secondly, this higher entity would want to decide to distribute the fruit of my hard earned labor AT GUNPOINT

taxation is a fine example of that btw

Ok... are you an ancap?

I'm a minarchist

just like that TFM guy

Ok... so there would still be a state in your idea of how you would want society to run then?

You say that you think that taxation is theft. Which means that you hate taxation, and if you suggest that there should still be a state, yet no taxation, your idea won't even get off the ground, or you contradict yourself.

```
Minarchists advocate for a "night-watchman state" that is not responsible for the education, health care, employment or transportation of its citizens, neither makes it any use of natural resources in its territory. All of this is instead held privately or publicly, but is never susceptible to any interference of the state, its law or its representatives. Minarchy is, of course, different from anarchy, since the latter term means a complete absence of a government with all services, including even law and security, done or exercised by people themselves.
```

How is that even a state?

That just sounds like anarcho-capitalism lol

And yes, I read the wikipedia definition already and it was pitiful.

And back to the previous points that I've made, just because I mention Marxian analysis of capital, it doesn't follow that I am a communist. There are many anarchists that find Marx's arguments compelling without succumbing to thinking that a state is the best way to deal with these issues.

so you're an ancap?

No... I hate capitalism lol

I'm not an an-comm either lol

I don't like the state either lol

as far as I could read your wall of text (I've given up at a certain point), I read that you would want to have another 'non-governmental' entity to regulate
in which case I'll have to tell you that governments started out as 'non-governmental' regulatory entities

Keep reading

so you came up with the same defintion of what we have today, only without the term 'government'

no thanks, like I said I have shit to get done. give a quick rundown and I'll respond accordingly

Keep reading my response and let me know where exactly it is that you thought that I said that.

Do what thou will.

you bet

How can someone suggest that the state holding people at gunpoint in some circumstances is bad, yet in others is justified?

Are we picking and choosing arbitrarily which monopolies of violence that the state has are good and which are not?

>the state holding people at gunpoint is bad

>we should have a state for the sake of providing a military or police force which will hold people at gunpoint

People still need to make up their minds.

If we are simply just going to accept some evils as necessary, why try to change anything if any social system can be argued as having its own problems as being necessary in the first place?

It just makes no sense...

I would really value if this fucking bot would not delete my comments

The bot is annoying lmao

@Andrew The Meme King Fix the bot pls

alright so I'll post my answer to your wall of text ON FUCKING PASTEBIN, because of THE FUCKING BOTS

gotcha

@Seven Of Swords it's an ongoing issue I'm trying to fix it

@Andrew The Meme King Gotcha

pastebin.com/XwbGddXx

right there

> Are we picking and choosing arbitrarily which monopolies of violence that the state has are good and which are not?
not arbitrarily. there are necessities which you can't avoid. having a functional army is one of them. try to defend your government-less country from invading forces without a working army

and yes, for those, I'm willing to chip in some part of my income (actually I'm willing to do more, but that's another discussion)