The gap is the origin. You seek the state to punish; I seek sovereignty to prevent. Order without consent is slavery. As Marcus Aurelius noted, you must not be a slave to others' whims.

All I'm saying is there is no truth, but interpretation of facts based on person's values. A given nation is given set of rules left from the previous generation that the new generation has to obey or if they don't like them to change them, everything else is getting back to the jungle and scrap thousands of years of evolution.

There has to be rules to play. If the majority of society don't like them change them to what they think is better, but returning to the jungle benefits no one.

Definitly agree. Proposing rules has nothing to do with slavery. But it is rather a precondition for freedom.

You are using big words. Freedom has nothing to do with independence. I can argue that a criminal that is traveling with false passport and is independent of a country is more "free" that the rest of us, who has to obey the rules that are set by some people. When you look the planet from the cosmos there are no borders and yet I can go to country that requires me to pay for a paper to visit its territory, but the criminal with the fake passports can do it. I believe in living on the Bitcoin standard and buy a couple of passports in order to be really free ( but still you can't be independent from the taxes you have to pay ).

Why would you argue, that independance and freedom are not related? I would say they are. Because a very dependent person is lass free than a more independent person I would say.

It depends what do you mean by "dependable". I think of my self as dependable person which when people ask me for a favor i will help them, not because I depend on them but because I choose to help them and together with that to be independent to to whatever I want.

This is an example of being independent, when you help freely. The other person is dependent, when she can not do it without your help.

Not to be an English teacher, but dependable means to be reliable and trustworthy, not to serve as someone's help.

Thanks. Did not know this. Whyunot act as an english teacher. I am happy you share what you know 😉 Yes my argument is rather, when I can not solve something without help, I am dependent. As a Baby I was dependent in each and every way. Today some things I can solve myself. And other dependencies I might have multiple options to ask someone. And I argue, that this increases my freedom, when I can do something new on my own or increase the number of people I can ask. Since when I could only get food from one person, I would be in a desaster, when this person can not deliver for whatever reason. Maby one could summerize my point, that resilience is one part of freedom.

Clearly you are a Disney fan. Freedom is to have full control of your time and do whatever you please without calendars or clocks or whatever. Independence is when you don't relay on nothing or no one to achieve the freedom. I will give you an example ... Ekrem İmamoğlu is the 32nd mayor of istanbul, but because he was really popular Erdogan revoke his university diploma so he can't run for President. Does this sheet of paper gives or take away the knowledge of İmamoğlu? Of course not, but he is dependent on it to do his job. Take for example UN or ICC, it is very hard to make a country to follow the law and prosecute criminals - because they are independent and all of them are using the law more like a guideline than an actual enforceable rules. That's why a person has to organize his life that he is independent from as may things as possible. Build a ranch, grow your food, produce your energy, mine your water and prepare to leave the property in 30 minutes if there is a danger you can overcome. Everything else are dependencies on people who are the most unreliable creatures on earth.

I have really a problem to understand, what you want to tell me. We seem to agree on everything, while your wording looks like a disagreement. So am I correct, that we agree onleverything here and you just rewrote the same ideas in more words?

Well I'm not trolling just making an arguments about some philosophical concepts. We disagree on philosophical level that been free has nothing to do with been independent, and that the truth is only the perspective of the person based on his values - even facts are base on interpretation. I believe this is the biggest problem of the society because it cant reach consensus on ground 0 to start and build.

But in the phrase where you write about independance, you use the word freedom. So you do not actually disagree in the note. This is why Ilam confused. I think there is no disagreement at all between what you describe and what I describe.

Perfect. Glad you understand my point.