Liberalism and the nation

Many current liberals are against the EU and further integration. Quite often they are thrown into one bag together with conservatives, but the truth is completely different. What unites these is dislike for the EU. But what divides them are the reasons for that distaste.

European Union
European Union

Why don't conservatives like the EU? The reason is simple - the EU regulates and plans transnationally. It is a German-French pact for them to control the rest of Europe. They do not like Euro-regulation because they see the regulation of "foreigners" in it.

Simply put, they do not like the EU because of its international approach. They don't want a German to regulate us. They want us to regulate ourselves.

Basically, they have nothing against banning light bulbs, various standardization ("uniformity") and redistribution. On the contrary! They want to regulate, they want to redistribute, they want to manage and plan - but nationally. They want to have their "Czech" regulations. If we approved all European regulations as Czech laws ourselves, without the inspiration of the EU, many would not see a problem in that.

However, the liberal's approach is quite the opposite. They don't care if it regulates and redistributes Czech, German or orangutan. The important thing is that someone regulates that someone redistributes.

And regulation and redistribution are inherently bad for liberals.

Why do liberals reject the EU? Why do many want to stand out? Why don't they just want to change it inside? The answer is simple: because it doesn't work.

It's basically simple math. The Czech Republic has 22 representatives in the European Parliament. There are a total of 736 MEPs.

The Czech representation in the European Parliament is at the level of less than 3% - only this part of the European Parliament and its decisions are decided by Czech voters.

If currently up to 80% of the laws adopted in the Czech Parliament come directly from the EU, then only 22,32% of Czech citizens can decide on their affairs. In other words, our vote in regular parliamentary elections is only 22% strong out of one ten millionth - the individual decides on his affairs from 0,000000022. The rest is handed over in Brussels.

A liberal promotes the maximum personal freedom of the individual. The personal freedom of the individual means that the individual decides on his own affairs. In the case of the existence of the state, the individual should decide on the highest possible range of things himself - without state intervention. However, where the state acts, it should then have the greatest possible power to change anything. The strength of an individual to decide on his or her affairs should be as close as possible to the number "1", preferably it should be directly "1".

What is not logically necessary to manage at the state level, let it be left to the individual. If not individuals, then at least the village, the region. Naturally historically shaped state, this optimal political area is the maximum - in the village there is an individual, for example, one thousandth. In the region, by one hundred thousandth or a millionth. In the state already once ten millionths. In the EU, one hundred and five millionth of 3%. I don't know what mini-number would come out of that.

The larger the whole, the less the power of an individual to decide for himself, his sovereignty, is closer to that one. A transnational entity, a political project without historical roots like the EU, does not mind liberals because of its "transnationality" as such. We don't mind that those regulations are German, French or any other. In the same way, those regulations would bother us, even if they were ours, Czech.

However, it is possible to reverse the trend in our Czech "optimal political area". At EU level, however, this is impossible.

We do not want a "nation state" to replace one collective decision-making about individuals with the same name with only a different name, as de facto conservatives want it. We want it to increase the power of individuals to make decisions for themselves.

As the anarcho-capitalist would say, a small nation-state is much better abolished than a multinational multibillion-dollar mole.

0 comments

  1. "I fully identify with this, and the only such internally indisputable and reducible system is the system of anarchy, ie a system where no one has the legal right to force anyone else to do anything. In other words, the absolute inviolability of private property (the right to life derives from the right to private property, not the other way around). '

    If the argument for defending anarchy is based on such claims, that is why I am not an anarchist.

    What can be achieved by reducing this statement? Who formulates the concept of private property? Who is the one who considers this private property inviolable? And why?
    Does this mean that before the emergence of consciousness, private property as an irreducible axiom is already implicit in reality?

    Without the existence of human consciousness, there is no concept. Concepts can arise only as a consequence of the initially sensory knowledge of consciousness and the process of its integration of this knowledge.

