You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [VIDEO] 99.9% of People Are Good; Violent Conflict is Almost Always Avoidable.
Self ownership is not gospel. I am not a slave. And I have nothing with nihilism what so ever.
You believe in your religion that's fine, but don't force your religion on me, choose masters/ruler/leaders for yourself all you want, but don't pretend that you have a right to force me to obey the master/ruler/ leader, you choose for yourself.
Thanks for the replies anyway :)
Nobody is forced to obey. We purportedly have free will, which means we may always disobey.
It is pragmatic to choose to obey sometimes, for the avoidance of futile hassle.
Of course you are forced to obey, try to stop paying taxes, to the tyrants other people choose for you. Or disobey some immoral opinions from politicians which they call laws, and stick with your principles, I can tell you, the hassle is not futile. Because the violence will escalate until you obey to their opinions.
It's pragmatic to obey because you, value your freedom or don't want to die just jet.
I don't get the, free will, thing. Some nihilist bring the argument "we have no free will" as if I have to go along with their ideology because they came too that conclusion. (that it proves somehow that their system must be accepted or their ideology is to be obeyed.)
Even if we have no free will at all, does that mean we may not disobey????? Strange way of thinking. (not saying you are saying that)
If someone says to me; choice does not exist everything is pre-determent, does that mean that I have no other choice that to obey them or the one they believe I should obey. It makes no sense at all.
But I'm not gonna hold long philosophical debates, if you don't mind.
Thanks :)
I'm just saying that if we do have free will, then we can choose to disobey government.
That's not to say that if we don't have free will then we must obey government. Rather, if we have no free will, we have no choices at all. In that situation, we must obey a destiny that may or may not include obedience toward government.
Governments do give an implicit choice: obey, disobey and endure the consequences, or leave the land. I hope that the last option could make anarchy unnecessary, as it allows a virtual marketplace for governments. I think that as people vote with their feet, by immigration and emigration, worse governments will be defunded and better governments will be funded by the tax dollars gained or lost.
I think that such a marketplace is the best way to create the best governments that people might actually want.
What is so special about the people in government that they may punish you or steal your money or cage you if you don't obey their opinion.
Do they own the land, even the land you bought and payed for? That you are the owner of, because If they can tell you what you can or can not do, or leave the land you own, that means that they own your land and you are merely renting it, until you stop paying them rent or disobey their myriade of arbitrary rules that you have to obey.
A marketplace of mafias is the best way to create the mafia's that people might actually want. How about no mafia at all.
Because you want government does not mean I need one. I believe in non aggression if you believe in aggression fine but don't force it on me.
So, you're begging aggressive people to not be aggressive toward you? I'm not sure this is a good strategy.
I can not do much about the police the IRS and other bureaucrats that stick their nose into my life ( not sure if that good english) All I can do about that is work as much as possible around them.
But about the begging, you could say that I beg statists/ the believers (I ask them) to reexamine what they are told to believe. I guess you can call asking begging if you want to. If they keep promoting and forcing their ideology on me, there comes a point that I let them go.
If someone is is aggressive in the sense of physical violence I will defend myself or get away, It might even be so that I defend others if they are aggressed against. It won't be the first time that I de-escalate a situation.
This is a good case for government, it provides a military to represent the interests of the citizens, with collective power to overwhelm singular actors such as yourself.
The irony is that anarchists can't form an army, because it would contradict their core values. So, I don't see how they can win.
I don't know if they can't form an army as defense in the future.
But voluntaryist aren't pacifists.
BUT you can't bring down a religion by hauling down it's churches or killing the priests or the the inquisition (police) The believer will install a new one. It's the believers that make the church or god. Once they stop believing because they see it's not real, the churches will run empty and the religion will disappear.
"To overwhelm singular actors like yourself". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that my english isn't that good. Edit It sounds very international or national socialistic; like; everyone who disagrees with "us" is a danger but luckily we have the military to protect us by putting them in a gulag or concentration camp