A Response To-Censorship, Voluntaryism, And My Thoughts About A Free Society by @lifeworship

@lifeworship ,
You asked for it so I did it. Hope this gives you another point of view like you wanted. A lot of this post I agree with so hopefully it will be short and not many questions. I'm not use to making a response to posts I don't fully disagree with so this was kind of weird to do. lol 8D

Censorship, Voluntaryism, And My Thoughts About A Free Society
by @lifeworship in freedom

I like the quote you stared the post out with. I agree with it fully.

Objective reality is the basis by which any of us can be held accountable for our actions. People who live in delusion may choose to not do business with you based on their delusion. Their delusion, however has no bearing on the demonstrable facts in objective reality.
I agree
Perception matters more than reality, only when considering the competence, or lack thereof, with which an individual comports themselves in a free society.
How does perception matter more then reality when considering the ability that a person can behave themselves in a society? I disagree, I think reality matters more but all we can go off of is our own personal perception. Our perception only matters more to our self.
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand.
If the perception diverges sufficiently from demonstrable objective reality, that person is considered incompetent in the conduct of their affairs.
Just because someone has a different perception of reality then you do does not make them incompetent. Just makes them different.
This person cannot be held to account.
Yes they can and have to be. No one can be held accountable for things they have not done of their own free will. If you cant hold the person taking this action accountable, who will you hold accountable? By saying anyone for any reason cant be held accountable for their own decisions, choices, or actions that gives them the permission to not suffer consequences. You can not stop someone if you wont let yourself hold the person accountable.
Their opinion, as a result is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the status of the reputation of anyone else.
Their opinion is as relevant as your opinion or my opinion. Just because someone has a different opinion or perception of reality does not make it irrelevant.

Your reputation, in the legal sense, is based on the reality of your character and being the product of your labor, is your property, It is stated, in law to be something you HAVE, meaning own or possess. If someone unduly injures your reputation, by committing fraud, slander, and/or libel as defamation of reputation and character (for reputation is the opinion of individuals in the public of your character, which is based in objective reality and demonstrable fact, and not in the mind of only one person) against you and causes you financial or, by incitement, physical injury, you are free to pursue compensation for damages.
Your reputation is who people think you are, your character is who you really are.
My next post is going to be on that subject, I will try to provide you with a link when is done.
If you damage your own reputation by your own actions, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I agree.

The ignorance of others does not constitute aggression on the part of the individual.
If ones ignorance makes it so they have never learned that murder is wrong and they are killing person after person does that not constitute aggression on the part of the individual to stop it?
Enforcement of the ignorance of others on the individual, when injury cannot be demonstrated, is aggression by that ignorant majority against the individual.
How does one enforce ignorance on to another individual? I think I agree with the statement though.
It may not be popular but if no physical or financial injury can be demonstrated, there is no aggression.
What about mental aggression or mental abuse? Aggressive behavior can cause physical or emotional harm to others. It may range from verbal abuse to physical abuse. It can also involve harming personal property.
Irrational interpretation of perception does not enter into the exercise of natural rights. Perceived does not equal demonstrable, in objective reality.
I agree
A mentally ill person may perceive that you tried to kill him. If you were in another state at the time, then no matter how many people believe him or agree with him, in a free society, you remain innocent.
I agree with this but I do not think it has anything to do with a free society.
Public opinion and conformity has nothing to do with exercise of natural rights in a free society.
Agreed
Acting responsibly in a free society has to do with refraining from causing demonstrable injury to others, through conscious aggression
In any society I would say.
Taboos have nothing to do with free societies.
I disagree but taboos don't have to be a bad thing. What if a society has a taboo on swimming in the glowing lake because people that swim in it become sick? Taboos are made by societies and that is why they differ from society to society.
A taboo is a vehement prohibition of an action based on the belief that such behavior is either too sacred or too ordinary for individuals to undertake.
A taboo is a social or religious custom prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing.
This is not based on demonstrable facts in objectively provable reality, but belief.
It can be based in reality too, like the taboo of swimming in the glowing lake. They do not have to know why it makes them sick only that it does make them sick then in return they make a taboo about the action because they do not yet understand why it makes them sick. Still based in reality though.
Taboo is an irrational unacceptability of action, imposed popularly, regardless of physical or financial injury.
A taboo is a social or religious custom prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing.
Individual preference, no matter how popular, is still not universally preferential. There is a subtle, but distinct difference.
Agreed
If, as you say, ultimately public opinion is the judge of what constitutes “aggression”, then a free society is not the subject at hand.
Public opinion is not the judge of what constitutes aggression, personal opinion is because "Individual preference, no matter how popular, is still not universally preferential".
A popular, or pure democracy, is the society being discussed. In a pure democracy, the majority can vote to do whatever they want to the minority.
I agree
If your definition of a free society is one that is not governed by the uninitiated use of force (violence) and where all relationships and business transactions are voluntary.
That would meet my definition really closely.
Then a society where the majority can dictate the actions of the minority is not what we are talking about.
No, and by saying "In a pure democracy, the majority can vote to do whatever they want to the minority." it proves it.
This is why their are other options like a united republic with democratic under tones.

The next pict and quote are awesome and I fully agree with it.

