Thank you for this, David! Given the fact that the two forms of governance - voluntary / individualist v collectivist - can never be reconciled, does it make sense to force one to obey the other via the mob rule we call 'democracy,' (constantly arguing to convince the 51st person to make a 'majority' that rules the other 49 until the next time,) or to consider a split? To 'allow' (by whose decree?) the authoritarians and authoritarian followers to exist within the use of force, threats, fear and coercion form of governance, while those preferring to live through voluntary agreement, cooperation, and peace be 'allowed' to do so, as well? And how would that come into being? In my view, we've had the former my entire life in the US even if we've been trained to call it 'freedom and democracy.' It's veered way off path into what I'd call totalitarianism at this point with the introduction of 'covid' via what I view as psychological operations (or 'behavioral science') where people are actually clamoring for it, so a case could be made that it is 'voluntary,' though some portion of us will never agree to. What of us? Concentration / 'reeducation' camps, again? It's been this way throughout history - this constant clamoring to impose threats and fear as a way to 'rule' ALL - perhaps it is time to consider another approach. It is one mental 'illness' to wish to use force, threats and fear to rule over all, and another to want to live under it (sadism, masochism, psychopaths, codependents.) Should this be 'allowed' to be imposed over all? How do we stop it?
David, you are making me cry. 😥 But thanks for your continued emotional support. There are others too who help me to retain my sanity through these incredibly difficult times, and I'm so grateful.
Thank you for this, David! Given the fact that the two forms of governance - voluntary / individualist v collectivist - can never be reconciled, does it make sense to force one to obey the other via the mob rule we call 'democracy,' (constantly arguing to convince the 51st person to make a 'majority' that rules the other 49 until the next time,) or to consider a split? To 'allow' (by whose decree?) the authoritarians and authoritarian followers to exist within the use of force, threats, fear and coercion form of governance, while those preferring to live through voluntary agreement, cooperation, and peace be 'allowed' to do so, as well? And how would that come into being? In my view, we've had the former my entire life in the US even if we've been trained to call it 'freedom and democracy.' It's veered way off path into what I'd call totalitarianism at this point with the introduction of 'covid' via what I view as psychological operations (or 'behavioral science') where people are actually clamoring for it, so a case could be made that it is 'voluntary,' though some portion of us will never agree to. What of us? Concentration / 'reeducation' camps, again? It's been this way throughout history - this constant clamoring to impose threats and fear as a way to 'rule' ALL - perhaps it is time to consider another approach. It is one mental 'illness' to wish to use force, threats and fear to rule over all, and another to want to live under it (sadism, masochism, psychopaths, codependents.) Should this be 'allowed' to be imposed over all? How do we stop it?
David, you are making me cry. 😥 But thanks for your continued emotional support. There are others too who help me to retain my sanity through these incredibly difficult times, and I'm so grateful.
Hi David, you are doing outstanding work. Thank you.