>>388870>I think based on the OP post's context, you should be able to deduce itI suspect he’s a libertarian, he could be an AnCap (even though it’s oxymoronic), however should I really have to guess? He should be willing to state his beliefs like a man, or get saged like a dog.
>>I don't vote>me neither: I don't want to be responsible for the next tyrantI don’t consider a government tyrannical simply for exercising political authority, again I’m not ethically opposed to government, I reject the authority of democracy itself. I believe in a divinely ordered hierarchy, not mob rule.
>>I participate in the existing system normally except for the parts that I can avoid and to which I morally object>see this here is the crux of the thread and it was mentioned beforeNo, the essence was OP shilling anarchism, then backpedaling and redefining it into a vague aesthetic of noncompliance to duck hard questions.
>I think that the problem with these endless discussions about (((the ideal system))) are useless. No matter what system you use, criminals will always try to grab the power and enslave others Yes, man’s corruption is perennial. That’s why anarchy is the worst possible answer. Without a monopoly on force, criminality doesn’t disappear, it metastasizes. Look at Haiti. Remove order and warlords fill the void.
>So if there's going to be any debating, debate that. Look if you want to discuss the nature of humans propensity for corruption we can discuss that. But it will be an entirely seperate discussion about man’s fallen nature.
>1. If systems or philosophies of co-existance are not universal (we already proved and agreed on this) You’re a bit all over the place with your language, I am guessing you are trying to say that no ideology or philosophy, regardless of how much it seeks coexistence, can work for everyone?
>2. systems are purposefully designed and abused to destabilise perception and unityThat’s a self refuting statement. If the system is designed to achieve an end then people using the system to achieve that end aren’t abusing it.
>it means that the system is mostly useless and hasn't got as much power as you think it has. A very simple piece of evidence for this is: “you're innocent until proven otherwise”This is incoherent. You are using the presumption of innocence as evidence that the system is weak, but the the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is a normative claim, not a proof of systemic power or powerlessness.
>So there is a difference between systemic morality and True morality. You mean to say there is a difference between law (and government ideology) and objective morality.
>I suppose we'd need to come up with a definition for True morality/ethics... we already have one, it’s called objective morality.
>So to get back to the original point: how can we create -as if were- our own little system (morality/ethics) within the tyrannically system we live inFrom what I’m gathering you’re suggesting/asking about building a personal or communal moral code that functions independently of the dominant legal and cultural system. In clearer words “How can I live by my own ethical standards, even though I’m surrounded by a corrupt or unjust system?”
And that just goes back to what I said earlier. That’s not anarchy, that just conscientious objection.
>And rather live from our own True morality There is not such thing as “our own true morality. Objective morality is not mine nor yours. By the nature of being objective it’s outside the individual. Objective. External. Binding regardless of preference.