13idDC…KmSV

Freedom means that nobody has the privilege to violate individual rights.

The only dividing line between people that really matters is the one between those who (claim the privilege to) violate other people's rights and those who do not.

All other divisions are secondary at best.

And yet, we are constantly falling for them....

Nothing can be said against people freely choosing a totalitarian system in which they are children and the state is their mother.

But a lot can be said against the same people forcing others to be a part of it or wanting them to finance it.

The mystery we are faced with is so unique and complex that we prefer to retreat into illusion in order to avoid it.

If we were to abolish the state tomorrow the resulting chaos would likely be worse than statism itself. Chaos is not desirable.

The state must be replaced step by step with decentralized voluntary organizations.

Anarchism =/= Chaos
Anarchism = Order

I was paraphrasing your condescending attitude, not quoting you.

On the positive side: now that you are no longer an anarchist because you are afraid of what 'the Karens' would do, at least you are no longer in danger of csw getting mad at you.

Be safe.

Thoughtfulness is always helpful.

Summery:

• But the Karens!?
• Who cares? They couldn't claim the privilege to violate other's rights or be the useful idiots to someone who does.
• You are naive and not thoughtful enough and you don't understand. Troll

Maybe if you'd have answered my question why exactly you stopped being an anarchist things would have gone better.

No harm done.
Thanks!

You made clear what you mean.

It just seems half-cooked to me.

But maybe we are just talking past each other...

I think you should go for the troll toll.
That's the best option for you at this point.
If you ever feel like having a discussion on eye level, let me know.

No offense, but at this point i am in doubt you know what anarchism is, statism, and a strawman, for that matter.

Meanwhile you sound condescending without being able to back it up and start to retreat into ad hominems..

Maybe another day. I'm interested

You don't have to answer my questions, but at least ask yourself why.

Imagine living during the time of slavery when most people still thought it was fine and arguing like you did:

'I used to be against slavery, but now I'm agnostic. It's not the system that matters most, but the people. Imagine what the slavers would do!'

There is a huge difference between a society that grants some people the privilege to violate rights and one that doesn't.

I see no way around that...
Do you disagree?

You already stated that statism is immoral.

First few people realized that slavery was bad, raised consciousness about the problem and then more and more people saw it until they were enough to stop its legal form.

End the rant, start the dialogue?

Or do you mean you prefer to end this conversation?

That the way a society is organized (coercive vs. Voluntary) is not extraordinarily important seems not very convincing to me so far.

Well, the abolition of slavery lead to an increase in society's morality, didn't it?

Likewise the end of totalitarian regimes...

Why wouldn't the abolition of the privilege to violate rights in general have a similar effect?

I think I understand what you are saying.

Isn't what you are saying akin to this:

'Let's not focus on slavery, after all it's the people that matter more than the
system. Without slavery people would still try to exploit.

If not, what is the difference?

Stages of human development:

1. Baby/Infant
   Matriarchy. Family/Tribe. Loving Mother.
2. Adolescence
   Patriarchy. State. Authoritarian Father
   2.a Totalitarian Mother takes over the state.
   Socialism.
3. Grown-up
   Anarchy. Voluntary association. Freedom.

I'm trying to understand.
That's why I ask you questions...

How and if you answer them is up to you, obviously.

I can't see how a society BASED on the violation of rights is not worse off in terms of rights than one that isn't.

Do we agree on that?

Maybe we are missing each others point...

I'm ready to patiently listen and discuss.

The point I made that I think you are mssing is that in an anarchist society the privilege to violate other people's rights would not exist.

I get that. And I think it's great.

That doesn't change the fact that a statist society is inherently immoral while an anarchist (voluntary) society isn't.

Does it?

I think we are closing in on the point here.

What is immoral about an anarchist society?

That there would still be violence and coercion?

Of course there would be, humans would stll be humans. But nobody could claim the PRIVILEGE to violate rights.

If you agree that the state is immoral, and you still think it's better to keep it going, does that mean you think the end justifies the means?

Because there are some serious problems with that idea...

Statist society is based on the idea that 'authorities' can violate individual rights.

An anarchist society would be based on the idea that NOBODY has the privilege to violate individual rights

Seems obvious to ne that the former is worse for ind. Rights

Agreed. But how does that make statism ok?

Do you mind sharing what exactly it was that turned you away from anarchism?

Do you now think a society is better off if individual rights are systematically violated?

What changed your mind?

I'm guessing you misread, but granted, statism is arguably the political form of satanism.

The entire cult of #statism is based on the idea that the violation of individual rights is just fine if the perpetrators are the right people.

#Anarchism, on the other hand, is based on the idea that NOBODY has the privilege to violate individual rights.

The Karens would be largely the same, even though without big daddy everyone would have to grow up a bit.

The difference would be that they wouldn't be the useful idiots of an immoral, violent, oppressive entity dividing and ruling the people...

9/11 and its ridiculous official narrative got us 20 years of worldwide torror scare

Covid-19 and its ridiculous official narrative might bring us 20 years of worldwide virus scare

The message:
'Be scared! The enemy walks among us! Freedom is dangerous.'