RE: A Little Something for the Delusional Sophists of Steemit: A Rebuttal to an Article Written by @kyriacos
I am an anarchist living in a state country much like all of you anarchists. I operate under my own rules based on free association. Yes anarchists, the internet can allow you to live freely in a anarchic-like state. No need to whine. If people want to have a state then let them have a state. I adhere mostly to anarchocapitaist values. I won't be violent against the State. You seem to be anarcho-communist. You see the "demon" of state chasing you. Too bad. You are dellusional.
This just seems like a wild strawman. I'm an anarchist, and I don't dispute that I'm generally free to associate with people as I want to. I doubt Sterlin or any other specific person did either.
It doesn't mean there's anything good about aggression wherever it does exist. I don't even see what point you're trying to make or why this is worth pointing out.
Nobody is whining, people are advocating a consistent moral outlook on the world. Which btw can translate to their personal relationships, how they treat others and whether they put themselves in situations that aren't egalitarian to themselves.
Ya they can have a state. They just can't force you to be a part of it if you don't choose to join.
And FWIW, where the state does have an impact will often have a compounding effect. Like public schools and prisons and war. So it isn't as simple as "look, I'm free 99% of the time", if the 1% of the time spirals into a whole host of new consequences that are no longer directly performed by the state.
Are you just throwing the word "strawman" in order to make a point? Do you even know what strawman is?
A state can be a voluntary place. People vote for it right? So what is your problem if they want to be abused?
There is no "consistency" in morals. morals are subjective. everyone is different.
you are talking bullshit regarding the rest. neo-anarchist mind in all its glory. propaganda over propaganda.
I haven't argued that one way or the other. Do you even read the posts or do you just have a bot that spits out random condescending sentences?
I don't know what "hold the state responsible for the ills of society" even means really, that isn't a sentence that just clearly means something without you explaining it more. So I couldn't possibly have an opinion.
I do think initiating violence against someone always makes things worse.
Ya I know what a strawman is. Presumably I was trying to make a point, ya. (my point though was just that you didn't have one, that you were barking at something nobody had claimed.)
I don't know what a neo-anarchist is, that one I would need explained.
if you can't digest that someone can be an anarchist and not hold the state responsible for the ills of society then i can't help you.
His whole argument is based on this premise. a neoanarchist thinks that an anarchist is a product of rebellion against the state.
do i seriously need to chew the obvious?