You don’t think individuals could work it out for themselves. That’s my point. Read my response to @lucylin. Tired of your spamming BS. Don’t comment here again. I’ve tried to engage you honestly, and you keep bellyaching and making sarcastic quips. If we disagree, we disagree, but there’s no reason to continue disingenuously engaging me in conversation if you have no real desire to understand. You’ve already made up your mind.
The fact remains, Bobby, that a flat thing from point A to point B can be and has been built without a government.
As I said to the other goofball, don’t spam my comment threads anymore, or I’ll apply a silly flag to your inanity. Tired of wasting my time when you’re essentially just playing games. Yes, I am angry! You are correct! Congrats, buddy!
You spit your BS, ignore what is said, and make junior-high-school-type sarcastic jabs without even fact checking shit (our last conversation about Vietnam, for example) and end up wasting my time. Nearly every time.
I liked you, but you’re kind of being a dick. And a bit obtuse. Intentionally, I think.
The whole point of the quote I posted here, and everything I have said to you thus far, is that NOT DOES NOT MATTER whether roads, etc, could be feasible without a centralized monopoly on violence called “the state.” The point is that it is wrong to force people to pay for things against their will, and to not allow them to exercise their nature-conferred ISO. So, whether or not you think non-violent system is possible, is irrelevant. Have your government. Great. Now let the rest of us do as we please in peace as well. Oh wait, we can’t. The state which you support denies each individual their basic human freedom.
Peace.
No Graham, and I will stop upsetting you by questioning your sophomoric logic after this comment if you choose not to reply, the state which I support ensures each individual their basic human freedom.