I agree. But the question this begs is how does one rule without force? Is it rulership if it is not enforced upon those that do not accept it?
There is a much simpler concept we can use for this. The problem is coercion. Lack of consent. Lack of voluntary interaction.
Consensus and segregation.
If you want to flood the valley floor and folks don't want to move you don't flood the valley floor.
If you spray poisons in the sky for your own reasons but don't seek consent from us who got to breathe it don't be surprised when you get droned.
I know the first lesson in life is obey the big people and escaping this paradigm will not be without undesirable unforeseeable consequences, but as a free human being it will be up to you, and those around you, to solve your problems.
If you need outside help, ask for it.
Then it becomes the assumed responsibility of whomever agrees to help.
Not that that diminishes your own share of the responsibility, but if someone agrees to deliver, they should.
Is that still a problem in the cases of Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy? "Government" did the right thing in those cases. The problem is improper, illegitimate government (stated in Economic language, it's "surplus order"). In psychological terms, the problem is "obedience to false/illegitimate authority." (Read Milgram's "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View" for more on this (he even quotes/cites Mises' "Bureaucracy" and Wiener's "Cybernetics").
The political problem is the division of (classical) liberal (libertarian) forces that could otherwise overpower the totalitarian forces, if those in their own camp were not confused by "anarchism" (essentially an anti-quorum-sensing drug for libertarians).
Who has the right to rule me, in part or full?
Who has the right to initiate force against me because I do not recognize their rule?
NO MAN has authority over another man. Show me 'legitimate' authority and I'll show you a group of thugs who might leave YOU alone but are still engaging in the abuse and murder of human beings in the name of 'authority'.
You want masters? Have them. But don't dare to assume that I'm to be owned along side you simply because you refuse to own yourself.
It kind of is, but kind of isn't. Also: Stating the problem in such a crude and incomplete way that isn't true in all cases results in an incremental total loss of freedom. For example: When the police bust down Jeffrey Dahmer's door, is that "rule by force"? Many people would say "yes, it is, and that's a good thing." Those people are equally as wrong as you are, but both of you are stating the problem in a way that makes the others' position appear totally incompatible, so no agreement is possible.
I agree. But the question this begs is how does one rule without force? Is it rulership if it is not enforced upon those that do not accept it?
There is a much simpler concept we can use for this. The problem is coercion. Lack of consent. Lack of voluntary interaction.
Consensus and segregation.
If you want to flood the valley floor and folks don't want to move you don't flood the valley floor.
If you spray poisons in the sky for your own reasons but don't seek consent from us who got to breathe it don't be surprised when you get droned.
I know the first lesson in life is obey the big people and escaping this paradigm will not be without undesirable unforeseeable consequences, but as a free human being it will be up to you, and those around you, to solve your problems.
If you need outside help, ask for it.
Then it becomes the assumed responsibility of whomever agrees to help.
Not that that diminishes your own share of the responsibility, but if someone agrees to deliver, they should.
Is that still a problem in the cases of Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy? "Government" did the right thing in those cases. The problem is improper, illegitimate government (stated in Economic language, it's "surplus order"). In psychological terms, the problem is "obedience to false/illegitimate authority." (Read Milgram's "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View" for more on this (he even quotes/cites Mises' "Bureaucracy" and Wiener's "Cybernetics").
The political problem is the division of (classical) liberal (libertarian) forces that could otherwise overpower the totalitarian forces, if those in their own camp were not confused by "anarchism" (essentially an anti-quorum-sensing drug for libertarians).
Who has the right to rule me, in part or full?
Who has the right to initiate force against me because I do not recognize their rule?
NO MAN has authority over another man. Show me 'legitimate' authority and I'll show you a group of thugs who might leave YOU alone but are still engaging in the abuse and murder of human beings in the name of 'authority'.
You want masters? Have them. But don't dare to assume that I'm to be owned along side you simply because you refuse to own yourself.
It kind of is, but kind of isn't. Also: Stating the problem in such a crude and incomplete way that isn't true in all cases results in an incremental total loss of freedom. For example: When the police bust down Jeffrey Dahmer's door, is that "rule by force"? Many people would say "yes, it is, and that's a good thing." Those people are equally as wrong as you are, but both of you are stating the problem in a way that makes the others' position appear totally incompatible, so no agreement is possible.