Post 1415747 by indefenseofmastodon@mastodon.redflag.social
(DIR) More posts by indefenseofmastodon@mastodon.redflag.social
(DIR) Post #1398105 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T10:09:05Z
6 likes, 5 repeats
The main contradiction of liberal democracy is that it has largely been shaped through a history of various forms of illegal civil disobedience against entrenched power structures. Such civil disobedience is retrospectively seen as justified, and the people committing it are retrospectively seen as heroes. However, each successive generation is asked to believe that any further civil disobedience would be unreasonable.
(DIR) Post #1398132 by oct2pus@catgirl.science
2018-11-22T10:10:21.375156Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster is this quote stolen from somewhere else i've definately read this before
(DIR) Post #1398133 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T10:11:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@oct2pus YES, I've seen it float around as a heavily artifacted JPEG on a certain microblogging platform where you could not write such a long post.
(DIR) Post #1398369 by uint8_t@mastodon.social
2018-11-22T10:26:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster This is so important and obvious once you put it that way. How is this not a meme?
(DIR) Post #1398543 by andrewt@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T10:37:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster People always will believe it, too, because people naturally think like that. Prior changes to English are development, new ones are deterioration. Prior adaptations are evolution, new ones are regression. Even old tech is useful and new innovations are bad.
(DIR) Post #1398659 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T10:45:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uint8_t consider this one of the first steps into getting it there
(DIR) Post #1398957 by slsscifiandart@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-22T11:04:49.321290Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster. So to put shortly its a generation double standard? Like folks participating or planning civil disobedience is frowned upon but back then it was considered valid activism/heroism. Not arguing just seeing if I got the picture. Cause you're right it is quite a contradiction there.
(DIR) Post #1399512 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T11:53:36Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@slsscifiandart I think it's a kind of historical hindsight bias. "Of course the tyrannies of the past were unjust". But that was not the prevailing attitude back then, because if it were, we would have no "heroes", just gradual, systematic change. No, the people fighting against injustice decades and centuries ago were reviled.The attitude isn't "civil disobedience is healthy and we might not see its results for decades to come" but "the past was injust, the present is just, stop whinging".
(DIR) Post #1399720 by slsscifiandart@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-22T12:08:34.578221Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster Ah I see. I wish present time was better just. If it was, then men wouldn't lose benefits just for not wanting any part of selective service. Or never have to get stuck paying child support money (only exception is male rapists cause financial suffering is justifiable. As for female rapists, child custody taken away and them left to rot.) by "independent" women post divorce and all. I'll believe in child support money if the money is in the child's bank account with oversight only by grandparents till the kid is 18.
(DIR) Post #1399936 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-22T12:19:20Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@slsscifiandart Organize, agitate, protest. In countries with professional armies (which is most of them), selective service is a feudal anachronism.
(DIR) Post #1412609 by thewumbles@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-22T22:28:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster the progressive illiberal singularity! Resistance is futile.
(DIR) Post #1413887 by gmcgath@liberdon.com
2018-11-22T23:30:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster People routinely use the term "civil disobedience" for actions that aren't. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey an unjust law. Protesters today use it to mean getting in the way of people who are trying to go about their own business.
(DIR) Post #1415188 by n3rdsh1ft@mastodon.social
2018-11-23T00:37:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tricksterSo many "you're protesting wrong" comments with every act of civil disobedience. Shit like "you'll never win anyone over by blocking traffic." Such tired and lazy arguments.
(DIR) Post #1415747 by indefenseofmastodon@mastodon.redflag.social
2018-11-23T01:11:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster It has been a major feature and effort to deny that Liberalism was established via revolutions, this never ceases to be funny especially in the USA were so much is talked about with the American Revolution.
(DIR) Post #1423452 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2018-11-23T09:12:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster ae, #DavidGraeber has written in a few of his essays about the inconvenient truth of every political order, that it establishes it's legitimacy in a successful rebellion against a previously "legitimate" order.
(DIR) Post #1423589 by mmin@scholar.social
2018-11-23T09:22:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey@tricksterI think this often applies to science too. Something like this: The previous paradigm shifts were good and necessary but now we should follow the path that I and my similarly aged colleagues have paved.
