Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[Flopper]

Minimal Training is an assumption, there is absolutely no training that other people cannot go through. You're literally assuming that they have no training on the sole basis that they're not employed by the Government, which is blatantly retarded. If anything, they'd be trained better, because you can just get the same service elsewhere.

They ARE also better because they have no authority, it means they can only kill or hurt people in self defense or the defense of others, rather than kidnapping and imprisoning them for carrying a plant they don't like AND other people can defend themselves against them if they attempt to hurt them wrongly.

I know they don't have the training because they are what's called Peace Officers. To be certified for a peace officer, it takes two to three days of training, then testing and licensing. A police officer goes through a month or two of training. Much different. Plus there is no further training once you are a certified peace officer. With police work, they update their training all the time.

More than that is being updated on laws. A peace officer only has scant training on laws, mostly that pertains to security work. Security work and police work are two entirely different fields. Police are only allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.

Nobody gives them authority to do those things, we have literally no say in what laws are passed, and Government officials do not work for us. They've even admitted this in court cases.

I also want to further point out that you don't freaking speak for me, and neither does anyone else. A majority of people saying something, ASSUMING it's a majority, doesn't change that. None of the people in any public office represents my interests, either, they don't freaking know me. They're literally just normal people claiming to have authority over us, despite having no expressed consent in any way.

They factually are. What do you call it when someone takes property from you against your will? Gosh, that sounds exactly like robbery. Oh wait, that's because it is. They literally force you to pull over by the side of the road under threat of violence, then steal your money under threat of violence. This is how taxes work, too. They also gun people down for defending themselves when they break into their homes or assault them for doing something they don't like which doesn't hurt anyone. They also literally kidnap and imprison people, how many people are in jail for "crimes" that don't hurt anyone? 48%, if I recall correctly. They literally kidnap and imprison people for "crimes" that didn't hurt anyone. How is this not obvious to do? Oh gosh, probably because you attribute rights to them which nobody else has, as if they're above us.

Yes, they do have expressed consent via voting. We vote in our representatives, and by doing so, give them our permission to make laws.

It sounds to me your problem is living in this country. Because the US was built as a nation of laws starting with our US Constitution. Your desire is to live in a place with no laws. No laws means no civilized society. But the United States is a civilized society which is why we have laws, authority and penalties. You can't have a civilized society without them. Being placed under arrest is not kidnapping. Look up the word in the dictionary.

It's called "applying the same standards to everyone", and it's hard to do when you've been brainwashed into worshiping an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Do you know what they do with those video cameras when they don't want people to see? They either don't get released, or they "mysteriously" fall off while they're attacking an innocent person.
Woman shot herself in the head while cuffed with hands behind her back during traffic stop in suicide, police say
Nothing strange about this at all.

Police don't attack innocent people. Police attack people who are either running away from them or are fighting with the officers.

In Punpkin's world there is no government to make laws so her security forces don't need to learn the law because there are none.

 

[Flopper]

What happens in the instance of an organized military invasion?

Well, for one, there's no reason for an invasion, because every war in recent history has been Governments fighting each other. Even if they did invade, well, for one, war is expensive, so they're just wasting more of their own money, and for another, they'd be repelled by the millions of people who don't want to be enslaved by yet another Government. The millions of people who have access to the same technology or better, and are capable of defending themselves, and the Militia formed to protect their investment, property, and loved ones. They'd be literally sending the invaders to their deaths, to fight nothing specific since there's no Ruler, when they could just be trading for what they want.

Natural resources is a reason for invasion, next! You take an organized military against a gaggle of armed anarchist enclaves, and the organized military is going to win every time.

See: Indians.

You'd lose more than you gain, especially in a society without Government. War is, once again, extremely expensive, and that "Gaggle of armed Anarchist enclaves" has access to the same training and technology as any invading force. Your brain seems to just shut off when you see the word "Anarchist". You didn't refute a single thing I said above. If they want the resources, it's more mutually beneficial to just trade for them, hence Governments being the reason for all recent wars.

I disagree. The organized army would gain everything.

Oh hey, no argument, just a point-blank statement refuting nothing I said. Billy, is that you?

What happens in the instance of an organized military invasion?

Well, for one, there's no reason for an invasion, because every war in recent history has been Governments fighting each other. Even if they did invade, well, for one, war is expensive, so they're just wasting more of their own money, and for another, they'd be repelled by the millions of people who don't want to be enslaved by yet another Government. The millions of people who have access to the same technology or better, and are capable of defending themselves, and the Militia formed to protect their investment, property, and loved ones. They'd be literally sending the invaders to their deaths, to fight nothing specific since there's no Ruler, when they could just be trading for what they want.

The closest thing we have in this world to a true anarchy is South Sudan. I suggest you try it and see how you like it. You won't have to worry about any real government. No real laws except the law of jungle intermittently enforced by gangs. Business is so good in this country that the GDP has fallen by 90% in last 9 years.

I think you mean Early Pennsylvania, Neutral Moresnet, Cospaia, and Medieval Ireland. If you mean TODAY, people attempting to leave "Countries" have been forced back in:


Sudan is not even remotely Anarchist, that's just another one of your uneducated strawman arguments that result from the zero research you've done, because your masters don't like educated people. They're a Constitutional Republic with president and vice president, you freaking binswanger. If you're referring to the fact that it has multiple warring Governments, then that's literally MORE statism.

Yeah, bro, things are going great. Purchasing power dropping, regulations ever increasing, no longer in the top ten on the index of economic freedom, more and more Government every day. Yeah, no.

So nihilistic! I swear there's hope!

I am a nihilist, but there is hope. The Government will collapse sometime in the next ten years. Every aspect of the economy is screwed enough for that to be the case.

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals. Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, what you're saying is that with no Government, people will go through minimal training, that way their competitors can prove that their services are better and steal all of their customers. Seems legit, dude.

You may be used to the Government cornering the market with regulatory capture, since that's all you've ever known from the Deity you worship, known as Government, however in the absence of Government, nothing is preventing businesses from entering the market.

I"m as anti-government as they get. I'm a conservative that believes in small government, however that doesn't mean I believe in no government as you seem to.

While a small government person, I'm also a realist which is government is needed in certain sectors that the private industry simply can't handle. We need government to build roads because people could not possibly be organized enough to do it themselves. We need government to invest in space technology that gave us the ability to communicate the way we are now, and allow us to communicate with anybody around the world in a matter of a few seconds. Same goes for sidewalks that individuals would not invest in, and make it impossible for the disabled to maneuver to where they needed to go.

And yes, we need our police and fire departments because leaving such important tasks to rookies would only lead to disaster. They are handled by local governments more controlled by the people. And people can get rid of either anytime they desire. However collectively, we choose to have these entities in our government to serve our needs.

Laws are opinions written on paper, nothing needs to be done unless one person is attempting to deprive another of their property or hurt them.

I see you're still ignoring all of the cases I showed and mentioned where Road Pirates straight-up murdered people who were handcuffed in the back of a Road Pirate car, or on the hands and knees, or shot people through a door. I'd probably ignore them as well, if I were so thoroughly brainwashed. What do you think would happen to a Private Security Business if they straight-up murdered someone? Gosh, I think they'd lose all of their customers while news organizations that aren't controlled by the Government because there is no Government report the incident, causing them to go under. Meanwhile, if a Road Pirate murders someone, apparently it's barely reported on, and nothing happens to the guy. Oh, and the Government still steals your money to fund them.

No, you gave me one link. While I admit it's suspicious, I find it hard to believe that police would execute a 19 year old girl for shits and giggles. The woman was strung out on drugs, admitted to depression on Facebook, and was in company of a guy who was very well armed and being watched for his drug activity by police. It's not hard to imagine that a body cam could be knocked off while struggling with a suspect fighting them; especially somebody who's doped up. However it's an anomaly and not the norm.

So, they don't have consent from 100% of people below the age of 18, and 40% of eligible voters. That's not consent at all, anyway, because voting can be seen as an act of self defense, since every piece of legislation passed, which they don't care about our opinion on, further restricts our rights and gives the Government more permission, from themselves by the way, to initiate force against us.

I also want to point out that I never gave anyone permission to give consent to things for me, and a majority vote can't give consent for me, otherwise a majority of people can decide that they should be allowed to steal your property and lynch you, then that would be perfectly legitimate, because frick, a majority of people decided that was A-OKAY.

Sorry, but that's the way it works in a Republic. Representatives cannot cater to everybody's individual concerns. They cater to the public on a majority basis. Since people feel differently about different things, you can't make everybody happy. All you can really do is try to make most of the people happy.

I shouldn't have to leave everything I own to prevent an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers from initiating violence against me. That's like saying that if I went through a dark ally at night, it's perfectly legitimate to stab me to death.

