[ArchonAlarion]

I put alot of links to videos I've found. they explain my position better than I could in text. I hope you watch them.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why not? If they claim the legitimate use of force.

Yes if they started aggressing against people, than they'd be acting as states.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So are you an anarcho-capitalist? Do you think the invisible hand will solve all our problems? What do you think existed before government? We WERE anarcho-capitalist and it lead inevitably to dictatorship, autocracy, theocracy, etc. In a loosely associate group of traders all it takes is for one person to decide that they want to take over and they will. The loose group of traders won't band together in a large enough group to defend their collective freedom.

Wrong. Before states we lived in ape communities where an alpha male whacked around anyone he didn't like. What you mean is that before we had large centralized states we lived in tribal societies (primitive collectivism), which do not resemble anarchy.

Apes aren't anarchists. When we evolved into homosapiens we carried rulership with us and it evolved into the state.

I'm usually not a proponent of organizations created by non-sapient creatures, thanks.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure, whatever. But you can only acquire and apply power with a conglomeration of policies. Just try to find an example of a political system that didn't have a conglomeration of policies. So what would you call the Katamari-ball of rules that politics produces/is produced by?

You can acquire power by putting a gun to someone's head.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The real world is too messy for something as ordered as the state of nature to exist. The chaos is too perfect. That is the only reason it never actually existed. For example, experimental economics has a lot of evidence to support the idea that people regularly give a portion of their income away as charity in one way or another. Things like that confuse the issue, which is why the state of nature is a logical construct. Have you actually read Hobbes, or read someone describing Hobbe's philosohy?

No I've never read Hobbes, and the first time I learned of him was through a critiquing of his views. I haven't felt the need to read Leviathan or anything because anarchists continue to answer my questions and provide counterpoints to statists. I might read up on him now though to understand his arguments better.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't people usually say that power corrupts? Wouldn't that mean that power comes first? You are being very vague with your terms. You are using words like corrupt and power, which both have several definitions and contexts, but you haven't defined what you mean by them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Power does corrupt. Nevertheless, you can have little power and still crave and strive for the absolute. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and absolute corruption is drawn to absolute power.

Power is the ability to affect change. I was using it more as in "sovereign/political power." The power to allocate force.

I was using corruption vaguely. I meant the desire to meet ends using others as means, without any care for how they are used or affected. Basically nihilistic oppurtunism.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that the system you want to put in place will be inherently unstable. The freemarket leads inevitably to destructive monopolies. Without a sovereign to break up the monopoly everyone is worse off. Competition is good. The END of competition is bad. A monopoly ends competition.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So the state isn't a monopoly? So businesses don't lobby the state for advantages over competitors? Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not in my world. Again, a right is anything which you are not forbidden to do by someone/something more powerful than yourself. The government doesn't forbid us 'peaceably to assemble' so it is a right. In America the government as a whole is more powerful than the people, so it dictates rights. However, each of the branches of government, by itself, is less powerful than the people, so the people dictate some rights. The government can do a lot of things, but it cannot elect its own leaders. Keep in mind that a government is not some inhuman automoton, it is just a collection of people doing some things. When you talk about rights you must do so in context. Rights are not an idea that exists independant of the power to inhibit action.

I am of the opinion that our elections are just shows and our politicians are merely puppets. Through public education (state education) and the media (bought out by the forces behind the scenes) most people have been rendered docile and sheepish. They may go through the motions of electing their masters, but in reality they have already been chosen.

Yes the state is just a group of humans. Humans who somehow have the right to steal, murder, and enslave, whilst their subjects are forbidden to. And no they have not ever had the consent of the governed.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Human teams require certain ground rules to even exist. For example, no one can murder anyone within the group, because if that was okay the group would never form. Additionally, no one is supposed to lie to anyone in the group, because then they could lie about not murdering and the group would never form. That is why every society has basic prohibitions on things like murder and lying.

"No one can take another's rightful property within our group. To pay for this policy, we must now collect taxes."
-asshole

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The simplest way to look at this is that people will not join a group if being a member of that group makes them more likely to die than if they lived in isolation. So, in a sense, you are correct.

Unless they have been brainwashed since birth.

