He's destroying the Venezuelan economy. Because that's what centralizing nationalizing socialism does. There's not a single case of it working anywhere, at any time in history; why the delusion it's going to work in Venezuela?
Actually, there are such examples. For example, Russia was an agricultural backwater who's economy and political system were destroyed by WW1. Soviet Russia was a world-class superpower who's economy outlasted Nazi Germany. Now, this change may or may not be due to socialism, but the fact remains that Soviet Russia had a lot stronger economy than the preceding Tzarist Russia.
It should also be noted that most european countries implement various degrees of socialism, and are doing just fine. Finland, for example, was very left-leaning until recently and transitioned from agrarian to industrial society; on the other hand, once state regulation was lessened, the economy collapsed and still hasn't really recovered.
Finally: in Soviet Russia the government owns the industry, in Capitalist America the industry owns the government. Communism or fascism, pick your poison.
The V for Vendetta movie seems creepingly more prophetic every day.
I didn't see the movie but read the comic - ironically, in a publicly funded library. What I found funny about it was how the V guy kept going on about the wonders of anarchy, never realizing that he was living in it; specifically, the final stage of anarchy where the various factions fighting for power have settled the fight and divided the turfs, which they then rule with iron hand.
For reference, the stages of anarchy:
Chaos; everyone against everyone since there's no law.
People begin forming packs (gangs and "vigilante" posses); gang against gang, aka civil war.
The surviving pack(s) establish its/their turfs; V's world.
So perhaps it might be a good idea to recognize that games can be addictive so those people predisposed to addiction might either avoid them or carefully monitor their use?
You missed the point. People who are predisposed to addiction can get addicted to anything they find enjoyable. In order to catalogue everything that can be addictive, you'd need to go through everything in existence and ask yourself: "Could someone possibly find this pleasant ?"
As far as I know nobody has died as a result of soap opera addiction.
But is this because soap operas are harmless, or because they only last an hour a day ?
You'd want to add a switch that could purge the RAM in case you needed to restart from a crash, though.
Why ? All you have to do is reset the program counter so it starts again from ROM - if your bootloader/OS/programs use memory uninitialized, they're going to fail even with volatile RAM. And since the the program counter is in the CPU, and gets reset when the CPU powers up, everything will work just fine as-is.
Aren't you glad that our inept legislators and your incompetent judges work in different jurisdictions?
Inept ? Incompetent ? You just described one of the most brilliant schemes to get around the laws proctecting ordinary citizens from arbitrary arrest I've ever heard of, and you call the people who came up with it incompetent ? Just what are your standards for competence, pray tell ?
Really? I thought Al Queda's leader was part of the George Bush incroud, or family, or something...
You know, I think I've heard this plot before. Next time they meet, Bush is going to cut off Osama's hand as a way of showing fatherly affection. "Rebel terrorists, aided by traitors and saboteurs within the Empire, destroyed the symbol of Imperial dominance" or however did Tie Fighter put it ?
Unfortunately for pacifists, people (when not neutered by an easy life with lots of food and entertainment, such as in the West) are vile, disgusting animals, prone to quarreling with and killing each other. Quite frankly, these types un-neutered by the 'easy life' we lead need to be kept from killing themselves and others.
That's what "guns and bombs" are for.
Actually, don't your own words mean that bombing the hell out of $ENEMY will simply make $ENEMY nastier and more dangerous, while helping $ENEMY to become prosperous will result in it becoming harmless as well ? In other words, lasting peace can only be had by eliminating poverty and bringing prosperity to everyone.
Ahh, but if your future self did this, you'd be rich in the future, and have no reason to send a message. Hasn't anyone seen the crappy remake of "The Time Machine"?
Yes, and I've also played Chrono Trigger, so I know exactly how to deal with this problem:
Get a (mindless) clone of your girlfriend.
Exchange the clone with the real thing just before the bullet strikes.
Your past self thinks that your girl died, and will go on to invent the time machine.
In other words, it's the good old "you can change the past, as long as any observable consequences are delayed until after you made the decision to do so".
As this sort of thing will generate revenue as well, it seems like a win all around - less cops hassling you for something you didn't do or that isn't significant, more cops hassling people for an activity that most of us can agree is unscrupulous.
