Consequentialism IS a moral framework which, if used to justify anarchism, would still make anarchy a moral argument (although I think consequentialism is awful). Consequentialism is used to justify statism, too.

I do, and im tired of pretending that I dont. Also, good article. Lol

Addressing your final paragraph regarding us living in the greatest period of peace and prosperity in human history: we are not in peacetime. There is a covert war that has been raging for awhile now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

Here is a Wikipedia article talking about "unrestricted warfare", a new type of warfare developed by China that utilizes unconventional methods instead of the traditional boots on the ground approach. We are slowly starting to see the fruits of their labor.

A man who does a great job at explaining unrestricted warfare and what is likely happening today within that context is a man named Jeffrey Prather. His website is jeffreyprather.com. Check out some of his podcasts some time if you're interested!

Stefan was actually my introduction to anarchism. Very convincing stuff.

I do think there is something going on in the elite circles in terms of abuse and pedophilia. I dont know to what extent or anything, but I do think there is degeneracy present. That being said, the whole Q movement took things too far in my opinion. Too much trust was placed on an anonymous user that may or may not have been truthful; interpretations of current events are often grasping at straws and forming connections that likely are not there; the goalposts were ever-shifting to the point that Q predictions were becoming unflasifiable. It reminded me too much of a religion, in that people were asked to put their faith into someone whose existence wasn't certain in hopes of achieving a desired outcome that they had no real control over. I think there was/is a lot of overlap of people who are religious that believe God has a direct hand in current events and people who believe(d) in Q.

I think there is a distinction between people who are gay and people who are "faggots" (to borrow the 4chan way of putting it). Nothing wrong with being gay, just don't be so over the top about it and shove it down peoples throat to the point of making them uncomfortable. I do have some sympathies for why gay people feel the need to be over the top about it, because they do need to signal to other gay people that they are gay. As a straight person, and with straight being the norm, it is implied that I and everyone else is straight unless stated otherwise. Gay people need a way of showing they are gay in order tk meet organically. But there is still a right way and an annoying way if going about it.

Agreed. I know someone who just came out as trans and "he" is now claiming to be a woman. He has a beard. A long one. He isnt going to shave it, either. At some point people need to step back and say, "fuck, man. Im a bearded woman. What the fuck am i doing?" Do you know how hard it is to take someone claiming to be a bearded woman seriously?

Government is not a moral entity; in fact, there are instances where it can conflict with Christian morals. I was raised Catholic, and I'm pretty sure the church teaches the non aggression principle to some degree.

Even so, why would Christianity have a problem with everyone "being their own government", as they say? If you have Christian morals and have nothing impeding you from adhering to and acting upon those morals in terms of government, isnt that a net positive?

It sounds like your textbook was written by the biblical Pharisees, lol.

Yeah I'm not an economist either, but MMT is a joke. "JuSt KeEP SpEnDinG oN the DefICiT 5eVeR"

Government is fundamentally corrupt through open hypocrisy: government is allowed to enact violence against its populace as the means of enforcing laws and regulations. We are not allowed to enact violence against each other or the government. An institution founded on hypocrisy is already corrupt and is only open to further corruption.

Note: this is not an argument that we should be permitted to enact violence against others to combat the hypocrisy. Rather, it is an argument against the government having a monopoly on the use of force while deeming it immoral when we do it. Aggressive violence is always immoral, doesn't matter who does it. Self defense is obviously a different story.

There is a simple moral proof for it:

The initiation of the use of force is wrong. This is something we all accept in our daily lives and in my opinion is not reasonably up for debate (although you are welcome to).

The government is fundamentally a monopoly on the initiation of force upon a given region. All government regulations and laws are, at the end of the day, enforced with the threat of violence (jail, death if you resist every step of the way through self defense).

Because the initiation of the use of force is immoral and the government is the initiation of the use of force, the government is immoral. Anarchism is the only structure which accommodates a total lack of government.