Comment: Discussion (listening) is possible.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Enjoyed the rant. (see in situ)

Discussion (listening) is possible.

Rare but possible.

"For instance - liberty movement proclaims liberty in everything - including liberty to be stupid in your decisions. Even this gives (and rightly so) so many opportunities to call hypocrisy. But let's make additional step. We can't really allow children to do anything they want, do we?"

If you listen to someone who makes a claim about what is or is not Liberty, then you have one viewpoint and that one viewpoint is relevant, or having to do with, that one moment in time and place.

If you want to listen to my viewpoint, then you can see how well my viewpoint compares to any other one.

Put two viewpoints side by side and have a competition (In Liberty) of viewpoints as such:

A.
"For instance - liberty movement proclaims liberty in everything - including liberty to be stupid in your decisions. Even this gives (and rightly so) so many opportunities to call hypocrisy. But let's make additional step. We can't really allow children to do anything they want, do we?"

B.
People who make mistakes in liberty pay the costs of their mistakes in liberty and if those people who make mistakes choose to pass on the costs of their mistakes by resorting to deceit, threats of violence, or violence, then that ends liberty in that case, as liberty is set aside in favor of crime for that person who chooses, voluntarily, to end liberty. So...compounding the original mistake, where the person in liberty refuses to pay for their own mistake, that person in liberty makes a second mistake which is the mistake called crime and once on that path, the crime path, which is opposite the liberty path, the criminal has to commit two more crimes for each crime, two more lies for each lie, two more threats for each threat, and two more acts of violence for each act of violence on that path, or, return to liberty by paying all the costs within the criminals power to pay, which is then a return to liberty. Note: No mention in this viewpoint of the factor of charity, which is a human power transfer of notable scale.

So what does "liberty movement" say now, right now, after you read, and presumably understand, that last voice in liberty written above competitively, side by side, in a free market of ideas, while avoiding any resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence where anyone of us may be choosing to pass on costs.

You see, this is the link that links "West" and "East", and this is the link that links "Socialism" and "Capitalism", and this is the link that links those divided by the Legal Criminals so as to then have the targets combine their defensive power against Legal Criminals instead of having our divided power used against us so that we all remain victims.

The reason so few people at the top of the Legal Crime Cabal gain so much power is the reason of transfers of Unearned Income from those who earn it, to those who steal it, and use the stolen loot to steal more.

Passing on costs.

The false capitalists (fascists) demand subsidy for the rich, which divides all the targets into those willing to lie, cheat, and steal to be rich, and those who have to work even harder to make a living.

Left and Right?

No, it is Might (falsely) making Right.

False socialists [Bolsheviks/Communists (who were not socialists by their own words)] demand to take from those who earn riches and give to those who do not earn riches and that divides the targets up into those willing to lie, cheat, and steal to be rich, and those who have to work even harder to make a living.

It is very difficult for me, being in the West, to find anyone willing to recognize the fact that there was, and still is, a voluntary form of socialism which is as valid, and as competitive as the voluntary form of capitalism once both are understood and accurately measured to be exactly what they are, and not anything other than exactly what they are, because of what you are confirming to me to be factual reality.

This:

"That is more based on stereotypes I think. Any decision you make in your life is unique. So are decisions about somebody else. But it's always tied to any collective approach. You can always find things to point your finger at."

But then, as you know that exists, you do it yourself. The liberty movement does not say anything, people say things, competitive things are said by people, and which things said are more accurate than which other things said in this movement away from crimes made legal as people work to move as far from crime made legal as possible, and as movement is made away from crime made legal, then people find themselves IN liberty.

"We can't really allow children to do anything they want, do we? So we restrict them. And our bubbly liberty-minded generalization doesn't work anymore, cause we willfully make a distiction. What that all tells us? That this generalization to describe an idea is in fact to the detriment of the idea itself."

The concept of independence of mind and body applies to how human beings reproduce, and certainly that process does not apply to how human beings account for each others responsibilities otherwise.

