Correct. …I’m just not a consequentialist. If people make decisions around the premise of what is moral, then there’s a definitive answer of what is right, even in the moment, rather than a debate about what outcome *might* occur (which would also depend on a specific value the individual chooses to care about). Simply, my arguments are now focused on the premise that anarchy works because it is good, not that it is good because it works. Admittedly, economics are what initially led me to anarchy though & I do enjoy the subject. If you are a consequentialist, it seems we’re still on the same team & I’m not in opposition — we’re after the same objective: freedom. To respond to your comment on what can make real change… there’s lots of ways I’m sure, but the only thing that *absolutely has to happen* to make any sustainable change, is a change of people’s minds. There has to be a decent percentage of people who absolutely understand it is wrong to infringe on the self-ownership of another. And I greatly appreciate that you’re on my team in this!!

The system isn’t out to get you, it’s designed to keep you weak so Ray Dalio’s reserves stay liquid. Stop diagnosing the rot, starve the engine or watch your blood be the fuel they burn for quarterly growth.