I can see your point, and agree with it to a degree. It becomes troubling when introducing the concept of "ethics" and trying to commingle it with "sovereignty". The notion of "ethics" implies an agreed-upon framework, and to consent to that is to subsume your sovereignty, your authority over yourself, to a "higher power" - unless you alone (and every other being on the planet, also alone) define those ethics individually, each for themselves. The instant you agree to work within a framework constructed by other than yourself, alone, you have abdicated your sovereignty in favor of communal rules - which is what we have on this planet today, under every government.
I subscribe to the Law of the Jungle. Each individual has an absolute right to defend his or her Self by any means they can devise or acquire. Each individual has an absolute right to be left alone - and may enforce that right by means of the first law. Each individual has an absolute right to feed, clothe, and house them-self by any means at their disposal.
Who defines your ethics? I have a suspicion that your ethics may conflict with mine, and I will not subject myself to the ethics of another - if I'm going to do that, I may as well be living under a government. The end result is always the same. Other folks' rules are other folks' rules, whether "government", "society" or any other collective grouping.
Rights are "rights" because they cannot be legislated away. The government didn't issue mine to me, so thy have no claim on them to legislate them away. Likewise, No one, but NO ONE, has the right to decide if I am behaving "ethically", since they do not have the right to decide my ethics for me.
I subscribe to the Law of the Jungle. Each individual has an absolute right to defend his or her Self by any means they can devise or acquire. Each individual has an absolute right to be left alone - and may enforce that right by means of the first law. Each individual has an absolute right to feed, clothe, and house them-self by any means at their disposal.
Who defines your ethics? I have a suspicion that your ethics may conflict with mine, and I will not subject myself to the ethics of another - if I'm going to do that, I may as well be living under a government. The end result is always the same. Other folks' rules are other folks' rules, whether "government", "society" or any other collective grouping.
Rights are "rights" because they cannot be legislated away. The government didn't issue mine to me, so thy have no claim on them to legislate them away. Likewise, No one, but NO ONE, has the right to decide if I am behaving "ethically", since they do not have the right to decide my ethics for me.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’