Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.

I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.

If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?

That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.
If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is

Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.

“Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”

And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?

Leave a Reply