They can't be confiscated.  Unless they figure out the code to my brain wallet...

Mind-reading devices aren't a thing yet, are they?

That's akin to saying "I'd be cool dying tomorrow."  I'm not   Sorry.

I think we need to take ownership of our own planet.  Nobody takes a shit on their living room floor, right?  However, if my house going to be bull-dozed, and there's nothing I can do about it, there's no chance in hell I'm dying with it.

Hey, isn't PETA also on that road where they'll only be satisfied when all human beings are wiped out?

I think it's safe to say, humans being selfish is a lot better than humans being dead.  Not saying "screw the planet", but, if I gotta live in space for the rest of my life, I'll be down with that.

Bankers?

I'm still not hearing "No, statists are not sociopathic proxy killers, because:"

Stop dancing around the issue.  Do you, or do you not, agree that you or I need to die to make sure everyone plays to the same rules?  This is the very core of the state, that gooey chocolaty center.  I don't want to talk about "Well this issue with corporatism" or "We're not really slaves because such and such."  I want to hear you say, "I understand the state, this is what it does, and upon understanding that violence is not only encouraged, but vital, for the state to exist, I have determined that I agree with/disagree with the state and its course of action."  Until we make this point absolutely clear, we cannot proceed to nit-pick at individual issues.  Let's zoom out and figure this very basic part out first.

Are you okay with violence being used against me, even when I have not provoked it?

This wouldn't happen to be related to that autistic asshole Anonymint, would it?  Seems to reek of it, in writing style, and "mint".

Even still, Jesus would not have been the european guy the renaissance painted him as and every european follower accepted as cold hard fact.  Considering he was out in the sun all day, it'd be a miracle () if he wasn't dark.

2FA via text would be super-duper.

Completely agree.  The market will be regulated, and I want the regulators to be us.

What struck me as interesting is how the Bible has been commonly used throughout history as a propaganda tool.  If there was a Korean sect of Christianity, I wonder if there would be a Korean Jesus.



Hrmm...

Considering there's no hard evidence of Jesus existing at all further troubles the matter.  If Jesus existed, however, it's double silly to say he was white, and yet every American incarnation of Jesus has him as a european with a scraggly beard.  How peculiar.  Would a Christian still be cool with the war knowing (assuming the Christian is an American) that their military is blowing up Jesus's ancestors to smithereens?  Dat irony.

Switched it

Hawking has something to say about that, here.

Apparently, gravity also has an effect on time; if you could spin around a supermassive black hole for a while, time would actually slow down considerably.  But as he's shown, time cannot go backwards at all; that test where if you invite a person in the future who figured out time travel to a party, and then he never shows up. 

Discuss.

Well, there's the wrench in your argument, right there. 

I don't speculate.  I avoid taxes on every purchase I make with Bitcoin   The IRS currently cannot tax Bitcoin, and it'll take some real patching up to enable them to.

I think it's a good thing.  Bitcoin needs to show it can do anything money can do.  The sheeple will be sheeple, so there's no use fighting them.  They'll either figure out their government doesn't have their best interests in mind, or they'll continue to be sheeple.

That's the problem I have with government.  For fun, find a map, or a globe, and stop your finger anywhere that isn't water.  Chances are, the spot you've picked is under some form of government.  We can then determine if that government is benign, or completely bonkers, but one thing we can know for certain, no matter what, is that there's likely someone who sits on the very top of that spot of land, someone who calls the shots, and may or may not attempt to take his fellow citizen's thoughts into running that place.  No matter what government we could list, however, there is always this problem: you have one person, or a small group of people, who make more decision than any other individual within that nation.  Even if that one person made 1% of the decisions of his nation, he would still be making more choices than Joe, who only makes, say, .01% decision, based on his voting, or however he participates.  Because this one individual has more power than anyone else, he always, always, always, uses that power to his own advantage, either consciously, or subconsciously.  There is no benevolent government.  There is always a government who stays afloat through the force of taxation and likely writes laws for its citizens to adhere to.  If these laws are not followed, the government will use violence to ensure the citizen does adhere to law.  Law and taxation are inseparable, for even if a government had only one law, it would be, "You have to pay your taxes."

A while back I introduced an idea that another member labeled as "Direct Democracy."  It seemed to work better than America's current system, because instead of having a figure head way up top, each citizen would have equal access to creating and passing laws through, say, the Internet, or something to that effect.  However, even if each citizen had an equal say, without anyone on top, you would still have people band together and pass law and someone would have to run the state security and someone or a group of people would still have the power to say "I don't like the mary-jay, so I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke it," even if the person they were using this force against was a complete and total stranger.  No matter how government acts, it is still violent.  Some governments are less violent than others, but they're all violent.  As I do not feel the need to say you, for example, shouldn't have the right to do whatever it is you like to do, I would expect that you could respect my right, too.  If I happened to think, I dunno, gay marriage was okay, and gays should be allowed to marry, I don't think it's anyone's business but that gay couple whether or not they get married.  Since I'm neither gay or feel the need to marry, I don't understand why I need to voice whether or not it should be allowed.  And even if I felt it was horrendously wrong, because it's against whatever belief system that tells me it is, I don't want to tell those people how to live, because I don't want anyone telling me how to live.

I don't feel this is unnatural.  When I'm at school, I don't attempt to force black people out, just 'cos I don't want them around me.  Heck, posh schools do this anyway, with a screening process.  But the government has done exactly that in the past.  I don't believe it's right to tell Joe in California he can't be Joe because Jill in New York has an issue with it.  Fuck Jill, Joe hasn't done a thing to her, and what Joe's doing does not affect Jill.

None of your points lead to me believing you understand why alternatives would look appealing.  Are you implying the system we have now is as good as it has ever been?  It makes sense, then, why you would support it.  The problem is, if at any point in time, I don't believe the mess you're trying to push, and no longer want to participate, then I'm out of luck, it's too bad, I still have to submit to the authority you love and worship.

Wasn't America, the land of the free, created entirely from slave labor?  This very system we have right now; the one which could never work without the slaves, either physical slaves or economic slaves?  In the very least, Anarchism wouldn't require slave labor to work; if it happened to occur, it would be a side effect.  To the statist, it is a hard rule of thumb that submission is the only way it would work; everyone (except the rich, of course,) must be a voluntary slave--if not, you're just a plain ol' slave.  Whether or not you want to be a slave doesn't matter.  If you're okay with violence being used against me if I, say, avoided the draft, then by all means, carry on with your way of thinking.  Statists agree that violence is the answer.  You're okay with me dying for your narrow-minded view of how everyone should act (within a plot of land with imaginary borders.)

Statists are sociopaths.  Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it.  Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.