(DIR) Post #1423590 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T09:24:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mmin A hundred times this. So many things are discovered not because they are new, but just because the people that used to shoot them down are now too old to work in academia anymore.
(DIR) Post #1423785 by jd@soc.ialis.me
2018-11-23T09:34:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster as an anarchist friend of mine says: to make good law you need to break laws
(DIR) Post #1424161 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T09:57:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@indefenseofmastodon The first two liberal countries, the Netherlands and the UK became liberal through "The Glorious Revolution". Nobody owned the monarch with FACTS and BRAIN LOGIC until he relented power.
(DIR) Post #1424365 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T10:08:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gmcgath Sometimes, protesters do not have the luxury of simply not following a law. What were the suffragettes supposed to do? Continue to not vote? Try to get into a voting booth? Would trying to force yourself into a voting booth not get in the way of people who are trying to go about their business? Wouldn't picketing?Why did the Sons of Liberty destroy someone else's private property and inconvenience other tea drinkers when they could simply not buy the tea?
(DIR) Post #1424545 by mpjgregoire@mastodon.club
2018-11-22T20:33:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster Is that true in the context of English law (or my own Canadian offshoot)?Thinking of #democracy, there was the "Glorious Revolution", but since then the Bill of Rights, the Reform Act, Catholic emancipation, women's suffrage, etc. were essentially accomplished by lawful means.(All right, yes, the suffragettes weren't 100% peaceful.)As for #liberty, again I think that was mostly achieved by parliamentary measures.Please do tell me what I'm missing.
(DIR) Post #1424546 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T10:17:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mpjgregoire Good question. The 3 counties most closely tied to the glorious revolution, the Netherlands, the UK and the US were also notorious for their use of chattel slavery.Note that this was a time when the despotic regimes of Europe, under the stringent rule of Catholicism had all but eradicated slavery. Owing to the fact that if you owned a slave, you could not bar them from being baptized, from going to mass, from having a spouse and children, and generally "a good christian life".
(DIR) Post #1424626 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T10:21:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mpjgregoire Which made them more "just" indentured servants than slaves.That is not to excuse both dynastic and monastic tyranny (that Spanish Catholicism didn't really translate well to the new world). But the fact that the monarchies of Europe did not keep slaves, while these republics of freedom did was not lost on the intellectuals of the times. And the fact that the chief liberal thinkers of the time were very dismissive of liberalism's incompatibility with slavery didn't really help.
(DIR) Post #1424967 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T10:38:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mpjgregoire A harsh but fair criticism of this "classical" liberalism can be found in "Liberalism: A Counter-History", which made for very uncomfortable reading for a believer in the liberal project.But the short answer is "the Emancipation Proclamation".The civil rights movement also had it's fair share of disruptions and scufflesStonewall, which started the LGBT movement in earnest, was a riot.Mandela was labeled a terrorist and the ensuing S.African boycott was as contentious as modern BDS.
(DIR) Post #1425295 by adrianheine@mastodon.social
2018-11-23T10:59:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster And I guess the other one is that the power structures and actors of the past are always regarded as bad and oppressive, yet the present that directly comes from it is somehow supposed to not have these attributes.
(DIR) Post #1426207 by mpjgregoire@mastodon.club
2018-11-23T11:53:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster Oh, I largely agree with your original proposition with regard to the US. And FWIW I'm not a liberal, classical or otherwise -- I'm a Tory.
(DIR) Post #1426208 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T12:08:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mpjgregoire In a sense we're all liberals (outside of what that word means in US and UK politics), meaning, a very small amount of us would want to return to the ways of old dynastic Europe.
(DIR) Post #1426781 by gmcgath@liberdon.com
2018-11-23T12:47:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster Please try to understand how definitions work. They don't change to meet the requirements of action. "Civil disobedience" does not mean "whatever I have to do to get something done." It's a specific type of action with a specific basis. Why the Sons of Liberty did something has no bearing at all on the meaning of the term "civil disobedience." Picketing isn't even illegal in general. It doesn't become "disobedience" because you like (or dislike) it.