That Constitution just a sheet of paper, nobody consented to it, just a few guys who signed it. It's nowhere near a legitimate binding contract, and the idea that complete strangers can consent for someone else by writing their names on it is absolutely baffling.

I don't consider a group of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers sending road pirates after people who haven't hurt anyone to be civilized, nor do I consider the mass murder of unborn babies to be civilized.

Being placed "under arrest" is literally kidnapping. The Government deciding they can rename something in order to claim it's legitimate doesn't change that. That's like saying stabbing an innocent person in the face isn't murder because they were holding a plant the Government didn't like. By your logic, they can rename any act of aggression and claim it's fully legitimate. You wouldn't happen to pray three times a day while facing Washington DC, would you?

That's ridiculous. Murder is murder when you kill somebody with intent. However it is not murder when you kill for self-defense. Same thing with being under arrest. The public gives police and government the authority to arrest people who are breaking the law. That's how our society works. If you don't approve how our society works, you simply leave the society for one you approve of.

The US Constitution is not a piece of paper. It's the foundation of our entire country. We follow it as was written, and are able to amend the document when we have a strong enough majority to change it. You consented to it by being born here. And again, if you don't consent to it, you leave the country and find one where you don't have to consent to anything.

I just showed you numerous examples of that claim being totally false. Do you just argue by ignoring the other person? I thought that was Joe's job.

Are you, then, under the impression that wearing a blue uniform with a badge prevents someone from being held to the same standards, and suddenly makes them a paragon of all that's good in the world? I guess they're deities, to you, just like the rest of the Government.

The people with the blue uniform on are held to the same standards as the rest of us. As a licensed CCW holder, I can only use deadly force if I believe I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Police are held to that same exact standard. Now unless you can give me a link where police can kill anytime they want, then your assertion is false.

However that blue uniform and badge gives them the right to arrest people and bring charges against them; something I as a citizen can't do. That badge gives them the right to lock people up so they can be processed and have their day in court. If sentenced to prison, that badge gives the right of an officer to transport the criminal to the prison and turn them over to others who wear that badge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimal Training is an assumption, there is absolutely no training that other people cannot go through. You're literally assuming that they have no training on the sole basis that they're not employed by the Government, which is blatantly retarded. If anything, they'd be trained better, because you can just get the same service elsewhere.

They ARE also better because they have no authority, it means they can only kill or hurt people in self defense or the defense of others, rather than kidnapping and imprisoning them for carrying a plant they don't like AND other people can defend themselves against them if they attempt to hurt them wrongly.

I know they don't have the training because they are what's called Peace Officers. To be certified for a peace officer, it takes two to three days of training, then testing and licensing. A police officer goes through a month or two of training. Much different. Plus there is no further training once you are a certified peace officer. With police work, they update their training all the time.

More than that is being updated on laws. A peace officer only has scant training on laws, mostly that pertains to security work. Security work and police work are two entirely different fields. Police are only allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.

Nobody gives them authority to do those things, we have literally no say in what laws are passed, and Government officials do not work for us. They've even admitted this in court cases.

I also want to further point out that you don't freaking speak for me, and neither does anyone else. A majority of people saying something, ASSUMING it's a majority, doesn't change that. None of the people in any public office represents my interests, either, they don't freaking know me. They're literally just normal people claiming to have authority over us, despite having no expressed consent in any way.

They factually are. What do you call it when someone takes property from you against your will? Gosh, that sounds exactly like robbery. Oh wait, that's because it is. They literally force you to pull over by the side of the road under threat of violence, then steal your money under threat of violence. This is how taxes work, too. They also gun people down for defending themselves when they break into their homes or assault them for doing something they don't like which doesn't hurt anyone. They also literally kidnap and imprison people, how many people are in jail for "crimes" that don't hurt anyone? 48%, if I recall correctly. They literally kidnap and imprison people for "crimes" that didn't hurt anyone. How is this not obvious to do? Oh gosh, probably because you attribute rights to them which nobody else has, as if they're above us.

Yes, they do have expressed consent via voting. We vote in our representatives, and by doing so, give them our permission to make laws.

It sounds to me your problem is living in this country. Because the US was built as a nation of laws starting with our US Constitution. Your desire is to live in a place with no laws. No laws means no civilized society. But the United States is a civilized society which is why we have laws, authority and penalties. You can't have a civilized society without them. Being placed under arrest is not kidnapping. Look up the word in the dictionary.

It's called "applying the same standards to everyone", and it's hard to do when you've been brainwashed into worshiping an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Do you know what they do with those video cameras when they don't want people to see? They either don't get released, or they "mysteriously" fall off while they're attacking an innocent person.
Woman shot herself in the head while cuffed with hands behind her back during traffic stop in suicide, police say
Nothing strange about this at all.

Police don't attack innocent people. Police attack people who are either running away from them or are fighting with the officers.

In Punpkin's world there is no government to make laws so her security forces don't need to learn the law because there are none.

I think what she doesn't realize is that if we lived in such a primitive society, it wouldn't be long before the strongest, most powerful, the most evil would take over such society out of brute strength. It's the nature of the animal world for the strongest to take over.

An organized civilized society doesn't do that. We allow people to decide who leads our society instead of the most brutal. Because no matter what, somebody is going to want to be the leader. It's just nature.

 

[Flopper]

Minimal Training is an assumption, there is absolutely no training that other people cannot go through. You're literally assuming that they have no training on the sole basis that they're not employed by the Government, which is blatantly retarded. If anything, they'd be trained better, because you can just get the same service elsewhere.

They ARE also better because they have no authority, it means they can only kill or hurt people in self defense or the defense of others, rather than kidnapping and imprisoning them for carrying a plant they don't like AND other people can defend themselves against them if they attempt to hurt them wrongly.

I know they don't have the training because they are what's called Peace Officers. To be certified for a peace officer, it takes two to three days of training, then testing and licensing. A police officer goes through a month or two of training. Much different. Plus there is no further training once you are a certified peace officer. With police work, they update their training all the time.

More than that is being updated on laws. A peace officer only has scant training on laws, mostly that pertains to security work. Security work and police work are two entirely different fields. Police are only allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.

Nobody gives them authority to do those things, we have literally no say in what laws are passed, and Government officials do not work for us. They've even admitted this in court cases.

I also want to further point out that you don't freaking speak for me, and neither does anyone else. A majority of people saying something, ASSUMING it's a majority, doesn't change that. None of the people in any public office represents my interests, either, they don't freaking know me. They're literally just normal people claiming to have authority over us, despite having no expressed consent in any way.

They factually are. What do you call it when someone takes property from you against your will? Gosh, that sounds exactly like robbery. Oh wait, that's because it is. They literally force you to pull over by the side of the road under threat of violence, then steal your money under threat of violence. This is how taxes work, too. They also gun people down for defending themselves when they break into their homes or assault them for doing something they don't like which doesn't hurt anyone. They also literally kidnap and imprison people, how many people are in jail for "crimes" that don't hurt anyone? 48%, if I recall correctly. They literally kidnap and imprison people for "crimes" that didn't hurt anyone. How is this not obvious to do? Oh gosh, probably because you attribute rights to them which nobody else has, as if they're above us.

Yes, they do have expressed consent via voting. We vote in our representatives, and by doing so, give them our permission to make laws.

It sounds to me your problem is living in this country. Because the US was built as a nation of laws starting with our US Constitution. Your desire is to live in a place with no laws. No laws means no civilized society. But the United States is a civilized society which is why we have laws, authority and penalties. You can't have a civilized society without them. Being placed under arrest is not kidnapping. Look up the word in the dictionary.

It's called "applying the same standards to everyone", and it's hard to do when you've been brainwashed into worshiping an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers. Do you know what they do with those video cameras when they don't want people to see? They either don't get released, or they "mysteriously" fall off while they're attacking an innocent person.
Woman shot herself in the head while cuffed with hands behind her back during traffic stop in suicide, police say
Nothing strange about this at all.

Police don't attack innocent people. Police attack people who are either running away from them or are fighting with the officers.

In Punpkin's world there is no government to make laws so her security forces don't need to learn the law because there are none.

I think what she doesn't realize is that if we lived in such a primitive society, it wouldn't be long before the strongest, most powerful, the most evil would take over such society out of brute strength. It's the nature of the animal world for the strongest to take over.

An organized civilized society doesn't do that. We allow people to decide who leads our society instead of the most brutal. Because no matter what, somebody is going to want to be the leader. It's just nature.

