>>11
>However you're arguing that nothing need be in place to prevent statism and theism.
Statism would be prevented because all the people in a stateless society at first would require some sort of idea of what it means to live in a stateless society. Theism is not a problem if the people are "liberal" in their religious beliefs and don't wish to impose those beliefs on others. In terms of defense, as i listed above at first a stateless society would need to keep a standing army from some sort of DRO/PMC/PMF to prevent invasion from a state.
>100% perfect education to your way of thinking
It doesnt take much to realize that the people ruling our current society dont have a legitimate claim over the things they claim they do.
In fact i think that NOT sending your kids to school or church helps them see this alot easier, because the only reason so many obey is because they get indoctrinated.
People wouldn't tolerate religious extremism BS and would get rid of it ASAP, remember these people are armed.
There would be DRO's to solve disputes and land would be defined as what the "intersubjective consensus" of people think property is. War is expensive and states are only able to wage it so easily is because they have a: Tax Base, Federal Reserve, ideological control over people, and can push those costs to the future generation.
>Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism.
Nice opinion there.
>The communists tried to (and are STILL trying to in China) create a society of 'perfectly educated' citizens who will 'allow a transition to a socialist society,' and predictably they failed because even attempting to educate anyone to any idea, even if it is purely and completely benign in all senses, would require a malignant and statist entity to deprive people of their freedom in the process of educating.
Only thing is that they arent educated and like i said before not much education is needed to realize what states are, in fact i bet some people could use "deeducation" even more.
>That doesn't make them right; wicked usually prevails in a world populated by wicked people, but I have yet to see a system proposed for either socialism or anti-statism that isn't completely lacking in reality.
Saying that it doesn't work in "the real world" is a retarded claim and only serves to avoid actually having to debate the topic itself. You aren't the only one living in "the real world" and just because you have an interpretation of what "real" is doesn't make it a fact.
"Appeal to “reality” which is common among stupid people. The first sign of a pseudo-intellectual is that they talk about being a “realist” and “living in the real world”. When arguing about stuff, you’re arguing about the real world, Everyone is trying to model the real world effectively."