You see, the people in power want more power. However, they can't just apply tyrannical measures on an educated populace overnight. So, they bring about tyranny slowly, bit by bit, all the while trying to stamp out the intellectual.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are clouding the discussin with your emotional evaluation of politics.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The reason democracy is the best system of government ever invented is that there is a balance of power. Why do you think we are constantly arguing about the balance? The standard of living in the US is a result of the collective power of everyone in the US. If we were all individuals, with no overarching control scheme, we would be much less powerful. United we stand, divided we fall (for example). This means that everyone and everything has to compromise with every other person and thing. We compromise with the government and the government compromises with us. You can't honestly try to tell me that the US government doesn't compromise with its citizens.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Uh, yeah, the US covered that one. In fact, the supreme court just upheld the right of citizens to own functional fire arms.

Yes, and I'm glad.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	from the american heritage dictionary, slavery means: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household Please explain how US citizens are slaves of their government. We are free to leave at any time. We are not bought or sold. We can even become President, which would make us the "master", which is a strange way to deal with your slaves.

As the US wasn't an actual contract, it is maintained through force. Why should I have to leave? I've already given you an example of why.

If it wasn't consentual to begin with than how is it not a form of slavery? Granted its not full on slavery, but a large part of our time, money, and liberties are controlled by the state.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It gets repeated because, once someone has expressed a piece of wisdom elequently, there is no need to rephrase it.

Or because people don't want to be bothered to stand up to me intellectually, so they offer cliches and bromides.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, yeah, of course EVERYONE else is wrong, right? But if the south had seceded they would have remained a slave owning country. Would you support the idea that they should be able to secede over the fact that they would continue slavery? Which is worse? I say that slavery is, but that's just me.

Yeah I know! I'm not an advocate of slavery! Some anarchists may seem to support the south, but really they only support secession. I think it confuses the issue, so personally I do not even mention it.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, you do. If you had your way you would dissolve all political institutions and create anarcho-capitalism. That would be against my will, which means you want to force your will on me. Trying to persuade someone to never be aggressive is a recipie for extinction. Nature will not give us a free pass just because we all decided to sit in a circle and sing love songs. Neither, for that matter, will the people who didn't listen to you and are still being aggressive.

Yes. I'd be forcing my will on you because you want to force your will on me and others. Thats called self-defense. You would be the aggressor.

You are the one advocating force. I'd be defending against it. Your philosophy requires me to submit to others will. My philosphy is freedom from that. Get it?

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As Dogbert said: I am all for world peace. If the world was peaceful I could conquer the whole thing with just a butter knife.

This is what I mean. Stop trying to make anarchists into pacifist hippies. WE ARE NOT. States try to render people defenseless, not anarchists!

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not going to happen. There will be no stability and, to get stability, people will allow themselves to be subjugated by a sovereign power, which will begin the cycle of politics all over again. Why do you think the mob is successful? Because, yes the mob taxes its citizens, but it also defends its citizens agains the many other groups which wish to taxe them. Therefore resulting in only one taxe. Additionally, the mob occasionally uses its taxe revenue to help out the citizens it has dominion over.

Sound like a good system to me.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Because I'm sure the mob, which gets its money no matter what, has plenty of incentive to play nice, be fair, and provide quality services.

"The fund is limited, and only steals some of your property. It pays its goons to fight the Bad Fund across the river, which would take even more of your property. Of course, you couldn't just hire your own bodyguards voluntarily, at a price you agree on. Why not? Well, they can't be trusted - but the Fund can!"

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, it's like they never do any work at all. Come on, the police are not responsible for preventing crime, only for investigating it, for a very good reason. If the police were paid to prevent crime they would simply become the personal bodyguards of the rich and powerful. They can't prevent all crime, so they will focus their efforts on preventing the crimes that affect their bosses. This would be a bad idea. Instead the police are responsible for investigating crimes. This means that there is no way for their powerful bosses to make a greater demand on their time than any other citizen. Of course even this balance can be abused, but it is harder to abuse than if the police were responsible for preventing crime.

Thats what I was saying. Defense is already handled personally.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So if personal defense is okay why not collective defense?

I'm not against collective defense. I'm against the monopoly of collective defense by the state.

[Antisocialite]

	Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The right to do whatever I'd like so long as it does not infringe the rights of someone else.

That about sums it up.

[blueback]

I actually watched all of those videos. . .

. . .and I read all of your comments. . .

. . .and I still haven't seen a prescription.

You, and your sources, have been very descriptive. You've all spent a lot of time laying out exactly why you don't like what is, but I have yet to see anyone lay out what should be.

I'm tired of explaining how I think things should work. Why don't you explain how you think things should work. Be sure to explain how you are going to account for self-interest and natural selection.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well see, thats a good point you bring up.

Many anarchists have a very good reason for not explaining aspects of an anarchic society:

The very nature of human exchanges is so intricately complex, that no individual, or group of individuals, can aptly predict its future in any detail. This is why command economies fail. A coerced centralized plan will never fully (or even remotely) satisfy all human demands. This goes back to the whole "invisible hand" theory. Individuals passively benefit society as a whole simply from their selfishly motivated (in a productive sense) actions.

Do you know what devices human beings will communicate long distance by in 50 years? 100? 500?

Think of the utter complexities that go into something as "simple" as building a house: Shipping supplies from another country. Building the boats to ship the supplies. Drilling the gas to fuel the boats. Building the boats. Going to school to learn naval architecture. Building the facilities for learning naval architecture. The list goes on and on and on.

The same goes to any aspect of society and a freemarket, but the principle remains the same. Supply and demand.

So when people badger us with, "Well how would the police work, how would courts work, how would the poor be helped, how would roads work, how would making sure food was safe to eat work, how would I tie my shoes, etc." we get a bit perturbed. Its unfair. NO ONE KNOWS how all that stuff will be done in any detail. No one can, its far to complex. Anarchists might propose a seemingly great idea for arbitration, but there might be an even better idea out there. We can't know.

We generally see these questions as delay tactics, because eventually the opponent will come up with something we can't answer right away and they'll just say, "See it doesn't work because of upper management training in bubblegum factories, hah. I win."

That being said, there are plenty of anarchists theories for how things might be done. A great site with hundreds of podcasts on the subject (very inspiring and humorous too) is FreeDomainRadio.com, operated by Stefan Molyneux. In his second podcast he begins by outlining a possible defense/arbitration system. Other anarchists may feel differently, but in the end they are all just theories and the invisible hand picks the best.

I suggest the book The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.
and also Stefan Molyneux's books which are available on his website as free PDF files.

Here are some links to youtubers who I have found quite helpful. Some you may find more helpful than others. If I get a webcam someday I'll be making videos like there's no tomorrow. Search around. Something might catch your eye. I wasn't always an anarchist, but something changed my mind, maybe it'll change yours.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


*Aren't self interest and natural selection integral mechanisms of market competition? I've never had someone accuse me of not advocating these things, usually its the opposite.

[blueback]

If you don't have a reason why you think it will work then you should just say so. If you've only gotten as far as "I don't like the way things work now" you should be asking for help. You haven't reached a conclusion yet; you need to figure out what to replace the current system with first.

I don't remember asking you about any technological acheivements 100 years out or about the global logistics of building a house or even about the better arbitration tactic that you haven't thought of yet.

What I said was "Why don't you explain how you think things should work."

That's a pretty open-ended, non-specific question. . .and you still managed to not answer it in the slightest.

Also, at the moment I don't care about what your sources have to say, I asked you why YOU THINK anarcho-capitalism is a good idea. You have apparently reached a conclusion, which means you must have based that conclusion on some sort of evidence or logic, I would like to konw what that support was.

The simple fact that you completely avoided any attempt to answer my question indicates that you already know you don't have an answer. Maybe you do and you were just taking the opportunity to vent, but I suspect not. My major is in Systems Engineering Management because I'm a good systems thinker and I've spent time refining my natural ability. I can usually see deeper into the current systems than other people, like you, and can explain why they are structured the way they are.

When I try to look into the little I've been able to find on anarchism all I see is a tangled mess. I think that anarchists are starting from a poor position. They start with the idea that no one should ever use force against anyone else. . .ever. The problem with that idea is that one of the fundamental axioms of understanding systems is that if you maximize the performance of any one sub-system or element of a system you depress the overall performance of the system. So, in normal-speak, if you try to make one thing perfect you cannot build a structurally-sound system. So, you know, that's why I don't think it won't work logically.

