With 3. you are being totally absurd, and, as you repeatedly do to me, employ arguments by extension (a type of logical fallacy), whereby you put me out on a limb and saw it off!
Nope. Sure, I'm gently mocking your silly position, but I've pretty accurately represented what you've said. Somewhat amusingly, it might be true that: What Bosco1 Means is Not Determinative of What he Says.
But here, let me show you how I got there. When asked for an alternative to law, your proposal was:
First we should educate everyone to the point of understanding how human acts actually originate, which is being reflectively free, which will raise everyone's natural dignity/nobility and effect a calm. The final totalization of what civilization can be can only be the resultant of this type of dialogic interaction...
When I pointed out that not everyone might be incapable or unwilling to control themselves, or might want to take advantage of those weaker than them, you said:
I said we should start by rendering all persons as reflectively free. Then all of the negative behaviors could well intensify, and, so would reactions thereto...perhaps erasing the ignoble ones via grassroots violence...However, I think raising all persons up to reflective freedom will ennoble and calm everyone.
I pointed out that this was simply self-defense and that not everyone is capable of effective self defense, and that law itself grew from that fact, your response was:
You predict all of this dire possibility, while, all the while, we have collectively have never been reflectively free, and, hence, have no true idea what will be.
If you feel like you've got a better way of phrasing Bosco1 Assertion #3 then please do so.
With 2. you radically exaggerate and extend what I have said. I said law is just a pursuit of money.
Do you believe "law is just a pursuit of money" is either a universal truth or represents your complete understanding of law? Does law serve any positive purpose? Is the overthrow of law likely to have any foreseeable negative consequences? Do laws - or the possible consequences for their violation - ever influence human behavior?
You are starting with a relatively minor but accurate point (people can choose to disobey law) but after that point you have failed to demonstrate
any of your pronouncements.
With 1. you are correct.
Great. That's a starting point.
With the understanding that you are capable of making decisions independent of your situation, would you agree that often your decisions are made in light of, and with respect to your situation? Let's set aside law for the moment and use the example of hunger that I brought up earlier. Do you ever take your hunger into consideration when deciding whether or not to eat? Obviously you are capable of choosing to fast and would theoretically be capable of choosing to starve yourself, but it seems obvious that some of the elements that go into choosing to eat are external to your will.
There is no conflict with Sartre's theory of existential freedom to note that all decisions we make are shaped, impacted, and influenced by (not to say determined by) circumstances and situations even if those decisions are not
defined by circumstance and situation. Would you agree?
Upon reflection I now realize that I am radically off the wall here.
This is something that you and I can agree on unreservedly.
I am attempting to overthrow the law at the theoretical level! Which is a radically idiosyncratic thing to do, and, I believe I have done it.
I cannot argue whether or not you have succeeded in doing this, but I can say with certainty that you have utterly failed to demonstrate it here. Your arguments are poorly and carelessly worded, your understanding of the concepts in question appears narrow and without nuance, and you regularly make wild and illogical leaps which are not supported by what little you have shown.
If you want to take a shot at buttressing and fleshing out your arguments (especially for Bosco1 Assertions #2 and #3) I'd be interested to see what you have to say.
