Let's play the logical fallacies game. Quote mining me though won't help your argument.
government subsumes this by claiming authority to make those decisions for us
overgeneralization
claiming that non-government based solutions like Bitcoin to represent money instead of the Fiat we have today does nothing to impact the state because the state will adopt it is circular reasoning
nop. it exists. it is something already being implemented. Check Sweden's real estate platform for example.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-blockchain-idUSKCN0Z22KV
Thirdly, in comments you mention the state & religion as existing. I'd like some clarity - do you mean physically, or that they exist virtually only?
Physically and virtually. "The Goverment" exists as an institution. "The Religion" does much the same. E.g churches. "The Science" similarly. e.g universities. They have societal foundations both physical and virtual (e.g social contract for goverment and godly law for church). They are made out of people that dictate their functions.
It's the fact the concept of the state, the idea of it, is logically and ethically invalid.
For someone claiming ability to identify logical fallacies you cannot see your own. You also seem intellectually handicapped with basic dictionary definitions. Anything can be "logical". It depends on the parametres of one's argument. This is for philosophy 101. Ethics are subjective. What is ethical in one part of the world is not to another. Ethics are dictated by the environment. This why Muslims can stone citizens for adultery, women wear bras and the Inuits of Canada, sometimes, eat their first born in case on a harsh winter. This is philosophy class 102. Try picking up a coursera lesson. The bashing of goverment on the level you are doing it is borderline tinfoil-tier.
Claiming "people just need to stop being sheep" is the same as saying anarchy is unworkable because of the inherent nature of man. It's claiming anarchy cannot work at its root.
Strawman on steroids. I believe anarchy is much more efficient than the goverment. I just don't find "The goverment" responsible for all the ills of society like your groupies do. Try to be less fanatical with your anarchism. You spend too much time trying to refute me, rather than paying attention to what I actually said.
People do not have the authority of the state as individuals, and only the job roles of the state contain such authority currently. Job roles, like the concepts of religion and government, are virtual and have no mass in of themselves. So... Please explain how the state or religion exist beyond the realm of ideas.
Ofcourse they have authority. They give it to themselves based on their numbers. The idea and ethics of some people become reality. doubt it? look around you.
Claiming having groups prevents anarchy presumes anarchy can have no voluntary hierarchies either. Explain how you can prevent group associations without a state.
Anarchy, religion, goverments..etc..they all have groups. This is the main problem. The problem is not the goverment, or religion or anarchy but the sheer will of people being sheep to an idea without question. For example as you write this, your followers and supporters, will support you as long as you show you support to their idea :) . ah the joys of commenting online. Your very comment makes my point. Most of them i never saw commenting but constantly upvote. They are just sheep upvoting their views. Talk about anarchy...being democratic.
Fourthly, you say "just because I accept a philosophy that rejects rulers doesn't mean I cannot be anarchist", which is a true statement. However, it is a complete non sequitur to Sterlin's rebuttal. He said it is not typical for an anarchist to claim rulers are not the problem. For someone who claims to reject rulers, you do seem to be defending them from their biggest detractors.
I work around them. i use them for my benefit. Lets put it this way. All people are born anarchic and atheist. Religion and the State comes later. People are by default anarchists and atheists. Sterlin and you and the rest of the anarho-sheeple claim that an anarchist is ["typically"=over-generalisation fallacy)] a product of rebellion against the state. simply. not. true. All people are anarchists with variant levels of statism. Same goes with religion. Everyone is an atheist with variances or religiosity.
Finally, last I checked "flagging" is the steem.it method for down voting a post, usually for offensive material. To some anarchists like myself, ad hominem and illogical thought is not something to promote, to others it's down right offensive.
I never used an ad hominem. I advice you to study fallacies again. You might be confusing me with your local anarchist forum. Just because you googled logical fallacies it doesn't mean you understand them. Here is a diagram to assist you in your quest in regards to what is an ad-hominem.
I am looking forward for your reply
