# Spreading anarchism -- or voluntarism



## Soulutions (Jan 11, 2018)

Undoubtedly, if you've ever debated -- virtually or in person -- a statist, you'd be well aware of the rigid, stubborn, non-arguments their full of.

1:
Who will build the roads!

Answer = the same damn people. A society having a perceived "authority" has nothing to do with roads being built. Yes the "government" pays the contractors, but where does that money come from?? Individuals! In the form of taxes

2:
Haveing "government" is a necessity. Without it there would be constant bloodshed and chaos!

Answer = flip threw a damn history book. Nearly all of the most atrocious acts of humanity against humanity was played out not by people breaking the law, but by those obeying and Enforcing those laws. Individuals don't incite wars on the Continental ( world stage )scale. Governments do


this non-argument comes from the idea that humans are inherently evil, untrustworthy, and malicious. The statist solution is as follows -- we'll take a subset of those evil, untrustworthy, and malicious humans, and give them permission AND our resources to forcibly enforce their biased opinions on how society should be structured

3: 
I'm the absence of government, violent street gangs would rise to power, creating a brand new government!

Answer = no, no it wouldn't. ( triple negative, yeah I see that ) by definition a street gangs could never be considered government. The fundamental difference being the perceived "right to rule." Let's use a gang rape for example, seems appropriate. Even if 100% of the gang agrees that "yes it's been a long day and we're all going to have sex with you(rapee)" I'm absolutely positive that the rapee in 100% of these cases Never views their demands as legitimate. That's the difference between gangs and government, the perceptual legitimacy.

Just a few of their mental bootlicking talking points. There are many more though


----------



## Jerrell (Jan 13, 2018)

Don't worry about negatives. English is a Germanic language. A triple negative would technically correct the perceived problem a double negative supposedly causes? I forget, it's been a long time since I took a college English course, but I think the argument is two negatives equal a positive (math rule), so therefore a third negative would carry the initial negative.
Other than that, I like your post.


----------



## All Who Wander (Jan 14, 2018)

So what is the form of governance your supporting? Volunteeristic anarchy?


----------



## Soulutions (Jan 14, 2018)

Well, "government" is only an abstract is idea to begin with, and maybe not even a productive one at that. You can't point at anything in the lowest physical common denominator (across individual's reality) of persons and say "yep, that's government." So really, it's only a believe system, much like religion!

So if you'll take self-governance, I'll submit that for which "system" I advocate.

Yes, Interchangeable with anarchy and also voluntarism


----------

