No, I do not believe it. I believe that you just made it up. Do you have a citation? Because a Google search finds nothing except a law banning "aggressive begging" (blocking traffic, badgering or pursuing people, loitering next to ATMs, etc.).
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse him of just making it up. There are several places he might have picked up the idea. Some, the courts overrule the laws or parts of it. Some are just proposed. Some require a permit to 'gather' (eg more than 5 people). On Thanksgiving, the church should have 1 person with food in the park. 4 at a time, the homeless could come over. Then, walk away and 4 more could come up. I think the homeless should not be able to look at each other either;) Get a permit right? I believe in the Orlando case, the problem was, you can only get a permit twice a year for each park so you have to move around. Are the activist intentionally getting in trouble making their point? Sure. Does feeding the poor in the same park, week after week, putting wear and tear on the park? Sure.
I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole.
I believe as a whole that it is. a few of my thoughts.
Without the Fifth, what prevents a suspect from being locked up until they confess? If there isn't evidence for conviction do we want to allow compelled confession.
If an innocent man is held, a guilty man may be free. Given overcrowding prisons and early paroles, one could argue that it's statistically true.
Is there data that we would convict more guilty people without the Fifth? Are the guilty going to confess if the Fifth didn't exist?
It is part of America's ethos that individual rights trump society's. Such that some of the harm done to society is mitigated by good done to our psyche. There is a hypothesis that this gives us a we can do anything mentality. An offshoot is getting away with things. We often idolize people that get away with things. We make fun of the Fifth. Depending on who uses it, we can love or hate it. It's part of our culture.
I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
For the sake of progress. Focus on this part. Is a 3 degree change over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50? I contend that it makes a difference how long the change takes. Do you disagree?
I've never personally been a fan of panspermia, but I think that if life could start at this time, it would help in several ways. Things were closer. If the Universe was in the Goldilocks zone, life might form on a huge number of objects. How many objects in the Oort Cloud might have life if the Universe were on average the right temperature. Life would would be seeded much more densely. Instead of life starting in one place and spreading out, it starts everywhere and just keeps reseeding. If it happened 15 billion years ago there's a lot more time to move around. On the downside, a planet like Earth might be too hot in such a Universe.
Personally, I think a day/night cycle is needed for life to get started. I think it helps similar to how a PCR machine works. Each day as the Earth heated up, some molecules broke apart. At night they came together. After a while, the molecules grow sides and mirror each other. Molecules whose chemical traits allow their mirror images to pick up more chemicals in the environment began to outnumber those that didn't. Molecules that impacted their environment in such a way that they retained their traits continued the traits. At some point. we call the complex chemical reactions between those molecules life.
This is the part I disagree with. Frankly, I think it makes zero difference to humanity if we do it in 100 years or 1,000 years, the result will be just as horrible and life changing to everyone here.>
Yes, we do disagree.
We don't have to cut to zero, we simply have to cut to a sustainable number. But that number is much closer to 0 than what we're doing now, we probably do need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%
This seems conflicting. Wouldn't a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions be the difference between burning them in 100 years or 1000?
hink of it like the federal budget for the US. 4 things make up most of it... Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Welfare.
If you don't tackle those 4 big items, nothing you do to everything else matters. No amount of cuts to NASA or the CDC is going to change the outcome if you won't touch the big 4.
You got me there. I have to concede to that. You're right that a little bit doesn't help and I see what you're saying. A little bit won't help, And here's where I'm conflicted. I don't want people to avoid getting say a hybrid instead of a full gas vehicle because they think it's just a little bit. Each person needs to do a little bit so that we can do a lot as a society.
Someone posted the other day that 17 new solar panels are installed every day in the US
Here's recent good news we can both be happy about then.
I understand that. Even so, all of the carbon (that we're talking about) used to be in the atmosphere. The earth has been warmer in it's past. My main disagreement is that it's all or nothing. I completely agree that burning all of it in a few years is bad. However, if we burned all of those fossil fuels over 1000 years it would not be as bad as if we do it over 100 years. The earth's temperature will change. We just don't want it to change to quickly. If we can reduce fossil fuels it helps. A change of 3 degrees over 1000 years is not nearly as catastrophic as a change over 50 years.
I completely agree that we need to get off of fossil fuels as soon as we can. For environmental reasons and many more. Every bit we do to reduce it, does help. It's not bad that the earth will be warmer, it's bad that it will change quickly. Thus, anything we can do to slow that change is helpful. If it were truly all or nothing, there wouldn't be any point in even trying. Nothing isn't going to happen any time soon.
I just feel that an all or nothing attitude is too extreme and not founded in what the problem is. It's also very defeatist since we've already burned a trillion barrels. It's not any particular amount of fossil fuel burned that causes a catastrophe, it's how fast we burn it. Burning fossil fuels over a million years isn't nothing, but I'm not sure you'd be able to argue it would be catastrophic. As you acknowledge, fossil fuels are the result of carbon sequestration over millions of years. That process is still occurring today, carbon in the atmosphere is being turned into fossil fuels by way of plants consuming it in swamps, dying and turning into coal. Over a long enough time, that will cool the earth. Certainly if we burned fossil fuels at the rate their created, that wouldn't be a problem. That's not nothing. Either way, the earth changes, but it's the speed of change that's catastrophic, not the change itself.
Can you provide evidence that burning all of the fossil fuels over 100 years, 1000 years and 10,000 years is equally catastrophic? If not, every bit helps.
1. the trees are made of carbon extracted from the atmosphere
Where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from?
2. even if they don't burn that carbon goes back to the atmosphere when the trees die and decay.
Correct, we'll have to stop that to. My contention was that CO2 emission is not an all or nothing situation since there is some level of CO2 emissions that are acceptable. My point is that the earth doesn't really differentiate between CO2 from one source or another. An all or nothing attitude doesn't make sense. CO2 levels have not been constant and CO2 comes from many sources. It's not all or nothing, because it's the change over time that's catastrophic not just the change.
The argument:
Is a 3 degree rise in temperature over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50 years? I'm arguing that the change over 500 years is less catastrophic than the same change over 50 years. Are you disagreeing with that? I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
I disagree. I don't think it's all or nothing. If it were, you would be implying we would have to eliminate all forest fires too as it's essentially the same thing as burning fossil fuels. No fireplaces and no potheads either. It does make a difference whether sea level rise 10 feet over a period of 50 years or a period of 200. It's really not that a couple of more degrees would be that bad. It's the change over time that's bad. If the change is slow enough, it's not as harmful. In fact, every indication we have is that a warmer earth will support more life. Eventually, Antartica will move away from the south pole and that will cause the earth's temperature to rise more than all of the fossil fuels in existence being burned. The difference is it will happen over millions of years.
Consider a moving temperate zone for agriculture due to climate change. If the borders of that temperate zone move slowly over the years, you only have changes to agricultural production at the borders. If it moves to a completely different area it can wipe out entire crops. The difference between the climate where you grow oranges moving 5 miles a year and moving 100 miles in a year is huge.
An attitude that's it's all or nothing will make any pragmatist give up as the burning of organic material that releases CO2 occurs naturally also. Obviously, you don't have to eliminate all CO2 emissions. Remember, we humans emit the gas too. Are you implying all animals must be killed off too. There's an amount of CO2 productions that's ok, there's even a rate of change that's ok. It wasn't steady for the millions of years before the industrial revolution.
Let's use a classic car analogy instead. Would you rather your car die 1 mile from home or 10. That's certainly an every foot helps situation. The problem isn't that the earth will get too hot, the problem is that it will change too quickly for a lot of life, including ourselves to adapt. If you can slow down that change, all the better, even if you don't completely stop it. There's a huge difference in effect from a temperature change of 3 degrees over 100 years versus 500 years versus 1000 years. Nobody would be concerned if we thought the temperature was going to change 3 degrees over 10,000 years. We might even be surprised if it didn't over that time span.
The concern is the rate of change. That's not an all or nothing situation. We should do everything we can to reduce fossil fuels. Doing everything we can, means embracing an attitude that every bit helps. If it's all or nothing, we might as well give up, we've already burned more than a trillion barrels of oil anyway. All or nothing already lost before you even try.
