Imagine a world without the state
It's easy if you try
imagine a world with no arguments
>>73516256
imagine if this meme was funny
>>73516196
Do you support me getting shot?
>>73516463
not an argument
>>73516196
its called somalia
>>73516196
imagine if op could stop sucking dicks for just ten minutes
Imagine a fantasy world where people somehow thrive without law or an order-keeping force..
>>73517014
imagine a fantasy world where people thrive somehow without the state taking their income and using it to import people from the 3rd world and feed and house them. How would we survive?
>>73517242
That's beside the point I was making.
1. A government could not do those things while still existing as an entity
2. How are those things wrong? If you have enough money to live with at the end of the day and those that have had horrible lives beyond our comprehension get a helping hand from a good samaritan government, where is the problem?
>>73517498
>ignore reality and instead focus on this hypothetical situation i am constructing
>>73517644
And what is the reality then? Be specific
>>73516557
you mean the country with 3 potential States fighting each?
>>73516557
You mean the country that had improved living conditions for its people after the state dissolved and then went back into civil war because the UN supported a central government?
>>73516557
Imagine a world without the state and without any black people.
>>73518847
This is the most important point. If we had no subhumans and instead had a cohesive homogeneous society the state would be less of an issue.
>>73516196
Is Donald Trump a state?
>>73516196
yellow matter Mag 1™
dripping from a petcock eye
>>73516196
NOT
>>73516196
yfw when stefanfags will defend this
>>73516290
oh boy, of all the non-arguments I've ever seen, this is the least of an argument.
>>73521478
That would violate the NAP though.
Keep trying to form an argument though, one day maybe you'll succeed, but I doubt it.
>>73523603
Oh so there would be no state but child prostitution would be banned? Please explain how that would work out. Or would we just trust that no-one would do it because it violates the non-aggresion principle?
>>73523901
The word 'legal' wouldn't have any meaning in a society with no laws, so no, it wouldn't be legal. It also wouldn't be banned but it wouldn't be tolerated either, and you may use force to prevent it happening, as the party you're using force against were the initiators of aggression, against the child.
Consider yourself argument'd
>>73516196
>Giving up my sovereignty.
Look I like the world, a lot, but not that much.
Stick your Dick in an ant farm faggot.
>>73525241
Yeah we should just trust people not to do it and voluntarily stop it from happening. I have never heard such a brilliant argument. The top researchers of child prostitution haven't figured out this genius solution yet. But you can be proud of yourself that you have.