    Therefore, the above statement is inconsistent.
    Only the presence of HUMAN consciousness, capable of the free integration of knowledge of reality, the identities of its existents and mutual causal relationships, is able to form concepts.

    The concept of "private property" follows primarily from the knowledge of self-ownership. Without the presence of the "I" there is no possession. Ownership is only a necessary condition for preserving the "I". And so the primary is the presence of the "I" and its preservation. Without the presence of the "I", its preservation and the activities leading to the pursuit of its benefit, there is no further process of cognition.

    Likewise, human consciousness is free consciousness. This means that the existence of constant choice already follows from its existence. Without realizing it, we are constantly forced to choose between different alternatives, and the basis of this process is again the need to preserve the "I".

    What does this mean? First there is the "I", which is simply without its own intervention. The actual contribution of the "I" consists only subsequently in the effort to preserve and develop it.

    Absolutely virtuous is reality-existence, as the basic axiom of all other starting points. Simply put, the reality is. She is everything she is and there is nothing but her that is not her. Therefore, it has no cause and is what it is. This is the law of identity: existence exists. The law of identity says that any existence is what it is and cannot be something else at the same time. If A = A and BA hold, then A = B cannot hold at the same time. Reality is the primary axiom. Consciousness is a secondary axiom in reality already contained, and the law of identity applies to all existents.
    And because existence exists (it cannot be the other way around) and the consciousness contained in it has its identity, which is given primarily by the ability of free processes of knowledge, everything else is only a consequence of the previous statement.
    The emergence of the concept of "private property" is therefore conditioned by the existence of consciousness and its efforts to preserve itself.

    This is the origin of natural rights, as the formulation of a value system leading to the preservation and development of the "I".

    To preserve the "I", it is only necessary to own oneself and the fruits of all activities of oneself and to be able to make free decisions.

    Of which - the right to life, free choice and property. These rights are an integral part of the "I", without them the "I" is not.

    But what is the point of formulating a value system without interacting with another "I" for which the same applies? If the same system of values ​​is shared by all the "I" (because they result from the objective existence and identity of consciousness), by denying any right to others, it is denying those rights to oneself.

    The fulfillment of these natural rights and thus the pursuit of one's own benefit can therefore be described as the rational behavior of the "I". On the contrary, trying to deny them to other "I's" behaviors is irrational, because in the end I deny them to myself. I repeat that natural rights are objective in nature. Their application then has a subjective character given by the degree of rationality or irrationality of "I" activities. To act rationally or irrationally is a consequence of the free ability of consciousness. The consequences of irrational behavior can have various consequences. Some lead to processes of destruction of only the "I" that acts irrationally, others may affect the integrity of others "I". It is clear above the sun that self-destruction as a consequence of irrational action is the result of the free will of the respective "I" and cannot be prevented in any way. However, it is unacceptable that the self-destruction of one "I" should also be an effort to destroy the others.

    Irrational behavior of the "I", ie activities that are not in accordance with natural rights, are what I call violence. Whether on itself or on others.

    The right to the defense of objective natural rights is also a right of an objective nature and its fulfillment is therefore not the violence initiated first. It is only the result of the initiation of violence by someone whose irrational action is contrary to objective natural rights and leads to the destruction of other "I's".

    However, this right of defense cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but only in accordance with natural rights and consistently. This requires a certain guarantee that its rational character will not change into an irrational character, leading gradually to the destruction of many "I's".

    The existence of a defense of natural rights is essential.

    The existence of the state as a defense institute is not necessary, but it is the most effective and is best under control.

    The only condition is a consensual recognition of the objective nature of natural rights.
    Without consensual recognition of at least some ground rules, no society can exist and survive. And rules cannot be rules without being followed.
    If these rules are based on the objective nature of the existence of the "I" and respect the law of identity, then forcing them to respect them is NOT violence. It is only a necessary condition for the possibility of monitoring the benefit of fulfilling the natural (objectively given) natural rights of all "I".

