|
If you think about it, we humans are completely free to do whatever, whenever, however we so please...
There is no such thing as "law"! The only law of the land is that of "instinct to survive", which of course is the driving force behind evolution...
So when people say that we have too many rules and government regulations... the truth is we don't!
You are just as free to go out and commit murder as any day in the history of planet Earth, however, there are people out there who are just as free to come "kidnap" you and whisk you away to some cage (prison). We call this the judicial system, which it is... but it goes to show that civilization boils down to which "wolf-pack" is bigger and who has the better guns (the goverment of course)... which could be looked upon as that if nature is ruled by "survival of the fittest", then the "fittest" in the human species is he that have access to weapons/technology...
So technically, the reason you or I or anybody else "thinks twice" before exercising their freedom to "shoplift that expensive watch"... is because we know that in the event that our plan is "uncovered" by mall security... that "men with guns" also have the freedom to throw us on the ground, cuff us, and have us hauled off to a place where conditions for survival are more harsh than before we made the "wrong" choice... Let's face it.. we all know that we have done "wrong" ("sinned") at one time or another in the course of our life, and that if there was no law against "shop lifting", you would happily "sin" at the very least: once a week... Would anybody ever punish theirself by locking a cage and destroying the key because of personal moral values? I don't think so! You may find some people to confess to a crime, thereby subjecting theirself to punishment... but how many people would stay in prison if free to leave? It is instinctive to be greedy and always want a better life; so nobody would ever punish theirself and carry out the full sentence... even if they did feel overwhelmingly guilty.
You see how it works? That's why it is very dangerous to have organisms that feel they have nothing to lose (currently, only humankind produces such creatures), because without "instinct for survival", one will go through greater lengths to inflict harm on another member of the same species for purposes of own selfish gain (while ignoring the risk of "getting destroyed"). No other species on Earth produces terrorists; so although law of the jungle prevails in rain-forrests... it is detrimental to "civilized" bio-social structure.
Think about it... would there be any such thing as "civilized" or "law" if the world plunged into war, and all government resources were exhausted in fight to "preserve survival of 'cultural' species"? Of course not... our country could be reduced to rubble and death if there was no governing body to "fight off 'bad' people". Anarchy is defined as "lawlessness", however, as Alex points out... "lawlessness" equates to "complete and unconditional freedom", which is just as dangerous as tyrant government...
Because our government currently has the available resources to exercise its "freedom" in hunting and catching what society has deemed as "bad members of our species", then it stands that you still have to think twice before "doing wrong" ('wrong' as in definitions currently written on law books). Of course you are free to do "wrong", but you must fiorst weigh the pros & cons and figure how "wrong" will increase your chances for survival. Our society is structured in a way to where doing harm to somebody else, will only make instinctive survival harder to accomplish; this is what we call "crime and punishment". Of course... there are exceptions to the rule, for instence, self defense, or administering capital punishment (justice).
I think a world-war-3 would be the result of another "cultural species" having as much or more resources as the all powerful American government. Just as when the soviets were a world superpower, you had cold-war, which escalated and came close to "Armageddon". If you think about it... two equal powers will ALWAYS "lock horns", regardless of good standing international relations. If they have the technological resources to spy on us, then you can be damned sure they will; the only question is whether we allow them to or not (do you call it a 'UN weapons inspection' or do you deem it to be 'espionage'). Of course you can be just as equally sure that the US will also spy, resulting in indirect "arms-race". This builds to tension, tension builds to mistrust, mistrust builds to more spying and increased arms-race, which leads to locking horns, which leads to more tension... basically defining a "cold-war". It all boils down to: are we fighting a weak country or a country of comparable strength? The first case results in a "desert storm" and the latter results in a long drawn out dangerous cold-war/potential world war.
We may call our world civilized all we want, but the fact of the matter is that it all boils down to 'survival of the fittest'. "Freewill" and "freedom" are basically one and the same; one just happens to deal more with politics and arms-capability than the other, and neither can ever be taken away (although it can become increasingly difficult to exercise under different creeds of government). |
