Yoo, I like this. up and at em cap.

There is not here. Here is not there.

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
[IMAGE: https://s18.postimg.org/51o0kpijd/play200x46.png]
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)

• Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

• Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

• Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 10

Ways you can help the @informationwar

• Upvote this comment.
• Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
• Join the curation trail here.
• Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

what about situations where you don't think you are harming others but they think you are? without a third party and/or good dispute resolution skills on the part of both parties you would have more conflicts that would be resolved by violence.

extortion, theft and terror are bad. let's not build on it, let's build on voluntary interaction.

here are 3 vids that could solve this, but only if you would like it like this. how would you like conflicts to be resolved? join people who share your views and you could thrive in respect for each other through consensus.
political threats of the worst people on the planet are not helping anyone. they are and always have been the biggest threat to humanity. would you start murdering, raping and stealing without the threat of cage or death by people in costumes of higher morality and intelligence?
I would not. These people probably would and this is why they project it on the whole humanity. If people really believe that they need to ask slave owners how to live a moral life, we do not deserve to survive as a specie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo&list=PL1647CADF96760B37

1. by a third party with a monopoly on violence dedicated to protecting individual liberties
2. Yes, right away, of course I would, what would stop you? "higher morality and intelligence" is not required to enforce the laws. Not only is it not required in many cases it is forbidden, people can legally be denied being police officers if they score too high on an intelligence test.

I'm having trouble understanding.

1. what monopoly? you can choose any of the arbitrary that has the best reviews. nobody has any monopoly. you can defend yourself or hire an agency offering this service... also the one you like, that has the best reviews.

2. would you? or is this sarcasm? what would stop you? yours truly, who is not a sociopath for example ;)

I agree with the IQ level required. You have to be just right kind of dumb to be programmable to do this job

1. yes, you can defend yourself or hire others to defend you but if you need to perpetrate some retributory or punitive violence then ideally the state will do it for you because if you allow individuals free reign in doing so then you have vigilantism which is even more arbitrary and violent than any centralized authority, mob justice and lynching are not preferable to legitimate civil and criminal laws.
   If we had no police and instead had to hire private protection agencies would you hire one with a reputation for weakness or one that would strike fear into the hearts of your enemies?
   If we had no central government to enforce antitrust laws how would you prevent all the alternative protection agencies from forming a monopoly?
   Why would they bother to compete with one another instead of consolidating?

2. Of course, and I wouldn't stop there, I would take slaves, lots of slaves. But since those things are illegal and I don't want to have to go to jail or court I don't do any of them. Why wouldn't you?

You seem to be relying on everyone having what Nietzsche would call a "slave mentality".

The courts have also affirmed the legality of barring those deemed to intelligent from law enforcement.

I really find it hard to have a discussion with anyone who is ignoring my argument. And the entire argument is in these 3 videos you ignored. How I know it? Because all of those issues have been explained in them... so why do you waste our time to be right?
If you wish to learn, the materials were provided. If you willfully choose to stay ignorant, I really have way to little time to do all I want in my life.

Let me know what don't you agree with in these 3 vids.
I really cannot write all the human knowledge for everyone. I need to direct to materials where other people have dealt with these issues.

another huge library you may be interested in is:
mises.org/library

All of these issues have been discussed by professors, noblists etc.
They have a YT channel if you don't have time to read...
https://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia

Please do your own research. I did for many years... I don't think it is fair of you to not do any work... not even check out the links...

Here is another guy. I recommend everything he ever did, and there is LOADS!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvo-yEymNuQ

And sorry, but if you would take slaves and abuse people, you are emotionally retarded and I have 0 respect for you. I would shoot you the moment you try. You are in a 4% minority of sociopathic rabid apes, that for some reason did not evolve past the previous level of human specie.

Why wouldn't I? Because I am healthy. I am not in the 1-4% of sociopathic retards. What is wrong with you? You do not develop feelings? You heard about compassion? You heard about love? Dude, better STFU because I am about to unleash all the peaceful people on you, so they smite you back to the cave you crawled from. You should be separated and taken care of. I am sure peaceful people would reach consensus on funding some treatment for you. Without any political threat.

I can't believe how could you even be so open about it. Well... you are a sociopath, so that figures. You are the second one I ever had a conversation with.
You do not know that you are a freak? How so?

You prove it with your argument that you are actually a very dumb person and a waste of time... so.

You have all you need to learn. If you are unable to learn, you are on your way to extinction.
Hurt anyone and I will help you get there.

Bye

I don't care for youtube videos about anarchism, I have seen enough of them, posting youtube videos is not making an argument. I asked some simple questions, you should be able to answer them without me having to watch stupid boring videos that inevitably raise more questions than they answer.

It seems like every time I ask hard questions I am directed to you tube videos that don't answer them. Not just you, it seems like a common trait of those who identify themselves as anarchists.

> Dude, better STFU because I am about to unleash all the peaceful people on you,

That sounds non aggressive, seems like you can't even abide by the non aggression principle online, thanks for demonstrating that I was right, that the alternative is mob justice. Is mob justice really what you want?

You seem to be making a lot of threats. So basically you admit that anyone with a will to power would utterly ruin any sort of anarchist Utopia should one be established huh?

It is about free market solutions to your problems in a free, "no rulers" society.
I am an individual. You can call me an anarchist or whatever. I am a voluntaryist, who wants interactions to be voluntary, like every sane person.

I choose to disassociate from you. So will every peaceful person, so you better don't be so open about your aspirations. Eventually you will have no one to cooperate with, if your values are rape, abuse, slavery and whatever beautiful colors you used to paint your picture of a sociopath. You will either become self-sufficient or starve.

I gave you the courtesy of giving you the sources that answer your questions, which you failed to find yourself, as every adult should, if they are really looking for answers. But you don't. You are a stubborn moron that tries to prove some cretinism with more cretinism.

Why listen to me when you have nobslist and professors who dealt with all your delusions?

If you failed to do your research and openly refuse to check the knowledge that is out there, which I already did half of your job and gave it to you, just to willfully stay dumb, ignorant and arrogant, it is your freedom to do so. Stop wasting my time. I am under no obligation to be your teacher.

You did not ask any questions really. You write some strawman logic, talking some idiotic ad hominems and expect to be respected for it. You will be treated how you deserve to be treated. Your actions have a reaction. I do not see any reason to reason with the insane people. It is a waste of time. If you want to know more, be better today than yesterday, then do it and have the decency of checking my reply. If you are interested in proving your point with lack of knowledge, fine. But I am not interested in "debates" with mentally challenged. I do not want to be around people like you. It is my freedom to choose so. I associate with people I want to. I decide about my life, not you, not your political master, not your mob of mad apes, who vote for their master.

These "questions" are hard for you, because you lack the knowledge, imagination or basic culture to check what you asked for. I do not have time for your silly, trivial games.

You deliberately quoted a part of what I wrote to be able to keep lying to yourself and believe in your own lies... you are an insane person.

Smiting you intellectually with words and opinions about your behavior is not an act of aggression. I have a moral duty to expose a violent retard that admits he is a fan of rape, slaughter, slavery and abuse, because you need to be watched, in case you would act on it. If words are an initiation of aggression to you, then you are even dumber than I thought and you are just proving my point.

You are free to express what you would like to do to people; rape, murder and enslave. You are free to praise Satan. As soon as you will act on your values, you should be stopped. It will not be an aggression, but defense.

Do you language? Do you logic?

Which part of choosing an arbitrary or security agency is mob rule in your opinion, dummy?

Your mob voting on your master who will write threats, what he will do to me, if I do not obey, is exactly the definition of mob rule, you fucking gang-raper.

I seem to make a lot of threats? Name one out of these "many". You are delusional. You do not know what reality is.

I do not admit any of your ad hominems. This hallucination is only in your sick head.

You were expecting to be praised and get a positive response to admitting you are a violent retard? Oh, well done on wanting to slaughter people. Good boy!?

If I do not find your values to not be repulsive, it is an aggression? Did you take your meds today already?
You really should. Get of my blog you piece of shit. You make it dirty.

I have 0 respect for you right now and could not care less what a sociopath thinks.

If you have not learned, or did not develop natural human instincts, to know how and want to be a good person, but instead you want to slaughter people, I think you should experience this done to you, so maybe you will wake up out of your rabid ape dream.
If you need your master to tell you how to be a person, then you should extinct already.

You are the scum of the Earth. Why are you expect anyone should even want to talk with you?
You are an engendered specie, that needs to extinct ASAP. You are not even fully human. How the hell evolution skipped you is beyond me, but I think there must be a reference point to goodness, so this is why you even exist. So the goodness could exist, as a contrast of opposites... but what would you know about dualism, philosophy and spirituality if you are a zombie?

This is all I want from you. To finally extinct and make room for humans.

But here, just to shut your stupid yap, so you don't run around like a proud pigeon, you should talk to instead of trying to pretend you grown up to a debate:

>but if you need to perpetrate some retributory or punitive violence then ideally the state will do it for you because if you allow individuals free reign in doing so then you have vigilantism which is even more arbitrary and violent than any centralized authority, mob justice and lynching are not preferable to legitimate civil and criminal laws.

Not free reign and mob lynch, but people agreeing through consensus what rules serve them. Not some sociopath like you, a politician, a stranger, centralized master of morons, writing threats, and calling them laws that apply to the whole of humanity. I do not give my consent for rules I do not like. If I do not stop anyone from their pursuit of happiness, I should not be the subject of some threats of a sociopath that wants to rule me. They cannot be forced upon me, no matter how much you hallucinate.
No one has the right to aggression. You cannot delegate the right you do not have to a politician. I do not believe in magic.

>If we had no police and instead had to hire private protection agencies would you hire one with a reputation for weakness or one that would strike fear into the hearts of your enemies?

Police is a monopoly. Politicians have monopoly on violence. So your argument is, that thousands of agencies, could become as bad as the monopoly you are advocating for? How dumb are you? Self-contradicting much?

How can you form a monopoly without a government writing it into law?
A customer makes a service provider wealthy based on the quality of service they provide. An agency fucks up once and looses all customers to the competition. You do not know what demand and supply is? So how dare you debate anyone? You have no basics knowledge of economy.

Yes, I do prefer that local communities deal with the issues within the people who voluntarily agreed on rules and decide through consensus how to deal with a rapist like you. I would advocate for dissasociating from you, so you have to either change your ways, so others start trusting you and want to give you another chance, or you would have to become self-sufficient, which means you would become some farmer, struggling to survive, which you deserve.

Your questions are on a level of some psychopathic child. Why would I choose protection from service provider that sucks?
Dummy?
That is the point. No on would, so the service provider would go bankrupt and replaced by better one. Again, you do not understand the concept of free market.

Why would they bother to compete? I dunno? To have customers? Otherwise I will open a security agency that provides what people need and want and they are gone.
Why would they consolidate, if they were not sociopathic retards like you? Hard to imagine in your sick head, huh? Well this is how normal people function. You are not a good sociopath if you haven't even learned what motivates healthy people. People just want to love and be loved. They do not want to hurt others like you do, ass-wipe.

So your entire argument is that you do not rape and slaughter because of fear of going to jail.

How about the fear that any father of raped girl, any good person protecting themselves from your aggression would shoot you in your dumb yap? Would this stop you?

How about 7,5 billion people stopping 1% of retards like you? No jail. If you get unlucky and you would do something in a community that does not tolerate insane people, your dick would be cut off inch by inch... it would take 2 cuts to get rid of your tiny dick and then move on to your fingers, tongue...

In my community, you would be separated and treated, but would have to work all your life to repay a tiny portion of the suffering you caused.

If you go to jail, your victims do not get anything from you. They have to pay for your accommodation, food and whatever.

But if you would come to my house and threaten my, or my family's life... or anyone really... I would shoot you right in your face straight away as you are just a waste of oxygen on this planet.

You get it now fucktard?

Now fuck off!

It is about free market solutions to your problems in a free, "no rulers" society.

America already is such a society, who exactly do you consider to be your ruler in America? The free market is very good at solving some problems and terrible at solving others.

>I am an individual. You can call me an anarchist or whatever. I am a voluntaryist, who wants interactions to be voluntary, like every sane person.

It sounds great, unless you think about it. In reality all people don't automatically do the right thing, some people do the wrong thing, and they require force to be made to do the right thing. Sane people recognize that fact.

>I choose to disassociate from you. So will every peaceful person, so you better don't be so open about your aspirations. Eventually you will have no one to cooperate with, if your values are rape, abuse, slavery and whatever beautiful colors you used to paint your picture of a sociopath.

You might want to actually learn about what sociopathy actually consists of, if you actually understood the condition you wouldn't make such a silly claim. I doubt you will dissociate like you claim also, we'll see.

>You will either become self-sufficient or starve.

