Just makes me think that you either, take that name serious, and this is nothing but satire. And I would applaud you for that, you trolled a lot of people, it seems. - Or, you just make shit up as you go go about it. Which really doesn't make for interesting entertainment. And I'd have to find somewhere else to laugh. :(
"lack of rulers = decentralization"
Anarchy has nothing to do with lack of "rulers". It's about lack of centralized governance.
A voluntarily appointed ruler would not necessarily contradict with Anarchist ideals.
Whatever, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Lulz, did you just use wiki, as if where the truth, without bothering to check the source? xD
Sure, you can voluntarily elect a ruler for yourself. You can also sell yourself as a slave, if that's what you want.
^ But you cannot, subjugate another person to the same, without their concent.
But sure, tell me all about what I know and don't know. That'll make your incoherrent blabber seem more intelligent. >.<
A voluntarily appointed ruler would definitely contradict anarchist ideals, as anarchy and all related anarchos based words means no rulers. You are confusing anarchy with Voluntaryism, and even Voluntaryism would cease to be voluntary the first time a law was made or enforced that was not universally accepted by all of the ruled.
Genius. I invited you to read this article which I believe is a nice collation of sources. Since you have no clue what you're talking about. Bro, If you just want my attention we can have a heart-to-heart on steemit.chat, I'm open and patient and caring.
You seem to have no idea what governance and what centralization means, and perhaps it's a language issue.
I would invite you to check a dictionary.
Try to think and see if you can come up with a way for centralization to exist without a state.
Dude, as I wrote on the other thread (Which I can only asume from this comment here, that you didn't bother to read, even after making me go here instead.)
Anarchy, is derived from Greek. - 2 words to be exact;
"An", Which means "without". And "Archon", which means "rulers".
The lack of rulers, equals decentralization. Since, a ruler, is a central power hub.
Guess I've wasted enough time on this comedy. Thanks for trying to be funny, but I guess I have a different sense of humor. <.<
I think it's worth defining certain premises before I begin. So that there's no confusion resulting from unclear definitions.
Your own random definitions, sure.
Just makes me think that you either, take that name serious, and this is nothing but satire. And I would applaud you for that, you trolled a lot of people, it seems. - Or, you just make shit up as you go go about it. Which really doesn't make for interesting entertainment. And I'd have to find somewhere else to laugh. :(
"lack of rulers = decentralization"
Anarchy has nothing to do with lack of "rulers". It's about lack of centralized governance.
A voluntarily appointed ruler would not necessarily contradict with Anarchist ideals.
Whatever, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Lulz, did you just use wiki, as if where the truth, without bothering to check the source? xD
^ But you cannot, subjugate another person to the same, without their concent.
But sure, tell me all about what I know and don't know. That'll make your incoherrent blabber seem more intelligent. >.<
A voluntarily appointed ruler would definitely contradict anarchist ideals, as anarchy and all related anarchos based words means no rulers. You are confusing anarchy with Voluntaryism, and even Voluntaryism would cease to be voluntary the first time a law was made or enforced that was not universally accepted by all of the ruled.
Genius. I invited you to read this article which I believe is a nice collation of sources. Since you have no clue what you're talking about. Bro, If you just want my attention we can have a heart-to-heart on steemit.chat, I'm open and patient and caring.
Well, it was interesting bru. I'll give you that.
You seem to have no idea what governance and what centralization means, and perhaps it's a language issue.
I would invite you to check a dictionary.
Try to think and see if you can come up with a way for centralization to exist without a state.
Anarchy, is the lack of centralization. So I don't really understand your point.?
No. That's not at all what Anarchy means, in the pure sense.
Dude, as I wrote on the other thread (Which I can only asume from this comment here, that you didn't bother to read, even after making me go here instead.)
"An", Which means "without". And "Archon", which means "rulers".
The lack of rulers, equals decentralization. Since, a ruler, is a central power hub.
Guess I've wasted enough time on this comedy. Thanks for trying to be funny, but I guess I have a different sense of humor. <.<