No other libertarian goal can become meaningful until the key impediment to a free society is overcome. Namely, de-legitimizing the State in the public mind.
Agree, we shouldn’t seek necessarily to provide an alternative and as you stated in some cases it is a must. In those cases, however, that it’s typically because the person has already created questions about the beliefs they held - this is essentially the stance being made. I enjoy that you created that opportunity for others to see the clear separation between Natural Law and Political. It allows a person’s identity and the need to act consistently with that identity, to question legitimize of State. Furthermore, we all have the desire to be a part of a group, and in order to be in that group we must corporate and come to some agreement on group interaction and discourse.
Can we harness our need to be social while cultivating individualism to de-legitimize a body that does not truly serve us? I strongly believe people like you are doing this, so thank you!
There’s a term used in Architecture, "genius loci" or sense of place. Borrowing this term, if you change genius loci for a person, they are very likely to begin looking elsewhere rather than staying in the same place. In which case, alternative “places” can be presented as they would be more accepted. As we both know, Architecture is very much a subjective field (for the most part). This is because it depends on who the individual is and how they see themselves interacting within that space.
Understanding that everyone of us can, and should, contribute to the group rather than relying on someone else is, in my opinion, the next step now that the parallels have been made.
Thank you again Mark for the wise article. Looking forward but learning from the past - Thank you!
Agree, we shouldn’t seek necessarily to provide an alternative and as you stated in some cases it is a must. In those cases, however, that it’s typically because the person has already created questions about the beliefs they held - this is essentially the stance being made. I enjoy that you created that opportunity for others to see the clear separation between Natural Law and Political. It allows a person’s identity and the need to act consistently with that identity, to question legitimize of State. Furthermore, we all have the desire to be a part of a group, and in order to be in that group we must corporate and come to some agreement on group interaction and discourse.
Can we harness our need to be social while cultivating individualism to de-legitimize a body that does not truly serve us? I strongly believe people like you are doing this, so thank you!
There’s a term used in Architecture, "genius loci" or sense of place. Borrowing this term, if you change genius loci for a person, they are very likely to begin looking elsewhere rather than staying in the same place. In which case, alternative “places” can be presented as they would be more accepted. As we both know, Architecture is very much a subjective field (for the most part). This is because it depends on who the individual is and how they see themselves interacting within that space.
Understanding that everyone of us can, and should, contribute to the group rather than relying on someone else is, in my opinion, the next step now that the parallels have been made.
Thank you again Mark for the wise article. Looking forward but learning from the past - Thank you!