XPost: alt.messianic   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 2/12/26 8:30 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)