Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zkLY8xTQ OP wrote

What do you mean concerns are no reason to fight?

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

The existence of any state is a threat

This is correct. My initial question though wasn’t if you’d respect the state, it was if you’d respect the decision of the individual to rather be part of it than not [and if you’d tolerate the state as in not trying to deconstruct it].

My bad if this didn’t come across clearly enough, “respect” was bad wording in my initial question.

But, according to the answers in this thread, there can’t be a single person in our 8 billion people who actually likes being part of a state.

I like your answer, because it’s pointing out the painful truth that anarchy is often displayed as something it is not, or isn’t even a topic discussed.

But again I can’t wrap my head around how you’re telling me theres not a single person who willfully is part of a state while also knowing the alternatives. And in fact there doesn’t have to be one. My question was based upon a assumption anyways.

Also I don’t dislike your opinion at all, it’s just the explanation and reasoning that seems off to me.

It may seem odd to you, but /u/stagn s answer is one of the more appealing ones in here, because, as of now, to me it seems to not be based on anything. And imo a opinion needs no foundation to be highly respectable. It’s when the reasoning is questionable that it’s validity starts to fade.

1

kano wrote (edited )

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

This response doesn't make sense given that we've established the state is a threat.

This is correct. My initial question though wasn’t if you’d respect the state, it was if you’d respect the decision of the individual to rather be part of it than not [and if you’d tolerate the state as in not trying to deconstruct it].

Already answered this point in my first response, the assumption here is invalid.

But again I can’t wrap my head around how you’re telling me theres not a single person who willfully is part of a state while also knowing the alternatives. And in fact there doesn’t have to be one. My question was based upon a assumption anyways.

I was more like explaining a bit why I feel authoritarians world views are common. And the phrasing here made me think of like fascists or conservatives or liberals or any other person who really actively believes a statist ideology or tries to carry out statist projects. Don't think I need to explain why an anarchist has a problem with them.

And I know the question is based on 2 assumptions actually both of which are bad.

The 2 assumptions are that 1) being under a state is a choice and that 2) the state wouldn't bother me because I happened to not currently live on it's territory. I think when the questions based on a faulty assumption, the main answer is to point out the underlying assumption is faulty.

But, according to the answers in this thread, there can’t be a single person in our 8 billion people who actually likes being part of a state.

No one said this, I think we just said being part of the state isn't a choice. See what I said about the facsists and shit above, and it's worth noting that hierarchy is also not good for people who 'like' it, or who are at the top of it for that matter.

I liked /u/stagn's answer too. I just thought I would try to explain a bit since you posted in /f/anarchy101 but I feel I'm not getting through

I second /u/fool's sugggestion that you read The art of not being governed if you are interested in getting some perspective here.

5