I can't, because I never paid into it, asshole.
Of course you did you stupid fuck. What do you think all those deductions are for? The office Christmas party? Your taxes pay for those. Now you are telling me that you are willing to turn down those services you pay for because they are against your libertarian beliefs?
Asshole, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS NOT COMPULSORY, do you understand? YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE 800-NUMBER TO START THE DEDUCTION PROCESS. Lets see a regular breakdown of a paycheck... First, federal income tax is deducted. Second, SSI is deducted. Third, possible state income tax [most states have it]. And finally, extraneous taxes that cover other shit, but unemployment isn't there by default. Now, unless you got a USC citation or have ever worked in the states, anything you say to the contrary without evidence is fucking wrong.
Fucking hypocrite. You demand no allegiance to any State, yet you are more than willing to take charity from strangers. What do you think receiving funds from the State is you dumb shit? You are clearly no different from a would-be fascist. The only difference is the method, although the source is identical. This is what makes a fascist like me laugh.
Bullshit, facism requires the state to be the arbitor of all human activity, a charity is not of the state and it's VOLUNTARY. So, if charity A doesn't like me, they don't have to fucking deal with me. And their funding sources don't come from uncooperative non-consenting individuals.
You claim you are different, yet you are not. Your form of government is no different from the one you have today. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
It's different in that it operates to do two functions and no more; common defense and general welfare [THE LEGAL SYSTEM].
So you went out personally and built the roads? You contacted various construction companies and said 'here's $2 million dollars. I want you to construct a new 2 km stretch of road here'? You speak of a confluence of individuals. What the fuck do you think libertarianism is? Does not your ideology seek to hire out construction companies to build the roads for you?
Asshole, the state already does this, it's called CONTRACTING.
How is this any different from the State?
I don't steal my money to pay for the road?
The only thing you have done is cut out the middleman.
Exact-o-mundo, dumbass, and REDUCED THE COST. I don't think you ever went to business calculus have you?
Would this improve efficiency? If so, how?
Yes, by allowing more civil liability for any contractor and the contractee. This makes the business more 'put up or shutup' instead of 'whenever I feel like it', when you got a man by his pocket book it hurts more than when you got him by his balls, that's if you ever asked a married man, and the same follows in business.
Do you know anything about roads?
Yes.
Do you know the best locations for roads?
Where they don't lead to you.
The State knows all of this.
No, because the state does not have a mind, memory, brain, limbic system, and/or independent existence from the individuals that compose it. If you knew that, then you wouldn't be making such fallacious arguments, but you don't so continue being a fool, it's fun to see you do this.
You, as an individual, do not. How, in your libertarian ways, are you going to get others to agree that perhaps this is the best location for a road or that location?
I don't have to agree if I buy their land fair and square.
How are you going to agree on the best corporation to deal with to build your roads?
Insured contracting? Bueller? Bueller?
How will you ensure the new roads comply with traffic standards?
Engineers, asshole, engineers.
Oh wait, you HAVE no traffic standards because you have no State to set them.
Good, I may be a minarchist, but if anarchy meant no assholes like you to worry about, I think I could be convinced.
You libertarian fucks will squabble amongst yourselves over which would be the best standards.
Like engineers, scientists, philosophers, ethicists and the rest of the world? Yes, and that's how you get to the truth of things. Truth doesn't come from on high from a god, or rest on some pedestal in far away land.
You have removed order and replaced it with chaos, all in the mistaken belief you have given yourselves more freedom.
Order without change, without discourse, and without the ability to learn is not better than chaos, it's worse. Atleast in chaos you can change things for the better, in unyielding order you cannot.
Yes, the freedom to fuck up. Anarchism will reign.
The word is anarchy, anarchism is the belief system, but you're also misuing anarchy to say chaos. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is WITHOUT RULES as ATHEIST is WITHOUT GOD. I suggest you take a course in etymology, then you would know this.
You do understand I mean to say chaos will reign yes?
Pet rocks? Fake tits? and Star Trek? Yes, all good in my opinion.
Libertarianism is nothing more than a group of individuals squabbling over who gets what, who should pay for what.
Like science? OH NOES! PROGRESS WITHOUT A LEADER IS BAD! ... NOT!
Under my fascist reign
1. Only in your dreams, small pecker boy. 2. It's FACIST, NOT FASCIST, asshole. Fucking learn how to spell. Did your public EDUMUNCATION teach yous how to spell that way? LOL!
Tell me, in your libertarian utopia, who is going to be the one to call the shots?
Hopefully sexy female robots like in the new Battlestar Galactica.
Do you seriously think human nature will allow the 'we all share equal responsibility' bullshit?
There is no equal anything. Either you are responsible or you are not. You can try to evade it, but all you do is wind up fucking up your own world.
You must be fucking kidding me. It is due to human nature that communism failed. Libertarianism will fail for the very same reason. The ideology is a fucking joke and should be forcefully suppressed as an ideal fit for nutcases.
So, we're all sinners and evil people huh? Lets think about this one because this is where your argument dies instantly.
1) According to you we need a strong-man government dictatorship where one person is ruling everyone because they're all evil and what not.
2) But all people, including that person, are human, thus are evil by your admission.
3) If all people, including said tyrant person, are human, then all of them are evil.
4) Thus, the dictator is just as evil as the people he was selected from.
5) Therefore, you're saying we need an evil man to lead evil people? That doesn't fucking work, it's a circular argument. Especially, when you're saying people are bad evil and then you want a person of said bad evil population to lead with the same bad evil mentality. How do you expect to stop this logic loop? Jesus? God? LOL!
-- Bridget