I'm really surprised that there are so many anarchist today. How anyone could agree with such ridiculous idealism is beyond me. On the political spectrum if falls both on the far left and far right. "Right" anarchists advocate the elimination of the state but maintaining respect for private property whereas those on the "left" advocate the elimination of the state and private property.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I"m as anti-government as they get. I'm a conservative that believes in small government, however that doesn't mean I believe in no government as you seem to.

Saying that you're a Conservative only means you believe in less violence against innocent people, you still support it. Not that it matters, because the Government doesn't listen to you. If you look at the graph I showed you, and I'm sure you didn't, it showed that regulations have always increased. So, have we just never had a Conservative? Of course not, they're all the same, and they all work in the interest of Government.

While a small government person, I'm also a realist which is government is needed in certain sectors that the private industry simply can't handle.

Riveting, name one thing that is needed, but there isn't and can't be a market for. Just one. I'll give you a hint; If you want it, you're willing to pay for it, therefor there's a market. If you aren't willing to pay for it, you must not need it as much as you thought.

We need government to build roads because people could not possibly be organized enough to do it themselves.

Well, for one, private businesses built roads before the Government declared imminent domain over them. Secondly, that's horse pucky: History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Random farmers built a road in an hour because they decided they wanted one, so you're wrong on all accounts.

We need government to invest in space technology that gave us the ability to communicate the way we are now, and allow us to communicate with anybody around the world in a matter of a few seconds.

Well, firstly, the Government laughed off the original idea of a space program, and refused to fund it. Private industry went through with the idea. Secondly, communications was ALSO private industry, the concept of satellite tracking was private industry, computers were private industry, and satellites as a concept were private industry. The only thing any Government did in the field was launch Sputnik, and Private industry was paid to do that as well. What motivates innovation is profit incentive, not the Government stealing people's money and giving it to someone else.

Same goes for sidewalks that individuals would not invest in, and make it impossible for the disabled to maneuver to where they needed to go.

If you're not willing to pay for them, they must not be all that important. If you want them, then you must be willing to pay for it. I don't really understand how this concept can be so confusing to you. Is it that hard to comprehend the concept of voluntary exchange?

And yes, we need our police and fire departments because leaving such important tasks to rookies would only lead to disaster.

Would you pay for a rookie to defend your home and family? No? I guess someone else would see a market there and provide better-trained Private Security. I find it amazing that you don't understand that people wouldn't pay for bad service.

Fire departments are about 70+% volunteer.

They are handled by local governments more controlled by the people. And people can get rid of either anytime they desire. However collectively, we choose to have these entities in our government to serve our needs.

No Government is controlled by the people, they can tell you what to do and how you should do it, then send Road Pirates after you for not doing it, or not doing it their way. You have NO power over them, your opinion means less than nothing to them.

I'm not part of your collective hive mind, you don't decide what I want. You should quit forgetting that.

No, you gave me one link. While I admit it's suspicious, I find it hard to believe that police would execute a 19 year old girl for shits and giggles. The woman was strung out on drugs, admitted to depression on Facebook, and was in company of a guy who was very well armed and being watched for his drug activity by police. It's not hard to imagine that a body cam could be knocked off while struggling with a suspect fighting them; especially somebody who's doped up. However it's an anomaly and not the norm.

Georgia Cop Won't Be Charged in Shooting Death of Teen
Jury clears Pennsylvania police officer of murder in Antwon Rose shooting
'You Lie, You Die': Cops Admit to Lying About Raid that Left Innocent Couple Murdered
WATCH: Cop Tasers Innocent Man in the Back Then Asks Fellow Cops to Help 'Make Up Charges'
No charges for Sacramento police officers who shot and killed Stephon Clark
Police say boy with replica gun killed by officer in Arizona

Were you aware that Police are about 0.2% of the population, yet they're responsible for 5.2% of murders? That's the Police straight murdering about 1000 people every year. How many are A-okay to you?

Sorry, but that's the way it works in a Republic. Representatives cannot cater to everybody's individual concerns. They cater to the public on a majority basis. Since people feel differently about different things, you can't make everybody happy. All you can really do is try to make most of the people happy.

Everyone can be made happy if they lived as they wanted to live, so long as they don't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of their property. What you MEANT to say is that with a Government, not everyone can be happy. Amazingly, not everyone is totally fine with jack-boots on their neck.

I also want to point out that "That's the way it is" isn't an argument in favor of something, that in no way makes it ethical to force a way of life on everyone.

That's ridiculous. Murder is murder when you kill somebody with intent. However it is not murder when you kill for self-defense. Same thing with being under arrest. The public gives police and government the authority to arrest people who are breaking the law. That's how our society works. If you don't approve how our society works, you simply leave the society for one you approve of.

Yes, murder is killing with intent, and that applies to everyone, including the Government. Breaking into someone's house to arrest them for having a plant you don't like is unethical. When you shoot that person for defending themselves, that's also unethical, regardless of who you are. That person's house never should have been broken into, and they never should have been threatened. The person who broke in, whether they're wearing a blue uniform and a badge or not, never should have invaded the person's property. That's what I'm been trying to explain, ethics apply to everyone, and if someone isn't hurting someone else or depriving someone of their property, nobody has any business initiating force against them, such as trying to place them in handcuffs and kidnapping them, to imprison them.

I shouldn't have to leave my property to escape the Government's unethical activity. That's not how the burden of proof works, nor is it how ethics work.

The US Constitution is not a piece of paper. It's the foundation of our entire country. We follow it as was written, and are able to amend the document when we have a strong enough majority to change it. You consented to it by being born here. And again, if you don't consent to it, you leave the country and find one where you don't have to consent to anything.

It's a piece of paper. As explained in the video that you totally ignored, because it explains why you're wrong, it has no characteristics which make it a binding contract.

So, what you're saying is that people are old enough to consent to things at zero years old, and that tacit consent from a passive action is fully legitimate? Do you understand how insane that is?


In that case, when you coughed, or when your heart beat, you consented to having all of your property stolen.

The people with the blue uniform on are held to the same standards as the rest of us.

Oh, so I can kick in your door and hold you at gunpoint? Or pull you over and demand you pay the Government money? No, we are not held to the same standards at all.

As a licensed CCW holder, I can only use deadly force if I believe I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Police are held to that same exact standard. Now unless you can give me a link where police can kill anytime they want, then your assertion is false.

I already linked numerous articles detailing Road Pirates straight murdering people. Also, if they break into someone's house and that person shoots them, it's self defense, yet the Road Pirates would still send more to kill that person. They're not remotely held to the same standards.

I also want to point out that some Road Pirate Stations have a theft quota that they have to fulfill, and Road Pirates get paid leave for straight murdering people.

However that blue uniform and badge gives them the right to arrest people and bring charges against them; something I as a citizen can't do. That badge gives them the right to lock people up so they can be processed and have their day in court. If sentenced to prison, that badge gives the right of an officer to transport the criminal to the prison and turn them over to others who wear that badge.

So, by wearing a blue uniform, I can arrest people for doing things I don't like. You're literally attributing additional rights to people who work for the Government, on the basis that they work for the Government, while simultaneously arguing that they're held to the same standards and that they work for you.

You're basically saying "Right to kidnap" in so many words. The Government redefined words when pertaining to them, and you completely fell for it. I also want to point out that "Crime" is not the same as doing something wrong. Again, 48% of people being held captive are there for something that didn't hurt anyone.

 

[Flopper]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

Stating what your masters have told you doesn't refute anything I said, you're only reclaiming with no provided evidence. Neutral Moresnet, Medieval Ireland, Cospaia, and early Pensylvania were never proven violent, and at this point you're just talking at me instead of making an argument against what I'm saying. This is why I refer to you people as Binswangers, once you've lost, you don't freaking care, you just repeat the same fallacious arguments.

 

[Flopper]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

Stating what your masters have told you doesn't refute anything I said, you're only reclaiming with no provided evidence. Neutral Moresnet, Medieval Ireland, Cospaia, and early Pensylvania were never proven violent, and at this point you're just talking at me instead of making an argument against what I'm saying. This is why I refer to you people as Binswangers, once you've lost, you don't freaking care, you just repeat the same fallacious arguments.

Medieval Ireland had government. It was divided into many small kingdoms. They had kings that ruled. The micro-state of Cospaia had government in form of council of elders which is what you you would expect in a state with population of only 300 or 400, a single religion and ethnicity. There is no comparison with the US today with a diverse population of over 330 million composed of just about every ethnicity, race, and religion on face of the earth.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

Stating what your masters have told you doesn't refute anything I said, you're only reclaiming with no provided evidence. Neutral Moresnet, Medieval Ireland, Cospaia, and early Pensylvania were never proven violent, and at this point you're just talking at me instead of making an argument against what I'm saying. This is why I refer to you people as Binswangers, once you've lost, you don't freaking care, you just repeat the same fallacious arguments.

