{
  "trx_id": "37843d8b3768e4ec02534211ca1d1cad739feb99",
  "block": 97435548,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-07-18T19:14:12",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "1664.440956 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ba1c8e9d8b6bbd882a98bf27a81efd3fc839adcc",
  "block": 61922669,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-02-25T09:12:15",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "1830.890448 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "37600904b0b97905b4b2682accb6128bf1c20b8a",
  "block": 40350377,
  "trx_in_block": 30,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-01-29T11:02:09",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-anarchicwolf-20200129t110209000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @anarchicwolf! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@anarchicwolf/birthday2.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 2 years!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@anarchicwolf) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=anarchicwolf)_</sub>\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e6d3336d1497aea13d22b2cb1ff25631540179f0",
  "block": 38641295,
  "trx_in_block": 19,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-12-01T00:07:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ancaplynx",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t154257714z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "616691315a958cc827c60b0e435ec8475feec485",
  "block": 38641184,
  "trx_in_block": 18,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-12-01T00:01:39",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ancaplynx",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180206t140758633z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c8496e63b1c48cb93899d2b9201aa1f44a213ad4",
  "block": 29879305,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-01-29T12:07:42",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-anarchicwolf-20190129t120742000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @anarchicwolf! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@anarchicwolf/birthday1.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 1 year!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_[Click here to view your Board](https://steemitboard.com/@anarchicwolf)_</sub>\n\n\n> Support [SteemitBoard's project](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)! **[Vote for its witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1)** and **get one more award**!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d299469e114491a0b115067e2d7f36fe7a12f462",
  "block": 28042834,
  "trx_in_block": 7,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-11-26T16:34:39",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "2013.984142 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cf3fcf34696a01d55cf7991e4c10e0d69ff7283f",
  "block": 26083361,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-09-19T14:22:54",
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "anarchicwolf"
      ],
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"follow\",{\"follower\":\"anarchicwolf\",\"following\":\"badmorningnews\",\"what\":[\"blog\"]}]"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "390442ca1e8a4b9581f0f3eac47024c65088dbc6",
  "block": 25467913,
  "trx_in_block": 13,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-28T16:18:15",
  "op": [
    "account_update",
    {
      "account": "anarchicwolf",
      "posting": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [
          [
            "dlive.app",
            1
          ]
        ],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM5VGpxC3ALNokYgbcoEbEGF8uJsNgeEaDWyksQUFWdG2HREykDU",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "memo_key": "STM5qwpuUpxGztGumnoFN9rmBtkpBB6i8nQ8zPWMjML58YLxDpYFL",
      "json_metadata": "{\"profile\":{\"profile_image\":\"https://s10.postimg.org/q1k62ezgl/Profile_Icon.png\",\"cover_image\":\"https://s5.postimg.org/s3nd8wbmf/dont_tread.jpg\",\"name\":\"Lupinate\",\"about\":\"A Voluntaryist American living in London\",\"location\":\"UK\"}}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "6f48c927f10725fad29199b4f94888ed4e3276b0",
  "block": 24700256,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-02T00:20:21",
  "op": [
    "transfer_from_savings",
    {
      "from": "smitop",
      "request_id": 16652,
      "to": "anarchicwolf",
      "amount": "0.001 SBD",
      "memo": "Hi, it looks like you're not voting for any witnesses. Witnesses help secure the Steem network. You should vote for some, at https://steemit.com/~witnesses, or by pressing 'Vote for witnesses' in the Steemit sidebar (top right corner). I'm a bot."
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a85e227c40a0af6782abeb1981907b8a1eb9582b",
  "block": 23952856,
  "trx_in_block": 37,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-07-07T00:47:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "sylph",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180207t170209562z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-sylph-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180707t004725948z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Sorry for the delay @sylph.  Been rebuilding my home and only got back on steem today.  \n \nfirstly a child is a consequence of a parents actions, ergo responsibility for it exists with them logically by cause and effect chains of action.  you can only have an actual obligation to something you agreed to, or as a consequence of what you have done.   BTW, if you are going to make an analogy, at least make one which has the same level of resolution as what you are arguing against, otherwise you're not actually making a logical point, just a strawman.\n\nSecondly, you pretty much missed the point I was making entirely, and then made it for me in your last paragraph.  You reacted to an old saying (I can't find its origin actually, really irking me), one which means effectively \"don't put everyone else's needs before your own, otherwise you will get burned\".  This excerpt does well to explain the meaning of the phrase (though the source is albeit a bit pants):\n\n>Your hair is singed from all the times you clipped your own wings just to make someone else happy. Your fingertips, blistered from all the times you forgot about your own needs and gave away what was meant to be yours. Even your voice has been touched by the flame, no longer strong, but shaking and raspy from all the times you wanted to say no, but said yes.\n\nfrom http://www.yourownlife.org/not-required-set-fire-keep-people-warm/\n\nAlso, as a point of order: Violence is not the same thing as aggression.  This may seem like mere semantics, but it is an important distinction. Aggression requires the **initiation** of violence.  It does not include violence caused by defending from aggression.  Its why libertarians and voluntaryists tend to follow the NAP not the NVP, or pacifism.  \n\nWhat is an \"undue burden\" then? Because that definition is critical if you want to enact a high resolution solution to society.  Its not trivial at all to decide, because it doesn't just vary between culture or society. It varies between individual people within those societies and cultures, and that is the crux of the matter. \n\n It's worth noting that many societies do believe death is necessary, nay laudable, and have done so over time.  We may consider it barbaric to think human sacrifice is needed, but many cultures used to and some of our own still do.  We praise soldiers, and sing to their glory when they are sent to bleed for our nation's interests, then abandon them in red tape once their minds or bodies are spent.   All for that lovely oil that fuels and makes so much of our modern life.  Oh sorry, that's right, it was \"to protect our freedom\" we killed people, then let our government take away those freedoms it so vociferously claimed it had to protect for us.  Now apparently, its job is to protect us from those freedoms instead.\n\nYour last paragraph is quite eloquent, and as I said, is the proper interpretation of the saying that you were rebutting. So I'm glad you at least understand the proper interpretation of the phrase, even if you didn't realise that is what the saying meant.  \n\nI also will agree that Kindness is a virtue, but Public Welfare is not kindness to my mind.  It is a dangerous trap, disguised as something much shinier and tastier, and when you bite into it the jaws spring shut.  ***Charity*** is kindness, but charity is voluntary, and that is why it is actually kind.  A person actively wanting to improve another's lot?  That works.  \n\nWelfare is not this.  It is a mandate of how much one must be willing to sacrifice, and how it must be spent, all with no regard as to whether or not that individual consents to it.  One must accept that fact to move past the concept of public welfare via the state being for the good of man. \n  Otherwise one must justify acting unethically to be ethical, and be able to do it all the time for every action taken by it.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"users\":[\"sylph\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.yourownlife.org/not-required-set-fire-keep-people-warm/\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8ababbdf58eb306c22535c2a6a1bdb27a496d188",
  "block": 23948516,
  "trx_in_block": 28,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-07-06T21:10:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anarchicwolf",
      "author": "insanityisfree",
      "permlink": "statesmashpodcast-or-stateless-capitalism-and-communism-possible-debate-1",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5eb0b676b54383596554b099b4784035041c764d",
  "block": 23917203,
  "trx_in_block": 52,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-07-05T19:03:36",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "22170.238049 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "f6a6058dab37447ae7a24cc548a9607d456eb831",
  "block": 22148538,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-05-04T23:48:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "magnaniman",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180206t140758633z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "008972f1add9bac9bd5f811a70ba8ec61701cb32",
  "block": 21594633,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-15T17:35:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "mwojteck",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "bfd853ce3b8b576b114870d739718034e7735153",