  2. "The state provides its services on the basis of consensus of all and for all"

    Only people can provide services. The state is just a short name for an organized group of some people providing some services. These people have to pay somehow. Why should those who pay nothing be protected? Then not everyone will stop paying and the whole state will fall apart due to lack of funds? And what do people who think they know how to protect themselves and do not want to contribute to the state? And what about people who do not believe in violence at all, ie not in defensive violence? These will never join the consensus that a state protecting all should be established. Either you have to leave them alone and therefore the state cannot be an organization protecting everyone, or you force them to submit to state protection, which is contrary to what the state should do.

    There is no internally consistent way of exercising the right to self-protection other than that everyone is free to choose how to protect themselves. This does not mean that everyone will be protected individually. Some people decide to start a group (company) that will protect others for a fee.

    "Unlike a private company, the state is an institution whose existence and activities are given by law. "

    But the law must first be made by some people, they must be agreed upon. Unless they agree (see above - people who want to protect themselves and people who do not believe in any, ie even defensive violence) will never agree to this law. The application of this law to dissenting people will be an initiated violence and thus in conflict with the law.

    "Citizens who delegate their rights of defense to a state must constantly control and guard such a state, for which certain political mechanisms must be established. One of the principled documents that clearly defines the role of the state is the constitution. "

    Unnecessarily complicated. Richly, it is enough not to establish any state and let people organize their protection as they see fit - either individually or pay for a private company.

    "I repeat, only by an honest individual search for knowledge can one reach an worldview. This knowledge should then be indisputable and reducible to the very axiomatic beginning. "

    I fully identify with this, and the only such internally indisputable and reducible system is the system of anarchy, ie a system where no one has the legal right to force anyone else to do anything. In other words - the absolute inviolability of private property (the right to life derives from the right to private property, not the other way around).

  3. @gofry:

    "Thus, the state must necessarily be an ordinary private company, or it is itself the initiator of violence and thus does what it is supposed to protect against. There is no other way. "

    I can understand that a person defending anarchy as an order must have pimples when uttering the term "state". Honestly, they jump on me too.

    But. There is, and must be, a fundamental difference between the state and a private company. While a company always provides its services voluntarily only for a certain group of people (it satisfies the demand with its offer), the state provides its services on the basis of consensus of all and for all. The company can be established or liquidated by anyone. The state does not. The state, unlike a private company, is an institution whose existence and activities are given by law.

    It is not true that the state, if it exists and functions, must in essence be the initiator of violence, first. The state should be here to protect those who have been the victims of the initiation of someone else's violence. I'm not saying that's the case today. In essence, it is not a question of enforcing fees either, because these fees are paid voluntarily on the basis of the general knowledge that collectively implemented defense is necessary and much more effective than individual ones.
    The right role of the state therefore lies not in initiating violence first for any reason, but only in defending the BASIC (trivial) natural rights of all, even before oneself.
    Citizens who delegate their rights of defense to a state must constantly control and guard such a state, for which certain political mechanisms must be established. One of the principled documents that clearly defines the role of the state is the constitution.

    Nowhere is it written that any of those who are currently performing the function of the state will not come up with the "brilliant" idea, for example, to extend the rights to life, free choice and property by some other "pseudo" right.
    In the case of a private company, I can resign at any time to the services offered to it. In the case of the state, however, I cannot resign. On the contrary. It is a necessary duty for everyone to get the state back on track. And the "right" tracks are defined by the constitution.

    If the state first initiates violence, it is the sacred right of everyone to defend themselves against this violence in any way. Because everyone still has their individual right to defense.

    The whole problem is only whether fundamental values ​​common to all can be found or not. Skeptics, subjectivists, relativists, nihilists and altruists say no. Everything is real, or in the hands of God, so you can't lean on anything solid. These are the roots of collectivism.

    Proponents of individualism know that such values ​​exist and are common to all. These are universal and valid objective rights to life, free choice and property. Simply compressed into "live and let live". The right to life is primary, the rights to free choice and property are secondary - derived. Why should that be the case?

    This is a much longer treatise. Individualism has its real roots in the philosophy of objectivism, which is based on philosophical trends based on Aristotle's ideas, but not Plato's.

    But no philosophy can be imposed on anyone. It is a question of individual knowledge and honest examination of the essence of existence-reality in relation to the consciousness and function of the law of identity.

    I already hear objections: “How can anyone know that this or any other philosophy is universal, timeless and true? After all, everything is relative! ”

    I repeat again, only by an honest individual search for knowledge can one reach an worldview. This knowledge should then be indisputable and reducible to the very axiomatic beginning. I admit that it is very brittle ice, but there is no other way.

  4. @ Pavel Pátek

    The absence of a state does not mean the absence of control over compliance with the rules.

    In that example, he only described a situation where the three agreed. That's okay, there's no conflict. But we are talking about a situation that is conflicting when they do not agree. For example, when one of the three does not want to agree - he does not want to cooperate or leave (which is actually also a form of cooperation). Three are probably too few, let's extend it to three groups of a few people. Let's say group A is the one who doesn't want to agree. We then have groups B and C. Group B decides to establish a "state". From group C, some decide to start a private company and provide protection services to other members of group C for a fee.

    And now the point is that either the Group B state is an organization based on exactly the same principles as a private security firm, ie the members of the B group voluntarily pay some fees to it to protect them, or that state enforces fees from them by force, and then it is no longer an organization guaranteeing non-initiation of violence.

    Thus, the state must necessarily be an ordinary private company, or it is itself the initiator of violence and thus does what it is supposed to protect against. There is no other way.

  5. @gofry:

    "Example: You have three people, with three different philosophical backgrounds. How and who will determine the only correct philosophical starting point? So one thing is clear - he cannot be a believer in the philosophy of not initiating violence, because by forcing others to change their philosophical backgrounds, he would himself become the initiator of violence and thus act contrary to the philosophy he is trying to establish. "

    It is not me who says that any of the three should NUTIT the others to accept his philosophy.

    A seemingly unsolvable situation. But really only seemingly. Either the three have a reason to live together or not. If they don't, they simply break up and live on their own without one influencing the other.
    If they have a reason to live together, at least to some extent, they have no choice but to seek some common intersection of their individual philosophical starting points on which to agree (consensus). Truth?
    If they act rationally, they are very likely to find some minimal intersection of common values. If this is the case, because they have a good reason to live together, the three will have a common interest in protecting this intersection from the consequences of the activities of any of them motivated by different philosophical starting points that would go against pre-agreed rules. In order to ensure this, they need an arbitrator that everyone trusts. However, there are only three, so they voluntarily agree to take turns in this position on a regular basis. But before it is clear, at least as long as they share their lives with others, what the common values ​​they have agreed are, it is on paper. In all cases. If the person currently performing the function has any appetite for evading from the pre-agreed rules, the other two will remind him.

    “Based on the consensus of whom with whom? That protection must be provided by specific people and, again, only other specific people must be protected. How is it established who the protectors are? ”

    That should be clear.

    "Who will determine on the basis of what philosophical starting points this consensus will be implemented? There are countless philosophical starting points, who will determine the only one according to which everything will now be determined? After all, just determining this philosophical starting point and forcing others to submit to it is the initiation of violence. "

    Also.

    "Anarchy does not mean the absence of any rules. This is a common awareness, but it is untrue. Anarchy means the absence of a state, nothing more, nothing less. The absence of a state does not in any way mean the absence of rules. "

    This is a contradiction, like thunder. Rules exist, but no one watches if they are followed? Then what are such rules for?

    If you mean the absence of an active, providing state, then I agree. But there must always be some tool for monitoring compliance with the rules, if they exist and are based on the minimum intersection of the philosophical backgrounds of all involved.

    The need for coexistence rules in society is not demagoguery or someone's violence against someone. This necessity arises from the knowledge of the objective character of reality or existence, consciousness and the law of identity.