Medieval Ireland had government. It was divided into many small kingdoms. They had kings that ruled. The micro-state of Cospaia had government in form of council of elders which is what you you would expect in a state with population of only 300 or 400, a single religion and ethnicity. There is no comparison with the US today with a diverse population of over 330 million composed of just about every ethnicity, race, and religion on face of the earth.

"Kings" in Ireland literally just led armies, they had no Government until they were conquered by the violent British statists. Cospaia had no Government, no legal system, no jails, military, police. The Council of Elders only Governed at one point, and that wasn't even by force, people would have voluntarily followed their council.

There IS comparison, because population size doesn't matter when everyone can defend themselves, and nobody has to live any specific way, so long as nobody is being deprived of anything by your actions. Amazingly, if someone does something unethical, everyone is incentivized not to associate with them, and those unethical actions have a large chance of leading to their death at the hands of someone defending themselves, so unethical actions aren't within your self interest. However, with a ruling class, that ruling class doesn't suffer consequences for their actions, especially when binswangers like you pretend they're above ethics because they're capable of using a pen to write their name on a sheet of paper with their opinion on it.

 

[Flopper]

Governments may fall but they will just rise again. In an anarchy, it would be impossible to prevent a number of people from banding together to create a powerful organized group which would subjugate unorganized individuals.

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.

Other such groups would arise and battle for dominance. Eventually one group would dominate through sheer force or through negotiations. And that group would form a government; create laws, law enforcement, a military for defense, regulations on business and individuals and of course taxation to support the government, and you're back where you started with a government telling you what you can and can't do.

You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

Stating what your masters have told you doesn't refute anything I said, you're only reclaiming with no provided evidence. Neutral Moresnet, Medieval Ireland, Cospaia, and early Pensylvania were never proven violent, and at this point you're just talking at me instead of making an argument against what I'm saying. This is why I refer to you people as Binswangers, once you've lost, you don't freaking care, you just repeat the same fallacious arguments.

Medieval Ireland had government. It was divided into many small kingdoms. They had kings that ruled. The micro-state of Cospaia had government in form of council of elders which is what you you would expect in a state with population of only 300 or 400, a single religion and ethnicity. There is no comparison with the US today with a diverse population of over 330 million composed of just about every ethnicity, race, and religion on face of the earth.

"Kings" in Ireland literally just led armies, they had no Government until they were conquered by the violent British statists. Cospaia had no Government, no legal system, no jails, military, police. The Council of Elders only Governed at one point, and that wasn't even by force, people would have voluntarily followed their council.

There IS comparison, because population size doesn't matter when everyone can defend themselves, and nobody has to live any specific way, so long as nobody is being deprived of anything by your actions. Amazingly, if someone does something unethical, everyone is incentivized not to associate with them, and those unethical actions have a large chance of leading to their death at the hands of someone defending themselves, so unethical actions aren't within your self interest. However, with a ruling class, that ruling class doesn't suffer consequences for their actions, especially when binswangers like you pretend they're above ethics because they're capable of using a pen to write their name on a sheet of paper with their opinion on it.

So what you saying, a primeval civilization and a micro-nation of several hundred Italian Catholic were able to government themselves. And that's proof that no government is needed in United States.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you're not willing to pay for them, they must not be all that important. If you want them, then you must be willing to pay for it. I don't really understand how this concept can be so confusing to you. Is it that hard to comprehend the concept of voluntary exchange?

So what good does it do to have a sidewalk only in front of my house? Who would use it? It would start at my property line and end at my property line and bring you back to dirt or grass. That's why you need government to connect all those sidewalks and have everybody pay for them. Then the sidewalks serve a purpose.

Would you pay for a rookie to defend your home and family? No? I guess someone else would see a market there and provide better-trained Private Security. I find it amazing that you don't understand that people wouldn't pay for bad service.

Fire departments are about 70+% volunteer.

Not in the city where most people live. Volunteer fire departments are only out in the sticks where very few fires occur. Like government, they charge a fee for their existence. In fact there have been a few occasions where somebody needed the fire department, but they refused to help because the person in need didn't pay their fee. The fire department only went out to make sure the fire didn't spread to other properties of people that did pay their fees. They just watched the house burn to the ground.

No Government is controlled by the people, they can tell you what to do and how you should do it, then send Road Pirates after you for not doing it, or not doing it their way. You have NO power over them, your opinion means less than nothing to them.

I'm not part of your collective hive mind, you don't decide what I want. You should quit forgetting that.

Yes, citizens do have the power collectively because we vote for those people to hold those positions. With police and fire, we vote to increase their funding which is why they try to treat citizens with the utmost respect and provide expected services.

Were you aware that Police are about 0.2% of the population, yet they're responsible for 5.2% of murders? That's the Police straight murdering about 1000 people every year. How many are A-okay to you?

As many as they need to protect themselves. I don't care if it's 10,000 a year. And do yourself a favor. Learn what the word "murder" means. It's not the same as homicide.

Yes, murder is killing with intent, and that applies to everyone, including the Government. Breaking into someone's house to arrest them for having a plant you don't like is unethical. When you shoot that person for defending themselves, that's also unethical, regardless of who you are. That person's house never should have been broken into, and they never should have been threatened. The person who broke in, whether they're wearing a blue uniform and a badge or not, never should have invaded the person's property. That's what I'm been trying to explain, ethics apply to everyone, and if someone isn't hurting someone else or depriving someone of their property, nobody has any business initiating force against them, such as trying to place them in handcuffs and kidnapping them, to imprison them.

I shouldn't have to leave my property to escape the Government's unethical activity. That's not how the burden of proof works, nor is it how ethics work.

You don't "defend" yourself from authority, you surrender to authority. The police announce their intent to enter a premises. At that point you just submit to their commands. They are not only armed with weapons, but a court order that gives them the exclusive right to bust into your home and conduct their business. Again, that's how our society works. They have that right because we as a society gave them that right.

So, what you're saying is that people are old enough to consent to things at zero years old, and that tacit consent from a passive action is fully legitimate? Do you understand how insane that is?

I never said that.

Oh, so I can kick in your door and hold you at gunpoint? Or pull you over and demand you pay the Government money? No, we are not held to the same standards at all.

We are when it comes to the use of deadly force which is what we were talking about.

So, by wearing a blue uniform, I can arrest people for doing things I don't like. You're literally attributing additional rights to people who work for the Government, on the basis that they work for the Government, while simultaneously arguing that they're held to the same standards and that they work for you.

You're basically saying "Right to kidnap" in so many words. The Government redefined words when pertaining to them, and you completely fell for it. I also want to point out that "Crime" is not the same as doing something wrong. Again, 48% of people being held captive are there for something that didn't hurt anyone.

Sorry, but crimes go beyond physical harm. Some are minor violations and some are serious or very serious. If I break into your home while you're not there and steal money from your house, that's not bringing any harm to you physically. Nor is throwing rocks through your window or shooting up your home provided I don't hit anybody. As coincidence would have it, right now (at 9:35 pm) my lowlife HUD neighbors are outside making noise and my tenant advised me she was going to call the police. That's what the police are for. We couldn't solve the problem without law and order. Somebody here would tell them to quiet down, and they would just reply to go F ourselves. So then what would we do, fight? Maybe with knives or guns? And trust me, we have tried to settle their noise matters peacefully in the past, and it didn't work.

So now if she calls the police, they will come out and force them to quiet down; turn off the radio, and send those screaming little rug rats into the house to scream. That's how a civilized society works. Unless they decide to fight with the police, then there won't be any physical battles, there won't be any retaliation because they won't know who called the police, and the noise will stop.

See how that works now?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Even if that were true, and it isn't because all that needs to be shattered is the illusion of authority, the Government will eventually be innovated out of existence regardless. That's why the Government uses certain regulations, such as the Russian Government banning Crypto, or the American Government's failed creation, the Clipper Chip. The Government has to limit innovation in order to keep itself from being forced out of the market by technology.

Whether anti-thinkers such as yourself like it or not, the Government will continue to become more and more obsolete until it becomes a pet rock.
You mean write opinions on paper, send Road Pirates after people, form an invading force to make others trade in their unsustainable fiat currency, use violence to corner the market for their own benefit, and steal property to sustain itself.

Remember how that didn't happen for 9000 years in Ireland? I also want to point out that your argument, right here, is that the worst that can happen is that a Government forms.

Throughout human history, whenever there has been no governing body, there has been chaos which eventually results in the formation of government often through force and bloodshed. There is no reason to expect that has changed. Even in prehistoric times people recognized the need for some form of goverment which resulted in tribal goverment, councils of elders, etc who made the law and enforced it.