Public opinion will change rapidly when individuals start standing up for their rights.
Agreed
If 1% start then no one will know if the next person they aggress against is going to be that 1 in 100.
I can accept this.
More people will start standing up and people will get very polite, very quickly.
Depending on the situation.
I would take it further myself.
Ok
If mutually assured destruction works for states it will work for individuals.
I disagree. just look kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers.
If we did that, police and military would shortly become irrelevant.
Until an outside force comes in with advanced technology or the random exception to the rule. I do not think government paid military or police are needed but I think a private or other military/police by whatever name you want to call them would be needed. Even though people in your society might hold the nonaggression idea the people in other societies might not agree and then you still need a way to defend yourself if attacked. Without a military how would you defend from a nuke attack or a full military assault from another country?
Everyone who enjoyed being alive would become very helpful and kind, or would become hermits.
Or slaves to the couple people that are willing to use force on others. we can not predict the future in a way like this imo.
Regulatory market capture would fall.
What about pollution and waste problems? Over farming of shared resources like fish or hunting game?
Real solutions would be sought for mental illness.
Are we not trying to that now?
Children would be allowed the education and health care that works.
Who is paying for this education and healthcare if the parents of the children cant afford it? Will you then go and tax people by force to pay for it? Children are already allowed to get education and health care, paying for it is the current problem.
People would be falling over themselves to help each other or go live in the woods.
We could only hope but it would never be everyone, just a majority of people at most.
Public opinion never changed from anything except desire borne of necessity.
Not true. look at the public opinion of beauty, it changes all the time and has nothing to do with necessity.
Education can't do it alone.
No, but it is a huge part of it.
Education can point in a positive direction once people decide to change.
Depends on the direction the education is taken.
"Give me a baby and I can make any kind of man." These are the words of John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism. Mix that with some Edward Bernays and your education can be made to have any outcome you want if you so desired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
The non-aggression principle by definition cannot be enforced. If it is enforced, it is not the non-aggression principle. The only way for the non-aggression principle to function is for individuals to defend themselves against people who are violating their rights.
Agreed
Imagine a world where no one is defenseless.
Its a nice dream but what about babies, paraplegics, ect. Technology has a lot of catching up to do on weapons to make sure everyone is never defenseless.
A truly free society could never and would never force anyone to buy health insurance or force anyone to buy anything.
Agreed
First, there would be no need, second, to do so would be antithetical to true freedom.
Agreed
It is uninitiated force, which is violence.
I would say they are two different things that can be used in conjunction with each other.
Free people know, the only response to violence is defense.
I would say everyone knows that but I agree.
If 1% of people defended themselves it would be too expensive to impose.
Defended themselves from what force? 1% of the population would not be to expensive to take out by the other 99% it the want was there. So I do not think 1% is sufficient.

What free people know is that when people are not forced and collaboration is in their interest, their goals cannot be stopped.
They can still be stopped but the opportunity to grow on their goals is greatly improved.
Anything that was sufficiently controversial would be permitted because free people do not engage in group aggression.
Who is the decider on what is "sufficiently" controversial and permitted or what is overly controversial and not permitted?
Free people are neutral or helpful toward anything that doesn’t aggress against them.
Not true, some people have a predisposition towards things that do not aggress against them. this is true for most people though.
In fact, free people are willing to “look the other way” or even join in if no one is aggressing against them.
I disagree, I think there are more people willing to help out and stop injustice no matter if their is aggression directed towards them or not.

The difference between a government and a free society is that laws are not needed because free people that adhere to the non-aggression principle govern themselves.
What about the people in your free society that don't adhere to the non-aggression principle? Should there be a set of laws to uphold the non-aggression? Could we not have laws for an area that you have to volunteer to abide by when entering that area? Is it just unwritten laws that everyone is just born into and have no say on if they want to volunteer to follow them or not?
It is the abuse of laws that allow individuals in government to control the masses and prevent individuals from making more decentralized judgments.
How is the abuse of laws preventing people from making judgments? Are you talking about censorship?
Laws are written for people who won't obey them.
The law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. So they can be written to make people obey, not because someone wont obey. If it is not law, it is only opinion of what is right or wrong and enforced by nothing. Basically normative jurisprudence.
John Austin's utilitarian answer was that law is "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
So even I could have my own laws as a sovereign.
People who will obey them can govern themselves and don't have need of laws.
Unless it is a law you disagree with right? Then you wouldn't obey it because to be forced to obey a law you disagree with would defeat the non-aggression principle.

If you command someone to love you, but only of their own free will, does this not begin a paradox that cannot be rectified?
I would not call it a paradox. The person can not love you out of free will if it is a command.

The only route to achieving a voluntary society, involves choosing to abstain from imposing our will on others.
Agreed
The imposition is the aggression.
I would not say it is aggression, but I will agree that to impose or command something upon someone is removing that persons right to make their own decisions and follow or do it voluntarily.
It escalates from there.
Sometimes it doesn't, depends on the situation.
We cannot make something happen that must be allowed to happen.
I can not fully agree or disagree with this one. Are their things we "must" allow to happen, are they just things we want to happen and have no way to force them to happen?
Permitted not forced.
Nothing should be forced. Not everything should be permitted.
This is the dynamic, no other will do.
I disagree, I think their are other options that would do, some might even be better depending on your point of view or perspective.
Any other will fail.
all societys fail sooner or later.
This is the essence of the fulcrum on which voluntaryism pivots.
I think it is one of the aspects of volunteerism but not the fulcrum point on which it swings.

original post:
https://steemit.com/freedom/@lifeworship/censorship-voluntaryism-and-my-thoughts-about-a-free-society

♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣

Well I tried to keep it short. lol
Hope to hear back from you. I'm posting a link to your reply where you asked me to check this post out.