Comment: Bill, the original item of

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: seth is entirely correct (see in situ)

Bill, the original item of

Bill, the original item of discussion I chose to respond to was not about whether or not anarchism could work, I was disagreeing with Jan about anarchism having more violence.

The argument of statists is that if you give government the monopoly on violence, we will be safe from gangs, however in the process we just wind up with one large violent gang instead of a lot of little violent gangs. At least with a lot of little regional gangs you have a choice in moving from one place to another.

You said calling gangs and warlords government, doesn't answer Jan's arguments. How can I respond to Jan's arguments if the fundamental premise is wrong in the first place? Anarchism is a lack of government, and warlords/gangs are not a lack of government.

If you want to debate whether or not my white car is a nice shade of black, and I point out we can't debate that point because my car is not black to begin with, I am not skirting the point, creating a straw man, or dodging the issue. First you need to agree on a fundamental premise before you can argue about it.

If anarchism is a lack of government, are warlords either some crude form of government, or are warlords no form of government? If warlords are a form of government, then why persist in attributing warlords to anarchism?

Local warlords and consolidation of territories is the germination process that leads to a giant overreaching state. Don't blame people opposed to any form of government when it is minarchists that want to stick the seeds in the soil and believe they can keep it from becoming a might oak tree of oppression.