  6. @Pavel Friday

    Anarchy does not mean the absence of any rules. This is a common awareness, but it is untrue. Anarchy means the absence of a state, nothing more, nothing less. The absence of a state in no way means the absence of rules.

    >>>> “Everyone has the right to protect himself in any way, when violence is initiated against him first. He can therefore delegate this right to the state, and it is also the only meaningful act of delegating his rights to the state. "

    Yes, I agree - you can delegate your right to your own protection to the state (in general you can delegate it to anyone), but you do not have the right to force anyone else to delegate this right to your own protection to the state as well. You are then the initiator of the violence yourself and you must defend yourself against you!

    >>>> “No company can exercise the obligation to protect fundamental rights, because this right of protection cannot be delegated only to a group of people only for my benefit. This can be done highly effectively only on the basis of a consensus expressed by the highest law (constitution) resulting from morality and ethics resulting from the system of values ​​defined by certain philosophical starting points. "

    Based on the consensus of whom with whom? That protection must be provided by specific people and, again, only other specific people must be protected. How is it established who the protectors are?

    Who will determine on what philosophical basis this consensus will be implemented? There are countless philosophical starting points, who will determine the only one according to which everything will now be determined? After all, just determining this philosophical starting point and forcing others to submit to it is the initiation of violence.

    Example: You have three people, with three different philosophical backgrounds. How and who will determine the only correct philosophical starting point? One thing is clear, then, that he cannot be a believer in the philosophy of not initiating violence, because by forcing others to change their philosophical backgrounds, he would himself become the initiator of violence and thus act contrary to the philosophy he seeks to establish.

  7. @gofry:

    I keep trying to emphasize that the state is and cannot be anything other than a collective instrument of VIOLENCE! Either state any or none. If none, then all people around the world would have to behave the same. Being fully aware of natural rights and the resulting consequences, ie not initiating violence first. This would mean that all people will live in complete harmony with their nature and therefore rationally. However, this is an unjustified utopia, because man is human, among other things, because his free will can lead him to both rational and irrational behavior. Without the state, it would only be anarchy, which, with its total absence of rules and some order, will provide an opportunity for some people to seize power very quickly. No society can function without certain rules and regulations. The state is therefore essential for the functioning of society. The basic essential question is therefore only: according to which RULES and rules? And I tried to indicate that in the last post.
    Everyone has the right to protect himself in any way, when violence is initiated against him first. He can therefore delegate this right to the state, and it is also the only meaningful act of delegating his rights to the state. No company can exercise the obligation to protect fundamental rights, because this right of protection cannot be delegated only to a group of people only for my benefit. This can be done highly effectively only on the basis of consensus expressed by the highest law (constitution) resulting from morality and ethics resulting from the system of values ​​defined by certain philosophical starting points. It is clear that by delegating my right to defend myself to the state, I am not giving it up. I still have it, only by my attitude of recognizing the state as a collective instrument for the protection of natural rights and participating in its financing, I express my conviction that this solution is more effective and recognize that the state is the one who protects me and others according to predetermined and CLEAR rules generally applicable to all members together (equality before the law).

    For example, social issues are a completely different matter. Do I have the right to forcibly take some of the results of his work and give it to someone I think he deserves? Of course not. And because I don't have it myself, I can't delegate such a right to the state. I can set up a foundation or, if you like, a private company that will manage the VOLUNTARY funds entrusted for the benefit needed according to the criteria set by those who contribute to these funds. VOLUNTARILY! But can I delegate to the state the right to force anyone to participate in this trade, either from one side or the other? I CAN'T! Because I don't have it myself.
    In short, everything except the collective defense of natural rights can be implemented (and should be implemented) differently and much more effectively than through the state. WHY? Because the right to health, education, emergency assistance, work, etc. it just doesn't exist. No individual has it with him and therefore he cannot even be delegated to the state.
    That's the "buried dog".