  "block": 21417807,
  "trx_in_block": 29,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:13:06",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "social-discussions-collectivism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "f84ade9f4ac3b0a538a21134d557f22df52c1476",
  "block": 21417805,
  "trx_in_block": 55,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:13:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "anarchic-discussions-2-power-vacuums",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e51b56fb1fba6e1eab9e3d8d8631fd4c6dbec8b0",
  "block": 21417803,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:12:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "anarchic-discussions-2-power-vacuums",
      "weight": 0
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1c924f896395dd1afd4ed2c7b545a04b56c357c1",
  "block": 21417799,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:12:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "anarchic-discussions-2-power-vacuums",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0cfabc45054074834e038127dc0823121789384d",
  "block": 21417796,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:12:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logical-proofs-voluntaryism-part-i",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "d970bfd05b8630bd4f88e859657a0595894197fb",
  "block": 21417795,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:12:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ba2fe08670ac3ebbc105aed52f83c39233eb6359",
  "block": 21417794,
  "trx_in_block": 53,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T14:12:27",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "jeffreyhamby",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "56a704be9acff1eeddc290a240c7ce4a9ae7d23c",
  "block": 21417492,
  "trx_in_block": 53,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T13:57:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "sensation",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "82efc9779df46f280e87c8b7fae98dc69b59fb70",
  "block": 21416243,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T12:54:51",
  "op": [
    "comment_options",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "max_accepted_payout": "1000000.000 SBD",
      "percent_steem_dollars": 0,
      "allow_votes": true,
      "allow_curation_rewards": true,
      "extensions": []
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "82efc9779df46f280e87c8b7fae98dc69b59fb70",
  "block": 21416243,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-09T12:54:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "anarchy",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logic-proofs-voluntaryism-part-ii-rights",
      "title": "Logic Proofs: Voluntaryism Part II - Rights",
      "body": "# Prelude \n*Previously, I discussed the first five axioms for reality, upon which my continuing proofs will be based.  This essay will delve into the axioms concerning the concepts of human rights.*\n\n*Bear with me, as rights are significantly more complicated than reality is conceptually.  Rights are difficult to correctly comprehend, or even express logically, and their potential for abuse is very high.  We all probably think we understand what rights are, but from observation, most people really don't get how they work.*\n\n*If one's interpretation of rights is incorrect, or logically inconsistent, it creates serious issues in making rights viable in society without the use of aggression. Correctly interpreted, however, these are the best tools we have today to manage our interactions with others, and without them no civil society, let alone a free society, is feasible. So to that end, we must understand them as consistently as possible.*\n\n# The Logic of Human Rights\n\nTraditionally, rights were evolved via our religions.  We had rights because God created us differently from all other beings. However, I wanted to make this a purely logical argument that is not reliant on any faith based systems.  Such systems are problematic to argue logically one way or the other, mainly because both arguments for and against the existence of God can and do presume their premise is built on a null hypothesis. So, in order to begin, we need to decouple the concept from an religious or faith based perspective (including statism). \n\nIn order to provide this concept logically, we need to establish the following:\n\n1. What are rights, in abstraction?\n2. How are rights expressed in an objective reality?\n3. How does one gain or have rights?\n4. How does one lose rights? \n5. What right is most important, if any?\n6. How can I gain more rights than someone else legitimately?\n\nSo, lets begin at the beginning of that list.\n\n## RIGHTS AXIOM 1: All Rights are Virtual Constructs \n![Sometimes the virtual still exists.](https://s5.postimg.org/68ht2plon/virtual_reality.jpg)\nWhat are rights, in an abstract sense? Well, rights, like mathematics, are entirely a virtual concept.  They have no explicit existence that we do not give them as individuals. You cannot see or touch the right of association, nor can one physically sense the right to own property, but the existence of those rights allows for society to function. Just because something is virtual, does not mean it doesn't or cannot exist. \n\nThis document is technically virtual - a bunch of ones and zeroes stored on a cloud and interpreted by the platform of choice.  And yet you are reading it.  All ideas are virtual until someone finds a way to make them a reality.  Mathematics works to explain physics, economics, and form the basis of all properly scientific fields, but it is technically a virtual construct as well. Rights are the virtual tools that allow us a peaceful coexistence with other people & their subjective realities. Just because they are a construct does not mean they do not function in reality. \n\n## RIGHTS AXIOM 2 - All rights are Claims. \n![negative-and-postive-rights.jpg](https://s5.postimg.org/wprca21uv/negative-and-postive-rights.jpg)\nHow do we express our rights?  At their core, ***all rights are claims we make***.  A few are exclusive claims, which no one else can do for us without consent, while others are inclusive claims, and require external support to realise the claim.  This distinction inherently creates two types of right - exclusive rights (liberties), and inclusive rights (privileges).\n\n### Exploring Negative Rights/Liberties\nThe former are often known in philosophy as \"negative rights\" because they are usually expressed as what others *may not do to you*. However, for the sake of brevity, I use the term \"liberties\" in discussion to describe such exclusive claims, and will do so in this essay as well. \n\nTo give some examples of negative rights phrasing, we need only examine the US Bill of Rights (a sorely overlooked and abused historical document, from my perspective).  It words all the rights we currently have as ones that the government *may not infringe*.  This wording shows how negative rights are applied linguisticly. Your right to associate with others shall not be infringed by the state, because of the first amendment, just as your right to defend yourself cannot be infringed by the state because of the second amendment.  Of course, the government ignores these rules and bindings, but that is a tangential issue. \n\n#### The List of Liberty\nBecause all liberties are exclusive claims we make, they can be relatively well defined, but only for what we are capable of individually today. Liberties (at present as of March 2018) include:\n1. The right of association (you may not decide whom I choose to interact with) \n2. The right of speech ( you may not stop me from speaking my mind if I choose to) \n3. ‎ the right of property (you may not stop me owning outright myself & what I buy with my labour) \n4. ‎ the right of trade (you may not stop me selling stuff I make/offer) \n5. ‎ the right of consumption (you may not stop me purchasing things, or putting what I choose to inside me) \n6. ‎the right of self defense (you may not stop me from protecting myself) \n7. The right of belief (you may not stop me choosing what God(s) to follow, if any) \n8. The right to live **peacefully** (this is an inferred right, based on the combination of property and self defense.  Best expressed by \"you may not assault me\"/the NAP)\n9. The right to move (you may not to prohibit my travel on property you have no claim over) \n10. The right to a fair & impartial trial (you may not accuse me of doing something wrong to another, without proving it in an agreed upon court)\n11. The right to privacy (you may not spy on me without my permission)\n12. **Any other EXCLUSIVE CLAIM** (if I can do it for myself, and it affects no one else by my doing it for myself, you have no right to stop me doing it, whatever \"it\" may be.) \n\nThat last one is a catch-all clause, as we cannot perceive what will be a liberty in future if we break the current limits of our reality. The founding fathers of the USA attempted to do this with the 9th amendment:\n\n>The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. \n\nIt is a necessary clause, as we cannot perceive that which we know nothing about.  The founders of our nation could never have imagined the radio, let alone the Internet as it exists today. We may find ways in the near or distant future to completely alter the reality we exist in, and on that day, our list of claims we can exclusively make will likely also change. \n\n### An Intro to Positive Rights /Privileges \nThe other type of rights in existence are positive rights. These are positive claims we make on others.  They can be valid claims, but only when they are consensually agreed to. There are invalid claims as well (like those made by the state), but these require extensive levels of coercion or aggression to enact, and often are provided via literal extortion. \n \n#### The Logical Concept of Privilege\nIn order to distinguish these types of right from liberties, I use the term *privilege*.  A privilege classically meant to grant special rights to a group or individual.   Government driven positive rights are exactly that - a privilege based on your location of birth.   In a modern sense, the term has almost the same meaning, but around identity and race instead of geography.  \n\nHowever, every service contract & purchase you make is also a kind of privilege.  The only difference between these and public services those privately paid services are privileges you have legitimately earned via your labour.  