Do you have a source for that? I was able to find this and world energy per capita is certainly going up. I also found this for the U.S. but it shows a rather recent peak that could be more related to the financial crisis than a real long term trend. In any event, why would a decline in per capita energy use indicate a decline in civilization rather than just increased efficiency?
Could you elaborate? That doesn't seem intuitive. I was able to find this, which shows the sun at 30. I was unable to find what Alpha Centauri would be. Also, are you comparing a direct hit of Sol with a direct hit of Alpha Centauri? Do the other stars in the Centauri System affect things? I don't know much about the subject but am interested in the counter-intuitive.
In a study concerning eye strain you probably don't want to start messing with the lights. I think we would also want to know whether there is eyestrain under normal (normal being a combination of data from outside, inside, direct, fluorescent, etc) lighting as opposed to lighting that makes paper and LCD look similar. Then, if LCDs under normal lighting do increase eyestrain in some people, we could use that baseline to see if lighting tricks might reduce the effect.
There's hardly well established fact in science. There are observations. Theories are explanations of those observations. Given our observations, we make an explanation. That's called a theory. When an observation contradicts that explanation we adjust the explanation or wind up replacing it. That's how progress goes. I agree though, not unusual for science to respond to new observations.
It is good for each individual to consume as much as they can but that's not necessarily good for the group. Are you arguing that there's no such thing as the tragedy of the commons?
Private ownership of resources leads each individual to do what's in their own best interest. Even if the depletion of that resource is bad for the group it is good for each individual doing it. A tragedy of the commons generally arises from individual power and freedoms.
My own opinion is that cable subscribers shouldn't be paying for the shows through their cable either. They should be paying the cable company for distribution of content. Seperately, the content should be paid for either by the consumer, advertising, something else or some combination. If they were more separated they might focus on making money with better distribution and better content rather than locking the two together.
A Harvard Study suggests Americans throw away billions of pounds of good food per year because they believe the best before date indicates when food goes bad.
Nobody cares about ROI either (I'm sure NASA has a better than average ROI as government agencies go). Regardless of ROI or how much is spent, people are either for more or for less. Same thing with every other political topic. Ask someone if we should spend more or less on education and they will give you an answer. Ask them specifically, how much we should spend per child, or if we should spend the same on gifted, average, or special needs per child, and they have no idea. Ask them how much the military budget should be and again, no one has an answer.
So, people say more or less funding for NASA, no one on either side actually puts forth a number. If NASA's budget is around $17 billion and you ask someone who says NASA should get more if $20 billion would work they won't know. If someone says they think NASA should get less, ask them if $15 billion would be right and they're unlikely to know either. There's not even the appearance of logic or reason in our public debate, it is completely fueled by emotion and political dogma.
The fundamental problem is that as productivity and population grows so should the money supply. Unfortunately we grow the money supply with debt. We owe $17 trillion in a currency that we create. Look into how the money supply works and you'll understand why from individuals, to companies, to the government we are almost universally in debt. Oddly, it would probably work better if the government printed the money instead of letting the fed do it and then borrowing it.
At the end of the day, what does it even mean. We have the resources and labor to build a house, but not the money supply. So the banks conjure it up and create money out of thin air with the expectation it be paid back with interest. Over 90% of the money in our money supply is from debt. If America ever actually did get out of debt, we'd all be broke as there simply isn't enough money. Which gets to the heart of the matter. Money is a human invention to facilitate trade. It should never get in the way of it. Yet, because of the way our money is setup, it is becoming an obstacle.
To be fair, this system can work. But, it requires the wealthy to constantly spend their money back into the economy so the population can get it to repay their debt with interest. However, when money accumulates, that doesn't happen and the only way to pay back the interest is take on more debt.
Yeah, but it's a little like being $1 million in debt and focusing on how much you order pizza rather than your house/car/yacht bill. Sure, you can't really afford to order pizza if you're $1 million in debt but it's not going to make any difference either. You've really got to look at that house/car/yacht.
I'm fine with debating what government should look like. I was asking the OP what is the alternative to government as the way I understand him, he is saying government is bad and should be done away with.
Slashdot Mirror
How can life go on when I'm not sure who won?f
No, I do not believe it. I believe that you just made it up. Do you have a citation? Because a Google search finds nothing except a law banning "aggressive begging" (blocking traffic, badgering or pursuing people, loitering next to ATMs, etc.).