Going to the movies is unscrupulous ?
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to stay home then:).
It's not coincidence that countries with stronger IP law tend to have stronger economies.
True. The reason is that only the citizens of countries with strong economies can afford to use enough money for entertainment to make the entertainment industry rich enough to bribe the politicians.
Strong IP laws are one of the results of strong economy and the large and rich corporations it tends to produce, not a cause for it. Weak IP laws allow economy to develop rapidly since new inventions can be used by anyone; once the economy reaches the natural level for the current technology level and growth stops (or slows to match the rate of technological advancement), the established players start setting up barriers of entry to get a larger share of the now-stagnant market, since there's no new growth to be had.
Let me put this in language even you may understand: We did not build our church - our school - as a stage set for your video game. You do not have the legal or the moral right to use this setting without our permission.
According to Wikipedia, the church was built in the Middle Ages. Given this, I find it highly unlikely that you had anything to do with it, and are simply trying to assert rights to other people's hard work - hardly a moral thing to do.
Besides, I find it highly likely that the original architecht has been dead for more than 70 years (or however long copyright has been extended at this point), and as such any and all copyrights to the church's design has long since ended, so would you please explain what legal monopoly of yours prevents anyone from making a model of the church for any reason ?
Hm, I don't know. Do you think it would be tacky to start using "At least, that's what the comic I drew while I was high said will happen" as my catch phrase?
No, but it does risk having your home raided by the police, you confessed drug user, you.
Must be hard typing messages that long on your cell phone keypad. Moleskin is supposed to work quite well for thumb blisters.
Public libraries nowadays have public, Internet-connected computers. Quite a few cafes have them too, for that matter. I'm kinda afraid of what kind of comments we start seeing when the pubs follow the example.
You would be accountable to everyone you hope to do business with.
So you're suggesting that businessmen are more concerned about the reputation of their customers than the contents of their purses ?
Simply put, if you don't behave yourself nobody will buy from you, or sell to you.
This might even work in a small community where you knew everyone by reputation, but even a small city will contain far more people than you could ever hope to know by reputation.
There is a strong incentive to act in a way that doesn't piss people off, because if you don't it will rapidly become difficult for you to survive. All without physical coercion.
So, if I find you bleeding to death after getting into an accident, and demand your eternal servitude before calling an ambulance, is that okay ? Or if I build a wall surrounding your property (but outside of it) and keeping you from leaving unless you pay me, is that okay ? After all, I haven't laid a finger on you, nor threatened to do so.
Assuming he survives the attempt. Anyone trying to make a living that way would lead a very short and difficult life.
Doesn't seem to stop people going that route now.
This is why people need to be willing to refuse to be victims. Organized criminals are businessmen, there's not much profit in getting your people killed.
Tell me, what do you think "refusing to be victims" means, in practical terms ? It means banding together and enforcing some kind of rules (such as "don't try to extort people") with threats of force, and is therefore a form of government.
Try to understand: a government is simply whoever makes the rules. It doesn't matter if that someone is the current administration, a gang, or some vigilante posse. The only difference is how safe and free you are under each; and in that, the current western democraties win hands down.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If you punch me in the nose without provocation you are a criminal.
It sure didn't take you long to start telling me what I may and may not do, and making laws of your own. How does it feel to be the government ? And an "immoral, unethical, outlaw" one at that, since you started dictating rules to me without me consenting to your rule.
Criminals are those that would initiate violence and violate the property rights of others. Private courts can make the call on who is a criminal. People that don't abide by the courts rulings become persona non grata.
So instead of having laws and courts bound by them, you have self-appointed groups handing out judgements to people they don't happen to agree with. Not an improvement, IMHO, and reminds me all too much of witch trials.
But tell me, what does being judged "persona non grata" mean, in exact practical terms, and how is the court going to enforce this ruling ?
Oh, and make sure you get the consent of the people being judged beforehand - after all, you wouldn't want these courts to be an "immoral, unethical, outlaw organization".
Don't you know that anyone can issue money right now? Just like government issued money, it will always be worth exactly what people give you for it - usually based on how much you trust the issuer to give you something for it. Nobody is going to trust someone that doesn't honor their contracts.
