Bitcoin Forum

Proof!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco


Discuss.

I did not watch this video, but having researched this subject previously I can tell you private for profit police force is NOT the answer.  People assume there will be more oversight, but there is actually LESS oversight because private police are not restricted by the same rules, procedures, and restrictions of traditional police. Don't get me wrong, traditional police style systems here in the US are extremely corrupt, but they are still limited by the law to some degree. To give you an example, a private police force can enter your home without a warrant and collect evidence that is admissible in court. If traditional police did this the evidence would be ruled irrelevant because collecting it would be violating the warrant requirement before search and seizure. This is just one small example of how a private police force can actually strip you of even more rights.

EDIT: After watching the video I see this organization is centered on community rather than profits like most private police force examples I have seen. I approve of this kind of private police force structure, heavily moderated by the community, and dependent upon results, not fines.

Who would pay for such a private police force? I know I wouldn't.


They already do that routinely, just look around. And guess what, nothing happens. Meanwhile if a private police/security service did that they'd go out of business fast.

p.s.: Way to be a dick and comment without watching the video which is my main point of this thread.

The state in many cases has sponsored private police force and used them to replace a classic policing system. As with many choices made by the state, you don't have a say in it. Yes police already routinely violate law, but every time they do that they put themselves under criminal and civil liability which could in fact be prosecuted. Private police have no more liability than any other private individual.

P.S. Way to be a dick and not read my whole comment. Also since when do I have to watch a video to have an opinion on a subject I am already well versed in?

You and I have a different definition of "private". I define it owned and provided privately on a voluntary basis. You apparently define it as owned privately and you don't care if it's provided through public or private funding or if it's mandated by public(coercive) or private(voluntary) laws.

A private police force is just that, private, as opposed to public, which is what classical police forces are, under public infrastructure and funding. Some times public funding is used to fund private police forces. How these private police forces are administrated is 100% up to whomever funds it, be it Hitler reincarnated to mall security guards. As far as what I personally feel, I would appreciate it if you leave elaboration of my own opinions up to me and not assume and try to interpret them.

No, a private goon squad can not enter my home and take stuff with them because this would constitute an armed robbery and then the next buildings they would "enter" would be a court room and a prison.

You have to remember, a private security business aims to appease its customers and future customers by showing that it can handle the various problems it is presented without resorting to the use of force, as this would be the most obvious red flag as to which business not to use (assuming a society which believes non-violence is good thing is funding the business.)  It is the customer which ultimately decides the fate of a business, and it is the customer which can make the business owner wealthy or broke.  It is therefor in one's best interest to support peaceful security businesses whose sole purpose is to protect, not enforce.  As with any business, one should scrutinize every move a business makes, from the quality of service to every complaint, and make vocal (easily, nowadays, thanks to the Internet) the terrible or terrific things any given company will do.  Just as with publicly funded security, if you don't call them out for what they do, they'll keep doing it.  It's no different there; what is different is whether or not you can do something about it, which you can't when publicly funded security is compulsory and if those officers do a terrible job they can, at best, be fired, but you can never stop funding the uniform system which produced them, whereas in a free society, it's as simple as a phone call saying "I'd like to cancel my service" and then another phone call to a security business which has proven it does better.

To anyone interested, check this vid out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo), it's part one of a series which explains how law as we know it would work in a free society.  I forget which vid exactly (there's three of them I think) explains how private security would work, but it should be somewhere in there.

I said nothing of that act itself being legal or illegal, only that the evidence collected is still admissible in court.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html

"Restrictions on Private Security Personnel

Private security personnel currently outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, whether you're shopping in a supermarket or a pharmacy, working in an office building, or visiting a friend in a housing project, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. At the present time, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.

For example, assume that a shopping mall security guard acting on a pure hunch searches a teenager's backpack. Inside the backpack the guard finds a baggie containing an illegal drug. The guard can detain the teenager, call the police, and turn the drug over to a police officer. The drug is admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. As private security guards increasingly exercise traditional police functions, courts may one day apply Fourth Amendment guidelines to their conduct."

Other related: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-26/local/35234388_1_conservators-police-powers-private-security

Yes, celebrities and rich people never hire private protection because they do not work.

Rich have always hired private protection, got to have something to keep those slaves under control.

But what about regular people?

Did you watch the video?

If multiple private security firms with similar consumer pools were to open in the same area, competition would inevitably occur. One of the most basic ways to defeat your competitors is to offer lower prices. Let's assume (as is most often the case) that this price reduction has a compounding effect and all security firms in the area subsequently charge less. What happens when the profit margin becomes too low, and the various firms can no longer sustain their pro bono work?

