There is plenty of oppression that states have no part in, and also plenty of actions that states have taken to reduce oppression.

This is true, although I have yet to see non-governmental groups (such as the KKK for example) be nearly as successful as governmental groups (Like Nazis in Germany, Stalin's Soviet Russia, or the Kim's North Korea). As for statist intervention, it often comes far too late. The allies failed to save numerous Jews from Hitler's Germany, thousands of Tootsies from the Hutu slaughter, and countless Armenians from the Ottoman genocide

 

 

We have a separation of powers and an electoral system. These are not perfect, but they are tested and have proven to be better than anything else that has been tried. If you want to propose radical change, the burden is on you to explain why what you propose is better.

 

 

This separation can easily be abused, and taken over. FDR's court packing scheme in the 30's gave him a court full of justices he appointed, effectively giving him control of two branches of government. With the system in place, those two branches can effectively control the third. I do agree that Democracy is better than any system that was previously tried, but is that the best that we can do? Is democracy the end game?

Despite all your complaints, you do agree that what we have now is better than anything else we've tried. I repeat, if you propose radical changes, the burden is on you to explain how how what you propose would be any better than what we have now. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=518XP8prwZo

 

 

...

 

 

We have a separation of powers and an electoral system. These are not perfect, but they are tested and have proven to be better than anything else that has been tried. If you want to propose radical change, the burden is on you to explain why what you propose is better.

 

This separation can easily be abused, and taken over. FDR's court packing scheme in the 30's gave him a court full of justices he appointed, effectively giving him control of two branches of government. With the system in place, those two branches can effectively control the third. I do agree that Democracy is better than any system that was previously tried, but is that the best that we can do? Is democracy the end game?

Despite all your complaints, you do agree that what we have now is better than anything else we've tried. I repeat, if you propose radical changes, the burden is on you to explain how how what you propose would be any better than what we have now. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated it.

 

The current government is highly ineffective, and make things a lot more pricey and complicated then necessary, agreed?

The private sector on the other had streamlines process, finishes tasks quickly, and is sure to do a good job. So privatize as much as possible, if not all.

Democracy leads to tyranny of the masses. a simple majority can enact any law they want. Granted there are built in checks to limit the extent of these laws, the checks don't always work. This led to slavery, refusal to grant civil rights (both to women and racial minorities), and, it can be argued, the Civil War. In a stateless society everyone can do their own thing. There will be no racism, sexism, or most other -isms

 

In a stateless society most power will be held by corporations. The key difference here is that they are much weaker than an established government. If you don't agree with a corporation, you don't have to support them. You can organize boycotts and rallies against them. If enough people agree to boycott, you can bring down the corporation. With the government you can hold rallies, but they'll still tax you. You can boycott elections, but an official will still be elected.

 

Finally, if I were to take your money, it would be theft. If I were to force you to work for me or fight my battles, it would be slavery. If I were to capture you and hold you in a cage, it would be kidnapping. The government can somehow do all of these "legally" under the terms taxation, conscription, and prosecution.