Might be better off dead when your employer has total control over your life too.

---

Right, with no government we can all enjoy the freedom to have no one come investigate who has robbed us or murdered our family members, the freedom to have no-one punish them if we already know who did it, and the freedom to take matters into our own hands in an endless cycle of revenge violence such as could be seen in tribal areas of Pakistan today.  Or maybe those tribes with their patriarchs are too much like a government for you.

How did you allow your family members to get robbed or murdered? Why didn't you protect them or teach them how to protect themselves? This freedom thing might be too difficult for you. Better let Nanny handle it. But don't expect a top-notch effort to find the perps. The cops have tickets to write, donuts to munch and making it through the shift is a lot more important than confronting your family's attackers - especially if your family is nobody and the suspects are big donors to the Police Benevolent Fund.

---

No Government does not equal No Freedom. Ever. Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always. The question is the extent to which freedom is reduced.

Right, with no government we can all enjoy the freedom to have no one come investigate who has robbed us or murdered our family members, the freedom to have no-one punish them if we already know who did it, and the freedom to take matters into our own hands in an endless cycle of revenge violence such as could be seen in tribal areas of Pakistan today.  Or maybe those tribes with their patriarchs are too much like a government for you.

Lol, you seem to struggle with simple concepts. Yes, absolute freedom is absolute anarchy, but no one is advocating for that. Government is a necessary evil to restrain the basest human nature, a mighty dog that also needs a tight leash.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I never understood people's blind devotion to Government as if it were their savior.

I want the Government to protect the borders and keep us safe from foreign governments. Everything else it should stay the hell out of.

---

Right, with no government we can all enjoy the freedom to have no one come investigate who has robbed us or murdered our family members, the freedom to have no-one punish them if we already know who did it, and the freedom to take matters into our own hands in an endless cycle of revenge violence such as could be seen in tribal areas of Pakistan today.  Or maybe those tribes with their patriarchs are too much like a government for you.

Lol, you seem to struggle with simple concepts. Yes, absolute freedom is absolute anarchy, but no one is advocating for that. Government is a necessary evil to restrain the basest human nature, a mighty dog that also needs a tight leash.

"No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

I never understood people's blind devotion to Government as if it were their savior.

I want the Government to protect the borders and keep us safe from foreign governments. Everything else it should stay the hell out of.

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol, you seem to struggle with simple concepts. Yes, absolute freedom is absolute anarchy, but no one is advocating for that. Government is a necessary evil to restrain the basest human nature, a mighty dog that also needs a tight leash.

"No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

I never understood people's blind devotion to Government as if it were their savior.

I want the Government to protect the borders and keep us safe from foreign governments. Everything else it should stay the hell out of.

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

So you do have reading comprehension problems then. Good to know.

Edit: Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Allow me to elaborate...a person can state a fact without using that particular fact as a platform to advocate for a tangentially-related position. In this case, you, I, and everyone else can agree to the fact that government in any form is a restraint on human freedom without suggesting it's abolition is desired, or even beneficial. As you say, vigilante justice is, for the most part, an undesirable outcome for violating other people's rights. A functioning government with fair laws and a desire for justice is a much better solution to that kind of crime. I'm not sure where you pulled your wild accusations from, but you might want to return them because they are sour.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I never understood people's blind devotion to Government as if it were their savior.

I want the Government to protect the borders and keep us safe from foreign governments. Everything else it should stay the hell out of.

The Federal Government, yes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lol, you seem to struggle with simple concepts. Yes, absolute freedom is absolute anarchy, but no one is advocating for that. Government is a necessary evil to restrain the basest human nature, a mighty dog that also needs a tight leash.

"No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

I never understood people's blind devotion to Government as if it were their savior.

I want the Government to protect the borders and keep us safe from foreign governments. Everything else it should stay the hell out of.

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

Don't have a sister... but if I did she would have gotten the same training my father gave all of us. And she wouldn't get raped.

---

"No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

Don't have a sister... but if I did she would have gotten the same training my father gave all of us. And she wouldn't get raped.

So any woman or girl who gets raped simply hasn't been trained well enough in how to not get raped? And because she only has herself to blame there's no need to contemplate if a government should punish the perpetrator or a family should punish the perpetrator? This is an odd belief system that you're introducing me to.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

So you do have reading comprehension problems then. Good to know.

