You’re not giving me that option

In matters of state, when an agreement cannot be reached, often the other person will say, “lets agree to disagree”. This is impossible.

If the person you are talking to is in the same state as you (Phillipines, United States, etc.), and that person supports the state, then he is advocating you be imprisoned and / or shot if you do not comply with his whims. Because that is how all state law is enforced if you resist hard enough.

It isn’t flavors of ice cream, and I would LOVE to “live and let live”. I talk to statists and they often wish we go our separate ways because discussions with me are grinding as I force them to break everything down (usually it’s the first time for them). But unless they support unlimited individualistic secession, they cannot go their separate ways.

If you support the state, you are NOT leaving anyone alone, and you are NOT being tolerant. All acts of state are acts of war, if you advocate a state you are advocating constant war.

Maybe you think it’s necessary, fine, that’s something to talk about.

But “live and let live” and “tolerance of ideas” is not possible with a state.

?

  1. imall4frogs answered: Because we are, at our core, irrational animals, we will realize our aggression via State OR Market (and damn the cost).
  2. tranceinate reblogged this from fringeelements
  3. theskeletonscontinuethespook reblogged this from fringeelements
  4. spacecakeofawesome reblogged this from fringeelements and added:
    In matters of state, when an agreement cannot be reached, often the other person will say, “lets agree to disagree”....
  5. mattberi reblogged this from fringeelements