Additionally, organizations such as the one in the video are examples of institutionalized power. The problem with institutionalized power, is that who is in control of it changes over the decades. It is not far-fetched to wonder what will happen when men of less moral caliber come into control of the organization. It cannot be expected that the populace will be able to see corrupt men for what they are (just look at what the smiling faces and silver tongues are able to get away with in Washington), and it cannot be expected that they will be able to do anything about it even if they did see behind the masks. As was said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men".


IMO if an anarchistic society is to work, each citizen would need to have the ability to defend themselves and have access to a multitude of weapons. Contrary to popular belief, all citizens having power does not necessarily mean that all citizens will abuse power. In my experience, people only abuse power over others if they think that they are above the consequences of their actions or if they think that their actions will not be discovered. History has shown time after time that when power is held only by one small group of people, that group becomes increasingly corrupt as their power masses. A society in which each citizen is powerful is the only way I can see anarchy working.

The first weapon is knowledge. We're at least a generation away from a critical mass people being able to handle that gun.

There are still too many fatasses in my generation and the one before it looking for freebies and protection from the State. The trade-off is that they remain ignorant of the depravity of the State that feeds them.

Agreed. I think a solid knowledge of, and open-discussions on, history, psychology, and other cultures would form a great foundation for an anarchist education system. These things, more than anything else, tend to show the fallacies of hate-mongering, aggressive foreign policies, masked politicians, and other tools of the state.


You are way more optimistic than me, my friend. When I look at the world, I see a vast, escalating, and ever-growing system of dumbed-down education, authoritarian indoctrination, debt slavery, blind collectivism, media-based psychological moulding, and an over-indulged sense that our actions provide only short-term benefits and no long-term consequences. Even the very purveyors of the modern mass mentality seem to be succumbing to it; puppets controlling puppets. Money has replaced military-might and divine-right as the basis of power, and money is fed from consumers. Everything that is happening to the mass populace is an unconscious but collective effort by those who have money to make those who don't have money into better consumers.


It amazes me how many people think the state is actually there to help and protect them (or how many people think that different political parties enact anything but slightly different policies). Politicians and autocrats alike were bought out by corporations a long time ago. Now government is just a way for corporations with political power to serve their own interests, screw over their competitors, manipulate public opinion, direct blame towards foreign entities, and manage the populace via division and misinformation.

We only need a critical mass, 3-5% of the population, that has a working knowledge of the dynamics of economic and political power and how they affect human liberty to effect a change from the .01% of the sociopaths that currently run the show. The decentralizing effect of TCP/IP has only been in play for a generation. My optimism is based on my life's experience of watching the effect of decentralization since the 1980's, when I first got on the net.

From the days of Usenet, I've watched this avalanche proceed. In the 90's, I had messages plonked, tanked, filtered and removed from groups for questioning the overarching control of the Federal Reserve and banking powers in general. I was still learning what was what back then, so my questions were more along the lines of uninformed suspicions rather than anything that could be mistaken for helpful information. But in the passing generation, 20 years, my uninformed suspicions are now common knowledge amongst a wide range of people.

I have great hope that the smartest kids now in their teens and 20's will easily pick up the information that was hard to come by for us 20-25 years ago.


From the man who taught the tactic of non-violent non-resistance to Gandhi:

"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." -Tolstoy

I agree that decentralization is the road to liberty. I suppose my fear is not that information and discussions will not be readily available to people, but that they will:

1. Be too comfortable with a lifestyle of dependence to even want freedom or personal control over their lives / society.
2. Be psychologically used to the constant single-servings of bliss/pleasure that comes with a consumerist society, and as a result will not want to put forth the laborious and sometimes insipid effort required to educate themselves.
3. Not have any experiences with calm or rational discussion and subsequently will regress to the "My group is right, you're group is wrong, and anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" mentality that seems to dominate most debates.

It's not that I don't think we can make a better society, I just have doubts about our ability to change the ones we currently have. It may be necessary for similarly-minded people to create a new society from the foundation up. Of course in a world without a frontier, all the habitable land is controlled by one faction or another...

You've hit it on the nail. To answers your 1st and 2nd question, we need to set an example of a better life that those people content to be consumer slaves will want to strive for. I mean isn't this how most open dictatorships are toppled? Those people looking towards freer people and wanting to have the same thing?