The public ones are given to you merely because of your existence and the modern birth lottery all humans deal with.\n\nThe differences and requirements for each of these two types of rights will be delved into in detail further on, but first let us determine how rights evolved. \n\n## RIGHTS AXIOM 3: The Only Conditions for having a full body of rights, either positive or negative, is a) Sapience and b) Reciprocity.\n![reciprocity-its-purely-logical.jpg](https://s5.postimg.org/mlyckoqjr/reciprocity-its-purely-logical.jpg)\nHow does anything gain or have rights to begin with, and how can they lose them?  In order to have any rights, there are two  preconditions.  One is a status the species as a whole must achieve to begin with, the other is something every individual must do.  \n\nThe former condition is [sapience](http://www.rebekkahniles.com/2012/03/word-box-sapience-vs-sentience.html?m=1), or the ability (within a species at least) to use reason. This is a vital prerequisite, as the species itself must have the ability see and comprehend a viewpoint other than their own to be sapient & have rights. You need to be able to understand, at some basic level, the views of others to come to any kind of agreement with them, and make valid claims on them or their labour. \n\nIf entities within a species have proven they are capable of reason, then the whole species must be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate the second condition & obtain their full rights as a result. \n\nThe second prerequisite to having rights is the concept of [reciprocity](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reciprocity). You cannot logically have liberties or privileges that you are not willing to give others. For instance, I do not have the privilege to murder anyone, and this is because because I would not & do not want to be murdered myself. Conversely, if you claim another has no liberty to speak their mind because you might get offended, then neither do you in the presence of that individual for the exact same reason.  \n\nIf a being is sapient, and is willing to reciprocate your own rights, then you must reciprocate those rights back unto them, or face having losing those rights in their eyes. It is what civilised societies are truly built upon. This also can be inferred to mean species like dolphins, arguably some breeds of dog, and eventually some AI may & should be afforded rights, provided they can accept them among us humans, of course.\n\n## RIGHTS INFERENCE RESULT 1: All liberties are reciprocally held by all sapient individuals.\nSo, lets do a quick recap.  Provided you agree with my subjective interpretation of reality from part 1, and can see how rights are evoked, and how they evolved logically, we can now define who and what has rights logically.\n\n1. Rights of any kind exist if the following is true:\n1.1 You are sapient and can make the claim of having rights.\n1.2 You reciprocate their existence in others.\n2. Liberties require only your existence in order to exist for you.\n3. Privileges require other people to exist in order to exist for you.\n4. One loses a specific liberty with another person if they refuse to reciprocate it in that person.\n5. One loses a privilege if they renege on the agreements made with the other party (which are simply voluntarily agreed conditions of reciprocity)\n\nWe can now make the statement that because liberties are exclusive, everyone can have them for themselves, provided we also accept their existence in others (reciprocity principle). Your existence as a sapient being, who is willing to reciprocate those rights in others, is how your liberties logically exist.  Failing to reciprocate those rights in others logically causes them to be lost within you for each one you fail to reciprocate. \n\nYou can choose to neglect or use your liberties as you see fit, and can choose to abolish them altogether by not reciprocating any of them in others, but regardless of those actions, they must exist for society to be functional & peaceful simultaneously. Without liberties, someone's subjective interpretation of reality will be forced upon the masses they can enact coercive control over, either through violence or deceit.  By recognising their existence, we are forced to accept a mode of behaviour that is both beneficial to us and those around us.\n\nNow, let us discuss how rights work to define what is and is not a liberty, and how liberties work with each other.\n\n## RIGHTS AXIOM 4: No liberty is more important than any other liberty. \n\nWhat right is most important? None or All of them (it amounts to the same thing). Negative rights are equal, and must be respected **equally**. This also means that no liberties you hold invalidate the liberties you afford in others. Therefore your right to speak may not logically be used to violate or prohibit someone else's right to defend themselves, and vice versa. \n\n### The Right Not to Be Offended Does Not Exist as a Liberty\n![right-not-to-be-offended.png](https://s5.postimg.org/conbrx8qv/right-not-to-be-offended.png)\n\nLiberties only can be liberties if what you can claim and action them wholly yourself, and \"offense\" implies the existence of others as a prerequisite.  You also cannot claim a liberty exists for not being offended, as any opinion you express may be considered offensive to someone in the world. The probability is almost guaranteed, given the sheer volume of people today.   There is no surefire way to know what will cause offense to some one either within a society.  Sleeping on the job in the west for instance is culturally offensive - it is a sign of laziness and failure to be responsible.  Conversely in Japan, it is a sign of one's sheer diligence and dedication to one's job.   People could misunderstand your position easily, and be offended by the innocuous or humorous.  \n\nI myself find political correctness deeply offensive, despite the fact it is supposed to be entirely unoffensive.  This is because:\n\n1. I find it the grossest form of pandering to date in society, and \n2. When it comes to organising society, & defining its rules, I don't care about intentions.  I care about what empirically works to provide everyone the chance to succeed without any impediments they didn't create for themselves.\n\nPolitical correctness makes it harder for those less eloquent to be viable in society all for the sake of the feelings of others, and worse, it now is being used in places like the UK to deny people's liberty (#freedankula).  You can't even poke fun at Nazis because that is somehow anti-Semitic now. This is literally the case, despite the good intentions from the courts.  \n\n### The Right to Life - A Misnomer\nThis concept of equitable rights also means that, logically, there really is no \"right to live\" as many socialists conceptually perceive it.  There is a right to *live peacefully*, to live without being subject to aggression.  But life is a **state of being**, not act action or a claim we make.  \n\nWe can claim factually that we are alive, but we cannot logically claim we inherently must live continuously, or at least not at present (who knows what the future may bring). We are designed to die, like all things in the universe.  From bacteria to stars, everything dies. To claim we have a right to not die is the same as claiming a right to live, and to be frank, ***no one has a right not to die today***. At best we have a right not to be *murdered*, but that's simply living peacefully, not living continuously. \n\n## RIGHTS AXIOM 5:  Positive rights are only valid when voluntarily agreed upon under contract, and only between those the contract is between. \n![contracts.jpg](https://s5.postimg.org/gat543p9j/contracts.jpg)\n\nHow can one gain more rights than someone else legitimately? This is where positive rights as privileges come in.  Positive rights can only be valid with an agreement between parties. They are an expression of an objective reality between two or more individuals. A need or want that is subjective to each individual can be met objectively by many subjective providers.  If the needs of A are not met by B, someone else may, at any time, offer to replace B. \n\nThe terms of the agreement can be verbal, if both parties feel they can sufficiently trust each other for such an agreement not to cause conflicts. However, for stability, I do recommend any positive rights one desires be under a written contract between individuals.   Regardless, those who agree to those terms must abide by them, but no claim is valid to those who do not agree to the terms.\n\n### Why Public Services Violate this Axiom \nAny other solution besides actual contract driven agreements requires violating the axioms of reality around aggression.  Aggression forces a subjective reality onto others without consent, which does not make it viable for an objective reality.  States will claim the \"social contract\" is the agreement to provide critical services to the citizenry, but said contract isn't by any reasonable definition a contract.  There is no way to say no to paying or receiving the state's services, and that means there isn't a choice to make anymore.  There is no agency allowed by the individual in that circumstance. This removal of responsibility from the individual is the key reason why western societies today cannot be logically considered truly free.\n\nIt also means several of your inherent liberties are constantly violated now by the state.  If you are a US citizen, you have lost the right of privacy to the NSA and ESCHELON, are losing free speech on big social networks, and are fighting hard to keep your right to self defense in court.  Meanwhile, here in the UK, the right of speech & defense are restricted to a significant degree, and our privacy is about the same as the USA.  One can hardly claim these services are free, even at point of sale, given the amount of liberty we lose to gain them & their price under taxation, and no person can claim those losses were voluntarily agreed to.  Remember, there logically is no such thing as \"tacit consent\".\n\n## RIGHTS INFERENCE RESULT 2: No positive right claim can logically be used to violate negative rights, without a voluntary contract between involved parties stating as such.\n\nThis is what makes many government enabled positive rights invalid conceptually as liberties.  