So, this is exactly what I what I predicted, no answer. It's as if I was asking "you don't want to kill baby's to bring about anarchy do you?". And then, instead of answer the question, getting the answer "well you should read this text about cats actually being dogs for a reality check."
I started reading the article you linked to but I couldn't finish reading it since it's just attacking a strawman of anarcho-capitalism. You're not giving me a reality check. Either you don't know what anarcho-capitalism is, in which case you should find out, try reading an anarcho-capitalist explain what it is. Or you know that you're misrepresenting it, in which case please stop spreading lies.
Most people believe that anarchy is lawlessness but that's simply not the truth.
Anarchy begins with the concept of Sovereignty. But Who or what is a sovereign?
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that each person is an Individual Sovereign Entity who can privately own everything he can personally control and no other Sovereign Entity has the Right to use force against him to take that which he controls.
Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive and that the "Group" as a whole is sovereign.
Statism in the United States is a combination of both, where the group is sovereign but people have rights regulating the use of force.
Of course this is all theory, nothing is absolute but I was wondering where we can find examples of either type of Anarchy in de facto operation and this is the result of my observations:
"Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive."
No, your group will not rule over me. How do you plan to force me into your collective? You won't use force of violence, ehh?
It's not okay for me to use force to prevent a thief from robbing me, but it is okay for your group to use force to rob me?
Who decides when I have too much? What is reasonable for my survival and the survival of my children? I build a fortress and stock it with supplies for my loved ones and friends. Then you decide I have too much, and come take it in a time of need?
That's why people like me have guns. If you want to take my property, the property I have obtained without any theft or wrong doing, I will kill you. My children's lives depend on my property. They will live through hard times, and the lazy people's children will not.
Unless of course they use violence to kill people like me and take what I have built, right?
I am NOT advocating anarcho communism, but there are those who do and yes they want all of our stuff, and they want us to give it up voluntarily. I'm just pointing out the basic intentions of the differences in these Anarchy groups and discussing my observations on how the us MIC operates outside of moral behavior.
So, this is exactly what I what I predicted, no answer. It's as if I was asking "you don't want to kill baby's to bring about anarchy do you?". And then, instead of answer the question, getting the answer "well you should read this text about cats actually being dogs for a reality check."
I started reading the article you linked to but I couldn't finish reading it since it's just attacking a strawman of anarcho-capitalism. You're not giving me a reality check. Either you don't know what anarcho-capitalism is, in which case you should find out, try reading an anarcho-capitalist explain what it is. Or you know that you're misrepresenting it, in which case please stop spreading lies.
Maybe you're spreading these falsehoods because you have crony believes. You can read about what that is here https://steemit.com/philosophy/@pomperipossa/why-people-believe-stupid-things
Thank you for commenting.
Most people believe that anarchy is lawlessness but that's simply not the truth.
Anarchy begins with the concept of Sovereignty. But Who or what is a sovereign?
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that each person is an Individual Sovereign Entity who can privately own everything he can personally control and no other Sovereign Entity has the Right to use force against him to take that which he controls.
Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive and that the "Group" as a whole is sovereign.
Statism in the United States is a combination of both, where the group is sovereign but people have rights regulating the use of force.
Of course this is all theory, nothing is absolute but I was wondering where we can find examples of either type of Anarchy in de facto operation and this is the result of my observations:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
This is the same reply you already made.
Yes, because you obviously didn't understand it the first time. If you continue to talk about strawmen.
"Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive."
No, your group will not rule over me. How do you plan to force me into your collective? You won't use force of violence, ehh?
It's not okay for me to use force to prevent a thief from robbing me, but it is okay for your group to use force to rob me?
Who decides when I have too much? What is reasonable for my survival and the survival of my children? I build a fortress and stock it with supplies for my loved ones and friends. Then you decide I have too much, and come take it in a time of need?
That's why people like me have guns. If you want to take my property, the property I have obtained without any theft or wrong doing, I will kill you. My children's lives depend on my property. They will live through hard times, and the lazy people's children will not.
Unless of course they use violence to kill people like me and take what I have built, right?
I am NOT advocating anarcho communism, but there are those who do and yes they want all of our stuff, and they want us to give it up voluntarily. I'm just pointing out the basic intentions of the differences in these Anarchy groups and discussing my observations on how the us MIC operates outside of moral behavior.
I won't give it up voluntarily. If someone tries to steal my lunch money, they are going to have to beat me to a pulp to get it.