One could get the feeling that this is intentional for ulterior purposes; e.g. this way, if anyone talks about bitcoin in public, the police "have no choice" but to detain the individuals for potential drug use, which, as you can probably tell, will produce a chilling effect.

How do people come up with this shit?

"Please, save me from myself!"

If you fall down with no humans around, do you make a sound?

In a real scenario, the unknown individual asking you for sex has a high probability of having an STD or some psychological disorder that causes her to push men away, i.e. BPD et al.  If you were handsome, she wouldn't be on your radar, considering the selection you would readily have and already enjoying; if you were not, then the odds of her having an issue where she cannot attract a more handsome man rise exponentially.  You can avoid an STD through condoms, but you cannot avoid a bipolar nut who wants you harmed as she did not assume you were interested only in a one-night-stand, or otherwise ignored your sentiment and demanded the conditions change after the deed.  Anyway, chances are high that she will deny a test of any sort and instead go to the next guy who is willing to put out, either because she would not want to be found out or is too impatient to wait for someone who really wants her--and probably both.  The trap is inescapable, outside of the straight answer that is "no".

In other words, those who are saying yes should consider how much value they're attributing to their lives.

inb4 "BITCOIN DEBUNKED"

Same problem happens with states; but such is the curse of the top-down thought methodology.

College is a massive waste of time; there was a time where the barriers mattered and you had to get a degree, but the barriers have been nullified due to our economy and your only hope for a good job is to create it yourself, e.g. entrepreneurial work--which is, of course, made difficult for the very reasons why the economy is in such bad shape now.

To make an analogy, if the economy is a bird, and regulation is oil, then our bird looks like this:



It's not going to take flight until we scrub it clean, but it's only going to get worse if we put it off.  Anyway, the more oil that's stuck to our bird, the fewer jobs we're going to have, fewer college graduates are going to find good positions (even though we're nowhere close to being satisfied as a species and those jobs are just waiting to happen), the more worthless college degrees are and the more government subsidizes college tuition to get people to go despite their better judgment, which of course only tackles the effect, not the cause.

Is that a rhetorical question?

I'll just leave this here for Hawker so he can explain how the external control of government equates to exemption from the external control of government.

Are you referring to religion?

I don't think arguing about anarchism is productive until the theory can be applied; what matters is that people understand ethics and reason before we get to the point where it must be applied, then we can observe what a virtuous society does in the absence of central government.

Precisely why it's a bad idea to have a monopoly on force.

No, you should stop ignoring the fact that making a substance illegal doesn't stop people from using said substance; otherwise, every single drug on that list which is illegal should have no data available, assuming laws were effective in stopping people from taking drugs.

Which it isn't.  All it does is make it very dangerous for people trying to self-medicate prior trauma and makes further victims out of victims.  Instead of prosecuting these people, why don't you offer to help them?  Why do you advocate the use of violence against them?  How does putting a person in jail or handing them a hefty fine somehow, in your mind, equate to help?  If they suicide any other way, do you feel good knowing they, at least, did not die because of overdose?  Does the threat of any of this mean the individual will somehow get the help needed?  Because the evidence says otherwise.

Feel free to stop feigning empathy for overdose victims.

I agree with Luno; people need to learn to think for themselves, and they'll never do it if you create a child-safe environment for them.  We're all adults here, and if there exists adults which can't figure the difference between fact and FUD says more about our society than it does about this site's moderation practices.

Know thyself. -- Socrates

It is you who needs the saving.

Highly disturbing.  But remember: "How could it work any other way?"  Every action has a consequence, and here's the consequence of legitimized coercion; everyone supports the state before it's against them.  Can we really complain?

Either that or they raise prices to compensate, so people would have to further ask government to take over different aspects of business to prevent this from occurring.  This process repeats until government has total control over the economy and thus, totalitarian state.

Why punish success?

I'm going to state the obvious, since you don't seem to see it:

1. Criminals don't need to get their guns legally, ergo the gun law only affects non-criminals
2. Criminals can build their own guns, whether or not that's illegal as well
3. Criminals exist within government, who will still have guns legally

I agree that you should have the opportunity to live in a community that is free of guns, but when you believe you can force (at gunpoint) everyone else to live in this community, it's difficult to take your sentiment seriously, due to your blatant hypocrisy and lack of empathy.