A new world without rules, good or bad?

[Janic]

a civil code that still works

largely inspired by biblical mosaic texts.

[Ahmed]

For me, it's simple: a civilized society must have precise and effective rules for the general interest.

If it were simple, these rules would exist, which is obviously not the case!

It is a dictator, like Napoleon, who built an administration and a civil code that still work.

Doesn't he correspond to what you define yourself as the one who, being the strongest, knew "to take advantage of the situation only for (his) profit"?
Who can, moreover, generally establish rules if they are not the strongest? The reverse would be absurd ...
And, how, in this case, hope that they will serve the general interest?

[sen-no-sen]

in the absence of an effective rule, it is the law of the jungle: the strongest will always know how to take advantage of the situation only for their benefit

Do not dream, the rules, regulations, laws, conventions are made to be diverted.
The dominant will always divert its principles to their advantages, and more in the name of human rights!

is democracy a way to define effective rules? it's really not easy

Democracy should still work, to my knowledge I do not know of really democratic countries.

see the history of the French revolution, which produced only a lamentable paddle!

The French revolution was initiated in Vizille (Isère) in a 48-room chateau which, in my humble opinion, was not very popular with the working classes ...
Most of the revolutions are only popular in appearance, there are always interested instigators, this was true for the French revolution, May68, the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Arab spring etc ...

[chatelot16]

napoleon did not work only for his profit! he was too idealistic ... he was unbolted in a few years!

the strongest are often the mafiosi who think only of making their situation last as long as possible without any concern for the general interest

a good civilization must have rules which do not favor the mafia ... but promotes the establishment of a competent and goodwill leader

alas i find that the current financial liberalism is a little mafia

[sen-no-sen]

alas i find that the current financial liberalism is a little mafia

You are really nice!
Financial liberalism is the worst mafia itself!
Although the mafia, the real one, has an ethics all the same, liberalism has no morals!

[Flytox]

For me, it's simple: a civilized society must have precise and effective rules for the general interest.

If it were simple, these rules would exist, which is obviously not the case!

It is a dictator, like Napoleon, who built an administration and a civil code that still work.

Doesn't he correspond to what you define yourself as the one who, being the strongest, knew "to take advantage of the situation only for (his) profit"?
Who can, moreover, generally establish rules if they are not the strongest? The reverse would be absurd ...
And, how, in this case, hope that they will serve the general interest?

Absurd certainly not, utopian yes, the levers If a "true democracy" could exist, and where everyone's opinion could have the same weight it would give something smarter and above all more equitable!

[Ahmed]

I don't understand your objection, Flytox, wouldn't it be absurd for the strongest to let the weakest legislate?

The reality is, of course, more mixed because the strongest must take into account, to a certain extent, the others, because the latter nevertheless have a relative strength due to their number.

Chatelot16 a dit:

Alas, I find that the current financial liberalism is a little mafia

What in gallant terms these things are said!
Certainly theoretical liberalism never existed and cannot, but I understand that compared to Protestant capitalism the current version may be shocking.

Yet these are historical phases that flow from each other and more than rupture it would be better to see logical continuity ...

First directed against small English peasants * from the XNUMXth century, the liberal movement, by its expansion was led to relax its grip within its borders since it was thereby forced to exercise its aggressiveness outside (colonization / post-colonization), then, still by virtue of its dynamism, having annexed the planet, it began a kind of return to the origins ...

* Peasants who had not integrated the cult of work yet necessary for the intensity required by profitability.
Other times, other mores: the Luddits broke the machines that were going to ruin them and condemn them to the "labor prison", today the workers of PSA have lost so much autonomy that they can only claim the ideology of their masters , whose apparent inconsistency they deplore ...

[gildas]

I remind you, I am an atheist and religions do not dictate my thoughts. common sense keeps me going.

Everything is in the way, we will listen to the one whose speech reflects love.

[Flytox]

I don't understand your objection, Flytox, wouldn't it be absurd for the strongest to let the weakest legislate?

You presuppose that it is normal that the strongest take advantage of their power / means of pressure to abuse it ....

[Ahmed]

@ Flytox: I do not presuppose anything, I just note.
Whoever is in a position of strength arranges to establish the conditions to maintain or increase his advantage and therefore to lay down rules of the game which are favorable to him (under the appearance of fairness, because power is always likely to be disputed).

This is also the definition of the strongest, right?