>>25
>Has that happened to any of you anons?
In a way, it has. I'll go ahead and explain my thought process on this.
So, in any transaction, voluntary or not, there is an implied contract. Voluntarists will kvetch and say, "I didn't sign any piece of paper," but implied contracts are everywhere in a society: from honest, hard-working people who do any kind of business with another in an unofficial capacity, to when thieves steal from others (i.e. retribution). Individual and State transact with one another on a daily basis. The question regarding this tacit agreement between individual and State is, if the individual, in using the goods and services the State provides them, by calling emergency services or using The Roads™, steals from the State. Or, does the State steal from the individual through its mandatory collection of taxation? Then, whom, under Libertarian restitution theory of property/theft, is indebted to the other. Do I owe the state compensation, or does the State owe me?
As an anarchist, I believe that taxation is theft. Therefore, the State, being a tax estate, as long as it exists and I live within it, owes me my claim in its assets and, by extension, owes me the preservation of my claim. This means the State has a duty, before doing anything else with its stolen funds, to fund a military, to protect the stolen assets from larger States. It owes it to me to import higher-skilled immigrants as opposed to lower-skilled immigrants, who will also have a claim in the estate, as to not detract from the value of the estate. This also means that the State should protect its assets, like public parks, from, say, vandalism. These are all reasonable positions for an anarchist to hold regarding the State's duties.
I recently read "Industrial Society and Its Future," by Ted Kaczynski. Its a good read for an anarchist. Mr. Kaczynski's position is commonly known as "anarcho-primitivism." To me, anarcho-primitivism is not an anarchist school of thought or philosophy, its a strategy to achieve a stateless society. It is recognizing that "large-scale technologies," such as the internet, the military-industrial complex, and their supply chains are what support the continued existence of the State. My conclusion, after reading his work, is that in order to abolish the State, Industrial-Technological Society, the "large-scale technologies" described by Mr. Kaczysnki, need to be torn down.
In reading his work, I have lost significant faith in the anarchist cause. I am one of the people who benefits most from the Industrial-Technological system and the State that it's supporting. I will one day work in Silicon Valley, (which, coincidentally, enjoys substantial economic support from the U.S. government) and I can't support destroying the system that benefits someone like me most of all.
So, to answer your question: yes, this too has happened to me. My political position went from anarchism to that an aristocratic minarchy is ideal. This is optimal autism.