@Mike G re: this, in the order listed:
- This is, at least to me, more open ended than it sounds. What definition of “private property” (or even “impossible”) are we working with here? I personally believe that property in land & natural resources is already impossible without government (recognizing such subsidizes their separation and depletion), but obviously the question goes beyond that. Do you mean “impossible” as inconvenient to the point where no one would bother, or do you mean LITERALLY impossible? Not to say I’d prefer the state, just wondering where the line is.
- Hell no. That’s what actually happens anyway, that’s not a reason to support government.
- Seeing as how I don’t have any of those type of benefits I can discern, I don’t see why not.
- Um…define “beat”. If you include spanking, then whose gonna stop me?
- I’d still do it. Besides, it’s not like it’s all that great now anyway.
- The state is just formalized force anyway, if someone seriously decided they rejected freedom then they could go join some group that was left over that’d tell them what to do & leave everyone else alone. They’d have a choice, as opposed to now where I don’t.
- Nope, good riddance!
- Like I said about land above, IMO they are in fact impossible. Hell, IP is to an extent impossible even in current society, being subject to death by millions of tiny cuts every day.
BTW: from what I can tell, Mike means to indict utilitarian reasoning for anarchism. I get how fragile it is alone, but at the same time I don’t think rejecting it 100% is helpful to achieving a post-state outcome. If this is the first thing you drop on the average person they’re likely to think you’re nuts.