In other words:

A Parent who allows their (ownership in a sense) children to drink mercury will pay the cost of having a dead child - the child pays the cost too, but the child is not yet "responsible" or "accountable" or "independent" or "autonomous" or "self sufficient", so that accountability PROBLEM is a human reproduction PROBLEM and that is not a problem found among responsible, accountable, independent, autonomous, and self sufficient people who may or may not have children being raised into responsible, accountable, independent, autonomous, and self sufficient human beings.

A responsible, accountable, independent, autonomous, and self sufficient person does not need diaper changes, that is a dependent person, not an independent person; etc.

"We can't really allow children to do anything they want, do we? So we restrict them. And our bubbly liberty-minded generalization doesn't work anymore, cause we willfully make a distiction. What that all tells us? That this generalization to describe an idea is in fact to the detriment of the idea itself."

The methods I use to raise my kids are none of your business unless I'm injuring those dependent people and then they need help from anyone, since I am a criminal, and I torture, and then murder my own children, but otherwise, my children, are mine, and you, or anyone else had better not impose your will upon me, having to do with how "we" raise our kids.

So there are two different subjects here, as Liberty does not apply to raising children, except in the capacity of moral common sense, since a person murdering another person, or a person torturing another person, is wrong, even when a parent does it to a child, but raising children, a natural dependence the child must depend upon, is not the stuff of Liberty.

Liberty is the stuff of political economy, the stuff of who is paid what, for what, by whom, and how anyone deals with the criminals, on and on, in the POWER struggle among responsible, accountable, independent, autonomous, and self sufficient human beings.

If you are not passing on costs (committing a crime), by resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence, upon an innocent victim, then whatever else you do, is none of my business.

In other words there is no need for me, or anyone, to intervene on behalf of the victim, when there is no victim.

In other words: a child/parent relationship is not voluntary, the child does not choose to be borne, at least not as far as I know, so that child/parent relationship is not the stuff of Liberty, it is not either/or voluntary or involuntary association stuff chosen by responsible, accountable, independent, autonomous, and self sufficient human beings.

I hope my words help in conveying what I, as a member of the West Liberty movement see when I see this liberty movement happening here in the West.

"All I want to say that collective punishment will never be a problem, if we move the right direction from the beginning."

The right direction from the beginning, in accurately measurable accounting processes, is to avoid abandoning victims, and avoid becoming criminals (convicting innocent people and then punishing innocent people).

That is a viewpoint of LAW, or Common Law, or Natural Law, or perhaps, if there are any spiritual people willing to compete in this contest of viewpoints, that is also God's Law (in other words).

1.
Don't just allow victims to be tortured and murdering (in your kitchen or half way around the world).

2.
Don't torture and murder people as if doing so was the method by which torture and murder victims are "saved".

The economic law, on the other hand, has to be set onto the right path from the beginning too, and again that can be a precise account that utilizes accurate accounting processes, whereby no one passes on costs (unearned income) by way of deceit, threats of violence, or violence upon the innocent (crime) as a supposed means of accomplishing anything, since that is precisely the full measure of crime.

If a brilliant genius claims that the way to begin is to force everyone to pay me so I can then make everything good, then that is an evil genius, and it may be time to stop listening to evil geniuses.

"All I want to say that collective punishment will never be a problem, if we move the right direction from the beginning."

So what is the right direction from the beginning?

"And that can only be done on your own, not following some leader. Otherwise we have complete chaos, everyone has "his personal opinion" that you "must respect" or bust. No knowledge, no evolution is gained by species as the result."

Have you read the work of Bakunin?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mikhail_bakunin....

"Political Freedom without economic equality is a pretense, a fraud, a lie; and the workers want no lying."

I have not read much from Bakunin but I have read his contemporaries in the West, which are Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Lysander Spooner.

Political Economy is a power struggle, it is the human condition, and understanding it aught to be a goal, instead of human life being a goal to pay the best liars the most earnings for lying best.

Joe