DC) I did want you to know that I'm completely aware of the difference between collectivism and individualism as described below. (DCBzzt. I asked if you understood the difference between non-anarchist minarchism and socialism. You apparently don't. The text you quote repeats your fundamental mistake:
DJ) Once you get on the slippery slope of collectivism, once you accept that ideology, there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is 100% government. (DJI actually have a web page that describes several possible libertarian stopping points, but you won't understand it so I won't bother giving you the link.
Hilariously, your author ends this text by rejecting his own argument for anarchism, nebulously suggesting that we need some kind of minimal coercion after all:
DJ) under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle. We need government, of course, but, the concept of what kind of government must be built on individualism, an ideology that pushes always toward that part of the spectrum that involves the least government necessary to make things work instead of collectivism (DJThe links I've already sent you give an economically rigorous way to characterize "the least government necessary to make things work", but you grunted that these ideas are "crap". LOL.
