If you don't have rights that other people don't have, is that the same as saying you DO you have rights that other people DO have?
Yes and no. I do have the right to do the things that don't harm other people.
If other people think they DO have the right to steal from me extort me, aggress against me, defraud me, rape torture or murder me. in short, force me to do something without my consent. Then I do not believe I have the right to go and do the same thing (I can not force someone else to do something without his consent)
I have the right to defend myself against an aggressor just like everyone else would have the right to defend themselves against me if I would aggress against them. Most people know this and live their lives that way except they make an exception for the mafia called the state.
I don't know how to protect yourself against the statemafia/mafia, because most people are still believers. If I would defend myself against other mafia noone would think I'm a criminal.
People could hire (and fire) a referee or ombudsman directly, if the person was corrupt you could stop paying, which you can't do with the state.
A group of people could indeed overpower you in fact statism is exactly that. A group of people that are seen as having the right to overpower you, if you don't obey their opinion or pay them.
What mechanism should protect me my family and friends (individuals and or families) the mechanism of self defense first and foremost, neighbor hood watches, protection agencies. I'm not gonna decide how you and the people you love are gonna have to protect themselves and who they must pay or be locked up. I would be an aggressor.
There are people who thought about solution and people who have other solutions that they put in practice. But that does not mean you or I must must do that. We need to think for ourselves first not expecting others to solve our problems
some ideas
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SDV38d7R64FF/
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1647CADF96760B37
self ownership and the NAP (non aggression principle) need to more understood for a move in the right direction.
But you can not make it into a law and force people that would be the opposite of self ownership and the NAP. lol
Thanks for the reply ....peace.
Ok, I can see the appeal of "free-market-conflict-resolution", however, each "conflict-resolution-organization" (CRO) would also need an enforcement arm. For example, if party A subscribes to CRO#1 and party B subscribes to CRO#2 and they can't agree on which CRO should handle the case, each insisting that their personally subscribed CRO arbitrate their disagreement, then CRO#1 and or CRO#2 must resolve their conflicting conclusions, either by FORCE, or by mutually agreeing to another CRO#3 in order to resolve the dispute resolution between dispute resolvers (CRO#1 and CRO#2).
Ultimately a hierarchy of CROs would emerge, and perhaps some balance of power might exist between two or three CROs for some period of time, but eventually a single CRO would either coerce or FORCE the others into de facto submission, thus becoming the Supreme CRO, The Supreme Court so-to-speak, or, The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Law (TUAOTL).
A system like this already exists. Two parties can agree to an "out-of-court-settlement" by agreeing to a mutual arbitrator. A law firm is a de facto CRO and there is a "free-market" of these CROs. The CROs with the "best" reputations charge the most money for their services. This has the effect of insuring the wealthiest citizens get the most favorable outcomes.
A CRO that forces the others in submision is not a CRO anymore. It is what we have now, a violent state that forces everybody to pay for their so called protection. It has a monopoly, it makes arbitrary laws, with which it turns innocent people into criminals.
I think competition for the best service of protecting is better that a violent monopoly that you have to pay which has no obligation at all to protect you and you can't stop paying them.
But the believe in authority under the general population is the problem, not how things will be after the believe in slavery (and that slavery is a good thing) has stopt.
Thanks Peace
edit just curious What is the reason you decline payouts?
What mechanism would you propose to inoculate your utopia from an inevitable TUAOTL?
We are programmed from childhood, even in primitive tribal cultures, to "respect our elders" (parents, chieftains).
Individual helplessness isn't so much "brainwashing" (modern propaganda) as it is much more simply, a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
By voting for my "payout declined" comments and posts, you are supporting the highest-quality-community-approved-content of the top-earners!!!
When you vote for something that's "payout declined" your contribution goes directly into the "reward pool" which gets distributed to all the posts that make more than $20 steem, with the highest percentage of the pool getting distributed to the top-earners who are providing the highest-quality-community-approved-content!!!
So you're not contributing your steem to me, you're contributing your steem to whoever the whales decide "deserves" your steem (but I still get a small rep boost).
Why am I declining rewards?
Imagine a "democratic" system, where you could vote for your elected officials, but your vote only "counted" as much as you "invested" in the election system itself (election tokens)... Now that by itself sounds reasonably "fair".
bUT, now imagine that anyone with a larger "investment" in the election system could ERASE your vote?
Would you continue voting? Or would you just give directly to the candidate of your choosing?
Also, imagine steem without voting. Imagine they just Hard-Forked voting right out of the whole thing altogether.
What's left?
A lot of really awesome stuff, that's what!!
The delegation system is amazing (way better than pa.treon). The steem-token transfer system is amazing (way better than v.enmo or credit-cards or banks). The blogging system is amazing (way better than tw.itter or fa.cebuk). It's all super-awesome!!