It might very well be, the vast majority of people resort to "who will built the roads" and "who will decide property lines" so I think 90% might be close, if not even an underestimate, for example I was watching a Rob Hustle interview a couple years ago, and the host was Anarchast, and you will notice, someone who sees the injustice and posits it in such a hard hitting way with his music video Call The Cops, hasn't really considered himself an anarchist.
For semantralist, which uses a very overused cop term, "semantics", which gets uttered when you establish your standing for possession vs ownership or their duty over investigating crimes vs suspecting, he has in the past sought to argue that I have no moral integrity because I didn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police force which he argued was to protect liberty which couldn't be farther from the truth as I kept pointing out that they were formed directly from slave catching patrols, and if you follow his comments to where that began you will notice how and why he is writing these things (I've had many long arguments with an-caps and libertarians to the extent of frustration, as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.), and why I addressed that issue of social contract and dismissed his whole post.
90% was me being kind. I do think there are intelligent people out there who have simply been indoctrinated their entire lives and are struggling to get free. I find that I am still often in this category, when I am not paying close attention.
Possession vs ownership is clearly not semantics. That's why there is a difference made between 'to have' and 'to hold'. Police can not have any legitimate existence or authority. It is an impossibility, because it is a logical contradiction of natural rights and individual liberty. Despite the purported 'good intentions' behind the creation of police to 'protect' life and liberty, the result of the dynamics of imbuing a subset of the people with rights The People, at large, do not have, is well established, if not well known, and leads to corruption, if not outright despotism, every time it has been tried.
I think that 'protection of liberty' may not have any logical existence, only 'defense of liberty'. semantralist doesn't want to be correct, he wants to be right. I left him a poignant pun. Someone flagged that particular comment of yours with two dummy accounts with lots of SP (23,000 apiece) and no substance. I guess some people would rather despise the truth, than be freed by it.
I often find that arguing with an-caps and libertarians is almost as pointless as arguing with leftists, it's just a different degree of authoritarianism.
Thank you. I learn much more having conversation than faux debate with people who only desire to be right.
Don't mistake a sense of aggression or frustration with wanting to be "right". Being right or wrong is arbitrary when it comes to philosophical talking points such as politics or ideology. It's all opinions through rigorous thinking and scrutiny....just some times people rub you the wrong way and you have to cut communication before things end up at the point of "well fuck you" back and forth.
Again, you may want to learn what words mean.
Or perhaps learn to read better? I'd suggest studying structuralist approaches.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no moral integrity because you compare a system that has long since passed to a system that is in place now. It would be the same proposition as me saying "I enjoy dating black men and women" and someone saying "Well slave owners like to fuck their slaves". The level of intellectual integrity you have is....by impair the same as those egregious progressive liberals.
I ended the conversation on the first post because I knew exactly how it would end, in a completely contrary stance for each of us, but you kept up the drama. You really are disingenuous.