Does that include all the totalitarian governments? The great majority of statists advocate some kind of democracy and not totalitarianism.
Expecting debate over the internet to be civil is like expecting bankers to lend prudently when neither they nor anyone else have any interest in ensuring the soundness of the loan’s collateral. Debate over the internet is off the cuff and largely anonymous. As such it is usually at once more honest, more hostile, and much more shallow. And that’s as it should be I’d say. If neither side can call each other idiots in at least some venue, the hostility merely manifests itself in polite debates some way or another and throws them off track. Not to mention, every minority philosophy needs an In Your Face wing at least at first to get some attention.
I think this should read:
yes. i am drunk on power.
Clearly.
newsflash; Giles Stratton agrees with me
[<:o)]
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
They themselves advocate violence - being intellectually wrong is no excuse, and that’s assuming that they really believe what you say they believe.
But I talking about the self-described miniarchists who can’t claim ignorance.
Or perhaps your ‘argument’ is that if one believes that crime is OK, for whatever nonsensical reason, then crime is actually OK ?
Do you not realize that most anarchists (which includes you) also advocate violence? Do you not realize that the “defense agencies” that we all discuss would sometimes kill people?
Okay, replace ‘violence’ with aggression. People who want government are willing to aggress against peaceful people who don’t want to be governed. People who advocate aggression are morally bankrupt. Happy now ?
Juan, did you spring forward from your mother’s womb as a libertarian? Have you never stolen or committed an act of violence? Did you never pretend to be a soldier? Did you stop paying taxes? Have you never voted?
?