Laws do not exist, only principles

This is a concern trolling post. The term concern trolling is a rationalization to justify not taking action, the person is Lying to the person in the mirror. In your workplace, maybe a conversation about fake news sites comes up. According to mainstream media, Briebart News Network. Instead of pointing out that fake news sites are usually right of center sites, you decide to sit back and not take action. To justify your lack of action you cite Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others from Robert Greene’s book The 48 Laws of Power. Your brain doesn’t have to think too hard, you feel happy. As usual, I will take you on a thinking journey, sit back and relax. Let us start by proving the laws are wrong. What? That is heresy you scream. Relax, Robert Greene has many good points, I respect him. This post will be about the difference between laws and principles.

The difference between principles and laws

First, let’s examine some laws. A perfect circle does not exist, just the idea of a perfect circle. A perfect circle can be defined as an infinite amount of points that are a single distance from one point. You learn in school, 1 + 1 = 2. Jack has one apple, his mother gives him another apple, how many apples does Jack have? Obediently, all the grade one students recite 2 apples. Does Jack really have two apples? No, he doesn’t. What?, you protest, Wankalot, have you been drinking too much Southern Comfort again? Yes, but that doesn’t make my argument invalid. What is the assumption being made in the question 1 apple plus 1 apple? The assumption is both apples are identical. What if Jack has a Golden Delicious Apple and his mother gave him a crab apple, does he still have two apples? What if Jack has a crab apple that weighs 30 grams, his mother gives him a crab apple that weighs 25 grams, does he still have two apples? The point I am making is 1 + 1 = 2 only exists as a law in a theoretical world that does not exist. No two apples are alike. There is the principle that 1 apple plus 1 apple equals two apples.

Principle - a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

The definition of principle contains a contradiction or as I like to call it, a crack in reality. First, it contains the word truth then it contains the word belief. It makes the assumption that truth is universal. I showed in my post Fish and fishermen occupy different realities, fish and fishermen occupy two different realities. What is rational behavior for a fish is irrational for a fisherman? An endorsed red pill member stated my post contained no new material, all information could be found on the sidebar. He failed to understand the purpose of the post was not to provide additional information but to change one’s thinking. In he was behaving in a blue pill manner. The red pill is an idea or concept, we can not reach this goal but we can all get closer. The member has contributed a lot, I am just pointing out, we are all open to logical fallacies.

The key point is, all laws are actually principles. A principle could be defined as a formula which helps you predict future events. Newtonian laws are wrong. When objects move close to the speed of light, Newtonian laws no longer accurately predict future events. Einstein’s relativity laws are more accurate but involve more computation. When computing what happens when two pool balls collide on a pool table, Newtonian laws do a good job of predicting the future. You are now saying, Wankalot you could have told us that from the start. Correct but you probably wouldn’t remember this. I am using a combination of Socratic dialog and story to provoke thought and help you remember. Stories help us remember as shown in the book Wired for Story: The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence.

A story which shows Robert Green’s laws contradict each other

An influential man appeared to be condoning activities which were causing many people in my community hardship. I talked to members of the community, people who had talked to this influential person about these activities disappeared. It started to affect people who were close to me, I decided that something needed to be done. I then investigated further, what was their opinion on this man. Most people said, despite allegedly making people disappear when he got angry, he was a good man. Many times he had helped out the community and others. Know this, I decided to arrange a meeting with him.

When I went to meet the influential man, I was treated with courtesy and respect, I behaved in the same manner. I was brought to his large veranda, surrounding him were bodyguards and sycophants. He had coffee brought for both of us. We initially engaged in pleasant chit-chat for the first few minutes. After the coffee was served, he offered me a cigar, I accepted. I relaxed and had a non-expectant attitude lets see where this is going. He then began to interview me, he would ask my opinion on things, I would answer politely but honestly. Sometimes he would stop, turn and talk to one of his men and verify that I was telling the truth. He then said, I like you, you are an honest man, you speak the truth even if it is uncomfortable. I then sensed the interview was over, he was going to get to the point. He then said, my men tell me you have a problem. Maybe I can help you with the problem, tell me what it is.

Sir, I have talked to the members our community, your actions show that you are concerned about our community. When members of our community ask you for help, when possible you help them. People within the community respect you. Unfortunately, right now your reputation is being damaged. What is happening? he asked. Sir, rumors have it that you are allegedly condoning certain activities which are harmful to our community, I replied. What are these alleged activities? he demanded. With great apprehension, I looked him in the eye and told him. I heard a gasp from all of his bodyguards and sycophants. I was terrified but hopefully, I hid it. He continued to look me in the eye for a few more seconds, and then he burst out laughing. Immediately everyone in the room started to laugh and I knew I wasn’t going to disappear.

I judged right, he laughed. I knew you were an honest man, and you proved it. He then asked me how these activities were affecting the community, I explained to him. He then turned to his subordinates and asked them, how come none of them told him this problem? The sycophants then started to make excuses, he told them to shut up. Honestly, I don’t know if he was directly responsible for the harmful activities or not. Influential men are busy men, they do not have time to track every minor detail. Sometimes they do not know the repercussions of their actions or in this case non-actions. He then promised to look into the activities, within a month the problem was solved.

