And I probably make exponentially more than you do.

Public schools should not exist, that is also correct.

Rich people don’t send their children to public schools because private schools are superior. The reason why I could not open my own private school for instance to compete against a local public school is because I am heavily regulated if I did so and I have to compete with an entity that does not need to make a profit to stay in business.

When a public school does so poorly that had they been a for-profit business, or even a non-profit business (but not “public”), they would have gone out of business, the government can just funnel more money into them because the government doesn’t make money by producing quality goods and services like the rest of the actual free market does, it just robs you and spends your money.

The USPS hemorrhages roughly 8 billion annually while both FedEx and UPS are fortune 500 companies, and on top of that, this is considering that USPS holds a monopoly on certain services, plus they lose millions of packages every year (or they get damaged), and the services themselves are horrible compared to businesses like FedEx, UPS, or even Amazon’s shipping.

I can pay almost nothing and have a package shipped from Walmart of Amazon same-day, but if I wanted to ship the same thing from the USPS - let’s say I wanted to ship a 5 lb turkey - that would cost me between a whopping $7.00 and $17.50 for standard domestic.

In addition, USPS has the worst on-time delivery performance.

Yes, lol. It isn’t for you to decide how someone else can use their property. The only thing you need to concern yourself with is if they are using it to violate the will of others per a logical order of operations.

For example, if Joe owns his bathroom, he absolutely can say black people can’t use it. It’s his bathroom. What he can’t do would be to shoot a black person with his gun. The reasons for each of these are logical and follow a very particular pattern of reasoning predicated on whether or not either is an initiated action against another’s preexisting will or not.

Public property is a misnomer. You are so very wrong and I hope you rethink your positions in light of how very inaccurate about the fundamental, logical aspects of reality that you’re so wrong about.

I don’t want to ban anything until you’re any age, I want to know what seems to be the most rational age that best quantifies the sentiment that you must be able to provide consent to interact morally in this world with your personhood. If you cannot reason properly, you cannot produce consent.

If you can - by way of sufficient evidence - show that a 21 year old can produce the fundamental same level of rationality as a 25 year old, then I would agree that a solid age is 21.

But the problem here isn’t age, it’s consent.

Sort of. I would probably say the best current descriptor would be voluntarist. Anarchist also works. I disagree with the notion that communists are anarchists.

A birth defect is a defect, it’s in the name. That isn’t the same as someone having a mental feeling that they don’t feel like something they couldn’t hope to define the essence of (because it hasn’t one.)

With respect, the argument you want to make is impossible. If a 12 year old for example can consent to irreversible treatments for a feeling of “trans”, then they can consent to having battery acid poured into their eyes so they go blind because they feel like they were supposed to be born blind.

Jewel Shuping (US) was diagnosed with Body Integrity Identity Disorder where she experienced an overwhelming desire to exist with a severe physical disability so she had numbing eyedrops and drain cleaner in her eyes at age 21.

Now it’s not for me to decide that it should be illegal for Jewel to have done this. At 21 she was - at least legally - able to make this choice herself. I would argue that she clearly was not of sound mind though, so anyone who assisted her should have been convicted of a felony offense. But I digress.

I’m not here to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with themselves and their life. I am 100% in favor of anyone living the life they so choose, trans or anything else. My problem isn’t even necessarily one of my own personal opinions or feelings on the matter, but on logic and reason for logic and reason’s sake.

If you cannot consent, you should not be allowed to make decisions such as to go blind. Of course you could consent (especially with your parents/guardians) to REPAIRING eyesight, even if you were born blind, because that is a fundamentally unnatural state.

We don’t have to have a 300 page dissertation to go over what a “natural state” is. Being born blind is not the intended state of a human being. Arguments past the self-evident like that are generally deluded and attached to some level of nefarious intent.

Note that I can be completely accepting of how an adult wants to live their life but not OK with asserting that a child can consent. Both things can be true. A child also cannot consent to sex with an adult, full stop. Anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy to rational justice and morality and doesn’t need a conversation in argument.

We don’t discuss pedophiles who act upon their feelings, we imprison or kill them. No discussion is necessary there.

Now can some of these conversations hold some level of nuance? Well of course they can, but I stand with what I said. IF you’re talking about endorsing certain mannerisms, dress, or presentation, so be it. If you’re talking about consenting to cutting off body parts at 12? No, full stop. A 12 year old cannot consent to that and their parents cannot either, and anyone who does cut off body parts to a 12 year old for such things should be seen as nefarious and tried to the fullest extent of the law.

There are no such things. Rights aren’t real. The only rational morality is objective morality, which is predicated on a logical order of operations across time.

What is moral is just that in which is not immoral, and that in which is immoral are those actions of which we should not engage, and those actions of which we should not engage are predicated on a foundational premise that you cannot desire the violation of your own will, and that it is not objectively possible to quantify value.

Thus, if our wills collide, creating a conflict, the proper (moral) way of resolving said conflict is to note which of us held a will that was already initiated, and which would require some level of action of which would violate that preexisting will in order to make it manifest into the world.

Take for example, theft. Theft is, at its most fundamental level, an act of which violates the will of another as it pertains to their property. If you have $10 and I want that $10, I am the one who would need to initiate an action (theft) to have that $10 without your consent (your will), ergo, we side with you in our contest because I would need to become a thief in order to manifest my will unto the world.

This is actually the logic that produces the ideas of murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, slavery, etc. This is why in our languages we do not say someone was murdered if it was purely accidental and there was no amount of negligence (in which case, the negligence was the will violation which then lead to the result.)

It doesn’t matter what you look like, what color your skin is, how your eyes, nose, or mouth appears, what clothing you wear, how you talk, walk, or what features on a human being you find attractive - none of that has anything to do with human will (personhood.)

EVERYTHING else is nonsensical authoritarianism which is predicated entirely on arbitration.

The PROBLEM is that government exists and asserts that it can somehow “own” things. Public property is a misnomer. You cannot threaten your neighbor with violence unless they give you $500 to buy a lawn mower and then try to argue that the lawn mower is public property and thus, it isn’t theft. Ask someone if that would be OK sometime and after they say no, realize that the neighbor IS the state in this instance. Slapping a badge on something or putting someone in a uniform does not change the reality of what is or is not immoral, or even sane.

The whole world is quite brainwashed by statism because we were all indoctrinated into it from birth. The vast majority of people’s minds explode the moment you start talking about statelessness because they cannot fathom the idea that - for example - HAD the government previously been in charge of all of the food the argument would be that without government we would all starve to death - except of course the governments of the world are not in charge of all the food and we - in the US at least - have such an overabundance of food that we throw away billions of tons annually and have an obesity epidemic in the nation. That’s HOW GOOD WE DO FOOD without the state.

The problem isn’t “trans rights”, and it never was. The problem is this: If someone who claims they are “trans” wants to use my bathroom - IE: The bathroom in MY house that I own - then I consent to that. Come use my bathroom.

If you want to use a bathroom in a public building, the problem isn’t whether or not a group of wolves should be allowed to vote alongside the sheep to decide what’s for dinner. The problem is that neither the wolves nor the sheep should be allowed to manifest their wills in a manner of which is immoral, full fucking stop.

You can’t say you come from a system you were fucking BORN INTO that dictates you can vote in the oppression of your fellow man and then say that the removal of that system is too scary to fathom. That’s insane, cowardly, and sinister.

So again, the problem isn’t which rights trans individuals do or do not have or might not have in the future. The ACTUAL problem is that there is a system in place that lets some people vote in others who can make laws that can control what you can or cannot do on threat of violence that isn’t simply protecting the innocent from murder, theft, rape, enslavement, assault, and fraud.

I don’t care WHAT the law said: If a law was put in place saying the government would take my innocent child to have them put to death, I would kill every single government official that they sent my way until they physically stopped me. The bloodshed would either be very limited, or they would be calling it the new red sea. What is “legal” or not is of no consequence to good people. All that matters is what is MORAL, and law and morality have NOTHING to do with one another.

Ad hominem. Try a conversation.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

What you’ve just said is entirely nonsensical. All you’ve said here is we can’t have roads unless we’re robbed.

There is nothing the current governments of the world provide that we cannot have sans those governments. Nothing.

This isn’t necessary. All you need is to protect people from fraud.

If Amazon tells you that it will sell your data you are completely free to just not use Amazon. If enough people choose not to use Amazon, Amazon will wonder why. If they do any semblance of at all good investigating they will find out it’s because those prior customers were against having their data sold and they will stop selling data.

The government only needs to come in to make sure Amazon is actually telling you it will sell your data, because not doing so is fraud, and the government should protect the innocent against fraud.

As an adult, I don’t need big daddy government telling businesses what they can sell. I only need to understand the situation I’m being presented in its entirety so that I can make my own decisions. It’s my consent, not the government’s.

The government should not be allowed to “own” property or enforce victimless laws. The problem is always the government.

No that wouldn’t be possible. A slave is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, property of another against their will. If you consent to it, it wouldn’t be slavery.

It’s like theft. If you consent to give it to me I’m not stealing from you. In such an instance, you’re selling it to me, trading it to me, gifting it to me, or maybe just giving it to me as a gift. What manifests theft as theft from a fundamental idea of the essence of the idea itself is that I would need to be violating your consent - your will, as it were.

Theft is only theft when you violate will. Rape is only sex if everyone partaking consents. Even murder no longer becomes murder if there’s consent. In fact, you can kill someone who didn’t consent to dying and it still wouldn’t always be murder because the person may have consented to a risk that just so happened to end their life. Take for example if you consent to go skydiving and you fall to your death. The skydiving company didn’t murder you because you agreed to the risks of the situation that lead to your death.

Now had someone pushed you out of the airplane before you put your parachute on - which wasn’t something you agreed to have happen - then the person who pushed you out of the plane would have murdered you.

Slavery is the same thing. You’re not a slave if you’re OK with it. Now if you consented to be someone else’s property and you also consented for you to never be able to change your mind about it, well you’re an idiot. That’d be like agreeing to give your house away to someone and then being upset when you change your mind and ask for it back and they tell you no. You would never do that, so why would your own autonomy be any different?

Agreed that things like governments and corporations are made up ideas, but ideas need to be properly defined so we know what we’re communicating.

You asked if a government in your society doesn’t exist what is the agreed upon legal code?

You’re asking the wrong question. When I say that I’m against government, what I mean is I am against the idea that I can be born into an agreement and made to suffer that system. I was born and continue to live in the US, but I did not agree to give the government tens of thousands of dollars annually, which they take without my consent. I argue that all government is, fundamentally, is a relative force monopoly. If say, the drug cartels in Mexico can simply do what they wish and the Mexican government can’t stop them, then the actual government in Mexico are the drug cartels, not the Mexican government. Saying it’s not is just not properly defining what government is.

In a government where there’s freedom for all there would be two systems in place to define what is legal. One would be logic. It’s simply immoral to murder (not kill, murder), steal, rape, defraud, or assault. You cannot do those things and free people understand that even if a relative force monopoly makes a “law” saying you can, that doesn’t legitimize it, and you are well within your right, as given by nobody at all, to seek out and use violence against those who would commit those acts, regardless of what the “law” said.

If it were legal in the US to rape, would you rape? Would you allow another to rape if you had the power to stop them? Would you stop someone who tried to rape your child? Who cares what the law says?

We already realize that law does not correlate to right and wrong.

The second aspect of law would be that in which is consented to, but that depends entirely on who owns what, and I don’t mean arbitrarily owns what, but objectively (logically) owns what.

You can logically work out what is owned and what is stolen. It isn’t difficult.

And to own a thing means you hold exclusive authority over it. If I hold exclusive authority over my house for instance, then it doesn’t matter what other people agree to, or turn into “law”, you never hold authority over my house. If you do, then you are stealing my authority over my house from me, which is theft. If you use theft, I am authorized to use violence against you to stop your theft.

So it doesn’t matter how many people you have who agree to something if it pertains to violating my consent over my property. A million people can all vote and agree to kick me out of my house, and you’ll succeed if you use violence against me, but both logically and philosophically, I would be well within my right to use even deadly force to stop any thugs you send to me to do so.

A “just” law is only one where you are protecting the will of others within a logical order of operations.

Now that being said! You CAN hold agreements between owners of property. Maybe 50 people in a region all agree to buy all of the neighboring roads, and they each agree to put fourth 5% of their income per year to do so. Maybe they all agree this will be a “law”, and they agree upon a punishment that can be enacted if someone doesn’t do this. NOW what you have is a situation where you CAN use violence against someone who goes against the agreement because we’re not talking about the group violating the consent of the individual, we’re talking about the individual engaging in an action of which violated a preexisting will of the group.

Another question you had:

“Can you guarantee everyone in your society, which you’ve argued can be over 250 people, will agree on a singular legal code without some kind of government with a legislative branch?”

You don’t need to. If everyone in my “society” want to make a rule saying you can remove Joe from his home, all you’re doing is banding together to do a sinister deed. That is a corrupt society to begin with, and an authoritarian one.

You don’t and can’t agree to do something with someone else’s property, because it isn’t yours. This is like saying that your neighbor, Tony, has some kind of right to your car because he lives next door. That’s absurd. You and only you can decide what happens to your car unless what you want to do directly violates Tony’s rights over his will. For example, I can’t drive it into his house and set it on fire because I would need to have initiated an action of which violated Tony’s will, so I can’t do that.

Now if Tony and I both got together and CONSENTED to go 50/50 on a new car, it’s up to us and us alone to set the “law” on who can make utility of that car, or who can destroy it, sell it, who gets what if we agree to sell it, who maintains it, puts gas in it, etc.

You don’t get to come along and make demands of Tony and I regarding our car. It’s ours, nor yours. Leave us alone and stop trying to dictate the choices of others.

The problem with your line of questioning - and I mean with with respect, truly - is that you’re thinking about all of this in this scope of the concept of “public property”. There is no such thing. There is property, full stop. The idea of “public property” is a blatant misnomer. Think of it like this:

Menards owns a lawn mower and they agree to sell it to me. It’s my lawn mower. It’s mine because Menards did not steal anything from anyone else to make it, my will was aligned to own it and the will of those who consented to the system that is Menards hold a will to accept selling it to me, and because what I traded for it was mine as I did not steal the money I traded for it.

But if Tony next door again comes to my home with a baseball bat and tells me I am now going to give him $500 towards a lawn mower, and it will be in the best interest of the neighborhood because 9 other people all got together and agreed it was, and thus, it isn’t theft what Tony is doing, Tony is just lying - it’s just theft.

You can’t “legitimize” theft by wearing a badge or saying you come from some official sounding group name. Other people agreeing to rape you doesn’t legitimize rape any more than other people agreeing to rob you legitimizes theft. Is this making sense?

But again, if Tony and I both consent to buy a lawn mower together, then we are both consensual property owners of that lawn mower and nobody else can tell us what to do with it.

So your other two questions here aren’t the right questions to ask either:

“How do they even go about figuring out the legal code without some organization?” - and - “If they do agree on a legal code, who are the people spending time on maintaining and updating the code and how are they paid?”

Nobody ever said there wouldn’t be organization, or even violence. There could still be police, firefighters, teachers, engineers, and everything else that governments tend to monopolize or “provide”.

Who sets the laws for the roads? Well, which roads? Who owns the roads? Do I own the road leading to my home? Do Tony and I own it? Did all 50 of us who live in that area get together and consent to all go in and buy the roads? Then the owners of those roads set the laws for those roads.

Maybe Tony and I own a little piece of road and the only law is we don’t want you to go more than 40MPH while driving on it. Well there you go! And if you don’t like our ruling about our property, key words there, OUR PROPERTY, then you don’t need to use it.

I make the laws in my own home. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave. In fact, if I asked you to leave and you flat out refused, I would just be warranted to use violence against you. If I couldn’t get you to leave with violence even, then deadly force would be warranted. And yes, that would be warranted if it got to that serious of a situation.

But that’s already how governments generally work today. If you come into my home and I ask you to leave and you refuse, I call the police and the police will use violence against you. What on earth do you think they do if you resist that violence? Play nice?

Your next question:

“How do you adjudicate this issue in your society? There’s no judicial branch of government.”

However the property owners who have been faulted want. Maybe in my area we’ve set up a system for this. What is most likely is as a “formal”, current government waned, this would open up avenues in the free market for people to offer these kinds of services. In fact, many judicial systems are already handled by courts not run by the government. Many kinds of issues even in the US are resolved by these kinds of courts because it’s better than utilizing the government to do so, as governments tend to be more corrupt, very slow, and very poor quality in basically everything they do.

Maybe you have Amazon Justice, Microsoft Courts, and Elon Musk’s Justice-X to choose from, and maybe the people in your area all consent to use a specific one so they agree to all go in and pay for those services. Maybe those small groups of people also get together with other small groups of people and form larger organizations who also agree on certain things. You can still have society without authoritarianism. The notion of, “whatever would we do if we don’t let other people rob us and our neighbors to do things” is so absurd it makes my head spin.

