Freethought as a philosophical position and as activism was important in North American individualist anarchism. In the United States "freethought was a basically anti-Christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker . Walker was co-editor of the free-thought/free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer ".  "Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers; reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer , Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty ...The church was viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself". 
The law is often derided for being behind the times, but Coin Center and the SEC point to longstanding principles that guide regulators even as the economy changes. In 1946, the Supreme Court laid out principles now referred to as “ the Howey test ” to determine if something sold is a security. If a financial product meets the Howey criteria, it doesn’t matter if those selling it call it a stock or a bond. It also doesn’t matter if the product is sold in the form of paper, stones or digital fairy dust—the Howey test ignores form and looks at function.
One tool we use for finding consent in larger groups is consensus . Most anarchist decision-making is built around this method. Consensus is a way of determining what everyone in a group is comfortable with doing. “Do we want to blockade this building?” “Do we want to sign our group’s name on this public letter?” “Do we want to publish this book?” A group that respects the autonomy of every individual within it will generally act via consensus in some form or another. Some people mistake consensus to be basically the same as voting but where everyone agrees instead of a majority. This thinking however, is still built around voting, which is a form of competitive decision-making that is not designed to respect people’s autonomy. Consensus, instead of being a way to convince everyone to agree to the same plan, is a way of exploring what the logical limits of any given group are. If all members of a group cannot agree on a specific action, then it clearly needs to take place outside of that group, if at all. Unlike consent on an individual level, however, it is not always the case that a group seeking consensus needs everyone to be enthusiastic about the given action, and “standing aside” on a decision is common and respectable behavior.