Now you confirm in your own words that anarchy as you see it doesn't in fact differ very much from what state actually is all about. If we clear away the verbal husks of what you say here, we necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority in any possible way... How's that different from what state does?
An undisputed right of exit. No anarchist, whether in a commune or walking the earth, would claim you as his property. No government, ever, has failed to do so.
Right? Are you kidding?
I hoped you would read and understand what I had written about the doublespeak you are using again here. But, it seems, to no avail. Why should I ever search for an exit if I am in my own right? So, minority under your rule would just have to walk away somewhere. Is this what you mean by an undisputed right of exit? And you have the right to emigrate, so government doesn't claim you as its property, either publicly or implicitly (I'm not speaking about slave states here for evident reasons). Your point is void...
No.
You don't. They will tax you for TEN YEARS if you renounce your citizenship. Here in the US, that is. Yes, some other countries actually allow their subjects to permanently leave.
But I was referring to right of exit from the organizations. If I declare that I am no longer a subject of the United States of America, then I will be ignored for the most part, taxed as if I were, and then jailed if I refuse. On my own land. Even if I am self sufficient. If I object in more than words, I will be shot and killed by the "police" (thugs is a better word, but I don't want to be that insulting. To thugs.) If I want to have no part of some ridiculous, dangerous boondoggle that my rulers have decided upon, I have no choice. If I want to have weapons, I have to seek their permission. If I want to run a business, I need their license. If I want to drive, I need their license. If I want to BREATHE, I likely commit a crime in their "codified law".
There is no doublespeak here. I do not hold two contradictory beliefs without question. I question everything, and after many MANY years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that government in it's current and historical form is untenable if we are to have a long term future.
Anarchy specifically means "without a king". Society will always be organized. Anarchists are seeking to change it to a more bottom up societal model, rather than top down. WE never said their would be no rules, we said no RULERS. Your side is the one who keeps claiming that we need rulers.
I am saying you are wrong, and I say that all of society EXCEPT government and the few stray criminals they don't suborn disprove you. People do not run amok simply because there's no cop in sight. It's just like the other religious arguments. If you are gonna run amok because there isn't a cop, or no god, or no king, then you are going to run amok when there is too.
And as to MY argument being circular, bullshit. I never once tried to claim that government was any different than any other organized mafia except in their perceived legitimacy. They act by the same means for the same ends, and they always have. The only technical difference I see is that other organized criminals are amateurs by comparison. You don't get half the population defending the exploits of the Crips or the Bloods, but look at the Demopublicans and Republicrats!
