"Tucker is not talking about love."
You may be in a higher plane of understanding, sure, I get that, and you may then be able to dictate to Tucker what is or is not love. So, in that position above Tucker, you can then do what, being so high above Tucker, to then tell on him to your friends?
Is your full understanding of what Tucker perceives to be love so well versed, so high above Tucker himself, now that you have read a few words written by Tucker, that you are now in this lofty position to judge his viewpoint to be in error? So be it, a given, true, accurate, perfectly correct, moral, spiritual, and merely passed by you from God himself, and being in that position, so much more able to know what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, what are you going to do as far as Tucker goes, or as far as any person who may also falsely believe that Tucker is right?
Are you going to punish someone who fails to abide by your accurate understanding of what love is, or what love is not?
That is the point offered, even if you refuse to see it. The point is not which human being is right or wrong in the eyes of God, the point, not that point, is to point out that one man, or one woman, abusing their human POWER to punish people is wrong, not right.
The point is not to argue over what is or is not love, the point is to point out who is going to do what in order to punish people who do not abide by their version of what is or is not punishable.
"Love does not exist under the intent of as long or as short as one wills, can do, or may want to. That is not love. It is a false argument. Tucker is not talking about love."
Tucker is not arguing, as far as I can tell, and neither am I, so who is doing the arguing, and with who is the argument being conducted since I am not arguing, and Tucker has long since stopped breathing.
Suppose you are, again, absolutely correct in your understanding of what love is, or is not, and from that point, supposing further that you know exactly what Tucker thinks love is, or is not, and supposing even further that you are then advocating doing something about those people who are claiming to be in love, but are not in love, or any people doing anything you think they should not be doing, what are you willing to do about it?
The point pointed out by Tucker has to do with the concept of "collectives rights" to go right ahead and force people to love each other according to what one person, or one group of people agree to be the LEGAL punishment for failure to obey a Man-Made Law.
If you do not do so, then as far as I can see your viewpoint agrees with the viewpoint offered by Tucker. If you do willingly, knowingly, and powerfully work toward punishing people with the LAW POWER for their failure to obey what you consider to be God's Law on love, then your viewpoint does not agree with what I think is Tucker's point - which happens to be my point too.
"When one puts will, can or may as a right infront of the person to be loved, love is negated."
In terms of reality I see no such thing happening. Love will happen. Love can happen. Love may happen. The context of "right", unless I am mistaken, has to do with "LEGAL" rights in the context of Anarchism, Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or myself.
To me the help of scripture is such that Man-made-Law is inferior to God's Law, or Natural Law, and so the concept of one man dictating to another man, is unnatural, or as you put it: negated.
You appear to refuse to acknowledge the context of the words in view, which are words that address the concept of Man-Made-Laws or "Legal" POWER.
You then, repeatedly, as if you can wish away the facts, claim that Tucker speaks about something other than "Lagal" POWER or "rights", as if the whole concept of man made laws vanish like a Emperor's nakedness.
You place these false clothes upon Tucker, and it is troublesome, but for who, and why, and should I care?
"I am not on my soap box. I want to get this ironed out."
How about an exercise in English Language?
First, in my opinion, define as best you can, with few words, your definition of love.
Second, define as best you can, with few words, your version of what you think Tucker thinks is Love.
Now you have two definitions.
Third, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your definition of love, then have that adjusted sentence, and see if the sentence can work, or not.
Fourth, take Tucker's sentence that troubles you. Take out the word love, put in your version of what you think Tucker thinks is love, then have that adjusted sentence, ans see if the sentence still works.
I can be the one that is wrong here, but to me you place into the sentence words that are not intended. That work, offered, four possible steps to take, may move closer to your goal.
One question I can ask, may move closer to your goal.
What are you willing to do to stop someone from failing to obey God's law as far as you understand God's law to exist in fact?
"What is man made about Man leaving his father and his mother and cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh? That is a law of nature. Just because you see 2 individual people does not mean that they are not 1 flesh."
Again, and again, and again, the context of the Tucker, and Warren, and Andrews, and Spooner offerings of ideas, thoughts, suggestions, has to do with "The Legal Means" of reaching goals, as in "their aught to be a law" and then there is a law, and that law, when it is an involuntary association is a "law" that is essentially counter to God's Law, and why you don't see this, I don't know.
"Why don’t anarchist just say people can live with each other without any attachment if they feel like it and when they don’t feel like it they can quit, or not, or to live as a group of men and women who share the same bed."
Ask one. If you ask one, will you actually listen to the answer?
"Love is not temporary or it is not love at all."
Where did anyone say that love was temporary?
If someone is falsely perceiving love, is that love?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: