Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. You said you wanted to live in anarchy. You cannot have the benefits of a modern civilization if you aren't willing to agree to the terms. I mean, you could try, but then we would imprison you at some point. Besides, illegal aliens are not allowed to be in the USA -- plus, you have to be outside the USA when you renounce your citizenship.
Look at you! Telling me what I can and can't do!
You statists do love going back and forth between being enforcers and the enforced. It's like a perverse game.
They just wouldn't do it. Plus, the voluntary dispute organization would attempt to convince the thieves to submit to arbitration. Lol.
Yes because all force is evil. Even stopping somebody from killing other person is evil. Even forcing people to stop abusing their children is evil. It's evil coercion and statism lol we can't have that in anarchist "society"
If it wasn't for the government who would stop some bad people from taking your property from you?
You aren't convinced that the DRO would work. I am. I've also thought about it more in depth and had a truly open mind about it, and since I just introduced you to the idea I don't expect you to accept it right away. The DRO would be my answer as of today. Maybe I'll hear a better idea in the future. (Side note: I think trusting in government to take care of us really hampers our creativity in figuring out alternatives. If there is pressure to do it, people are amazing at solving problems, especially when it's many working together and improving on each other's ideas.)
Why don't you guys admit that you are simply maladjusted sociopaths who simply can't find their place in civilized society? Everybody else is ok but you. What's wrong with you?
You ask what's wrong with us who desire to try a different route than the standard democrat/republican candidates that get force fed to us? The country is not any better after Obama, in some ways its worse when libs thought he was the messiah away from Bush. Yet most of you people out there are already lining up in your assigned corner to vote in another one of the two which one clearly being pushed is Hillary Clinton.
Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". yet you call us the ones that are maladjusted?
Look man I have no problem with government all the time I don't want to privatize everything but clearly government is way too big, way too out of touch from the common people, and way too self serving to itself and certain special interests.
"Civilized society"? If the definition of that is endless rules and regulations, nannying what I drive, eat, drink , smoke, own and micro managing my income and healthcare then no thank you. No progressive liberal should spout the words " liberty an America" with a straight face when pushing their agenda because their agenda always seems to include, regulation, bans, rules, taxes and micro management of people's lives. Where is my choice to collect in sum the total taken from me from social security when I retire or not get fined if I don't have insurance? Like I said libs like to control people and republicans do also to a lesser extent.
I can't "leave". That's the point. All land is claimed by statists in some form. They will imprison or kill me.
There are some places with very weak govts. These can be enjoyable places to spend time in, although money making opportunities are somewhat limited in my experience.
I'll jump in on the Somalia thing even though he explained it already. Somalia is not a society where the NAP is understood or valued. Telling him to go there is like this:
He has a better chance in Somalia than he does in the USA or any developed country. Everyone else already knows that anarchy is an unworkable model and civilized people abandoned such ideas a long time ago - fringe elements notwithstanding. Without a government there is nobody to force agreement to abide by the NAP or to enforce NAP's rules/authority/decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
The world believes rape is acceptable. It occurs to you that rape is not ok and you try to convince others that it's wrong. They tell you "if you don't like rape then you can leave." The issue is that you have nowhere to go to. If the whole world accepts rape, you can't escape it. They say "well go live in the wilderness where there are no people." The entire point is to convince people that rape is bad so that you and others can live in modern society without being raped. Living in another hostile or difficult environment to avoid a different hostile environment is not what you want.
It's more like he doesn't want a gov to enforce sexual assault laws, but instead of going to where there is no gov he continues to live where there is a gov because he doesn't want to be raped.
somalia is majority muslim, it is not a good place for sex. kenya and ethiopia next door are much better for sex.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