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse him of just making it up. There are several places he might have picked up the idea. Some, the courts overrule the laws or parts of it. Some are just proposed. Some require a permit to 'gather' (eg more than 5 people). On Thanksgiving, the church should have 1 person with food in the park. 4 at a time, the homeless could come over. Then, walk away and 4 more could come up. I think the homeless should not be able to look at each other either ;) Get a permit right? I believe in the Orlando case, the problem was, you can only get a permit twice a year for each park so you have to move around. Are the activist intentionally getting in trouble making their point? Sure. Does feeding the poor in the same park, week after week, putting wear and tear on the park? Sure.
Orlando, FL
Raleigh, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
NYC, NY
USA Today
LA Times
I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole.
I believe as a whole that it is. a few of my thoughts.
Without the Fifth, what prevents a suspect from being locked up until they confess? If there isn't evidence for conviction do we want to allow compelled confession.
If an innocent man is held, a guilty man may be free. Given overcrowding prisons and early paroles, one could argue that it's statistically true.
Is there data that we would convict more guilty people without the Fifth? Are the guilty going to confess if the Fifth didn't exist?
It is part of America's ethos that individual rights trump society's. Such that some of the harm done to society is mitigated by good done to our psyche. There is a hypothesis that this gives us a we can do anything mentality. An offshoot is getting away with things. We often idolize people that get away with things. We make fun of the Fifth. Depending on who uses it, we can love or hate it. It's part of our culture.
I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
For the sake of progress. Focus on this part. Is a 3 degree change over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50? I contend that it makes a difference how long the change takes. Do you disagree?
I've never personally been a fan of panspermia, but I think that if life could start at this time, it would help in several ways. Things were closer. If the Universe was in the Goldilocks zone, life might form on a huge number of objects. How many objects in the Oort Cloud might have life if the Universe were on average the right temperature. Life would would be seeded much more densely. Instead of life starting in one place and spreading out, it starts everywhere and just keeps reseeding. If it happened 15 billion years ago there's a lot more time to move around. On the downside, a planet like Earth might be too hot in such a Universe.
Personally, I think a day/night cycle is needed for life to get started. I think it helps similar to how a PCR machine works. Each day as the Earth heated up, some molecules broke apart. At night they came together. After a while, the molecules grow sides and mirror each other. Molecules whose chemical traits allow their mirror images to pick up more chemicals in the environment began to outnumber those that didn't. Molecules that impacted their environment in such a way that they retained their traits continued the traits. At some point. we call the complex chemical reactions between those molecules life.
This is the part I disagree with. Frankly, I think it makes zero difference to humanity if we do it in 100 years or 1,000 years, the result will be just as horrible and life changing to everyone here.>
Yes, we do disagree.
We don't have to cut to zero, we simply have to cut to a sustainable number. But that number is much closer to 0 than what we're doing now, we probably do need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%
This seems conflicting. Wouldn't a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions be the difference between burning them in 100 years or 1000?
hink of it like the federal budget for the US. 4 things make up most of it... Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Welfare. If you don't tackle those 4 big items, nothing you do to everything else matters. No amount of cuts to NASA or the CDC is going to change the outcome if you won't touch the big 4.
You got me there. I have to concede to that. You're right that a little bit doesn't help and I see what you're saying. A little bit won't help, And here's where I'm conflicted. I don't want people to avoid getting say a hybrid instead of a full gas vehicle because they think it's just a little bit. Each person needs to do a little bit so that we can do a lot as a society.
Someone posted the other day that 17 new solar panels are installed every day in the US
Here's recent good news we can both be happy about then.
I understand that. Even so, all of the carbon (that we're talking about) used to be in the atmosphere. The earth has been warmer in it's past. My main disagreement is that it's all or nothing. I completely agree that burning all of it in a few years is bad. However, if we burned all of those fossil fuels over 1000 years it would not be as bad as if we do it over 100 years. The earth's temperature will change. We just don't want it to change to quickly. If we can reduce fossil fuels it helps. A change of 3 degrees over 1000 years is not nearly as catastrophic as a change over 50 years.
