||[Dec. 31st, 2008|01:48 am]
I hate any communities, I individualist. In a community always there is an interposition. I think, that only law can provide freedom. The law should be rational; it should not have by the basis of religion or ideology. Unique criterion - availability of damage: if the actions do not cause damage, they should not be forbidden by law. This provision is in the constitution, but the laws interpret how it would be desirable. Due to the increased ambiguity, about which I wrote, it seems to the people, that is possible absolutely everything.|
Hippi were the supporters of a community*** and "conscience". It does not approach me.
I had long disputed with the person, which is similar hippi. He is lawyer, but anarchist, collectivist, idealist. That is pleasant to him, for me is unacceptable. That they offer, conducts to absence of freedom and to oppression. The anarchists it do not understand! The better precise law, than not clear customs of the neighbours.
*** It is possible, the translation distorts sense. In the sense that they deny the law and offer to rely on ringing, on notorious "feeling of an elbow". At the communists it was too much, and it would not be desirable again!