I don't think it will work emperically because I've never seen an example of a successful anarchist "group," I've never seen an example of a successfully non-aggressive group, and I've never seen anyone who is taken seriously also take anarchism seriously.

[ArchonAlarion]

First of all, I didn't want to take this thread any more off topic than it is.

Secondly, I DID answer you. Just like technological improvements, the infrastructure and services which a free market will generate are impossible to predict with any amount of detail. There might be a myriad of different ways things could work with my answer being only one.

Thirdly, the free market is the passive state of things; what happens regularly. I'd say the burden of proof rests on statists.

Fourthly, what exactly do you want me to describe? Arbitration? Criminal investigations? Collective defense? Infrastructure? Product safety? I could try, but my ignorance in fields such as these limts my understanding beyond the principles on which they work, namely supply and demand. I gave you sources because their proposals will be better articulated and understood. Do I have to have a business degree to be an anarchist? Specialists in these fields will figure out the details. All I can do is broadly theorize.

Lastly, anarchists are against "aggressive force" such as murder, theft, rape, fraud (its a kind of theft), slavery. We are certainly for defensive force against these things. To support aggressive force is to support the violation of other people's property (including their person) without their consent. Do you support that Blueback? If someone was just minding their own business, only doing shit with their property and participating with others consentually, do think its okay to go and violate them or their property?

I do have my ideas on how an anarchic society would look. Just like someone might have an idea how technology will look in 50 years. My predictions may be wrong or faulty, but that doesn't reflect on the mechanisms of the free-market. I am not going to answer that question for the above reasons. Before I shoot my mouth off, I'd rather have a better understanding of business organization and micro-economics. This does not negate my position as an anarchist however.

[PortInStorm]

Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-The right to live -The right to security and safety -The right to property -The right to speak my mind. There seems to be a taboo on wearing atheistic shirts or criticizing religion. I want that right too. -The right to privacy -The right to be respected and not talked down to -The right to abortion. Yes, I said it. -The right to disregard your feelings. I don't have to be ladylike even if that violates anyone's values; I don't have to love you, mom, no matter how much that hurts you. -The right to be with whomever I choose. Yes, that's pro-gay, you conservatives. -The right to individuality. No, you can't make me an obedient little sheep.

I know this is for another thread, but 'right to live' and 'right to abortion' seem mutually exclusive.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First of all, I didn't want to take this thread any more off topic than it is.

Too late.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There might be a myriad of different ways things could work with my answer being only one...All I can do is broadly theorize...I do have my ideas on how an anarchic society would look.

Then that is what I'm asking for.

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Secondly, I DID answer you. Just like technological improvements, the infrastructure and services which a free market will generate are impossible to predict with any amount of detail...what exactly do you want me to describe? Arbitration? Criminal investigations? Collective defense? Infrastructure? Product safety? I could try, but my ignorance in fields such as these limts my understanding beyond the principles on which they work...My predictions may be wrong or faulty

That's not an answer, that's a reason why you can't answer me in great detail. I didn't ask for great detail, in fact I specifically asked for a detail-less answer.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd say the burden of proof rests on statists.

What burden of proof? States already exist and some of them are working quite well by objective standards. Your personal subjective standards are another issue. Well, to be fair I suppose I should say anarchists' personal subjective standards, of which you are one.

I've already answered several of your complaints about how the American state currently works. It works the way it does because it depends on everything else in the system. You have yet to explain how changing things to fit the mold you envision will form a functional system.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I gave you sources because their proposals will be better articulated and understood.

I'm not going to look at more of your sources until you promise me that they actually describe the proposed anarchist system, rather than just complain about the current system.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do I have to have a business degree to be an anarchist? Specialists in these fields will figure out the details.

Why would you try to convince me you are right when you have no idea why you're right? I don't think business is going to be everyone's problem in an anarchist system. I think defense will be everyone's problem. Until a new state forms to defend them.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lastly, anarchists are against "aggressive force" such as murder, theft, rape, fraud (its a kind of theft), slavery.

Murder is unlawful killing. To have laws you must have at least three systems, one to introduce the laws, one to interpret the laws, and one to enforce the laws. How are you going to do those things if no one is in charge? How will anyone get everyone else to agree to the laws? How will anyone get everyone else to agree to their interpretation of the laws? How will anyone get everyone else to accept their enforcement of the laws?