And yeah, I do think it's not possible to change a society, we'd need to build it from the ground up. And there is still one frontier that has plenty of unoccupied space available - the digital world.

Are you asking who we want for a roof?
I'll take the mafia any day over the uniformed gang members.

Nobody thinks the state is there to protect them, except for two guys in Nebraska.  
Nobody thinks restaurants are in the business of feeding the rats either, but the rats get fed anyway -- as a byproduct.  
And restaurants are also not in the business of feeding people -- they're in the business of making money, but you get fed in the process, see how that works?

The "state" is not your friend, but it's not your enemy, either.  No more than it is the enemy of oil, halcyon skies or amber waves of grain.
It's plain embarrassing when grist for the mill become politically conscious >:(

Nor can the public sector.

I don't know where the fuck you live that you actually think that, but I wanna live there.

Restaurants provide a service for the money that they want.  I can choose to give them money for their product or not.

The state offers me no such choice.  It's pay for our product or else.  Or rather pay our exorbitant, extortionate rates or else.

And what happens when the state realises it needs even more money?  If it can't tax enough, it starts counterfeiting.   And the more taxes the more of a security setup is required to make sure they are all paid.  Hence, the police state, NSA, etc.

You're missing my point.  I'm not trying to convince you that the state is benevolent or fair -- arguments like that are childish, and usually degenerate into pillowfights about personal definitions of fairness & goodness.  All i'm saying that by [dubious?] virtue of protecting itself & the status quo, the state protects you.

If you wish to see the state as a villain, fine.  Think of it as a slaver, and its citizens as the slaves. 
It's not in slaver's interests to have his slaves stealing from each other -- he gives each one just enough to survive & work.  Some of the slaves may starve & not be able to work, so the slaver makes stealing unattractive -- by flogging.  Enlightened self-interest.  Same goes for other interslave transgressions -- murder, rape, etc.

The slaver also protects his property from other slavers, just as you would protect your trash cans from being stolen or vandalized.  You don't have to like them, it's enough that they are useful to you.  Everything works out just fine, security's taken care of, villainous state or not. :)

Who's going to haul them into the courtroom?  Their fellow private police goons?  Somehow I don't think so.

And to that I say, why don't we just abolish slavery?   

Well, the TL;DR is 'coz the slavers like it.
Long version:
Slavery was popular for quite a while, and probably would still be with us if it remained profitable.  It isn't.  It took a big civil war to free the suckers in US, along with inevitable economic change.  Industrialization & skyrocketing population were important.  Steam obsoleting muscle, carding machines & Jacquard loom's punch cards replacing unreliable people.  In the end, it became cheaper to automate tasks than to feed & police the slaves.
If you still insist on getting rid of slavery, consider going to 2nd & 3rd world countries where people work for a pittance or starve to death.  They're not technically slaves, but when getting out of the frying pan means jumping into the fire, the distinction is purely academic.

Is this like the modern day equivalent of the white-man's burden? If let alone the primitive masses will abuse each other, therefore we should forcefully rule over them, abuse them ourselves, and violently suppress anybody who disagrees?

What right do you have to decide the fate of others?

Well done.

No, not white man's burden.  It is the modern equivalent of reality, which is to this day called reality.

Left alone, "the primitive masses" are exactly where they are now -- governed by their governments.  That's how governments happen, you know :)  If you discount the Lizard People landing here & creating governments, that's what's left -- the masses.  People, through their actions & inactions, make governments happen.  Congratulations.

I'm not interested in deciding the fates of others.  At the very least i hope i didn't mislead you into thinking i was seeking your approval.
I'm simply trying to be helpful & explain how this IRL thing works.

Don't mind crumbs. If you read through his prior posts, you'll see that he's an ex-Soviet socialist commie, who pretty much wants things to remain the way they are, because that's the way they are, and he can't imagine them being any different. You know, "reality."

Regarding private security and corruption, go to Wikipedia, and read up on crime statistics in Italy, and on Cosa Nostra. You'll find out that crimes like murder, theft, and rape in southern Italy is some of the lowest in the world, that the mafia there actually does run a business that people actually actively seek, that most of the horrible crimes we hear associated with mafia are primarily between mafias themselves of politicians that interfere, and that the mafia actually has a code of conduct that uses the "have a reputation of violence so great, that you never actually have to use violence" system. I.e. they maintain an image of being very scary, while being very courteous and resorting to violence as a last resort. Also, what they charge for protection is way way lower than what governments charge for protection.
So hell, even mafia is better, cheaper, more effective, and more fair than police.

