For years now Craig made it a personal deal to lash out against anarchists, especially ancaps. Interestingly, he never argued face to face with an ancap, let alone a Misesian expert, about the rather stupid idea to try to counter an exaggerated dystopia of "the law of the strongest" by freaking institutionalizing it. Think about that next time you call anarchists naive or feel the urge to make up some mad max scenario, that in no way reflects the reality of society, but rather the incabability of your critical thinking and your lack of historical knowledge or interpretation skills.

No government = no law? Government = violated rights, rather The state acts as a diametrical opposite to conventional rights. The "state of law" adornes itself with violently stolen plumes. Not one right was created by the state. And rules were not invented by government. In fact, the state defines itself exactly in defying the basic principle of equality before the law. At best you get a state granted privilege to maybe utilize your basic rights, if your overlords feel that way that decade. Of course, others get even bigger privileges and are allowed to do things, that would put you in jail. All that naturally, while themselves having the biggest privileges and immunities of them all. It just so happens, hmkay? And even though it's a bad thing, we are forced to uphold this system, otherwise we would literally eat each others brains, hmkay? Laws and rules are enforcable without a corrupt shitty government. It is that easy. It's not naive. It's not herecy. It's simply a statement and pretty true at that. Hell, the majority of laws derived from ancient roman private laws, anyway. There was no government or state to grant anyone any rights or even enforce them the first. All the things were handled by people for the people, just as many other things in society. Another example was money. It's not naive to think the government shouldn't have a monopoly on the creation of money. And yet we have to argue with so many high-nosed fools about this. It's as rational to think, that courts of arbitration will (and in fact today already) do a better job than the government counterpart. It's that easy. The only one, that is naive, is the guy who disregards thousands of years of history and 100 years of liberal theory, because "I've watched Mad Max". The emperor has no clothes. There is NO justification. It is simply not naive, to think equality before the law is an important pillar of a moral society and no institution, no matter how good willing or how honest of an "representative" it is, it just shouldn't be "more equal" than the other. Man, that's so obvious, I feel stupid for having to point that out, really. This is also not a matter of interpretation or opinion. What I just told you is logically and factual. The state as we know it today is an attack on all the important things, that makes a society moral and just in the first place. From basic rights, over equality before the law, to free markets and free contracts. You want to inherit someone your house and made a contract? Well, we'll nullify it, because we want our share of that. The State is built upon violating your basic rights and has the audacity to claim, that it is for your own good. The state and its mouthpieces over the century, just like craig, DO NOT HAVE ANY ARGUMENT BASED IN REALITY, that would justify any of this. There is literally no argument ever made, that doesn't eat its own dick somewhere down the road and debunks itself. The only reason, why all of you think, there is a justification, is literally because of ignorant fools listening to mouthpieces perpetuating this claim, that somehow all of these violations are necessary and make sense. Literally to save you from violations of your rights. Fuck, this is stupid. I could go on an on about so many aspects as to why anarchy is both morally and effectively superior. But most of state advocates don't care for arguments from the anarchist side. Historical facts won't be looked up and logical conclusions are simply deflected with shortsighted assertions about humans and society, that have no place in a debate about real humans. You cannot just make shit up, because you were force fed other peoples made up bullshit. Get yourself together and look up the argument of anarchists, before you make your case or stfu. It's a waste of time to explain things, that have been either debunked already or out of question for anyone, who knows about it. Example: CSW in his latest interview made an argument, that Mises was not an anarchist (...DUH) and that he thought them to be "dull and naive". Just as his shitty halftrue argument about marxism having overlaps to anarchocapitalist philosophy, the reality of his arguments completely squashes any conclusion you would make from his halftrue assertions. