Re: You missed my point

The fact still remains that socialists have no inherent natural right to interfere in my private business (which includes my offspring's), just as much as I have no inherent right to judge THEIR own domestic affairs. I have no more right to get involved in their affairs any more than I have an inherent right to meddle in the affairs of a lioness and judge how fit I deem her to raise her cubs. If her cubs ran away from her and came to me, and the mother came to retrieve them off me, I would consider it highly arrogant of myself not to give her her cubs BACK. And I would expect her to become HIGHLY ANGRY if I did not hand them back over to her. They are HER cubs by natural right, NOT mine. And likewise, it is completely irrelevant how fit or unfit my enemies deem my parenting. The fact whether or not my offspring want to get away from me still has no relevance and no justification for my enemies to get involved. And yes, I know you will say "no no, we have the right to liberate them from you because we the rightful socialists of the universe". That might be your position but it is not something I will ever buy into. If my offspring ever ran away from me and I wanted to come running after them with a shotgun to take them home, and my socialist enemies intervened and stuck their meddling snotty noses into my affairs, then I guess I would be in for a shootout with them. Admitedly though, the socialists would almost certainly win, as there are endless and increasing hordes of them and hardly any of my own kind left. We are a dying species, I know. One day Marxism will have completely engulfed the entire planet like swarms of locusts, and when I have decided that that day has become a thorough enough reality, then I think me and my family would be better off dead. I would rather see that happen than to see them become in the clutches or embraces of the socialist enemy. That would be like the end of the world for me.

One reason I consider socialists highly dangerous is that they would judge me, given the types of environment that they would disapprove of, yet I would never judge them, NEVER, EVER EVER!, no matter how they lived their own lives and how "well" or "unwell" they raise their own offspring. It's not one scrap of my business, so surely you must at least to some degree understand my anger over the realisation that on one hand I have a complete disinterest in interfering in my enemies business, yet they would still poke their noses in mine, even after I have expressed my 100% respect for them to live as they want and to raise their own offsprng as they choose. But such is the driving stubbornness of the socialist, I suppose.

If ever a stateless society does occur, as you have predicted, then I would wager that what you propose would create lots of provocation, violence, killing and even flair into wars. You see, once there becomes a self-righteous mentality that forcibly intrudes in private family affairs, and the pride of parenthood is humiliated and desecrated by usurpers who think they know better, then this is NOT conducive to peace, believe me. And in a future anarchic order absent of a state this will especially be so.

"It would not be a replacement of your authority with our own, but rather the bestowment of autonomy and self-authority upon your offspring in question."

Ah but you need another authority to do the bestowing of self-authority in the first place. See my point? And the only way this could happen first is that the bestower would have assumed an appropriation of parental authority to then be able to bestow. I regard that behaviour as an act of provocation and attempted usurpation of my parental authority which of course I would not recognise and it would be met with by my hostility. You can take one selection of words and substitute them with another, but as LOD pointed out, they will still mean the same thing if the same thing is intended. Collective fascism will always be collective fascism, no matter how well its dressed up.