Sort:  

That is correct but when I say that anarchy is not sustainable I mean that if the absence of rulers happened there would be a vacuum of power. Since we all know that people need to be ruled (not all of us but most) and the handful of people want to rule over others the vacuum would be filled by the strongest.

The strongest may not be any better than the previous regime and may be more immoral while being less effective.

I'm not so sure that most people need to be ruled, I don't think I need to be ruled because I have enough common sense to know right from wrong, what to do and what not to do. Unless you're saying that the average person doesn't have that same common sense.

You are correct in saying that YOU don’t need rulers. Have you looked around at the general population and talked with them about freedom? They spin it around that WE are the crazy ones for advocating self reliance and personal accountability!

Yes, they do indeed try to scape goat those who don't go along with the program. Just the other day, I had someone on another site whom I don't personally know commenting on a post I had tagged a couple of well loved friends about Steemit and how he thinks this place is a scam. These are the types of people we are faced with trolling and just doing any and everything they can think of to sabotage whatever an individual is doing.

That's a logical fallacy @superdavey. You're positing that you don't need a ruler but someone else does. Hasty generalization.

@pittsburghhodlr, read above. I am not saying that someone else does, THEY are saying it when they say “who will build muh roads?” “call a crackhead instead” “why do you want your kid to be stupid without an education?”....