Yes, I know. But you misunderstood: what is stopping me from issuing money in your name, abusing your good name to my advantage ? Are you going to stop me ? And if you do, how are you any different than the government you so despise - after all, I haven't physically harmed you, yet you enforce your will on me ?
A123Systems' cells can be recharged in as little as 5 minutes. AltairNano claims a cell which can be charged to over 90% in 6 minutes.
Suppose a car has a 60 kW engine, and uses, say, 6 kW while cruising. Suppose that the car's fuel system has juice to cruise for 6 hours before refueling; in other words it holds 36 kWh worth of energy. In order to transfer this amount of energy into the cell in 5 minutes (1/12th of an hour) requires a sustained power output of 432 kW. Multiply with the amount of vechiles being reloaded simultaneously.
Now, to put this into perspective, a microwave uses around 0.7 kW, an light bulb around 0.06 kW, and electric heating of the whole house in subarctic regions takes around 2-4 kW; a typical house has around 10-20 kW power input from the grid. In other words, 432 kW is an absurd amount of power, and there's no way the power grid can deliver it, especially to multiple stations in an area with multiple charging points each.
On the other hand, if you build an artificial fuel manufacturing plant right next to a power plant, you can simply run meter-thick cables from one to the other and use the same methods of distributing the fuel as are currently used. This is the energy equivalent of "never underestimate the bandwith of a truck full of data tapes".
The world is changing fast, try to keep up.
Don't get so caught up in the change that you start overlooking things.
First, you seem to think that individual accountability doesn't exist without government.
To whom would you be accountable to, then ?
It's entirely possible to enforce accountability with a coercive government.
It is impossible to enforce anything without being willing to use coercion. That is the very meaning of "enforce" - to back with force.
If someone is a bad neighbor, they rapidly find themselves without friends and without anyone willing to do business with them.
So he'll simply takes what he wants with force.
Second, people get as much organized crime as they will tolerate. If the immediate response to every lowlife that demanded protection money was an injection of 15,000mg of Pb, the problem would clear up pretty quickly.
The word organized in organized crime means that the lowlife isn't alone, but backed by dozens if not hundreds of other lowlifes, all packing guns and acting in an organized manner. This means that it is you who is going to be made an example of in such incident.
Besides, without government to make laws, there is by definition no crime or criminals. You just shot someone to defend your interests. What's stopping anyone from shooting you - after all, they aren't going to be punished for it ?
Speaking of protection money - what's stopping me from simply printing out any desired amount of it, leading to huge inflation and collapse of economy (not that it's not already going to collapse with contracts being non-enforceable since there's no one enforcing them) ?
Third, assuming that having a government is better than anarchy (not chaos!);
Anarchy leads to chaos, always. When the government collapses, various power factions will start fighting each other for power, resulting at best in unstable social conditions and at worst in a civil war.
I still believe that unless the government has the explicit consent of 100% of the governed, it is unethical and indistinguishable from organized crime.
That is true. Military dictatorships, for example, are essentially nothing but armed gangs holding power over a certain area and populace. Other forms of government may or may not be kinder, gentler versions, but they ultimately derive their power from the ability and willingness to back their orders with force. This certainly limits the freedom of those governed.
However, please understand that for the exact same reason you cannot get rid of government, ever. If the current one would happen to fall, another organization would simply take its place and become the new government. Humans form groups with a hierarchical social structure, and hierarchies always have a top; when the hierarchy is large enough, we call this top the government. A large enough society requires and naturally forms a government to function, and modern life (anything beyond the caveman state, basically) depends on living in a large society.
The only things you can influence is who has the supreme power in the land (by backing your ruler(s) of choice, therefore making them more powerful), and how they use it (by using your backing of them as a bargaining chip).
If we're using fusion as our energy source, why would we bother creating carbon-releasing fuels instead of using the same electricity to charge fuel cells or whatever energy storage technique we come up with?
Because liquid hydrocarbons have high energy density and are very easy to handle, as well as safe, and if you use atmospheric carbon dioxide to make them they are carbon-neutral, only releasing the carbon used to make them in the first place when burned.
Oh, and you can refuel a gasoline (or diesel) car in a few minutes, while recharging batteries takes at least overnight.