Stating what your masters have told you doesn't refute anything I said, you're only reclaiming with no provided evidence. Neutral Moresnet, Medieval Ireland, Cospaia, and early Pensylvania were never proven violent, and at this point you're just talking at me instead of making an argument against what I'm saying. This is why I refer to you people as Binswangers, once you've lost, you don't freaking care, you just repeat the same fallacious arguments.

Medieval Ireland had government. It was divided into many small kingdoms. They had kings that ruled. The micro-state of Cospaia had government in form of council of elders which is what you you would expect in a state with population of only 300 or 400, a single religion and ethnicity. There is no comparison with the US today with a diverse population of over 330 million composed of just about every ethnicity, race, and religion on face of the earth.

"Kings" in Ireland literally just led armies, they had no Government until they were conquered by the violent British statists. Cospaia had no Government, no legal system, no jails, military, police. The Council of Elders only Governed at one point, and that wasn't even by force, people would have voluntarily followed their council.

There IS comparison, because population size doesn't matter when everyone can defend themselves, and nobody has to live any specific way, so long as nobody is being deprived of anything by your actions. Amazingly, if someone does something unethical, everyone is incentivized not to associate with them, and those unethical actions have a large chance of leading to their death at the hands of someone defending themselves, so unethical actions aren't within your self interest. However, with a ruling class, that ruling class doesn't suffer consequences for their actions, especially when binswangers like you pretend they're above ethics because they're capable of using a pen to write their name on a sheet of paper with their opinion on it.

So what you saying, a primeval civilization and a micro-nation of several hundred Italian Catholic were able to government themselves. And that's proof that no government is needed in United States.

Actually, what I'm saying is they're examples of Governmentless societies. I already explained numerous reasons the Government not only isn't needed, but is actually harmful to society. Your mind is just so clouded with anti-thought that it all flew right over your head, there, binswanger.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So what good does it do to have a sidewalk only in front of my house? Who would use it? It would start at my property line and end at my property line and bring you back to dirt or grass. That's why you need government to connect all those sidewalks and have everybody pay for them. Then the sidewalks serve a purpose.

Who the frick said it would only be in front of your house? I said that if people wanted something somewhere, they can help fund it. For example, if you frequented any specific location, such as Pizza Hut, and they didn't have a sidewalk there, and weren't willing to fund it themselves, you could offer to help fund it, and so would others who also wanted it. It's called wanting something and therefor paying for it. The road in Iowa that I linked, which you probably ignored, is an example of this. It was FAR from just in front of their houses.

"I want sidewalks, therefor people must be robbed to pay for their construction, despite the Government misallocating resources, therefor giving us less for the money"
Amazing logic. How about you just talk to the other people in the community and the businesses and ask if they want a sidewalk there, too, then you all build it together, like the road in Iowa? Amazing, you could just speak with people instead of coercing them out of their money.

Not in the city where most people live. Volunteer fire departments are only out in the sticks where very few fires occur. Like government, they charge a fee for their existence. In fact there have been a few occasions where somebody needed the fire department, but they refused to help because the person in need didn't pay their fee. The fire department only went out to make sure the fire didn't spread to other properties of people that did pay their fees. They just watched the house burn to the ground.

Well, for one thing, how proud of that fire department do you think people would be? Don't you think people would be just a little upset that they sat and watched someone's house burn to the ground? I'm pretty sure that would be a PR nightmare. Would you personally pay for such a fire department?

Secondly, you're assuming that a subscription basis would be how private Fire Departments are operated, when situations like that are exactly why they wouldn't. It's likely that they would just cover certain communities, which would fund them as part of rent.

Thirdly, your argument also quietly pushes the assertion that people should be forced to pay for a Fire Department if they don't want one. What each person pays for should be up to that person, regardless of what you're assumed consequences would be.

Yes, citizens do have the power collectively because we vote for those people to hold those positions. With police and fire, we vote to increase their funding which is why they try to treat citizens with the utmost respect and provide expected services.

So, because we supposedly choose between the two-ish options that the politicians are willing to give us, we supposedly have a choice, despite individual votes not actually mattering, and democracy being inherently unethical in the first place. Seems legit. So, if a ruler gives people the choice between being beaten and being robbed, then it's totally legitimate to you, despite neither choice fitting your interests. You have a really screwed-up view of ethics.

I also showed you court cases, four out of many, where it was proven that the Government has no obligation to serve you, you can't just totally ignore that and pretend your argument is correct. That's called dishonesty.

As many as they need to protect themselves. I don't care if it's 10,000 a year. And do yourself a favor. Learn what the word "murder" means. It's not the same as homicide.

If I were to take your meaning, it would be "Anyone but government killing someone", apparently. I already showed you cases of the Road Pirates straight murdering people, and you didn't bat an eye. So, explain to me, how is gunning someone down through the door self defense? How is murdering a woman in the back of a Police Car, while she's hand cuffed, self defense? How is gunning down a man tripping on drugs, unarmed and helpless, self defense? How is killing a kid with a Wiimote self defense? How is killing a person with a toy gun self defense? Please enlighten me, oh wise one, I thought all humans were supposedly held to the same standards under your literal rulers who hold a monopoly on the use of force?

You don't "defend" yourself from authority, you surrender to authority. The police announce their intent to enter a premises. At that point you just submit to their commands. They are not only armed with weapons, but a court order that gives them the exclusive right to bust into your home and conduct their business. Again, that's how our society works. They have that right because we as a society gave them that right.

So, I guess, in your world, the Jews trying to escape the killing machine of the third reich were in the wrong, since they should have been giving into authority instead of trying to escape being gassed or burned alive.

So, if I tell you that I'm going to kick down your door and steal your money, you should submit to my authority, since I announced I was doing it? Oh wait, I have to stop being a human by getting some scribbles on a piece of paper, and wearing a badge, that way it's totally legitimate to conduct unethical activity, since in your world, ethics are dependent entirely on geographical location and whether or not scribbles on paper say it's allowed.

Once again, you do not speak for me, I'm not part of your apparent society-wide hivemind, you do not get to consent to my being beaten, robbed, and kidnapped by guys with guns for me. A majority of people saying something is okay does not make it okay, kinda like that massive child kill count you have ignored twice now, which the State calls "Abortion".

How does it feel to have the world you thought you knew unravel around you, as you're shown that basic people have claimed the right to rule you, and have you beaten and robbed at gunpoint on a whim?

I never said that.

Really? Because I seem to recall you saying that we consent to being ruled the moment we're born within imaginary, politician-drawn borders. That literally means, in your world, people can tacitly consent at the moment of birth. Either you just invoked Social Contract Theory or you didn't.

We are when it comes to the use of deadly force which is what we were talking about.

Oh really, so all of those murders by Road Pirates didn't happen, and Road Pirates AREN'T able to collect fines from you, and barge into your property? Make up your mind.

Sorry, but crimes go beyond physical harm. Some are minor violations and some are serious or very serious. If I break into your home while you're not there and steal money from your house, that's not bringing any harm to you physically. Nor is throwing rocks through your window or shooting up your home provided I don't hit anybody. As coincidence would have it, right now (at 9:35 pm) my lowlife HUD neighbors are outside making noise and my tenant advised me she was going to call the police. That's what the police are for. We couldn't solve the problem without law and order. Somebody here would tell them to quiet down, and they would just reply to go F ourselves. So then what would we do, fight? Maybe with knives or guns? And trust me, we have tried to settle their noise matters peacefully in the past, and it didn't work.

I specifically said "Depriving people of something", that includes the stealing or destruction of property, both of which are demonstrable harm. Not that you seem to mind when the Government does it to you.

However, making noise outside of an apartment doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of anything. Responding to that with violence would be an initiation of force, therefor making it unethical. Just because someone is doing something you dislike, doesn't mean you send men with guns after them. You literally just proved my point as to one of the many ways the Government is unethical.

So now if she calls the police, they will come out and force them to quiet down; turn off the radio, and send those screaming little rug rats into the house to scream. That's how a civilized society works. Unless they decide to fight with the police, then there won't be any physical battles, there won't be any retaliation because they won't know who called the police, and the noise will stop.

See how that works now?

That's not remotely civilized, they would literally be sending men with guns after people for making noise. That's messed up. Screaming outside does no demonstrable harm to anyone, while the Road Pirates have been known to shoot people for less. That person calling the Road Pirates is risking death or permanent injury of those people for what amounts to nothing.

Here, I'll link you some more stuff that you'll ignore:





All of your supposed concerns have been refuted already, these people refer to and answer them without someone even being there to make those arguments. Your arguments are not original in the slightest, they've been answered thousands of times, thousands of different ways. This time, I suggest actually watching this content.

