I think myrkul is most often a philosopher

Do it!  I wanna see what everyone gets

I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.

Why does this happen?

It's all psychological; bitcoin's the big boss and if it's going down, everyone else believes the altcoins will go down too, so they sell and then it actually does go down; the same happens when bitcoin goes up, and the other altercoins go up.  I believe the reasoning is due to the altcoins being bitcoin rip-offs so there's not much use in them except for hoping and praying one makes you rich.

R.I.P. in peace

Wouldn't this push business out of Switzerland?  Let them do it.

Yes, semantics are fickle; one word can hold a hundred different meanings.  In the context we're speaking of here, we refer to the political philosophy of anarchism, not the synonym of chaos, which can be briefly summed up as a society revolving around voluntary interaction:


This is why I don't like anarchism; not because I disagree with the philosophy, but the word is beyond repair, so much so common dictionaries fail to define it properly; here's dictionary.com's take on it:

It is; she's referring to the difference between representatives and the lack thereof.

I like the third one

I think they're pretty neat, but I think it's going to take a lot of hardship and missing drones before they become a staple in modern delivery mechanisms.

...


This graphic gives me a headache.  Political philosophy != economic theory

We need to hold an award ceremony for the 100th topic created about disabled avatars

Sorry if I've offended; I really wanted some insight from people highly knowledgeable about the bitcoin protocol to combat this video.  I know it's not true, but the like-bar is way too big, which would indicate that people are being misled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

Apparently it's the bitcoin-killer

They're lazy and greedy if they can get away with it; if your road falls into disrepair and you don't want to pay for it to be fixed, and everyone felt that way, then the roads would look like shit and that's okay since the people driving on them don't care enough to pay for it.

I don't believe everyone is lazy or greedy; if there's anything I know about people, it's that they're very, very exhausted from work, and have very little money to work with, but perhaps I see this more often since my family has many Hispanics.  Remember that without these fees for government overhead, you become far richer; the amount of greedy people plummet, since they have no more cause for greed; they already have the things they want and need.

You keep saying "the laws" like there's just one list of laws that everyone must follow; you've yet to understand how this works.

Lets do an exercise: name your top 5 laws you'd like to live by.  I'll list mine:

1. No murder
2. No thievery
3. No rape
4. No physical abuse, aside from defense
5. In other words, no acts of aggression

So lets compare this to the punishment you've listed:


If people willingly go into concentration camps, they'd be lunatics; to get people to get into them requires force, which violates my 4th law.  If I violate my 4th law and manage to kill people in attempting to get them into the camps, I'd violate my 1st law, as well as "exterminating" them would violate this law as well.  If I profited from this law-breaking, I'd violate my 2nd law; and I won't get into my 3rd law, as that's rather disgusting.

These punishments require me to break my own laws; I would then be a criminal.  Assuming I've broken the world's most common laws, I'll never be able to interact with popular society again; I would have to either willingly subject myself to their punishments (which likely will not include death, for I'd otherwise never see the point in it), or continue to live as an outcast until someone, who can spare the blow to their reputation by killing a man, puts a bullet in me.

If you think about it, how would you get away with crimes against humanity?  The excuse of "We're doing it to take care of criminals!" doesn't fly with anyone who is halfway awake; just look how that's working out with America and "terrorism".

Punishment works like this: if you interact with the person who has violated a popular law, you then become known for conversing with criminals; people don't want to do business with you then, lest they appear as criminals as well.  To stop this, you refuse to interact with the person, and if they're violent, ready to protect yourself if need be, or call the local hired protectors to do it for you.  The violator can't get a job; his employer, nor his employees, don't want to work with a criminal, so the violator can't make any money to make a living.  The law-violator eventually subjects himself to whatever punishment that would satisfy his peers, or tries to find an area that is more accepting of his type, if that exists, and so lives in his own personal hell.  If the violator was dangerous enough, and people agreed that he needed to be killed before he killed another, so he would be.  If they'd like to waive or reduce the punishment for the killer, that's how it goes.

There is nobody who "didn't agree on the laws in the first place" since there's no single law-system to agree upon; you have your beliefs in justice, other people have theirs, and if your beliefs clash with other people's, either they or you must adjust.

The most common laws rise to the top, with lesser laws, i.e. "Don't chew gum around me", tend to disappear as the person finds they're more inconvenienced by the law than if they'd just deal with it.  We generally agree on the same things: don't use aggression against me.  If we can consider our persons as our property, then we ask that no one bring harm to our property.  But if a person really wanted to enforce their no-chewing-gum law, then they'd have to do so in a way that did not conflict with laws against aggression, i.e. ostracize themselves, if nobody else found it an issue.  I think I prefer the company of people, myself.

And if you ever find a man who believes killing is moral and should be legal, let me know; I want to stay far, far away from him.


This is what you're missing: there's a difference between obeying a law willingly, and obeying a law unwillingly.  The anarchist society does not require you to observe any law unwillingly; the state, however, does.  This can only occur if you're not in control of law whatsoever.  When you say have to obey the accepted law, you're referring to the state; otherwise, if you agreed on that law, you wouldn't have to follow it; instead, you should obey the accepted law, which infers to anarchism.

Who do you believe is making the laws?  God?  Law is not a magical list in the sky that people are bound to follow; when you follow a law, you either do so willingly, because you agree with the laws, or you do so out of fear, even while disagreeing with the laws.

There is no "the law"; you have laws which you agree with, and other people have laws they agree with, and if those laws are broken, you handle the aggressor in whichever way you've agreed on.

The difference is in, "Killing is immoral; therefore, I will not kill," and, "You're joining the military or you're going to jail."  Clearly your government doesn't have you best interests in mind, otherwise it would not have to be compulsory; you'd already agree with everything they do.