That's funny, plantation owners usually eat pretty well as far as history has shown. You assume everyone will possess the same judeo Christian values as you do, a billion Muslims don't have any moral objection to slavery.

>I gave you the courtesy of giving you the sources that answer your questions, which you failed to find yourself, as every adult should, if they are really looking for answers. But you don't. You are a stubborn moron that tries to prove some cretinism with more cretinism.

Nope, you just proved that all you are is angry and unable to answer simple questions to defend your views, you did that when you resorted to name calling and youtube videos instead of just answering what should be simple questions, in fact I could answer them for you with the correct anarchist/voluntarist responses but I want you to come up with them so then I can ask you the next set of questions.

>Why listen to me when you have nobslist and professors who dealt with all your delusions?

LOL What you have there is a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy, another invalid argument. I love how heavily many anarchists rely on the appeal to authority fallacy, given their general disdain for authority.

>If you failed to do your research and openly refuse to check the knowledge that is out there, which I already did half of your job and gave it to you, just to willfully stay dumb, ignorant and arrogant, it is your freedom to do so. Stop wasting my time. I am under no obligation to be your teacher.

I told you, I have already watched what anarchists like you assured me were the best youtube videos to educate me, yet they fail to answer my questions or adequately deal with reality. Even those given by professors and "nobslist".

>You did not ask any questions really. You write some strawman logic, talking some idiotic ad hominems and expect to be respected for it.

That looks like a good example of projection, I didn't do any of those things, but you have done so.

>You will be treated how you deserve to be treated. Your actions have a reaction. I do not see any reason to reason with the insane people. It is a waste of time. If you want to know more, be better today than yesterday, then do it and have the decency of checking my reply. If you are interested in proving your point with lack of knowledge, fine. But I am not interested in "debates" with mentally challenged. I do not want to be around people like you. It is my freedom to choose so. I associate with people I want to. I decide about my life, not you, not your political master, not your mob of mad apes, who vote for their master.

mad apes with a master? that's exciting, who is it? Clearly you are not being honest here, you are very interested in debating me, look at the length of your reply.

>These "questions" are hard for you, because you lack the knowledge, imagination or basic culture to check what you asked for. I do not have time for your silly, trivial games.
You deliberately quoted a part of what I wrote to be able to keep lying to yourself and believe in your own lies... you are an insane person.

Good example of false ad hominem. And of course clearly you do have the time, it must have taken a while to write this rant.

>Smiting you intellectually with words and opinions about your behavior is not an act of aggression. I have a moral duty to expose a violent retard that admits he is a fan of rape, slaughter, slavery and abuse, because you need to be watched, in case you would act on it. If words are an initiation of aggression to you, then you are even dumber than I thought and you are just proving my point.
You are free to express what you would like to do to people; rape, murder and enslave. You are free to praise Satan. As soon as you will act on your values, you should be stopped. It will not be an aggression, but defense.

Lucky for both of us the hypothetical childish pipedream world where there are no laws and no state to enforce them will never ever exist so everyone will continue to be bound by the laws whether they agree to them or not. Apparently you didn't understand that was a rhetorical stance, that's funny.

>Do you language? Do you logic?

LOL Do you JAQ?

>Which part of choosing an arbitrary or security agency is mob rule in your opinion, dummy?

"dummy" not triggered right? good rhetoric. In such a case whichever agency the majority of people picked would rule wouldn't it? Then they would either destroy, undercut or buy out all competition. That's just good business.

>Your mob voting on your master who will write threats, what he will do to me, if I do not obey, is exactly the definition of mob rule, you fucking gang-raper.

LOL now I am a "fucking gang raper"? Now "the master" is writing threats to you, I see, and you feel like I sound insane?

http://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231526&d=1450908803

>I seem to make a lot of threats? Name one out of these "many". You are delusional. You do not know what reality is.
I do not admit any of your ad hominems. This hallucination is only in your sick head.
Dude, better STFU because I am about to unleash all the peaceful people on you, so they smite you back to the cave you crawled from. You should be separated and taken care of.

you are on your way to extinction.
I would shoot you right in your face straight away as you are just a waste of oxygen on this planet.

`

>You were expecting to be praised and get a positive response to admitting you are a violent retard? Oh, well done on wanting to slaughter people. Good boy!?

LOL, derp, were you expecting praise? was that why you post things online? I wonder where that projection came from.

>If I do not find your values to not be repulsive, it is an aggression? Did you take your meds today already?

Meds? Sounds like another projection, at the very least a pathetic and mealy mouthed ad hominem from someone without the ability to form a logical argument, what "meds" have you been prescribed?

>You really should. Get of my blog you piece of shit. You make it dirty.
I have 0 respect for you right now and could not care less what a sociopath thinks.
If you have not learned, or did not develop natural human instincts, to know how and want to be a good person, but instead you want to slaughter people, I think you should experience this done to you, so maybe you will wake up out of your rabid ape dream.

There is no natural human instinct to be a good person. That's why there are so many people who are not, not because governments exist. Really all the anger and bluster at government just makes me think that you are mad at your dad. In reality studies show that 90% of people can admit they have had a homicidal thought and that the other 10% are lying. usually when we get to this point the anarchist is so angry and can't make any reasonable arguments so they just issue profanity laced commands for me to go away with all my mean questions.

>If you need your master to tell you how to be a person, then you should extinct already.

I am sure I didn't say I needed "a master" what a bizarre theme to your rant. Again you express a desire to see strangers made extinct.

>You are the scum of the Earth. Why are you expect anyone should even want to talk with you?

I expect that you will respond promptly to this post.

>You are an engendered specie, that needs to extinct ASAP. You are not even fully human. How the hell evolution skipped you is beyond me, but I think there must be a reference point to goodness, so this is why you even exist. So the goodness could exist, as a contrast of opposites... but what would you know about dualism, philosophy and spirituality if you are a zombie?

Now I am a "zombie", interesting, I can't speak for zombies but I do have a degree in Philosophy. Note how I can calmly answer your bizarre and insulting questions but you couldn't do the same for the simple and polite questions I asked.

>This is all I want from you. To finally extinct and make room for humans.
But here, just to shut your stupid yap, so you don't run around like a proud pigeon, you should talk to instead of trying to pretend you grown up to a debate:

"you should talk to instead of trying to pretend you grown up to a debate"! lol, that makes sense.

>but if you need to perpetrate some retributory or punitive violence then ideally the state will do it for you because if you allow individuals free reign in doing so then you have vigilantism which is even more arbitrary and violent than any centralized authority, mob justice and lynching are not preferable to legitimate civil and criminal laws.
>Not free reign and mob lynch, but people agreeing through consensus what rules serve them. Not some sociopath like you, a politician, a stranger, centralized master of morons, writing threats, and calling them laws that apply to the whole of humanity. I do not give my consent for rules I do not like. If I do not stop anyone from their pursuit of happiness, I should not be the subject of some threats of a sociopath that wants to rule me. They cannot be forced upon me, no matter how much you hallucinate.

Oh, the laws can't be made to apply to you? You just proved why the idea of everyone having to consent to the laws is silly, no one would consent to them ever being applied to themselves for no reason. What you just described is the mindset of a sociopath, they believe the rules do not apply to them, that's the core feature.

>No one has the right to aggression. You cannot delegate the right you do not have to a politician. I do not believe in magic.

yes, clearly you do, you believe there are magical "rights" that somehow exist outside of those rights recognized and supported by the government, there are no such rights. No "natural rights" exist.

If we had no police and instead had to hire private protection agencies would you hire one with a reputation for weakness or one that would strike fear into the hearts of your enemies?

>Police is a monopoly. Politicians have monopoly on violence. So your argument is, that thousands of agencies, could become as bad as the monopoly you are advocating for?

My argument is actually that thousands of agencies meting out violence without any central oversight would be much worse than just one and that those agencies would always consolidate because there would be no mechanism to prevent them from doing so and doing so would be advantageous.

>How dumb are you? Self-contradicting much?

angry and juvenile much?

>How can you form a monopoly without a government writing it into law?

Governments are and can create monopolies but they are also the only mechanism that can restrict monopolies from forming. If I am in business I will buy out, undercut or in a scenario without a government to stop me kill anyone who tries to be a competition to my monopoly, right? The only thing that stops corporations from doing that is antitrust laws, the unregulated free market can't stop a monopoly.
A law was not written to create all the oil and steel trusts for example a law had to be written to destroy them.

>A customer makes a service provider wealthy based on the quality of service they provide. An agency fucks up once and looses all customers to the competition.

Not usually. Maybe sometimes, GM knowingly killed hundreds of Americans by selling cars with deadly defects they knew about, have they gone out of business? Does no one buy their cars? In terms of an agency if I am hiring them and they treat the criminals I hire them to deal with badly then that is a good thing, I will keep using them, your goal in hiring a security agency would be primarily to ensure that they treated the criminals nicely or fairly?

>You do not know what demand and supply is?

I am sure I didn't say that, another straw man

>So how dare you debate anyone? *You have no basics knowledge of economy.

You seem to lack a basic knowledge of grammar but I wouldn't tell you not to debate anyone.

>Yes, I do prefer that local communities deal with the issues within the people who voluntarily agreed on rules and decide through consensus how to deal with a rapist like you. I would advocate for dissasociating from you, so you have to either change your ways, so others start trusting you and want to give you another chance, or you would have to become self-sufficient, which means you would become some farmer, struggling to survive, which you deserve.

LOL what a bizarre fantasy in which I am forced to become a farmer for upsetting you in an online debate by suggesting that not all people have a slave mentality.

>Your questions are on a level of some psychopathic child. Why would I choose protection from service provider that sucks?
Dummy?

When was the first time someone called you a "dummy"? I didn't ask about "a service provider who sucks", another angry and juvenile straw man.

>That is the point. No on would, so the service provider would go bankrupt and replaced by better one. Again, you do not understand the concept of free market.
Why would they bother to compete? I dunno? To have customers?

But if you engage in competition then you will only have some of the customers, if instead you form a monopoly then you can have all of the customers, do you see how that is better from a business standpoint?

>Otherwise I will open a security agency that provides what people need and want and they are gone.

Then they have two very effective options in the scenario where there is no central government, you can join them or they can kill you. At the end of the day though you will not be a separate agency competing with them.

>Why would they consolidate, if they were not sociopathic retards like you? Hard to imagine in your sick head, huh? Well this is how normal people function. You are not a good sociopath if you haven't even learned what motivates healthy people. People just want to love and be loved. They do not want to hurt others like you do, ass-wipe.

LOL, we went from talking about security agencies to people just wanting love! LOL do corporations and security agencies just want to love and be loved? Is that why people go into business, so they can love and be loved? Is that why people become private security guards, so they can love and be loved?

Great answer, I should have watched the video! Monopolies will be stopped because no one would ever want to form one because they want to love and be loved! Government is why there is no love man! Without laws corporations would not exist to make money or serve their shareholders, they would love and be loved, and never consolidate with other corporations!

>So your entire argument is that you do not rape and slaughter because of fear of going to jail.

Not really, a lot of people commit violent crimes now even with the threat of prison, my argument is that without it even more would and there wouldn't be much you could do, sort of a shootout or calling a gang of hired thugs, to stop them. Most people are incapable of gun fighting and many people can't afford hired thugs, those people would be shit out of luck, easy pickings.

>How about the fear that any father of raped girl, any good person protecting themselves from your aggression would shoot you in your dumb yap? Would this stop you?

That assumes that everyone is capable of protecting themselves again, most people are not. Are you saying that people in such a case would have no reason to keep the girl or any witnesses alive?
What about girls who don't have fathers that care about them? Who protects them if they can't afford to become gunfighters or hire goons of their own?

>How about 7,5 billion people stopping 1% of retards like you?

At least a billion are Muslims, they don't care what I do to infidels. Funny how you use the word "retard" makes you seem angry and stupid, how did you feel the first time you were called that?

>No jail. If you get unlucky and you would do something in a community that does not tolerate insane people, your dick would be cut off inch by inch... it would take 2 cuts to get rid of your tiny dick and then move on to your fingers, tongue...

Cruel and unusual punishments, somewhat homoerotic too, thank God I live in America where I have a right against such punishments as you fantasize about. So you would volunteer to have your dick cut off?

>In my community, you would be separated and treated, but would have to work all your life to repay a tiny portion of the suffering you caused.

And "the community" would decide that and then impose its will on me?

>If you go to jail, your victims do not get anything from you. They have to pay for your accommodation, food and whatever.

That's why we have restitution orders and civil lawsuits, so that victims can receive remuneration. A lot of victims are in the class that can't afford your private security agencies, they don't pay any federal taxes now yet they receive the full protection of the federal government. In your world these people would rely on the kindness of bystanders to protect them right?

>But if you would come to my house and threaten my, or my family's life... or anyone really... I would shoot you right in your face straight away as you are just a waste of oxygen on this planet.
You get it now fucktard?

LOL, I would just buy you from your security agency and have them deliver you. If the price is right that should be no problem. I wouldn't want to handle any of the slaves myself, a dirty business that.

>Now fuck off!

yeah, that's what people who are good at debate and have a strong position usually end with.

wow, I have exceeded the maximum length for a post! This is going to have to be posted separately.

>There is no natural human instinct to be a good person

not if you are insane, like you are. otherwise reference some study. I do not care about your made up world

>I am sure I didn't say I needed "a master"

You need a person that will issue a threat to you to not murder for you to not murder. a person who has the monopoly on issuing threats and executing them. your master. you are full of shit

>I expect that you will respond promptly to this post

yes. just to prove you are an idiot

>Now I am a "zombie", interesting, I can't speak for zombies but I do have a degree in Philosophy. Note how I can calmly answer your bizarre and insulting questions but you couldn't do the same for the simple and polite questions I asked.

your degree is a piece of paper. just because you need to prove your better because you have a piece of paper it means you are a dumbass.
you have the entire knowledge of humanity at a click. if you need the paper that tells you you are smart... you are not.
if you have something to do with philosophy... you really suck at it. I could teach you philosophy if you like.

>Oh, the laws can't be made to apply to you?

No. There is no magic that can give someone the right I do not have to someone else. So no matter what stranger or mob of gang-rapers imagine the rights they do not have, it does not make it appllicable to an individual without consent.
People want rules that serve them. They will choose these rules voluntarily, not the rules imposed on them by strangers. This is the only reason people want rules, BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM. You do not logic.
I know you think it makes sense, but it actually shows you don't get logic, so gain, how could you ever be a philosopher? Unless your degree was "failed"

>yes, clearly you do, you believe there are magical "rights" that somehow exist outside of those rights recognized and supported by the government, there are no such rights. No "natural rights" exist.

There is a natural law "do not do to others what you do not want done to you".
You do not get to impose your subjective reality on me. This is the natural law of the nature.
Laws of physics are also not regulated by your political masters and yet they exist.

>My argument is actually that thousands of agencies meting out violence without any central oversight would be much worse than just one and that those agencies would always consolidate because there would be no mechanism to prevent them from doing so and doing so would be advantageous.

I know your dumb non argument. It is false. The supply and demand decides of existence of services and products in free society, NOT your masters.

>angry and juvenile much?

no. you cannot be mad at a cancer. cancer does not know any better but to be a cancer. just despise emotional retards who want to murder and rape people. You were expecting respect for being a murderous scum? Retarded much?

>Governments are and can create monopolies but they are also the only mechanism that can restrict monopolies from forming. If I am in business I will buy out, undercut or in a scenario without a government to stop me kill anyone who tries to be a competition to my monopoly, right?

wrong. if you are a successful business it is because you do something that improves people's lives. only with government writing special laws/favors to their sponsors an evil corporation can exist. corporations are businesses given special laws of no accountability, patents, monopolies and they use the army to expend.

>The only thing that stops corporations from doing that is antitrust laws, the unregulated free market can't stop a monopoly.

wrong. antitrust laws are created to get rid of competition against sponsors of the actors you call politicians.

>A law was not written to create all the oil and steel trusts for example a law had to be written to destroy them.

What? How is the oil and steel business destroyed exactly?

If it was not for patents, we would be flying on Tesla's inventions, or run cars on water... these inventions are suppressed by the patents that are not allowed. they are sitting in the patent office. But I do not see anything wrong with using oil. great resource.

>Not usually. Maybe sometimes, GM knowingly killed hundreds of Americans by selling cars with deadly defects they knew about, have they gone out of business?

GM did not kill anyone. You know when you buy a car you have bigger chance of dying in a car than in a tram. So the principle is that there was a fraction of a percent more chance to have an accident in the car with a defect and the one without. The car had a defect. They estimated it would cost 200 lives per year. If people were free to choose, GM would go bankrupt, because no one would buy their product anymore, because of lack of trust. Once a business looses trust, it is very hard to get it bakc. If people choose freely to trust again, it is their freedom to support the product they value.
GM got bailouts from extorted money you call taxation. If they fucked up they should go bankrupt. AGAIN it is only due to government's intervention in free market, that cause the issues.
The customer was not able to decide which manufacturer they value. They were not able to vote with their wealth who to support. It was imposed on them through theft of your masters.

>In terms of an agency if I am hiring them and they treat the criminals I hire them to deal with badly then that is a good thing, I will keep using them, your goal in hiring a security agency would be primarily to ensure that they treated the criminals nicely or fairly?

Again, it only makes sense in your head.
I hire protection from aggressors. Protect me from being harmed. I don't know what is a "criminal"in your sect and I do not care. Someone growing a plant in their garden that thousands of scientific studies confirm to be medicinal, non addictive and never killed anyone, unlike nuts that kill 3000 people per year, or alcohol that kills 2,5 million or tobacco that kills 6,5... this is a "criminal" according to your masters who ignore all the knowledge available for 50 years.

(You do not know what demand and supply is?)

>I am sure I didn't say that, another straw man

You do not get to tell me my opinion. I am telling you this, so actually you are strawmanning your ad hominem right now. OH MY FUCKING IRONY!
Aanother strawman on my part? kindly quote a different one because this one was not and I merely keep proving you are an insane, delusional freak. You think it is a debate. I am just mopping the floor with you here.
Just because you did not say it, it does not make it my opinion? Again you lack coherence and YOU DO NOT LOGIC.
I have proven to you that my claim you do not know basics of economics, is correct beyond doubt by now.

>You seem to lack a basic knowledge of grammar but I wouldn't tell you not to debate anyone.

oh so you are not just a violent retard that wants to murder, but now you are a grammar nazi? I hope you understood though? I did not know you have set some rules for the official language here in comments section on my blog... another hallucination?

Well, alloweth me writeth in shakespearean from anon on to suiteth our high standards of communication, thy highness.
thou art to easy to bash intellectually. Thou art actually a full on m'ron. How didst thee survive?
didst thee knoweth yond communication is about conveying messages, not about artificial rules, thy headeth is so full of? how doest t coequal fiteth in th're since th're is so much the horror between thy ears?

Would you like to communicate in 5 languages I'm fluent in? Because I am not a native English speaker and yet I destroy you.

here dumbass. Just to embarrass you some more:

[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQcovy6jGuELwWRTkdhqp7Fu4SP648zg2GFA9DjCLhUEb/spell.jpg]
[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmNeYZjRQuYKqfdEtHk8sPFSrMjuPDBp7wkWzGAPvBaW4C/stnrong%20mind.jpg]

>LOL what a bizarre fantasy in which I am forced to become a farmer for upsetting you in an online debate by suggesting that not all people have a slave mentality.

No you moron. You failed at logic yet again. I told you how I would like to deal with violent scum like you in my community where people would share the same values, because this would be the reason why I would be in this community in first place. I am compassionate, so even for murdering, I would find kindness in my heart to treat you like an insane person, you are and not murder you back, but rather teach you that being violent toward others results in the community's disassociation from you, which would mean you would have to survive on your own. I would have to reach a consensus with my community on this, because if the victim's family would like to cut your balls of... I would need to respect them. In this case I would try to convince them to make you pay for the rest of your life, instead of killing you or putting you in cage to pay for your food and shelter. You do not really language do you? Mr. grammar nazi?

>When was the first time someone called you a "dummy"? I didn't ask about "a service provider who sucks", another angry and juvenile straw man.

Fuck knows what you wanted. These things only make sense in your sick head.
So you do not logic, do not language, so let me repeat:
Your questions are on a level of some psychopathic child.
Again, not angry, but appalled and disgusted by you. I am only treating a murderer-wanna-be like you deserve. Again, did you expect you would be respected? Why?

>But if you engage in competition then you will only have some of the customers, if instead you form a monopoly then you can have all of the customers, do you see how that is better from a business standpoint?

How will you form a monopoly. Already addressed that you have no idea how free market works.

>Then they have two very effective options in the scenario where there is no central government, you can join them or they can kill you. At the end of the day though you will not be a separate agency competing with them.

OK. And no one chooses their service and they starve, because people will decide to defend themselves... unless you think a security firm can kill 100 million gun owners in US? There is no bigger army. Well, since you are dumb, you might think so.

>LOL, we went from talking about security agencies to people just wanting love! LOL do corporations and security agencies just want to love and be loved? Is that why people go into business, so they can love and be loved? Is that why people become private security guards, so they can love and be loved?

No people go into business to create a service or product that is loved and it will translate into people loving them and showing it by voting with heir money on who they want to support. DUMB!
Yes, people become private security, because they have passion for protecting others, martial arts, and generally are very active an protective. And you thought why? Because they like to shoot people?

>Great answer, I should have watched the video! Monopolies will be stopped because no one would ever want to form one because they want to love and be loved! Government is why there is no love man! Without laws corporations would not exist to make money or serve their shareholders, they would love and be loved, and never consolidate with other corporations!

Some more strawmaning your ad himinems... like a retard you are...

>Not really, a lot of people commit violent crimes now even with the threat of prison, my argument is that without it even more would and there wouldn't be much you could do, sort of a shootout or calling a gang of hired thugs, to stop them. Most people are incapable of gun fighting and many people can't afford hired thugs, those people would be shit out of luck, easy pickings.

So with threat of prison they do it, because the government is useless at protecting people? All they do is come and write up what happened to you? So it is working, but it isn't?
Is this why banks count on police and don't hire security that has the best tech, is available straight away and cares about their job, because if they fuck up they will go out of business, which is not the case for monopoly of government? And this is why they suck at everything?

I tell you what, let the private sector compete with all the services provided by government and the government will go out of business within a year, because no one can actually provide worse service that is wasting 99,99% of taxes on bullshit bureaucracy and invading and slaughtering innocent people around the Globe.

DUMBASSS!

>That assumes that everyone is capable of protecting themselves again, most people are not. Are you saying that people in such a case would have no reason to keep the girl or any witnesses alive?
What about girls who don't have fathers that care about them? Who protects them if they can't afford to become gunfighters or hire goons of their own?

You idiot, we talked about agencies. If you do not choose to protect yourself you hire professionals.
The point is no one should extort your money via taxation to impose their crapiest service on you, of you do not wish, but want to protect yourself... people can choose to have a community militia... whatever. Are you to dumb to imagine things?

So... your cretinism is making me tired really...

>At least a billion are Muslims, they don't care what I do to infidels. Funny how you use the word "retard" makes you seem angry and stupid, how did you feel the first time you were called that?

Oh so now you know what billion, while there is 1,5 billion, humans think? Because you of course you know what a definition of a racist and bigot is, right? You know what 1,5 billion people think? Wow!

What you call me is not my businesses. I do not play any victim-hood game. I don't care about you.
I would care if my close people called me something bad, because it would mean I did something wrong or they have some problem, which I would care about. You are not worth a half of piece of shit to me and I do not give even a quarter of a fuck about you.

>Cruel and unusual punishments, somewhat homoerotic too, thank God I live in America where I have a right against such punishments as you fantasize about. So you would volunteer to have your dick cut off?

No you idiot. This is a classical, straight forward straw man. Congrats on being a retard. And just below this you had the answer! :D

>But if you engage in competition then you will only have some of the customers, if instead you form a monopoly then you can have all of the customers, do you see how that is better from a business standpoint?

How will you form a monopoly. Already addressed that you have no idea how free market works.

>Then they have two very effective options in the scenario where there is no central government, you can join them or they can kill you. At the end of the day though you will not be a separate agency competing with them.

OK. And no one chooses their service and they starve, because people will decide to defend themselves... unless you think a security firm can kill 100 million gun owners in US? There is no bigger army. Well, since you are dumb, you might think so.

>LOL, we went from talking about security agencies to people just wanting love! LOL do corporations and security agencies just want to love and be loved? Is that why people go into business, so they can love and be loved? Is that why people become private security guards, so they can love and be loved?

No people go into business to create a service or product that is loved and it will translate into people loving them and showing it by voting with heir money on who they want to support. DUMB!
Yes, people become private security, because they have passion for protecting others, martial arts, and generally are very active an protective. And you thought why? Because they like to shoot people?

>Great answer, I should have watched the video! Monopolies will be stopped because no one would ever want to form one because they want to love and be loved! Government is why there is no love man! Without laws corporations would not exist to make money or serve their shareholders, they would love and be loved, and never consolidate with other corporations!

Some more strawmaning your ad himinems... like a retard you are...

tldr

fckyslf

thanks for proving me right by replying BTW

proving what right? that I want to cure cancer?
you are welcome dumbass

So here some more mopping with your head, only good for that:

1. Do you think it is moral to vote for a stranger, who promised he will hurt me if I do not obey his imposed authority, that I did not choose, want, nor recognize? Should I be able to decide about my life? Subscribe and unsubscribe to ideas that influence my life?

2. Is it ethical for you to force me to pay for being controlled by a stranger, that you chose to write laws, you want me to be a subject of, when I expressed very clearly, I do not want to be a part of my life?

3. If you don't believe that voluntary interaction are enough to create rules for a society, what are the instances in which state violence should be used against you?

4. What things should you be forced to pay for that you don't want to pay for?

5. What decisions should you be forced to make that you otherwise would not?

6. What projects would you be willing to pick up a gun and go to your neighbors house to force him to donate to?

7. Where/when did a group of individuals come to a consensus about how society is run?

8. Why do you think a majority discriminating a minority (democracy) is civilized?

9. Why involuntary participation in your opinion is better than voluntary participation?

10. If a stranger disagrees with the way I choose to govern myself, while not harming anyone, why should I obey the stranger's worldview?

And here some additional ones a fellow voluntaryists wrote, by @larkenrose:

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

Careful, your empty head (yet full of shit) may implode :D

Proving what right? that
I want to cure cancer? you
Are welcome dumbass

                 - evolutionnow

I'm a bot. I detect haiku.

>Not really, a lot of people commit violent crimes now even with the threat of prison, my argument is that without it even more would and there wouldn't be much you could do, sort of a shootout or calling a gang of hired thugs, to stop them. Most people are incapable of gun fighting and many people can't afford hired thugs, those people would be shit out of luck, easy pickings.

So the monopoly is working well to protect people, but it isn't? Again self-contradicting?
So the banks and businesses choose private security, because it is worse than police?
Because police come to write down what happened to you and private providers care about providing best service, with best tech, because unlike monopoly, if they fuck up they get fired and go out of business?

People today pay taxes because they want less fortunate to afford things. Why would it be any different if people were not extorted and defrauded by their masters via taxation? They would be all thriving, many times more richer and probably there would be no one who could not afford stuff.

>That assumes that everyone is capable of protecting themselves again, most people are not. Are you saying that people in such a case would have no reason to keep the girl or any witnesses alive?
What about girls who don't have fathers that care about them? Who protects them if they can't afford to become gunfighters or hire goons of their own?

No it does not. You do assume a lot and all of your assumptions are an idiotic sect that has nothing to do with critical thinking.
We just spent loads of time talking about agencies.
The point is no one can extort their wealth to impose mandatory, shittiest protection service, if they wish to protect themselves and do not wish to pay for anything they do not need or like.
If they cannot afford it for some reason, people who can will care about protection for their community and chip in. I would.

>At least a billion are Muslims, they don't care what I do to infidels. Funny how you use the word "retard" makes you seem angry and stupid, how did you feel the first time you were called that?

So you are the definition of a bigot and a racist by categorizing 1,5 billion people into what you think is in their head, you arrogant retard? I know Muslims you look like a chicken in comparison to their intellect. Their values are much higher than yours. I'd say at least 1,49 billion are better humans than you are.
You are so ignorant you do not even know there are half a billion more, but know what is in the heads of even the half a billion you did not know existed? You are just getting better and better Spongebob! :D
What you call me is not my businesses. I explained I am not angry at retards. I do not play any victim-hood game. I don't care about you. I just expose what a piece of shit you are.
I would care if my close people called me something bad, because it would mean I did something wrong or they have some problem, which I would care about. You are not worth a half of piece of shit to me and I do not give even a quarter of a fuck about you.

Unlike some nice Muslims I know, you dumb scum. They are actually very caring people. They are proud of being helpful ;)

>And "the community" would decide that and then impose its will on me?

Oh, a poor murderer is a victim now, because people decide what is just punishment?
Maybe should have thought about it before? Maybe they will cut your dick off.
It depends on the freedom of the people of the community you abused, to decide what is just.
You do not think it is fair?
You should get a warm shelter and food at their expense?

>That's why we have restitution orders and civil lawsuits, so that victims can receive remuneration. A lot of victims are in the class that can't afford your private security agencies, they don't pay any federal taxes now yet they receive the full protection of the federal government. In your world these people would rely on the kindness of bystanders to protect them right?

People today pay taxes for the people who cannot afford things. Why do you think it would be any different in a free society? People would contribute voluntarily and since they would be many times richer, because they would not be robbed and defrauded by your masters, they would be happier and more generous. I would chip in. But there would not be anyone who could not afford basics. Why would there?

>LOL, I would just buy you from your security agency and have them deliver you. If the price is right that should be no problem. I wouldn't want to handle any of the slaves myself, a dirty business that.

Oh yeah, and they would become sociopaths, risk their reputation and thousands or millions of clients for one cunt like you? You are funny.

>yeah, that's what people who are good at debate and have a strong position usually end with.

You wouldn't know what a debate was if it sat on your violent scum's face

oh shit! you turned it into a mission... not knowing it would backfire right in your yap. I just noticed this and it is close to 2AM here, so I might mop the floor with you some more tomorrow. I will be your mirror. Take a good look at yourself... if you only could :D

I knew you were lying when you said you were going to choose not to associate with me. Pretty clearly you are way to triggered to not reply and don't have that sort of self control.

so because you are a retarded, sociopathic dumbass, you have no idea how to address my argument and focus on the fact that, AS EXPLAINED, I do not associate with you but rather mop the floor with you, because it is my moral duty to destroy sociopathic statists intellectually. So I did it and all you have left is assuming you know something about my character?
Like you did with 1,5 billion people. You just keep digging that hole Spongebob... you are tragically comic. I like how grotesque you are and with every word prove how dumb you actually are.

I am a voluntaryist. I love humanity and I want freedom for each individual. Not that you would understand that, but it is my moral duty to stop evil when I see it.

I am here to crush your pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, not to associate with a talking rabid ape.

And I did it pretty well since you have absolutely no argument to reply with.

You did not prove shit to anyone, only my point that you are a retarded, violent freak.

Your inability to recognize when you are being destroyed is another great part of your character required to be such a fucktard :*

You actually feel the need to reply with some spoiled sociopathic child's nonsense when an adult would know when to finally STFU :D

Evil Spongebob :D

You are beyond hope

you are a retarded, sociopathic dumbass

[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmTR1YXDfSUQ748fAAAKneyNHMrSApRHEPkUiF5PE7CWaX/doofy2.gif]

And here some more bashing I promised:

>It is about free market solutions to your problems in a free, "no rulers" society.
America already is such a society, who exactly do you consider to be your ruler in America? The free market is very good at solving some problems and terrible at solving others.

Which part of market regulations, patents, special right for certain corporations, taxes, is the part of this this freedom of the market exactly dumbass? As soon as your masters get involved, it is not a free market. Why would you expect that if a group of people has the monopoly on writing favours to their sponsors, they would not? That's right... because you are a retard. Bless your empty heart.

The ruler by definition is the boss of the people who have monopoly on writing threats, calling them laws and threatening death to anyone who does not obey. Figure it out. The sponsors of actors that tell them what favours to write and what threats to issue.

I am an individual. You can call me an anarchist or whatever. I am a voluntaryist, who wants interactions to be voluntary, like every sane person.
>It sounds great, unless you think about it. In reality all people don't automatically do the right thing, some people do the wrong thing, and they require force to be made to do the right thing. Sane people recognize that fact.

Wrong again. People do not need to be forced to do what you consider to be the right thing. It is not your business what others do until it has some negative effect on your pursuit of happiness. People need protection from aggression, NOT the initiation of aggression because someone assumes something.
You would not know what sane people recognize, because you are on the other side of the spectrum.

>You might want to actually learn about what sociopathy actually consists of, if you actually understood the condition you wouldn't make such a silly claim. I doubt you will dissociate like you claim also, we'll see.

You may be right. I cannot know if you are a sociopath or a psychopath, but certainly if you want to murder and abuse people and feel no moral remorse, your aspirations are anti-social, therefore you are at least a sociopath. Egocentrism and lack of empathy? Check. Psychopaths, for example, are far more likely to get in trouble with the law while sociopaths are much more likely to blend in with society. Sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) is generally considered less severe than psychopathy. If you blend in with healthy humans, I think you are the former, but I am not interested in dwelling wether you are a monster or a monstersupreme. You are a piece of shit either way.

>That's funny, plantation owners usually eat pretty well as far as history has shown. You assume everyone will possess the same judeo Christian values as you do, a billion Muslims don't have any moral objection to slavery.

Again you fucktard, plantation owner is someone who either homesteaded and created a plantation with an enormous amount of work and tools necessary or someone who bought a farm from someone.
Who will you buy tools or the land from? You will have to use sticks to work your soil in the corner of the forest you will need to move to, as your landlord will kick your murderous ass out.
If you own a land, you will need to make your own electricity as no respected business will want to mix with a piece of shit like you. It is just bad for the PR if people decided you need to be separated. Businesses will not risk their reputation.
And where will you get the money from anyway to buy anything. No one will hire you, no one will buy anything from you. You already will be watched, so if you try to repeat your violence, you will not get another chance to live.
And if you categorize 1,5 billion people by what you think they think, you are nothing but Hitler and I choose each of 1,5 billion Muslims, apart from 1% of sociopaths, to be worth much more than you.

>Nope, you just proved that all you are is angry and unable to answer simple questions to defend your views, you did that when you resorted to name calling and youtube videos instead of just answering what should be simple questions, in fact I could answer them for you with the correct anarchist/voluntarist responses but I want you to come up with them so then I can ask you the next set of questions.

Gobiltigook of an ape... again you do not logic and fail to recognize what logic is and how I mopped the floor with you. Don't worry, others will. You will be the dark comedy star of the internet, when I'm done with you.

>LOL What you have there is a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy, another invalid argument. I love how heavily many anarchists rely on the appeal to authority fallacy, given their general disdain for authority.

Idiot, anarchy means “no imposed authority”. I am free to voluntarily choose the authority I want in my life. I will choose the opinion of a psychiatrist over yours; the patient's for example. I will choose to trust a mechanic. I will choose an authority of an economics professor who got a Nobel for his genius, rather than listen to an emotional retard like you.
If you value things, you value people who are better than you at creating them.
But why would you know basics of rationality?

>I told you, I have already watched what anarchists like you assured me were the best youtube videos to educate me, yet they fail to answer my questions or adequately deal with reality. Even those given by professors and "nobslist".

You have not, because you do not know all of these things I am bashing you with. If you listened for the first time in your life, you would not be that dumb... but you are. Ergo, you haven't watched nor read shit. You do not know the difference between free market and Keynesian statism. You literally know nothing about anything and this is what an idiot requires to think they know it all. Again, if you knew you are an idiot, you would not be one. You have a “degree” in philosophy? BUHAAAAAAHAAAA!

>That looks like a good example of projection, I didn't do any of those things, but you have done so.

Poop.

>mad apes with a master? that's exciting, who is it? Clearly you are not being honest here, you are very interested in debating me, look at the length of your reply.

By “mad apes” I mean people who hallucinate that voting on someone who promised to do things to me, that they would not do themselves and have no right to do, pay for this terror, and choose the guy who never delivered promises in recorded human history, but keep doing the same, expecting different results, are in a dream-like hypnosis state, and are insane by definition. You and all the other statists. You are just one of the worst ones out there.

>Good example of false ad hominem. And of course clearly you do have the time, it must have taken a while to write this rant.

I do have the time to follow my passion of destroying ideas that cause human suffering. You are the evil. I am the counterbalance. This is more important to me than my life itself. You are no one. You could not be less important to me. You are an annoying fly and I am the whacker.

>Lucky for both of us the hypothetical childish pipedream world where there are no laws and no state to enforce them will never ever exist so everyone will continue to be bound by the laws whether they agree to them or not. Apparently you didn't understand that was a rhetorical stance, that's funny.

Again, you believe that you can delegate rights no one has to people who write threats. You believe in some evil dark occult magic.
I believe in rules agreed on voluntarily in local communities, not generic laws for the whole humanity. You think people want the same rules. You are the delusional retard here sweetie.
You go to a shop and ask for milk and the cashier threatens you death if you do not give half of your money to receive a half-eaten stinky sandwich?
You know how voluntary rules work on daily basis. Because you are hallucinating your indoctrinated values of your sect, somehow you cannot imagine how healthy people would associate voluntarily... because you are a talking monkey on the previous stage... or even before that in your case... of human evolution. You are a freak. A relic.

>LOL Do you JAQ?

poop
>"dummy" not triggered right? good rhetoric. In such a case whichever agency the majority of people picked would rule wouldn't it? Then they would either destroy, undercut or buy out all competition. That's just good business.

Nope. That is your sociopathy talking. AGAIN, you have no fucking idea about anything. Your delusions are not facts. It is a fact you are delusional. Two very distinct things.

>LOL now I am a "fucking gang raper"? Now "the master" is writing threats to you, I see, and you feel like I sound insane?

If you are forcing anyone to do something, no matte whether through the 51% of majority rule, the 51% become the oppressor for the 49%. Hence “gang-rapers”.
You then choose your master who has the power to oppress legally the 49%. Therefore he is the slave-owner and you are his useful idiot and the cause of all the bad that happened in the world; from Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, through the dictators that gave you the illusion of choice, that slaughtered similar amount of innocent people to every dictator. Your masters killed 1/3 of N. Korea population, 2 million people, babies and their mother screaming scorched in napalm a few decades ago. They did the same invading Vietnam. Now they are slaughtering Yemen working for Saudis, before they destroyed the most of middle east.

AND USEFUL, BIGOTED, RACIST, SOCIOPATHIC IDIOTS LIKE YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF THIS!`

>LOL, derp, were you expecting praise? was that why you post things online? I wonder where that projection came from.

Poop

>Meds? Sounds like another projection, at the very least a pathetic and mealy mouthed ad hominem from someone without the ability to form a logical argument, what "meds" have you been prescribed?

More like recommendation. Electric shock therapy. But I would give you a high dose of psychedelics in a controlled environment and let the nature fuck your spirit, if there is any, so deep you would either go insane or wake up and understand who you were and who you are. Or maybe once you understand you will kill yourself. One can only hope so

lol, another long rant I don't care enough about to read, I assume it is very triggered, I will never know for sure though. What's very clear is that I was right that you can't control yourself and were lying when you said no one would talk to me. Now prove me right again with another rant I probably won't read.

oh lol is it? what other text abbreviations do you know? rotfl? so fresh! impressing pumpkin!

how about STFU when you have nothing to say, huh?

What could be the reason you are unable to reply and hide in your stinky, mediocre comfort zone now, huh dumbass? So when you challenge someone, write a couple of essays and someone addresses your delusions, when you cannot answer, you tell yourself a lie you win the argument? Is this how this idiot's ego-loops work? You are not any different from any other idiot sweetie.
Just keep proving my point. I have enough material to make you famous now :D
Once people will know that you want to murder them, I think they will not care to talk to you. Better hide your illness next time.

So, I have what I wanted. I shut your stupid yap with knowledge.
Now get that butthurt cream out and... suffocate yourself with it.

Bye troll! :D

you'll reply to even this, all I am doing right now is proving that point, as a demonstration of the pathological nature of your condition.

>If we had no police and instead had to hire private protection agencies would you hire one with a reputation for weakness or one that would strike fear into the hearts of your enemies?

Hai

If I may be so rude to drop in here. :)
Not weakness but with a reputation of morality, this has nothing to do with weakness.

>If we had no central government to enforce antitrust laws how would you prevent all the alternative protection agencies from forming a monopoly?

Does the monopoly on violence (government)also enforcing antitrust laws to have businisses compete with them in the field of protecting people?
What does government do when the competing protecting agency do a great job at protecting against a protection racket or the protection racket they are?

>Why would they bother to compete with one another instead of consolidating?

Maybe they would not compete but what we have then is what we have now.

I think you are right in your assessment about consolidating "protection" agencies" however, I believe the current "protection agencies" are hard on their way of becoming a one world protection agency.
Everything is geared towards that. And your particular "protection agency" is not gonna stop that, they are the ones doing that.

I didn't follow/read you whole discussion and dropped in here via the replies, so I don't know exactly what the last part is specifically about but one question I'd like to ask.

> I would take slaves, lots of slaves. But since those things are illegal and I don't want to have to go to jail or court I don't do any of them. Why wouldn't you?

Would you also take lots of slaves if government made slavery legal?

Why I wouldn't take lots of slaves? ( I think the question is)

I would not want to be owned by another person and I do now want to own another human being. I'd prefer trading in stead of stealing forcing violating others.....is the best way I can describe it.

Good night

I suppose some people make their purchasing decisions based on the companies reputation for morality, others just choose who has the best price or provides the best service. If people really cared about morality then Amazon and Walmart would be less popular wouldn't they?

Do you want your security agency to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies or not?

>Maybe they would not compete but what we have then is what we have now.

Yes! Exactly, except maybe then we have something more like what they have now in North Korea or El Salvador instead of America. The formation of a dominant protection agency is inevitable and then that agency is for all intents and purposes the "government".

I think there is a real danger from a one world government because in such a scenario you don't have all the rights and privileges an American enjoys now you get all the rights and privileges a Chinese citizen enjoys now.
I see things like the Brexit and election of Donald Trump as evidence that a lot of people reject a one world order, hopefully it continues.

I probably wouldn't take a lot of slaves, maybe just 3 or 4. ;)

I might not take any slaves but we can answer your question about whether other people would or not pretty easily. We know that they take slaves with it being illegal now so of course they would do so but on a greater scale. And the free market and moral people wouldn't stop it either.
For example it was revealed sometime around 2012 that Hershey sourced its cocoa from suppliers who use mostly child slave labor, so then Hershey announced they would cease to use child slaves by 2020, I assume most of them will be grown up slaves by then! That is when i started boycotting them. Hershey may have taken some little hit on their stock price when the bad news came out but it has not driven them out of business, they are using child slave labor right now and selling the product in America and it's all legal and consumers don't care.
Some do and they buy fair trade certified chocolate, most people don't think about it that much when they grab a Hershey bar.

I don't know if they would be less popular, but they could become less popular. Only not in the rate you want.
Do they force people to work for them I don't think so. You also can quit. But I was not talking about amazon but the “protection service” called government. Amazon does not force me to buy and If I decide that they treat their personal wrong I can decide not to buy there. also that amazon treat people immoral or for instance, companies in china, does not make that I have to accept being treated like a slave by government or maybe by you if you would violate me... to make me your slave. You make no sense telling me to accept you direct or indirect slavery because someone else has made a choice to work for amazon.

So to say it short. whether amazon or any other does what they do or people in other countries, does not justify government forcing me to pay for their extortion racket etc. Non sequitur-it does not follow

You have that in america also north korea they only differ in amount of tyranny But whether one is better than the other is no justification for government any government or thief or you etc to force me to do, or pay. (Non sequitur)

Maybe other people would take slaves and you might take some or not. But that is no justification for slavery or tax slavery under thread and use of violence. (non sequitur)
Or it won't justify you making me into your slave. Or me (or someone else), making you into my slave. It would be wrong(non sequitur)

–--
If we had no government to central government to enforce antitrust laws how would you prevent all the alternative protection agencies from forming a monopoly?

Does the monopoly on violence (government)also enforcing antitrust laws to have businisses compete with them in the field of protecting people?
What does government do when the competing protecting agency do a great job at protecting against a protection racket or the protection racket they are?
–--

–------
>Do you want your security agency to strike fear into the hearts of your enemies or not?

What do you mean, with "strike fear" how is that done? What do you mean with "enemies"?

If you mean they would be armed then yes.
But they don't have to go around threatening everybody And certainly not killing innocent people (and call it collataral damage)And what they also must not do is threaten me or threaten to put me in a cage if I do not want their "services" anymore. Which is logic to me.
Someone threatening you if you don't want their "protection service" is not and can not ever protect you ...ever. It's not that hard to see.

> Maybe they would not compete but what we have then is what we have now.

>Yes! Exactly, except maybe then we have something more like what they have now in North Korea or El Salvador instead of America. The formation of a dominant protection agency is inevitable and then that agency is for all intents and purposes the "government".

What is said here is
I say if you have a protection racket and other protection rackets the logical conclusion is that you get protection racket. IF that is what people are going to continue using.
It's circular reasoning.

At one time all doctors use leeches to cure headaches and IF they keep doing that that you gonna have docters that cure headaches with leeches.
But it is possible that some dokter might go and use aspirine.

Just as it may have looked impossible that the dokters might go and do something else
Protection agency in the future may be very different from “protecting agencies” now.
Predictions don't make things true.

–--

You do future predictions that if we do not have your brand of protection racket we would get a worse protection racket. You say in a way your protection racket is the best and therefor I must not complain and accept what they do. It's like saying that robber brought you home safely after he robbed you why do you complain, if we don't have that robber we might get a robber that does not bring you home safely.

–--

What would you say if I say (and i changed the sentence you wrote a little)

>I probably wouldn't take a lot of slaves, maybe just you ;)

>I might not take you for a slave, but we can answer your question about whether other people would or not pretty easily. We know that they take slaves with it being illegal now so of course they would do so but on a greater scale. And the free market and moral people wouldn't stop it either.

See that one has not to do with the other? What other people, the "free market" or "moral people" are doing or are going to do, do or might do, does not justify me taking you as slave.

That children are enslaved does that justify making me do forced labor taxation or force me to pay for an protection racket? That those children are enslaved which I find horrible, does that justify forcing me to do forced labor (slavery to pay for things I did not want or paying for an extortion racket? It's a non sequitur.
If those children are enslaved Isn't that the opposite of the free market? It's a crime.
And I CAN boycott them, not buy chocolate at all, buy fair trade...(by which I have my doubts also.)

I've seen a docu about how those children where trafficked from one country to anothe rand how they worked there that was truly horrible. It changed me. There are so many horrible things going on in the world it's unimaginable. Are you and I to blame? maybe partly the moment we hear and see about it and don't change our buying habbits but there are so many factors where we don't have a grip on. But it still does not justify the violence and threat therof by you or the state.

You are very hard to follow, you know that?

I still have no clue what it is you stand for or advocate.

First you say you would take slaves, then you say you might take slaves, then you tell a stories about slaves That makes it seem as if you find slavery wrong, and at the same time, you also think people should be forced with violence or the threat thereof to do what the masters say, or "buy" the "protection service" or they don't want.

What you bring forth a lot is left ideology and the moral reletavism accompenying that. This makes finding common ground impossible.

Amazon treats their people like shit, they went to the supreme court to win the right to not pay their $10 an hour employees while they stand in security lines to get in and out of the warehouses and everyone still shops there.

In the absence of a viable government another dominant protection agency will arise and become the dominant protection agency in an area and they will demand tribute from you for their protection. That's how it goes, when the government falls apart or fails to provide protection then another extortion racket will extort you. There is not any way around it. The free market creates gangs and cartels, it does not get rid of them.

Slavery being "wrong" in your opinion has not made it go away. The only thing that has reduced the amount of slavery is governments banning the practice.

>And what they also must not do is threaten me or threaten to put me in a cage if I do not want their "services" anymore

Yeah, except you the one being threatened is not the client, I am the client and I am paying for you to be threatened or enslaved or whatever, since you are not the client your opinion is meaningless. In a world of private security the criminals will be treated much worse than one in which the public provides security.

>Someone threatening you if you don't want their "protection service" is not and can not ever protect you ...ever.

LOL, wrong, of course they are, don't you know how a protection racket works? You pay them to protect you from them and if someone else tries to extort you then they have a motivation to protect you from that person so they can keep extorting you, if you got rid of government you would still be extorted but it would be by members of your local cartel or mafia. You think you would never allow that to happen to you, you would fight them right? But in reality almost no one fights them, everyone pays, it's not just you, you don't want them to hurt your family right?

The justification for slavery is that it is profitable. The free market needs no other justifications. Ideas of right and wrong are irrelevant, there is only what makes money and that which does not.

Where does "justify" come from? Without a government who do you have to "justify" anything to?

>Protection agency in the future may be very different from “protecting agencies” now.
Predictions don't make things true.

History is pretty circular, those who don't learn it are doomed to repeat it. Human nature doesn't change.

>That makes it seem as if you find slavery wrong, and at the same time, you also think people should be forced with violence or the threat thereof to do what the masters say, or "buy" the "protection service" or they don't want.

The word you are confusing yourself with is "should", I haven't said they "should" I have said that they always have been and always will be, its inevitable. What does what "should" happen have to do with reality and what is possible?

If you don't buy the protection service then you have an accident, that's how it works. We can choose whether we live in America where the protection services have oversight and rules and we have courts charged with protecting individual liberty or you can have protection services like they do in Mexico where they just shoot you if you don't pay on time.

My point with Hershey's child slaves is that the free market does not punish those who use child slavery so we can't expect that to happen in the future.

What's my "left ideology" ?

Government is mafia nicely dressed up in religious rituals.

Governments do create gangs and cartels, if you don't see that then I don't know. They themselves are the biggest cartels. (War on drugs for instance)

The free market is not a thing a plan or anything. It's an effect If a trade is made that was without coercion then one could say that is the free market if a "trade" was made under threat of force it is not the free market. You can only see it by the deeds people do if they are truly ( free market) voluntaryist actors.

You are not since your service provider treats people like shit but then it's ok ofcourse because it's your opinion that is forced on other "clients" And you can force them to be "clients" because you say so.

Your left ideology? You think that other people must be coerced to pay for what you want. socialism/colletevism. You don't think every person is his or her own moral agent. You think you can decide for other people what they must do and not do, buy and not buy .............These examples that show more left than right ideology.

edit government forced to pay amazon employees 10 dollars wonder from which 4 dollars (or whatever) are taken by government in taxes

>Government is mafia nicely dressed up in religious rituals.

yup, and its inevitable.

>Governments do create gangs and cartels, if you don't see that then I don't know. They themselves are the biggest cartels. (War on drugs for instance)

Yup, that's my point, if you take away the government another government will form, there cannot be a situation where there is no government.

Here is why there are gangs and cartels though, those things form when the government fails to govern, prohibition is the abdication of regulation, so when things are prohibited then criminal organizations will arise to regulate that market, usually using violence.

without the government regulating them, all markets would operate like the illegal drug market operates now, with lots of market failures.

>The free market is not a thing a plan or anything. It's an effect If a trade is made that was without coercion then one could say that is the free market if a "trade" was made under threat of force it is not the free market. You can only see it by the deeds people do if they are truly ( free market) voluntaryist actors.
You are not since your service provider treats people like shit but then it's ok ofcourse

My security agency would treat me great by crushing my enemies, they would only be providing me bad service if they did not crush my enemies. A security agency that treated those who harm their clients well does not make any sense unless their clients main concern was how well those who harm them are treated, is that your main concern when hiring security agents?

>Your left ideology? You think that other people must be coerced to pay for what you want. socialism/colletevism.

I am sure I didn't say that.

>You don't think every person is his or her own moral agent. You think you can decide for other people what they must do and not do, buy and not buy .............

LOL when did I say I could decide that?

>These examples that show more left than right ideology.

I feel like you made up your "examples" since you didn't actually cite any thing I said and made up your claims about what I thing from whole cloth.

>edit government forced to pay amazon employees 10 dollars wonder from which 4 dollars (or whatever) are taken by government in taxes

No, the government accepted Amazons argument that they did not have to pay people to wait in security lines. LOL , if you make $10 an hour you don't pay anything in Federal taxes, if you make $10 an hour you probably contribute a lot less than you cost.

What enemies? who are your enemies?

Prohibition? legal? Illegal? What makes you think you can prohibit make legal or illegal? If I grow a plant on my property and use it without harming you or any one why do you or anyone think you can prohibit make legal or illegal. What's left of my individual liberty or private property if you or anyone can decide what I can and can not do there.
Leftist don't believe in private property and rightist do neither. Private property means I get to decide what happens, I have the last say. because else it's the property of someone else.

To give an example, If I buy a bike, and you decide when I can use it, how I can use, and through how many hoops i have to jump before I can use it.
Who would you say is the owner?

If more people new they have no moral obligation to obey a few tyrants they would feel free to grow and use drugs and sell drugs. the market would be one of a lot more decentralized if not completely decentralized.
It's a shame the so religiously believe they have to obey.

Your advocating for government all the time you are advocating for collectivism mob rule. It's not hard to see. Only your particular brand is disguised as right leaning but it's still socialism.
Or wouldn't you say, that I can get from your writings that you are a collectivist?

You pay enough other taxes are crushed under rules, regulations licensing etc, under threat of violence or violence (chrushing) that it becomes impossible for people to search for alternatives. It goes so far even that thinking your way out of your shitty job becomes impossible because you are crushed mentally as well.

>What enemies? who are your enemies?

I don't have any now because the police crush them for me, if I had to do it myself I would hire people who were as ruthless as possible.

> Prohibition? legal? Illegal?

Those are all words that have meanings that most people agree on.

>What makes you think you can prohibit make legal or illegal?

I am sure I didn't assert that I could. What makes you think I can?

> If I grow a plant on my property and use it without harming you or any one why do you or anyone think you can prohibit make legal or illegal.

The government has the authority to prohibit that or instead, what I would recommend and what works better, they could regulate it just like they do other uses of your property.

>What's left of my individual liberty or private property if you or anyone can decide what I can and can not do there.

Regulations don't mean you don't own your property, that's silly. Owning something doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. You still own your car even though you can't drive it on a public road legally at 150 mph, if you want to drive that fast go to private property. Why would you believe that restrictions somehow mean you don't own something?

>Leftist don't believe in private property and rightist do neither. Private property means I get to decide what happens, I have the last say. because else it's the property of someone else.

Not really, private property means that you can sell whatever interest in that property you have. Because you are a freeman and not a slave you can buy and sell property, even though there are rules for buying and selling. Consider real estate, most people only own the surface of their property, they don't have rights to what is below, others may own those rights, in that way what they may do on their property is constrained by rights others own on the same property.

>To give an example, If I buy a bike, and you decide when I can use it, how I can use, and through how many hoops i have to jump before I can use it.
Who would you say is the owner?

You bought a bike and you don't think you own it because you can't ride it on the highway legally?

I would say you are the owner, obviously, because if you don't like the bicycle rules then you can sell your bicycle can't you? I can't sell your bicycle right?

>If more people new they have no moral obligation to obey a few tyrants they would feel free to grow and use drugs and sell drugs.

LOL, do we have a shortage of people growing and using drugs now? More people using drugs would be a good thing and a benefit of what you advocate for?

The correct argument is that legalizing drugs would lead to fewer people using them and less death because they would no longer be dangerous unregulated black market products that are sold to children by gang members.

> the market would be one of a lot more decentralized if not completely decentralized.

LOL, the illegal drug markets are already very decentralized, at least outside of the cartel systems.

>It's a shame the so religiously believe they have to obey.

because otherwise they would use more drugs? and it is a shame they are not? people seem to be using plenty of drugs.

>Your advocating for government all the time you are advocating for collectivism mob rule. It's not hard to see. Only your particular brand is disguised as right leaning but it's still socialism.

There is no redistribution in my statist utopia, I advocate for an end to income taxes, we ran this country for a hundred years without an income tax.

>Or wouldn't you say, that I can get from your writings that you are a collectivist?

I would really like to know exactly what I said that led you to that faulty conclusion.

>You pay enough other taxes are crushed under rules, regulations licensing etc, under threat of violence or violence (chrushing) that it becomes impossible for people to search for alternatives.

what? alternatives to what?

>It goes so far even that thinking your way out of your shitty job becomes impossible because you are crushed mentally as well.

That sounds like a personal problem, don't blame the government for that. I'm more of a bon vivant.

Then who were the enemies that the police crushed for you and what had they done to you personal.

flat earth, witches, being a heretic are a few things where in that era most people agreed on, those enemies where crushed also.

You think you can make things legal illegal as long as your collective group has 1% or more votes than the other. You alone can not make things legal or illegal for your neighbour and your neighbour not for you, but somehow if you and your neighbour are in the majority then what would be immoral if the individuals in the group did it on their own becomes magicly moral if it's the majority. This is what beliebers in government believe. They are collectivists. They believe the collective stand above the individual. Individual rights (negative rights) don't exist for collectivists. They call things rights but what they are in reality are privileges, which the masters rulers can strike away with the stroke of a pen........ anytime. If government tomorrow dismissed the 2nd amendment most people will believe you don't have the ahum inalienable right to bear and keep guns anymore. (I'm not saying they would or that there would not be resistance, but I say this is how the religion works in the heads of most believers in government.

>To give an example, If I buy a bike, and you decide when I can use it, how I can use, and through how many hoops i have to jump before I can use it.
Who would you say is the owner?

>>You bought a bike and you don't think you own it because you can't ride it on the highway legally?

You are good at deviating from what i mean with that example.

The thing you call ownership is not ownership To own something means to use something in the way you see fit. (As long as you don't harm anyone.)

the ..You pay enough taxes.... and the........ It goes so far belong together.
It's not about a personal problem.
It's about the bureaucratic system crushing peoples motivation, to undertake something, to get themselves out of a shitty situation.

It's an "observation" I made many many times, that people think bad of themselves, or think they can not do anything to make their situation better, they have given up on themselves,then they are stopped by rules and regulations, the system itself.

I don't advocate for drug use I don't even do drugs not even alchohol smoking.

It's about the principle

>because otherwise they would use more drugs? and it is a shame they are not? people seem to be using plenty of drugs.

Of course that's not my argument.
it's about the obedient slave that obey other mortals words and threats.
Because they so religiously believe in that a man or a group of men as if they were superhuman beings.

There is redistribution in your current utopia. Your government extorts money under threat of force or force, from other people, to pay for the services or things you (in this case) want.
This is what governments do then for the left, then for the right, but that is what they do.

>It's about the bureaucratic system crushing peoples motivation, to undertake something, to get themselves out of a shitty situation.

So you haven't undertaken anything and you are in a shitty situation?

Here in America the government and other institutions will help you undertake all manner of things from pursuing education to starting a farm or business. We have bureaucrats hard at work doing all of those things.

"Your government extorts money under threat of force or force, from other people, to pay for the services or things you (in this case) want."

Very few people require any force to pay taxes because they understand why taxes are inevitable and necessary. Not paying taxes is not a capital offense.

I told you I don't believe we should have income taxes.

What country are you if you don't mind me asking?

I'm not in a shitty situation. I was talking about how people in general are not the grown ups they think they are. running to government for every little issue instead of thinking up solutions for problems and how they themselves could fix things. They are sometimes comparable to little children with a wish list for santa including thinking that santa brings free stuff.

I'm not voting and I don't have or want anything from the government.
I try to be as self supporting and responsible as is possible and want as little to do with government.
I believe I'm not entitled to my neighbours money, tell my neighbour what he may or may not do, where he has to go to ask permission for making a change on for example his house. There are many of such things, taking responsibility for ones own decision and own life is on many aspects not possible. Where it's possible I grab it with both hands.

I know that very few people require force to have their money taken.
They complain but they are so afraid to protest that giant institution that they don't even try the option is even out of their field of possibilities.
Most know instinctively they don't stand a change against such a monolithic apparatus. That's why they complain about a bank or some insurance company about them asking fees for their services. they don't complain as much about the in total 80 cents from every euro taken from them via taxation (of any kind) again they don't stand a chance, they only can push a button every 4 years.

I have made a Stockholm syndrome in one question test.
Have not asked any one yet thought.

The question is; what for do you pay taxes?

If they say things like roads, health care, then they tested positive on Stockholm syndrome.

If they say to prevent an attack from the IRS then they tested negative.

If you stay principled and you would not pay, not pay again and again, the they come and get you to put you in a cage, if you resist they will kill you.

Most people know that that would happen but they tucked it under. And repeat the gospel that you pay taxes for roads health care etc. They never say depleted uranium bombs or drones, or to pay for bail out's or private banks, or something like that.

>I told you I don't believe we should have income taxes.

That's a positive :)

>What country are you if you don't mind me asking?

I was born and indoctrinated on plantation 0031, now I live on plantation and bureaucratic hell hole 0049.

Sorry couldn't help it ;) 0031 is The netherlands now I live in Germany. But I might need to change plantations again in the future...don't know.

Have a good night...or day :)

>I'm not in a shitty situation. I was talking about how people in general are not the grown ups they think they are. running to government for every little issue instead of thinking up solutions for problems and how they themselves could fix things.

Some things are the government's job to fix and the government does a great job at it. For example a portapotty was placed near my home recently, actually it happens annually, I call the mayor and then it goes away. Nothing good could come of me taking things into my own hands in that case even if I wanted to fuck with a portapotty.

>They are sometimes comparable to little children with a wish list for santa including thinking that santa brings free stuff.

Indeed we get some crazy shit on the ballot from time to time, the idiots recently banned non cage free eggs.

>I'm not voting and I don't have or want anything from the government.

Well then you can't complain, you should be voting for people who want to reduce the size of government.

>I try to be as self supporting and responsible as is possible and want as little to do with government.

I bet you take a lot of the things they do for you for granted, you enjoy clean air and nice roads. Go to a third world country with low regulations some time, the air is fucking terrible!

>I believe I'm not entitled to my neighbours money, tell my neighbour what he may or may not do, where he has to go to ask permission for making a change on for example his house.

So if he built a huge structure that blocked out the sun from your property you wouldn't mind? What if he built a nightclub next to your bedroom window? What if he starts a composting operation next to your bedroom window? What if he builds a septic tank improperly and it overflows on your property?

>There are many of such things, taking responsibility for ones own decision and own life is on many aspects not possible. Where it's possible I grab it with both hands.

That's great but on the other hand no one lives in a vacuum, lots of things you do affect other people, sometimes in ways you may not consider.

>I know that very few people require force to have their money taken.

Do you actually know anyone who has been beaten or killed by the state for not paying the taxes they owe?

>They complain but they are so afraid to protest that giant institution that they don't even try the option is even out of their field of possibilities.

A great American once said that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. On the other hand we have a decent amount of control over how long we will live and how much taxes we will pay based on the lifestyle we choose. Here in America we have a movement for a "Fair tax" which would be a non-regressive consumption tax instead of income taxes.

>Most know instinctively they don't stand a change against such a monolithic apparatus. That's why they complain about a bank or some insurance company about them asking fees for their services. they don't complain as much about the in total 80 cents from every euro taken from them via taxation (of any kind) again they don't stand a chance, they only can push a button every 4 years.

I don't know much about politics where you live, is there a party that wants less taxes and regulations?

>I have made a Stockholm syndrome in one question test.
Have not asked any one yet thought.
The question is; what for do you pay taxes?

LOL, if they had Stockholm syndrome from being kidnapped by the state then the question should be "how much do you love paying taxes?"

Here in America most people don't really pay any income taxes.

>If they say things like roads, health care, then they tested positive on Stockholm syndrome.

But I thought the question was about how much they love.

>If they say to prevent an attack from the IRS then they tested negative.

>If you stay principled and you would not pay, not pay again and again, the they come and get you to put you in a cage, if you resist they will kill you.

There it is! That is one of the main and basic premises of anarchists and it is totally false, no one is executed for tax evasion, tax evasion is not a capital offense is it?

Who was the last person executed in your country for tax evasion?

>Most people know that that would happen but they tucked it under.

Nope, that wouldn't happen, most people know that does not actually happen, is there any country in which tax evasion is a capital crime?

>And repeat the gospel that you pay taxes for roads health care etc. They never say depleted uranium bombs or drones, or to pay for bail out's or private banks, or something like that.

Who is "they" in this case? In truth you pay for roads and bombs, my understanding is that the Germans bomb a whole lot more people than the Dutch so if that was really a problem for you then moving there was a poor choice, you must have had a reason for moving there that was a benefit of living there that you cared way more about than whoever Germany is currently bombing.

I told you I don't believe we should have income taxes.

>That's a positive :)

What country are you if you don't mind me asking?

>I was born and indoctrinated on plantation 0031, now I live on plantation and bureaucratic hell hole 0049.
Sorry couldn't help it ;) 0031 is The netherlands now I live in Germany. But I might need to change plantations again in the future...don't know.

I can see why you would hate the government if you lived in those places, it's not "government" that is bad, it is "bad government" that is bad, in those countries people pay over 50% taxes, that's way too much. The Dutch still possess freedom of speech but they have no right to bear arms and even though plenty of Germans own guns it is a highly restricted privilege, they don't have the right to bear arms and they don't have freedom of speech at all.

That is not quite as bad as actual slavery, because real slaves cannot leave or switch plantations, that's one of the core features of slavery, but it is pretty close.

Move to NH, pay no state income taxes, buy and carry all the guns you want without a permit and ride a motor scooter on the highway helmetless without being required to have insurance with legal weed in your pocket with a license plate that commands "live free or die" right on the license plate and wouldn't you feel a little less like a slave? (they have very few building codes and requirements for business licenses there as well)

>Have a good night...or day :)

you as well my friend ;)

Most people automaticly say "for the roads" or " taxes are for the roads."

I don't know why they have that as a first reaction. Healthcare is also named.

I have good contact with the neighbours not to close not to distant We discuss things and consider each others wishes. I always had neighbours like that. It could change of course but I'm not that afraid for that.

I didn't know about the bombing at the time and I'm not gonna move every two weeks.If I would take that as a criteria it would be of no use moving to the netherlands again and certainly not to America they drone bomb still, and what not.

I have not even addressed the EU yet. The dictatorial tyrants. They make the most absurd rules and throw with taxpayers money ..for projects..Well I'm not even gonna begin.

I'll think I have to move to another place maybe another continent.

Hey I'll leave it here. Thanks for the conversation. :)

>Most people automaticly say "for the roads" or " taxes are for the roads."
I don't know why they have that as a first reaction. Healthcare is also named.

Interesting, roads are a fairly basic and obvious function of government. It's interesting that Europeans associate healthcare with the government like that, I don't know that most Americans would have that on their short list. The government gives some healthcare here and as a result makes everyone else's way more expensive but it is private.

There are some problems that government is best suited to solve, generally dealing with things we have in common: roads, air, water, electromagnetic frequencies, that sort of thing no one really owns. Roads are perhaps the most tangible of those things. Also anarchists don't seem to be able to solve that problem very well and its fairly basic, if you want to stop being asked about that come up with a real solution instead of balking at the question which seems to be the typical response.

>I have good contact with the neighbours not to close not to distant We discuss things and consider each others wishes. I always had neighbours like that. It could change of course but I'm not that afraid for that.

I had a real estate speculator buy the property next door and damaged my fence, he refused to pay until I filed a lawsuit, without the legal option of the threat of court I would have had to resort to violence, which probably would not have got me a new fence. Your neighbors change over time. My aunt had a neighbor who burned her house down.

>I didn't know about the bombing at the time and I'm not gonna move every two weeks.If I would take that as a criteria it would be of no use moving to the netherlands again and certainly not to America they drone bomb still, and what not.

Indeed, we provide a lot of your security. On the one hand drone bombing seems like a bad thing on the other hand it results in significantly less collateral damage and death than other weapons systems. Now that our Nobel peace prize winner is gone we have not started any new wars and have made progress on winding down some that have been ongoing for 70 years.

>I have not even addressed the EU yet. The dictatorial tyrants. They make the most absurd rules and throw with taxpayers money ..for projects..Well I'm not even gonna begin.
I'll think I have to move to another place maybe another continent.
Hey I'll leave it here. Thanks for the conversation. :)

Perhaps the Brexit can be the start of a trend? but you don't want to vote!

enjoy the rest of your day, it's my pleasure.

>Perhaps the Brexit can be the start of a trend? but you don't want to vote!

Ok one reply.......
Do you have any idea how pointles voting is, the whole circus is just entertainment for the crowds.

But I'm sure ofcourse that if I would vote, things will change the giant bureaucratic machine with control freaks, would stop doing evil stuff. If I would just give the right control freak neighbour my vote..he or she will make everything alright.
Now the whole thing will become tyrannical because I did not push a button to give my control freak neighbour an enormous amount of power to make everything ok.

The European commission is not voted on, so nothing to vote there. Only the parlement is voted on. Which is also a useless the ones that sit there from the netherlands are terrible despicable lying politicians, like all politicians. I can't think of one I could vote for. Not one.

There is no voting any more to be done on referenda, the advising (not binding) referenda are gone, and the three that were held, including the one against the European constitution were ingnored while the 64% or so were against, and pushed through via another way, referenda are/were totally pointless the totalitarian machine rolls on.
But I'm sure If I would push a button in a voting booth everything will change....

>Indeed, we provide a lot of your security.

Thanks for all the thousand of dead innocent people over the years.
Thanks for destabilizing the middle east, and the backlash thereof.
Thanks for all the steams of people that come to Europe.
Wow what do I feel protected and safe you magnificent government and military. You are truly exceptional.
What's next Iran? I heard the consensus building propaganda on the radio already a few days back. smh sad.

why vote for a control freak neighbor? You don't have any decent neighbors to vote for? Perhaps in Europe it does not matter, if the candidates are all the same, but if you can't find any you like why don't you run for office?

There is a problem in general that being a narcissist is a prerequisite for running for any office, you have to think you are the best out of everyone for the job but that's a copout, you could run couldn't you?

Does it really seem like the Brexit and Donald Trump are what the globalists wanted? If so they are amazing actors and have been able to stay in character for years now.

The Brexit and Donald Trump do matter and they were not desired by the globalists and they occurred due to the power of voting.

I won't argue with you that Europeans don't have any freedom or power, especially those subject to the EU, isn't there any political group in your country that opposes it?

When I don't see any politicians I like on the ballot I just vote for myself, we have referenda here that are binding and so its very important to vote on those, the idiot mob does not always get it right on those, a good example of the tyranny of the masses.

You should thank us, us sacrificing our lives and spending our money is why we are not having this discussion in German, Russian or Arabic, would you prefer that?

How would you like to have to pay for your own security and send your own troops into the fray?

What would your tax rate be then?

Don't blame us because your politicians allowed and encouraged you to be overrun by foreigners, you didn't have to let them in, did America make that policy for you?

Next we will sit back and watch as Iran crumbles before us thanks to their socialist economy.

When was the middle east stable exactly?

politicians are corrupt It comes with the job. You have to think you know it all and have to think you have the right to take peoples money under thread of or use of force. And that they have to obey you. Indeed you need to be narcissistic and a megalomaniak know it all, with a god complex.

I don't have that. And if I were narcissistic i would not want to treat other people as if they are my slaves.

How do you know it was not what the globalists desired. It may seem that way, but it is well possible they all orkestrated this. Let's further the police state and the military so that if the pendulum swings to democrats again they have so much more extra power to clamp down on the population and expand the police state.
The way the globalists or the deep state has power is through the mechanism of politics. without the game they have nothing.

So you think the war in Irak and messing in a pretty stable libia (which now has slavery) and syria, afganistan etc. Did not have anything to do with it.

Do you also think because the second world war I have to agree whit all the imperialism and toppeling of governments, invading countries with lies, imperialism, america does.

You should thank the bankers for all the dead soldiers and all the wars.

If I would have had the chance to spend my money I would not have spend it on hand out for a welfare system maybe that would not have attrackted so many people to come to gemany, the netherlands the eu. But hey I must obey government.
Did you know there were people that landed in jail for not being able to pay for a health insurance which is mandatory. Wonder what would have happened to them if they would not have let themselves get locked in a cage, and what would have happened if they would have defended themselves with fire arms against the police.

If your politicians did not bomb and the politicians here would not have a extortion racket for welfare. who know what would not have happend in the first place.

Am I responsible for what the mob did and who they choose? Am i responsible for that politicians always lie and always get the people to vote on them? Am I responsible for that american soldiers made the choice to fight in that war? I wasn't even born. For if that is so you are responsible for what your father grandfather and country did in the past. This to me is unimaginable, for instance if someones father was a nazi in the war, than the child who was born after the war has no guilt for what happend in the war. Unless you believe in the left ideology, then the children and grandchildren of the nazi's must feel guilty for what some people long ago did. The left is very good in guilt tripping people well the right seem to be just as good in it.

So you think that because Iran has a socialist economy america can meddle in what happens in their country?

Seems like you got it all figured out.
For all that america does you have an explaination as to why it's good or neccasary.
Are you a politician? Or planning on becoming one? You sure have the "qualities"

Ghedaffi had a whole harem of sex slaves, don't weep for him. Without America, things would be much worse, with America the world has become much safer, freer and wealthier. America has made things like famine and deaths from war be at their lowest levels ever. Would your Nazis or Soviets or Islamic fascists have really done the same?
you are responsible for what you vote for or fail to vote for now.

I don't weep for him as I don't weep for any tyrant or criminal.
I weep for the innocent people that died because of the war and the destruction of the water project that brought water to the whole country.
through which in the aftermath many many people had no clean water any more. What about the open slave market that they had or have.

If they (cia and what not) are really so good couldn't they have taken him out in a special operation How hard can it be with all the money and spying equipment they have.
Or just invite him to speak somewhere and then kill him.

I'm not so sure everything went as they say it went.
In this corbett report there is a section about libia too.
And lots more info in the show notes.

If I don't rescue someone out of the water for whatever reason, or don't get someone out of a burning building. Am I responsible for that. I don't know. Holding someone responsible for things he does not do. is a very hard thing to do, if you ask me. And then my examples are direct voting is indirect and then you can also vote on someone who does not do what he said he was going to do. Look at the mass murdering dictators this world has had. communism, national communism they all promissed "wonderful things" for the people of that time, people in that country could have said, If you don't vote for stalin or hitler you are responsible for not getting our workers utopia you are siding with the capitalist, or the jews will overrun us if you don't vote for hitler.

yes, look at the murdering dictators the world has had, America stopped them from taking over the world.
War sucks, what a bunch of animals that would have an open slave market, we didn't make them do that. That's their culture. We are your bulwark against that. Until European politicians let them all come in anyhow.
America is not perfect and sometimes bad people have caused it to do bad things, but on the whole it is the greatest force for good and has lifted more people out of poverty, famine, disease and oppression than anything in human history.
We have had some rough times but don't worry, we are working to make it great again.

Propaganda sound all nice and so.
What is "it"
And what is "great"
edit: I forgot "again"

America, Americans are working to make America great again. Is this the first you are hearing of the effort?

You were talking in the context of the world. So I didn't know if if you were talking about the world or just america.

Yes I heard it. So all americans are working on "the common great"?

All those not afflicted with TDS or other mental illness.

Oh I thought you were gonna say; only real scotchman...euh americans ;)

You know that people in the USSR who did not agree with the regime were declared psychological ill and drugged and what not for evil stuff happened to them.
Declaring someone, whomever you consider your opponent, like calling leftist mentally ill, is the first step to being able to have them diagnosed psychologically ill and force drugs and "treatment" on them or condone forcing drugs and "treatment" on them and worse.

Step two is my proposed diagnostic criteria

Sadly there is no known treatment or cure for TDS and it appears to be a terminal condition.

Then who were the enemies that the police crushed for you and what had all those people done to you personal.

flat earth, witches, being a heretic are a few things where in that era most people agreed on, those enemies where crushed also.

You believe in government is it not?
You believe you can make things legal illegal as long as your collective/ group has 1% or more votes than the other. You alone can not make things legal or illegal for your neighbour and your neighbour not for you, but somehow if you and your neighbour are in the majority then what would be immoral if the individuals in the group did it on their own becomes magicly moral if the deity called government does it for "the majority"or "the people". This is what beliebers in government believe. They are collectivists. They believe the collective stand above the individual. Individual rights (negative rights) don't exist for collectivists. They call things rights but what they are in reality are privileges, which the masters rulers can strike away with the stroke of a pen........ anytime. For instance; If government tomorrow dismissed the 2nd amendment most people will believe you don't have the ahum inalienable right to bear and keep guns anymore. (I'm not saying they would not complain or that there would not be resistance, but I say this is how the religion works in the heads of most believers in government.
d

>To give an example, If I buy a bike, and you decide when I can use it, how I can use, and through how many hoops i have to jump before I can use it.
Who would you say is the owner?

>>You bought a bike and you don't think you own it because you can't ride it on the highway legally?

You are good at deviating from what i mean with that example.

The thing you call ownership is not ownership To own something means to use something in the way you see fit. (As long as you don't harm anyone.)

the ..You pay enough taxes.... and the........ It goes so far belong together.
It's not about a personal problem.
It's about the bureaucratic system crushing peoples motivation, to undertake something, to get themselves out of a shitty situation.

It's an "observation" I made many many times, that people think bad of themselves, or think they can not do anything to make their situation better, they have given up on themselves,then they are stopped by rules and regulations, the(system itself.

I don't advocate for drug use I don't even do drugs not even alchohol smoking.

It's about the principle

>because otherwise they would use more drugs? and it is a shame they are not? people seem to be using plenty of drugs.

Of course that's not my argument.
it's about the obedient slave that obey other mortals words and threats.
Because they so religiously believe in that a man or a group of men as if they were superhuman beings.

There is redistribution in your current utopia. Your government extorts money under threat of force or force, from other people, to pay for the services or things you (in this case) want.
This is what governments do then for the left, then for the right, but that is what they do.

Capitalism... bad word. Free Market... much better. @ironshield

I own my life. My time is my capital. What I create with it, is the extension of me. I decide what to do with it. I am a capitalist. God is considered a bad word, because it implies a sociopathic, cosmic retard, but if you use "nature" it is OK. You can say "higher intelligence" or "protoconsciousness" or "intelligence that unfolds the universe".

I really do not care about dogmas, nor taboos... if a word triggers negative emotions, it is a sign I need to work on it because someone probably programmed some indoctrination into my critical thinking.

But I agree "capitalism" has been high-jacked and twisted, by socialist rulers

followed :)

"A political ideology is a set of principles aimed at establishing or maintaining a certain social system; it is a program of long-range action, with the principles serving to unify and integrate particular steps into a consistent course. It is only by means of principles that men can project the future and choose their actions accordingly.

Anti-ideology consists of the attempts to shrink men’s minds down to the range of the immediate moment, without regard to past or future, without context or memory — above all, without memory, so that contradictions cannot be detected, and errors or disasters can be blamed on the victims.

In anti-ideological practice, principles are used implicitly and are relied upon to disarm the opposition, but are never acknowledged, and are switched at will, when it suits the purpose of the moment. Whose purpose? The gang’s. Thus men’s moral criterion becomes, not “my view of the good — or of the right — or of the truth,” but “my gang, right or wrong.”"

Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 222

[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQma2pTzYGBFBioXCo7Rr7HsauveYafzKjwXUjfMypqrwRi/taxation-robbers-legal.jpg]

[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmRtgn1BRb3MzppYu7dLqbmfERyw6SPR8pgqD7DRni3D9A/Tax.jpg]

Thanks for the shout out!

always there for you, when humanity needs a voice of reason. care to rebuttal? or as per usual you will pretend you have an argument, but you will keep it for yourself, because I'm a "belieber"? it seems very weird that you cannot defend your ideas, all you have is "beliebers gonna belieb", but somehow you think you are on some higher moral ground... and not in a sect... well... statists gonna state ;)

> statists gonna state ;)

Lol, this is why i gave up on this conversation.
Too many facts getting made up on the fly.

and still can't point even one out of all these facts? Why do you choose to believe in the lies you are telling yourself? it is OK. I am wrong sometimes too. I know you invested a lot of belief and time in this attractive idea... if only it wasn't against humanity... as proven every single time. why do you ignore all human knowledge? when you state these things and show nothing to support it only proves you choose to be willfully ignorant and stubborn. I have everything to support my claims. you have literally nothing... as you keep proving. I'm still waiting for this first rational and coherent argument... after all this time you cannot present anything at all and still ride this high horse? how old are you? it does not help to convince anyone. convince me. I like to learn when I'm wrong. this is how I learned that communism is the most evil idea designed by ancient cult... I did go through this stage. I started learning about spirituslity and I understood we are all one... but it can be easily misunderstood who is "we". I was doing the same... I was upset no one understood... but it was me. you need to respect each path. but since you did not grow up to a discussion and keep stating some delusions you are hallucinating... how can anyone reason with you? you state your feelz like they were facts for everyone... each experience is unique. nobody sees the world as you do. I dont think you are a sociopath? you failed to answer one question out of many... you fail to present anything at all to support your claim... I mean... why not be an adult? why do you hate people for having more skills and being successful and valued more? why do you want to decide for others what they should value and live their lives like you tell them? it seems quite sociopathic but I think you are just confused. you want to be Stalin? the floor is yours. what did I make up? :) all the others who destroy your argument with logic also make up... logic? you can't reply to any of us? why? I don't need facts. I can just use simple questions to make you unable to answer without self contradicting. cognitive dissonance belongs in the previous stage of human evolution. continue waking up. it does not end. you just keep learning ;)
I know how you see communism. it is pretty and attractive. but you assume that this is the purpose of humanity to evolve equally in our needs. we will always be different no matter how evolved.
this is the point where I think you are getting confused. human experience will not be human if we all be wanting the same experience. there is a reason why everything has a different experience from fly, through a dog, retard to a genius. this is the beauty of it. do not assume everyone should be on the same path as yours. we would not be needed anymore. I mean consciousness we are as one experiences subjectively the reality through infinity of ways. if you try to be against this nature... it ends in tragedy... as all actions against nature, which we are a part of... are you catching my drift here? heaven for you could be hell for someone else. you do not get to decide. neither you nor any collective. it is about individual experience. only respecting each path which is as valid as yours. you can only defend yourself from anything that aggresses against your path. like I am doing now ;)

Ok, i may have confused what you have said with another conversation i was having.

It appears i am committed to this one now.
Lets find out where we are.

I will start.
First rule by force comes off the table.
Second, the workers keep working, but stop paying.
Third, life goes on.

If you would care to provide what you disagree with, please try to keep it short, when my answers start having too many convoluted quotes, i tend to check out.

So, if you like, why should the workers continue to play the slave role in wage slavery when they can simply refuse to play along in the bankster dystopia while continuing too do the work necessary to have consumer goods, for free?

Yea... you seem to be really confused about everything.
What is the definition of a bigot?
Isn't it a person who categorizes others by what they assume is wrong with them, without any evidence? Not even looking into claims other people may have, but straight away considering them inferior to you?

You are ill.

But it is exciting you gave me the honor or few sentences your highness!

>First rule by force comes off the table.
Second, the workers keep working, but stop paying.
Third, life goes on.

First:
I agree that not forcing any individual to anything and letting them be the only decision-maker about their lives is the only civilized way of peaceful, civilized coexistence. But you are self-contradicting already, because you want others to decide about my life. I believe no one can stop me from doing what I want, as long as I do not stop anyone and no one is being coerced, harmed etc. NAP. Golden Rule. You do not even want to allow me to own and trade what I create.

Second:
The workers or just humans can do whatever they like. A person who works 80h per week, creating projects that give options to people who do not create them is a very hard worker, with advantage of creativity, intellect, skills, focus you want to punish them for... and yes... capital, that as long as it came from voluntary interactions, beneficial for everyone, bravo! What an amazing, useful person that creates for everyone... without this person creating something that did not exist, it would not exist for other workers... so "workers" would not have work, if it was not for the best, hardest, most skillful worker in a project. If this person was not the best worker, others would be this person. But they are not. They are free to be Zuckerfuck, Gates, Jobs and millions of entrepreneurs, but they are not. I don't think anyone should have some special rights of having stuff given to them, if they decide to be lazy, useless or abusive. If they are unlucky and useless by nature, they can ask for help. I would help them. But not if they threaten my life if I don't. This is aggression and it should be stopped, no matter how dumb the aggressor is. I don't understand what you mean by "they stop paying". The only definition of paying I know is "exchanging your time for things you want"; skills, things you value etc. They should stop exchanging their time and be rewarded for it? How would this be fair to people who sacrifice their entire lives to serve others? How would this motivate people? How would this not motivate to abusing the hard workers by cunts? Please clarify what you mean by that.

Third:
I have no idea of the point you are making. Life goes on? Wind blows... sky is blue... time passes... we are humans... dogs are dogs... I really cannot catch this third point you are making... please clarify and try to use honest and clear language. Try to refrain from euphemisms etc.

Why should workers/humans do anything they do not want to do at all? It is your subjective opinion they play some slave work. Slavery is illegal in western world. Are you looking for slave-master when you are trying to find work? Than just stop and don't do it. Instead of getting up in the morning, hit your alarm clock and don't go to work. Start a podcast, post on steemit, go fishing, grow food, join other people who don't like their job, share your skills, build/create something and do whatever you like. If you do not need the work, you call slavery, then you do not need it. How can you need something and not need it at the same time? Why do you think when people were doing something and then they change their mind and decide to do something else, because obviously they prefer it, the conditions are clear in writing, they can negotiate and if they do not like it, they can go back to doing what they were doing, or do something else... do you know the definition of slavery? Because this seems like the opposite of the English language and I;m not a native speaker, so... clarify? This seems like extra options they did not have before someone created them and offered them to people. I think having more options than before is a good thing? They are free to choose something else. They can go back to fishing or whatever...

It shows how resentful, ignorant and arrogant you are, because you never read any of my arguments, but decided you were right anyway and continued your insults... it kind of makes me not want to respect you enough to continue, but let's try. Maybe there is hope for you, but I start doubting it. You may be just a very delusional person... I should use "dumb" but I do not want to be rude... but this would be the most honest language.

Workers can refuse anything they like. If it will be refusing what they promised to deliver IN WRITTEN CONTRACT, then as consequence they will not be trustworthy, coherent, useful and they should not be rewarded for such behavior, because this would make the whole project go sideways and people who are hard workers, are trustworthy, together with the project leader who invested whole life, entire wealth would be fucked. Especially the "evil lord of means of production". Helpers/workers/voluntary participants in his project, can just find some other projects to join. He/she would probably be destroyed, by some sabotaging useless, entitled idiot.

Banksters are bad. We agree. The only way they can control anything is through governments protecting their monopoly on money supply. This is the only reason why you cannot print your own money and use it with people who agree on the value of the papers you print... or gold... or whatever. Without govs, you can use eggs in exchange for your labor or buying things, if you like. Blockchain, created by free market/AnCaps/Voluntaryists, resolves the monopoly on money issue.
As always the need of people is met by people who strive to meet this need. Demand/supply. This is how humanity achieved all we have.

What solution do you propose to replace the necessity for some symbol of exchange of goods? How would we vote on what we value and what we want?

Explain the process of something being "free". Where should it come from?

It is really very hard to keep it short if all you know is the opposite of reality.

If your attention span does not allow a discussion... I think you should recognize that this may be one of the reasons why you are not appreciated by people, which makes you resentful... It is not the others... it is all you.

I wonder... can you do anything at all? What skills do you have? Hobbies? Anything at all you are good at? Passions? You speak some foreign language? Know some software? Know how to build, cook, grow, farm, tell jokes? Anything? Because this is what I always find with communists... that they did not invest their time in themselves, always were miserable, lazy, confused, never made any sacrifices to learn things... never knew what they wanted, therefore they cannot do anything at all, have to be dependent on leaching on others... and they hate the people who give them some purpose, because they are unable to find it themselves... and think they are so smart... so why should they work for someone who created their work? Why don't you create work for yourself? not to mention creating work for others... like the people you hate?

I don't have patience for spoiled brats.