Edit: Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Allow me to elaborate...a person can state a fact without using that particular fact as a platform to advocate for a tangentially-related position. In this case, you, I, and everyone else can agree to the fact that government in any form is a restraint on human freedom without suggesting it's abolition is desired, or even beneficial. As you say, vigilante justice is, for the most part, an undesirable outcome for violating other people's rights. A functioning government with fair laws and a desire for justice is a much better solution to that kind of crime. I'm not sure where you pulled your wild accusations from, but you might want to return them because they are sour.

So if you state the government always restrains freedom, and then state that the abolition of government is not desired, by the transitive property of logic you are saying that freedom, however you define it, is also not desired. This is a surprising result because we usually assume that freedom is a good thing, and because you rejected my suggestion about taxes on grounds that it impinged on freedom.  You're faulting my reading comprehension but, I have to fault your logic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you do have reading comprehension problems then. Good to know.

Edit: Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Allow me to elaborate...a person can state a fact without using that particular fact as a platform to advocate for a tangentially-related position. In this case, you, I, and everyone else can agree to the fact that government in any form is a restraint on human freedom without suggesting it's abolition is desired, or even beneficial. As you say, vigilante justice is, for the most part, an undesirable outcome for violating other people's rights. A functioning government with fair laws and a desire for justice is a much better solution to that kind of crime. I'm not sure where you pulled your wild accusations from, but you might want to return them because they are sour.

So if you state the government always restrains freedom, and then state that the abolition of government is not desired, by the transitive property of logic you are saying that freedom, however you define it, is also not desired. This is a surprising result because we usually assume that freedom is a good thing, and because you rejected my suggestion about taxes on grounds that it impinged on freedom.  You're faulting my reading comprehension but, I have to fault your logic.

Your issue is that you're dealing in absolutes. Government does restrain freedom, but to varying degrees. Having government doesn't mean no freedom, it means limits on freedom; no matter how much or little, any government means some level of freedom is necessarily restrained. The balance is how much government to accept. Your No taxes = No government = No freedom is false, government restrains freedom and sometimes protects it, but freedom does not require government to exist. It might be at risk, but it can certainly exist absent any form of government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So if you state the government always restrains freedom, and then state that the abolition of government is not desired, by the transitive property of logic you are saying that freedom, however you define it, is also not desired. This is a surprising result because we usually assume that freedom is a good thing, and because you rejected my suggestion about taxes on grounds that it impinged on freedom.  You're faulting my reading comprehension but, I have to fault your logic.

Your issue is that you're dealing in absolutes. Government does restrain freedom, but to varying degrees. Having government doesn't mean no freedom, it means limits on freedom; no matter how much or little, any government means some level of freedom is necessarily restrained. The balance is how much government to accept. Your No taxes = No government = No freedom is false, government restrains freedom and sometimes protects it, but freedom does not require government to exist. It might be at risk, but it can certainly exist absent any form of government.

I don't think I'm really dealing in absolutes anymore than you are.
The problem here is you have a faulty definition of freedom.
There is no freedom to murder.
There is no freedom to rape.
There is no freedom to steal.
The definition of freedom is that you are free to do things that are either positive to others or have no effect on others. You are free to offer goods and services at prices that you think are fair. You are free to employ people at will for wages.  Effective Government is absolutely necessary to prevent people from doing things that harm others or abuse their positive freedoms to the point that they do harm others.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Your issue is that you're dealing in absolutes. Government does restrain freedom, but to varying degrees. Having government doesn't mean no freedom, it means limits on freedom; no matter how much or little, any government means some level of freedom is necessarily restrained. The balance is how much government to accept. Your No taxes = No government = No freedom is false, government restrains freedom and sometimes protects it, but freedom does not require government to exist. It might be at risk, but it can certainly exist absent any form of government.

I don't think I'm really dealing in absolutes anymore than you are.
The problem here is you have a faulty definition of freedom.
There is no freedom to murder.
There is no freedom to rape.
There is no freedom to steal.
The definition of freedom is that you are free to do things that are either positive to others or have no effect on others. You are free to offer goods and services at prices that you think are fair. You are free to employ people at will for wages.  Effective Government is absolutely necessary to prevent people from doing things that harm others or abuse their positive freedoms to the point that they do harm others.

