Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, if we can never realistically expect to ever reach a state of Anarchy, what are we left with?

Government.

What do we do about that?

FUCKING KILL MOTHERFUCKERS WHO TAKE MORE CONTROL THAN WE PERMIT!!!!

Until you convince me that Anarchy can happen, I know the only choice I have is violence against the government we have until it obeys and behaves.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang. When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen

There's misunderstanding about what government is, and the anarchist position, in this objection. If you're really interested in understanding the position (even if only to better refute it), and why it's deemed a moral and logical necessity by its proponents, take the time to listen to the book linked below. I personally believe this book is required reading for anyone who wishes to discuss government with any lucidity. I've also provided a short clip that highlights a missing component in your assertion that gangs will become a new government:

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Ok, so you and I come into the world, we meet in the woods, and here’s what happens:

Anarchist: I will not impose anything upon you.
Libertarian: I will impose something upon you.

Right off the bat, who has the burden of proof to justify their position?

Now, you say your focus is on what will provide you with the most liberty. So we start off like this:

Anarchist: 0% infringement on liberty.
Libertarian: 10% infringement on liberty
(for argument’s sake)

Out of the gate, you’re down 10%. So now you’ve got to demonstrate how anarchy will exceed the 10% infringement in order to justify your position. Considering we both value liberty, and you’re jumping out from behind a tree and imposing upon on a complete stranger who is presumably innocent, I’d say you need to do so with a high degree of certainty.

But it’s nearly impossible for you to do this because you’re wholly in the realm of speculation. It’s all about what you fear will happen if you don’t dominate your fellow man, at least a little. The craziest part is the cognitive dissonance, because you understand the principles at play:

Anarchist: “Do you support gun laws?”

Libertarian: “No way! You don’t have a right to deny someone a gun just because you’re afraid of what they’ll do with it.”

Anarchist: “Do you you support government?”

Libertarian: “Absolutely. We have to deny people certain liberties, or God knows what they would do with it!”

So instead of laying the responsibility at the feet of the innocent victims, prove beyond a reasonable doubt how you’re anything but another aggressor with a slightly shorter stick.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We live with too many people who are dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever hope that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

 

[Oddball]

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang. When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen

There's misunderstanding about what government is, and the anarchist position, in this objection. If you're really interested in understanding the position (even if only to better refute it), and why it's deemed a moral and logical necessity by its proponents, take the time to listen to the book linked below. I personally believe this book is required reading for anyone who wishes to discuss government with any lucidity. I've also provided a short clip that highlights a missing component in your assertion that gangs will become a new government:

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Ok, so you and I come into the world, we meet in the woods, and here’s what happens:

Anarchist: I will not impose anything upon you.
Libertarian: I will impose something upon you.

Right off the bat, who has the burden of proof to justify their position?

Now, you say your focus is on what will provide you with the most liberty. So we start off like this:

Anarchist: 0% infringement on liberty.
Libertarian: 10% infringement on liberty
(for argument’s sake)

Out of the gate, you’re down 10%. So now you’ve got to demonstrate how anarchy will exceed the 10% infringement in order to justify your position. Considering we both value liberty, and you’re jumping out from behind a tree and imposing upon on a complete stranger who is presumably innocent, I’d say you need to do so with a high degree of certainty.

But it’s nearly impossible for you to do this because you’re wholly in the realm of speculation. It’s all about what you fear will happen if you don’t dominate your fellow man, at least a little. The craziest part is the cognitive dissonance, because you understand the principles at play:

Anarchist: “Do you support gun laws?”

Libertarian: “No way! You don’t have a right to deny someone a gun just because you’re afraid of what they’ll do with it.”

Anarchist: “Do you you support government?”

Libertarian: “Absolutely. We have to deny people certain liberties, or God knows what they would do with it!”

So instead of laying the responsibility at the feet of the innocent victims, prove beyond a reasonable doubt how you’re anything but another aggressor with a slightly shorter stick.

