Abortion and Anarchy

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Some clearly didn't read your post or else assumed you meant more than you said. When I read your post, it was clear you were sharing your opinion with this woman, without any expectation of her to go along with you. You were giving her options.

People aren't used to a system where people share their opinions without expectation of agreement. In today's America, if you share your opinion with someone, it means that you're trying to convince them of something, trying to make them wrong, or support laws that would make all people behave in a certain manner.

We're so messed up. :shk:

Society/Government has so well conditioned people to believe that any idea that doesn't support the status quo is wrong and evil. I write these posts in the hopes that maybe one person might open their mind to an alternative way of thinking that allows everyone to actually experience freedom in their lifetime..

Do you have a license to spread that message?
2nd.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


would it be to much to say kindred spirit?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Do you have a license to spread that message?
2nd.

didn't know i was required one under the first amendment, but then again the constitution is a just a piece of paper and its routine to wipe your rear with the bill of rights

reply to post by NuroSlam


Not at all.

This subject is near and dear to my heart. The respect and honoring of autonomy. I believe we could have SO MUCH better discussions here if we had more kindred spirits.

Many say they are for true freedom, but most of the time, it's only the freedoms THEY want that they consider important or valid. The freedoms they disagree with are the ones they want laws to prevent people from having.

Both "Sides" want to Restrict our Rights - Just Different Ones

People don't really want to live in a free society. They only want the freedoms with which they agree, and all other freedom should be outlawed.

I may or may not be off topic here but I would like to state that there was no mention of the biological father? I get very defensive of father's rights as I have been in a situation where the biological mother completely disregarded the father's rights to the unborn child and sold the baby to the Mormons. Sounds crazy right? Well, I would venture to guess that this young lady made no mention of the father? Anyway, check out what happened to my family : babyselling This whole thread may have sent me off into my own tangent so I apologize.

reply to post by wildoracle13


Is Ashley autistic or something? She seriously seems slow. Cody should have picked a better mate. Also do you know if she sold the baby before or after it was born? If she sold it before it was born I don't see how a father has any rights to a unborn child, unless they are married or have a contract.

Can I ask how justice is brought about in anarchy?

I'm talking about real crimes. Your child is raped & murdered by a sick pedophile. His punishment is that no one does business with him anymore? That's it?

Or does anarchy mean blood vendetta? How would blood vendetta be prevented under anarchy? John Locke wrote that we give up the right to personal vendetta in exchange for our personal rights being defended by the government. We turn that right over to the government because it prevents a never-ending cycle of blood revenge.

I really do want to know, because this is my #1 argument against anarchy. What are the consequences for the most evil crimes? Who metes out those consequences?

In my mind, any body or group that does so would be considered "government" of a kind.

reply to post by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Schkeptick
Can I ask how justice is brought about in anarchy?

I'm talking about real crimes. Your child is raped & murdered by a sick pedophile. His punishment is that no one does business with him anymore? That's it?

No that is not all, now since I have a daughter, I have to reconcile my beliefs with the realities, As opposed to a criminal court system, where the victim is never even made close to whole, a more civil system that actually respects the individuals rights would be in place. One where arbitration and restitution are the foundations, much in line with say the Vikings who are the model of anarchy..

A system of laws was set up whereby people were governed by consensus and where disputes were resolved through negotiation and compromise.

www.hurstwic.org...
Now in the context of today, if government were to disappear in the blink of an eye, chaos would ensue because to common "man" really doesn't understand the idea of a consensual society. However, lets that a modern small town that decides it will no longer have a central government, the town comes together and starts to build a community of laws, laws that only protect the individuals rights and no other. a Court system would be established to hear the cases that involve the violations of the individuals rights. In the example many outcomes could happen, the offender forfeits all property to the victim, is required to pay restitution of even made an outlaw with no protections of the town from his enemies.

Or does anarchy mean blood vendetta? How would blood vendetta be prevented under anarchy? John Locke wrote that we give up the right to personal vendetta in exchange for our personal rights being defended by the government. We turn that right over to the government because it prevents a never-ending cycle of blood revenge.

It would be prevented because even though you may feel completely justified, and rightly so, you have then caused others to become victims, his family, children. You then become the perpetrator subject to the restitution of others.
Most people do not realise that there is a difference between being in a state of anarchy and one of chaos. No government does not mean no law, there are three extremely important laws that every human being on earth has, that of life liberty and property, if you violate these then you of course loose your rights to the same.

I really do want to know, because this is my #1 argument against anarchy. What are the consequences for the most evil crimes? Who metes out those consequences?

In my mind, any body or group that does so would be considered "government" of a kind.

It does appear that way, but government is not consensual, its power is one based on the threat of violence, not because a crime was committed but because its the only way to force people to bow before the will of the state. There would be no tax, so government could not exist