I have my own argument, my own take on “no rulers” and if you do not have your own, and use the argument of Bakunin, which somehow should automatically make you a better anarchist, this is already a sign that you are not an anarchist. How can you explain to me what understanding of "not imposing authority to rule me or others" should be? It is a feeling of not being forced to anything. It is being the only controller of your life. It is owning yourself. If I own myself do not tell me what to do. Simple?
How will you prove to me that Bakunin was right? By imposing your authority? You lost the argument at the start.
Do not repeat trying to apply "no rulers" to absolute totalitarian state, because it is self-contradictory from the start and a definition of insanity. It is not the example to follow, just because you want to repeat what someone said what anarchy was. Do you think that if your idea cannot be defended, it should be upheld?
Freedom to exchange is a part of freedom. You cannot tell me I am not free to exchange and think you are an anarchist.
I am telling you what anarchy is when I say it. If you telling me it is not, you are imposing your authority. As long as I am not imposing any authority and I am telling you what I want to do with my life, this is anarchy. It is my individual freedom to decide about my life. My life is my capital. So, with all do respect, I do not care what anyone has to say. I am writing this as much as anyone. I am happy to discuss things with you, not with some obsolete relic of a dumb-ass, being confused about freedom.
Those who cannot survive without theft do not deserve to survive. Simple as that. The evolutionary impulse seems to indicate that they will extinct, either by killing each other or starvation. Socialism is always an idea of useless people and it never delivers the promise of being about the workers.
You don't have the right to steal from nor make rules for anyone. The end of discussion really. Even when elected by 99%, the 1% cannot have rules imposed on them. It always have to be agreed on voluntarily, through consensus.
Stop believing in evil bullshit and calling it anarchy. That "anarchy" is long gone, obsolete, dumb and a utopian impossibility. Anarchy of the past is an oxymoron and this is why I am not interested in what Emma has to say. I am happy to debate anyone.
Voluntaryism is the manifestation of human awareness awakening to the next level of our experience. Retards trying to stop the improvement or melting down the entropy are obsolete, delusional and will kill each other or starve. Statists are completely submerged by paradoxes and "Anarchy" until Voluntaryism, was nothing else but statism. Here is why:
Socialism is a mandatory ingredient of statism and democracy. "Anarchy" of Bakunin (and I assume Emma too) is socialism and it's end goal - communism. The state cannot survive unless it can determine the winners & losers and make believe that the slaves are free. Anyone who understands the nature of the state cannot even tolerate the tiniest version of it as morally acceptable.
I recommend all from:
mises.org/library
I would like to know why you think that what you think is correct. If you ever have any doubts and question ideas, or you don't because Bakunin or other authority said it was good.
Can I choose to not recognize this authority as beneficial for me when almost every economist, philosopher, sociologist and all the evidence humanity has, contradicts with this view? Or am I forced to be your version of an anarchist?
Is an idea that cannot withstand simple scrutiny, questions of logic worth upholding? Wouldn't this be ignorance, proven to be dangerous to human life, every time it is tried?
As a free individual, a Voluntaryist, I love the humanity and I am worried about the ideas that have constantly been proven to be detrimental to our lives or progress.
If an idea is causing suffering, resulting in increased number of deaths and suffering, I question it.
If I find enough evidence to support it, I oppose this hurtful ideology, as a part of my moral duty.
What I personally want, is a voluntary society where each individual can decide what is more beneficial for them.
Even the worst deal ever, can be either accepted or refused.
Why do you think, that when you create a society based on the principle of violent theft of someone's property, you should expect anything else, but lack of respect for individual freedom, violence and theft?
If your basic principle of coexisting with other individuals, is the initiation of violence to impose compelled speech, or to take what is not yours, because of hypothetical notion, that if you will not do it, someone will be as bad as you and do it to you, why do you think you are an anarchist?
I just want to understand how things work in your head.
I would like to have a civilized debate. I am not interested in insulting anyone and ask you to do the same.
If you wish to convince anyone to the ideology of communism you call anarchy, the floor is yours.
The goal of ultimate personal freedom in capitalism is a voluntary society, where the property of each individual is respected.
The more you force people to do what you want them to do, the less productive they will become. Not to mention slavery is bad...
We can see the examples of the consequences throughout the history.
For example communists created a law, that no farmer in Ukraine can keep their crop, because it is needed for the well-being of everyone. It was enforced with threat of death. Every farmer that hid a little for his family was killed.
6 000 000 farmers and people depending on their crop starved to death.
