Cloudscape

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

Everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others. In this, they should also have the freedom to belong to whatever system they want as long as their system does not harm people in their own or other systems. Therefore, there cannot be anarchism without there also being panarchism, which is the freedom to join any government one chooses. Having total freedom, one could also choose for oneself to have less freedom, pledging oneself to a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship.

Through panarchism, anarcho-communism could be made to work, as only people who would fulfill its conditions could be allowed to join; it would work best if people who would join only to profit from others in the system were not allowed, though, of course, in a panarchism people would be free to form a system where these people were allowed, although it would then be significantly poorer. In the system where these people were not allowed, anyone who was judged to work too little could be banished for causing indirect harm to others in the system.

In a panarchistic system, politicians would be inventors, not petty preachers trying to howl each other down.

A war should be fought only if it would save more lives than it would kill; otherwise, other means should suffice. Such wars, however, are very rare, as most only cause even more suffering than they resolve; because of this, war should be avoided as much as possible.
However, we must nuance this attitude. In all things there are exceptions, and so too there are in war: if none had fought Nazi Germany but all had yielded to them, then there would have been far more deaths than there had fallen in the Second World War. Sixty million people fell in the Second World War: however, in about the same time, eleven million people fell in the holocaust.
Suppose that all had surrendered to Nazi Germany in the hope, likely correct, that its despotism would disintegrate before long, as despotisms tend to do, then it would still likely have lasted long enough to kill more than sixty million people, so that even to endure its oppression would not have been worthwhile at all.
Thus, in some cases aggression may be better than passivity; but it is very flawed, and people who rule over an entire country should at least have the competence to find other means. These are people who claim to be proficient to lead millions of people, and, should it come to war, possibly to bring them to an end: if they really are, then they should be able to avoid war and find other ways of dealing with despots. Sanctions, psychological warfare, conspiracies, assassinations if needed — these can all be ways to avoid war and yet deal with tyranny in a way that could save lives.
Unfortunately, many leaders yearn to play part in a war, as it thrills them. Churcill, for instance, cancelled an assassination plot on Hitler as he thought that war should be fought on the field.
This goes to show that in all things we need both yin and yang in balance, and in our own wars as well; but in politics, for most of history we have had too much yang and too little yin. In all likelihood, this was because territory was originally a means for the male to reproduce, and so involved mostly masculinity, but little femininity. It is mostly over the past century that this has started to change, although we still see leaders who see war as a game. But when dealing with other lives, one has to be careful. The least mistake can make the difference between a hero and a murderer.

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

There should be only one law, and it is that of Wiccan lore: an it harm none, doth what thou wilt. All else is tyranny.
The only law should be not to impose one's will upon someone else; not the will to harm another, and neither to change them in any other way, should be allowed. Only those that seek to control others should be controlled in this urge. Whether that control is in the form of murder, rape, theft or law does not matter; it is a violation of free will, and this alone is what makes it immoral. The murdered do not choose to be murdered; the raped do not choose to be raped; the robbed do not choose to be robbed; the enslaved do not choose for their oppressed. If murder were chosen, it would be euthanasia; if rape were chosen it would be love-making; if theft were chosen it would be a gift; if law were chosen it would be convention; and if this were the case, then there would be nothing wrong at all with any of these things.

Compulsion itself it the only crime, and so the law in itself is criminal.

No-one has the right to control us in any way. Politicians may direct those that wish to be directed, those that would seek their guidance. They may use only those resources that we are willing to endow on them, if people feel that they knows better what to do with them; but they cannot take our resources to increase their control. Others may wish to use their money in their own way or define in which way their money is to be used by politicians, having it invested in the infrastructure in their own home city or district rather than in weapon industry or other idiocy. They may control only other people's control of other people in itself, which is the only real crime.
Furthermore, politicians may at most make us aware of risks; but they may not forbid us to take those risks, for our very lives are made through naught but risks. If we wish to do something that may or will harm ourselves, then we may do so. It is senseless to punish this; if harm is done to ourselves, then we are already punished in as far as we should be. If we have done no harm to ourselves, then only the punishment would have done harm to us, and so the punishment should be punished.
There is nothing more dangerous than to forbid to endanger ourselves; for we need danger to live, as any trial is dangerous; the newer what we try is, the more dangerous it is; but it is through trial that civilization was built. All experiments are dangerous, yet without experiments, neither would society exist, nor would we ourselves ever have taken our first steps as toddlers.
To forbid what is dangerous to ourselves is a slippery slope; two thousand years ago we started by forbidding suicide, though no-one knows what lies beyond death; today, we often forbid things such walking on ice. It won't end there; anything that has some danger involved could potentially become forbidden. And of course anything has some danger involved, no matter how small. Were does one place the line where something becomes dangerous enough to become forbidden?
Yet the most risky endeavors are often the most rewarding, on a political as well as individual level. On a national scale, examples are manned space flights or economical interventions; on an individual scale, there are things such as moving or marriage.
"Mountain climbing, glacier trevassing, skydiving, deep scuba diving, and high-speed motorcycle riding" are all highly dangerous activities, and according to Geo Stone's "Suicide and Attempted Suicide," the average climb of the Mount Everest is actually as dangerous as the average suicide attempt. Does this mean that such activities should be forbidden? People who face dangerous activities are almost always aware of the dangers; if they have to face the consequences, that is their concern.
In fact, there are many people who either do not care about the consequences (even death) or actually hope that they will follow. Some borderline people openly state that they would not have a problem with drug addiction or other possible consequences of their behavior; for some people, after all, drama remains of value in life. Who are we to deny it? For those that choose for it, any experience can be valuable. Whether what they do to themselves will be painful to them or no, if they seek pain then that is their choice, and it as well might be enriching. We may but warn others of dangers, but never forbid them. It is up to them if they think the advantages of a course of action are worth the disadvantages for themselves.
We may help someone find their own way, but we may not choose which way they are to take. We cannot know what is better for someone else without knowing them as they know themselves, because what it better for someone is subjective. Whatever someone feels is better for them, they're right. Everyone's experience of the world is different, and we cannot impose our own experience upon others.
Perhaps it is time that we dispense every law and leave only that of respect. A new time will come in which either authoritarianism becomes total, or else dissolves altogether; but it cannot remain in existence without . It cannot keep us caged forever, for over the years, more and more the younger generations are crying out for freedom.