I never say I am a proponent of anarchy (albeit that is precisely what I am), but that I support the Society Of Ethical Sovereigns. As the legal system is the backbone of the controlminds ("governments") - it's one creature - We cannot keep parts of a creature that will regrow. And Ethical ground is much higher than legal ground - which arrived on land through the sewers - anyway....
So, We have three Laws:
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Actually, yes. It may be distasteful to Most, but as long as the One seeking death is an adult (children CANNOT give fully informed consent - that is why sex with Them is unEthical), then there is no breach of Ethics. There was a case a number of years back where some guy in Germany, I think, put an ad out looking for someOne willing to be killed.
He got a reply. They got together, did some weird things, and then the One placing the ad killed the respondent as He wished. Ghastly, yes. UnEthical, no.
It is unLawful, IMO, to take another human being's life except if necessary in self-defense. Even self-defense under the Natural Law requires proportionality; that is, if life can be defended without resorting to killing another, the Natural Law commands it.
Since I believe that human life comes from a Source that far exceeds its own creation, I have no Lawful authority to end it or another's -- except in defense of life. This means that even if someone in his or her current mental state provides "informed consent" for their own killing, they lack the authority (or "right") to do so. While I may be in this body, it is not, ultimately, mine. It is mine now for care and safekeeping, but it is not mine or another's for the killing of it.
An interesting perspective. Personally, I give highest probability to the idea that We have this life, and it is Ours alone. We have every right to do anything and everything We might choose to Our body (once We are adults), including killing it or having it killed.
And You say "Lawful..." What laws are these You reference? There are only the three Laws that come out from Natural Law.
I fully agree on Self defense, though. Killing anOther is acceptable if They're coming at You to kill You and there is no other option or You will lose Your life. I even did a vid on it:
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 6, 2023Liked by Joel Walbert
The word "anarchy" is one of the most abused words in the world.
To listen to politicians and most of the media, the word "anarchy" is synonymous with the word "chaos", which is utter, utter nonsense. Indeed, some of history's most horrifically chaotic times have occurred precisely BECAUSE there were strong systems of authority in place
The word "anarchy" means "without hierarchy", and the picture-quote half way through perfectly encompasses this - Despite the best efforts of monopolists and statists, the vast majority of most human interactions are anarchist - e.g. you go to the pub with your friends and each friend buys their round... nobody does this because they are forced to. Nobody does this because any one friend is 'in charge'
One of my pet peeves is also people who call themselves 'libertarians' whilst also calling for tighter border controls and sporting police and military logos - indeed, most of conservatism seems to be "small government for me, big government for people I don't like"
Think I gotta agree with ya here 100%. And Its certainly purposefully demonized and distorted for what I think are obvious reasons. As for those libertarians and such you refer to, I've long been under the assumption that those types are closet statists, but are disillusioned with the uniparty and libertarianism sorta fits their ideals but they don't fully understand it on a philosophical level. And I would bet some just think the name 'sounds cool' so they jump on the bandwagon
Just thought of something actually. Recently I was listening to a podcast episode from back when Obama was president, and his birth cert was being discussed. Mentioned something about nobody gets their birth cert, those are filed away somewhere, and postulated about if that is collateral or not, and what we get is a certificate of live birth. I just happened to come across mine the day before and checked, and, yes, I don't possess my actual birth certificate, so, again, doesn't necessarily prove something, but it is suspicious to say the least
I was thinking along the lines of having to have the certificate (ultimately) to prove your existence so to permit you to do anything else.... and you have to Pay for the "certificate " .
Non- governmental describes what it isn't.
Self responsibility is what it is.
'Self responsibility is what it is.'
It really is that simple when it comes down to it.
I never say I am a proponent of anarchy (albeit that is precisely what I am), but that I support the Society Of Ethical Sovereigns. As the legal system is the backbone of the controlminds ("governments") - it's one creature - We cannot keep parts of a creature that will regrow. And Ethical ground is much higher than legal ground - which arrived on land through the sewers - anyway....
