What the hell are you talking about? A state is a centralized entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/ultimate decision making in conflicts, over a given geographical region. I interpreted your question to be about replacing the state full of people under it with a decentralized collection of people living in anarchy over a large geographical region, forming some sort of defense that you claim can't exist. A community, with a mechanism for defense. I proceeded to explain the most basic form of that defense. This method of defense is the replacement for the state. You literally posed the question of how anarchy REPLACES the state. Not becomes the state. Anarchy is just a peaceful interaction and organization of a community of people, by definition.

If you're trying to attain victory by definition, you're not very good at it. This is second rate sophistry at best.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

At first I thought you didn't understand me or I didn't explain myself properly, so I tried to center the debate.

I'm sure now that you don't want to understand anything. You just have a well learnt discourse that you repeat again and again, even when the conversation is not about it.

You're so tiresome.

If the conversation wasn't about what I was talking about, that's because you were not clear. At all. And you fucking know it. Waste of my time. Goodbye.