In order to make positive rights liberties, one must mandate either the usage or provision of services or goods, or in the most extreme cases both simultaneously. This will inherently violate the liberties we have, by claiming a obligation exists to the group itself by virtue of it being that group. \n\nThe only time a negative right can be rescinded is if a person voluntarily agrees it will be, usually in return for something else.  This is how the right of property can supersede other negative rights.  Its the age old argument of \"our house, our rules, but you'll get food and shelter here\". It may be done by agreement, or via a defined and objective obligation in a free society.\n\n# Conclusion\n![I never thought this would be so difficult to get on paper...](https://s5.postimg.org/730wnexmv/today-i-finished-college-this-is-how-i-feel.jpg)\nI hope this essay provides you with some understanding of rights, at least as I perceive them.  I recognise my interpretation of reality is unique, just like all other interpretations are, but hopefully this dissertation shows logically why the following disputes I've had on rights are inherently flawed:\n\n1. That any one liberty is more important than any of the others\n2. ‎ That liberties are evolved from the state itself, and are not present in the individual conceptually. \n3. ‎ That privileges can be given via the state, without violating liberties. \n4. ‎ That privileges are equal to liberties.\n\nThis essay should cover all the questions that need to be answered regarding rights and their functions within society. My next work on this subject will be on the principles of freedom, which will be the final set of axioms we must explore before any hypothesis on how society can or should function.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchy\",\"voluntaryism\",\"rights\",\"logic\",\"politics\"],\"image\":[\"https://s5.postimg.org/68ht2plon/virtual_reality.jpg\",\"https://s5.postimg.org/wprca21uv/negative-and-postive-rights.jpg\",\"https://s5.postimg.org/mlyckoqjr/reciprocity-its-purely-logical.jpg\",\"https://s5.postimg.org/conbrx8qv/right-not-to-be-offended.png\",\"https://s5.postimg.org/gat543p9j/contracts.jpg\",\"https://s5.postimg.org/730wnexmv/today-i-finished-college-this-is-how-i-feel.jpg\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.rebekkahniles.com/2012/03/word-box-sapience-vs-sentience.html?m=1\",\"https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reciprocity\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8d46af14db5c1926c7899c86365760e42bbf7bb0",
  "block": 20265530,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-28T12:44:36",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "22373.354822 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ef0206f235e56c1585cd7af110affedd798e5493",
  "block": 20263508,
  "trx_in_block": 43,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-28T11:03:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anarchicwolf",
      "author": "steemingmark",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-logical-proofs-voluntaryism-part-i-20180210t131226933z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1d6b0102e8787b3f91027ef4d162685773657688",
  "block": 20263331,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-28T10:54:39",
  "op": [
    "claim_reward_balance",
    {
      "account": "anarchicwolf",
      "reward_steem": "0.000 STEEM",
      "reward_sbd": "0.338 SBD",
      "reward_vests": "194.254920 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "873151e0769924929dabadc564d3d38000001574",
  "block": 20111875,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-23T04:32:30",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "twok",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19896752,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 8,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-15T17:12:06",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "sbd_payout": "0.071 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "38.845230 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19861638,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 4,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-14T11:54:39",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.011 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "6.133853 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19859129,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 8,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-14T09:48:54",
  "op": [
    "curation_reward",
    {
      "curator": "anarchicwolf",
      "reward": "4.089254 VESTS",
      "comment_author": "frdem3dot0",
      "comment_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t094853613z"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19838658,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 3,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-13T16:44:12",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "logical-proofs-voluntaryism-part-i",
      "sbd_payout": "0.074 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "38.849380 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19836940,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 17,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-13T15:18:09",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-dullhawk-convince-me-20180206t151809685z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.070 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "38.849503 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19836658,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 17,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-13T15:04:03",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-steampunk-penny-re-anarchicwolf-re-steampunk-penny-where-are-all-the-ancaps-at-20180206t150402138z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.015 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "10.223558 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19835538,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 9,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-13T14:08:00",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180206t140758633z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.011 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "6.134147 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19834339,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 19,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-13T13:07:54",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180206t130753973z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.011 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "6.134161 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19807462,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 6,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-12T14:42:57",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180205t144255839z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.011 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "6.134459 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "aa9bff131b9bb88a521998ede479e6ac9aef5dbf",
  "block": 19748094,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-10T13:12:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "logical-proofs-voluntaryism-part-i",
      "author": "steemingmark",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-logical-proofs-voluntaryism-part-i-20180210t131226933z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "hi great post keep up the good work =]",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "13846b607011d65c3911029c56df43d221dbae8e",
  "block": 19730692,
  "trx_in_block": 44,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-09T22:41:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "richie211",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "risk-the-most-important-cost",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3a131366ba1683b5e52ae9c90a3c119cf1d0c433",
  "block": 19705886,
  "trx_in_block": 53,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-09T02:00:39",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "dullhawk",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ff102ca1bfaef31ee7d45990c1101a802a45fd60",
  "block": 19695397,
  "trx_in_block": 41,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T17:15:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "khanahmedrijvy",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a6396e578761e432cab71a3b75dd45ccd9cf739c",
  "block": 19695335,
  "trx_in_block": 28,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T17:12:06",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "news",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "why-hit-pieces-fail-the-media-vs-jordan-peterson",
      "title": "Why Hit Pieces Fail - The Media vs Jordan Peterson",
      "body": "# It Began With an Interview....\nEver since Jordan Peterson politely allowed Cathy Newman to abjectly humiliate both herself and the concept of intersectionality itself on live TV, all I have been seeing are ad hominem hit pieces on Dr. Peterson & his work.  \"He's racist!\" \"He's a mysognist!\" \"He wants to help ***men***!!!\"  The last one is the only one that is actually true, but it isn't as if that is a bad thing.\n\nRight now there is a huge crisis in a lot of areas, particularly in the USA and the UK, around how well working class white men are doing.  In both areas they are suffering by most societal metrics.  They are also the most likely subset of society to currently commit suicide.  Peterson is doing everything he can to help promote the mental health of these individuals, and it literally drives him to tears to hear of these men's plights.\n\n\n##### *How The Guardian Fell on its Sword & how John Crace became a Poo-Flinging Monkey*\nThe link below is just the latest example of the kind of rebuttals to Dr Peterson's work that I have encountered.  Apparently, attempting to help your fellow *male* human being is somehow intrinsically evil to [John Crace of the Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/28/12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos-by-jordan-b-peterson-digested-read).  However, it is so much worse than that.  By making the kinds of gross parodies that this abject hack, John Crace, has provided, he is attempting to defame a very respected and knowledgeable cognitive psychologist.\n\nTake the first paragraph alone, as it is indicative of the remaining work Crace put into the entire article:\n\n>\"Just a few years ago, I was an unknown professor writing academic books that nobody read.  