Free education: Steal from educated parents and give it to uneducated ones who did poor choices in their lives because they are dumb

Who said no police? You can still have police run privately like a corporation.

Basic policing like keeping the streets clean and emergency 911 calls can be easily done (and possibly more efficiently) than government police.

You know in Japan the subway system has a maximum 1 minute delay and its run by private corps.

When I was last time in government subway they always have a 10-15 minute delay.

So you have to admit that private stuff is managed better, and when you call the cops because there is somebody in your house, then its a matter of life and death if they delay 15 minutes because they forgot to buy their donuts.

And for personal protection, there are always security guards and security services available, you just cant afford it currently, but with low or no taxes I guarantee you it would be as cheap as buying a hamburger.

I highly doubt you read my posts. If you did, it's clear you didn't think very hard afterwards.


I think people should be educated too. In fact, probably 99% of people would share out opinion on education. Would you agree?

If that's the general consensus throughout the population, then doesn't it seem probable that this opinion would translate into market demand? Surely if 99% of everybody wants education than there will be education provided in a free market. The reason that education would be provided is because EVERYONE would gladly pay for it and so it's a business opportunity. People don't need to give control of the education system to a government monopoly. Thankfully, in most places we still have private schools, however even though I might choose to use a private school, unfortunately I'm still forced to pay for the public education system through taxes.

All you are really implying with your above comment, is that in your mind, YOU can't think of any possible way to educate people without the government forcing them to pay taxes and then giving them an education. That's just intellectual laziness, sorry.

I'm showing you guys the logic and you're saying stupid shit like, "But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out? "

There is no magic dumbass. Socialists just think they know what's best for everyone else and because they have such good intentions, that means it's morally acceptable to use taxes and force people to pay for their great ideas. Good ideas don't require force. Do I need to tax you to make sure you feed yourself? Some extreme Socialist would probably say yes to that too!

OK
But what then you are proposing to be done?
Punish after crime?
So we just need to awaits he rapes children and if police caught him after 5th times
he will prosecuted and marked as sexual offender..
3 years in jail and he's on the road again..

Better than talking all nice .When really your being horrible little cunts OK.
People like you STAB YOU IN THE BACK..be all nice but really your rats.. SO GO DIE CUNT
Also with a brain like yours waste of space ..Don't believe in Darwin   D :Dumb shits

And also the question being asked is a total lie and a fuckin Insult to gay people SO FUCK OFF

The problem with the logic that anyone who is against gay marriage is against homosexuals or homosexuality is that homosexuals and homosexuality don't involve the government. When you introduce government into the situation, it instantly becomes something that effects every resident of the nation, especially tax payers. Government does not solve problems, it only causes them. Homosexuals rallying for state recognized marriage is no different than begging for more wide distribution of the shackles every one else suffers from. Demanding the government regulate the people more is EVERYONE'S problem regardless of who or what you are sexually attracted to. Reducing this subject down to "you are either for us or against us" is a fallacy and has no place in honest debate. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is a right wing closet gay Jesus freak homophobic bigot.

Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!

Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.

First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0

Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133  showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...

Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."

Damn no pause here either!


Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?

Unfortunately for you, the argument that was made, by me, was precisely and accurately stated as to being referential to one data set.  The blind arrogance in ignoring that claim and it's statistical verification was ignored by the Warmers resident here whom then I can only call Deniers on the basis of their actions.

Frankly I don't know that 0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance, but you are welcome to show that it does.

Your several other disjointed arguments thrown out are unrelated to the actual claim made.

Unless you would like to misrepresent the claim made and then proceed with a strawman argument?

lol...

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

"Because, until he does it for a 4th time, he is just a human being, like you and me..."

 

Thank you. Posting my post again to prove your point:

Simple jedi mind trick by the pedophile defenders: substitute the word "predator" with the word "criminal".

A - pedophiles are predators
B - having pedophile dreams is not a crime
A - pedophiles should be seen as a threat to children, as predators
B - you cannot criminalize people for having dreams
A - pedophiles are predators dreaming of abusing small children
B - so what, this is not a crime and it should not be
A - are pedophiles predators?
B - no one is defending people abusing children here, but they should have the right not to be seen as sick because they have dreams, just like everyone else.
A - are pedophiles predators?
B - they are not criminals


You did exactly that.

It is that simple.

lol,  fuck ya buddy!

READ GOOD, AFTER 20 TICKETS ARE SOLD THERE WILL BE A DRAW PRICE PER TICKET 0.002 BTC.

I LOOK FOR SOMETHING LIKE ESCROW OR A HERO MEMBER WHIT HIGH TRUST WHO KEEP THE FUNDS TILL PAYMENTS ARE MADE SO IT WILL BE SAFE FOR ALL

Yes people's militia is great idea but this is unacceptable for government.
Because they can't control this army.
This is why they won't let this happen, this is why they will collect every piece of gun..
Because they don't have full power over people.

No, it is not fetish. Fetish is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.

What does it matter that it is sick? Nobody forces you to do it.
And if they do it by hurting anyone they will be punished.

If we start to punish for thoughtcrimes we would all be in jail forever.

“We should accept that there is no way to change someone’s fetishes,” Takagi insisted. “I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically. It’s not worth living if you have to live with repressed desire.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/can-child-dolls-keep-pedophiles-from-offending/423324/

Now dream about sex with kid is just a fetish?

Expressing desires?

This is what is sick, peace of plastic is not important in this story.
They are coming for their rights.

Stay silent? No, just ignore them entirely, they only get any power when people actually listen to them and act on it, they can't do anything themselves or if you do engage them just counter their propaganda at every turn.

By shrinking the state, the limited government concept of libertarianism, you seriously need to read up on that.

Companies can hardly expand if you have balance of power, and balance of power you achieve by frictionless competition, and no interference in the system.

The market is a delicate system, and if you interfere in the market with the might of the state, it is like dropping a meteor in a lake and complaining about the water not being calm.

Remove government interference from the economy, and the economy slowly calms down, (people become equal even by socialist standards), like a lake's surface in a sunny day.

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?