Theft is taking someone else's private property. To have private property you have to have something private, which means you must have something public to compare it to. How are you going to enforce the rules of private property if no one is in charge? How are you going to interpret the rules of private property when there is a dispute? How are you going to introduce changes to the rules of private property?

Rape is the most extreme form of sexual assault. How are you going to investigate the rape? How are you going to punish the raper? How are you going to interpret the various levels of sexual assault? Are you going to allow mitigating circumstances?

Fraud is basically lying. How are you going to get people to tell the truth? How are you going to decide whether or not someone lied? How will you punish a liar?

Slavery is when someone owns someone else. How will you enforce a prohibition on slavery? How will you punish a slave owner?

In a more general sense: How can you logically say that no one can tell anyone else what to do when you want to tell people not to do certain things? How will you enforce certain ground rules without a central agency to introduce, interpret, and enforce the rules? How will you deal with a person who secedes from your sphere of control? Will you force them to abide by your rules simply because they are your neighbors? Will you allow them to do as they please even though it violates the rules you feel people should act in accordance with?

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We are certainly for defensive force against these things.

Sure. You are for your own ability to do as you please. But what if you are being aggressed against by a force more powerful than you can deal with individually? Will you band together with other anarchists for mutual defense? If so, how will you decide who is in charge? Will you be willing to give up anything to gain the benefit of a stronger defense? Will you maintain the defense even when you are not being actively aggressed against? Will you come to the defense of someone else who is being aggressed against? Will you come to the defense of someone who cannot compensate you for your expense and risk?

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To support aggressive force is to support the violation of other people's property (including their person) without their consent. Do you support that Blueback?

oooooh. . .good one. I didn't see that coming.

You have yet to define a system in which it is possible to violate anyone's property. Property is a right enforced by the state to maintain stability; if you don't have a state to enforce the rule that property is inviolate then you don't have any property. This includes your own body.

Additionally, all the things you have described are usually bad, but they are not inherently bad. Self-preservation is the standard for good, so things are only good or bad as they aid or degrade self-preservation. That is why it is okay for the state to initiate aggression, but not for private citizens. Aggression is not inherently bad or good, but only gains that quality as it relates to self-preservation.

If a state needs to initiate aggression against a group of people planning a coup, then it can do so and be right, despite the fact that the members of the coup have not aggressed against anyone. If a state needs to aggress against a person planning to murder their neighbor, then it can do so and be right, despite the fact that no private aggression has yet taken place. In the same way a state can initiate aggression against another state if it is threatened or actively aggressed against. That is one of the primary functions of a state, to use the act of aggression properly, for the self-preservation of the citizens of the state. That is why democracies are better states than dictatorships. The slow decision making process encourages the state to be more deliberate in its application of power.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If someone was just minding their own business, only doing shit with their property and participating with others consentually, do think its okay to go and violate them or their property?

Depends on how it affects my self-preservation. If "their own business" involves planting a bomb in a school gymnasium then sure. It wouldn't matter that they had aqcuired the pieces of the bomb without aggression, they are threatening my self-preservation and all of my neighbors. Of course I'd try to get the state to do it if at all possible, since that is what it is there for. Walking into a bomb-making-den isn't high on my list of activities that aid self-preservation.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...the mechanisms of the free-market.

The free market is a description of what happens when people trade things. It is not a prescription for what happens when people disagree.

	Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This does not negate my position as an anarchist however.

No, it doesn't. Even all my arguments describing why your logic is flawed negate anarchy, but not your adherence to the concept. You can chose to label yourself anything you want and nothing can "negate" that.

Of course. . .it would help me respect your position if you could defend it.

[ArchonAlarion]

Blueback, come back here when you've actually researched anarchism. You are making many assumptions which anarchists have addressed ad nauseum. If I wanted to talk about market anarchism here in any detail I'd make a thread. I've heard your arguments all my life, so I'm pretty sick of addressing them myself, which is why I gave you good sources. For now I'm done with this discussion. If I get a webcam I will make plenty of videos on my position.

Of course here comes the "You forfeit, I win" deal, but it won't phase me one bit so you might as well save your time.

[blueback]

You forfeit, I win