CommentStreams:B54c9db528cd637b038edefb9d9f0276

I definitely think you have misread my section; it is an exercise in ideals. That is, even under the best possible scenario the justified state is an opposition to an individual and an impossibility.

Direct democracy as a unanimous system - that is everyone agrees and is interested in the outcome is basically no democracy at all. One would have to ask whether agreement among friends was an evil democratic state - especially if the group didn't force not so willing friends to participate. Additionally, I said if individuals are not interested in the outcome they “succeed” which again you misinterpret.

Illegalism, insurrection, destruction, etc., are all forms of succession which would mean you critique yourself. The point is that individual rejection of states and laws is separation from the state. One would question whether you had read Stirner or Newman.

The position is arguing that such a social contract even in its best form is logically impossible even if such a state is theoritically possible. I am no a priori anarchist that adheres to strict essentialist principles that argues either that the people are good nor that the state is good and vice versa.

Obviously it was not made explicit enough for you when I said it was impossible in said section. Honestly a shame that I have to explain myself.