 :D Sorry i didn't share your wet dreams about being policed by the mafia & didn't care for your visionary coup de grace:  Drones delivering  :D...  :D wait for it...

*Interwebz never forgets!  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244258.msg2643601#msg2643601

^ See good example of someone who can't imagine shipping being done by automated drones, and over-reacts at the idea as if it's some sort of voodoo magic  ::)

LOL!

Could attach chutes to insulated pizza box carriers, even. Just be ready to run at the LZ so nobody jacks your shit.

They already have this.  It's called Tacocopter (http://tacocopter.com/).  Also, I ignored Crumbs a long time ago, since he has nothing of value to add, and you might want to consider doing the same.

I'mah tarinin' mah bear for speedier deliveries!  Prepare for serious competition >:(

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CpyY3f5gSvY/UajS23OZE2I/AAAAAAAAb6M/aNY_hXWJ5QU/s1600/Thieve-Steals-Circus-Bears-Bike.jpg

I think the Tacocopter may have been a joke, but this isn't
http://singularityhub.com/2013/05/21/matternet-building-quadcopter-drone-network-to-transport-supplies-in-developing-world/

I don't really put anyone on ignore. I can just ignore them "manually"

I'm certain wdmw is a fine example of Anarcap/Liber mental fortitude.  Wouldn't you agree? :D  

BTW, Grocery Drone & Transgender Mishka have been elected to chair the Anarcap Bestest Ideah Evah Committee.  
Selection was made by traditional Libertarian means: Not Voting.  

People do not seek it, they are forced into it, either pay for protection or get whacked. Your simplistic banter about murder, rape aside, maybe you have an idea how mafia could regulate more complicated things like civil rights or financial regulations?

Your own personal security should be determined by you, not organisations of any sort, no security force is capable of understanding and responding the best way 100% of the time, it's mathematically impossible for them to effectively help people and that's just by calculating the time it takes to get there. The fact is for all the ideological bullshit people like to pull if you are ever attacked out in the real world you have two choices, fight or flee, the chances of any kind of security personnel being there to help you are incredibly low because that's what an attacker is counting on and will set up. If we look at it from a military point of view it's a lot like setting up an ambush with hit and run tactics.

No.  To look at it from a military point of view you gotta have a military.  An organisation.  Not an old lady with a big gun in her purse, and certainly not a 5-year-old with an RPG launcher.
The reason gorilla warfare works?  The same reason terrorism works.  Losing a hundred civilians while taking out one gorilla/terrorist is considered bad form, so it's typically not done.  Not because the army can't turn gorilla's home turf into molten glass.

Finally, if you don't like the cops, talking them away won't work.  Neither will wishing them away.  Neither will convincing your friends who already think cops are evil that cops are evil.  If millennia of mankind's history is any guide, those tricks never worked & are unlikely to work in the future.
-A. Grownup.
Friendship is Magik^TM -Hasbro

You didn't read it :( Mafia doesn't "whack" their customers. That's bad for business, will piss off their other customers, and will   likely get them either reported to the police, or worse, make the customers switch to other mafia organizations, which will deprive the "whackers" of money, and sick a much better financed mafia military on them. They can at most mess the place up a bit, but the best method is to simply advertise who IS paying for protection, letting thieves know that some businesses are fair game. And yes, had you read those wiki entries, you would have read that business owners and private individuals do actually seek out protection services, as well as other help. Mafia keeps your store safe by advertising that it's under their protection, mafia can be hired to recover stolen goods or get compensation for vandalism, and can be used for arbitration purposes when two people, say a store clerk and a supplier, wish to trade, and want to make sure one doesn't screw the other. Mafia actually does care about its business reputation, and does negotiate with "customers" to make sure they are getting the service they are paying for, and are not ripping them off. The mafia depends on all the businesses they protect to keep running just as much as the owners are. This isn't something you can say about governments or police.
As for murder and rape, it's not my simplistic banter, it's just crime statistics. All they say is that crimes like murder, theft, and rape, are much more prevalent in Northern Italy, and barely existent in Southern Italy. You make your own conclusions.

