Since you're obviously so hellbent on pointing out the other person's logical fallacies, allow me to point out yours. Keep in mind that I'm not doing anything else, just pointing out your hypocrisy. [quote]Robbery is when someone uses force or its threatened use to take property from another person. Using force or its threatened use is coercion. Robbery is coercion. Coercion is not necessary for human life or fulfillment. Robber is coercion. Robbery is not necessary for human life or fulfillment. Taxation is when someone uses force or its threatened use to take property from another person. Robbery is when someone uses force or its threatened use to take property form another person. Taxation is robbery. Robbery is not necessary for human life or fulfillment. Taxation is robbery. Taxation is not necessary for human life or fulfillment.[/quote] [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause]False cause. [/url] [quote]If you're going to employ sophistry, it's probably better to vent it all off sooner rather than later. That said, this is extremely telling. You're [i]knowingly[/i] relying on fallacious reasoning? There's no foundation to your arguments.[/quote] [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy]The fallacy fallacy.[/url] [quote]As I've explained, these things don't require coercion to exist. Saying that the state's existence is justified because of its services (i.e. it's own existence) is just circular reasoning.[/quote] [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy]Even more.[/url] I'm sure there are more, but I just don't feel like looking for them. Have a good day.

Then by definition rent is also theft. Pricing of any kind is theft. No, your logic doesn't work. No, society needs a government to survive. Self-governing on a mass-scale is impossible. No there are, but I don't care about debate etiquette, because this is an internet gaming forum. I have to explain this to you repeatedly. You're not being robbed. No, coercion to a point must exist. Your Utopian view of the world is as irrational and unnatural as socialism.

[quote]Then by definition rent is also theft. Pricing of any kind is theft. No, your logic doesn't work.[/quote] Incorrect. Rent is a voluntary transaction. You live on another person's property and you compensate them. The state is different. Taxes are not rent. I can move out of an apartment with my property and self-ownership still intact. If I do not pay taxes, the state will brutalize me and my property. A comparison between the state and a landlord is a dangerous one to make, since you're listing both a landlord and an official as the owner of a piece of property. The state does not own or rightfully control my property. [quote]No, society needs a government to survive. Self-governing on a mass-scale is impossible.[/quote] I see a hefty claim, yet zero reasoning to back it up. The vast majority of human interactions are done voluntarily. I posit that all of them can and should be done voluntarily, and reason (see the syllogisms above) backs that up. [quote]No there are, but I don't care about debate etiquette, because this is an internet gaming forum. I have to explain this to you repeatedly.[/quote] Etiquette is not relevant to reasoning. Etiquette isn't required for somebody to take an argument seriously. Sound reasoning is. [quote]You're not being robbed.[/quote] Another claim, but still zero reasoning. [quote]No, coercion to a point must exist. Your Utopian view of the world is as irrational and unnatural as socialism.[/quote] My ideas are the opposite of Utopian. The whole point of a utopia is to use the state to reach a post-scarcity world. Any brand of statism, your piecemeal socialism included, is closer to a Utopian ideology than Voluntarism ever could be.

Taxation is also voluntary. If you don't want to pay taxes, go live on the streets. I see zero reason to see how self-governing is possible when it has never been successful. Then by your definition I have strong arguments. I use strong reasoning, combined with an insult here and there because it's the internet. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it false. You also have no reasoning. You're living in society using public services, getting benefits from the government and so on. Taxation is as voluntary as rent because you can easily just live in the woods or on the streets. Homeless people don't pay taxes. No, by definition you're a Utopian. You propose a system that is unmanageable; a society where freedom and choice is literally unlimited. No, that's not how the world works. There must always be some form of "force" in life because that's how our minds work. We need rules, we need control to an extent.

