You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it.
In this case you, who are apparently an extreme idiot, have written a diatribe saying that the "underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself."
It is not, in fact, a strawman to describe your argument as being for the dissolution of the U.S. Government entirely, and currently Somalia is well-known for the absence of any effective government.
Somalia is often trotted out as some kind of pseudo-argument against anarchism, as if it were an example of what would happen without a government. I can see at least a couple of problems with that:
- Somalia has a government, regadless of how "effective" it is, and that alone makes it an invalid comparison.
- The absence of government means the absence of coercion, and that everything would be based on voluntary trade. It does not automatically follow that every place without a government would be a hellish shithole. That soup requires other ingredients besides "no government-controlled police force".
> You seem confused. Arguing against a strawman involves describing an opponent's argument falsely and then attacking it.
- I pointed out that the existence of Government is a problem.
- You implied I was advocating emulating Somalia (originally calling it "governmentless", but now covering your ass by adding "effective").
"Strawman" seems appropriate. Who was the idiot again?
