First he wants you to pick up his medication for him, then he wants you to cram the whole lot into his mouth and then bash the back of his head untill he swallows.

what exactly about my case am i supposed to be arguing?

a corporate Anarchy wouldnt be an anarchy, its contradictory. because the Corporations would be governments. you could go farther and state that parents are governments over their children so, for their to be anarchy their cant be families. that is why when i state what i think the State should be like, i wont use the word, Anarchy.

i stopped calling myself Anarchist a long time ago, probably over a year, because it just confuses people, once you eliminate the current state, you can start calling things not normally considered government, government, such as businesses or parents. So i simply refer to myself as libertarian and say im for a "government" whose only job is to protect our liberties, to the point where our liberties conflict with other citizen's liberties; whether this is done by democratic election (unlikely), some type of monarchy, or oligarchy, or a company, or whatever, i really dont care.

Fancsali: you are wrong, you just make generalisations... but since its not my thread and i don't actually care i won't back that up and will leave you alone... but you just got i-pwned.

In a broader sense, this thread sort of shows how incopetent flint actually is

I just got "i-pwned" because you said I'm wrong, Mr. Fool? Wow you're deep. You think this is an appropriate place for a more specific analysis? You're funny. And I'm 100% right.

>>the second someone takes power, they become a government and its no longer anarchy. an anarchist is someone who would want a state where no one has power over another.<<

That's the point: Someone's always eager to take power. Anarchy wouldn't last long annyway.

I'm a libertarian. No disagreement here.

Avogardo I do not know how to challenge you on this, since you now claim to be a libertarian

Perhaps someone else will try to fight against me claiming anarchy is good?

Still ignored for life

> Einstein wrote:

> Avogardo I do not know how to challenge you on this, since you now claim to be a libertarian

Perhaps someone else will try to fight against me claiming anarchy is good?

did you read what i wrote? i am an Anarchist, i just think the purest form of Anarchy is a libertarian state. because anyone who infringes on another person's right is a government; a government that's only job is to protect our liberties to the point they infringe on other people's liberties is the least amount of governing achievable.

> You_Fool wrote:

> The purest form of anarchy is where everything is run privately. At best a local society forms a board of directors (unpaid and on their own time) to lend direction to what services need purchasing from the private sector and directs people to fund these services as they wish.

a private company is a government, the local criminals are governments, famalies are governments; a libertarian state would be how there would be the least governing, so would be the purest form on anarchy. what makes a government a government is it governing, nothing else.

localization of power creates instability. and it makes sure people that arent common in one area has their rights protected when they are in that area even though the local government might biased against them.