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/was-mises-an-anarchist/ I literally took the first article I found, without even reading it. I want to show you, just to make clear, how sure I am, that Mises wasn't aiming this at anything close to anarchist-capitalists and that there obviously is a far more interesting, ommitted aspect to Mises statism. One, that would at least explain, how so many Misesians after him expanded his work by going into radical anarchy. Craig the sophist doesn't even stop to think about that. So many Misesian libertarians are neither naive, nor is their work dull. But up until now, ALL your arguments against anarchism surely were. I am way to lazy to debunk every single one of your shitty points you made up to this point in text. But I am free to discuss this face to face with you or anyone else, who dares to say, that Craigs arguments are anything but sophist in this regard. Craigs not well thought out arguments at a glance: - ancaps are basically marxists, thus they suck (ommitted details plus an absolute unrelated conclusion, as if overlap to original marxist thought, that noone even gets right, is somehow proof of ancaps being naive lefties) - Anarchists actually are totalitarians and want control over you (This argument is so much beneath me and anyone, who needs this argument to be debunked by someone else: simply #GoFuckYourself) - Mises was no anarchists and he thought anarchists were naive (ommitted details seen in the link above and absolutely irrelevant, given Mises could've simply been wrong, even if he thought this way.) - There is no historical anarchist society or none of them lasted for long (absolute rubbish. There were and they lasted longer as any nation state will ever do. There are plenty of examples from free cities, the Hansa and hubs living inbetween kingdoms and next to empires without any problems, as well as the majority of the asian continent once being governed in a defacto anarchist fashion. There is so much history from the US, over Ireland, to Italy, to Thailand, that saying there were none or they "failed" is simply evidence for ones ignorance, rather than a historically accurate statement.
- " Bitcoin was designed to allow corporations and people to engage with sound government — not to remove government."
DUH... Point is, it does that exactly by being anarchist. This has nothing to do with the ideological background of the user and his anarchist hopes. It does however have a lot to do with creating our governance/rulings/enforcment on a voluntary basis, with free contract-creation and no coercion. He doesn't understand that Misesian right to secede and opt-out is all we need, to achieve a defacto anarchist society. Craig can have his fascist state, if he loves to suck trumps or obamas dick, for that matter. I don't care. But he definitely needs to shut the fuck up about how I shouldn't have the right to secede from the madness, that he tries to justify merely by strawmaning anarchists. Especially, when he quotes Mises to make a case against Ancaps. I won't search out links and I won't even go over typos or formats. The bias is strong in our divided camps. And even stronger, when it comes to Statism. I don't care, how some of you guys will think about this article and in which creative ways you guys deflect the information being laid out here. I realized, there is no need for great formatting, respectful wording and a detailed explanation, when the other one isn't open minded. Any open minded person, who is solution oriented and wants to understand the truth, will simply go over this post and start to think critically about this. Anyone, who wants to argue about these matters has to start doing research. Incredible how arrogant some people are, that never even researched for once, what ancaps are actually about. All that, while making snarky comments about how naive they are. Incredible. Why I take my time to write about all this? This is no matter of taste or opinion. It's a matter of facts. And blatant arrogant ignorance. I once respected Craigs work and words, then I tolerated it. Now I think this guy is making cheap shots and creating a narrative, that gets him the most support. No matter how far from the truth what he says is. I know a shitty institution, that does it just like Craig. It's called government.
 

25.0¢
0.0¢

Reviews
1 of 1 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 1 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
Comments
  earned 8.0¢
Craig who? You forgot to add this persons last name in your advertisement for them. This feels like a crypto version of a Perez Hilton blog post. I was going to add something about the formatting but I see you covered that part at least. I genuinely hope this post helped get out whatever ills you felt needed to get out and your days of future anarchy are filled with sunshine.
Edit: Craig Wright! This guy gets way too much press, I am glad you are out of the game. No hate on if you were a 'fan' of his in the past. I have not Google'd his name in a while, so much shit going on in the news today, oh fuck https://medium.com/@craig_10243/careful-what-you-wish-for-c7c2f19e6c4f off to read this now so I can give more clicks too lol.
Edit 2: Directly related to your post here https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-lie-of-anarchy-bd7c1f239
Edit 3: lololol. Oh man, I have not kept up with all of Craigs stuff at all, I am kind of glad I ran into your post now just to see all his thoughts and claims. With so much of his thoughts regarding Silk Road I am surprised he doesn't address the hydra head of sites that came about after still running fine https://www.deepdotweb.com/dark-net-market-comparison-chart/ . I don't think Bitcoin is crime friendly but more crime agnostic. No hate on him honestly either, if all the stuff he is writing is true it is quite sad for him.
