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?
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.