You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OBEY YOUR MASTERS
Personal Sovereignty begins with,
(1) I have the right to protect my body (my clothes and my possessions).
(2) I have the right to protect my family and close friends.
(3) I have the right to protect my home (land).
Yes, I like to say: I have a right to be an a..hole. That's why I logically state that all this is rhetoric. People organize empires from this "logic". That leads us to nowhere other then where we already are. Don't you think? !invest_vote !BEER !COFFEEA
Are you drawing some sort of bright line between "rhetoric" and "logic"?
It's my understanding that good rhetoric is based on sound logic.
Are you comparing "rhetoric" to "pure opinion"?
Well, no. All I want to state is that this logic is not sound in my opinion. True, there is no thing like drawing lines between logic, rhetoric, opinion. Let's put the "grey line", as I phrased it, to be more of a grey area. While you ask, I don't think we gain anything here when we draw lines.
You see, first they talk "personal sovereignty", and then it's family, home land, buildings, jobs, income, ...
That's where we are.
What is protection? Shooting other people? Taxation? What about creativity?!
Well, why not take a side glance to "progress"?
I'm getting lost here anyway. There are a lot of axioms around. That's when I want to put this documentary into perspective and see what we gain. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/schooling-the-world-2010/
Where does "personal sovereignty" end?
I agree this is a horrific tragedy.
It is also in direct violation of my +proFAMILY AXIOM.
Parents and children should NEVER be forcibly separated.
It is also in direct violation of my +proHUMAN AXIOM.
Humans should NEVER be forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm not sure why you seem to think "personal sovereignty" means, "take everyone else's stuff".
That's actually a direct violation of both principles.
Yes it is. I don't think it means "take everyone else's stuff". From straight logic I ask "When is it moral to refrain some stuff from other's and consider it one's own?" or "When is it ok to build fences?" It certainly don't see a problem with (1) body and (2) family. But I see plenty with (3) land. Might have to do with domestication. With all this said, property and domestication looks like a highly dangerous mix. !invest_vote
Thanks for clearing that up.
Everyone has a right to their home, even if that home is a tent.
Each person has a right to a minimum amount of land that they can grow their own food on (about 1 acre).
Nobody should be forced to "get a job" (by implicit threat of starvation or imprisonment).
You're welcome!
There we are. This minimum is worth to wrangle about. All I want to say is that the objective does not justify the means. So when we derive ANY property from personal sovereignty, we probably are missing some logic here. I am interested in what we're missing. !invest_vote
Hypothetically,
If you travel to a distant land, and there are some (very fine) people already living there, (if you respect the principle of personal-sovereignty) you should NEGOTIATE with them in order to secure a homestead.
It gets a little complicated when the very concept of "permanent" land-ownership is anathema to the nomadic natives.
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
View or trade
BEER.Hey @logiczombie, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @andrepol for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking.
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?