Regarding civil rights, things like no marriage between races and segregated schools and businesses was the law, forced on everyone by government, because that was the prevalent belief at the time. It didn't take laws to change this, it took the changing of beliefs, which were also later codified in law. So, even businesses that wanted to sell to everyone were kept from doing it because of laws, even when more and more people believed that we shouldn't discriminate. Mafia doesn't care about laws, just business and profits, so I seriously doubt they would care about foreigners or other races visiting the businesses they protect. As for financial regulation? The point is not to have any. If we're going to have regulations, we might as well have governments and police, too. Now if you mean financial mediation/arbitration/escrow, and making sure people don't commit fraud or theft, yeah, that's what their business actually is.

A blade behind every grass. Does not require a military.

Your writings aren't the Holy Bible and I don't have to trust every word you say.
Drop me a link comparing crime statistics in Southern and Northern Italy. Of course, it wouldn't prove your point even if crime is lower South than in the North, but you would look more reputable.
I don't know where you get your ideas about how organized crime operates, but I know from personal experience, as a citizen of a former Soviet Republic, that yeah mafia does whack their own "customers" - when they're unneeded, to send a message to others or just out of plain stupidity. I don't know if you're aware of this, but in most cultures criminal element is comprised out of low end of society - lowest castes in a caste society, racial or ethnic minorities, low IQ, mentally ill people and sociopaths - people who do not get the same access to social ladder.

 >:(  Not only did you not bother to read the wiki articles, you didn't even bother reading my post, where I specifically saif which wiki articles to google for.
But here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Italy#Violent_crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Ten_Commandments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Protection_rackets

Read the "... from theft" and "client relations" too.



I get my info from whatever I find on peer-reviewed web articles and news sources. Plus from my short experience living in Italy, where mafia guys kept an eye on things, and as long as you didn't bother them or others, they wouldn't bother you. There's also a similar situation developing in Somalia now, where former war-lords are learning that they can have a much more comfortable life and business just selling protection to people living in their territories. It has brought a lot of security and stability to places where government and police can't provide that service. Sounds like you have a shitty mafia. Hopefully they will either get their act together, learn from other mafias, or get "replaced" by a better competitor.


Sounds like an apt description of most countres' military soldiers  :P

So let me get this straight. You base your point on Wikipedia articles about one European country's crime rates, which are affected by many factors by the way. You say you read "peer reviewed web articles". Subscriptions for peer reviewed online articles cost a lot of money and ussually only scientists, researchers and scientific journalists have them. You're one of them?
And above all countries you state Somalia as an example? Tell me a few things: in what country you are currently living in and would you choose to live in Somalia instead?

Oh boy are you separated from reality, if we've got to have a military then why are we losing the war in Afghanistan? You're picking the most ridiculous hypothetical scenarios to make your point, as far as I'm concerned as long as they've had training in whatever gun they've bought anyone should be able to use a gun and yes I do mean anyone but of course you've completely disregarded that a five year old isn't going to be physically capable of handling an RPG because from what I've seen of your arguments you're a state loving moron.

Sure. But there is one huge factor between the northern part of that one country, and the southern part.


Yes


I live in United States. I have previously lived in Ukraine, Russia, and Italy, and have spent time in Canada, Switzerland, UK, and Iceland. I would not choose to live in Somalia right now, but will probably visit in the future.
Here's a freebie for you http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861

It's a bit of a long read, but the gist of it is that Somalia, despite having no real government, still has a system of law, and talks about all those things I mentioned, where ex-warlords are now running the business of providing security for those living on their territories, Somalia's economy is improving rapidly, and things aren't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be. They are basically turning into a collection of private gated communities / free economic zones. There was even an article out recently about an entrepreneur planning on building a high-end beach resort for tourists there, using the local security providers to keep things safe. Once that happens, I see no reason not to visit.

Why would you be interested in visiting a high end beach resort in Somalia? There are beach resorts elsewhere. But, if by chance, your visit to Somalia is to see the countryside and the culture, and only use the resort for sleeping and dining, then okay...

Except for a few things. Go for it.

Had to ask this after watching the first 2 minutes.

Are you being facetious?

First and foremost... because I can? It would add another tickmark to the list of countries I visited. Also, since there are no laws or regulations in the country, aside from their code of conduct against killing/stealing/fraud, I suspect it may offer unique experiences other beach resorts don't (I'm sure the Pirates of Somalia ride there will be quite a bit more exciting than the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney  ;D). Mostly, I'll be curious to see how their local economy and culture continues to develop.

