XPost: alt.messianic   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 2/11/26 9:46 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   > On 2/10/2026 11:53 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 2/10/26 11:08 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>> On 2/10/2026 12:53 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/10/26 9:06 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/9/2026 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2/9/26 11:40 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2/8/2026 3:53 PM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2026 3:39 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 2/8/26 11:48 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2026 2:01 PM, Dude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Natural law asserts that certain moral principles and rights   
   >>>>>>>>>>> are inherent in human nature. They are universal, and can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>> discovered through reason instead of being created by society.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The neat thing about natural law is it exists outside of   
   >>>>>>>>>> ourselves and our beliefs. No one can own or control it. But   
   >>>>>>>>>> it can be discovered and recognized, because it is truth.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> natural law, divine right ... what's the difference???   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> u wouldn't know rationalism from ur own asshole wilson   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Okay Nick.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAg_BEEWsAAMNuh?format=jpg   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Property rights are human rights.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 🙄🙄🙄 anarcho-capitalism is a literal oxymoron: landlords (those   
   >>>>>> with a right to enforce their will in respect to some lands) *are*   
   >>>>>> the authority over their lands, even moreso in ancapistan...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Anarcho-capitalism simply acknowledges the natural rights of the   
   >>>>> individual, and respects the product of his labor.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> they also totally reject the concept of logic in the process,   
   >>>> because granting authority to landlords is not getting rid of authority   
   >>>   
   >>> Authority can mean some different things.   
   >>   
   >> anarchy means *no authority*   
   >>   
   >> one cannot enter into binding agreements under anarchy because there   
   >> is *no authority* to enforce those agreements   
   >>   
   >> anarchy proper *must* be predicated on actual *voluntarism*, that is   
   >> not only *agreed* at start, but also *maintained* into the future,   
   >> *without coercion* involved   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Landlords and renters enter into voluntary agreements. Collectivists   
   >>> want to think of this as a coercive relationship but that's nonsense.   
   >>> Landlords are not the state. And a voluntary agreement freely entered   
   >>> into with a socially enforced mandate for performance is not   
   >>> authoritarian.   
   >>>   
   >>> Even a completely voluntary society obviously can have persons they   
   >>> respect as authority figures. Hierarchical structures are necessary   
   >>> for human beings to function well, especially in groups. I've never   
   >>> met an Ancap who wants to get rid of all authority as long as   
   >>> compliance to that authority was not coerced by a state with the   
   >>> legal power to initiate violence.   
   >>   
   >> yes, because ancaps are not anarchists   
   >>   
   >> the term is literally an oxymoron   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> All of this is completely logical even if you don't like it or   
   >>> wouldn't want to live there yourself   
   >>   
   >> no it's not. ur totally ignoring the land limitations that *we've   
   >> already hit*   
   >>   
   >> we've grown far past the point of subsistence living being possible   
   >> for most people. people are *forced* to depend on he production system   
   >> put into place long before they were born... or die. that is just a   
   >> fact of having a planet our size with 8 billion people on it   
   >>   
   >> a system where *all* the productive land and resource are owned by   
   >> people who only dole out life sustaining resources in "voluntary"   
   >> transaction contracts ... is not a truly voluntary system, and never   
   >> will be   
   >>   
   >>    > ur just deluding urself   
   >>    >   
   >>    > #god   
   >>   
   >> this is just going to get worse as 21st century automation vastly   
   >> increases the amount of land/resources that large orgs can physical   
   >> maintain a productive presence and control over   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> as an non-denominational anarchist (also known as an anarchist):   
   >>>>>> i'm skeptical of govt action in general, but understand we're far   
   >>>>>> from ready for anarchy proper, so govt is here to stay for a few   
   >>>>>> generations at least. and to get that point we will need to   
   >>>>>> increasing pare back using govt to solve literally everything we   
   >>>>>> think is wrong like statist do, and develop communally/voluntarily   
   >>>>>> supported systems instead   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> With that I agree 100%.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> like for example getting rid of patents and copyrights   
   >>>   
   >>> Like you said, human civilization is a long way from becoming a high-   
   >>> trust voluntary society. Those sorts of people would fully support   
   >>> relationships with payments and would not even want to sponge off of   
   >>> creators for free.   
   >>   
   >> just because we are generations from a fully voluntary society, does   
   >> not mean we cannot, or need not, make progressive steps today   
   >   
   > Anarchism is about a stateless system without a *coercive* hierarchy or   
   > authority. You absolutely can have binding agreements under such a   
   > system if a mechanism is freely agreed upon to enforce them.   
      
   if u change ur will in regards to their enforcement...   
      
   then enforcing them takes acts of authority. prior agreement does not   
   justify authority in anarchism because anarchism is *without authority*   
      
   you find coercively holding people to their prior agreement as natural   
   because ur just a statist bro   
      
   just pick a different word, anarcho-capitalism is a literally oxymoron   
      
   >   
   > We have voluntary non-coercive authorities today, like the church for   
      
   even the church threatens excommunication, so physically banning from   
   participation if the crime is heavy enough   
      
   anarchism can have no such mechanism because it takes authority to   
   enforce it   
      
   > one example. There's no reason why that shouldn't continue and even   
   > expand into structures that include agreed-to arbitration to settle   
   > conflicts when they arise.   
   >   
   > There are plenty of potential enforcement mechanisms for breaking an   
   > agreement that would not require any sort of state structures or the   
   > physical coercion, that would operate on a strictly voluntary basis.   
   >   
   > For one simple example, if the twenty-million people who are a part of   
   > my voluntary trade group find out that you didn't live up to our   
   > agreement, you'd find it very difficult to do business with any of them   
   > and likely any of the other groups who are in agreement with us.   
      
   why do u need to do business with others if u can just take what you   
   need??? lol   
      
   again, ur just such a statist u can't even imagine a world without   
   authority ensuring order   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)