On 6/7/19, Jaromil <jaromil@???> wrote:
> these questions can be posed

Have they on the list much?

> an utter ignorant in matters of philosophy, whom is basically a
> proponent of natural law in the sense Hobbes gives to the term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

> with consequent disintegration of societal norms and ethics.

Observers from old systems might say that of their new system,
regardless of which were the old and new ones.

> not an individual, but *society* (gesellschaft, as opposed to the
> concept of gemeinschaft which confuses most individualists)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft

> historically
> humans have organised this way

Any resources detailing number of ways humans have ever
organized, and the number of tries, scales, and success rates
of each way?

> anarco-individualism is naive and a waste of time. one consciousness
> alone is just like a leaf of grass in the wind: it won't ever have a
> collective grasp

> individual consciousness does not count much

People seem quite tired of all the ridiculous things the
State grows doing and regulating over them and to others.
Yielding growing simplistic anarcho-* ideas around world.
What seems missing from the individualistic groups are
the component of education and to new responsibilities that
are likely necessary to make it work.

> the creation of new
> societies and institutions representing new forms of rationalities and
> liberation that we can improve where we live, just like comrades in
> Rojava are struggling to do.

These things should all be allowed.
Including by at least buying own sovereign land to do so,
or left alone to fill vacuum of war, etc. The "how to land"
question is a big one.

With luck and effort Rojava would hopefully be one example
of what can be done.

> live among each other
> religion

Even some big "valid" religions are murderously incompatible
with the former phrase, most certainly not with freedom of
speech, various rights, equality, or anarcho-* choices.

> access to education

What difference between freedom to access,
or having that access defended therein, or being
forced to use particular educations to particular outcomes?

> people have a
> strong opposition to those who *should* (and in most cases *mean to*)
> organise society in a better way.

Organizers often force, instead of teach voluntarily,
so there is of course resistance to that.

> in EU we do have a few recent improvements
> and one of them is that of not

Does improvement include not using States force
to arbitrarily force people do ridiculous things?
Like paying taxes... instead of not, in protest to
help prevent military from murdering people,
just like refusing to serve in military. Or is the
former somehow "invalid" means of protest?
And who says so, why?

> pointing weapons at each other to claim rights

Claiming something that way sounds like theft via
a murder for that something which probably wasn't
a right. Defending a right is a bit different. A right
probably is or isn't... what are the supposed rights
in question, and are they natural or made up legal
promulgated ones?

> how is possible to co-exist in peace

Probably much simpler than last n-000's years:
stop going to war crafted by your silly "leaders",
leave people alone, walk away, say hello, etc...

> solutions adopted by societal institutions, so
> that they are enforced and nurtured.

By whom, over whom, why?
What is history of all the institutions ending up?

Of course for chance at any different outcome,
one must do quite different than all before.
But where? How?

> greetings from Amsterdam, city of Spinoza

Do they have laws there dictating how you must build
your own house on your own land? Do they allow
voluntary collectivists communes autonomous self
regulation?

> freedom.