Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
You meant to say none of which are exclusive from statism, and all of which are not inherent to anarchy.
No, actually that's pretty close to the opposite of what I said.
Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
Which is equally ridiculous. The point is that those are all issues that anarchy needs to address and generally fails to do. "There is no downside to anarchy" is a wildly radical and fringe position that not even its leading theorists would attempt to argue. You will need a great deal more than an empty non sequitur and handwaving to justify it.
Afaik no country implements anarchy, so your imagined grievances are just that, imagined.
Don't let this be another thread where you make wild claims without any logic, let alone evidence, to back them up. Your logic isn't even non-sequitur, it's non-existent.
How about trying to prove that statism prevents all of "Invasions. Weak or nonexistent social programs. Economic monopolization and exploitation. Child labor. Unsanitary food. Absence of coordinated emergency response. No public education." and that anarchism guarantees them.
Hint: you can't because it's provably false. But I'd like to see you try none the less.
Originally Posted by
Ele
Then actually research the topic and develop a bit of nuance about it. Do you really believe that anarchism is some magical, flawless political philosophy - that it has no downsides? No, of course not, that's just ridiculous. Since you recognise that, I think you should also recognise that it might be a good idea to research it a bit more before engaging in a debate about it.
Dat strawman.
What is particular mean hurr hurr I don't know so I'll just ignore it and claim other people are so dumb hurr hurr.
Originally Posted by
Ele
Did I say you have to agree with something to argue for it? No. I asked if there's anyone that agreed with it, because I'm interested in their opinion.
Ok mate, let's go with that :^)