10.0¢
   7mo ago
10.0¢ 2.0¢
  earned 10.0¢
thanks for your snarky comments, @crypto collectibles seems like being a dick and not caring makes pople engage with you more. who woulda thunk? It took me way to much time already to simply write down my thoughts and get all the ills out, I've felt reading twats on twitter. I won't waste even more time, just because someone might stop reading, because the rhetoric doesn't suit him or some segment could've been organized better. I am not here to write professional articles, that get drowned in bullshit responses, ANYWAY. That way, I at least can see, who is part of the solution and who is to biased/arrogant to think for themselves. I wasn't a fan of him. But that did not stop me from respecting and listening and weighing in his thought on the matter. I went to great length to defend his actions, simply because I like to defend people, who are being wronged. His recent actions are but unjustifiable and his talk about anarchy is nothing but a giant strawman. Whenever he makes a shit comment or writes another trash article like your mentioned link, I'll be answering him. Maybe I'll add some serious formatting skills, just for you.... and then we see if it does pay out. his medium article btw. is total bull, because he simply takes the leftist stereotype of anarchists and tries to pull it over ancaps. This article is another sophist misrepresentation of anarchist libertarians. He makes unbacked claims and on his way, he also misrepresents the main idea behind crypto-ancaps: " Bitcoin was designed to allow corporations and people to engage with sound government — not to remove government." *facepalm*
DUH, CRAIG. DUH. Point is, it does that exactly by being anarchist. This has nothing to do with the ideological background of the user and his anarchist hopes. It does however have a lot to do with creating our governance/rulings/enforcment on a voluntary basis, with free contract-creation and no coercion. He doesn't understand that Misesian right to secede and opt-out is all we need, to achieve a defacto anarchist society. Craig can have his fascist state, if he loves to suck trumps or obamas dick, for that matter. I don't care. But he definitely needs to shut the fuck up about how I shouldn't have the right to secede from the madness, that he tries to justify merely by strawmaning anarchists. Especially, when he quotes Mises to make a case against Ancaps. Anyway, he shot himself in the foot already, by completely ignoring, that even 100 year old Mises in principle is much more in the ANCAP-camp, than he was with the CRAIGBERTARIANS.
10.0¢
   7mo ago
10.0¢
  spent 2.0¢
You have to be REALISTIC
You won't get Anarchy, ever... people want LAWS and regulations because people learned from the past that lawlessness is not good, its what wild west was, which was rule of the stronger. So you won't be going back to that and you can never expect it, unless there is complete collapse of society and vast majority of people end up being DEAD (like in Nuclear War)... that will be times where law will be out of the window and you would get your Anarchy but that will be time of chaos as well so nothing good can come out of that.
Anarcho-Capitalists are not very observant people (sorry, it has to be said) because you had this already in wild west, and again... same as above.
Capitalism as a system is not a good system to begin with, I think I've made plenty of posts explaining WHY and all those comments still stand.
Free Market Capitalism is complete shit, it sounds nice, because of the word "Free" but its not what it sounds like, the real meaning and term that should be used is UNREGULATED Capitalism... and that is proven to be shit already.
Bitcoin system is created to be law neutral (not breaking any laws) and if its to be used by everyone, which is what I thought we were all fighting for, it has to be used by everyone... which includes governments. You won't have society without governments, governments are fucked up because top richest Capitalists control them, not because the idea of government is shit.
It is fault of the PEOPLE of (mostly Americans) who allowed their government to be controlled by these obscenely rich capitalists and looked the other way as their government, media and military, were promoting, creating and fighting wars of aggression... American people should not have allowed this, and same applies to people in GB and few others.
So you need to stop calling Craig all kinds of names, he is not the problem here, people who want to change the Bitcoin system are the ones who are the problem, and in that category belong ABC devs, Jihan, and Roger.
Bitcoin is not Anarchist and it is not Capitalist, if you guys can't see it, that is your problem. I have provided plenty of factual arguments for this.
0.0¢
   7mo ago
2.0¢