"Freedom" is the default state of existence. It takes other humans using force to stop that freedom.
The criticism of the state using force for property is illusory as ALL property rights in any system is always maintained by the use of defensive force against any person or thing that would try to take or destroy it.
Without a foundation of ethics rooted in consent, any kind of political scheme can be rationalized using sophistry by abdicating the core, universal ethical principle that all people want their own consent respected, starting with their body.
I would recommend you start with the discourse of the, "Compared to what," because you do not have a comparative for an ethical better in your criticism.
It is a certainty that, if you proffered it, you would end up falling to the exact same criticisms you levy.
Read:
https://vassociation.com/guiding-principles-and-directives/
and watch:
Sure, agreed. In your experience, who are those other humans? Or are you of the opinion that your freedom (the default state of human existence) isn't impeded at all?
Not illusory at all; the fact that we all defend our property in any system doesn't mean that the state's defending of the property of its most powerful "subjects" somehow doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that all systems, real or in theory, infringe upon its participants' freedom in the same degree as our current system that inherently creates a small group that has almost all property that needs protecting.
Again, agreed. The core of this statement is in the words "ethics" and "consent"; now ask yourself, where are consent and ethics found, where do we get them from?
Ah, I sense an equivocation between "one's own consent" and "one's own property"; if that's indeed what you're saying here, you might want to rethink. Also: is your body your "property", or might we simply (and correctly) state that your body is in part what you are?
Nice response, thanks for that :-) I just don't see how or why it's a refutation of anything I've said in this post.