UPDATE: So many flags, no counter arguments. Is this the level of "anarchy" we are dealing here in Steemit?
I was waiting for this kind of desperate response to my previous post.
I was also expecting the anarcho-groupies clumping together, cheerleading like statist minions. It seems that more anarchists need to read Max Stirner and Individual Anarchy. Newsflash neo-anarchists. Blaming the state is just the beginning.
Oh before I start. Let me get on the Sterlinluxan douche wagon
First things first. @Sterlinluxan calls me sophist. Sophism means to make a smart argument in order to deceive.
Apparently for our friend, saying that I am an anarchist while not holding the Government responsible for everything, is sophistry. The matter of fact is that he is the sophist by making this overgeneralised argument.
I am a polyatheist. I don't believe in many gods and still don't hold religion responsible for its crimes. Does that make me a hypocrite or an objective critical thinker?
I am also pro science. I don't believe though in many aspects of scientific inquiry. I may like the nuclear energy by I detest the atomic bomb. Does that make me a hypocrite or a rational human being mr anarcho-psychologist (seriously wtf)?
People that over-generalise like Sterlinluxan or the dollarvigilante do it because they have a specific mantra for their agenda. As a 'anarcho-psychologist' he should have told you that in order to lure people into your ideals you need a clear enemy. He picked "The Goverment". Teenagers from basements around the world unite!
Let's take some of his so called "rebuttals". You see, to actually make a rebuttal you need to actually refute. He hasn't refuted anything.
Compassionate Communication...My Intentions are Pure
Your intentions are self-serving . Using the word 'delusional sophist' has earned you a place on my shit list. Pictures of hearts and other psychological trickery used in your post won't cut it. You are a manipulator of the masses much like any politician. Your savoir-vivre language won't cut it either unless you are speaking to emotionally challenged teens.
Look, I am also using an inspiring picture! How calming! Please upvote my empathic positiveness!!!
However, he does say some things I agree with, and I believe we share many commonalities. I just think he missed the mark and conflated anarchism with communism at times.
You obviously don't understand neither anarchocapitalism nor anarchocommunism. Again. Read Max Stirner. There is absolutely no part where I make any reference to communist ideas. You are pulling things out of your ass using "nice" language. I would prefer if you were rude but honest instead. I prefer "real" people rather than your kind. Also stop using debate tactics like "appear to agree with your opponent on something, in order to keep appearances". Again. You are not in your safe facebook space anymore. Political correctness won't cut it.
At one point, he actually said: "I adhere to ideals of capitalism, anarchy and free-market economics myself." But if he adheres to capitalism, anarchy, and free-market economics, why did many of his complaints seem to contradict or undermine these ideas? The thrust of my rebuttal will continuously return to this glaring issue.
I like how you use "thrust" in order to use psychological connotation for putting your opponent underneath in a powerful and sexual manner. Again. As an honorable person in my shit-list, I will expose every single linguistic trickery you have been using in order to make that ridiculous name personal for yourself. One reason I speak in a rather vulgar way is because I detest the likes of your manipulative language.
As for your argument. I am against Diabetes. This doesn't mean I won't eat cake. See? Room temperacture I.Q has helped me get into this conclusion.
In the first section of the article, the author asks a common question and then refers to anarchists as having a "wet dream." He said:
What makes you think that if tomorrow the governments around the world ceased to exist something will change? Let’s say the dollar crashes, economies fail and all of your end-of-the world wet dreams come true.
I was referring to some anarchists. not all. moving on...
In addition, anarchists realize that belief in authority is the foundation of government. It is the myth that seduces politicians into harming others. This is why many anarchists suggest that things would be better without governments since they have been responsible for murdering billions of people.
You are doing the exact same shit with your followers. Most of them hit upvote just because they believe everything you say. Most haven't even read my previous post. Authority is the foundation of many things including government. Authority can also exist in anarchic communities. The problem is not the authority but being able to choose if you want to be under it.
Democide is the idea that governments have killed their own citizens by the droves. It is true. Public crimes have always vastly outweighed private crimes. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, we can expect some improvement to civilization in the absence of State control. Even if abolition of government did occur overnight.
This is one of the biggest straw-man I have ever seen. Just because public crimes have always outweighed private ones it doesn't make "the government" responsible. People kill for ideas, religions, honor, resources and so on and so forth. If abolition of government happened overnight nothing would change. Same goes about religion or anything else. These are vague ideas used from demagogues like yourself in order to gain sheeple followers. Too bad you came under my radar.
The author admitted to accepting anarchism, which by definition means "without a ruler." In this sense, should not the collapse of government also represent his "wet dream"? Or does he prefer the sustained existence of government? I am rightfully confused.
No sunshine. It wouldn't because people will still clamp together like flies on shit under leaders much like your facebook "anarchic" followers. Nothing really changes. It is about individualism vs collective mentality. Ingrain this into your "anarcho-psychologico-sophistry".
In the same section, the author mentions that anarchists have a desire to "redistribute wealth." This is inaccurate. Not all "anarchists" argue for equal redistribution of wealth. Generally, that idea is aligned with communism or anarchists who trumpet socialism.
I never said that. Here you are blatantly lying. Weird. You didn't use a direct quote this time. I wonder why. Is there any lower level you can drop in order to win an argument?
To summarize, not all whales are evil. And no self-respecting anarchist is anti-whale merely because whales are rich. The anarchist just realizes that any violence or social disparity that crops up as a result of wealth is a direct byproduct of government coercion and economic intervention.
Never said whales are evil. You just extrapolated that in order to make an argument out of nowhere. I just stated how things are
Government is always the epicenter of suffering and depredation, not money; I cannot emphasize this point enough.
Hasn't your mom taught you never to use the word "always" in social paradigms? How about religion? science? Why use such vague generalisations? Your sheeple like it?
In the next section, the author takes the stance that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will not save humanity. In a bold claim, he suggests this that cryptocurrencies and fiat are equally bad:
Never said this either. I said that cryptos are still on their early stage and that right now they are on the same level. Your quote mining skills are exceptional. You are truly a lowly sleazy individual.
Cryptocurrencies were purposely designed by anarchists as an attack on government and as a way to liberate mankind.
Unless you know who is the inventor of Bitcoin, you are speaking, again, our of your ass. all coins copied bitcoins code.
The Anarchist Who Loves Government,
Never said this. Again. lies
First he says that "the problem is not the government." I want to return the reader's attention to his earlier comments. He said he accepts anarchism. Generally, if someone accepts a philosophy that rejects rulers, they will not turn around later and claim that rulers are not the problem.
Just because I accept a philosophy that rejects rulers it doesn't mean I cannot be an anarchist. Not all anarchist became anarchist because they blame the state. Anarchism is simply more efficient than the state. Your deductive reasoning skills are primordial. Again. I can be an atheist without blaming religion for humanity's ills.
I went through his whole “rebuttal” 3 times. He is not making a single argument that is not either something he came up or a blatant lie. Now it makes sense how he amassed so much sheep-followers.
I don’t buy the “good intentions” from people that lie openly and use manipulation tricks in order to make a point. I don’t buy arguments from individuals or followers that claim to be anarchists but have not even read Max Stirner and instead whine all day about the “bad state”.
I came to Steemit in order to find truthful, original, freethinking individuals. So far most people are sheeple belong to celebrity following lists. How can anybody refute them without getting flagged? They monopolise knowledge. How is this any better than facebook? I hope this will change. Here is a picture with compassion. The magical "marketing" word that ties everything together.
