CommentStreams:4be75d577c528c7ccdc8376ac3379cb2

"I wouldn’t consider state to be evil because it means nothing." Yet, when I define it as purely relational, you are upset that I do not decry it as either good or bad.

"I wouldn’t compare friendship to state systems, it’s inherently apolitical." - Sigh, a 'political' relation is no different to a religious, ethical, societal, friendship, etc., relation - it is merely whether the relation itself is valued or seen as unquestionable. If such a friendship became dominating, violent, and 'sacred', then it is still not political, but it is just as oppressive.

"I thought not about insurrection, illegalism and such but about voluntary state giving me permission to leave it, that is extremely utopian vision." - Yes, that is the point. If, in this scenario, the individual consented to the state, then they would be able to retract consent, mainly because they would only consent if that possibility existed. My own take on succession under current states is closer to insurrection.

"I have read Stirner and Newman." - I don't know why these ideas are so foreign then.

"Neither humans nor state are good or evil, it’s essentialist." - Yes, which is why a state cannot be 'innately evil.' As I said, I painted the view merely to argue that even under the best possible scenario, I still wouldn't accept the state.