🚀 go-pugleaf

> >> >Sorry, I don't obey laws I don't agree with.  Never have, never will.
Pass
>           *************************************
> >> >any laws you like.

> >> ohhh look!  Someone who puts themselves above the law!

> >He's right, you know. Law should serve people, not be their master.
> >Every citizen has not only the right, but the duty, to disobey unjust
> >laws.

> Perhaps. But "laws I don't agree with" obviously goes much further --
> to a matter of convenience.

Eeek, a bit too libertarian it seems for the likes of old Russell.

> Some people -- Scott T Hillard among them -- explicitly advocate from
> time-to-time disobeying those laws that simply "get in their way".

Absolutely.

> Further, "agreement" depends on the level of rationality of those
> doing the agreeing. Since 1/2 the population (at *least* -- since
> intelligence has a true zero -- there are no negartive IQ's -- the
> distribution is skewed toward zero) may not be able to follow the reasons
> for certain limitations on their expression of free will, requiring
> "agreement" is simply an invitation to anarchy. (In any case, another
> of Mr Hillard's hobby-horses, albeit at a naive level).

STILL pushing the anarchy line?  Poor old Russ.  Simply can't keep up with
things anymore.

> Finally, "agreement" to follow things that you may personally find
> inconvenient is a measure of emotional and developmental maturity.

Line on the left, we're just sending you for a shower.  De-lousing will
commence shortly.  Some have positively INSISTED that we go along with
things we find personally inconvenient.

A measure on whose scale, Kimbo?  Yours?  Don't tell me you've finally been
published somewhere!

Perhaps the level of inconvenience you no longer have to tolerate is a
measure of personal success and achievement?  Whoops - sorry, forgot you
object to concepts like "success".  Almost as evil as productive, paid
employment in the private sector.  What sheltered workshop are you hiding in
these days?



> It's interesting to note while classical developmental psychologists
> sometimes denote 3 stages of development -- DE-pendence, when
> a child can't make their way in the world without help from
> parents, esp mother; IN-dependence, a so-called "reaction" against
> the prior stage of dependence, where an immature or young adult
> first eschews routine assistance from parents; and INTER-dependence,
> when a muture personality dsicovers the workings of the world,

Mindless simplicity and demonstrable of the sad devotion to naive empiricism
and nomenclature-mania that infests the ART of psychology.  It's about as
far removed from science as tarot.

The rest of your musing into the archives along with the non-functional
URLs.  Poor old Russ.