Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wolsey

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: November 29, 2011, 07:49:14 PM »

[...] That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called "education," at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life. That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. [...] Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. [...] To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words [...]

Could someone expand a bit on this?

It's the Consent thing, Violet Bear, can't you read it here?

Nothing funny, for sure! Although it can be argued that the writer is aware of the "simplicity" of the comparison (so to speak) and s/he is kinda mocking the reader when talking about the "creativity of the chimps," I tend to think that it is sort of an exaggeration to say that genius equals the "degree of variance from principle."

Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves,
"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.

I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"     

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.

Indeed, the individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called "society," or the "nation," which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against "society," that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Emma Goldman maintained that individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.


It may just be that people ruling us have taken themselves for Nietzsche's Superman, as this post describes it:


While Nietzsche's emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche's freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.

Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche's philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. [...]

The Darwinian idea of "the survival of the fittest" is simply a struggle for existence -- for life rather than death. The exceptional life-forms may well be poorly adapted to survive. The history of evolving forms shows that happy accidents are eleminated, the more highly evolved types lead nowhere; it is the average and below types which invariably ascend. This simple biological progression is no progression at all -- it leads to the victory of the herd.

Charles Darwin writes in "The Descent of Man" that a tribe which consisted of many members who were always ready to give aid to each-other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. Nietzsche reversed this scenario. Let the tribe sacrifice itself, if necessary, to preserve the existence of one great individual. It is not the quantity but the the quality of humanity that we must seek to increase. He goes on to say, "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them!" A struggle, not for existence (Darwin), but rather a struggle for greatness -- and with that, a struggle for power. This highly undemocratic view of humanity as a kind of "raw material" out of which a few great individuals will emerge, leads to one's political views, which are far from ordinary...

Now, if my own will happens to coincide with the will of the group, this is just a happy accident, which raises the so-called paradox of democracy. In a democracy, I am committed to two principles: 1. the will of the majority (the State); 2. My own will. Unfortunately, there is no necessary reason why these two principles should ever coincide! Clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of the government -- a kind of political darwinism. The herd triumphs once again, this time under the banner of the state. The better the State is organized, the duller humanity will be. As little State as possible!

palikari, I don't think it's a matter of "having taken themselves for" - I tend to believe that Nietzsche's philosophy is all power, and how to find oneself in such a position, disregarding any values, ethics, morality, and so on - so, if certain people ARE in power, then they are his "Supermen," regardless of the fact that they may, in actuality, be dumbasses!

This is just my hunch on the issue, so if you guys have any better interpretations on the matter, go ahead and let us know..


They say, "Murder is, by definition, a crime of passion." The question is who's passionate.

LOL quantum - "The Deadly Look of Love"!

Delusional stalkers frequently have little, if any, contact with their victims. They have major mental illnesses like schizophrenia, manic-depression or erotomania, and come from an abusive or emotionally barren family background with a poor sense of their own identity.  They hold tight to some false belief that keeps them tied to their victims. In erotomania, the stalker's delusional belief is that the victim loves him. This type of stalker actually believes that he is having a relationship with his victim, even though they might never have met. The woman stalking David Letterman, the stalker who killed actress Rebecca Schaeffer and the man who stalked Madonna are all examples of this. Another type of delusional stalker believes he is destined to be with someone, and that if he only pursues her hard enough and long enough, she will come to love him as he loves her. These stalkers know they are not having a relationship with their victims, but firmly believe that they will some day. John Hinckley Jr. and his obsession with Jodi Foster is an example of this type of stalker.

Delusional stalkers are typically unmarried and socially immature loners who are unable to establish or sustain close relationships with others. They rarely date and have had few, if any, sexual relationships. Since they are both threatened by and yearn for closeness, they often pick victims who are unattainable in some way; married women, a therapist, clergyman, doctor or teacher. Those in the helping professions are particularly vulnerable to delusional stalkers. Any kindness shown to this kind of stalker will be blown out of proportion into a delusion of intimacy. What these stalkers cannot attain in reality is achieved through fantasy. While some seek out a victim of higher status (doctors, lawyers, teachers), others seek out celebrities. Celebrity stalkers often psychotically "hear" or "see" something in the words or appearances of the victim. They are often convinced that the celebrity is sending them cryptic messages intended only for them to understand. Erotomanic delusions last an average of 10 years.

erand, does the woman/man of the movie qualify as erotomanic or not?

Another bad example of how American culture makes heroes out of criminals ..

Pages: [1]