You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If voting made a difference, they'd make it illegal... Wait.
"defend democracy and real freedom"
Democracy isn't "real" freedom -- it isn't even freedom. Freedom, defined as not having your rights -- to your person and property -- being invaded, is not at all what democracy offers. Democracy gives others the "right to vote" how your person and property will be invaded. It does this, by "allowing" laws to be enforced (e.g. your taxation to invade your property, and drug or sex laws to invade your person.)
To have real freedom, the individual's rights must be conserved and protected -- none of with democracy does.
I repeat what I have already said.
I'm for personal freedom, very small taxes (below 10%), complete freedom of speech, self-responsibility, no welfare state, right to own your guns, free market without any kind of regulation or interventionism, no central banks and small government whose only function should be to defend the people that elect them from external threats with the army and from internal threads with the police.
A conspiracy to secession is an internal threat so police have to intervene and put them to jail and that fits completely with freedom because without a small amount of law it would be just the law of the jungle and that is not freedom.
You defend freedom without defining it first. If freedom is not having your rights -- to person and property -- invaded, then you can't have a government, as that would be anti-freedom.
Laws are arbitrary preference rules by either "the people" or by an oligarchy/dictator, about what individuals can do with their body and property. It's inherently an invasion of those two basic human rights, thus anti-freedom.
Practically, common law (or jungle law, as you call it) can be peacefully developed through time, without need of central control (the government.) For instance, common law was that rules Ireland for many centuries, until Britain "civilized" them. But this empirical information is useless, as it doesn't matter if central law works better than "jungle law," only the latter respects basic human rights, and subsequently freedom.
You don't need to repeat your personal beliefs, but you can prove that violently imposing those belief on others, are respecting their freedom (of person and property.) An "internal threat" is just your opinion on how the world should be run, and you, by supporting it being unwillingly and violently imposed on others, are not respecting their rights and freedoms, but advocating for your own dictatorship.
It doesn't matter claiming you "support" personal liberties, if you wish for others (e.g. police) to harm people for doing something you disagree with (e.g. not paying taxes, generally disobeying unjust laws.) It's a complete contradiction.