I’m not saying no organization. I’m not saying no schools, no security, no military, no roads, etc. I’m saying NO MORE AUTHORITARIANISM. No more theft on a grand scale. No more telling me when I turned 18 that I had to sign up for a draft where if some old man decided I had to die oversees then I either did so or I’d be locked away. No more forcing me to days of being a juror without my consent, where the state would pay me pennies a day and I lost precious time with my family, my job, and my entire life.

There is no such thing as a social contract - not within the constrains of what it’s depicted at as of current. That’s all just authoritarian propaganda.

The point here would be freedom, and what freedom logically means is that I cannot initiate actions - initiate is the key word here - that violate your will, and neither can you to me.

If you and 50 people got together and all consented to a village of debauchery, drugs, prostitution, and drunk driving, so long as you all consented, I would allow you to live that lifestyle without interruption.

I might try to convince you that there are better ways to live your life, but I wouldn’t use force against you to get you to stop.

But don’t forget that this only applies because there’s consent. If some of you enter our town where we do not agree to you doing drugs on my land or in my store, or driving drunk on the roads that our community all agreed to share ownership over, then we are justified if we not only ask you to stop or ask you to leave, but if we use violence against you to get to you if you refuse.

So to specifically answer your question, if you want to live the way you’ve described, you would absolutely be allowed to - by us, anyway.

In fact, we could even become allies whereas we agree to defend one another if another group were to come and try to use violence to force us into their ways.

The disconnect so many others face is only about freedom and nothing more. There is no such thing as a man so wise that he can make choices for other adults without their consent. Nobody knows better for me than I do and nobody knows better for my children than I do as their father (except an equal share, their mother.)

Even if you think you do, you don’t. Opinions aren’t facts, they’re opinions. Even if you THINK you have a better way of living, you don’t. The only time when you’re objectively wrong is when you’re utilizing violence for a victimless crime. Violence - legitimate, moral violence - is only for defense against things like murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud.

When other people don’t get this it’s because psychologically they’re thinking at low levels. Low level thinking tends to be very isolated to the “me”. The higher up you go the more you begin thinking that others have wants and needs just like you do, and that your wants and needs may conflict with theirs. Many people today still think in terms of, “I want this and therefore so must you, so if you are protesting, you must be wrong, or sinister”. They cannot understand that someone else might have a want that differs from theirs, and that they aren’t wrong for having it.

I would argue that there are two forms of morals - subjective and objective. Objective morals are surrounded by the NAP while subjective morals are things like, “I don’t think you should smoke cigarettes because they could reduce your lifespan and that would cause pain to others around you, plus place additional burden on those providing healthcare and insurance.”

There’s no such thing as objective value, not even for human life, so to say your life holds value and thus, you shouldn’t smoke is just an opinion.

But you don’t need government in its current form in order to protect people from groups who mean to poison. I don’t need a cop to protect me from a home invader, for example. In fact, the cop isn’t going to get there until the invader has done whatever they sought out to do, so maybe just to try to find them after myself and my entire family are murdered.

OR I can protect my family myself.

The act of poisoning someone is in itself objectively immoral. No good people who accept responsibility for the innocent in this world should be made to suffer the will of those who seek to do that kind of harm. In fact I would argue that the government likely was deficient in what they SHOULD have done to combat the poisoning done at that time.

In my view, if 5 people are producing food (simplifying things here) and they choose to poison that food and I and some of my goodly companions find out about it, we are completely within our right to use immediate and, if necessary, deadly force against those individuals. The idea should be simple: If you want to attempt to kill people, we will find and kill you.

The good must not suffer the evil to exist, and I say that as both an staunch atheist and someone not even in favor of the death penalty (but only because I do not want even a single person killed who wasn’t guilty.)

And you talk of businesses as if they are real people, and they’re not. A business is just this made-up human idea, and an extremely broad one at that, where we’re explaining swaths of people all working together to produce some kind of goods/services under the idea of generating wealth for everyone. The idea that a company can own property for example is nonsensical. A company can own property like my car can own property, or like a sidewalk can owe me money.

When a business I work for does something nefarious, I guarantee you that I didn’t lift a finger to see that come to fruition. I was duped by others who made those choices who defrauded me by not detailing what was going on. THOSE people who did those things are criminals and should be dealt with. The notion that a company for example can do something that say, results in the murder of 10 kids isn’t an “oopsies” where the state fines that business. The mere fact that this is how we deal with these things “collectively” is seriously messed up. The people responsible for making choices they knew were risky for people’s health that then resulted in the death of those kids should be tried and convicted of murder and locked away forever, and I don’t need a huge, overarching government that I didn’t consent to in order to make that happen.

