controlmind (government):

Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Thank you for sharing. You did not ask for feedback so may I contribute the following?

In my opinion, evolution of this tract of man requires self-governance. This includes knowing, effectively managing and retaining personal power rather than giving it to others.

Regarding the Three Laws of Ethics how about One Law? Be harmless to others and their property.

'Do not willfully and without fully informed consent' can be subject to interpretation. I propose positive frequency of 'Be harmless' rather than negative frequency of 'Do Not'.

I will meet you over at your Substack.

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

Well, I was given those Laws many decades ago, by someOne I can't remember. And though "Do no harm" is the foundation, these are the foundational Laws of Common Law. So I run with them.

Not sure how "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent..." can be misconstrued... Can You provide illustration?

Looking forward!

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Hello Amaterasu. I suggested the 'definition' of wilful and/or informed consent could be interpreted differently b/c people see through different belief systems and some people lack honorable intentions.

Three Laws of Ethics state

1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther [If A consents to be hurt by B, does that mean it's okay for B to hurt and/or kill the flesh of A?]

2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone [If A consents for B to beat A's child, does that mean it's okay for B to damage the child?]

3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent) [If A consents to B stealing A's car, and B refuses to ever return it, does that mean B is free to keep the car?]

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

1. As long as They're adults, yes. (Children CANNOT give FULLY INFORMED consent). I know a few People into BDSM. Not My cuppa, but They're adults. Their choice.

2. No. The child is the One who must consent, not any other, and as I said... Children CANNOT give FULLY INFORMED consent.

3. It is not theft if A consents to B taking the car. It is theft if the agreement was that B would return the car and does not. And then, B would be subject to Ethical consequences meted by Those who care.

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Thank you, Amaterasu. We just experienced how interpretations can vary from one individual to another.

Next, everything is energy, frequency, vibration, which act like a boomerang returning a matching energy, frequency, vibration through people, events and circumstances. In other words, what we sow we reap. The more we focus on what we 'do' want instead of what we 'do not' want the more ease and grace can find us.

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

I would bet that One is employed to marginalize efforts to get out of the psychopaths' trap. I will go take a look.

Expand full comment
Roc Findlay's avatar

G'day mate, please see my comment on LL' s Substack. All the best.👍🦘

Expand full comment
don findlay's avatar

Thanks Roc... you rock!

Expand full comment