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 an hour 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?