Can you spot how Robert Green’s laws contradict each other in the story?

Law 38 states, Think as you like but Behave like others and Law 48 states, Assume Formlessness meanwhile Law 28 states Enter Action with Boldness, Law 37 states Create Compelling Spectacles and Law 39 states Stir up Waters to Catch Fish. If I behaved like everyone else, I would have sat back, did nothing and pretended everything was fine. It states, stir up waters to catch fish but if I am behaving in a formless manner, how is this possible? We see many contradictions, laws should be followed.

Possibly, you might be saying, Robert Greene’s is a fraud, I am throwing his The 48 Laws of Power. On the other hand, if his book is viewed as a set of principles, then this changes everything. Principles should only be applied when practical. Also, notice how I combined the principles together to create a compelling argument, I used the concepts discussed in Finding better solutions by thinking inside the box. My point became compelling because of Law 5, So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life. During the interview portion, he was checking my reputation. When I asked for his help, I applied Law 13, When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude. In this case, I turned around Law 5 and showed how his reputation was being damaged. Then when he agreed to look into the matter, I applied Law 47, Do not go Past the Mark you Aimed for; In Victory, Learn when to Stop. A younger me might have been tempted to get him to admit responsibility. This is an application of Law 1, Never Outshine the Master. The objective has been achieved, if I would continue, it would be ego on my behalf.

I have successfully proven that Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others is often used as a rationalization not to take action. That doesn’t mean the principle is invalid. What Robert Greene is saying, is don’t stick your neck out for no reason. Example, you are traveling in a Muslim country with strict homosexuality and alcohol laws. Running around on the street in Saudi Arabia wearing drag, drinking a bottle of beer and eating a pork sandwich probably isn’t a good idea. Many Muslims there are homosexual, they eat pork and they drink beer but they are careful to do it out of sight.

Why you are encouraged to believe laws are absolute

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

In this case, I am talking about legal laws. As the definition states, they are designed to govern human behavior. Most humans stupidly believe that laws are designed for their best interests. As the definitions states, they are created by an executive, some sort of leader. As the book The Predictioneer’s Game: Using the Logic of Brazen Self-Interest to See and Shape the Future shows, leaders act in their best interests, not yours. Sometimes your self-interests and the leader’s self-interests are the same, often they are not. When the leader’s self-interests and yours differ, you rant about how the leader is stupid. No, you are stupid, the leader exists in a different reality from you.

Example of legalized theft

Definitions are always useful.

theft - the action or crime of stealing.

What is stealing?

steal - take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

If I run a Ponzi scheme, that is fraud which is a form of theft. I am misrepresenting what I am selling. On the other hand, if I sell something called a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) according to the law, it isn’t fraud. The book, [The Big Short] describes the how CDOs were intentionally misrepresented, this caused the financial crisis of 2007-08. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb shows, it is an example of how big business collects the profits while the taxpayer takes the risk. They then call this too big to fail. You might argue, the bankers didn’t know what was happening. This headline Irish bankers joke over bailout at EU’s expense proves you wrong.

I am not encouraging you to perform acts of fraud. I am just pointing out that even legal laws are not absolute.

Further directions

The post started out with talking about how people use a law to justify their actions. The point of the post was to show all laws are principles, they only apply in certain areas. It is important to know when the principle applies. If you are using the principle to justify your actions, most likely it is a form of rationalization. You should examine if the principle actually applies in this area. I then went into why school encourages you to believe laws are absolute. It is a form of social control but it also caters to people’s desires for simple solutions to complex problems.

The key is not knowing when the principle applies but knowing when it doesn’t apply. That way you will know when to disregard it. Also, it is how you combine the principles together which is important. This was the point behind my post Finding better solutions by thinking inside the box, often the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.

I have recently been attacked by Progressives, they accused me of being full hate and anger. Possibly they might be correct. I decided to enter therapy for my hate and anger issues, fortunately, due to your donations, I am able to get the therapy I need at my local girly bar.

My delightful pretty therapist upon entering this establishment took me by the hand and said, Wankalot you look stressed and angry. I asked her what she recommended, the pretty lady prescribed me a shot of Johnny Walker. She then took my hand, invited me to sit down and tell me all her problems. She frequently interrupted me with, Sir Wankalot, you are so handsome. You are so smart, I am sure you will find a solution to your hate and anger problem. After a one hour session for the price of a lady drink, I felt much better.

Contrast this to conventional therapy. Usually, the psychiatrist is some fat ugly thing with green hair. Then she repeatedly wants to know about my parents, all the bad things that happened in my life. Then she would make me repeat these horrible events over and over again until I hated my parents, the world etc. She then told me I have an anger and hate problem I need to visit her once a week for the next year. I decided not to continue with her therapy after discovering most of her clients after a year killed themselves.

To assist me with my valuable research on alternative anger management, you can send me donations to my bitcoin address 3NgksauCyuLcVRqLHVLbAnhP2UqmqspJVQ. If you like my posts, follow me on twitter at @sir_wankalote, I also have an account on gab @sir_wankalot_here the free speech alternative.