You've precisely described government. I'll take anarchy, at least then I'll get honest thieves - and the freedom to deal with them appropriately.
You won't get thieves. If you're very lucky, you get mafia acting as a de facto government but without even lip service being paid to personal rights or freedoms. If you aren't quite as lucky, you get urban warfare between competing gangs and later civil war between armies.
Seriously; I'd be happy to pay directly out of pocket for the roads I use,
And the end result is that only the rich can afford to move more than absolutely neccessary, making everyone else de facto prisoners.
fire protection (I'm sure my insurance would demand it),
Fire spreads. If someone doesn't pay for fire protection for himself, either I will pay for him, or I'll watch my own home being consumed by the horrible flamestorm the privately-funded fire brigade has absolutely no chance in hell of putting down once it's grown in the poor parts of the city (where very few people can afford this protection).
I much prefer the situation where everyone is forced to pay as much as they can afford, and the fire brigade puts down any fire as soon as it starts. It's safer, cheaper, and you don't get those situations where some kid dies in the flames because the asshole landlord decided the building wasn't worth protection.
sanitation,
Guess what happens when someone decides to save here and dumps shit on the street ? Plague.
and my child's education.
Resulting in massive amounts of completely uneducated (meaning they can't read or write) people doomed to miserable lives by their complete ignorance, causing unrest and making them prime candidates for various doomsday cults.
I'd probably skip paying for personal security, as I feel pretty comfortable protecting myself.
Without government, you either pay for protection, or you kiss your kneecaps bye-bye. Be as though as you will, you still aren't a match for a gang unless you form one yourself - at which point you have re-established a government, only this time with you in charge and no accountability to anyone.
Most other people would do the same if they weren't so indoctrinated in the belief that they're not competent to run their own lives.
The problem is that, as you live in a society, your life doesn't happen in a vacuum; your choices have consequences which affect other people, and as such they have interest in them. One of the roles of the government is to mediate between these possibly conflicting interests of different people; removing it would not cause those interests to go away, so your life would still be meddled with; if anything, it would be meddled with more, since lack of government would also mean there would be nothing stopping Bubba down the hall from ending each of his demands with "or die".
You can't be completely free and live with other people, since that would put those other people into an unbearable situation.
I hate the fallacy that if the government didn't keep on providing some things, those things wouldn't exist.
It isn't a fallacy. Some things, like the police and public roads, wouldn't exist if the government didn't pay for them.
If the government provided shoes with taxpayer money, I swear to God, people like you would claim that without taxes nobody would have shoes.
Shoes can be manufactured one by one and a specific pair of shoes is directly associated to one (and only one) user. Most government services - such as healthcare, fire brigade, roads and such - are an ambigious mass with no clear way to link any specific part to any specific person. As such, if the government doesn't support them, no one will, since for every single person it is more cost-efficient to not do his share of the work and suffer the small drop in quality than to do it; when everyone does this, the service collapses completely. In other words, tragedy of the commons.
The only thing that can prevent the tragedy of the commons is a body capable of forcing people to work for the common good, even against their seeming self-interest. That's the role of the government.
The fact is that anything the government can pay for, you could pay for straight from your own pocket - and probably get a better deal.
Why bother ? Without goverment, I can just form a gang and take what I want by force. Or print money for that matter. Or inform you that if you don't pay for "protection", your kneecaps get broken. Not that that matters much, since with no coordination between people and no one maintaining it, the infrastructure which makes modern societies possible is going to collapse.
That's the "better deal" you get without government: you're free to do as you wish, and so are everyone else too, which means that no one is forcing anyone to play nicely or avoiding tragedy of the commons anymore, so they don't. I'd say taxes are pretty low payment for avoiding anarchy.
None of that matters when she's the object of your desire. Men are driven by sex, so once denied the man will leap hurdles to get it back again.
Yes. The question is if he should get it back with someone who uses his sexuality as a weapon against him.
A heterosexual relationship is a relationship of unbalanced power. The woman has the power, and the man does not. That's why you listen to your woman and put the seat down. She has the leverage; you do not.
A monogamous relationship (which is the only type where this has even a theoretical chance of working) has two implicit assumptions: that neither partner will seek sexual relief from outside sources, and that both give it to each other. The latter is often overlooked, but it is what makes the former possible.
