Yes, if that were not the case it would be strong vs weak, and I don't think we want that.

Kobe has been accused.

Exactly, accusations are nothing more. If he really did it, he'd have gone to prison.

"wow amazing how people turn non government arguments into government ones. your just one of the other clueless people i debate about government, and your whole u need research attack at the end has be used. ill start off plainly, you like the rest, are wrong."

It's amazing how people turn a conversation debating the legality of taxation into a non government one... Also government and non government go hand in hand.

"if people wanted a company to pay for services they would. the people not paying would not receive the services. simple enough? and no we would not want it to be mandatory, that is forced payment for services called taxation which i am fighting against. if a person did not pay for something, he simple does not enjoy the fruitation it brings."

How is it possible not the recieve the service of a road build outside of your house? Or the protection from an army stationed on your coast? How would you stop companies from burning chemicals into the air? These are the question you need to answer, as well as the ones you choose not to in my last post.

"so after responding to your first part of the argument proving you wrong and me again, for the hundredth time restating my view on the matter."

So you admit you are stating your own view, and this view does not reflect the opinion of the average man. Maybe you should stop restating it and start listening to everyone elses.

i see no need to continue refuting the rest of your argument because again, it has to do with people being forced to pay for services, which again i will say once more. libertarians and me disagree with.

The simplist solution to go somewhere with no government, because the majority rules here, we are organized and happy with it, because it is the best way to advance and achieve prosperity.

"the people. people will realize that they need their sewage gone, a bridge over a river for transportation, and schools for education. once realized, people will work together to create these things."

Let me start off by saying, you should try to spell and type more grammatically correct, it adds a level of intelligence to your written argument that can't be gotten any other way.

As to the topic of the argument, what your talking about ends in government! You say people will realize the need for certain things, and knowing that no single person can fund it, and that everyone will use it, they should pool their own money in order to get it done. Someone or some group would be in charge of collecting the money correct? Of course they would not have their labor and time go for free right? So you would pay them a small fee for collecting the money and spending it on what the town agreed upon right? it would be a majority rules situation, and if you didn't agree you wouldn't have to pay for it right? Now what the keep you from not paying and still utilizing the benefits of others spending? Absolutely nothing right? So the people would want it to be mandatory that you pay, but it wouldn't be a set amount it would just be a percentage based on how much you made right? That's called government and the democratic system... I'm not sure if you understand that the government was purposed for doing just what you are talking about! If these clusters of people created and ran their own government, who would pay for national security? Satellites, interstates, because no one town would foot the bill it would be a collective effort, and you would want some group to manage that, correct?

The fact is I don't think you thought this out well enough, go do some more research.

Wow, I get the feeling you aren't taking the argument seriously, It doesn't take that long to win a war, if you're attacking. And please don't use Iraq as an example, if the US wanted that over, it could be over, but why, we are in control of their oil now, they still sell it, but we have out hands on it.

And yes, the United States Armed forces could take on China and likely win. The fact that we could actually mobilize our troops and cloth them should be the first test. Also, I am tired of hearing about this Debt 772 billion? If China called in their debt then the US would call in their undisclosed billions in economic development spending with china, the US businesses would be forced to return, then chinas economy would die. Insinuating that the US is broke would be a grave mistake, you do see what's happening to the EURO right now correct, any country that was making money, will be effected, don't take that as a sign of weakness. And China hasn't made anything that was mass produced out of plastic in 70 some odd years, technological advancements purchased from china my ass.

I would credit your bias to your name but, that would be wrong of me, you're silly all on your own.

HAHHA, I have to admit, that was very creative, and more than a bit naive. Based on what you've just said, should allow you to realize this has all been thought of before, and the French and German battlemasters I am sure, have an app for that. LOL Just be serious with your expectations for a moment.

500 Millions troops is impossible to move, arm with sling shots much less AK's and feeding them would be impossible they are starving as it is. Building a bridge? Really with what?! The first things the French and US would acquire would be the fuel resources. Also, do you really think you could get that many people to fight!?

Ok I'm not even going to continue on this tangent. I don't even know if Japan would go to war like that again... they still remember what happened last time.

OMG and French intel is their most powerful weapon, they would know your moves before you thought of them, coupled with the USs resources Oh my that would be a force.

Wait, what? "onwards Christian soldiers, marching of to war"

So the fact that they were Christian soldiers is the sole reason they were going to war correct? Not for their land or their lives... but because they we're Christian? BS

"I do think religious thought often aids in being immoral (and stupid - and these two very often go together)"

Seriously? You think believing in a god that will damn you for wrong doings makes it easier to do wrong? Also Immorality and stupidity VERY RARELY go together... Hitler was not stupid, retarded maybe, but stupid he was not. Doing the wrong thing usually takes cunning and determination, even a dog can tell when it is causing undo pain.

"I just think the reason that religious people have lower grades in intelligence tests is because religious sentiment"

For the love of god ( mine ) please reword that, I hoped you meant to say on AVERAGE, because if not there is absolutely no reason to continue this discussion.

Let's just be honest, it is easier to be immoral when you don't have to live by a code of morality correct? Yes religion has been and is involved in more than a few wars, but at the very least their religions won't ask for a holocaust...

SOOO in 1945 there was not the one and only use of nuclear arms in recorded history ( in war ) ? Believe me, if it came down to it, mutually assured destruction wouldn't stop the fighting, intelligence and preemptive strategies would become more important, but the war would still be waged.

It is and interesting concept, though it does have more than a few flaws.

Firstly, I will agree that it is an automatic deterrent and would be useful as such, but it would also deter people who are unsure of their health from getting tested, and with the tattoos giving a false sense of security, their would be sexual partners are more likely to rely on them and become more likely to catch the diseases they were trying to avoid.

The only real solution is a personal one, if I went out and caught a disease, there is no one to blame but myself, personal accountability is the only solution, I could give a damn if your dick falls off in a blender, based on how I maintain myself sexually I know mine won't.

Furthermore we both know politically it would NEVER fly, " I won't pay for some whore to get a tattoo just so my son can be more promiscuous without having to worry. " I can hear it already.

Let me start off by saying, I love this site!

Ok, this is, as previously stated, and idiotic question with idiotic answers. "Maturity" seriously? That's immature in itself! If it were immature to not like the remnants of past actions against you displayed as a joke then I think we are all subject to that labeling.

I am black, and have no problem being referred to as such, but for someone of an offending ( other ) race to refer to me as a once widely used derogatory slang for people toned as myself, that would be aggravating at best antagonizing on average and down right fucking with me at worst.

This topic was most likely the thought of someone young, someone who doesn't yet understand that racism did and does still exist and won't go away on command, and to talk badly about those people is simple minded in my closest approximation. Just because you're not faced with the adversity of racism and probably doubt it exists, I wouldn't be surprised with the suppression of information going on in this country, does not mean it isn't a real issue in their lives, and to have white kids making jokes with this word and using it as everyday vocabulary is like a slap in the face, and to then being belittled for not having let it go, because in your eyes it's all ok now, doesn't help the situation either.

Also " why are caucasin people openly called white? " " white " is like saying " black " not the N-word.