Then, with God’s help, I decided to stop feeling sorry for myself and develop my potential. Pinkos and wishy-washy liberals had cornered the market in cod psychology, so I guessed there must be a huge hunger for a self-help book, backed up with religion, mythology, CAPITAL LETTERS and stating the obvious – one directed at responsible, socially minded conservatives craving some pseudointellectual ideology to prop up their beliefs. And bingo! Here are my 12 Rules for Life.\"\n\n*John Crace on Jordan Peterson & his book, Twelve Rules for Life*\n\n## My Rebuttal\nDr Peterson is one of the most cited professors in his field, with over [5000 citations since 2013 alone](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works), and almost double that over his career.  He has far more people reliant on the work he has done than any \"gender study\" major could ever even hope to accomplish.  He is far more beneficial to society than any Guardian pundit, and far more intelligent as well.\n\nAnd yet, according to Crace's nonsensical hit piece , Peterson is some right wing religious nut-job, who suddenly decided, by the Grace of God, he should write this book.  It should be clear to anyone who actually is aware of Jordan Peterson and his work, ***or anyone who spends up to 10 minutes worth of research*** (like I did), that Crace's article is tantamount to libel.\n\nOn the plus side, however, Peterson himself shows up these fools time and again, just by being empathetic to his fellow man.  He also argues an amazing case for individualism, which is probably why the people at the Guardian consider him such a threat.  Unfortunately for them, all this piece does is make them look like a bunch of bullying morons, without any idea of what Peterson is on about at all.\n\n\n## Conclusion\n\nThe only thing these types of articles do is demonstrate why ad hominem arguments are literally meaningless, and are implicitly an admission that the person making them has no argument against what they are describing.  They have no way to counter the works Dr. Peterson has done, how he has benefited so many of his patients, and that they have no answer to his highly logical arguments.  All  they have are parodies of his work at best, and insults to throw like a monkey throws his poo.  \n\nHowever, as much as I am lambasting the Guardian and Crace for this objectively worthless piece of bilge, I am actually happy they are both completely discrediting themselves instead of the man they are attacking.  Well done for proving that no one should read you, or consider you relevant, anymore.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"news\",\"logic\",\"peterson\",\"guardian\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/28/12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos-by-jordan-b-peterson-digested-read\",\"https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8f0d9c8be8535a9e412f4578ca96b11f1cc04ec0",
  "block": 19692876,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T15:08:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anarchicwolf",
      "author": "dullhawk",
      "permlink": "where-we-re-going-we-don-t-need-roads",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c152e9946b9e31a0079d1ff9278e59911d723a3f",
  "block": 19692109,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T14:30:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "ekklesiagora",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t174231933z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180208t143015926z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "So you think impact of natural causes for harm outweigh the aggressive ones?  I say \"Justify this belief.\"\n\nYou are making a claim that aggression is somehow less impactful to societal wellbeing than natural issues. Crimes with actual victims, war, terrorism, restrictions on trading, the massive amounts of corporate defrauding of entire nations - these are all things that happen because of aggression.  They have a far more debilitating effects on societies than the risks of starvation do today. \n\nYour solution is focusing on issues that are less damaging to society, ones that actively cause less harm and can be mitigated privately with ease.  To fix these things, you are proposing a state is necessary, and that state is guaranteed to commit aggression at some point to enforce its subjective value judgements on everyone.  \n\nIn other words, I know your solution won't work because it doesn't care about what causes the **most harm** to society, and it doesn't actually have a principle to judge those actions from.  It is purely subjective, and purely subjective systems do not work to improve things.  Every single \"Marxist socialist\" state has proved this, and every mixed economy shows that it is horrifically inefficient compared with privately designed solutions. \n\nAs for your \"anarchy could descend into chaos!\" argument, sure its possible, but the probability of such an occurrence is far less likely than a state causing actual chaos through war and economic manipulations.  This is again because of the mathematical factors I mentioned earlier, something which you seem to have completely ignored.\n\nRegarding Ethics and Morality, you may consider it to be a \"semantic distinction\" but it is critical.  A subjective morality cannot be objectively applied to society and be expected to work well for anyone save the one who created that standard.  You must have an objective metric to measure against for ethics to work.  Consent is this measure for a vast majority of people, so consent should be considered that which is ethical, and any other subjective value judgement can be considered morality based.\n\nIn addition, the means by which ethics are generated are not rooted in any specific philosophy, particularly not natural law.  To make this claim is a misunderstanding of how ethics work.  The fact you are not distinguishing between subjective moral judgements and ethical principles is why I am saying you are attempting to apply an ethical standard that cannot function.\n\nIf each community can decide its laws, and not have them overruled by some other authoritarian group, then its effectively a voluntary anarchistic solution in any case.  The democratic confederalism you described, however, does not appear to be this.  It appears to be yet another rehashing of the great american experiment, which has now shown no matter how small the government you start with, it eventually will attempt to become an empire.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3dcbd8e67c5b6898de13967ff6559d9564fde895",
  "block": 19691682,
  "trx_in_block": 52,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T14:08:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "ekklesiagora",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t180031630z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180208t140835318z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "@@ -3,10 +3,10 @@\n  can\n-a\n  \n+a\n gree\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"users\":[\"ekklesiagora\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "800a9a7b59a9d1b74494e5bc24f4c9813f7555b4",
  "block": 19691678,
  "trx_in_block": 27,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T14:08:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "ekklesiagora",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t180031630z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180208t140835318z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "We cana gree to disagree on this @ekklesiagora, I just wish you could logically justify your arguments.  From what I'm seeing so far, this is not the case.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"users\":[\"ekklesiagora\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "050807e45299c76dc182bfd3ecc5e18458f4dfe6",
  "block": 19691072,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T13:37:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "killer369",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-killer369-possible-problems-in-future-due-to-bitcoin-20180208t112316792z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0bba25b5de5b5535e407941a6f41a2e01017ce8c",
  "block": 19688410,
  "trx_in_block": 24,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-08T11:23:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "killer369",
      "parent_permlink": "possible-problems-in-future-due-to-bitcoin",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-killer369-possible-problems-in-future-due-to-bitcoin-20180208t112316792z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "What this article is also not accounting for is that the Computers often become more efficient at using electricity as processors evolve.  Last year people were estimating that the Bitcoin Network used more electricity than entire nations like [Denmark, or Ireland](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42265728).  \n\nThe [digiconimist article](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#assumptions) this content appears to be based on has come under [serious questioning by analysts](https://news.bitcoin.com/analysts-debate-power-consumed-per-bitcoin-transaction/).  Indeed, it appears the methodology for estimating energy consumption is presuming all costs are electricity based.  That logic is horrifically flawed, as operating costs include the hardware and software development and acquisition costs.  \n\nFTA I linked:\n>Marc Bevand’s estimate that the annual consumption of the bitcoin network may be 4.12 TWh/year would mean that each bitcoin transaction requires the same amount of electricity used to power a typical American home for approximately 3.47 days, whereas the estimate of 4.73 TWh/year would mean each transaction requires enough power to run an American household for 3.98 days. \n\nThis is roughly 50% to 33% of the estimates given by Digiconimist, showing that, once again, the Luddites out there are just being alarmist.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"cryptocurrency\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42265728\",\"https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#assumptions\",\"https://news.bitcoin.com/analysts-debate-power-consumed-per-bitcoin-transaction/\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "6167627f1969f6ce04fa379b38f54e638ae33786",
  "block": 19672218,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T21:47:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "girthbomb",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t165100629z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e30c33a21a69f12564e203d40a8e7cac79edbbb6",