The end goal of socialism is communism, which anarcho-communists call anarchy.
Capitalism, while oppressed by the state that imposes fasco-socialism on fee market, from 2004 to 2012 cut the world's poverty level by half. 8 years of oppressed capitalism made almost 3,7 billion people get out of poverty.
Communism killed min. 200 million people. Collectivism killed probably around 300 million in last 100 years.
Socialism in theory is about fairness in being rewarded well for your labor, right? Would keeping all the money for the labor mean owning the means of production? Why when a capitalist wants to keep the money for the labor and decide what to do with it, it is bad according to socialists?
Because there is no state deciding how much who deserves? Isn't this an Orwellian nightmare?
In capitalism the market, which is just people, decides how much I get paid. It is valued by how useful I am to the society. My value is the value to society. If I have no value, I ask for help. I do not initiate violence to take what is not mine. A 3 year old knows that.
Who decides in Socialism?
Why be a delusional ultra-statist and pretend an anarchists? Who are the people who decide how much I get paid and how will they decide and how will it impose on everyone?
Please explain to me why communism you call anarchy is better, when it is the worst possible idea.
So communism needs socialism to exist. If everything would go the way the theory says, it would end in communism, or what AnComs call “anarchy”.
To get where AnCom wants, you need the totalitarian power of the state.
Property existed ever since the oxygen atom claimed 2 hydrogens as its “property”. A dog has a bone. It is his bone. A monkey has a banana, because it got it.
If I go in the forest and make something that did not exist, investing my who life, which is my capital. I risk, I suffer, I use my skills and I create something that wasn't, like a house.
Is this house mine?
If the ground is not, can you come and make a toilet in my living room, because the ground is also yours?
Why wouldn't this create more confusion, aggression and suffering?
If you claim to be an anarchist, because you base your ideology on the principle, that you can use force to take from others what is not your, which is the definition of imposing your authority to rule, because you think others may be as bad as you and impose their authority and take your stuff... why do you think you are not imposing your authority?
So because you need a totalitarian state to achieve communism (AnCom), is the violence of the state the necessary means to achieve the utopia? And this is anarchy?
Is this what you want, to take things that you did not make from the bourgeois?
Why claim you do not need capitalists, when you need to take their stuff to build your society?
Why not just gather up people and share what you created, your wealth?
It is not like we produce only one thing and people who do it now stop you from producing whatever you like.
Humans keep inventing and producing new things all the time. Why would you need the people, you claim you do not need?
The ones who reduced poverty by half in 8 years... you want to rob them as punishment, because you think you deserve as much as them? What did you do? What have you created? How did you find yourself useful to others?
Why not be successful instead of violently rob the successful?
Why the belief in total power of the state is not ultra-statism?
How do you explain this, in order to stay within the term “Anarchy”?
What are the means
If you are not aware of these statistic facts, should you be? If you are aware of this evidence, do you choose to be ignorant to stay in your comfort zone of flawed ideology?
This takes us back to the presupposition, that ignorance is the source of all evil.
Why do you choose to be evil and call yourself an Anarchist and give bad name to everyone who does not believe in aggression of imposed authority? What excuse would you find to initiate violence other than defending from violent aggression?
What are your reasons for initiation of violent aggression and why do you think it is anarchy, if the only reason for aggression is not defense from an attack?
https://mises.org/library/production-security
Statement of my anarchy is in my signature.
If yours would need "I take what is not mine or else", you are not an anarchist.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
I believe that every interaction between humans should be voluntary. I want for each individual to be the only controller of their lives and their property.
I am an individual. I want to create stuff for myself and others. I want to be rewarded according to how my time is useful to others. My life is mine. I own myself. What I create is extension of me. My time is my currency. I can exchange it or keep it. It is my capital. I do not believe in imposed authority.
Labels that fit to my individual choices make me an anarchist, a capitalist, a voluntaryist, but most of all, I AM AN INDIVIDUAL, who does not judge your value by the status you achieved in an imposed, imaginary collective. No matter who you are; if you respect others, respect me, I will always respect you.
I know I am the only owner of my life, my time, my capital.
This is what I want. It is the best for me. I don't care what the collective wants me to do. I choose to interact if I wish. I am the owner of me.
I do not want to harm others in ANY way.
Please do not impose your rule on me.
Tread on me or others and I will will feel morally obligated to stop you.
PEACE AND LOVE IN ANARCHY
If you are interested in off-grid living, homesteading, medicinal plants and alternative lifestyle, check out my other blogs 