Next election, the Libertarian loses to the hard core progressive, because shit happens.

New Progressive Despot: "You fucked up, you trusted that I give a fuck about a piece of paper"

 

[Oddball]

We live with too many people who dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever how that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

I agree, but you seem to imply that I have a choice.

I surely would greatly enjoy the attempt to throw off government. The intolerant dumb fucks would be my first target.

 

[Oddball]

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

I agree, but you seem to imply that I have a choice.

I surely would greatly enjoy the attempt to throw off government. The intolerant dumb fucks would be my first target.

We all have choices....There are some whose choice would be to give said dumb fucks the old Augusto Pinochet one-way helicopter ride....But even though I find the idea and the jokes that stem from it amusing, in a sinister sort of way, there's still that old initiation of aggression thing.

As for my personal action, I'm pretty much a prepper...I'm convinced that the current system is so irreparably rigged and unsustainable, that the only real recourse is to have a plan for personal preservation and protection in place....The "anarchy" that will result form the inevitable collapse won't be pretty...The general stupidity of most won't allow them to look upon The State as the cause of it...And even if they do, they're still dumbed down enough to believe that the very people and systems which caused the demise can be jimmied and "reformed" to fix it.

Pretty fucked up times we live in.

 

[Tehon]

A Utopian pipe dream if ever there was one. There is no way you are going to convince the ruling class to freely relinquish their power.

Have you never studied Marx? You think much the same, though his thoughts do not seem as Utopian.

"Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to."

Good quote. What makes the idea seem utopian is a misunderstanding of the nature of power and authority. Those who you say will not relinquish their power actually have no such power to relinquish. Our struggle is against an idea, a religion, a faith-based (and fear-based) belief.

A people who recognize the fallacious nature of authority will not blindly do another’s will, as all law enforcers and military personnel do. Without these enforcers, the power of the ruling class evaporates; peacefully and naturally.

A deception holds the whole thing in place, and it is not utopian to think a deception can be overcome on a societal scale. Mankind has left many such misunderstandings behind. The society is a body of individuals, so if an individual can be made to see more clearly, so can a nation, or a world.

"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." - Murray Rothbard

No, for me what makes the idea seem utopian is the belief that you can create a cooperative society while maintaining a competitive economic structure. Power doesn't derive from government it derives from controlling resources. You can take government away and people will still compete for the control of resources and whoever controls them holds power over the rest.

Ah, I see. You raise an excellent point.

I agree with you that capitalism is not the height of human potential, but that is a bridge to cross after we relieve ourselves of the belief in authority. The reason being that the level of consciousness required to overcome capitalism is beyond that which is required to overcome external authority. Any attempt to tackle it out of order will result in more tyranny and injustice, as it did in every governmental attempt at communism. It’s like building the roof before the house - it all comes crashing down.

To believe that anarchy would make capitalism worse (and I don’t know that you do) implies that government makes it better, which is simply not true. Cronyism is rampant, and there is no debating that big business leverages the power of government to its own advantage. In the absence of this tool, businesses will be more directly accountable to the consumer, and less capable of controlling resources and edging out competition.

That being said, I believe the continued expansion into higher states of consciousness will see capitalism left behind in favor of a gift economy of some kind. Competition is a by-product of scarcity, and scarcity is inversely related to technological advancement. In fact, if not for government controlling markets, we’d be a good deal further along right now, never mind after a couple of hundred years of freedom.

I don't see you being able to alter the consciousness of people who understand that the basic principle of government is the protection of their freedom.

Man as a natural being has one overarching objective that must be met for his survival. He must acquire the material means for his existence. Out of that concern arises all the other aspects of society, including government. The production and distribution of the material means of our existence (the economy) is one that is predicated on private property. Man puts his faith in government with the express intent of protecting his private property, which in a capitalist society is freedom. Freedom from having to protect what is his from those who would take it in the absence of a legal system that includes policing. You can't convince people to revert back to a state of nature where they will be in a position to violently defend what they believe is rightfully theirs and that others need in order to maintain their own existence and are willing to take violently.