  "block": 19667734,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T18:01:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ekklesiagora",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t154257714z",
      "weight": 0
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c9111c470c90ee58bf35e7c9b7fbff5989041ace",
  "block": 19667709,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T18:00:33",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t165100629z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t180031630z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "This conversation is going nowhere. I know where you are coming from. I'm familiar with anarcho-capitalist theory. I just think it is wrong. I don't feel obligated to answer anew every objection when I have already spent countless hours answering them elsewhere. And you seem to just be getting more and more upset that I continue to disagree with you. Since this conversation isn't going anywhere, I'd rather not waste my effort by continuing it.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0fa35ae0eb219bcae194c2ca4dbe32d42c105207",
  "block": 19667517,
  "trx_in_block": 41,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T17:50:57",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "22601.068252 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9a38eaeb2aa13a45ca13c576be9169f6bd945569",
  "block": 19667363,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T17:43:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ekklesiagora",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t154257714z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2d0e3378a4c09cff83792833b0ed22e4dcf92630",
  "block": 19667355,
  "trx_in_block": 34,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T17:42:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t154257714z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t174231933z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "You said: *“To use the libertarian NAP, the principle implies that aggression (the initiation of using force upon another, without consent) causes the most harm, ergo to reduce harm to everyone, aggression must not be permissible.”*\n\nI reject that assertion. Sometimes suffering caused by natural causes (e.g. starvation) can be reduced by “aggression” (e.g. stealing food); in which case a rigid application of NAP would lead to an overall increase in suffering.\n\nYou said: *“By conflating morality, your own internal subjective code of conduct, with ethics (an external & objective code of conduct), you are able to claim all immoral acts (to you) are inherently unethical. This makes your subjective interpretation the only one that can be applied, at least for you.”*\n\nThe distinction between ethics and morality that you make is semantics. But, I believe my writings on ethics, which I linked before, explain sufficiently why such a distinction is unnecessary. Morality, our personal principles for distinguishing right from wrong, is inherent in human nature, and since they are inherent in human nature they are shared by all humans. Ethics, the theory of right conduct, is rooted in natural law, and consequently the line between morality and ethics is blurred. I am willing to make the distinction, but it is a distinction without a difference within the framework of my theory of ethics. Also, you seem to be blurring the line between ethics and politics. \n\nYou said: *“To make a single, subjectively derived ethical standard apply willingly across all individuals, in all societies, would be a computational explosion problem…. Do you honestly think a single solution, which is not innately and infinitely flexible (like anarchy), will objectively work when you are multiplying the combination factor by by 70 million?”*\n\nI don't suppose to make a single standard apply. Each community would be allowed to set rules as they see fit. Furthermore, you ought to stop to consider the possibility that anarchism will not maximize human wellbeing. Suppose that anarchism leads to chaos, doesn't establish security and stability like it is supposed to, and suppose that there is some flaw in anarchism (which you are unaware of), which guarantees that anarchism always leads to instability and lack of security in persons and property for the majority of the populace. If that is the case, then a flawed singular solution, though imperfect, would actually be relatively better than anarchism in practice.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e09860a097c3335cc8b7e264f040c62b83b373a7",
  "block": 19666612,
  "trx_in_block": 32,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T17:05:39",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180206t155050017z",
      "author": "sylph",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180207t170209562z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "@@ -360,16 +360,19 @@\n we have \n+an \n obligati\n@@ -456,18 +456,18 @@\n uly \n-bur\n burdens\n+ th\n emse\n@@ -476,113 +476,220 @@\n es. \n-Death is a undue burden to severe to ask of anyone, and most moral and ethical code does not ask for that\n+That undue burden interpretation might vary between society and culture but death or severe burn is generally agreed on as an undue burden to severe to ask of anyone to give someone else a paltry amount of warmth\n .%0A%0AT\n@@ -994,18 +994,20 @@\n l, there\n-'s\n+ are\n  no exce\n@@ -1051,31 +1051,9 @@\n s!%0A%0A\n-That is as extreme as s\n+S\n ayin\n@@ -1182,17 +1182,16 @@\n ven born\n-,\n  is the \n@@ -1266,16 +1266,32 @@\n one else\n+, makes no sense\n . No. Be\n@@ -1435,16 +1435,38 @@\n you are.\n+ Kindness is a virtue.\n  You cou\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8af4140b25e2ef51744365776f0241d2ae43e37b",
  "block": 19666542,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T17:02:09",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180206t155050017z",
      "author": "sylph",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180207t170209562z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "That's such an extreme reductio ad absurdum that you could use it on anything. If you have no obligation toward others because \"you do not have to set yourself on fire to keep others warm\", therefore, you may argue that \"You do not have feed your baby once they're born even when you have plenty of food, and it's fine to let them die\".\n\nMost people that say we have obligation toward others think that people ought to help others at least until it unduly burburdensemselves. Death is a undue burden to severe to ask of anyone, and most moral and ethical code does not ask for that.\n\nThere are many intersecting values in life. One might say that no one has any right to use violence toward others as that's usurping other people's self-autonomy rights, but that could also be taken to the extreme that you have no right to defend yourself when others are about to kill you.  Afterall, there's no exceptions allowed! Only extreme positions!\n\nThat is as extreme as saying that having obligation to pay back to the society that has given us the infrastructure to be successful before we were even born, is the same as having to kill ourselves just to give minute comfort to someone else. No. Be a person that help others as much as they could without sacrificing your very life for it. The more you do that, the better of a person you are. You could even still maintain some wealth and still help others.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"politics\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19666432,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 15,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T16:56:42",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "anarchic-discussions-2-power-vacuums",
      "sbd_payout": "0.064 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "38.861375 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cb67d7732f9062522e2a3bfacef2e825cc4134db",
  "block": 19666341,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T16:52:06",
  "op": [
    "transfer_to_savings",
    {
      "from": "anarchicwolf",
      "to": "anarchicwolf",
      "amount": "0.500 STEEM",
      "memo": ""
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9bf7c9337e9774d2ef329e78bf53e29e2c64d035",
  "block": 19666335,
  "trx_in_block": 54,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T16:51:48",
  "op": [
    "claim_reward_balance",
    {
      "account": "anarchicwolf",
      "reward_steem": "0.000 STEEM",
      "reward_sbd": "0.117 SBD",
      "reward_vests": "69.541760 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "541258ea61ce2f6220ceb4391924400d60bde55a",
  "block": 19666319,
  "trx_in_block": 40,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T16:51:00",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "ekklesiagora",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t152705437z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t165100629z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Nice strawman @ekklesiagora.  There is a big difference between involuntary servitude to the majority, and voluntary agreements between individuals.  As such anarcho-capitalism is not a government.  it is a system of **governance** with no rulers, just a lot of people voluntarily agreeing to trade under contracts. BIG DIFFERENCE from a democracy, where someone, or a group, calls the shots.  \n\nSo you're basically saying original, classical anarchists weren't anarchists then?  Because that is what it  sounds like.\n\nI figured you would ignore my objections to conflating capitalism with \"wage slavery\", and no I don't think sticking to commonly agreed definitions is \"authoritarian\".  I have a problem when people claim capitalism is inherently a form of harm, or that its \"wage slavery\" which is based on a false dichotomy.\n\nCapitalism is where the means of economic production are controlled privately, instead of publicly.   It is purely an economic system in actuality, despite the OED and others claiming it is political in its means.  It only becomes a political system when a state involves itself in markets, while inherently it is purely an economic system.\n\nYou said:\n>If people have access to land in order to grow crops, or to a basic income with which to purchase some means of production (tools and material to manufacture widgets at home, for instance), then they are freed from wage-slavery. Some people would still choose to work for wages, and that's fine, but no one would be forced to out of necessity.