(DIR) Post #1427406 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-23T13:26:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gmcgath You critique is fair and I take your point.
(DIR) Post #1430617 by orionkidder@writing.exchange
2018-11-23T16:10:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster True! Even while being assured you live in a truly free space *because* you have the right to gather in protest... which means you shouldn't because society is fine the way it is... and if you do it too effectively, they'll find a way to arrest you for it anyway...
(DIR) Post #1434868 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-23T19:32:53.076014Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster Monarchism worked for thousands of years. It should make a comeback.
(DIR) Post #1444267 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T03:31:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
(DIR) Post #1444316 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T03:36:06Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster The best examples of monarchism were when the king (or sometimes queen) was wedded to the land and responsible for it's fertility (hence the crown representing the sun), and would be summarily executed if the land or it's people experienced a calamity. It helped keep rulers responsible in their behavior. Also in many monarchies, particularly in pre-Christian Europe, sovereignty was an elected position.
(DIR) Post #1444427 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T03:44:22.965332Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster I'd say that scenario should be the only acceptable one. Though I'm not sure about the elected monarch. I have read on only one example, Rome, where Tarquinius Superbus' behaviour led to the abolition of the monarchy.On the other hand, hereditary monarchy can always result in the king having an soy-boy son that ruins the kingdom and their people forever.Do you think elected monarchs are the better choice?
(DIR) Post #1444544 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T03:50:53Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchyI'm not really keen on monarchy as a system whatsoever to be honest. It really depends on the problem people are trying to solve. At base I'm anarchist-without-hyphens. I believe that "dissent" is the basis of rights and consent. Otherwise it's duress.Hypothetically, if I felt exceptionally trusting, I might be willing to delegate decision making to a worthy leader, but not unconditionally, and not without the freedom to disregard bad decisions.
(DIR) Post #1444851 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T04:05:50.880706Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster It does depend on the problem, indeed.Duress can have its uses.I've come to appreciate natural order and monarchy is closer to it than what we have.I was an AnCap; but it stopped making sense to me.
(DIR) Post #1444949 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T04:11:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster I won't accept any system involving threatening people into obedience. I can understand how people can dream up some utopian vision of how they want society to be and the only way they can envision it happening is to bludgeon dissenters into obedience. IMO that's just repeating the same mistakes we've already made. I don't believe in utopias, and I think the desire to expediently implement them is the cause of most of the abuse we suffer as a species. Fuck utopias!
(DIR) Post #1445056 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T04:19:08.812548Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster They are utopias for some; dystopias for the rest. Natural order is the only thing that will ever work. We can't think our way into the perfect system.
(DIR) Post #1445101 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T04:22:46Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Personally, I didn't have a fixed political philosophy to start with. What I did have was a desire to understand nature and to gain self-knowledge. Recognition that I have essentially anarchist sentiments evolved out of the observations I made in that effort. I refuse any hyphen anarchism, because I see the pros and cons of all of them. I also feel everyone should have the freedom to adopt the system they like best, provided they don't impose it on others. I demand same.
(DIR) Post #1449148 by trickster@mastodon.technology
2018-11-24T10:21:23Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@rasterman @museus Monarchy is a very recent invention. The "natural order" is closer to tribes of 100 to 150 people where the eldest was the de facto leader of the group.
(DIR) Post #1450808 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T12:45:00.767163Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster I understand. Which is why I'm not trying to say you are wrong, because anarchism might be true for you. Not being a moral relativist, just recognising human biodiversity.I will say, though, consider your disdain for utopias and whether or not your proposed system might be one. As in, can it realistically be applied for an extended period of time somewhere.PS: my grandfather was an anarchist in his youth. I barely knew him, so I don't know the details. He turned communist later in life.
(DIR) Post #1450892 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T12:50:05.351821Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@trickster @museus I was gonna challenge the "recent" qualification, but I see what you mean.Yes, absolutely. That is even closer. I'm a sellout for monarchism because it doesn't deviate from natural order as much as what we have today; but also allows for a larger structure of people, which allowed for the scientific revolution to happen, among other discoveries that made the world more interesting.I might update my position if convincing arguments present themselves. It's been happening for years, now.
