So, you're begging aggressive people to not be aggressive toward you? I'm not sure this is a good strategy.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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
It's not about disagreement. Disagreement is protected in my country.
Law enforcement and military are indeed socialistic. We grant government a monopoly on violence, in order to minimize production of violence. Makes sense, in economic terms.
We don't favor socialism in other spheres precisely because it minimizes production in those spheres. Violence is one product to be minimized, but privatizing it will increase it.
Who is "we"?
Because government has the monopoly on violence it has the monopoly in all other spheres as well. From forcing you to have your chimney cleared under the thread of violence to Forcing you to keep your hedge under a certain height under the thread of violence and thousands of such things more. Every little detail in your live is controlled, and met with violence, with the death penalty as end result if you still do not obey after they robbed you or try to cage you and you defend yourself against the attackers.
You don't privatize violence in voluntaryism, You privatize defense.
You need no badge or costume or special rights to defend yourself or people. You can do the defense yourself or the with people you live with even organized, but the people in the organized defense have not, more rights, than that "normal" people do because they are normal people.
Those organizations can also defend against so called protection agencies that extort people of their money to give them so called protection........against protection agencies that extort people of their money to give them so called protection
(edit I added, and changed some sentence to clarify and correct language mistakes)
Okay. What if all these "defense" companies form a cartel, and decide to just extort and oppress everybody else? Or if one company gets a monopoly and kills all other companies that try to compete?
Like you have now you mean.
Like mafiagovernment there is now.
In a society of free people/individuals that don't believe that they have to obey tyrants, murderers, thief's and so on, they will organize defense against governments and mafia and other murderers and oppressors. It's totally in line with the NAP and If they want to stay free from this, they ought to exercise the SDP (self defense principle) You have to defend your freedom and preferably that of others.
But all this will not be possible right now. Like I said in my previous reaction. It's now trying to convince as many people that the NAP is a better way to life than promoting aggression.
No matter what you or others may think I believe that one day people will know that they don't have to obey the mafia or the mafia government but that they can live together peacefully handeling the threats that will still exist in a way that don't require them to be slaves to a political mafia.
I must say that in your reply your have the perfect description for governments. And if you think it through it will end in a one world government. People will be taught they are free in their slavery and will be slaves forever, all that oppose will be seen as terrorists and what not, and be locked away in a gulag or concentrationcamps, as always happens. It's just a logical conclusion. But till my death or till that time I will fight them not by attacking some government that does not exist but I will talk to the believers and try to persuade them to become a heretic to the tyranical god called government. Maybe it's not to late. I don't know. I will use the power of expression to try to convince people were I can. They may listen and maybe think about it, or maybe not. I'm not forcing my opinion on them. They are free human beings just like me.
In the meanwhile I try to live as free as possible. Maybe that's even more convincing that talking. Anyway I can not go back into believing in the god called government it would be the same as me saying I believe in Santa Claus, That would be totally impossible, as you probably can imagine lol.