I completely agree that we need to get off of fossil fuels as soon as we can. For environmental reasons and many more. Every bit we do to reduce it, does help. It's not bad that the earth will be warmer, it's bad that it will change quickly. Thus, anything we can do to slow that change is helpful. If it were truly all or nothing, there wouldn't be any point in even trying. Nothing isn't going to happen any time soon.
I just feel that an all or nothing attitude is too extreme and not founded in what the problem is. It's also very defeatist since we've already burned a trillion barrels. It's not any particular amount of fossil fuel burned that causes a catastrophe, it's how fast we burn it. Burning fossil fuels over a million years isn't nothing, but I'm not sure you'd be able to argue it would be catastrophic. As you acknowledge, fossil fuels are the result of carbon sequestration over millions of years. That process is still occurring today, carbon in the atmosphere is being turned into fossil fuels by way of plants consuming it in swamps, dying and turning into coal. Over a long enough time, that will cool the earth. Certainly if we burned fossil fuels at the rate their created, that wouldn't be a problem. That's not nothing. Either way, the earth changes, but it's the speed of change that's catastrophic, not the change itself.
Can you provide evidence that burning all of the fossil fuels over 100 years, 1000 years and 10,000 years is equally catastrophic? If not, every bit helps.
1. the trees are made of carbon extracted from the atmosphere
Where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from?
2. even if they don't burn that carbon goes back to the atmosphere when the trees die and decay.
Correct, we'll have to stop that to. My contention was that CO2 emission is not an all or nothing situation since there is some level of CO2 emissions that are acceptable. My point is that the earth doesn't really differentiate between CO2 from one source or another. An all or nothing attitude doesn't make sense. CO2 levels have not been constant and CO2 comes from many sources. It's not all or nothing, because it's the change over time that's catastrophic not just the change.
The argument:
Is a 3 degree rise in temperature over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50 years? I'm arguing that the change over 500 years is less catastrophic than the same change over 50 years. Are you disagreeing with that? I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
I disagree. I don't think it's all or nothing. If it were, you would be implying we would have to eliminate all forest fires too as it's essentially the same thing as burning fossil fuels. No fireplaces and no potheads either. It does make a difference whether sea level rise 10 feet over a period of 50 years or a period of 200. It's really not that a couple of more degrees would be that bad. It's the change over time that's bad. If the change is slow enough, it's not as harmful. In fact, every indication we have is that a warmer earth will support more life. Eventually, Antartica will move away from the south pole and that will cause the earth's temperature to rise more than all of the fossil fuels in existence being burned. The difference is it will happen over millions of years.
Consider a moving temperate zone for agriculture due to climate change. If the borders of that temperate zone move slowly over the years, you only have changes to agricultural production at the borders. If it moves to a completely different area it can wipe out entire crops. The difference between the climate where you grow oranges moving 5 miles a year and moving 100 miles in a year is huge.
An attitude that's it's all or nothing will make any pragmatist give up as the burning of organic material that releases CO2 occurs naturally also. Obviously, you don't have to eliminate all CO2 emissions. Remember, we humans emit the gas too. Are you implying all animals must be killed off too. There's an amount of CO2 productions that's ok, there's even a rate of change that's ok. It wasn't steady for the millions of years before the industrial revolution.
Let's use a classic car analogy instead. Would you rather your car die 1 mile from home or 10. That's certainly an every foot helps situation. The problem isn't that the earth will get too hot, the problem is that it will change too quickly for a lot of life, including ourselves to adapt. If you can slow down that change, all the better, even if you don't completely stop it. There's a huge difference in effect from a temperature change of 3 degrees over 100 years versus 500 years versus 1000 years. Nobody would be concerned if we thought the temperature was going to change 3 degrees over 10,000 years. We might even be surprised if it didn't over that time span.
The concern is the rate of change. That's not an all or nothing situation. We should do everything we can to reduce fossil fuels. Doing everything we can, means embracing an attitude that every bit helps. If it's all or nothing, we might as well give up, we've already burned more than a trillion barrels of oil anyway. All or nothing already lost before you even try.
