Comment: I'd love to hear you try and defend Anarchism. I say you can't.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: oops! (see in situ)

I'd love to hear you try and defend Anarchism. I say you can't.

Sure Anarchists are collectivists. When it gets right down to it, they have to be, because what threatens their system will be another collective. There's no possible way to defend Anarchism without forming a collective.

I'd love to hear you try and defend Anarchism without forming a collective.

Ultimately Anarchists are simply two faced frauds who can't tell you what they are. They're either what I told you they are; worthless to liberty because they don't know what threatens their liberty, or they're frauds who can't tell you what they actually want to create.

I'm waiting. Tell me about how Anarchism is going to protect itself without forming a collective and using collective force.

Talk about divide and conquer? Imagine a land filled with wannabe sovereign rulers who can defend and rule nothing, least of all their own lives, property, or liberty.

The words you're looking for are: "Freedom, liberty, and their common defense." That would be collectivism though, and you don't support collectivism...