Yet another in a long line of sophomoric arguments aimed at convincing the gullible that being a monumental anti-social arsehole is somehow laudable. So, I guess that, by this guy's lights, Caligula was good and Gandhi was bad.

>>Collective systems are an attempt to find consensus in an inorganic way through the use of force and or social pressures. This inevitably leads to a split between orthodoxy and revisionism that could be avoided by allowing for a looser affiliation of humanity. A truly free society would allow for collectives to form and function freely within the system without having been forced to do so and without giving them any special privileges against individuals within the whole of the free society. Individuals may then react in a positive way when seeing certain groups function and seek to either join a collective that they hold in esteem or to perhaps create a collective of there own.

Your use of the terms such as "subjective veriation", "authentic" and "inorganic" is problematic for me. You claim that inorganic ways of imposing order lead to a split which could be avoided. This is vague. Does it necessarily need to be avoided or does it only need to be avoided sometimes? There are many good reasons to impose some limitations on human behavior of both individuals and collectives. What if some people do not react in a "positive" way to "seeing certian groups function"? What if some people positively decide to create a collective of people who murder homosexuals, people who smoke pot or people who drive hummers? MUST my truly free society NECESSARILY refuse to allow for the invocation of an institutional privilege to act to limit the behavior of these collectives?