start first with securing your own food without govenrment nor employer.

then start talking about freedom.

What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.

▲

teach 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Although I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says

> we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t

	▲	drdaeman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I see that as a poor phrasing, where a slogan made it through. I don’t see a maximalist/anarchist intent overall, my understanding is that that slogan about freedoms should be interpreted within a fairly narrow scope. Just strike that weird nugget out, I guess?