 

[Flopper]

So what good does it do to have a sidewalk only in front of my house? Who would use it? It would start at my property line and end at my property line and bring you back to dirt or grass. That's why you need government to connect all those sidewalks and have everybody pay for them. Then the sidewalks serve a purpose.

Who the frick said it would only be in front of your house? I said that if people wanted something somewhere, they can help fund it. For example, if you frequented any specific location, such as Pizza Hut, and they didn't have a sidewalk there, and weren't willing to fund it themselves, you could offer to help fund it, and so would others who also wanted it. It's called wanting something and therefor paying for it. The road in Iowa that I linked, which you probably ignored, is an example of this. It was FAR from just in front of their houses.

"I want sidewalks, therefor people must be robbed to pay for their construction, despite the Government misallocating resources, therefor giving us less for the money"
Amazing logic. How about you just talk to the other people in the community and the businesses and ask if they want a sidewalk there, too, then you all build it together, like the road in Iowa? Amazing, you could just speak with people instead of coercing them out of their money.

Not in the city where most people live. Volunteer fire departments are only out in the sticks where very few fires occur. Like government, they charge a fee for their existence. In fact there have been a few occasions where somebody needed the fire department, but they refused to help because the person in need didn't pay their fee. The fire department only went out to make sure the fire didn't spread to other properties of people that did pay their fees. They just watched the house burn to the ground.

Well, for one thing, how proud of that fire department do you think people would be? Don't you think people would be just a little upset that they sat and watched someone's house burn to the ground? I'm pretty sure that would be a PR nightmare. Would you personally pay for such a fire department?

Secondly, you're assuming that a subscription basis would be how private Fire Departments are operated, when situations like that are exactly why they wouldn't. It's likely that they would just cover certain communities, which would fund them as part of rent.

Thirdly, your argument also quietly pushes the assertion that people should be forced to pay for a Fire Department if they don't want one. What each person pays for should be up to that person, regardless of what you're assumed consequences would be.

Yes, citizens do have the power collectively because we vote for those people to hold those positions. With police and fire, we vote to increase their funding which is why they try to treat citizens with the utmost respect and provide expected services.

So, because we supposedly choose between the two-ish options that the politicians are willing to give us, we supposedly have a choice, despite individual votes not actually mattering, and democracy being inherently unethical in the first place. Seems legit. So, if a ruler gives people the choice between being beaten and being robbed, then it's totally legitimate to you, despite neither choice fitting your interests. You have a really screwed-up view of ethics.

I also showed you court cases, four out of many, where it was proven that the Government has no obligation to serve you, you can't just totally ignore that and pretend your argument is correct. That's called dishonesty.

As many as they need to protect themselves. I don't care if it's 10,000 a year. And do yourself a favor. Learn what the word "murder" means. It's not the same as homicide.

If I were to take your meaning, it would be "Anyone but government killing someone", apparently. I already showed you cases of the Road Pirates straight murdering people, and you didn't bat an eye. So, explain to me, how is gunning someone down through the door self defense? How is murdering a woman in the back of a Police Car, while she's hand cuffed, self defense? How is gunning down a man tripping on drugs, unarmed and helpless, self defense? How is killing a kid with a Wiimote self defense? How is killing a person with a toy gun self defense? Please enlighten me, oh wise one, I thought all humans were supposedly held to the same standards under your literal rulers who hold a monopoly on the use of force?

You don't "defend" yourself from authority, you surrender to authority. The police announce their intent to enter a premises. At that point you just submit to their commands. They are not only armed with weapons, but a court order that gives them the exclusive right to bust into your home and conduct their business. Again, that's how our society works. They have that right because we as a society gave them that right.

So, I guess, in your world, the Jews trying to escape the killing machine of the third reich were in the wrong, since they should have been giving into authority instead of trying to escape being gassed or burned alive.

So, if I tell you that I'm going to kick down your door and steal your money, you should submit to my authority, since I announced I was doing it? Oh wait, I have to stop being a human by getting some scribbles on a piece of paper, and wearing a badge, that way it's totally legitimate to conduct unethical activity, since in your world, ethics are dependent entirely on geographical location and whether or not scribbles on paper say it's allowed.

Once again, you do not speak for me, I'm not part of your apparent society-wide hivemind, you do not get to consent to my being beaten, robbed, and kidnapped by guys with guns for me. A majority of people saying something is okay does not make it okay, kinda like that massive child kill count you have ignored twice now, which the State calls "Abortion".

How does it feel to have the world you thought you knew unravel around you, as you're shown that basic people have claimed the right to rule you, and have you beaten and robbed at gunpoint on a whim?

I never said that.

Really? Because I seem to recall you saying that we consent to being ruled the moment we're born within imaginary, politician-drawn borders. That literally means, in your world, people can tacitly consent at the moment of birth. Either you just invoked Social Contract Theory or you didn't.

We are when it comes to the use of deadly force which is what we were talking about.

Oh really, so all of those murders by Road Pirates didn't happen, and Road Pirates AREN'T able to collect fines from you, and barge into your property? Make up your mind.

Sorry, but crimes go beyond physical harm. Some are minor violations and some are serious or very serious. If I break into your home while you're not there and steal money from your house, that's not bringing any harm to you physically. Nor is throwing rocks through your window or shooting up your home provided I don't hit anybody. As coincidence would have it, right now (at 9:35 pm) my lowlife HUD neighbors are outside making noise and my tenant advised me she was going to call the police. That's what the police are for. We couldn't solve the problem without law and order. Somebody here would tell them to quiet down, and they would just reply to go F ourselves. So then what would we do, fight? Maybe with knives or guns? And trust me, we have tried to settle their noise matters peacefully in the past, and it didn't work.

I specifically said "Depriving people of something", that includes the stealing or destruction of property, both of which are demonstrable harm. Not that you seem to mind when the Government does it to you.

However, making noise outside of an apartment doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of anything. Responding to that with violence would be an initiation of force, therefor making it unethical. Just because someone is doing something you dislike, doesn't mean you send men with guns after them. You literally just proved my point as to one of the many ways the Government is unethical.

So now if she calls the police, they will come out and force them to quiet down; turn off the radio, and send those screaming little rug rats into the house to scream. That's how a civilized society works. Unless they decide to fight with the police, then there won't be any physical battles, there won't be any retaliation because they won't know who called the police, and the noise will stop.

See how that works now?

That's not remotely civilized, they would literally be sending men with guns after people for making noise. That's messed up. Screaming outside does no demonstrable harm to anyone, while the Road Pirates have been known to shoot people for less. That person calling the Road Pirates is risking death or permanent injury of those people for what amounts to nothing.

Here, I'll link you some more stuff that you'll ignore:





All of your supposed concerns have been refuted already, these people refer to and answer them without someone even being there to make those arguments. Your arguments are not original in the slightest, they've been answered thousands of times, thousands of different ways. This time, I suggest actually watching this content.

It seems all your solutions to problems in your anarchist society relies on cooperation of others. Ray's question about getting sidewalks built in his town would be solved by asking other in the town to build connecting sidewalks. The end result would be in Ray's town a patchwork of sidewalks. Some people would cooperate, others would say can't afford it, maybe next year, and other would say no fucking way. I don't won't people walking in front of my house. The same situation would exist when it comes to highways, railways, expressways, or high speed transit across the country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, for one thing, how proud of that fire department do you think people would be? Don't you think people would be just a little upset that they sat and watched someone's house burn to the ground? I'm pretty sure that would be a PR nightmare. Would you personally pay for such a fire department?

Secondly, you're assuming that a subscription basis would be how private Fire Departments are operated, when situations like that are exactly why they wouldn't. It's likely that they would just cover certain communities, which would fund them as part of rent.

Thirdly, your argument also quietly pushes the assertion that people should be forced to pay for a Fire Department if they don't want one. What each person pays for should be up to that person, regardless of what you're assumed consequences would be.

Yes, people would pay for their police and fires services, just like they are now be it city or volunteer. Nobody works for free. And yes, I would pay a volunteer fire department because you pay for any insurance you buy. Hell, a fire engine alone cost over 200K.

Do you think it would be bad PR if an insurance company didn't pay for that house that burned down just because the home owner didn't have insurance with that company?

If I were to take your meaning, it would be "Anyone but government killing someone", apparently. I already showed you cases of the Road Pirates straight murdering people, and you didn't bat an eye. So, explain to me, how is gunning someone down through the door self defense? How is murdering a woman in the back of a Police Car, while she's hand cuffed, self defense? How is gunning down a man tripping on drugs, unarmed and helpless, self defense? How is killing a kid with a Wiimote self defense? How is killing a person with a toy gun self defense? Please enlighten me, oh wise one, I thought all humans were supposedly held to the same standards under your literal rulers who hold a monopoly on the use of force?