(DIR) Post #1452352 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T14:16:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster I'm not sure how you figure monarchy is more in keeping with the "natural order". You could make the argument that authoritarianism is the "natural order". You could also make the argument that cooperation is the "natural order". It depends on which brand of myopia you prefer.My observation is that people don't like to be bullied or bossed around. It's something they only grudgingly accept when they feel disempowered. Thus the status quo. Plus some stockholm syndrome...
(DIR) Post #1452706 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T14:32:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Personally I think if it exists whatsoever, then it's an expression of the natural order, because there is nothing outside of nature. That leads to the understanding that there is diversity of methods and methodology.Another observation is that on the whole people flee pain and pursue pleasure. That's the basis of morality. In effect to minimize suffering. When aggregated across society, that "is" naturally implies it's own "ought" concerning social organization.
(DIR) Post #1452861 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T14:40:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster The negative consequence of those observations is that they can be used to justify stuff like utilitarianism and eugenics. However that is a problem of one person or group imposing their own view of how to "minimize suffering" onto unwilling parties. It's exactly that imposition, or failure to respect dissent (ie. to take "no" for an answer) that causes it to be counter-productive to it's own aims.
(DIR) Post #1453623 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T15:18:36.935595Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster Both authoritarianism and cooperation coexist under many forms of government, even tribal society. They are not mutually exclusive.I've come to think people's dislike of bullying shouldn't be a deciding factor when organising society. People adapt. A degree of oppression can make society functional for a long time before weak people in charge ruin it.
(DIR) Post #1453718 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T15:23:06Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster The minute you say "weak people in charge ruin it" I'm given the impression you have a utopia in mind, and the preservation of that utopia is what you use to justify maintaining it through violent means.Personally I think force is a necessary component, but only at the level of the individual in the interest of defending their rights from those who refuse to take "no" for an answer. The moment superior rights to the use of force are invested in a minority, it's slavery.
(DIR) Post #1453728 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T15:23:38.238115Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster I reject that notion. I'll just have to disagree completely on that. It reminds me of the notion that "pharmaceuticals are made with ingredients from the natural world, therefore aspirins are natural".We are not like other animals. Self-sacrifice for the promise of future rewards is a thing. The pursuit of pleasure alone is not what, overall, has led our civilisations through the ages.
(DIR) Post #1453772 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T15:26:39.990467Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster I've come to also appreciate eugenics. I might not be alive if that was enforced; but it would be a better world for the ones that were. I have to read more on utilitarianism to make an informed statement.The strong imposing their views on the weak have always been a thing and I assume will continue to be. The technology changes and allows us to further deviate from natural order, where men in suits rule as tribal chieftains used to; but the system can't sustain itself indefinitely like this.
(DIR) Post #1453789 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T15:27:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Ah, I say "on the whole". That doesn't necessarily preclude postponing immediate pleasure in the interests of a greater future pleasure. Pain isn't dispensable from experience. It's need (pain) that compels to work to satisfy (pleasure) them. If pain wasn't part of the equation, there'd be no motivating factor, no passion. Nothing I've said precludes self-sacrifice. The other aspect is that pain/pleasure experience of the body, is mirrored in the psyche as fear/desire.
(DIR) Post #1453809 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T15:29:38.074648Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster You are correct. I do not reject the concept of a utopia. The fact that it can never be complete, only makes it better, as we perpetually strive to make it a reality.The problem with that approach is that it's just not natural. It can't be sustained. It will never be sustained. The USA did a pretty good job of it at first, but even there, there were strict social rules that meant one wasn't actually free to deviate from the customs; they just obeyed because they already agreed with them. It's a part of what turned me off of AnCap'ism.
(DIR) Post #1453814 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T15:30:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster I don't think "the strong" have done much to improve society. Rather that whole notion has held us back with ridiculous proportions of our effort being squandered on war and the means thereof when it could instead have been spent on the general improvement of our lot. It's a fools errand.
