I suppose this is what happens when you argue with a fool. It is easy to look back at our discussion under #agorism topic, and see that he almost immediately switched into seeking to
avoid the direct discussion of "does no state work" and into all kinds of discussion trickery. For example, I talk about cannibals under the context of "no state makes you vulnerable
("no state" as in "having no state", not "there is no state that")
... to many different dangers", and he replies "there are cannibals now". How can a thinking individual use such an argument in good faith, and not see (or pretend not to see) that
the point was that if you have no state you are likely more vulnerable to such things? I really struggle to see this as anything else than an attempt to confuse matters.
