Censorship, Voluntaryism, And My Thoughts About A Free Society

image: www.azquotes.com

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. Perception matters more than reality, only when considering the competence, or lack thereof, with which an individual comports themselves in a free society. If the perception diverges sufficiently from demonstrable objective reality, that person is considered incompetent in the conduct of their affairs. This person cannot be held to account. Their opinion, as a result is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the status of the reputation of anyone else.

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. If you damage your own reputation by your own actions, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The ignorance of others does not constitute aggression on the part of the individual. Enforcement of the ignorance of others on the individual, when injury cannot be demonstrated, is aggression by that ignorant majority against the individual. It may not be popular but if no physical or financial injury can be demonstrated, there is no aggression.
Irrational interpretation of perception does not enter into the exercise of natural rights. Perceived does not equal demonstrable, in objective reality. 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.
Public opinion and conformity has nothing to do with exercise of natural rights in a free society. Acting responsibly in a free society has to do with refraining from causing demonstrable injury to others, through conscious aggression. Taboos have nothing to do with free societies. 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. This is not based on demonstrable facts in objectively provable reality, but belief. Taboo is an irrational unacceptability of action, imposed popularly, regardless of physical or financial injury. Individual preference, no matter how popular, is still not universally preferential. There is a subtle, but distinct difference. If, as you say, ultimately public opinion is the judge of what constitutes “aggression”, then a free society is not the subject at hand. 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. 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. Then a society where the majority can dictate the actions of the minority is not what we are talking about.

image: i.imgur.com

Public opinion will change rapidly when individuals start standing up for their rights. If 1% start then no one will know if the next person they aggress against is going to be that 1 in 100. More people will start standing up and people will get very polite, very quickly. I would take it further myself. If mutually assured destruction works for states it will work for individuals. If we did that, police and military would shortly become irrelevant. Everyone who enjoyed being alive would become very helpful and kind, or would become hermits. Regulatory market capture would fall. Real solutions would be sought for mental illness. Children would be allowed the education and health care that works. People would be falling over themselves to help each other or go live in the woods. Public opinion never changed from anything except desire borne of necessity. Education can't do it alone. Education can point in a positive direction once people decide to change.
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. Imagine a world where no one is defenseless. A truly free society could never and would never force anyone to buy health insurance or force anyone to buy anything. First, there would be no need, second, to do so would be antithetical to true freedom. It is uninitiated force, which is violence. Free people know, the only response to violence is defense. If 1% of people defended themselves it would be too expensive to impose.

What free people know is that when people are not forced and collaboration is in their interest, their goals cannot be stopped. Anything that was sufficiently controversial would be permitted because free people do not engage in group aggression. Free people are neutral or helpful toward anything that doesn’t aggress against them. In fact, free people are willing to “look the other way” or even join in if no one is aggressing against them.

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. It is the abuse of laws that allow individuals in government to control the masses and prevent individuals from making more decentralized judgments. Laws are written for people who won't obey them. People who will obey them can govern themselves and don't have need of laws.

If you command someone to love you, but only of their own free will, does this not begin a paradox that cannot be rectified?

The only route to achieving a voluntary society, involves choosing to abstain from imposing our will on others. The imposition is the aggression. It escalates from there. We cannot make something happen that must be allowed to happen. Permitted not forced. This is the dynamic, no other will do. Any other will fail. This is the essence of the fulcrum on which voluntaryism pivots.