(DIR) Post #1453852 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T15:31:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Well fwiw, this is why if the lines of battle were drawn, reluctant though I may be, I'd be aiming my rifle unerringly at your brain pan.
(DIR) Post #1453896 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T15:34:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Also, I think you should study some more anthropology before deciding what the default form of social organisation looks like. You seem to have a very distorted understanding, no doubt shaped largely by the myopia of the Western education system.
(DIR) Post #1454408 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T16:01:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster "Strength" isn't really what people desire. What people really want is kindness, love, acceptance, inclusion. Emphasis on strength is just a consolation people seek when denied these more fundamental things by the bullies. They rationalize that to not remain victims, they must become strong and dominate the weak. But they end up just perpetuating their own suffering and deny ever more people the true desire. Strength is ultimately nothing more than an expression of fear.
(DIR) Post #1454481 by amerika@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T16:05:07.491001Z
3 likes, 2 repeats
@museus @trickster @rasterman If you do not dominate the weak, the weak dominate you. There are more of them, as they are cheaper to produce. Oppress the rest, or the rest oppress the best. People are not equal.
(DIR) Post #1454563 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T16:09:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amerika @trickster @rasterman That kind of rationale is what I regard as the epitome of weakness. It's stockholm syndrome evolved to the point of psychopathy. It's also extremely short sighted given the sheer number of times it's been tried and resulting in nothing more productive than mass slaughter and most of the population enslaved to the military industrial complex. It is to civilization the equivalent of babies smearing their shit all over the walls and calling it fine art.
(DIR) Post #1454591 by amerika@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T16:11:13.010999Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @rasterman @trickster I disagree, obviously. Humans are different and class warfare has brought about more misery than anything else.
(DIR) Post #1454638 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T16:13:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amerika @rasterman @trickster A class is just a category. You've just advocated class warfare by categorizing the majority as "weak" and the oppressed minority as the "strong". If you don't think that will be a cause of misery and warfare, I think you need to go read some history books. Advocating that as a solution is asinine.
(DIR) Post #1455120 by rambeaucockius@pl.smuglo.li
2018-11-24T16:39:25.993052Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster @rasterman You speak only in abstractions. Some people may desire "strength" as you call it, just as much as so-called kindness, or love, or acceptance (which is overrated) or inclusion, which means the same thing as acceptance. A person may desire their concept of any of these abstractions equally. You could any of them have their basis in fear, or rather a defense against fear, and that is not a bad reason to pursue them.
(DIR) Post #1455179 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T16:44:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rambeaucockius @trickster @rasterman Like I said before, pain & pleasure aren't dispensable from experience but are intrinsic to what motivates us to continue the life cycle. Fear and desire are just their psychic reflection, which is to say pain/pleasure in the context of time. Yet there's difference in emphasis. Some people pursue pleasure, while others are merely fleeing pain. It comes down to a question of keeping the eye on the ball or not. Are you running to, or running from something?
(DIR) Post #1463725 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T23:51:15.154534Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster Good to know.
(DIR) Post #1463739 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-24T23:52:24.418769Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster You are exactly right. And that is how it will continue to be for as long as we are of the species we currently are.
(DIR) Post #1463783 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-24T23:54:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster No. Only for as long as people continue to think that coercive force is a worthwhile way to manage society. What I'm saying specifically is that is not a worthwhile way, and I will resist that with whatever means necessary. I don't want that cycle to continue, but people who reason in the manner you do necessitate it. Until they're put down like rabid dogs anyway.
(DIR) Post #1463964 by rasterman@freespeechextremist.com
2018-11-25T00:06:57.819748Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @trickster Biologically speaking, it will keep happening because people will continue to think that way, because it's a part of people being people.I'm not saying your model is wrong. I'm saying your model will never happen.
(DIR) Post #1464468 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-11-25T00:40:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rasterman @trickster Fair enough. In any case, my model accounts for that since it's not a utopia. It's simply a conception of individual rights. Any individual can recognize and act in accordance with their rights without need for the rest of society to follow suit. If other people agree to do so, all that chances is the level of safety involved in doing so. I choose to take "no" for an answer, and when others reciprocally do not respect my dissent, I reserve the right to defend it forcibly.