A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 days agoWell...lemmy.dbzer0.comimagemessage-square24linkfedilinkarrow-up1188arrow-down122
arrow-up1166arrow-down1imageWell...lemmy.dbzer0.comA404@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 days agomessage-square24linkfedilink
minus-squarelurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down9·2 days agorights imply laws. laws aren’t anarchist.
minus-squaregurty@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·1 day agoThat implies that you can’t have any rights unless the government says you can have them.
minus-squaretoo_high_for_this@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·1 day agoNo rulers is not the same as no rules.
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvern@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down2·edit-22 days agoYou should probably understand the concept behind human rights before you talk about either anarchism or liberalism, both of which accept the idea.
rights imply laws. laws aren’t anarchist.
That implies that you can’t have any rights unless the government says you can have them.
No rulers is not the same as no rules.
You should probably understand the concept behind human rights before you talk about either anarchism or liberalism, both of which accept the idea.