[quote]Taxation is also voluntary. If you don't want to pay taxes, go live on the streets.[/quote] We've been over this before, and this point is wrong. The fact that a choice exists does not make an action voluntary. If a man holds a gun to you and says to hand over your wallet or get shot, you don't technically have to give him your wallet. You could always get shot. A choice exists, but you aren't acting voluntarily. Force is being used to give you those two options. Similar to taxation, you could not pay taxes, but then the state will end up taking your property anyways. There's a choice, but force is used to ensure a certain outcome. [quote]I see zero reason to see how self-governing is possible when it has never been successful.[/quote] You'll have to define "self-governing," since that isn't a term that accurately describes the anarchist position. [quote]Then by your definition I have strong arguments. I use strong reasoning, combined with an insult here and there because it's the internet. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it false.[/quote] No. You use [i]admittedly fallacious[/i] reasoning. You said it yourself - the [i]cum hoc[/i] fallacy is your crutch. [quote]You also have no reasoning. You're living in society using public services, getting benefits from the government and so on. Taxation is as voluntary as rent because you can easily just live in the woods or on the streets. Homeless people don't pay taxes.[/quote] I have no reasoning? Have you even read the rebuttals? That's demonstrably false. I've addressed the "living in society" point already. The circular logic doesn't hold up. "The state offers services by stealing other people's wealth. The theft is justified because the state offers services in return." I don't get to rob somebody just because I give them something that they may or may not have a demand for. I've also addressed the "love it leave it" point. Force is being used to limit my actions. That isn't voluntarism. [quote]No, by definition you're a Utopian.[/quote] Utopian - modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect Utopia - a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions No. By definition, I am not a Utopian. [quote]You propose a system that is unmanageable; a society where freedom and choice is literally unlimited.[/quote] Not necessarily. A free society is a society free from coercion. There's not an AnCap alive that believes a stateless society will ever be entirely free from coercion, but that coercion won't be legitimized by a state. This is what makes Anarcho-Capitalism non-utopian. There is no grand strategy to eradicate poverty and eliminate crime. The largest government programs aimed at accomplishing these things have, in fact, lead to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century alone. The statist position is a utopian one - it seeks to make a heaven on earth through coercion. The anarchist position is not utopian. Resources are scarce, and voluntary means are the best way to distribute them. There can be no heaven on earth, especially with coercion. Secondly, you make an accusation but I don't see a problem with it. Unlimited freedom? Is that a problem? [quote]There must always be some form of "force" in life because that's how our minds work. We need rules, we need control to an extent.[/quote] Another claim, but still no reasoning or evidence. If [i]you[/i] think that you can't survive without rules, then by all means subject yourself to some rules. You have [i]no right[/i] to force me into the equation. You can pay taxes all you'd like, and you can leech from the state all you'd like. Allow me to be free from taxation, and I won't use your beloved social programs.

No there is no force in giving up your societal life and living off the grid. You have a choice. It describes itself; a policy where there is no organized governmental organization and people govern themselves. I have no crutch. I don't have to use it, but I do because I don't see a reason to actually go by the traitional etiquette. No it is demonstrably true. You can live in society and pay taxes, or you can leave, live off nature, or be homeless. You have choices; many of which don't involve getting shot. Your worldview to you is perfect; a society where there's no such thing as force. You are by definition a Utopian. It would never work. It would simply lead to massive income-inequality, corruption and would be selfish by definition, as would all free-market systems without social welfare. "Unlimited freedom" just doesn't exist. There always needs to be some aspect of force because it's a part of human nature. Humans have lived in societal conditions for millennium, with laws and regulations. This is the natural order of things. You don't get to selfishly absolve yourself of your societal duties.