Or, to put it another way: remove sex from a relationship and you don't have a relationship, at least not for long.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there are such examples. For example, Russia was an agricultural backwater who's economy and political system were destroyed by WW1. Soviet Russia was a world-class superpower who's economy outlasted Nazi Germany. Now, this change may or may not be due to socialism, but the fact remains that Soviet Russia had a lot stronger economy than the preceding Tzarist Russia.
It should also be noted that most european countries implement various degrees of socialism, and are doing just fine. Finland, for example, was very left-leaning until recently and transitioned from agrarian to industrial society; on the other hand, once state regulation was lessened, the economy collapsed and still hasn't really recovered.
Finally: in Soviet Russia the government owns the industry, in Capitalist America the industry owns the government. Communism or fascism, pick your poison.
I didn't see the movie but read the comic - ironically, in a publicly funded library. What I found funny about it was how the V guy kept going on about the wonders of anarchy, never realizing that he was living in it; specifically, the final stage of anarchy where the various factions fighting for power have settled the fight and divided the turfs, which they then rule with iron hand.
For reference, the stages of anarchy:
You missed the point. People who are predisposed to addiction can get addicted to anything they find enjoyable. In order to catalogue everything that can be addictive, you'd need to go through everything in existence and ask yourself: "Could someone possibly find this pleasant ?"
But is this because soap operas are harmless, or because they only last an hour a day ?
Why ? All you have to do is reset the program counter so it starts again from ROM - if your bootloader/OS/programs use memory uninitialized, they're going to fail even with volatile RAM. And since the the program counter is in the CPU, and gets reset when the CPU powers up, everything will work just fine as-is.
Inept ? Incompetent ? You just described one of the most brilliant schemes to get around the laws proctecting ordinary citizens from arbitrary arrest I've ever heard of, and you call the people who came up with it incompetent ? Just what are your standards for competence, pray tell ?
You know, I think I've heard this plot before. Next time they meet, Bush is going to cut off Osama's hand as a way of showing fatherly affection. "Rebel terrorists, aided by traitors and saboteurs within the Empire, destroyed the symbol of Imperial dominance" or however did Tie Fighter put it ?
But if Bush is Vader, then who is the Emperor ?
Actually, don't your own words mean that bombing the hell out of $ENEMY will simply make $ENEMY nastier and more dangerous, while helping $ENEMY to become prosperous will result in it becoming harmless as well ? In other words, lasting peace can only be had by eliminating poverty and bringing prosperity to everyone.
Yes, and I've also played Chrono Trigger, so I know exactly how to deal with this problem:
In other words, it's the good old "you can change the past, as long as any observable consequences are delayed until after you made the decision to do so".
Going to the movies is unscrupulous ?
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to stay home then :).
True. The reason is that only the citizens of countries with strong economies can afford to use enough money for entertainment to make the entertainment industry rich enough to bribe the politicians.
Strong IP laws are one of the results of strong economy and the large and rich corporations it tends to produce, not a cause for it. Weak IP laws allow economy to develop rapidly since new inventions can be used by anyone; once the economy reaches the natural level for the current technology level and growth stops (or slows to match the rate of technological advancement), the established players start setting up barriers of entry to get a larger share of the now-stagnant market, since there's no new growth to be had.
Yeah, you could write a disapproving letter to the state government. That will show them !
According to Wikipedia, the church was built in the Middle Ages. Given this, I find it highly unlikely that you had anything to do with it, and are simply trying to assert rights to other people's hard work - hardly a moral thing to do.
Besides, I find it highly likely that the original architecht has been dead for more than 70 years (or however long copyright has been extended at this point), and as such any and all copyrights to the church's design has long since ended, so would you please explain what legal monopoly of yours prevents anyone from making a model of the church for any reason ?
Well, I kinda like the laws of thermodynamics but in laymans terms:
Seeing how I've been composing a DnD book about undead sexuality (yes, really), I'd say that your standards are needlessly high :).
No, but it does risk having your home raided by the police, you confessed drug user, you.
In Soviet Russia, drugs use you !
Public libraries nowadays have public, Internet-connected computers. Quite a few cafes have them too, for that matter. I'm kinda afraid of what kind of comments we start seeing when the pubs follow the example.
