Anarchist Conundrums

What is this guy talking about racialism denying an individual? Race is a Western concept, if you're going to call yourself an anarchist, it is not just opposition to the state, it's the opposition to all forms of social domination. Considering that race is and continues to be a concept that divides people and privileges white people over all else, any type of racialism is inherently incompatible with anarchism. Race is a social construct that is to be deconstructed, not ignored or embraced.

getting rid of private property is an awful idea . I really never got that anarchist socialist thing like how could u say eveyrone is free without allowing some to won private things privacy is a big part of freedom.

Anarchist critiques of private property is based around the idea of putting a fence around something. It's this institution or this individuals and I can't access it, that creates a hierarchy, anarchists are opposed to hierarchy. This does not mean there aren't possessions, like a house or such. It just means that regardless of who possesses something, it is still freely and equally shared amongst all if it is needed. If you are traveling, mi casa es su casa.

SO you would be cool with a bunch of dudes invading your house to chill? eating your food and shit

Granted this happens on an individual level in SPITE of private property. Most anarchist critiques of property are towards large accumulations of wealth or an institution. One cannot say it is freedom when a corporation can buy park land and turn it into a shopping mall or when people are evicted thanks to gentrification and the price of rent being raised. Or when a small group of people make the decisions in one's workplace. Property is selective access, a hierarchy, not anarchy.

what is the hierarchy is voluntary? Its not like every steel worker can run the company himself, and for that reason he sells his labor to a man who can work him in the right places to max profit. The laborer understands this (usually) and it is voluntary as long as some form of wage is received. And no its not cool for a corporation to take park land. But in a free market a park would be protected as someone would protect a company. because it would be privately owned land in public use

1.if you were to take a person of race X and raise him in place Y, and if he did not know he is race X, then the person would think he is race Y.
2. in 'anarchy,' nobody expects anyone to uphold anything. if other people want to be coerced, that is fine, leave me out of it. self-defense is moral.
3. the solution of god stops philosophy, just as it is with the solution of the state.

the only reason i bother to respond is because you dilute others with your propaganda. go try and refute mises and rothbard... read 'Civil disobedience' by thoreau to understand the anarchist perspective.

there really is no difference.. since in 'anarchy' we would all be doing our own thing anyway.

I believe property is based on use, (though I do think workers and capitalists alike must honor contracts and the NAP) This is the only part of mutualism I adhere too.

Does it make sense for someone to claim the grand canyon and have property rights over it without taking into consideration whether or not he/she used it or mixed labor with it? Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.