\n\nNo one under capitalism is forced to work for wages.  They choose to.  They can choose to try to start their own business, be self employed, or be self sufficient in society as well.  The fact you think everyone must work for a wage is your inherent lack of understanding about Capitalism.  Also, if people can own their own land to live off of, how can the land be owned communally? Your argument appears very inconsistent now, and as such it is inherently illogical.\n\nOn earth, there is an insane amount of land that is currently \"owned by the state\" and is not privately owned.  As such, everyone could potentially be able to own their own plot of land, were it not for property taxes or other forms of taxation, or the state claiming it is theirs, without any chain of title as proof.\n\nNo, the term \"free\" in the way you are using it is a semantic distortion.  If you mean free at the point of service, call it \"publicly funded\" and be done with it, otherwise you are massively misrepresenting reality by implying somehow these services cost nothing. \n\nThe fact you think markets are usually created by government policy clearly indicates you have no clue how economics works, or markets form.  Markets form based on individual needs not being met by existing markets and industries.  They form based on new ideas from individuals being implemented into goods and services, and said markets evolve based on consumer demands.  \n\nThe only times governments create markets is when they £$^% up policy so badly that individuals have to create a new industry to manage those failures, or when their own management requirements over existing markets also require another market to do the work.  Those are arbitrary markets, that only exist so long as specific government laws exist.  Other markets, like food, insurance, healthcare, etc, are more permanent, and never needed the state in order to exist.  So now that I have refuted your arguments, you probably better reiterate how free market capitalism is not a direct democracy.\n\nI did google Democratic confederalism.  I still don't see how it can function any different from the existing US county/state/federal system.  In fact, it seems almost identical to the original setup of the 13 colonies after the war of independence but before the Whiskey Rebellion.\n\nHow can a form of democracy be both consensus based and direct?  Which takes priority?  When do you choose which to use?  You are not being consistent, yet again.\n\nYour description of a democratic federalism sounds like voting on all aspects of society.  Why not just let people choose & pay for their solutions individually, or pool resources cooperatively & voluntarily if necessary?  Why must those solutions be provided by a state monopoly, and why is that solution more efficient than a capitalist one?\n\nWhat happens if only one of those local areas does not mutually agree to all the other areas?  In a democracy, it is overruled by definition, but in anarchy it would be able to do as it saw fit.\n\nI have to say the constant redirecting me to other 3 part sets of your content, 5 pages long, is not going to be beneficial for this or future discussions.  So far, every time I have viewed another piece of content you provided, all i find are more logical inconsistencies, strawmen, false dichotomies, and other logical fallacies.  \n\n***I have no desire, nor do i consider it good value, to spend all my steem power commenting solely on each of your threads in this way.  If you desire to actually present a logical argument, do so in comments, accurately and succinctly, instead of directing me to 5 or 6 different 3 part series that I keep finding fault in, using individuals who made illogical arguments that you are basing yours on or parroting.***",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"users\":[\"ekklesiagora\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1286ab5358cbeca90b5aa14c383118795ef8aaf0",
  "block": 19664961,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:42:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "ekklesiagora",
      "parent_permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180206t183459345z",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-ancap-nap-ethics-is-morally-bankrupt-and-based-on-arbitrary-aggression-against-non-aggressors-20180207t154257714z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "The problem with that style of analytics @ekklesiagora is it doesn't identify [root causes](http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/root-cause-analysis/overview/overview.html).   The problems you see on the surface are symptoms of a separate cause, which often has an underlying cause beneath it. The root cause of suffering that can be controlled is aggression.  All other causes of suffering are tied to chance, personal decisions, etc. and can be mitigated via voluntary action or via exercising one's own liberty.\n\nThe other problem that I see is you have conflated morality with ethics, and you have admitted as much.  The distinction does exist.  It is hardly useless, and definitely not fictitious. \n\nEthics is external and objective, while morality is internal and subjective.  Or, to put it as my friend @twok would:\n\n>Ethics stem from the objective and reciprocal claims to self and property ownership.\nMorals stem from the subjective value judgements of self and property worth.\n\nThis is why something can be immoral to an individual and yet ethical in the eyes of society, and something can be unethical to society, and yet moral to an individual.  What you described is a case of something being unethical (theft) and yet moral to you(feeding starving children).  To the person you stole from, it may be neither moral or ethical, or it may be the same view as you, but it doesn't change the fact you would be violating the ethical standard by stealing.\n\nIn order for any ethical standard to work with consistency, **it must be an objective concept.**  It cannot be subjective to individual interpretation.  To use the libertarian NAP, the principle implies that aggression (the initiation of using force upon another, without consent) causes the most harm, ergo to reduce harm to everyone, aggression must not be permissible.  By objectively removing the permissibly of aggression, you objectively reduce the harm done to others.\n\n## The mathematical failings of all \"subjective ethics\" arguments\n By conflating morality, your own internal subjective code of conduct, with ethics (an external & objective code of conduct), you are able to claim all immoral acts (to you) are inherently unethical.  This makes your subjective interpretation the only one that can be applied, at least for you.  Besides this being semantically false (as all individuals have a separate subjective interpretation of reality), the interpretation you have has a 1:7billion chance of aligning with any single individual, specifically. \n\nTo make a single, subjectively derived ethical standard apply willingly across all individuals, in all societies, would be a [computational explosion problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion).   Lets look at some combinatorial mathematics to find out why:\n\n There are 7 billion people who could say yes, or no, to any ethical standard you propose.  That's 2^7,000,000,000 possible combinations that need consideration here.  Even if we could process a trillion combinations per second (for reference, we can do now maybe a third of that now with the absolute top end processors from last year), a calculation of 2^100 would take 40 billion years to list all the potential combinations out.  From there you would need to analyse why the no's were given, and then reprocess the results with the new model to fit their needs, presuming one fix is required.\n\n40 billion years is about 3 times the time we estimate the universe has existed so far, and that is just to work out all the possible binary combinations across 100 cases, just to see what could exist.  We are dealing with 7 billion binary combinations, here.  Do you honestly think a single solution, which is not innately and infinitely flexible (like anarchy), will objectively work when you are multiplying the combination factor by by 70 million? The maths make it so unfeasible that even if you turned all the matter in the universe into a computer, and used the lifespan of the universe itself to calculate the problem, it would be nowhere near determining a result.\n\nThese combinatorial failures are why any centralised or single implementation solution is doomed to be problematic for someone in society.  Only with anarchy is it possible to have a multitude of implementation strategies that prevent aggression and harm in society, without having any single entity controlling the system in play.  These failures are also why the concepts of intersectionality & social justice impossible to implement, as there are far more than 100 possible combinations of groupings for people within society that could have meaning.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"users\":[\"ekklesiagora\",\"twok\"],\"links\":[\"http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/root-cause-analysis/overview/overview.html\",\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3e2c2845400a05818522a625c42a8cb80402db45",
  "block": 19664959,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:42:51",
  "op": [
    "transfer_to_vesting",
    {
      "from": "anarchicwolf",
      "to": "anarchicwolf",
      "amount": "1.000 STEEM"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7493d31aa638bbc8c4b778636cd086823f391482",
  "block": 19664953,
  "trx_in_block": 11,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:42:33",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "blocktrades",
      "to": "anarchicwolf",
      "amount": "1.638 STEEM",
      "memo": ""
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "585d632535c62a779ebd544adb72f4cfb2f740b6",
  "block": 19664949,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:42:21",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "anarchicwolf",
      "to": "blocktrades",
      "amount": "2.000 SBD",
      "memo": "146a287b-0cf8-4ac0-9759-5ae911f17a42"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "10390dcb4a67a69e15c4fae7f0108d7c343f28b4",
  "block": 19664869,
  "trx_in_block": 46,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:38:21",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "anarchicwolf",