[quote]No there is no force in giving up your societal life and living off the grid. You have a choice.[/quote] Again, a choice is not indicative of voluntary action. Second, the fact that "living off the grid" is the only alternative in your eyes just proves my point. The state won't allow me to carry on living. Either I fork up the dough or I get out. They'll escort me out if they have to, and that's the coercion I'm referring to. [quote]It describes itself; a policy where there is no organized governmental organization and people govern themselves.[/quote] It's merely the absence of a state. A state is coercive, and coercion is not needed for fulfillment or happiness. If you want to be coerced, go right ahead. You don't get to force me into the deal. [quote]No it is demonstrably true. You can live in society and pay taxes, or you can leave, live off nature, or be homeless. You have choices; many of which don't involve getting shot.[/quote] Repeating your point over and over isn't going to make it a valid rebuttal. A choice is not indicative of voluntarism. Refer to my first point. Either I pay up or the state hauls me into a cell. That's not voluntary action. [quote]Your worldview to you is perfect; a society where there's no such thing as force. You are by definition a Utopian.[/quote] If that's what you gather from my arguments, then you haven't read carefully enough. Apparently you completely ignored this point: [i]A free society is a society free from coercion. [b]There's not an AnCap alive that believes a stateless society will ever be entirely free from coercion[/b], but that coercion won't be legitimized by a state.[/i] Nobody is saying that force won't exist. Hell, we're actually hoping that force [i]will[/i] exist. We're hoping that force won't be [i]initiated[/i] and used to coerce other people. Self-defense is force, but it isn't coercive. Refer back to the definitions of utopia and utopian. Neither can possibly include a stateless society. [quote]It would never work. It would simply lead to massive income-inequality, corruption and would be selfish by definition, as would all free-market systems without social welfare.[/quote] Hefty claim, yet zero reasoning. First of all, income-inequality is just an emotionally-charged term meant to rile up class resentment. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Somebody doesn't become poorer when another person becomes richer - not unless coercion was used. Is income equality your goal? How does that differentiate you from a Marxist or Leninist? Secondly, corruption has no breeding ground without a state. A government official can be corrupt because the government is just a monopoly on the initiation of force. If the cops are corrupt, who can hold a light to them? Nobody. Lastly, "selfishness" should not be mistaken for acting in one's own self-interest. People are motivated by many things, and a free society lets them follow those motivations insofar as they don't impede on the lives, liberty, or property of others. [quote]"Unlimited freedom" just doesn't exist.[/quote] Because of people like you who want to solve the world's problems one gunshot at a time, utopian. [quote]There always needs to be some aspect of force because it's a part of human nature. Humans have lived in societal conditions for millennium, with laws and regulations. This is the natural order of things.[/quote] "This is the way we've done things" is not adequate reasoning. The fact of the matter is that coercion is used in only a tiny fraction of our exchanges. The vast majority of our exchanges and interactions are voluntary ones, and these exchanges do the most good. Nobody is saying that force or enforcement shouldn't exist. On the contrary, those things are necessities. The difference is that I don't believe one can rightly initiate violence against someone else. Force needs to exist because self-defense needs to exist. [quote]You don't get to selfishly absolve yourself of your societal duties.[/quote] So which is it? Can I live free from the state or do I have some sort of obligation to other people? In any case, you're willing to use violence to make sure that I work for other people. Explain to me in detail how slavery is morally impermissible. Apparently you're willing to give slavery a pass if it's widespread enough.

Actually in this case it does. You have multipe choices and are free to choose. The state can and will because that's how society works. Society has rules. You repeating your point over and over doesn't make it valid. You have the freedom to choose here: pay your taxes or live off the grid. It's voluntary by definition. Actually it is. Certain practices or ideas are incompatible with human nature. There is no slavery. You have free will. Live in society or don't.

[quote]Actually in this case it does. You have multipe choices and are free to choose.[/quote] That doesn't rebut the point. You're just restating your point again. The existence of choice doesn't mean that you're acting voluntarily. I can either pay taxes or be forced to leave. That fundamentally identical to a mugging, where I can hand over my wallet or get shot. In both cases, a choice exists. In neither situation am I acting voluntarily. Force is being used to limit my options to what other people want. [quote]The state can and will because that's how society works. Society has rules.[/quote] That isn't an argument; it's just circular reasoning again. "Society gets to inflict its will upon you because that's the rule that society made up." [quote]You repeating your point over and over doesn't make it valid. You have the freedom to choose here: pay your taxes or live off the grid. It's voluntary by definition.[/quote] [i]Refer to my first point once more.[/i] The fact that those are my only choices proves my point. I'm free to pay up or get the hell out - that's coercive. [quote]Actually it is. Certain practices or ideas are incompatible with human nature.[/quote] That's a nebulous claim to even begin with, and you didn't even back it up. [quote]There is no slavery. You have free will. Live in society or don't.[/quote] Slaves can have free will. The difference is that slaves don't get to employ their faculties in pursuit of their own interests. Slaves are coerced into using their time and labor for the interests of others. I'll ask again. [i]Can you explain exactly what makes slavery morally impermissible?[/i]

No, because no one is being shot. Whether you admit it or not, this is a voluntary action. Society needs rules and some level of control. You don't want that, so you're free to leave. It's that simple. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Society needs rules. There are things we must do, and things we must not do. Our brains are wired towards that way of thinking. There needs to be a leader, there needs to be followers. This is why ideas like self-governance are unmanageable and Utopian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_leadership_theory No, by definition slaves don't have free will. Either they follow orders or they'll be killed. That is radically different from taxation.

