its like a drunk person getting the people they crashed into arrested. if she is of legal age to drink and  if she willingly got herself in a position where she was so drunk she would have have sex with people she didnt want to, she has no one to blame but herself.

cultures define us. nothing we believe in is a logical progression, everything is based of what has been passed down. you change the values, and you can create instability and war.

there have been plenty of cases where the state has put to death people that were later proven to be innocent; you seek justice when a murderer killed an "innocent person" but why dont you seek justice when the state kills an "innocent person"? where's the comments asking for the jury members to be put to death? or the judges or the Governor?

and the state does not differentiate between murderer's that killed guilty people and murderer's that kill innocent people. murderers killing guilty men are put to death too.

localization of power creates instability. and it makes sure people that arent common in one area has their rights protected when they are in that area even though the local government might biased against them.

> Einstein wrote:

> Avogardo I do not know how to challenge you on this, since you now claim to be a libertarian

Perhaps someone else will try to fight against me claiming anarchy is good?

did you read what i wrote? i am an Anarchist, i just think the purest form of Anarchy is a libertarian state. because anyone who infringes on another person's right is a government; a government that's only job is to protect our liberties to the point they infringe on other people's liberties is the least amount of governing achievable.

it becomes less effective as a deterrant, more innocents are killed, less guilty people are caught. and murdering innocents to discourage the murdering of innocents is self-defeating.

in the US, there are added appeals that are required to put someone to death, and the state must pay for; results in significantly higher average costs for sentencing someone to capital punishment then life imprisonment.

the death penalty costs more then life imprisonment right now, so unless you suggest a feasible way to make capital punishment cheaper, without increasing the number of innocent people victimized by it, the argument against substituting the death penalty with life imprisonment because of the costs associated with life imprisonment holds no ground.

"Where am I generalising? Please be specific."

"religion is based upon delusion"
"it has caused far more destruction than good"
"Everything about religion appears to be both hyprocritical and inconsistent, well at least Christianity is"
"I have known too many people that have picked and choosed what they have believed in; this only reinforces the idea that any religion is BS."
"It's a cop out. When you profess that the Bible tells you everything how to live a good life"
"If God had a hand in helping that flight land in the Hudson"
"If God saved people that didn't turn up to work on 9/11 "

these beliefs that you claim christians or religions in general have are no more christian or religious then they are New Zealender. i got sick finding examples, those will have to do for now.

"you should read the last paragraph, a quote from one of the greatest Christian's ever."

greatest in what way? what point are you trying to make with the last paragraph? no christian that i know of believes "saints" to be super human, or for christian life to be free of struggles.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> And thus the ignorance shall be forth flowing...

yeah, i'm the ignorant one, not the guy making these giant generalizations about christians....

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> I just got "i-pwned" because you said I'm wrong, Mr. Fool? Wow you're deep. You think this is an appropriate place for a more specific analysis? You're funny. And I'm 100% right.

>>the second someone takes power, they become a government and its no longer anarchy. an anarchist is someone who would want a state where no one has power over another.<<

That's the point: Someone's always eager to take power. Anarchy wouldn't last long annyway.

and if you read the rest of my post, you would understand my response to it.

a corporate Anarchy wouldnt be an anarchy, its contradictory. because the Corporations would be governments. you could go farther and state that parents are governments over their children so, for their to be anarchy their cant be families. that is why when i state what i think the State should be like, i wont use the word, Anarchy.

i stopped calling myself Anarchist a long time ago, probably over a year, because it just confuses people, once you eliminate the current state, you can start calling things not normally considered government, government, such as businesses or parents. So i simply refer to myself as libertarian and say im for a "government" whose only job is to protect our liberties, to the point where our liberties conflict with other citizen's liberties; whether this is done by democratic election (unlikely), some type of monarchy, or oligarchy, or a company, or whatever, i really dont care.