    Violence, as the defense against initiated violence first, is defensible. The initiation of violence must be suppressed and punished first.
    Most effectively - the state.

  8. Citation:
    "If the federal government found itself without money, it would mean the closure of most federal offices, except for the necessary functions of the state. It would affect about 800 people who would have to go on unpaid vacation. It would be particularly difficult for the federal government to slow down the economy of the capital, Washington. However, for example, museums financed with federal money or national parks would also be closed. "American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq could also be without pay."

    Source:
    The US still has not agreed on a budget, the government has money only for a day (iDnes / Ekonomika, 8.4.2011)
    http://ekonomika.idnes.cz/usa-se-stale-nedohodly-na-rozpoctu-vlada-ma-penize-uz-jen-na-den-pv0-/eko-zahranicni.aspx?c=A110408_072524_eko-zahranicni_cem

  9. @Pavel Friday

    If the state does not operate on a voluntary basis, that is, as a private company, then it must operate on the basis of violence, and it is therefore absurd to say that it will protect me from violence. It does not matter that this state violence against me is expressed in the constitution.

    In order for the state to protect my rights, it must necessarily consume resources. He has to get these resources somewhere. Either I give them to him voluntarily, and so it is an ordinary, private service provided by a company. Or he will take them involuntarily, making him a rapist himself, and it is therefore absurd to say that he will protect them from violence.

  10. @gofry
    The distinction between a private company and the state needs to be clearly defined. I really use the company's services completely voluntarily and I can give them up at any time. Not so state service. There may be a misunderstanding of the role of the state from an individualistic point of view, if you want "liberal" thinking. Once again: the state is a collective instrument of violence. This has nothing to do with the company at all. The contractual relationship between an individual and the state is not expressed in a commercial contract. It is, or should be, expressed in a constitution, the content of which is based on the knowledge of common and unchanging values, ie natural human rights, which are only the right to life, free choice and property. This implies a fundamental and only passive (defensive) role of the state. The Constitution is an act of political philosophy based on the knowledge of common objective values ​​and thus "correct" ethics and morality, and is therefore the basis for the constitution and functioning of the state. The problem, then, is only on the basis of what fundamental philosophy this political philosophy is formulated.
    The problem arises when the range of natural rights begins to expand for any reason. For example, by formulating rights to health, education, work, etc., etc. Such values ​​are not fundamental and unchanging, but are the result of the exercise of natural rights. It depends on whether the individual, not the state, acts in accordance with natural rights (ie rationally) or not. The state cannot provide anything and the rights cannot at all. The state cannot force individuality to behave rationally. So it is only a matter of every individual if he wants to live healthily, to be educated or to work in order to pursue his natural benefit. The "correct" role of the state therefore consists only in the protection of natural rights as common and unchanging. This means in the defense of the individual against the initiation of violence first, and this is not possible other than by applying violence, but not first. You cannot live rationally in accordance with natural rights without being denied anyone. The existence of natural rights is objective. The questioning of the objectivity of these rights leads only to the philosophies of relativism, nihilism or mysticism, which inevitably manifest itself as a cancer that decomposes any system of values ​​and thus morality and ethics and breeds political philosophies of decay and chaos.
    So once again, freedom has nothing to do with anarchy or anarcho-capitalism or other anarcho -ism. It follows from the above that the defense of freedom (simply put) is a necessary act of violence, but not initiated first and therefore the only objectively defensible violence. And this violence can only be ensured by a state which cannot be renounced if the existence of natural rights applies and which is constituted on the basis of the political philosophy of individualism.
    The difference between the state and the company is that the company stands and falls with the intention of satisfying someone's demand for something, but within the rules that the state protects as the only called arbitrator and whose role is defined by the constitution.

