Comment: Why do Anarchists insist on arguing?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I agree that very few people (see in situ)

Why do Anarchists insist on arguing?

Still, you may well be correct such a world will never come to be. The same problems of unfamiliarity and liklihood for success can be said for Paulian minarchy. So are you willing to give up the fight? If not, then why should we who would take the last step in reducing state power?

The 'Paulian' minarchy, as you have dubbed it, is on the road to the entirely voulteeristic society you advocate (which I agree would be an Eden)-- It is a goal that is attainable within our lifetime, It does not require as radical a shift in thinking, and it still leaves us quite capable of defending ourselves against exterior aggressors which, as you acknowledged in an earlier post are more than capable of ruining anarchistic societies.

It provides us with the opportunity to phase out social programs, curtail our military operations and pay off our debts. Once we've done that we can debate the feasibility of Anarchy and 100% volunteerism, doing so before hand is a waste of time as as you stated earlier we don't have a clear way of getting there anyway.

In short lets all work towards minarchy, you guys go figure out how to get to a 100% volunteeristic society without massive social upheaval and then we'll debate how (and where) we should go.