much time is wasted on agreeing to definitions
If this is how you feel I’m not sure we can collaborate on much of anything. Agreeing on defintions is foundational and essential for avoiding confusion.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
much time is wasted on agreeing to definitions
If this is how you feel I’m not sure we can collaborate on much of anything. Agreeing on defintions is foundational and essential for avoiding confusion.
Ok, if that is how you feel. I get that always, guessing it's me. Anyway, hope you don't mind if I just go ahead and express my philosophy.
I'm a human being. I have a right to live. To say there is any rightful authority over me is tantamount to saying my rights are less than what others have which in my humble opinion is a non-starter in the logic department.
"The only true law is that which leads to freedom." ~ Jonathan Livingston Seagull
What could that law possibly be? A law that leads to freedom?
-You can't infringe on another person's unalienable rights.- What scenario could not be adjudicated by that simple principle.
And as long as you don't do that, there is no rightful force that can be used against you.
There can be no crime without a victim.
We are sovereign and complete unto ourselves, we are our own government.
no questions for you because of what you said but I do wonder what label you'd give a person who believes in the above.
labels are divisive, violence, "the greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation". There is only one thing that can save us and that is solidarity. "We all hang together..." - "United we stand..." - some truth there imho
"in the end, only kindness matters" ~ Jewel
Ok - When you say anarchy, I'll think freedom and
when I say freedom, you can think anarchy.
and we'll be on the same page. ;)
Government can't coexist with "freedom" - the two are wholly incompatible to individual sovereignty - unalienable rights
no left no right no anything else, there's only freedom and tyranny.