Comment: You completely ignored my point. As usual Anarchist.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Nonsense (see in situ)

You completely ignored my point. As usual Anarchist.

"Not believing in the necessity or desirability of a parasitic ruling class hardly makes one a nihilist!"

Being an Anarchist is what makes you a Nihilist, because that's what Anarchists are and the Anarchist agenda serves a nihilists destructive agenda, and they need to sell that destruction to people who they don't believe can defend objective truth.

"Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell, among other Christians, believe that God is the objective standard of truth."

Lew Rockwell: "It would be a great thing to break up the US."

I don't care what Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods think or say, because Lew Rockwell wants to destroy, to "break up" my Constitutional Republic, and Tom Woods says it's immoral to initiate force, but justice begins by initiating force against innocent people.

Am I never supposed to arrest Tom Woods and question him about his crimes unless I catch him in the act? Does he want to be free to do whatever he wants without facing justice? In my country, justice begins by initiating force against an innocent person.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

Tom Woods MUST be in the "Guilty until proven innocent" camp then?

"You are assuming that the state prevents coercion and violence when that is the very definition of the state and it is used against us daily."

No, I'm not. I'm not a pacifist. I'll happily use coercion and violence against people who take liberty. That's called serving justice, and you will to, but you want that sold off to the highest bidder in free market where whoever can buy the most violence decides what justice is. What you want is Goon squads and I'll happily meet them with force, collectivizing people, and meeting violence with violence to be free of your free market of violence.

But that's what you really want isn't it; chaos, and a clean slate for violence to reign, to destroy, and set the principle of self interest loose in a free market of coercion and violence.

"At least in the absence of a state that massive level of coercion and violence will not exist and the chances of surviving and throwing off bondage are much greater."

No, there will be a free market of coercion and violence and everybody will invest in what serves their self interest, their covetous nature. and they'll use your chaos to take what they unjustly want.

Look around at the world; who's winning elections and why? All you need to do is tempt these people with what they unjustly want, and what they want is plunder, slaves and dominion, so that's what your free market of coercion and violence will serve; mans covetous nature. You will create a free market of injustice sold to whoever buy the most violence.

"You think the state protects you from "chaos and violence" when that is what they do."

The state threatens to impose force on those suspected of breaking the law, of committing a crime, and that is coercion, but I don't think the government can protect me from all chaos and violence. But if it wasn't for the coercion created by government violence, you'd already be trying to buy goon squads to go out and use violence and coercion against people whom you have no association with nor their consent.

The government uses violence to enforce the law, and the laws are written by elected representatives. Nobody's given you the authority to go out in the world with goon squads, and should you try, justice will be served. Government force is not violence serving the whim of those who pay for it. It's violence serving the law, and the law is supposed to be debated and voted on by people morally capable of writing laws that serve justice; that defend liberty.

At least with open debate and representation we have a system to deal with criminals who try to write laws that take liberty. Everybody can see them for what they are. We have debate and elections, and the criminals ultimately lose the consent of the people. We're reaching that point where the law is no longer enforceable by morally upright men and women, but if we don't have enough of them left, nothing really matters anyway.

"Name calling=ad hominem."

Calling you a dick would be name calling. I'm describing what you are.

"How is an anarchist, with no money, no rich backers (unlike your state) going to destroy or force anything?"

Mob violence. The same way all governments get overthrown and replaced. You want chaos and to create a scene that people will accept as a revolution, and then you'll try to replace what gets destroyed with what you can't describe, another form of government. (Anarchists are mostly Communists BTW)

Anarchists are liars frauds; agents of change who want to use people to serve their agenda, but they can't be honest about what their agenda is, because most just want to destroy and trust in another Anarchist to explain what it is they want to create.

"Every day more and more people are waking up to the reality of the immorality of state worship."

I don't worship the state Anarchist, but a Godless man mistakes many things as worthy of worship, including themselves.

You're an insult to people of faith, and I can't think of ANY reason why I shouldn't see THAT as your only real intent, to be an insult to liberty, and those who defend it.