So you're suggesting that businessmen are more concerned about the reputation of their customers than the contents of their purses ?
This might even work in a small community where you knew everyone by reputation, but even a small city will contain far more people than you could ever hope to know by reputation.
So, if I find you bleeding to death after getting into an accident, and demand your eternal servitude before calling an ambulance, is that okay ? Or if I build a wall surrounding your property (but outside of it) and keeping you from leaving unless you pay me, is that okay ? After all, I haven't laid a finger on you, nor threatened to do so.
Doesn't seem to stop people going that route now.
Tell me, what do you think "refusing to be victims" means, in practical terms ? It means banding together and enforcing some kind of rules (such as "don't try to extort people") with threats of force, and is therefore a form of government.
Try to understand: a government is simply whoever makes the rules. It doesn't matter if that someone is the current administration, a gang, or some vigilante posse. The only difference is how safe and free you are under each; and in that, the current western democraties win hands down.
It sure didn't take you long to start telling me what I may and may not do, and making laws of your own. How does it feel to be the government ? And an "immoral, unethical, outlaw" one at that, since you started dictating rules to me without me consenting to your rule.
So instead of having laws and courts bound by them, you have self-appointed groups handing out judgements to people they don't happen to agree with. Not an improvement, IMHO, and reminds me all too much of witch trials.
But tell me, what does being judged "persona non grata" mean, in exact practical terms, and how is the court going to enforce this ruling ?
Oh, and make sure you get the consent of the people being judged beforehand - after all, you wouldn't want these courts to be an "immoral, unethical, outlaw organization".
Yes, I know. But you misunderstood: what is stopping me from issuing money in your name, abusing your good name to my advantage ? Are you going to stop me ? And if you do, how are you any different than the government you so despise - after all, I haven't physically harmed you, yet you enforce your will on me ?
Suppose a car has a 60 kW engine, and uses, say, 6 kW while cruising. Suppose that the car's fuel system has juice to cruise for 6 hours before refueling; in other words it holds 36 kWh worth of energy. In order to transfer this amount of energy into the cell in 5 minutes (1/12th of an hour) requires a sustained power output of 432 kW. Multiply with the amount of vechiles being reloaded simultaneously.
Now, to put this into perspective, a microwave uses around 0.7 kW, an light bulb around 0.06 kW, and electric heating of the whole house in subarctic regions takes around 2-4 kW; a typical house has around 10-20 kW power input from the grid. In other words, 432 kW is an absurd amount of power, and there's no way the power grid can deliver it, especially to multiple stations in an area with multiple charging points each.
On the other hand, if you build an artificial fuel manufacturing plant right next to a power plant, you can simply run meter-thick cables from one to the other and use the same methods of distributing the fuel as are currently used. This is the energy equivalent of "never underestimate the bandwith of a truck full of data tapes".
Don't get so caught up in the change that you start overlooking things.
And people wonder why there's an energy crisis... What kind of moron would design something like that ?
To whom would you be accountable to, then ?
It is impossible to enforce anything without being willing to use coercion. That is the very meaning of "enforce" - to back with force.
So he'll simply takes what he wants with force.
The word organized in organized crime means that the lowlife isn't alone, but backed by dozens if not hundreds of other lowlifes, all packing guns and acting in an organized manner. This means that it is you who is going to be made an example of in such incident.
Besides, without government to make laws, there is by definition no crime or criminals. You just shot someone to defend your interests. What's stopping anyone from shooting you - after all, they aren't going to be punished for it ?
Speaking of protection money - what's stopping me from simply printing out any desired amount of it, leading to huge inflation and collapse of economy (not that it's not already going to collapse with contracts being non-enforceable since there's no one enforcing them) ?
Anarchy leads to chaos, always. When the government collapses, various power factions will start fighting each other for power, resulting at best in unstable social conditions and at worst in a civil war.
That is true. Military dictatorships, for example, are essentially nothing but armed gangs holding power over a certain area and populace. Other forms of government may or may not be kinder, gentler versions, but they ultimately derive their power from the ability and willingness to back their orders with force. This certainly limits the freedom of those governed.