And I agree with you - governments like what we have here in the US are a hell of a lot better than they’ve been in the past. I’m not saying I want to live in Stalin’s Russia, or under the iron fist of Genghis Khan here. What I’m saying is both logically and philosophically, the next direction we as human beings should be guiding the world to is a place where there is no such thing as victimless crimes; where everyone can live their lives the way they choose and where the only time a relative force monopoly flexes its power is to prevent things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud.

You build a coalition who needs some money from me and will protect me better than police and I’ll gladly pay for that, but do you know what that would be? A business, not a government. You could argue that it’d be a government if it were a force monopoly, but so what? So long as it’s consensual and works, I’m all for it.

When I say I’m anti-government what I’m talking about is being against people using violence against us against our will and not in defense of the innocent.

You don’t abide by any kind of government. You can’t. Your will cannot align to be violated. This is why you believe the purpose of voting is for, so when one person does something with your money that you don’t agree with, you believe you can get another person who won’t do those things.

I would argue that it isn’t that you’re in favor of government, it’s that you’re in favor of a justice system, school for your kids, roads, and other infrastructure. But to say you need the system of coercion we have in place else we can’t have those things is just nonsense. Would you not pay to have security if the government didn’t do police? Is your argument that other people wouldn’t? Who are these “barbarians” who wouldn’t? Do you know them? I don’t. I don’t surround myself with people like that, so it always diverts back to this idea that it’s the “others”, the “outsiders”, the “barbarians” who wouldn’t do this stuff if not coersed. Never us.

And even if you wanted to argue that you wouldn’t want to pay for police then you’re just arguing for less government, aren’t you? If you wouldn’t pay for police unless forced, then you don’t want police that badly. This isn’t a difficult concept. If I want something, I go and buy it. If I don’t buy it, I didn’t want it that badly. I fundamentally decided that I value my money more than the good or service itself, so I didn’t make the trade.

I simply take it one step further and understand that you shouldn’t be able to take my money to do anything with that I don’t agree with. If I agreed to it I would give you the money without the coercion. When I want something, I buy it from the store. When I don’t want something, you have to take money from me to get it if you won’t buy it yourself.

There is no such thing as governments, mind you. There are only people. If your neighbor were to come to your home and tell you they want $500 to do something with and you disagreed and they returned with a weapon and threatened you unless you gave it to them, you would immediately admit that such a scenario would be both immoral and crazy. The thing is, the propaganda you’ve been raised with is duping you into believing that this isn’t exactly what’s going on because they slapped a badge on your neighbor and convinced you that it’s not theft and authoritarianism.

If your neighbor made a nice looking badge and pinned it to their lapel, would that make it official? What if 10 of your neighbors all agreed that it was official and legit? Does it make it official and legit? What about 20 neighbors? What about 50? 500?

If not 1, then not 1 billion. No number of people agreeing to something warrants that it is legitimate. It used to be that millions of people agreed in slavery and slavery has never been legitimate. It was thought by many as legitimate, but so what?

There isn’t anything wrong with government if that government isn’t robbing you - that’s the rub. All a government really is is a relative force monopoly. If the government vanished tomorrow and your neighbors all gathered together with you and agreed to help one another and protect each other from outsiders who might seek to do harm to you or your properties, you would be a government, albeit a small one.

And I’m not saying we could or even should do away with current governments in the world tomorrow - even if we could. We would need 50-100 years or more to slowly wittle away these systems so that free people can take their place.

So to answer your question specifically, I don’t think it has anything to do with anarchists and everything to do with logic. If it is not OK for your neighbor John to do to you what I outlined above, then it isn’t OK for Tom to do it if Tom is a representative of the “government”. There is no such thing as saying you can rape someone because a group of people got together and decided what you decide is right is legitimate and therefore, it isn’t even rape.

The mere fact that your neighbor doing what the government does would be even legally classified as theft but when the government does it it’s not called by that same word should be a gargantuan red flag. Only the politicians and political manipulate language in that way. The honest of us just call it what it actually is - theft.