 

[Tehon]

Now put it back in the context of which it was intended. We were discussing the power of the ruling class, which the government represents.

There's really no ruling class without the concentrated power of aggression, which is The State.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be the rise, and inevitable fall, of certain cliques here and there. Even so, they'd have no centralized power to buy and enforce their cartels, so their reigns and ranges would be rather limited.

You're suggesting that without the state, in a competitive economic system that creates winners and losers, the winners would be powerless to consolidate their winnings.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Norman]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I made a mistake, I should have voted for other libertarian.

The libertarian party is a colossal failure. The problem is that "winning" is not even in their list of objectives. That right there tells us that they have distanced themselves from reality in favor of ideology.

 

[kaz]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

 

[kaz]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

We anarchists reject your notion that The State is inevitable.

And you don't have any content behind that, you won't address questions and you will get all hurt and pouty and consider it a personal insult to disagree with you.

You're just like a Marxist. It will work because you said so. There's nothing more than that.

kaz: So oddball, can you give me an idea how this or that would work?

Oddball: OMG, that's fucking ad hominem! I'm not addressing ad hominem!

kaz: Do you even know how for example recognition of property rights, law enforcement or criminal courts would work without government?

Oddball: Of course not, am I clairvoyant???

 

[kaz]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Oddball: prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Typical leftist

We already have been conquered by warlords, fool.

View attachment 190365

No shit, fool. I keep saying the US government is illegitimate. I realize you've been gone a while. But you're the one telling me I think what I don't. I thought you were just whining about strawmen even though I didn't actually tell you what you think?

You are the simpleton that Marxists are. Everything is complete black and white. That I consider the US government illegitimate does not make it the Nazi government or Somalia. There are degrees of evil.

You have no content, no ideas, no proposals, no alternatives and you won't actually discuss it. I gave you two scenarios because both represent key concepts of the government I don't know how to get rid of.

You acted like you broke a nail, valley girl

 

[kaz]

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

You know what? No. You don’t get to justify an inherently invalid and immoral system of coercive violence until someone on a message board satisfies your concerns about how to deal with life’s problems.

This ain’t a goddam sales call. I’ll talk with you all day long about these issues, but only after you understand and accept that full acknowledgement of man’s natural freedom is not optional, and not a moment before.

Saying you have no idea but government is evil is not an answer. Until you want to discuss specifics, I'll banter with you, but until anarchists are willing to do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

I say I want property rights to be respected. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I say I want my family protected from criminals. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I pick government in those. Fine, then I pick evil. At least I have a live family and clear property rights. You and oddball can live in the trees and pick flies off each other's coats

 

[kaz]

Ok, so you and I come into the world, we meet in the woods, and here’s what happens:

Anarchist: I will not impose anything upon you.
Libertarian: I will impose something upon you

What am I going to impose on you? All you said in the rest of it was "government." That isn't an answer since I only support government with specific powers which I have clearly defined

 

[kaz]

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang. When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen

There's misunderstanding about what government is, and the anarchist position, in this objection. If you're really interested in understanding the position (even if only to better refute it), and why it's deemed a moral and logical necessity by its proponents, take the time to listen to the book linked below. I personally believe this book is required reading for anyone who wishes to discuss government with any lucidity. I've also provided a short clip that highlights a missing component in your assertion that gangs will become a new government:

I've never heard an anarchist who can present anarchy with any more sense than a socialist presents Marxism. I've given my view that government should be restricted:

What is a small government libertarian?

It's not an all or nothing proposition. If you can convince me that I'm wrong and non-government solutions can work in the real world for any subject I still support government then I'll flip. But anarchists always tell me to read books and none of them convince me.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty. Which to me means that I want government to stop getting smaller when that would reduce my liberty, not expand it.

