bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

@genmaicha there is evil afoot!

@scientist @yogthos @zleap these immediate dangers should be handled by self-defense - or defense of others against an aggressor. freedom is intertwined with responsibility, for yourself and others.

i don't have all the answers of how things should be done in a voluntaryist way. the only principle which has to be kept is that of non-violence, what people arrive at as _their_ solution is up to them.

@scientist @yogthos @zleap
by all means, call me childish! children are usually much better at understanding the concept of "not forcing others". until it's beaten out of them by institutionalized child care, they need children to be good future bailiffs.

you argue as if democracy isn't coercion people into submission. it's the ruling of a majority imposing their will upon a minority. it is in no perceivable way just, even if it is hammered into us that it's the solution to end all problems.

i'll just quote the writings of lysander spooner who in the 19th century put into eloquent words what still is valid in the 21th century:

> One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will. All governments, the worst on earth, and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them. And all governments though the best on earth in other respects — are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people — whether few or many — who are compelled to support them against their will. A government is like a church, or any other institution, in these respects. There is no other criterion whatever, by which to determine whether a government is a free one, or not, than the single one of its depending, or not depending, solely on voluntary support.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-no-treason#toc13

> What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice#toc20

so, yes, by arguing for «more democracy» you are advocating for less freedom. forcing people for "the common good" is always the reasoning of totalitarian regimes.

note that, like spooner wrote, if people decide out of free will to organize it's perfectly fine. as long as they can later choose to not partake any longer.

it really isn't complicated.