@Leiro レイロ You use communist terms, that does not motivate writing now. When you have understood the presentation, head back to me with questions.

What is the difference between a capitalist ruling class and a government ruling class @liquidnight

GG @Fuckers, you just advanced to level 2!

what are communist terms?

also this enforcement part requires that as long as society or humans exist, there must be natural law enforced everywhere. But I have described you a system where people voluntarily agreed to violate each others' natural laws. So it looks like with human action, anything is possible, even violating natural laws.

How is that an oxymoron? And why do I not have the exact depiction to evaluate this?

who determines what I do and don't have?

your statements are just full of cleverly worded statements which are there to manipulate the opposing party

like for example, "biomass entities"

> 4:36] Fuckers: What is the difference between a capitalist ruling class and a government ruling class
No significant difference. Only decorative differences.

> 14:40] Thotsky: like for example, "biomass entities"
That was only a descriptive terms. This is how government psychopaths see the cattle.

14:37] Thotsky: a system where people voluntarily agreed to violate each others' natural laws.

If they agree, we name it *contract*. Then it is not a violation.

However under current rulership (and no contract), it is a violation.

we are not talking about any government here so any reference to that term is plainly unnecessary

okay then it's a contract then. But we have violated each others natural laws. What will you do about it.

I don't really see a need for natural law, because most of the time communities when left alone make their own laws whereby the community members agree to abide by them

@Leiro レイロ I just told you: If they agree, we it is a contract, not a violation.

Whats your problem understanding that ?

okay then we shall agree it's not a violation

so given that most of human society operated on the basis of man made laws (before the existance of a state), it begs the question, why have natural law?

because we have already established that most communities can operate peacefully without it

Natural Law is inherent in Nature.
https://scuppernongspringsnaturetrail.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/042.jpg
There's no question of *to have* or not *to have*.

Learn it, follow it, and you will be good.
Ignore it or transgress it, and you will suffer.

simple as that 🙂

no no look, stop spamming me these screenshots I'm aware of what it is

im just asking why it is necessary

> 15:29] Thotsky: because we have already established that most communities can operate peacefully without it

The problem is in your split-tongue with the word "peace" !!

@Leiro レイロ ok, IF you strive for ORDER, then you follow Natural Law.
IF you strive for disorder / chaos, then you transgress Natural Law.

--> Ok, humans who seek their advancement follow it.
Satanists who want destruction, despise it.

That's just a false dichotomy my friend

I strive for order, but I don't like natural law

your just asserting shit at this point

> 15:31] Thotsky: I strive for order, but I don't like natural law
Then you are in contradiction yourself 🙂

your just presenting a false dichotomy

if I don't follow natural law I'm for chaos because natural law strives for order

what a circular argument

actually I think your the one contradicting yourself, if communities have been peaceful without natural law, that means natural law is not a necessary prerequisite

and therefore, plain unnecessary

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In order to strive for Order, you need to take care of at least 2 domains: the material domain and the spiritual domain. agree ?

well you have to define what is order

creating order: going from lesser capacity to higher capacity, from unhealthy to healthy, from lower complexity to higher complexity

GG @liquidnight, you just advanced to level 3!

capacity of what?

and what's healthy? who determines what is healthy or not?

and why does lower complexity automatically entail order not being present?

@liquidnight why do you support a ruling class?

> 15:40] Fuckers: why do you support a ruling class?
@Fuckers there is no "class" this is commie-speak.
Your premise is wrong.

There absolutely is class

That is cappy speak