[quote]No, because no one is being shot. Whether you admit it or not, this is a voluntary action.[/quote] This doesn't hold up. "Being shot" isn't the only form of coercion. Force and the threat of force is being used to control me and limit my options. Robbery is coercion even if nobody is shot because the threat of force is used to limit options. Once more, the existence of a choice does not mean that the actions are voluntary. [quote]Society needs rules and some level of control. You don't want that, so you're free to leave. It's that simple.[/quote] That's still coercion. The threat of force is draped over the "love it or leave it" mantra. Either I play ball with the state or they'll roll out the guns and initiate force against both my body and my property. It's fundamentally identical to robbery. The threat of force is being used to limit my options. [quote]I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Society needs rules.[/quote] Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be any enforcement of rules. The problem we have is when an institution initiates force against others. You don't need coercion to have security. [quote]Our brains are wired towards that way of thinking. There needs to be a leader, there needs to be followers.[/quote] Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be leaders. It's the idea of a ruler that we have problems with. [quote]This is why ideas like self-governance are unmanageable and Utopian.[/quote] Refer to my last point. Voluntarily following somebody isn't a problem. Hell, I don't even have a problem if you want to live in a statist society. However, you don't get to say that I have to be plundered by the same institution just because you don't feel like living free. I've also shown how the idea of a Utopia cannot be compared to an anarchist society. A Utopia must have a state. [quote]No, by definition slaves don't have free will. Either they follow orders or they'll be killed. That is radically different from taxation.[/quote] Either I pay taxes or somebody visits violence upon me. Doesn't seem so radically different.

There is no force here if you simply walk up and leave to live on the streets or in the woods. By definition that isn't coercion. You're free to bow out and leave. You do need coercion to have security. There are consequences for people's actions. If you want to live in society yet not pay taxes, you will be coerced into paying them and that's the way it should be. The United States don't have a "ruler." They have a leader. The same is with nearly all democratic countries. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism You keep stating that I am a statist and we live in a statist society, even though that's false by definition. The U.S. is a capitalist society. I believe in a relatively free-market as well, albeit with some sort of a social welfare state. I don't believe in collective or centralization of the means of production. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/utopia No, a utopia is a place where "everything is perfect," which is subjective, as everyone's perception of perfection differs. For me it's a society where everyone has an equal opportunity for success, where no one has to go bankrupt to get an education or stay healthy, where the government has no control over the personal lives of individuals, where there's no corruption, or crime. If you look at countries like Denmark, this is more or less a relatively pragmatic goal. That's social democracy. You believe in a society where everyone lives voluntarily and there are little to no rules. That's anarcho-capitalism. That is far less pragmatic. Or you can just leave. Simple.

[quote]There is no force here if you simply walk up and leave to live on the streets or in the woods. By definition that isn't coercion. You're free to bow out and leave.[/quote] "There's no force if you simply hand over the wallet." By definition, it [i]is[/i] coercion. If I don't do those things, I'm going to face the guns of the state. [quote]You do need coercion to have security. There are consequences for people's actions. If you want to live in society yet not pay taxes, you will be coerced into paying them and that's the way it should be.[/quote] The very existence of private security firms tells us that coercion is not needed for security, although it ought to be self-evident. Society is just a group of individuals. I don't need to be coerced in order to magically make things work - voluntary transactions can occur without the state. [quote]The United States don't have a "ruler." They have a leader. The same is with nearly all democratic countries.[/quote] We have lots of rulers. Congress rules from D.C. The executive departments issue legislation on the regular. All of these rules are enforced with violence. The structure of the system doesn't change the nature of the law. [quote]You keep stating that I am a statist and we live in a statist society, even though that's false by definition. The U.S. is a capitalist society. I believe in a relatively free-market as well, albeit with some sort of a social welfare state. I don't believe in collective or centralization of the means of production.[/quote] I'm not operating under that definition. When I use the term "statist society" I'm referring to any society with a state. The USSR was statist, and a hypothetical minarchy is statist. I'm not trying to corner you into the Webster's definition, since I know that's not necessarily what you're after. [quote]No, a utopia is a place where "everything is perfect," which is subjective, as everyone's perception of perfection differs.[/quote] I'm not trying to create a perfect world. The fact that people can't create perfection is a reason that I want the state abolished - it uses central planning and coercion to try and create perfection. The War on Poverty was supposed to eliminate poverty, but it hasn't even made a dent. Even WWI, the war to end all wars, failed to bring international violence to an end. [quote]For me it's a society where everyone has an equal opportunity for success, where no one has to go bankrupt to get an education or stay healthy, where the government has no control over the personal lives of individuals, where there's no corruption, or crime.[/quote] That definitely sounds Utopian. A post-scarcity world where the state fulfills your needs is a stepping stone in that direction. Eliminating crime entirely is another step. [quote]If you look at countries like Denmark, this is more or less a relatively pragmatic goal. That's social democracy. You believe in a society where everyone lives voluntarily and there are little to no rules. That's anarcho-capitalism. That is far less pragmatic.[/quote] I'm not particularly concerned with a whole "country" operating without a state. Liberty is a condition for individuals, so I'm more than happy to allow other people to live in statist societies. All I ask is that people don't initiate force against me or my property. There are others who feel the same, and they ought to be allowed to live free as well. When it becomes possible to not play ball with the state, you start to see that it isn't sustainable. I'm a productive person who doesn't require government assistance, yet the state takes my money anyways. If I remove myself from that transaction, I'm no longer being robbed and I'm still not a drain on public resources.

