How does one stop supporting "it?" Stop paying taxes? Stop voting? Stop advocating for change? Stop fighting for liberty? What?
if you support the existence of the state, are you not culpable for its actions? So, stopping his support of it would be a logical, necessary first step. what he does after that is up to him. both he and you know when you are, and that you are "supporting" the existence of the state. don't try being obtuse with me. otherwise, sorry, there aren't any rules on how to be an anarchist...that's kinda the point.
No rules on how to be an anarchist? Cool, so I'm a church going, tax paying, establishment loving, politically conservative bona fide Anarchist! Rise up, Y'all!!
i'll give you a few examples to chew on, MP. 1) i pay taxes, because i know that if i do not, i will be maimed, caged, and/or killed. would you say that i support the existence of the state? 2) you had guns stolen. would you say that you support robbers by arming them? 3) you say that the government is necessary, consensually give them funds to support their operations, and believe that you gave a special class of people authority over yourself, me, and everyone else. do you support the government? see any differences?
I read carefully your two posts here, phaed. It leaves me with this question: When you say, "stop supporting it," you are just talking about an attitude, not an action?
it could mean either (or both) to different people. i think i've made myself clear in the examples, which you will hopefully bother to answer the questions of. changing from being a slave to a free man beset by bad actors requires only a shift in perspective. some take it further. however, that simple shift in perspective will change that person's world in ways he can't yet imagine...all for the better, imo.
Oh, they were not rhetorical? Sigh. Fine. I see some differences. They are mainly differences in attitude. 1) yes 2) no 3) Well, hard to answer since you said "You," and the question is very general, but in the hypothetical I suppose the answer for that hypothetical person would be yes. I am not asking you what it means to different people, phaed. Now that I have answered your questions, will you please give me a clue what you mean? Why are you always so vague on this stuff? You said, and I quoted it in the first post, "Simple. Stop supporting it." If it is simple, then the explanation should be simple and not demand me answering a litany of questions to get the simple explanation out of you. What does that mean - to you, not to different people, but to you? What does it mean? How does one "stop supporting it?"
explain to me why when i'm robbed, i'm supporting the thieves; but when you are robbed, you are not supporting the thieves. as for my being "vague", know that we view things very differently now. sometimes i can't frame my answers in a way that you're comfortable with because of our different worldviews...at least not while remaining true to myself and the rules of logic. what my personal outlook is, is to maintain that proper shift of perspective (that i'm a free man, beset by bad actors), while defending myself when and where i can without dying in the process. i think if one's goal is self-defense, that dying is the most spectacular and irreversible failure possible, no matter how righteous the cause. and my answer to his question was simple. he can't fight the system by supporting it. could the government exist without the support of the people? nope. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs[/ame]
And when and where is that? Sure it can. It has. It does, and it will. Any contrary answer ignores historical reality.
as i determine. that's funny. maybe you can give a historical example of a time where everyone utterly stopped supporting the existence of the state. i can't think of one, but granted i'm no historian. and, you didn't answer my question... explain to me why when i'm robbed, i'm supporting the thieves; but when you are robbed, you are not supporting the thieves.
I don't know about MP, but if I was present for the robbery I would be shooting the robbers. Why haven't you shot the government?
I am almost persuaded to take phaed off ignore. Almost. [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-k1i9zNWJE[/ame]
So what you're saying is: because there are more people who want a state, you are powerless to live apart from that state without sacrificing your life, and your ideals cannot realistically function because of those that disagree with you.
that's not exactly how i'd put it, but there's some truth in that. if you want to see exactly "what i'm saying", you need only look at what i've said.
See my idea of stop supporting it would be to move to a place in which it didnt exist. Why dont anarchist's do that instead of bitching about a system that was in existance before they were born?
Anarchists Begin Fixing Roads and Potholes Because the Government Won’t https://www.google.com/amp/theantimedia.org/anarchists-build-roads-fix-potholes/amp/