Actually we had a case here a few years back where police did gun down a kid with a toy gun. HIs name "was" Tamir Rice. He was pulling out a realistic gun and the officer shot him dead. Why? Because the officer had no idea it was a toy, and you can't wait until somebody shoots first before you shoot back. You may be going home in a body bag if you do.

I forgot to comment on one of your videos; it was the guy one the ground crawling towards the officer. Too bad you posted the clipped version, but I seen that video before. The officer explicitly warned him not to reach behind his back again, and told him he would be shot if he did. Guess what? The full video shows the guy reaching behind his back, and that's when the officer shot.

As for the girl in the car. You have no evidence whatsoever that any police officer shot her. All you have is speculation. Again, why would an officer execute a 19 year old girl who was apparently harmless? It doesn't even make sense.

So, I guess, in your world, the Jews trying to escape the killing machine of the third reich were in the wrong, since they should have been giving into authority instead of trying to escape being gassed or burned alive.

So, if I tell you that I'm going to kick down your door and steal your money, you should submit to my authority, since I announced I was doing it? Oh wait, I have to stop being a human by getting some scribbles on a piece of paper, and wearing a badge, that way it's totally legitimate to conduct unethical activity, since in your world, ethics are dependent entirely on geographical location and whether or not scribbles on paper say it's allowed.

Once again, you do not speak for me, I'm not part of your apparent society-wide hivemind, you do not get to consent to my being beaten, robbed, and kidnapped by guys with guns for me. A majority of people saying something is okay does not make it okay, kinda like that massive child kill count you have ignored twice now, which the State calls "Abortion".

How does it feel to have the world you thought you knew unravel around you, as you're shown that basic people have claimed the right to rule you, and have you beaten and robbed at gunpoint on a whim?

I'm not trying to speak for you. I'm trying to explain our society to you since you don't understand. If you are part of this society, then you live by society rules. You are not an island. If you wish to be, then you should leave our society and find one of those islands. Then nobody will bother you......for a while anyway.

That piece of paper is a court order. The court has the right to give permission to our police to search your home by compliance or force. If you don't like our system, again, move, or try to get your representatives to have a constitutional amendment. Because our US Constitution is what gives the courts a right to issue a search warrant.

And your comparison is phony. You can't compare a country in tyranny to a civilized country like the USA, and say if a set of rules apply to one, they must apply to all.

Really? Because I seem to recall you saying that we consent to being ruled the moment we're born within imaginary, politician-drawn borders. That literally means, in your world, people can tacitly consent at the moment of birth. Either you just invoked Social Contract Theory or you didn't.

Children don't have the right to consent or refuse. They are children and as such, their parents consent on their behalf.

Oh really, so all of those murders by Road Pirates didn't happen, and Road Pirates AREN'T able to collect fines from you, and barge into your property? Make up your mind.

Yes they are allowed to barge into your property. It's called Search and Seizure. And no, they don't collect fines. They issue you a summons for court and you pay your fines to them.

I specifically said "Depriving people of something", that includes the stealing or destruction of property, both of which are demonstrable harm. Not that you seem to mind when the Government does it to you.

However, making noise outside of an apartment doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of anything. Responding to that with violence would be an initiation of force, therefor making it unethical. Just because someone is doing something you dislike, doesn't mean you send men with guns after them. You literally just proved my point as to one of the many ways the Government is unethical.

Yes, it does mean you send men with guns. That's what we pay them for. And yes, trying to wake up at 4:30am like my tenant does will do her harm if she doesn't have ample sleep to make it to work and do her job safely. It's a law WE CREATED called Disturbing the Peace. If you want to live here, you have to live by our laws. If you don't like our laws, you can go back to the ghetto where you belong. But as I predicted, the music stopped immediately upon police arrival, the inconsiderate lowlife took his kids in the house, and the rest of the night was nice and quiet, just the way we taxpaying citizens want it.

That's not remotely civilized, they would literally be sending men with guns after people for making noise. That's messed up. Screaming outside does no demonstrable harm to anyone, while the Road Pirates have been known to shoot people for less. That person calling the Road Pirates is risking death or permanent injury of those people for what amounts to nothing.

Here, I'll link you some more stuff that you'll ignore:

Nobody gets injured if you don't threaten an officer. They live by our laws as well. They are the authority, and you do as they tell you. If you don't, and you are continuing to break our laws, you will eventually end up in jail.

 

[Flopper]

Well, for one thing, how proud of that fire department do you think people would be? Don't you think people would be just a little upset that they sat and watched someone's house burn to the ground? I'm pretty sure that would be a PR nightmare. Would you personally pay for such a fire department?

Secondly, you're assuming that a subscription basis would be how private Fire Departments are operated, when situations like that are exactly why they wouldn't. It's likely that they would just cover certain communities, which would fund them as part of rent.

Thirdly, your argument also quietly pushes the assertion that people should be forced to pay for a Fire Department if they don't want one. What each person pays for should be up to that person, regardless of what you're assumed consequences would be.

Yes, people would pay for their police and fires services, just like they are now be it city or volunteer. Nobody works for free. And yes, I would pay a volunteer fire department because you pay for any insurance you buy. Hell, a fire engine alone cost over 200K.

Do you think it would be bad PR if an insurance company didn't pay for that house that burned down just because the home owner didn't have insurance with that company?

If I were to take your meaning, it would be "Anyone but government killing someone", apparently. I already showed you cases of the Road Pirates straight murdering people, and you didn't bat an eye. So, explain to me, how is gunning someone down through the door self defense? How is murdering a woman in the back of a Police Car, while she's hand cuffed, self defense? How is gunning down a man tripping on drugs, unarmed and helpless, self defense? How is killing a kid with a Wiimote self defense? How is killing a person with a toy gun self defense? Please enlighten me, oh wise one, I thought all humans were supposedly held to the same standards under your literal rulers who hold a monopoly on the use of force?

Actually we had a case here a few years back where police did gun down a kid with a toy gun. HIs name "was" Tamir Rice. He was pulling out a realistic gun and the officer shot him dead. Why? Because the officer had no idea it was a toy, and you can't wait until somebody shoots first before you shoot back. You may be going home in a body bag if you do.

I forgot to comment on one of your videos; it was the guy one the ground crawling towards the officer. Too bad you posted the clipped version, but I seen that video before. The officer explicitly warned him not to reach behind his back again, and told him he would be shot if he did. Guess what? The full video shows the guy reaching behind his back, and that's when the officer shot.

As for the girl in the car. You have no evidence whatsoever that any police officer shot her. All you have is speculation. Again, why would an officer execute a 19 year old girl who was apparently harmless? It doesn't even make sense.

So, I guess, in your world, the Jews trying to escape the killing machine of the third reich were in the wrong, since they should have been giving into authority instead of trying to escape being gassed or burned alive.

So, if I tell you that I'm going to kick down your door and steal your money, you should submit to my authority, since I announced I was doing it? Oh wait, I have to stop being a human by getting some scribbles on a piece of paper, and wearing a badge, that way it's totally legitimate to conduct unethical activity, since in your world, ethics are dependent entirely on geographical location and whether or not scribbles on paper say it's allowed.

Once again, you do not speak for me, I'm not part of your apparent society-wide hivemind, you do not get to consent to my being beaten, robbed, and kidnapped by guys with guns for me. A majority of people saying something is okay does not make it okay, kinda like that massive child kill count you have ignored twice now, which the State calls "Abortion".

How does it feel to have the world you thought you knew unravel around you, as you're shown that basic people have claimed the right to rule you, and have you beaten and robbed at gunpoint on a whim?

I'm not trying to speak for you. I'm trying to explain our society to you since you don't understand. If you are part of this society, then you live by society rules. You are not an island. If you wish to be, then you should leave our society and find one of those islands. Then nobody will bother you......for a while anyway.

That piece of paper is a court order. The court has the right to give permission to our police to search your home by compliance or force. If you don't like our system, again, move, or try to get your representatives to have a constitutional amendment. Because our US Constitution is what gives the courts a right to issue a search warrant.

And your comparison is phony. You can't compare a country in tyranny to a civilized country like the USA, and say if a set of rules apply to one, they must apply to all.

Really? Because I seem to recall you saying that we consent to being ruled the moment we're born within imaginary, politician-drawn borders. That literally means, in your world, people can tacitly consent at the moment of birth. Either you just invoked Social Contract Theory or you didn't.

Children don't have the right to consent or refuse. They are children and as such, their parents consent on their behalf.

Oh really, so all of those murders by Road Pirates didn't happen, and Road Pirates AREN'T able to collect fines from you, and barge into your property? Make up your mind.

