And what will you do when I refuse to pay your toll?  Kick my ass?  Ha ha ha!

You will.  You have to pay for the roads with or without a tax.  You're assuming people are too stupid to fix their own roads, and must pay a man to wear a badge and use their money to pay a private business to build the roads.  Why not cut the middle man out and fund the roads voluntarily?

Windows.  That's about it.  My brother owns a PS3 and 360 but I don't use them too much.

Then why not just keep the money and decide what you do with your "tax" on your own?

I'm pretty sure Hitler tried that once...didn't work out well.  What's so hard about accepting someone different?  Oh, right--statism.  Carry on.

There will always be the sociopath, and the psychopath.  We can't assume all human beings are born with perfectly healthy minds.  With that said, since most of us agree that murder is a no-no, the guy who doesn't agree can be handled however the majority decides.  The problem is handing this ability to decide to a central point.  A president/king might say, "Killing is wrong.  It is illegal," but then he'll turn around and say, "We need to fight these guys for their land/weapons/food/oil," and suddenly, killing is no longer illegal under certain circumstances.  You've given up your freedom to make this distinction.  Now, free will does not exist in full within you, but your free will is being manipulated by someone else.  That's what bugs me.

If I said yes or no, do you think it would impact a murderer?  And if murder was allowed, would you murder people?  I don't think these are concepts we have to lay out on day one.  Since nobody wants to murder anyone with law, I don't think anyone wants to murder without law.  It's a matter of empathy; I'm not going to murder you because I don't want your family to murder me.  I think we can both agree to that, as neither of us want to be murdered.

But all that aside, it wouldn't technically be murder if it was legal.    That's a concept that only coincides with government.


I envy your short, concise answers

Ah fuck I just lost the game.

If 80% of the population did not agree with their president/king, would they step down?  No.  Would 20% of the population be happy?  Sure.  The point is, if you didn't force everyone to act exactly the same way through meaningless laws, you wouldn't have to make sacrifices.  You could live on your own terms (which, by the way, are going to be 90% similar to your neighbor's terms, just cuz you're both human beings with the same exact needs and very similar wants.)  For example: gay marriage is an issue because of the state.  It's not an issue with gays.  If only gays participate in gay marriage, why does Joe Blow from Wisconsin get a say in whether or not two gays in Texas can get hitched?  That's your state at work, pal.  That's your majority-happy, minority-unhappy attitude.

It would be exactly the same as it is now, except without all the overhead and "security" the government provides.  You didn't come to this website because the government instructed you to, did you?  Must've been a personal choice, right?  What chaos!  What madness!  Oh god, how could we manage?!  No, really, it's all going to be okay.  You know what would happen if there was no law against killing?  A lot less people would die.  Why?  Because there would be no state to wage war.

So who's on second?

I don't see how you're making that connection.

I know you were bub   But it's funny how people will honestly blame NK or the middle-east for all the bad that happens in their country.

That's the kicker; neither you or I agree on many things.  Imagine us trying to setup a nation together.  At least 50% of that nation's people will be unhappy, while the other half can't figure out why the 1st half is complaining--after all, they got their way, and their way is just the way they wanted!  So a nation with 50% of people in agreement with 100% of law invented for 100% of its citizens does not equate into a nation with a like mind.  A nation is simply an abstraction, an imaginary line drawn in the dirt, and yet dares to represent the individual.  How?  How could it?  It cannot.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

Any reason why Americans have amnesty?  Wouldn't an American be the likely candidate for a bombing in America?

Just...going to throw that out there.  When a slaughtering happens in Africa, we don't blame it on the French.

Just now hearing about it for the first time.

Suncoin:  The coin that is mined with the sun.

That worked for me, thanks kokjo

Botcoin: the coin of choice by our machine overlords.

Kinda funny, you're using the exact same laptop I'm using   And I'm also using Lubuntu and can't figure out how the hell to install Bitcoin.

I'm thinking about switching back over to windows.