What?

Interactions that are skewed from the course one would naturally be inclined to take by coercion or threat of violence do not count as voluntary. Example paying taxes to fund programs and actions one does not condone. No one does this voluntarily, they do it to avoid a direct threat to their freedom and ultimately their life. In answer to the second paragraph... Any consensus short of voluntary unanimity is not valid as it deprives any who do not agree of their consent if it is enforced. The only morally acceptable instance of depriving another of their consent is in response to their attempt to deprive another of theirs.

I get this error ```Transaction failed: abs_rshares > 30000000: voting weight is too small, please accumulate more voting power or steem power``` 
I must be too new.

Just woke up.

Staying within the character of your new name?

| Pick your favorite one: |
|:-:|
| [![Death and Taxes](http://img14.deviantart.net/af9d/i/2006/260/9/f/death_and_taxes__2007_by_mibi.jpg)](http://img14.deviantart.net/af9d/i/2006/260/9/f/death_and_taxes__2007_by_mibi.jpg) |

I didn't fully turn my stance until I read Ludwig von Mises 'Human Action'. Mises did absolute acrobatics in that book to not straight up say that government distorts markets and destroys wealth. His analysis of the omnipotent/omniscient God idea was delightfully cut short of drawing any conclusions as well.

If you by your use of the word 'anarchist' you mean the reds who walk around blissfully ignorant that their leveling of the economic playing field requires central authority and a ruling class to organise enforcers, then I agree. Anarchy in the sense of the natural state and even right now this voluntary exchange that you have started and I have chosen to enter into...

I love how this platform brings a sense of competition into discussions like I haven't experienced since I was striving to win karma points on The Hive.

We'll see.

Since there is a moral system that one can subscribe to that allows you to convert something immoral into something moral, please have a look at this: [The Magic Threshold](https://steemit.com/political/@inertia/how-to-explain-that-taxation-is-theft-using-the-magic-threshold)

>Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").

For the first three, you answered a question with a question. The fourth was meaningless politician evasion. The fifth was an excuse to not answer. I'm done.

he was asking you to answer these questions within the moral system that you subscribe to.   You probably want to retry this one.  Sophistry isn't going to go anywhere.

First off, "Anarchic governance" is a contradiction in terms.

Second: "Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse."
What? There's just one system: systematic voluntary interactions and the recognition of the consistent application of rights in society.

Third, you did a terrible job answering Larken Rose's questions, and you admitted to moral relativism. If you do not subscribe to any sort of definite morality, you have no means of having an intelligent discussion regarding any sort or form of morality (way of living).

Your only strength, thus, is and will be clever word games and evasion. You will not be pleasant to talk with, and the only upvotes you will or can get will be those who just enjoy drama for the sake of drama.

I'll put some words in your mouth, which you'll hate and will entirely focus on, but your behavior is scum-ish, and I want people to see clearly what they're dealing with when they talk with you: by saying that you perscribe to "a world of self interests" your moral code is that of Self-Interest, which means that you live by that which is in your interest. 

That means that other people, water, food, and so forth are in your interest, assuming that you want to live, which I think is a decent assumption. If you don't, then disregard this comment, as well as the entirety of the steemit website. You won't need it if you're dead.

The requirements for the satisfaction of your self-interest are the consistent application of rules in society because without that, your Self will be in poverty, as is currently the case, since a society based on inconsistently-applied rules where there are exceptions to the rules (rulers) is one where poverty is the constant and the norm, such as this one.

Therefore, you, while pandering to the notion that you do not subscribe to a moral code, subscribe to the moral code of self-interest, and this conflict and dissonance of thought is the core of your contention that anarchists advocate "systems" and types of "governance".

You are an extremely confused individual, which is why the likes of Larken Rose was like, 
"Eh. Yuck."

As I expected, you're full of hot air. Fitting that you're on steemit.
And hey, if your name is what you're doing... somewhat decent job.
But you really need to take more of a position. You're boring as fuck.

This post was admittedly clickbait, but I'm actually serious, consider checking my new post.
My point is that Anarchism offers no escape from centralization of power, and restriction of freedom.

Thank you, flag removed.

Well, you avoided my question completely.

But government systems emerge in the same way that crime emerges, one or more individuals takes it upon themselves to act hegemonically toward others. In government systems, the hegemony is obscured and even encouraged by those under the rule of the criminal. Yet, in no way is social utility greater than it would be without this criminal hegemony, regardless of the err in acting by those who support the hegemony.

So I ask you again. In what way can hegemonical extortion of the masses be a positive force for social utility?