[ALawPoker]

Another hurdle that keeps me from "acting like an ACer" which I meant to add is that people will interpret what you stand for in a way that makes sense to them, and there's no changing that. And people's opinions matter to me, to some degree. Someone can say "The government needs to do more of [X]!" and I might agree that X is a good thing that socially I would approve of and encourage. But I just don't approve of the idea that the government should do it. But that's lost on them.

Moreover, let's say anarchy was an ideal that I had no doubts about. I want to help make it happen in every way possible. The ways you do this (not voting, not paying taxes, exposing the corruption, etc.), while objectively good, are things people will interpret as deviant and bad. And I don't want to be interpreted like that. The ideal is not as important to me as practical perception.

So I guess you could say that sort of leaves me with what I believe is borodog's position, that it's best to avoid talking about politics with anyone you care about. I'm just not entirely sure what I think of that. I enjoy talking about what I value with people I value. It's easy enough to avoid talking about "Who do you want to be President," but inevitably you'll want to talk about life, assumptions, etc., with people you care about. And to do this, for me, I prefer to adjust my language to reconcile with their reality.

So then what am I? Am I an ACer? I don't think so. Because like I said, I think it implies more dedication to the principle than I actually have.

But anyways, thanks for your reply Nielsio. If you have any more thoughts please share.


EDIT: I think an important question is "Does hypocrisy actually exist?" In the interest of not starving to death though, I must play poker now and may elaborate later.