The agreement to follow certain conventions is, for now, critical to our survival but that is merely because people as a whole are not capable of true anarchy (self-governance). Those who are generally recognize that others are not and are usually willing to make such concessions.
The people who bother me are the ones who require a book of "divinely inspired" laws in order not to do things harmful to others or self. If the only thing stopping you from doing these things is a book...
The people who bother me are the ones who require a book of "divinely inspired" laws in order not to do things harmful to others or self. If the only thing stopping you from doing these things is a book...
I think it was Penn Jillette who said that he rapes and murders as much as he wants to. Not at all. No need for the threat of divine punishment if you behave as if you'd want to be treated.
For a political party that makes sense, especially since they're the ones advocating to be in charge of making laws.
As a small-L libertarian I take a different approach when it comes to individual actions. To quote Bernardo de la Paz (The Moon is a Hardh Mistress), "I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
And another: "I would be satisfied to have the Golden Rule be the only law; I see no need for any other, nor for any method of enforcing."