[drdaeman]

What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.

[teach]

Although I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says

> we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t

[drdaeman]

I see that as a poor phrasing, where a slogan made it through. I don’t see a maximalist/anarchist intent overall, my understanding is that that slogan about freedoms should be interpreted within a fairly narrow scope.

Just strike that weird nugget out, I guess?

[5701652400]

my point is: any talk of "freedom" when you are a corporate slave or living on government handouts is nonsense

it is all wannabe lemon-stand freedom.

[drdaeman]

IMHO, freedom is not one thing or even a value. It's a concept that applies to a lot of stuff, speech, thought, association, and tool use included. In practice, one has some freedoms but not some others. I fail to see any need to have them all to be able to discuss about one in particular.

[5701652400]

blurring lines of definitions, I see. you can call a potato a freedom, if you wish. this is just counter-productive. arguing about definitions is dangeours slippery slope.