You need to make more of an argument as to why it's worth my time considering all I've read and was completely unconvincing about anarchy to get me to read another this or watch another that

Ok, so you and I come into the world, we meet in the woods, and here’s what happens:

Anarchist: I will not impose anything upon you.
Libertarian: I will impose something upon you.

Right off the bat, who has the burden of proof to justify their position?

Now, you say your focus is on what will provide you with the most liberty. So we start off like this:

Anarchist: 0% infringement on liberty.
Libertarian: 10% infringement on liberty
(for argument’s sake)

Out of the gate, you’re down 10%. So now you’ve got to demonstrate how anarchy will exceed the 10% infringement in order to justify your position. Considering we both value liberty, and you’re jumping out from behind a tree and imposing upon on a complete stranger who is presumably innocent, I’d say you need to do so with a high degree of certainty.

But it’s nearly impossible for you to do this because you’re wholly in the realm of speculation. It’s all about what you fear will happen if you don’t dominate your fellow man, at least a little. The craziest part is the cognitive dissonance, because you understand the principles at play:

Anarchist: “Do you support gun laws?”

Libertarian: “No way! You don’t have a right to deny someone a gun just because you’re afraid of what they’ll do with it.”

Anarchist: “Do you you support government?”

Libertarian: “Absolutely. We have to deny people certain liberties, or God knows what they would do with it!”

So instead of laying the responsibility at the feet of the innocent victims, prove beyond a reasonable doubt how you’re anything but another aggressor with a slightly shorter stick.

Next election, the Libertarian loses to the hard core progressive, because shit happens.

New Progressive Despot: "You fucked up, you trusted that I give a fuck about a piece of paper"

More vague, contentless hand waiving.

I'm a libertarian because I believe in minimizing government to maximize liberty.

That you want a system that won't have roads, won't protect you from criminals, won't give you a way to sue for anyone who screws you, doesn't give you property protection doesn't maximize your liberty or mine.

You're just an ideological extremist more interested in declaring your holy sanctimony than discussing any issue at all and how we practically can solve them without government.

I gave you a specific list and you passed on every one of them that you don't have an answer other than that you aren't clairvoyant

 

[kaz]

Anarchist: 0% infringement on liberty.
Libertarian: 10% infringement on liberty

Do you know the difference between positive and negative rights?

 

[bripat9643]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

 

[bripat9643]

We live with too many people who dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever how that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

And those intolerant dumb fucks have a vote for politicians, who can force you to live the way they would have you....Why would any sane person want anything to do with a system that allows such a thing to happen?

Have you noticed how hostile these so-called libertarians get when you point out that their belief that government can be trusted to do the right thing is totally absurd?

 

[kaz]

No, you're arguing to remove government and have us be conquered by warlords and their armies of former Democrats who want to be dependent.

Which is government.

The discussion goes around and around and the logical result is government.



Me: it would be cool if this ball would float in the air.

A: toss it up.

Me: I did, but it fell back to the ground. Wish it would stay up there. Can’t get rid of gravity.

A: have you ever tried?

Me: I just did. Didn’t work. I guess we will just have to live with gravity. Can’t get rid of it. Always pull me back to the ground.

A: Gravity pulls you down every single time, but you keep going back to to it like a battered wife.

Me: Well tell me how to get rid of gravity. I can’t do it. What do I do? I am stuck with it. I guess I will just have to deal with it.

A: how can you keep giving in and accepting gravity when you haven't tried anything else?

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this or that and it'll explain it all.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

And again, I even have a clear list of what I don't know to solve without government.

Police, military, criminal and civil courts, roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources (e.g., water). To me, that should be 90% plus of government. I don't know how to solve those without government, and no anarchist has given me a whiff of an answer other than to read some book, Rothbard whatever, that doesn't know either.

We don't live in the old west and not all people want freedom as anarchists always seem to assume