You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism
"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.