I hear you, is all I can say. I hope you find our way!

People want borders for exactly the same reasons you want a yard to do stuff in. You can direct that question right at yourself. Why do you want to have your own space? If someone comes along and tries to force you to give up your space, would you try to “get along” and just relinquish your space, or would you defend it? Why do you think you have more rights to that space than the other person? We don’t tend to like it but there is no ultimate law in the universe that says that people can’t acquire a space with violence.

You’re asking questions about human nature that you yourself are equally subject to.

I do get the frustration. Best solution I can offer is just working on the level of the self. Like I said, non-attachment. Read some philosophy. Look into en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism (also www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKUeOXz8J87Q9qi-Yf…). That was the only way I was able to finally come to increasing amount of acceptance of reality without losing my will to try to have at least small positive impacts on the world while I’m here. Actually I’m more effective at it because it helped me significantly reduce endlessly chasing after pointless dopamine fixes and trying to get “more” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill).

Not that I disagree with the sentiment but you are veering close to the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox

You can buy a piece of land in bumfuck nowhere and try to live off it. Or you can join a community that tries to do that (more realistic). There’s the whole en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-grid thing

Problem is that most people want the conveniences of modern, globalist life, and many people don’t have a realistic choice.

Personally I try to find a balance between Buddhist non-attachment and making do with the life I got.

It’s a treacherous intoxicant. People love recreational outrage but for many people it turns into active, seething hate that colors every interaction they have. It’s the lens through which many view the world and it becomes self-perpetuating. People will have angry and hateful interactions with others, begetting more hate, begetting more hate, begetting more hate.

The fury feels good in a moment. Makes you feel strong. Find some like-minded people angry at the same things and you get to feed off each other’s rage. You’ll not only get more reasons to hate, but you’ll feel justified in the hate. You are in the right. The others are wrong. How dare the others be wrong. You must hate them because they are evil. See how they respond to your hate with more hate, further proving how justified you are in your own hate. It warms your chest, it rushes through your veins like the best alcohol you can imagine and you’re not feeling so helpless. It makes you feel like you’re accomplishing something. It masks the feeling that you are just one, small person faced with an impossibly complicated world, that is often filled with incredible injustice. It keeps you from realizing that you’re a tiny little cog in the same machine that causes both all the suffering and all the joy in the world. It tricks you into thinking that you are both apart from the world, yet powerful enough to impact it.

Every hateful comment you leave adds more hate into the machine. Every act of kindness adds more kindness. But hate is easier. Kindness feels weak. It’s vulnerable. It’s fragile. Even if you’re kind, the hate that others keep adding may reach you and bite you. Most people can handle having their teeth kicked in only for so many times. It’s easier to shut down and hate. But that doesn’t mean that commitment to kindness is impossible. It’s just harder.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

Tell me you had a certain experience without telling me you had a certain experience.

Were you specifically taught to not talk in certain terms about how your world “shattered”? Because I was.

I’m not cheering for “Might makes Right”.

If you value dialogue, and if someone who doesn’t decides “Might makes Right”, you’re going to have to be “mighty” enough to at least defend your values. Else, your values will be stomped out. Or as I said, you need to accept the consequences of surrender (or absolute pacifism).

I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong in this, just pointing out the logical consequences.

War is never desirable, but this does not make pacifism a virtue. Rather, peace must be guaranteed by strength

Yeah.

Once someone decides that Might DOES make Right, everyone is in that game whether they like it or not. Of course one can totally surrender, if they are okay with the consequences of that.

That said, Might also does Make Right in the sense that those who wield power get to decide what “Right” is. It’s just that the more it departs from common human sensibilities, the more they have to wield Might to make it Right.

Not really all that interesting. It’s just the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox wearing the cape of solipsism.

Without the fancy jargon, the argument is “All people must be free to do whatever they want (the paradox part they don’t say out loud is: except form a consensus)”

If you resolve the paradox, what you’re left with is exactly the same world we have now: everyone is free to do exactly what they want, including forming a consensus (that may restrict the freedom of the individual)

It’s a philosophical sleight of hand that’s easy to hide in grandiose and virtuous rhetoric. I’ve seen it often from the Libertarian Right, and I suspect so have others on Lemmy.