If I own something and you want it and I do not want to give it to you and you take it, that is theft. It doesn’t matter who does it or what “group” they are affiliated to. You don’t get to steal and then try and say it isn’t theft because your version is “legitimate”.

Like what, exactly?

Like roads? Police? Schools? How’s about grocery stores?

Let’s talk about grocery stores. Government in the US does not “do” grocery stories. The free market does (I say free with a bit of a grain of salt, of course.)

And there are no problems with food in this country. In fact, we live in a country of such overabundance of food that we have foodstuffs coming in the world over, and throw away roughly 65 billion tons - TONS, annually and have a weight epidemic.

The market is SO GOOD at food that it creates overabundance issues. Everywhere you look, food is available. I have like 20 grocery stores near me. I can get most of them to deliver right to my door. There are restaurants, fast food chains, diners, food in gas stations and rest stops, at kiosks, airports, on flights, at hotels, parks, on mobile trucks, and so much more.

Any argument you might propose could fundamentally be explained, at least at a high-level, by showcasing this concept. The government COULD have done food and then we would be having this same conversation, but you might say, “if there is no government, then we will all starve! Who will do food?”

But the government does not do food and I bet you if they did, we would have fewer options, food would be of lower quality, and food would cost more than it does today. Everything, and I will reiterate that - EVERYTHING the government does it does worse than the market can do.

Shipping? The U.S. Postal Service typically hemorrhages between 6.5 and 9.5 billion annually, and it has a MONOPOLY on certain aspects of shipping. FedEx and UPS on the other hand? They generate collectively over 180 billion in annual revenue. BOTH are on the fortune 500 list.

And how could we ever get all of these Amazon shipments without the government? Oh, wait, they don’t ship those either. Amazon sends shipments more accurately, with less waste, quicker, AND CHEAPER than USPS does, hands down, and it isn’t even a primary shipping company!

Or what about police? Security? Do rich people use police, or private security? Well of course they buy private security, but you and I can’t afford private security, so we rely on the police showing up after we’ve already been robbed, whereas the rich - in their gated communities - have mobile security keeping a constant watch for them.

But why is private security so expensive? Well, because the government regulates it so firmly. They want to be a monopoly on policing and security.

Same goes for education. Where do the rich send their kids? Public school? No? Private? Well of course they do!

Obama went to Punahou, a private college-prep school in Honolulu, and Biden too, went to a private Catholic high school - Archmere Academy. So why can’t we send our kids to these better schools? Oh that’s right, cost.

So why can’t Jeff Bezos just create Amazon Academics, and provide higher quality education at a lower cost than the governmental-run public schools? Well, because of government regulation, of course!

Imagine I was a millionaire and I wanted to invest in starting a business of educating K-12 students. Maybe I have a goal of setting down in a minority, impoverished area and providing high-quality education at a low price. How do I do this if the competition school that runs on stolen funding (taxes) doesn’t close down no matter how poorly they do?

In one of Chicago’s lowest-performing high schools for instance, the dropout rate reaches 36% (3% is the average across the rest of the state.) So what if I could create an educational program there with a dropout rate of say, 13%? TWICE as superior simply based around that single statistic.

Well it wouldn’t be possible because the government self-subsidizes without producing anything of value. I, as owner of a business, would need to produce value to consumers who want to pay for my services, but the government mandates your kids go to public school (especially if you can’t afford anything better), then sets all sorts of rules and regulations on me that itself doesn’t even have to follow, and can change whenever it wants!

Imagine I had to create 10 units of value in my school to produce the output for my goals. Imagine now that this other school produces 5 units of value. Nobody would send their kids to the 5 unit school, and it would go out of business - if this were the market we’re talking about.

But the state can just continue forcing you to use their school and take your money to pay for its failure, and I’m forced to charge you too much for you to send your kids to my school because of government restrictions and the fact that their school even exists in the first place.

I PROMISE YOU that if government education was weened out across the next 50-100 years and the private sector came in to fill in the gaps, education would improve dramatically and the cost would go down, not up.

Government is fundamentally always the problem because all the government is is a big gun everyone is arguing over (which is what politics is) who gets to wield.

My proposition is that there shouldn’t even BE an argument over who gets to wield the gun. The ONLY rational purpose of the gun is to stop people from murdering, raping, robbing, and defrauding, assaulting, etc. That’s it.

Just because I didn’t type out a 30 page dissertation does not mean my ideas are inchoate. You sound like quite a pompous and arrogant person.