  11. @Pavel Friday

    >>> “The state should only protect all its citizens from the initiation of violence first and certainly not actively provide anything. Only such rights as each individual has can be delegated to the state. The reason for delegating the right to protection of natural rights to the state is only the fact that this collective protection is more effective and efficient than individual protection. "

    If the state uses taxes and not voluntary fees for its financing, then it is itself the initiator of violence, so it cannot be the protector against violence. If I cannot stop using the state to defend myself at any time, the state is committing violence again. And if it is funded voluntarily and you can stop using its services at any time, then it is nothing more than a private company.

  12. I think you are a little obscure to your detriment of the terms (without precise definition) liberal, conservative, etc.

    I consider myself a mild conservative, but in the blood I will defend personal freedom and with it personal responsibility (perhaps also thanks to the Christian background)

    I will also sign the principle of subordination

    under the word conservative I imagine a person skeptical of all novelties, especially those who pretend to establish paradise on earth

    I think it would be useful to respect PROGRESSIVE AND CONSERVATIVE (these are the two words that should be their opposites) in the reforms proud current…
    let the progressive liberal current propose a solution (because we really need liberalization as salt) and the conservative liberals will assess whether this solution will lead to a real improvement of the situation or whether it is more of a dead end…
    (we can draw on thousands of years of history, it would be conceited to say that today we solve social problems that have never occurred anywhere before)

  13. @Re_Evolver:
    Freedom is not possible without rules and order, you are right. But with your contribution you prove that the right-left vision of politics is a source of somewhat considerable conceptual confusion. The essence is "what rules and what order?". As I stated in my first post, the dispute is not between the right and the left, but individualists and the collectivists. The state cannot, in essence, be anything other than a collective instrument of violence. Who's violence against whom and why? This question needs to be answered in full. This answer can only be found in philosophy, which alone can postulate concepts such as ethics and morality based on some value system. For the individualist, the highest value is his life, ie the right to free choice of the individual and the right to own himself and all the results of his activities, and therefore the right to pursue his own benefit. These rights are given, ie inalienable and unquestionable. But that has nothing to do with anarchy! Because I can naturally exercise these rights only if others allow me to do so, and therefore if I allow others to do the same! These rights can only be restricted or destroyed by some kind of violence. And so the basic imperative of freedom is the absence of the initiation of violence first. And this also applies to the state. The state should only protect all its citizens from the initiation of violence first and certainly not actively provide anything. Only such rights as each individual has can be delegated to the state. The reason for delegating the right to protection of natural rights to the state is only the fact that this collective protection is more effective and efficient than individual protection.
    In such and only in such a case, we can speak of the rule of law, the rule of law.
    Any other political arrangement sooner or later leads to totalitarianism. For a person who professes natural rights to life, free choice and the right to own, anarchy cannot be an alternative to democracy. It is the most stable system that will very soon become totalitarian. With the help of the democratic organization of society, it is possible to achieve as much a society of truly free individuals as to degenerate into totalitarianism. Communism and fascism are totalitarian in nature. Unfortunately, they are just as close to totalitarianism as the ideas of socialists, conservatives and even many liberals. Why? Because the essence of these ideas is collectivism from the left or right. Collectivism is the malignant cancer and cannot be circumvented by the need for rules and order. Collectivism puts the group above individuality, although the opposite is true. Only individuals can form a group or a collective. Only individuality can have rights, and these rights can only be granted to group management on the basis of a consortium of individualities. While individuality has a real content, the collective is only an abstract concept for a group of individuals, nothing more.
    Collectivism is, unfortunately, mainstream. Top and bottom. Not by chance. It is a philosophy of controlling the masses. Individuals cannot be controlled, but groups can. For centuries, economic and intellectual elites had had to impose on the masses notions of "higher" orders that were always based on one form or another of pernicious altruism. "Individuality is nothing without God, a leader, a ruler, etc. At present, it is mainly a" society "for which it is necessary to sacrifice.
    I call this "altruism" pernicious not only because it ultimately serves only as a tool to promote the entirely personal interests of certain elites, but also because it is in complete conflict with the value system defending the individual rights of the individual. Respect for rights implies respect for the rights of others and has nothing to do with altruism.
    The collectivist state, which is inherently included in conservative thinking, must not only protect but also provide, because only under the guise of the need to provide, or the active role of the state, it is possible to almost imperceptibly but truly govern and promote the interests of each other.

