I'm not using argument to moderation. I'm asking you to debate what I've said because I'd like to hear you out. That's all. I have no interest in making you look any particular way, or myself for that matter. So, let's set that aside. This isn't a win/lose argument and you know it.
Unfortunately, pedantics will get in the way right now. Anarchism is the theory (doctrine) that 'all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished'. Yet, what you've said is effectively communist, and not anarchist. Incredibly different ideals. I may even agree with what you're thinking, just ... not your words. On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 3:54:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > For anyone confused, I originally had a comment about anarchism in the post > above this; I removed it because I noticed that I had misread one of Casey > Parker's statements, but it's still visible on the mailing list. > > > You're using a network designed by a government defense > agency. > > I never said I was against taking advantage of infrastructure created by > bad > or imperfect entities. If that were the case, I would have to go out and > live > in the woods. Keep in mind that our societies build on each other, and some > past societies have been rather barbaric empires. > > > The laws that keep you somewhat safe (ie, driving laws, > > etc) are enforced governmentally. > > You're making an assumption which happens to be incorrect. Namely, you're > assuming that I oppose government. I don't. I just support a different kind > of government: one run not by a state, but by the collective of citizens. > As > far as I know, most anarchist philosophies are like this. > > > Extremism of any kind has never once worked out well > > for anybody involved ... please argue that if you can. > > You are using argument to moderation, which is a fallacy. See: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation >
