MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Gunny]

Should be required viewing. Sounds a whole lot like what's been going on in this country/society. Right down to the isolation (covid lockdown).

[Gunny]

The companion piece.

[Gunny]

[AHZ]

yes the greater good.

often there is a greater good, but it's nearly always not what the totalitarians are offering.

[Gunny]

yes the greater good.

often there is a greater good, but it's nearly always not what the totalitarians are offering.

Isn't that the sell though? "greater good", "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", et al. Wrap the fear mongering/BS in a sound principle and sell it to casual-to-non-thinking masses.

To the point that the authoritarian minority currently is forcing the desires of the (very) few onto the masses at the expense of the needs of the many. And selling it for the greater good because if you don't agree with woke inclusiveness you're a hateful bigot and the masses live in absolute terror of being labeled such, never mind if it's not true.

[AHZ]

Isn't that the sell though? "greater good", "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", et al. Wrap the fear mongering/BS in a sound principle and sell it to casual-to-non-thinking masses.

To the point that the authoritarian minority currently is forcing the desires of the (very) few onto the masses at the expense of the needs of the many. And selling it for the greater good because if you don't agree with woke inclusiveness you're a hateful bigot and the masses live in absolute terror of being labeled such, never mind if it's not true.

greater good can be a real thing. like a good school system, or honest cops.

the evil imposter greater good is generally a harder sell, like, "why is it smart to send all the jobs away"?


good and evil do exist.


globalism being portrayed as unconditionally good (a greater good) should raise red flags.

[revelarts]

IMO..
Concerning govt, socialism, capitalism, anarchy, the question isn't either or. Its the LIMITS of each. And the collective moral principles people want to love...Live under.
There is no perfect system of govt But the best form of govt is LIMITED govt with primarily LOCAL control.
There is no perfect economic system but capitalism LIMITED by govt & morals is the best.
when I say Best I don't mean the most powerful or the richest.
I'm talking about for the most FREEDOM for the most people (which used to a valued ideal in the US).
Best for the most options. Different states and cities with different laws means more options. SMALL LOCAL & REGIONAL biz means more options, vs large gov't & market captured protected mega corps.

One of Govts big flaws is it's separation from the people & secrecy... The larger it gets the worse the problem.
One of capitalism major flaws is its innate lack of morals. Money is its True goal. Not service or products. Those are simply means to the end. And without people IMPOSING universally understood good morals to the transactions , up front or via community reaction or govt sanctions, capitalism becomes just a different form of abuse or tyranny
also Size (monopoly of markets) & collusion for size (effectively monopoly) is a horrific problem.
IF FREEDOM for the most people is something we value. Rather than freedom for corporations to do whatever THEY want.

Big govt plus big corps working together is slightly better than big govt running everything "socialism".
But faceless UNACCOUNTABLE international corps and two-faced national/international govts working together is a horror show as well.
The trains may run on time but "for the greater good" is ONLY what they say it is. And if you don't like it too bad. There are NO other options allowed and NO other places to go.

...For the greater good....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

IMO..
Concerning govt, socialism, capitalism, anarchy, the question isn't either or. Its the LIMITS of each.And the collective moral principles people want to love...LIve under.
There is no perfect system of govt But the best form of govt is LIMITED govt with primarily LOCAL control.
there is no perfect economic system but capitalism LIMITED by govt & morals is the best.
when I say Best I don't mean the most powerful or the richest.
I'm talking about for the most FREEDOM for the most people (which used to a valued ideal in the US).
Best for the most options, different states and cities with different laws means more options. SMALL LOCAL & REGIONAL biz means more options, vs large gov't & market captured protected mega corps.

one of Govts big flaws is it's separation from the people & secrecy... The larger it gets the worse the problem.
one of capitalism major flaws is its innate lack of morals. money is its True goal. Not service or products. Those are simply means to the end. And without people IMPOSING universally understood good morals to the transactions , up front or via community reaction or govt sanctions, capitalism becomes just a different form of abuse or tyranny
also Size (monopoly of markets) & collusion for size (effectively monopoly) is a horrific problem.
IF FREEDOM for the most people is something we value. Rather than freedom for corporations to do whatever THEY want.