Well too bad. You live in society. Follow the rules or leave. Coercion must exist in some form. That is not proof of anything. Proof would be abolishing security and the [quote]police[/quote] force and seeing people behave. This isn't a statist society. I've already explained why it isn't.

[quote]Well too bad. You live in society. Follow the rules or leave. Coercion must exist in some form.[/quote] "This is the way things are done, so fall in line," isn't a very progressive attitude. That said, the fact that I live in close proximity with other people doesn't mean that they get to coerce me. There's no reasoning behind that, and the same goes for stating that coercion must exist in some form. No, it doesn't have to exist. [quote]That is not proof of anything. Proof would be abolishing security and the police force and seeing people behave.[/quote] Abolishing the police would be a definite part of abolishing the state, but don't mistake that for a desire to abolish security firms. Unlike an AnCom, I don't anticipate people to spontaneously organize themselves into collective groups motivated by their dedication to each other. Crime is going to exist, and it's a moral duty to protect oneself from coercion. [quote]This isn't a statist society. I've already explained why it isn't.[/quote] Under the Webster's dictionary it isn't, but I'm not describing our society like that. We're a statist society because we have a state - that's what I mean when I use the term.

It's common sense. Some things can't be chosen. Some things must be done. Crime is going to exist, and that's why it's important to have a well-trained police force and progressive ideas on law and justice. You cannot twist definitions to fit your personal worldview. The left does that enough already.

[quote]It's common sense. Some things can't be chosen. Some things must be done.[/quote] Saying that something is "common sense" isn't a substitute for a reasoned argument. It doesn't hold up. [quote]Crime is going to exist, and that's why it's important to have a well-trained police force and progressive ideas on law and justice.[/quote] Crime is going to exist, but that doesn't necessitate the existence of an institution that utilizes coercion. Security can be arranged for voluntarily. [quote]You cannot twist definitions to fit your personal worldview. The left does that enough already.[/quote] I'm not trying to cram anybody into the Webster's definition. I'm using the word in a general sense, referring to a society with a state. We could come up with a brand new word for me to use instead, but that doesn't seem very practical.

And saying taxation is theft when it is by definition false isn't an argument either. No it can't. Crime is only stopped by force. "Don't do this or you'll be punished." The world in a general sense is it;s dictionary definition. No other version is correct. Stall, you may be a good debater, but your arguments are crap. They rely on falsifying definitions and pushing a Utopian view of life which isn't practical.

[quote]And saying taxation is theft when it is by definition false isn't an argument either.[/quote] You're ignoring the argument, then. Theft is when force or its threat is used to coerce somebody into giving up their wealth. Taxation is when force or its threat is used to coerce somebody into giving up their wealth. [quote]No it can't. Crime is only stopped by force. "Don't do this or you'll be punished."[/quote] Force will exist, but force doesn't have to be funded through coercion. That ought to be self-evident. The existence of private security firms shows this. [quote]Stall, you may be a good debater, but your arguments are crap. They rely on falsifying definitions and pushing a Utopian view of life which isn't practical.[/quote] You'll have to be more specific. Referring to arguments as "crap" isn't a rebuttal. There's no false definitions that I'm pushing - I've been more than forward with how I'm using the word. Lastly, a Utopian society is a society with a state, and I'm not advocating for a society with a state. A Utopian society wants to eliminate scarcity, whereas I believe that scarcity will be with us forever. A Utopian society wants to eliminate crime, whereas I believe that crime cannot be eradicated by an institution that coerces innocent people.