However, please understand that for the exact same reason you cannot get rid of government, ever. If the current one would happen to fall, another organization would simply take its place and become the new government. Humans form groups with a hierarchical social structure, and hierarchies always have a top; when the hierarchy is large enough, we call this top the government. A large enough society requires and naturally forms a government to function, and modern life (anything beyond the caveman state, basically) depends on living in a large society.
The only things you can influence is who has the supreme power in the land (by backing your ruler(s) of choice, therefore making them more powerful), and how they use it (by using your backing of them as a bargaining chip).
Because liquid hydrocarbons have high energy density and are very easy to handle, as well as safe, and if you use atmospheric carbon dioxide to make them they are carbon-neutral, only releasing the carbon used to make them in the first place when burned.
Oh, and you can refuel a gasoline (or diesel) car in a few minutes, while recharging batteries takes at least overnight.
You won't get thieves. If you're very lucky, you get mafia acting as a de facto government but without even lip service being paid to personal rights or freedoms. If you aren't quite as lucky, you get urban warfare between competing gangs and later civil war between armies.
And the end result is that only the rich can afford to move more than absolutely neccessary, making everyone else de facto prisoners.
Fire spreads. If someone doesn't pay for fire protection for himself, either I will pay for him, or I'll watch my own home being consumed by the horrible flamestorm the privately-funded fire brigade has absolutely no chance in hell of putting down once it's grown in the poor parts of the city (where very few people can afford this protection).
I much prefer the situation where everyone is forced to pay as much as they can afford, and the fire brigade puts down any fire as soon as it starts. It's safer, cheaper, and you don't get those situations where some kid dies in the flames because the asshole landlord decided the building wasn't worth protection.
Guess what happens when someone decides to save here and dumps shit on the street ? Plague.
Resulting in massive amounts of completely uneducated (meaning they can't read or write) people doomed to miserable lives by their complete ignorance, causing unrest and making them prime candidates for various doomsday cults.
Without government, you either pay for protection, or you kiss your kneecaps bye-bye. Be as though as you will, you still aren't a match for a gang unless you form one yourself - at which point you have re-established a government, only this time with you in charge and no accountability to anyone.
The problem is that, as you live in a society, your life doesn't happen in a vacuum; your choices have consequences which affect other people, and as such they have interest in them. One of the roles of the government is to mediate between these possibly conflicting interests of different people; removing it would not cause those interests to go away, so your life would still be meddled with; if anything, it would be meddled with more, since lack of government would also mean there would be nothing stopping Bubba down the hall from ending each of his demands with "or die".
You can't be completely free and live with other people, since that would put those other people into an unbearable situation.
It isn't a fallacy. Some things, like the police and public roads, wouldn't exist if the government didn't pay for them.
Shoes can be manufactured one by one and a specific pair of shoes is directly associated to one (and only one) user. Most government services - such as healthcare, fire brigade, roads and such - are an ambigious mass with no clear way to link any specific part to any specific person. As such, if the government doesn't support them, no one will, since for every single person it is more cost-efficient to not do his share of the work and suffer the small drop in quality than to do it; when everyone does this, the service collapses completely. In other words, tragedy of the commons.
The only thing that can prevent the tragedy of the commons is a body capable of forcing people to work for the common good, even against their seeming self-interest. That's the role of the government.
Why bother ? Without goverment, I can just form a gang and take what I want by force. Or print money for that matter. Or inform you that if you don't pay for "protection", your kneecaps get broken. Not that that matters much, since with no coordination between people and no one maintaining it, the infrastructure which makes modern societies possible is going to collapse.
That's the "better deal" you get without government: you're free to do as you wish, and so are everyone else too, which means that no one is forcing anyone to play nicely or avoiding tragedy of the commons anymore, so they don't. I'd say taxes are pretty low payment for avoiding anarchy.
Someone realized that if you wrap tinfoil around the missile, the laser gets reflected back to the sender.
Yes. The question is if he should get it back with someone who uses his sexuality as a weapon against him.
A monogamous relationship (which is the only type where this has even a theoretical chance of working) has two implicit assumptions: that neither partner will seek sexual relief from outside sources, and that both give it to each other. The latter is often overlooked, but it is what makes the former possible.
Or, to put it another way: remove sex from a relationship and you don't have a relationship, at least not for long.