      "vesting_shares": "24716.087457 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "29f1c9ab0de2690fd7cc0c1a6f9f7d0c89f2ed09",
  "block": 19664869,
  "trx_in_block": 42,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:38:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ekklesiagora",
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "189074e2b2fe8d195539b0bcb33380fc90c6a369",
  "block": 19664853,
  "trx_in_block": 42,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:37:33",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t152705437z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "@@ -5301,8 +5301,322 @@\n hology).\n+ But also, I reiterate that this geo-mutualist society could be established upon anarcho-capitalist principles. If I remember correctly, Fred Foldvary has even made such a proposal, to establish voluntary Georgist or geo-anarchist communities as private communities within a more or less anarcho-capitalist system.\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/an-intro-to-anarchism-democratization-and-or-privatization-of-government\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism\",\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/property-as-theft-the-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-property-summary-anthology\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5e1d124a7210042fad6263ca593c94f4429547c0",
  "block": 19664848,
  "trx_in_block": 34,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:37:18",
  "op": [
    "transfer_to_vesting",
    {
      "from": "anarchicwolf",
      "to": "anarchicwolf",
      "amount": "0.500 STEEM"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "6de145ab333578057769ec5962c446129be10d91",
  "block": 19664755,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:32:39",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t152705437z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "@@ -3942,19 +3942,16 @@\n eive of \n-an \n such a g\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/an-intro-to-anarchism-democratization-and-or-privatization-of-government\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism\",\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/property-as-theft-the-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-property-summary-anthology\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "53e6e1eb1b812cc54ceb035b7f10ce6979abbe3d",
  "block": 19664668,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:28:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t152705437z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "@@ -683,16 +683,17 @@\n nore you\n+r\n  objecti\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/an-intro-to-anarchism-democratization-and-or-privatization-of-government\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism\",\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/property-as-theft-the-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-property-summary-anthology\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "552046f000cf8bb0b15b3335f95dff62b5ca9d2d",
  "block": 19664648,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T15:27:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "anarchicwolf",
      "parent_permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t115436618z",
      "author": "ekklesiagora",
      "permlink": "re-anarchicwolf-re-ekklesiagora-on-anarchist-social-democracy-taxation-welfare-and-anarchy-20180207t152705437z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "You said: *“How can you have a social democracy that is anarchistic?”*\n\nYou should check out my article [*An Intro to Anarchism*](https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/an-intro-to-anarchism-democratization-and-or-privatization-of-government). Anarchism, as defined by Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin—the founders of anarchism—was democratic. Sure, in some sense this is still government, but then so is the anarcho-capitalist model. Private police and private courts are still government, even if not monopolistic in form. Also, if people get together and voluntarily agree to follow a democratic process, is that really incompatible with anarchism as you define it?\n\nI'll ignore you objection to defining capitalism as wage-slavery, since I have already answered it [elsewhere](https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism) (in the comments). But don't you think it's kind of authoritarian of you to dictate the meaning of the term? Most people have defined it differently than you have, and I showed that the people who coined the term defined it differently, but you insist that only *your* definition should be allowed.\n\nYou said: *“... how do you incentivise good services without the concept of wages or capitalism?”*\n\nI never said abolish wages. I said abolish wage-slavery, the condition where people have no real viable alternative to wage labor. If people have access to land in order to grow crops, or to a basic income with which to purchase some means of production (tools and material to manufacture widgets at home, for instance), then they are freed from wage-slavery. Some people would still choose to work for wages, and that's fine, but no one would be forced to out of necessity.\n\nYou said: *“You cannot have \"free\" anything, unless someone is willing to provide that good or service for no added benefit for themselves.”*\n\nThat's basically a strawman. When social democrats talk about free services like universal healthcare, education, and such, we mean *free at the point of service*. Of course, we know that these must be paid for. As I said in this piece, land would be communally-owned and people would pay rent for private use of land, and such services would be paid with the money from that rent.\n\nYou said: *“There already is a system of direct democracy. Its called free market capitalism.”*\n\nI have pointed out [elsewhere](https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism) (in the comments) that markets don't emerge in a vacuum, that government policy creates and maintains markets; where I cited Hayek, Graeber, and de Soto. Since you never responded to those arguments, I feel no obligation to reiterate or elaborate again, having already answered this objection.\n\nYou said: *“So, how is that at all different from the county/state/federal solution we have today in the USA?”*\n\nGoogle “democratic confederalism,” “Murray Bookchin,” and “Abdullah Öcalan.” Such anarchist approaches to democracy are quite different from statist federalism. For instance, decisions would he made locally, directly by the people, with agreements reached at higher level being done through delegates (not representatives)—delegates who are bound by the democratic decisions made at the local level, who have no decision-making authority in themselves. The confederation would have no power to legislate or impose rules from the top down. The confederation, instead of being a top-down State, would be a mutual agreement, amongst various anarchist communities, for mutual assistance for defensive purposes. Also, the form of democracy would preferably be consensus-oriented in addition to being direct rather than representative in nature. Ideally, also, an anarchist system of direct democracy would be based on free association and confederation, so people would have the ability to opt out.\n\nNow, what is interesting is that I can conceive of an such a geo-mutualist society being established on a voluntary basis within an anarcho-capitalist system. Suppose that I am a billionaire. I buy several hundred acres of land. I could, then, create a society such as I described on my land. I can rent the land to others on the condition that the property and community of renters be managed on a directly democratic basis and that the rent be placed in a common treasury or account and be used for maintenance of roads, buildings, etc; that a doctor be hired for the community, being paid out of the rent money, and visits and treatment will be free at point of service, having already been paid for in the form of a mixture of mutual insurance and lodge practice arrangements; and I can also make it a condition within the rental agreement that any excess rent revenue, which is not used for maintenance or insurance/doctor costs, go back to all the renters in equal shares. Such a geo-mutualist society, within an anarcho-capitalist framework, would be totally voluntary according to anarcho-capitalist principles.\n\nYou said: *“Land ownership,” etc. etc.*\n\nOn this, I direct you once more to my Steemit series [*Property as Theft: The Libertarian Socialist Critique of Property*](https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/property-as-theft-the-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-property-summary-anthology).",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"anarchism\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/an-intro-to-anarchism-democratization-and-or-privatization-of-government\",\"https://steemit.com/politics/@ekklesiagora/the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism\",\"https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ekklesiagora/property-as-theft-the-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-property-summary-anthology\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19663758,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 46,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T14:42:42",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-ekklesiagora-the-social-democratic-case-against-anarchism-20180131t144242676z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.096 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "57.269668 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 19662812,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 3,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T13:55:21",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "anarchicwolf",
      "permlink": "re-wordsword-re-anarchicwolf-social-discussions-collectivism-20180131t135520582z",
      "sbd_payout": "0.021 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "12.272092 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "bd4141a2ffb26c6388c641a1437f1e9331acf889",
  "block": 19660744,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-02-07T12:11:42",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "anarchicwolf",
      "author": "dullhawk",
      "permlink": "if-archation-is-ok",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}