Yes they are allowed to barge into your property. It's called Search and Seizure. And no, they don't collect fines. They issue you a summons for court and you pay your fines to them.

I specifically said "Depriving people of something", that includes the stealing or destruction of property, both of which are demonstrable harm. Not that you seem to mind when the Government does it to you.

However, making noise outside of an apartment doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of anything. Responding to that with violence would be an initiation of force, therefor making it unethical. Just because someone is doing something you dislike, doesn't mean you send men with guns after them. You literally just proved my point as to one of the many ways the Government is unethical.

Yes, it does mean you send men with guns. That's what we pay them for. And yes, trying to wake up at 4:30am like my tenant does will do her harm if she doesn't have ample sleep to make it to work and do her job safely. It's a law WE CREATED called Disturbing the Peace. If you want to live here, you have to live by our laws. If you don't like our laws, you can go back to the ghetto where you belong. But as I predicted, the music stopped immediately upon police arrival, the inconsiderate lowlife took his kids in the house, and the rest of the night was nice and quiet, just the way we taxpaying citizens want it.

That's not remotely civilized, they would literally be sending men with guns after people for making noise. That's messed up. Screaming outside does no demonstrable harm to anyone, while the Road Pirates have been known to shoot people for less. That person calling the Road Pirates is risking death or permanent injury of those people for what amounts to nothing.

Here, I'll link you some more stuff that you'll ignore:

Nobody gets injured if you don't threaten an officer. They live by our laws as well. They are the authority, and you do as they tell you. If you don't, and you are continuing to break our laws, you will eventually end up in jail.

Ray, in the anarchist's world, there is no government. Thus there are no laws. Since there are no laws, there can be no crime and since there can be no crime, there is no need for law enforcement. Christians call this place heaven where everyone cooperates and respects others.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, for one thing, how proud of that fire department do you think people would be? Don't you think people would be just a little upset that they sat and watched someone's house burn to the ground? I'm pretty sure that would be a PR nightmare. Would you personally pay for such a fire department?

Secondly, you're assuming that a subscription basis would be how private Fire Departments are operated, when situations like that are exactly why they wouldn't. It's likely that they would just cover certain communities, which would fund them as part of rent.

Thirdly, your argument also quietly pushes the assertion that people should be forced to pay for a Fire Department if they don't want one. What each person pays for should be up to that person, regardless of what you're assumed consequences would be.

Yes, people would pay for their police and fires services, just like they are now be it city or volunteer. Nobody works for free. And yes, I would pay a volunteer fire department because you pay for any insurance you buy. Hell, a fire engine alone cost over 200K.

Do you think it would be bad PR if an insurance company didn't pay for that house that burned down just because the home owner didn't have insurance with that company?

If I were to take your meaning, it would be "Anyone but government killing someone", apparently. I already showed you cases of the Road Pirates straight murdering people, and you didn't bat an eye. So, explain to me, how is gunning someone down through the door self defense? How is murdering a woman in the back of a Police Car, while she's hand cuffed, self defense? How is gunning down a man tripping on drugs, unarmed and helpless, self defense? How is killing a kid with a Wiimote self defense? How is killing a person with a toy gun self defense? Please enlighten me, oh wise one, I thought all humans were supposedly held to the same standards under your literal rulers who hold a monopoly on the use of force?

Actually we had a case here a few years back where police did gun down a kid with a toy gun. HIs name "was" Tamir Rice. He was pulling out a realistic gun and the officer shot him dead. Why? Because the officer had no idea it was a toy, and you can't wait until somebody shoots first before you shoot back. You may be going home in a body bag if you do.

I forgot to comment on one of your videos; it was the guy one the ground crawling towards the officer. Too bad you posted the clipped version, but I seen that video before. The officer explicitly warned him not to reach behind his back again, and told him he would be shot if he did. Guess what? The full video shows the guy reaching behind his back, and that's when the officer shot.

As for the girl in the car. You have no evidence whatsoever that any police officer shot her. All you have is speculation. Again, why would an officer execute a 19 year old girl who was apparently harmless? It doesn't even make sense.

So, I guess, in your world, the Jews trying to escape the killing machine of the third reich were in the wrong, since they should have been giving into authority instead of trying to escape being gassed or burned alive.

So, if I tell you that I'm going to kick down your door and steal your money, you should submit to my authority, since I announced I was doing it? Oh wait, I have to stop being a human by getting some scribbles on a piece of paper, and wearing a badge, that way it's totally legitimate to conduct unethical activity, since in your world, ethics are dependent entirely on geographical location and whether or not scribbles on paper say it's allowed.

Once again, you do not speak for me, I'm not part of your apparent society-wide hivemind, you do not get to consent to my being beaten, robbed, and kidnapped by guys with guns for me. A majority of people saying something is okay does not make it okay, kinda like that massive child kill count you have ignored twice now, which the State calls "Abortion".

How does it feel to have the world you thought you knew unravel around you, as you're shown that basic people have claimed the right to rule you, and have you beaten and robbed at gunpoint on a whim?

I'm not trying to speak for you. I'm trying to explain our society to you since you don't understand. If you are part of this society, then you live by society rules. You are not an island. If you wish to be, then you should leave our society and find one of those islands. Then nobody will bother you......for a while anyway.

That piece of paper is a court order. The court has the right to give permission to our police to search your home by compliance or force. If you don't like our system, again, move, or try to get your representatives to have a constitutional amendment. Because our US Constitution is what gives the courts a right to issue a search warrant.

And your comparison is phony. You can't compare a country in tyranny to a civilized country like the USA, and say if a set of rules apply to one, they must apply to all.

Really? Because I seem to recall you saying that we consent to being ruled the moment we're born within imaginary, politician-drawn borders. That literally means, in your world, people can tacitly consent at the moment of birth. Either you just invoked Social Contract Theory or you didn't.

Children don't have the right to consent or refuse. They are children and as such, their parents consent on their behalf.

Oh really, so all of those murders by Road Pirates didn't happen, and Road Pirates AREN'T able to collect fines from you, and barge into your property? Make up your mind.

Yes they are allowed to barge into your property. It's called Search and Seizure. And no, they don't collect fines. They issue you a summons for court and you pay your fines to them.

I specifically said "Depriving people of something", that includes the stealing or destruction of property, both of which are demonstrable harm. Not that you seem to mind when the Government does it to you.

However, making noise outside of an apartment doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of anything. Responding to that with violence would be an initiation of force, therefor making it unethical. Just because someone is doing something you dislike, doesn't mean you send men with guns after them. You literally just proved my point as to one of the many ways the Government is unethical.

Yes, it does mean you send men with guns. That's what we pay them for. And yes, trying to wake up at 4:30am like my tenant does will do her harm if she doesn't have ample sleep to make it to work and do her job safely. It's a law WE CREATED called Disturbing the Peace. If you want to live here, you have to live by our laws. If you don't like our laws, you can go back to the ghetto where you belong. But as I predicted, the music stopped immediately upon police arrival, the inconsiderate lowlife took his kids in the house, and the rest of the night was nice and quiet, just the way we taxpaying citizens want it.

That's not remotely civilized, they would literally be sending men with guns after people for making noise. That's messed up. Screaming outside does no demonstrable harm to anyone, while the Road Pirates have been known to shoot people for less. That person calling the Road Pirates is risking death or permanent injury of those people for what amounts to nothing.

Here, I'll link you some more stuff that you'll ignore:

Nobody gets injured if you don't threaten an officer. They live by our laws as well. They are the authority, and you do as they tell you. If you don't, and you are continuing to break our laws, you will eventually end up in jail.

Ray, in the anarchist's world, there is no government. Thus there are no laws. Since there are no laws, there can be no crime and since there can be no crime, there is no need for law enforcement. Christians call this place heaven where everyone cooperates and respects others.

Some people live in their make-believe world I guess. However I would bet anything that Pumpkin never tried to live in a society she claims to embellish.

As you well know, I'm as small government as they get, but I'm also a realist enough to understand that government are the people, and you can't have an organized society with no government. What you would have is an un-organized and uncivilized society where eventually the most evil would take over.

Don't get me wrong, I believe government is too strong, but the only reason for that are the voters less the people running for government positions. They've ignored our Constitution on every level and people now look to government to support where they live, what they will eat, and now what kind of medical care they are entitled to. Our founders never wanted this.

Take my post about my noisy HUD neighbors. They shouldn't be in the suburbs in the first place. Yet according to Pumpkin, I should just have to put up with their shit and like it. Forget that I have to wake up in the morning for work, forget the fact my tenants expect me to provide them with a peaceful place to live, in her world, too bad. And that's why we need our government and various agencies to take care of problems like that.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Politics is about eating pie.
The politicians decide who gets a piece of the pie and the size of the piece.