Big govt plus big corps working together is slightly better than big govt running everything "socialism".
But faceless UNACCOUNTABLE international corps and two-faced national/international govts working together is a horror show as well.
The trains may run on time but " for the great good" is ONLY what they say it is. And if you don't like it to bad. There are NO other options allowed and NO other places to go.

...For the greater good....

Bravo. I am with you in this posting.
Either we turn back to the trying to be a moral society or we don't.
If it is the conclusion that we don't , it is going to be very bad and eventually this nation will cease to be. Evil kills its host.
Millions have no concept of that reality. They are being raised blind by a population educating blindness and greed!
Such as that is doomed to its own destructive end as well! --Tyr

[fj1200]

IMO..

Bravo.

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?

NO! No, BUT government already does when it passes laws restricting thief, rape, murder, etc, etc.
To have a civilized society government has to enforce certain moral standards and it does with its laws.
The problem comes when certain factions gain power and try to destroy certain moral standards so they can install or carry on with their immoral actions.
They try to change decency to admit and aid them in their immorality. Government by nature seeks power. It also targets individuals that disagree
with it, especially if they object to its placating evil and aiding darkness as the dems want and install every damn chance they get. A FACT..--Tyr

[revelarts]

NO! No, BUT government already does when it passes laws restricting thief, rape, murder, etc, etc.
To have a civilized society government has to enforce certain moral standards and it does with its laws.
The problem comes when certain factions gain power and try to destroy certain moral standards so they can install or carry on with their immoral actions.
They try to change decency to admit and aid them in their immorality. Government by nature seeks power. It also targets individuals that disagree
with it, especially if they object to its placating evil and aiding darkness as the dems want and install every damn chance they get. A FACT..--Tyr

I agree, accept i would say... strait up... YES. Govt does impose morals standards.
Just like you said murder, rape, theft, even "you shall not commit false witness" (lying) is covered in law via fraud, laws, false advertising laws, slander, perjury laws etc...


That's what any good law is, a LIMITED reflection of good morals. A FINAL backstop to immoral behavior.
The thing is the Gov't & laws should be LIMITED (and mostly local). Most morals should be enforced by God given INTERNAL moral checks, checks by family, checks by community standards pressures, the law should only be a FINAL check for LIMITED extreme moral offenses. (AND the laws themself subject to LOCAL checks)

Fj look, On our better days, we all KNOW that we should care about everyones welfare.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a general universal leaning, that makes society.
Seems to me, an innate desire for connection, love & peace, not just weakness are the general drivers for 'society'.

And Tyr Yep, the thing that gets gov't off track is the fact that some people reject the God given outlines of reality and God's clear teachings of what's best for us.
They don't want God's way, they want what they want, so they start rejecting real morals and then making up BS & turning immorality into law.
Along with some peoples old fashion desire to control others and their environment as much as possible.

[Gunny]

Just so I'm understanding here. Government is a vehicle for imposing morality. Is that right?

Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

[revelarts]

Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

Gunny sums up James Madison.

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

[fj1200]

Why does government exist if not to impose control based on whatever? Most every law we have on the books (I am sure there are exceptions) is based on someone's idea of right and wrong = morality.

At the one end of the argument where everyone is virtuous and needs no control, there is no need for government. Man is incapable of such. At the other end is "A Brave New World". Only the people themselves can keep a semblance of balance. A responsibility the people of our society have seemingly abdicated.

Protect your natural rights and enforce contracts.

[revelarts]

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes against life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy....

tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters says

MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.

Protect your natural rights and enforce contracts.

Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.

Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/...73&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?