We'll, ok. I guess if you redefine basic terms to support your ideas then I can't really argue with your point.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Effective Government is absolutely necessary to prevent people from doing things that harm others or abuse their positive freedoms to the point that they do harm others.

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary. Maybe you are really an anarchist.

---

Effective Government is absolutely necessary to prevent people from doing things that harm others or abuse their positive freedoms to the point that they do harm others.

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

Nah, he's a despot who says you're free do what he says you may do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Effective Government is absolutely necessary to prevent people from doing things that harm others or abuse their positive freedoms to the point that they do harm others.

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

Nah, he's a despot who says you're free do what he says you may do.

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

Nah, he's a despot who says you're free do what he says you may do.

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

The power to act, speak, or think as one wishes without restraint. That's the definition, and it carries no moral connotation. So yes, freedom means raping, killing, stealing, because freedom is the freedom to choose actions that are morally good and morally evil. We use government to restrain that freedom, it's necessary to do so to produce a civil society. Government by nature of its very existence restrains some freedom, in every case, always.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

Nah, he's a despot who says you're free do what he says you may do.

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

It's very clear to me that you live a life of fear. And you've deluded yourself into thinking the Government can protect you to alleviate your fear.

I've always wondered how the beta thought. It must be very hard to make decisions if everything you do is based on fear.

Learn to protect yourself and your family and suddenly the fear goes away.

---

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

The power to act, speak, or think as one wishes without restraint. That's the definition, and it carries no moral connotation. So yes, freedom means raping, killing, stealing, because freedom is the freedom to choose actions that are morally good and morally evil. We use government to restrain that freedom, it's necessary to do so to produce a civil society. Government by nature of its very existence restrains some freedom, in every case, always.

Sure your definitions are now at least internally consistent, and here you've explicitly stated that some restriction on freedom is necessary. So why did you come at me with "that restricts Freedom" as a line of attack against my ideas?

---

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

It's very clear to me that you live a life of fear. And you've deluded yourself into thinking the Government can protect you to alleviate your fear.

I've always wondered how the beta thought. It must be very hard to make decisions if everything you do is based on fear.

Learn to protect yourself and your family and suddenly the fear goes away.

You could really do without the armchair psychology. 
You have no idea how I choose to defend myself or how often I have fear.
When I consider these questions about how society should work, I really try to consider people other than myself. Society will always have physically weaker individuals who rely on others for protection. 
However we answer these questions about how to provide that necessary protection, there are questions about taking care of others, and how we take care of ourselves and our families is irrelevant to answering it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The power to act, speak, or think as one wishes without restraint. That's the definition, and it carries no moral connotation. So yes, freedom means raping, killing, stealing, because freedom is the freedom to choose actions that are morally good and morally evil. We use government to restrain that freedom, it's necessary to do so to produce a civil society. Government by nature of its very existence restrains some freedom, in every case, always.

Sure your definitions are now at least internally consistent, and here you've explicitly stated that some restriction on freedom is necessary. So why did you come at me with "that restricts Freedom" as a line of attack against my ideas?

---

It's very clear to me that you live a life of fear. And you've deluded yourself into thinking the Government can protect you to alleviate your fear.

I've always wondered how the beta thought. It must be very hard to make decisions if everything you do is based on fear.

Learn to protect yourself and your family and suddenly the fear goes away.

You could really do without the armchair psychology. 
You have no idea how I choose to defend myself or how often I have fear.
When I consider these questions about how society should work, I really try to consider people other than myself. Society will always have physically weaker individuals who rely on others for protection. 
However we answer these questions about how to provide that necessary protection, there are questions about taking care of others, and how we take care of ourselves and our families is irrelevant to answering it.

Because, again, your "no government equals no freedom" is a false statement. Basing your greater ideas on that faulty premise leads to wrong conclusions.  I'm glad that you're beginning to understand where you're mistaken, I'll try to help you along this path of learning.

As far as your next response to TP, the questions about caring for others depend on you telling me how much I'm obligated to care for other people. You take my taxes to provide for weaker people whether I want to or not. Really sounds like you're ok with restricting my freedom to use my earned money as I choose to so that you can use my money how you choose, do you agree?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato