Wich one are you and why?
Wich one are you and why?
SmallHorn (20-01-15)
I live by my owns rules mostly.
"The Smallhorn Code"
Last edited by SmallHorn; 20-01-15 at 15:53. Reason: Ps: Ana has a very nice bottom
Send nudes
ana massage (20-01-15)
warmcome (20-01-15)
Last edited by warmcome; 20-01-15 at 15:58.
But without government, law and order, a lot more people would invade your personal life, for example, someone could just kick your door in and walk off with your TV. You split their skull for trying it, you'll have a gang around your door riddling you with bullets. I do believe that there is a precarious line between protection and control, but anarchy would tilt the scale and it would just be survival of the fittest. In essence, the nation would then revert back to natural selection.
SmallHorn (20-01-15), willie wacker (21-01-15)
"Invading people personal life"=taxing,invading and controlling people etc.
Hmm ,I wonder wich one I would choose
Your example is silly and also does not surprise me
I stand for the choice of being able to defend yourself,the same one that this days it is forbidden by the government.
Anarch also means for all of us to stand ,work,communicate together.
Ps:I hope I understood your post right
I don't know why my example is silly? If you want a better example, without tax, there would be no emergency services, amenities, banks, sanitation, businesses, legitimate trade, etc.. It would be everyone for themselves. No democracy, so people will take law into their own hands. You would be surprised at how fragile our state of mind is, because once all that goes out of the window, you are left with fending for yourself, and the illusion of civilisation as we know that protects us would no longer protect us, and we would really see what people are like when they start looting our homes and killing each other.
SmallHorn (20-01-15)
Emergency services,businesses etc=are made by the people and not the government.
banks=how does banks help me?why do i need them?(i have lived without banks all my life)
Are you saying that without the government ,there won't be anymore of all this?why?i don't get it
So the way I see it is :
1: YES to emergency services couse there would still be doctor,telephonists,ambulance drivers etc .All of those are made of real people and not even one of them is from the government
2:Yes to business because everyone can participate voluntarily and with organization and cooperation ,of course same all in exchange of money.(without paying taxes to the government for our work)
''It would be everyone for themselves'' wrong wrong .sorry but I do not agree
As for defending,take law into their own hands......: First of all we won't loose anymore the right to defend ourself from violence or to defend what we have from those who would take it.We can organise and cooperate together to exercise that right.organising for mutual defence does not need the government.as nobody wants to be robbed and all of us want to feel safe,we can defend ourself or hire others to do it on our behalf,right?
Do you feel more safe having the government?but still very bad things are still hapening,wars are still happening,guns are all over the streets because governments allow it.
This days self defence is called a ''crime''
A well armed population can defend and respond in front of those small gangs( bad people that want to take you tv away) that actually represent the minority.
the majority of population can live civilised ,don't you think?
Besides the moral ''laws'' i do not find any other law helpful for me or others .
ana massage (20-01-15)