No, by definition it isn't theft. Private security also works through coercion. They can still shoot or apprehend people. No, your personal definition of statism is false, yet you push it anyway. Your definition of taxation is false, yet you push it anyway. Your definition of authoritarian is false, yet you use it anyway. These are key terms which you use frequently for your arguments, and the fact that you intentionally misinterpret them shows how weak your arguments are. Also no, a Utopia is a place where everything is perfect. That's it. This is another definition you wrongly use. Perfection is subjective. In fact what is one man's utopia could be another man's dystopia.

[quote]No, by definition it isn't theft.[/quote] The dictionary definition of taxation has nothing to do with its nature. That isn't even an argument regarding the coercion inherent in taxation. "A means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities." If anything, this definition only points out that governments make their money by "imposing charges." That's coercion. [quote]Private security also works through coercion. They can still shoot or apprehend people.[/quote] Stop mistaking coercion for force. The two are different. All coercion relies on force, but not all force is coercion. Self-defense, for example, is forceful, but it isn't coercive. Private security works [i]against[/i] the initiation of force. They defend. The state [i]initiates[/i] force. [quote]No, your personal definition of statism is false, yet you push it anyway. Your definition of taxation is false, yet you push it anyway. Your definition of authoritarian is false, yet you use it anyway. These are key terms which you use frequently for your arguments, and the fact that you intentionally misinterpret them shows how weak your arguments are.[/quote] Those aren't arguments. I'm quite clear with how I use those words. What if I use the word "X" to describe a society with a state, instead of the word "statist." My argument hasn't changed - only the words have. "Living in an X society means that citizens are subject to the initiation of force by their state." If I use the word "Y" instead of "authoritarian," we see the same thing. My arguments haven't changed. I still mean the same thing when I say you're an "economic-Y." As for taxation, I'm not trying to change a dictionary definition into a one-liner of "taxation is merely theft." I'm arguing that taxation, like many other actions the state takes, is coercive. [quote]Also no, a Utopia is a place where everything is perfect. That's it. This is another definition you wrongly use. Perfection is subjective. In fact what is one man's utopia could be another man's dystopia.[/quote] You're quite keen on dictionary definitions, so let's use these two. Utopian - [i]of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization[/i] Utopia - [i]a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions[/i] Two things, here - One, a Utopian society is a statist society (or if you prefer, an X society). It has a state. A Utopian society has "impossibly ideal social organization." Anarcho-Capitalism has zero standards for social organization. One acts voluntarily, which is already the default for human action. I don't need to be coerced into making myself breakfast, after all. Secondly, "That's a Utopian way of thought," isn't an argument.

That doesn't mean it's theft. No, private security still uses force. They still have guns, they still have methods of inflicting violence. It is an argument. You misuse definitions to fit your personal views. It's intellectually dishonest. You just proved me right. "Impossibly perfect social organisation," or society. Sounds a lot like a world with no coercion. It is an argument. I'm pointing out how a Utopia is subjective and how your ideal society can be just as utopian as mine. A Utopia is a perfect society. You said it yourself. Perfection is subjective.

[quote]That doesn't mean it's theft.[/quote] That's not an argument. [quote]No, private security still uses force. They still have guns, they still have methods of inflicting violence.[/quote] I [i]know.[/i] That's the whole point! They still use force, but they don't use coercion. Security doesn't need to be bought with plunder. [quote]You just proved me right. "Impossibly perfect social organisation," or society. Sounds a lot like a world with no coercion.[/quote] It's as if you're deliberately ignoring important statements that I'm making. Nobody is saying that the world will be without coercion. I have explicitly stated that I expect coercion to exist. The difference is that it won't be legitimized. If I didn't expect coercion to exist, I wouldn't even bother pointing out that force is still needed for self-defense against coercion. [quote]It is an argument. I'm pointing out how a Utopia is subjective and how your ideal society can be just as utopian as mine. A Utopia is a perfect society. You said it yourself. Perfection is subjective.[/quote] I'm not after a perfect society, because a perfect society cannot exist. People are different and imperfect. I'm after a stateless society.

Yes it is. Lol No they still use coercion. "Do this or else." No, you need coercion to exist. Not everything is optional. A stateless society in your eyes is perfect, is it not?