    In conclusion: Individualism has nothing to do as much with anarchy as with any kind of socialism, communism or fascism or fabianism and various convergence theories.

    Individualists value, or should respect, democracy as an environment in which there is a chance for a truly just order through free competition of ideas. In the same way, however, it is necessary to be on the lookout for any effort to strengthen collectivist instruments that always lead only to totalitarianism.

  14. @Re_Evolver

    "You don't understand what anarchism is always left-wing"

    I don't understand either, please explain it to me. Thanks.

  15. On the one hand, you are mistaken in the fact that conservatives should not be supporters of individual freedom (and in what is the rule and order in the face of freedom) and on the other you do not understand that anarchism is not only leftist, but mainly utopian and intellectual as Marxism. Only your utopia would never last for decades, but a maximum of months (if very small areas were counted). This makes the ideology so politically insignificant…
    In the argument itself, you only show that democracy is nothing to you… Euroscepticism is not a question of values ​​for you, but only a utilitarian attitude that can be purposefully betrayed if it is in the interest of your naive theoretical ideologies.

  16. Martin Procházka is right. Personally, I also have nothing against the EU. On the contrary, I welcome the extension (rather, I should say change) of possibilities. But I don't care about stupid rules, but for state as well as federal ones.

    Stupidity cannot be fought. No individual or group has that much energy. You can only try to survive, ignore it with its bearers, and try to live your own way…

    If I had to choose to fight, it would be more violent and physical than some persuasion and pleading about my (natural) rights. So once there are enough of us like-minded people, we can go.

    He each of us thinks a little differently (and came to his world of opinion differently), but we respect the resulting values ​​similarly, unlike the various protesters for different rights. That is why there are still so few of us and we can sometimes get only a small part of other people on our side and only temporarily. If, on the other hand, we join the speech of such people, they often do not understand that what we are fighting for right now and with them is only a small part of the whole that we really want…

  17. You are wrong that liberals all dislike the EU. The EU is de facto a state that has the same potential to protect freedom as it destroys, it does not differ in this sense from the nation state.
    It is reformable, of course. If we want to secure our freedoms throughout the EU instead of the now deficient nation-state, liberalism must also prevail throughout the EU.

  18. Concisely, simply and concisely. Still, non-liberals will not understand, and you would only get ridicule and assault from them if they visited this server.

    Rather, we would need guidance on how to explain our worldview to those who think otherwise.

    Because of this, even for a short time, but quite a lot, I had an argument with my friends, and basically this topic is taboo for me. Some of my thoughts accepted themselves over time, but only a fraction and for many years.

    What is so strange about us and our way of thinking that most of us (at least it seems to me) do not understand? Even if you calculate the disadvantages of redistribution and global governance, which relate to them specifically, they will have their own again in a few hours…

    Just to explain. Thanks for the tutorial on how to talk to the others.

  19. You got it right. A small note. Even many so-called liberals want to preserve, for example, central banks. The dispute is not really economic but philosophical. It is a fundamental dispute between individualists and collectivists over what role the state should play. While all collectivists (from left to right) want to maintain a more or less providing and guaranteeing (or active) state, individualists want a strong state that only protects natural human rights on the basis of a "contractual" relationship between the state as an institute of collective violence and free citizens. passive), delegating to it only certain rights and obligations in relation to the protection of natural rights that citizens otherwise have in themselves.
    It is a sad fact that collectivists label any individualistic principles as extremist and dangerous. Most citizens then agree with them because, on the one hand, they cannot understand the philosophical nature of the dispute and, on the other hand, they cannot imagine that they should take full responsibility for their lives and the lives of their loved ones into their own hands.

Comments are off.