LibSocNet is a company that provides an online social network to connect people who wish to turn the tide on the ever increasing restrictions on social liberties. It is our companies mission to connect and empower human beings of reason and conscience and to disempower the false and the controlling.
You could say that if there was a scale between authoritarian control freaks and lawless anarchic barbarians then we hope to attract the more civilised of the barbarian extreme and to ward of the savagary of the enslaving forces of our world.
Despite our perceivable leanings toward the lawlessness of anarchism we are simply people who seek to be without masters of any kind over us such that the laws which would prevail without such masters would be the self-evident laws of what is required to avoid risking that we may be harmed if we don't refrain from causing others injury.
The Real Law and the Ordained Law
We believe that there is a thing I here describe as real crime and that it is qualitatively different from that thing which is not real crime but only called crime merely because it has been ordained to be such and imposed through actions which more closely resemble acts of aggression than acts of lawful behaviour and the irony is that these acts of aggression are carried out by individuals and organisations which promote themselves to be the very protectors, enforcers and manufacturers of a thing called law which can sometimes be real law but can also sometimes be real crime.
In our books, a real crime occurs when a party is injured in some justly acquired right they have by another party who is not acting in defence of their own or another's right from the beginning of the interaction. The interactions can involve physical injurious behaviours or behaviours which are injurious to one another's justly acquired incorporeal non-physical rights and the parties can be individuals or groups of individuals and the party who suffers injury first has a right to defend themself from the consequences of such injury such that the party initiating the first injury can be deemed to be committing real crime in the first offence and further crime to defend their unjustly aqcuired position against the rightful defencive actions of the party they have injured in acquiring back the position which was lost due to the offensive party's act.
Thus real crime can be described as offensive initiatory actions perhaps followed up by defensive actions against the injured party who is only going so far as to relieve themself from the consequences of the injury when engaged in offencive actions against a party who has gained unjustly at the expense of the party initially offended by the party committing the real crime.
For the past three decades we have witnessed the rapid degradation of human rights and civil liberties and this process of the destruction of liberties had begun before the internet was available to the general public at the time the first beginnings of the surveillance state were being constructed in the form of CCTV cameras in public streets which were at the time described as measures to reduce crimes: Back in 1995, there were no bus lanes, smoking was acceptable even in cinemas and restaurants and there are many things which are now called crimes which are only so called, because they have been ordained to be so by the people you might least expect to be "making the law up as they go along" if you have spent too much time looking at the media rather than looking at the reality around you which must seem very perverse when you see the realities unfiltered by the highly constued and magnified "propaganda" which has turned "real crime" into "law" and real law into "crime".
Depending what you perceive the word anarchism to mean, LibSocNet could be described as very favourable toward anarchists or very unfavourable toward them. Some people see the word anarchism to mean to be without masters, owners or the kind of people who wish to rule over other peoples lives. Other people, perceive the word anarchism to refer to a distrinct form of lawlessness where ironically the anarchists are described as "making the laws up as they go along" which has the consequence that the word anarchism has two meanings which are diametrically opposed to one another.
At LibSocNet we use the word anarchism to describe the situation where there is a society of people so respectful of one another's liberties that they are alleviated of the need for people to be "making the law up as they go along".
The law is very simple and understandable to a child who wishes to avoid alot prevarications by behaving in a manner in which the child doing no harm should expect not to suffer harm since they are alleviated of the need for defensive activities from those they might have committed real crimes against. If everyone behaved in such a manner such that no one offended anyone elses justly acquired rights, then situation of justice would exist for the whole society who would all recognise that their rights could be unlimited to the extent they are not injuring anyone else's rights.
