Why do I need a “better idea” if the plan violates individual self-ownership and property rights, which is unacceptable? Do I need a “better idea” to suggest that cops shouldn’t torture suspects illegally, for example? Can’t I make said critique with or without an alternative plan for criminal justice?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If you want to be critical you could be more constructive and offer ideas to make it more inline with self-ownership or you will be doing nothing but allowing the already terrible status-quo to continue unchallenged. You could offer something such as more agorist means or whatever but just to say it's not voluntaryist enough without offering up a more voluntaryist approach seems a lot less helpful to me.
That's an illogical claim. Refusing to support a plan not in line with the voluntaryist axiom of individual self ownership does not automatically translate into "doing nothing but allowing the already terrible status-quo to continue unchallenged." That's silly. I have already offered other ideas but unfortunately they remain ignored and the knee-jerk, emotional reactions continue.
If you've offered other ideas then where can I find them?
"If you have a better idea for ending slavery, and still being able to pick the cotton, where is it!?"
Irrelevant. My idea? Respect property and innovate. Look around here on Steemit. It's already happening. Farms. Homesteaders. Ghost computers. Anarchist support networks. Homeless being helped. Hungry being fed. Direct, no middle-man transactions.
Am I to believe that is all bullshit and that I need to follow one man's plans for how things should work? I'd rather stick with the principles of ISO and property. That's the best plan there is. People don't like it, though, because the actual risk involved is perceived easily and there is no messiah figure to lead everyone and provide a false sense of security.