Lmfao listen to yourself.
You think rights come from the government- and since you worship democracy, it’s absolutely necessary to convince or even FORCE others to agree with you. For the greater good. This is the logical end of your assumptions!
Thus- my original comment that:
Freedom for 🏳️🌈 cult is doing what they say.
And you say a conversation online is affecting your “human rights” that actually IS another logical conclusion! IF you believe in government based rights and democracy.
Which is obviously insane.
You can think and claim what you want. Practice your first steps as voluntarist and do as you want without hindering others doing what they want.
Feminism and LGBTQ activism is core voluntarism.
Those ideologies use the STATE to inflict rules and standards.
It’s completely opposite of voluntarism.
I see we got quiet different world views. They are actually just about the state accepting them as equal members as men are acceppted.
The human government/state is evil and shouldn’t exist.
The more you “petition” it or use it, even “for justice” the more power you give it, and it uses that power to abuse all of us.
So you should just stop interacting with it and caring about it so much.
Get your money out of its banks, don’t work for it, etc.
That is voluntarism.
If you are against what I’m saying, you are deluding yourself into thinking that The State can be “used for good” just like the tyrants and authoritarians.
I defnitly have a diffrent interpretation of voluntarism. I rather understand it as the freedom to act as I want to and supporting others in their opportunity to do so.
Also anarchism as Emma Goldmann describes it is order without authority. To have order a society needs a medium to conclude on a set of rules. So even when it is not a state, a constitution would even exist within a perfect anarchy.
And by what way somebody can be held accountable by commonly accepted rules as property rights, when there is no legitimate entity to enforce it?
Yes of course. We will have private courts and police and insurance as well with voluntarism/anarchy. But no one will forced to pay for them.
I prefer Rothbard’s definition in
For a New Liberty.
God bless.
And when you do not pay, who is getting you out of prison, when such a private police arrest you?
How could one still have any savety that one is seen as innocent until the opposit is prooven?
But you can also understand that a book is no proof of concept, whev it comes to cosial behaviour. We still need to build a place to proof those concepts to hold true, when communities live to those principles.
It is no proof at all, writing pages about it. And I find it very weak to claim that your principles you personally hold and act towards are described in a book. Defend them here instead of just referencing. And when not, maby do not defend the concept in the first place.
This is not really constructive.
Unfortunately school and media has brainwashed us so much that these concepts of true freedom are totally foreign, when not long ago even a child would have understood them.
We have to learn the language before we can argue.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
