@kyriacos - I did try to read both your posts, but they are both tied to what seem to be tortured logical fallacies. Neither were that well written to be frank, but this one is full of ad hominem attacks, ambiguity, and tu quoque.

To begin, why this obsession with Stirner? You seem to imply those that haven't read his work are some how not really anarchists, and as such you're indulging in a no true Scotsmen.

Secondly, although I agree there is personal responsibility for the individual for all actions they take in society, government subsumes this by claiming authority to make those decisions for us. As such, claiming people are sheeple for pointing out the state isn't legitimate is a strawman argument & ad hominem simultaneously. Also, claiming that non-government based solutions like Bitcoin to represent money instead of the Fiat we have today does nothing to impact the state because the state will adopt it is circular reasoning.

Thirdly, in comments you mention the state & religion as existing. I'd like some clarity - do you mean physically, or that they exist virtually only? If your contention is that they have a physical existence, you have to prove that they have mass in of themselves. You cannot claim that they are the people, because people can not be logically both individuals & the government/religion at the same time.

People do not have the authority of the state as individuals, and only the job roles of the state contain such authority currently. Job roles, like the concepts of religion and government, are virtual and have no mass in of themselves. So... Please explain how the state or religion exist beyond the realm of ideas.

To be honest, this is my biggest bone of contention with you, although it explains why you are so aggressively attacking anarchists who blame the state for what it does to imbalance society. It isn't the fact the state is made up of people that is the problem. It's the fact the concept of the state, the idea of it, is logically and ethically invalid. Claiming "people just need to stop being sheep" is the same as saying anarchy is unworkable because of the inherent nature of man. It's claiming anarchy cannot work at its root.

Claiming having groups prevents anarchy presumes anarchy can have no voluntary hierarchies either. Explain how you can prevent group associations without a state.

Fourthly, you say "just because I accept a philosophy that rejects rulers doesn't mean I cannot be anarchist", which is a true statement. However, it is a complete non sequitur to Sterlin's rebuttal. He said it is not typical for an anarchist to claim rulers are not the problem. For someone who claims to reject rulers, you do seem to be defending them from their biggest detractors.

Finally, last I checked "flagging" is the steem.it method for down voting a post, usually for offensive material. To some anarchists like myself, ad hominem and illogical thought is not something to promote, to others it's down right offensive. So am I surprised followers of Sterlin flagged this as offensive? No, particularly given the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks you have used to promote your position.