Because US doesn't want to turn Afghanistan into a wasteland of bomb craters & radioactive molten glass?  Do u rly think US is incapable of doing just that? US has plenty of fabulous nuclear bottle rockets lyin' around just itchin' for a chance to spread democracy & human rights.  With expiry dates coming up, even -- use them or lose them! :)
Bonus:  Search for Finale Rack.  :D


Wut ???  I opened by pointing out that the Librcap Xanadu is nothing but an opium dream of a drooling imbecile, that there are no verifiable examples of it in recorded human history.  I further drew your attention to the fact that today, all of the Earth's habitable surface is divided by what you call "states," antitheses of your wet dream.  IRL & empirical evidence didn't make you STFU, so you started with your imaginingz -- replying to me with cryptic lines attributed to Yamamoto, but turned out to be another Libercap fantasy.  Now you're insisting that children & octogenarians carry gats to protect themselves from *other* children and octogenarians.  Daddy, Franny was being mean so i shot her in the face, can i have a fresh clip?

Come on, Cartman, stop trolling, we know it's you :D

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/season_13/sp_1307_10.jpg

You really are hilarious, you think increasing the insult count in your posts will make you any more correct? Going on to a cryptographic currency forum ( which by the way is a real example happening right now of Anarchy working if you're too stupid to figure it out ) and telling everyone on it they're living in an opium dream is a bit like going around and telling people there is nothing wrong with the economy and no one is being forcefully put into debt.

You didn't give RL evidence at all either, all you did was have a funny rant and make up your own hypotheticals like a lot of people having arguments about politics and gun control do, the only thing I will say about guns in respect to owning them is I don't want stupid people having them but that can be cured with proper training, far less things will go wrong if the people owning weaponry know to keep the gun unloaded and with the safety on than just leaving it loaded around the house like you hear about in most of these melodramatic news articles. If you want to talk proof African children are capable of firing an AK47 ( don't know about 5 year olds though which is why I think you're a retard ) and we often hear about the old grandma with a shotgun.

What bothers me most of all, is why is it that people like you insist on coming here to tell us off and tell us about our 'place' in society, make us vote and pay are taxes? Hasn't it fucking occured to you that I don't give a shit about any of that? Or are you just going to ignore this question and troll away like you all usually do? I have no interest in being a benefits cheat and I don't intend to dodge taxes ( Look up tax evasion and tax avoidance so you understand the differences ) so what's the problem with me not bothering? the second I can go purely cryptographic I will but it seems our benevolent governments have other ideas considering what happened to Bitspend, I just simply don't give a shit about living in your idyllic fantasy world.

I'm guessing that u disagree?  There *are* verifiable examples of Librcap Xanadu?  When quoting just one sentence from an entire post, try to remember what it is & figure out just what it is u disagree with, K tiger?  So let me repeat: Which part of the sentence you have quoted made u so buthurt?


In that case you should be thrilled with my examples, though make sure your kids have a round chambered before stepping out of the house, and don't dress them in white -- blood's a bitch to get out.  Btw, if an AK47-wielding granny meets an AR15-carrying 5-year-old, who wins? Answer: The kid, but only if he hacked the full-auto conversion! Did u get it right? :)


If you find a single instance where i tell you to vote or pay taxes, i'll give you a donut.  I explain how things work IRL, and get insulted for a thank you. :-\


I take it the raging replies are a clever ruse? :)


Lordy lorks!  Whoever caused you all that emotional trauma, it wasn't me.
In particular:
I never asked you to do anything -- pay, evade or dodge taxes, acquire or restrain from acquiring benefits -- by honest or dishonest means, participate in or withdraw from economy.  I specifically couldn't give a shit about your giving a shit.  Any notions to the contrary are erroneous >:(

"Because I can", has never, nor will ever be a first and foremost reason for doing anything. We can all go put our heads in vices and turn the crank, but there are compelling reasons not to.

As for your other reasons, well, they're a little better. Not terribly compelling though, given the opportunities for travel. Suit yourself.

This is a summary of the entirety of what you contribute to this forum, and the bolded part is the entirety of your argument. Thank you very much for letting all of us idiots know how things work right now. Since we're all stuck in our parent's basements 24/7, playing in fantasy hoo-haa land, we are not aware of what the real life outside is actually like.


Here's a hint: The reason we think you are a fucking idiot is because while we are discussing how to CHANGE things in the world, you're throwing insults while explaining how the world works NOW. NO SHIT SHIRLEY! That's why we want to CHANGE it! If you think things suck more than your mother, then maybe try to contribute some ideas about how to change it. If, on the other hand, you like taking it up the ass the way all of us have been since birth, then go grow some tastebuds on your asshole and GTFO. Your non-contribution is not needed.