I’m right.
I didn’t say “no government” is realistic or even a decent goal. I’m merely saying that it is the definition of ‘freedom’. Government is by default, law and oppression of freedom.
No. Some laws oppress freedoms, other laws enhance freedoms.
False, that is a contradiction.
Laws only limit freedom. Liberal-leftists are backward thinkers. You cannot “guarantee freedom” by passing laws. You can only guarantee freedom by abolishing laws.
I agree with Void. Some laws preserve freedom from tyranny. I read the dictionary definition of anarchy …the absence of government…or a state of lawlessness (which to me means not following laws, not that laws don’t or shouldn’t exist). Government means authoritative direction/control of public policy in a political unit.
No freedom is guaranteed by actually practicing anarchy.
Through governance, the government places laws against itself (not the people), preserving individual freedoms…guaranteeing such freedoms where they are not protected by anarchy. Another anarchist can easily rob you of your too short lived freedom, while an organized government would act to protect it, back you up. Never trust an anarchist! 
:-" Or a communist!
You and Void are both wrong. You cannot “protect freedom” with law. You can only reduce freedom.
That’s like saying “The only rule is, no rules”. It’s an oxymoron, an obvious contradiction. Don’t be so simplistic.
Likewise you’d need a government to enforce the anarchy. Someone has to be sure that no one creates any laws.
Isn’t that what you’re saying?
You haven’t given this much thought and you’ve latched onto a play on words. Freedom is not being free from law, but free from oppression. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Laws are what protect those rights of freedom. Without law, you would not be free at all.
Isn’t that what I already said in a mess of words? You did say it better but I planted that seed in your mind, Serendipper…just saying. 
No…you and Void are “playing on words”.
What I said is as simple as it gets. Freedom = NO LAWS = NO GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER. If you want freedom in life, you have to go ‘outside’ human civilization, or, overthrow the government. There are no “laws that protect freedom”. That’s a backward liberal-leftist fallacy. It’s illogical, a contradiction.
I agree with Serendipper too. Ur so wrong x 1,000,000
Anarchy guarantees no freedom from oppression which equals no freedom.
Anarchy is freedom from oppression, destruction of all governments. NO. LAWS. N O L A W S.
You’re wrong.
Most people are so enslaved, so modern, that you cannot even begin to conceive the notion of “true freedom”. You’re restrained and restricted, mentally. You cannot even imagine or envision a state of reality in which you, or anybody else, are actually 100% free.
I can. The rest of you can’t. My mind is free.
You three, Wendy, Serendipper, Void, are all pro-government. You cannot conceive of life, without your Slave-Master, The State, the centralized authority, watching over you. You’re all clinging to the “Big Daddy” concept, the “Sky Father”.
You’re clinging to your invisible God. That’s Enslavement.
Hey, I’m being a realist. Another anarchist can end your freedom with a bullet in your head so quickly that you did nothing more than take a few free breaths. It’s only free in being a free for all and it’s objectionable when you value your continued existence. All out chaos cannot be overcome and there are no winners who triumph against it…for long.
Anarchy is aggressive for a reason…to conquer or be conquered. And it’s only a temporary fix to dissolve a current government but will fail very quickly with people forming gangs with rules/laws the beginnings of unofficial governments with rulers and the process you loathe of slavedom begins all over again.
Good thing I have shoulders of giants to stand on 
I think you’re jumping to conclusions and sliding down a slippery slope. 
I suppose we would have to define freedom before we can decide what we’re free from. So if you define freedom as being free of any sort of structure or restraint in action, then I guess having no laws would be freedom to you. But you would not be free in the sense of pursuing life and happiness because someone will oppress you without a law saying they cannot. It depends how you define freedom and inconsistent definitions are causing this miscommunication.
Freedom from law
Freedom from oppression
The enlightening aspect of this conversation is that I realize now that freedom cannot exist without clarification, “freedom from what?” It’s like saying “I’m quitting.” Quitting what? Or, “I’m leaving.” Leaving where? “I’m done.” Done with what?
So if you’re saying “freedom from laws is freedom from laws”, then you’re right. But if you’re saying “freedom from laws is freedom from oppression”, then you’re wrong. In the latter, the laws guarantee the freedom from oppression.
Lawl @ this convo.
Freedom is not for everybody. Serendip, Wendy, Void, stay safe inside the walls (prison) of civilization.
Free Thinking is not for you, maybe try religion or science?
According to your video the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth, the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth, the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth.
Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.
Yes this is related to the Pareto principle, that about 1/5 of the productive process creates about 4/5 of the value produced. You could argue that this doesn’t say anything about possession and ownership of that value, but it really does.
Stop demanding what you are unwilling to create and value for yourself. Capitalism has allowed you access to immeasurably more wealth than you could possibly have produced on your own, this is only because you are part of the passive ground of consumption on which the Pareto principle climbs to new heights. More equality of wealth distribution (value distribution) leads quite naturally to less equality of it. And less, to more. But when less equality begins to produce a failure of abundance then the crops start to die. Rather, materials are instead recycled back into the earth, so the soils stay rich in nutrients.
Fighting for wealth equality is equivalent to replacing meritocratic recycling of unused elements with theft, which nature will not long tolerate.
I’m not following. To what/who is this post directed?