So, We have three Laws:
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
And We build:
The Detailed Blueprint (for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns) (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/the-detailed-blueprint-vocal-redo:9?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
Can you expound on your assertion in No. 1? Does this suggest that someone could kill another if that person asked to be killed?
Actually, yes. It may be distasteful to Most, but as long as the One seeking death is an adult (children CANNOT give fully informed consent - that is why sex with Them is unEthical), then there is no breach of Ethics. There was a case a number of years back where some guy in Germany, I think, put an ad out looking for someOne willing to be killed.
He got a reply. They got together, did some weird things, and then the One placing the ad killed the respondent as He wished. Ghastly, yes. UnEthical, no.
Thank you for clarifying. I disagree completely.
Perhaps You can explain why it is unEthical in Your view.
It is unLawful, IMO, to take another human being's life except if necessary in self-defense. Even self-defense under the Natural Law requires proportionality; that is, if life can be defended without resorting to killing another, the Natural Law commands it.
Since I believe that human life comes from a Source that far exceeds its own creation, I have no Lawful authority to end it or another's -- except in defense of life. This means that even if someone in his or her current mental state provides "informed consent" for their own killing, they lack the authority (or "right") to do so. While I may be in this body, it is not, ultimately, mine. It is mine now for care and safekeeping, but it is not mine or another's for the killing of it.
An interesting perspective. Personally, I give highest probability to the idea that We have this life, and it is Ours alone. We have every right to do anything and everything We might choose to Our body (once We are adults), including killing it or having it killed.
And You say "Lawful..." What laws are these You reference? There are only the three Laws that come out from Natural Law.
I fully agree on Self defense, though. Killing anOther is acceptable if They're coming at You to kill You and there is no other option or You will lose Your life. I even did a vid on it:
Self Defense and Ethics (3 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/self-defense-and-ethics:1?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
The word "anarchy" is one of the most abused words in the world.
To listen to politicians and most of the media, the word "anarchy" is synonymous with the word "chaos", which is utter, utter nonsense. Indeed, some of history's most horrifically chaotic times have occurred precisely BECAUSE there were strong systems of authority in place
The word "anarchy" means "without hierarchy", and the picture-quote half way through perfectly encompasses this - Despite the best efforts of monopolists and statists, the vast majority of most human interactions are anarchist - e.g. you go to the pub with your friends and each friend buys their round... nobody does this because they are forced to. Nobody does this because any one friend is 'in charge'
One of my pet peeves is also people who call themselves 'libertarians' whilst also calling for tighter border controls and sporting police and military logos - indeed, most of conservatism seems to be "small government for me, big government for people I don't like"
Think I gotta agree with ya here 100%. And Its certainly purposefully demonized and distorted for what I think are obvious reasons. As for those libertarians and such you refer to, I've long been under the assumption that those types are closet statists, but are disillusioned with the uniparty and libertarianism sorta fits their ideals but they don't fully understand it on a philosophical level. And I would bet some just think the name 'sounds cool' so they jump on the bandwagon
"Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer."
Dulcimer lol
hahaha, its a simple life. Been awhile since I read these, was that something from one of the included articles?
A quote from “Anarchy Without Hyphens.”
It all starts with a birth certificate. 🤯
Just thought of something actually. Recently I was listening to a podcast episode from back when Obama was president, and his birth cert was being discussed. Mentioned something about nobody gets their birth cert, those are filed away somewhere, and postulated about if that is collateral or not, and what we get is a certificate of live birth. I just happened to come across mine the day before and checked, and, yes, I don't possess my actual birth certificate, so, again, doesn't necessarily prove something, but it is suspicious to say the least
I was thinking along the lines of having to have the certificate (ultimately) to prove your existence so to permit you to do anything else.... and you have to Pay for the "certificate " .
Oh, just in that most basic sense, yea I get what ya mean. The fact that a person can say "I exist' should be enough to prove one exists
Whatever name it goes by.🤷♀️
I can't say I'm 100% convinced of some of the claims about the birth certificates that are out there, but I certainly don't rule it out.