Do you have a source for that? I was able to find this and world energy per capita is certainly going up. I also found this for the U.S. but it shows a rather recent peak that could be more related to the financial crisis than a real long term trend. In any event, why would a decline in per capita energy use indicate a decline in civilization rather than just increased efficiency?
Thank you. Makes sense.
Could you elaborate? That doesn't seem intuitive. I was able to find this, which shows the sun at 30. I was unable to find what Alpha Centauri would be. Also, are you comparing a direct hit of Sol with a direct hit of Alpha Centauri? Do the other stars in the Centauri System affect things? I don't know much about the subject but am interested in the counter-intuitive.
In a study concerning eye strain you probably don't want to start messing with the lights. I think we would also want to know whether there is eyestrain under normal (normal being a combination of data from outside, inside, direct, fluorescent, etc) lighting as opposed to lighting that makes paper and LCD look similar. Then, if LCDs under normal lighting do increase eyestrain in some people, we could use that baseline to see if lighting tricks might reduce the effect.
There's hardly well established fact in science. There are observations. Theories are explanations of those observations. Given our observations, we make an explanation. That's called a theory. When an observation contradicts that explanation we adjust the explanation or wind up replacing it. That's how progress goes. I agree though, not unusual for science to respond to new observations.
Sounds like politics.
That's a good argument for regulating the traffic between state lines but not regulating what happens within a state. California comes to mind.
It is good for each individual to consume as much as they can but that's not necessarily good for the group. Are you arguing that there's no such thing as the tragedy of the commons?
Private ownership of resources leads each individual to do what's in their own best interest. Even if the depletion of that resource is bad for the group it is good for each individual doing it. A tragedy of the commons generally arises from individual power and freedoms.
My own opinion is that cable subscribers shouldn't be paying for the shows through their cable either. They should be paying the cable company for distribution of content. Seperately, the content should be paid for either by the consumer, advertising, something else or some combination. If they were more separated they might focus on making money with better distribution and better content rather than locking the two together.
He's talking about a la cart like itunes or some of the stuff on Amazon.
A Harvard Study suggests Americans throw away billions of pounds of good food per year because they believe the best before date indicates when food goes bad.
Nobody cares about ROI either (I'm sure NASA has a better than average ROI as government agencies go). Regardless of ROI or how much is spent, people are either for more or for less. Same thing with every other political topic. Ask someone if we should spend more or less on education and they will give you an answer. Ask them specifically, how much we should spend per child, or if we should spend the same on gifted, average, or special needs per child, and they have no idea. Ask them how much the military budget should be and again, no one has an answer.
So, people say more or less funding for NASA, no one on either side actually puts forth a number. If NASA's budget is around $17 billion and you ask someone who says NASA should get more if $20 billion would work they won't know. If someone says they think NASA should get less, ask them if $15 billion would be right and they're unlikely to know either. There's not even the appearance of logic or reason in our public debate, it is completely fueled by emotion and political dogma.
The fundamental problem is that as productivity and population grows so should the money supply. Unfortunately we grow the money supply with debt. We owe $17 trillion in a currency that we create. Look into how the money supply works and you'll understand why from individuals, to companies, to the government we are almost universally in debt. Oddly, it would probably work better if the government printed the money instead of letting the fed do it and then borrowing it.
At the end of the day, what does it even mean. We have the resources and labor to build a house, but not the money supply. So the banks conjure it up and create money out of thin air with the expectation it be paid back with interest. Over 90% of the money in our money supply is from debt. If America ever actually did get out of debt, we'd all be broke as there simply isn't enough money. Which gets to the heart of the matter. Money is a human invention to facilitate trade. It should never get in the way of it. Yet, because of the way our money is setup, it is becoming an obstacle.
To be fair, this system can work. But, it requires the wealthy to constantly spend their money back into the economy so the population can get it to repay their debt with interest. However, when money accumulates, that doesn't happen and the only way to pay back the interest is take on more debt.
Yeah, but it's a little like being $1 million in debt and focusing on how much you order pizza rather than your house/car/yacht bill. Sure, you can't really afford to order pizza if you're $1 million in debt but it's not going to make any difference either. You've really got to look at that house/car/yacht.
I'm fine with debating what government should look like. I was asking the OP what is the alternative to government as the way I understand him, he is saying government is bad and should be done away with.