XPost: alt.messianic   
   From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/11/2026 3:32 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)