Do no harm
This notion of real law and real crime has existed since time immemorial. We are reminded by the words of holy men from all around the world, that we should treat others in the way we ourselves would wish to be treated, and since no one wants to suffer injury, if we lived by the law that we cause no injury then the world would be a very nice place. Co-existing with this since time immemorial are a second faction who have a will to power over others and they have engaged in theft, fraud, robbery, murder, slavery and genocide, often-times describing themselves as lawkeepers and peace makers when their activities can only be construed to be lawful and anti-crime when the history of their warlike activity is whitewashed with non-crimes being called crimes used to tar the law abiding people as criminals when infact their only real crime is disobedience to those who could never have acquired a just right to ensalve others in disregard of the freely given consent of those held in bondage from one generation to the next.
LibSocNet's mission is to prize more liberties for the law abiding people and to promote real law amongst those who are choosing slavery by choosing to be the enslavers. Though it likely will not happen in our own lifetime, we aspire to a day when no one will make rules for another and even if someone did, the world would be such that no one would even obey any such rules.
There is real law and there is real crime. Graying the lines between these two opposing factors are the things ordained to be the law which are sometimes real crime and things which are ordained to be crime which are sometimes an act which is against the real law.
Who was the injured party and was the party who caused the injury only doing so in self-defence or recuperation of loss initially caused by the party injured by an injury that started a chain of injurious interactions between the parties now at war in some fashion? What constitutes a justly acquired right? Are the authorities protecting the real law? Are the authorities breaking the real law? Do people have the intellectual courage to think about and discuss the realities which are never broadcast or published on corporate media farms?
There's alot of questions to ask but if you tend toward the ways of just accord with your fellow human beings rather than blind obedience to the powers that be, then LibSocNet is for you and we hope you will meet people who have a similar perspective to your own and that you will avoice meeting people who, if we are honest will be trying to infiltrate a site like this or take it down for the reasons that they always seem to do so.
Who has the right to make rules about the shirt you wear on your back? Do you have a right to prevent people from spray painting it, tearing it, etc? It is your shirt so it is you who has the right to that shirt. You can make up all the rules you want for it. You cant make up a rule saying I'm not allowed to tear a shirt but you can make a rule saying I'm not allowed to tear YOUR shirt. You own that shirt, you don't own me.
In likewise fashion there are things that are mine and things that are yours and things that belong to neither of us, or no one at all and on this website there are things which could be said to be in joint ownership between you, me, and the service providers I use to provide the website to those who don't seem like the kind of people who want to break things and will hopefully appreciate the combined efforts of the LibSocNet community, the software writers, those who put the website together in the various complex things from network cables and data centres to operating system providers and "electronic plumbers" piping it all together. I'm keen to attract the right kind of people and to ban the wrong kind of people and one rule I put in place before you even sign up is that I, or my admins can ban you if we think you're a prick. This is the kind of thing that comes with owning a shirt on my own back. I'm inviting the right kind of people to use my shirt to write messages to one another but its still my shirt and now the messages on my shirt are turning my shirt into something that I can't quite describe as fully my own, but before anyone starts to write messages on my shirt they have to agree that I can ban them from doing so, even when the shirt is no long just "my shirt" but "my shirt with others enhancements to it".
On that basis, I make the rules. I take advice on what the rules ought to be from the LibSocNet members but ultimately, its my site, I get the final say. If you don't get along, start your own site. I don't own the LibSocNet members, I only own the website. They form a loose collective of people who share a similar philosophy of taking no shit but not indulging in giving any out either, except in self-defence and collective self-defence. This is not the only social network they will be a part of but I'm hoping this one will be "the" social network for those of us concerned about censorship, propaganda, systemic medical malpractice and all the various human rights abuses which are now being normalised for the next generation who have never known what it is to have god to watch over them what with the state and the various people "making the law up as they go along" seeming to be at some kind of war with the spiritual since before I was even old enough to realise it.
I guess this isn't the place to start groaning about all the destructions of liberties which have happenned over the past three decades, as that's partly the kind of "depressing", "conspiracy theorist", "fringe element" talk I hope to be indulging in on the newsfeeds of the LibSocNet - the social network for those aspiring for a society where fundamental liberties are protected by the ordained law rather than infringed by it.
One more thing!
We are not their slaves!