government!

[BloodredProject2402]

if you could pick your government what form of it would you choose?

[sheramil]

benevolent dictatorship by artificial intelligence.

and not one of those weeaboo skynet "MUST DESTROY MANKIND " types, either - a capable machine that understands primate behavior and has the capacity to spy on everyone every single second of the day.

accountability.

i believe that people won't act like assholes if they know they're being watched. and if you're thinking "What about my SACRED PRIVACY?" - well, the machine doesn't care if you jerk off to underwear catalogs, or if you pick your nose and flick it at random priests on the street. the machine doesn't even care if you are a closet ********* with 300 gigabytes of child porn on your computer, because it doesn't matter what you do in private...

but if that pedo dares get close to a real child, the machine will see it and warn Mr Pedo "The world is watching, perv." if Mr Pedo continues trying to translate his fantasies into reality, the machine can send in a remote to pop a tranquilising dart in his ass. no-one ever need know, as long as Mr Pedo behaves.

the hard part, of course, is setting parameters for what the machine thinks is acceptable behavior.

[sheramil]

wow. there's those *******s again.

[mmmcherry]

that sounds pretty awesome sheramil
i think id go for that, and hope to god theres no hackers that can break in and watch random people jerking off to their underwear catalogues!!!

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

It still sounds very 1984 meets Terminator esque to me. I think privacy is important extremely importnat. Even if it's a machine gathering information there's nothing fool proof anyone can get to that information because it's floating around somewhere. Also as you mentioned it'd be difficult to set the parameters. I imagine it could easily end up like the Evil Santa Clause from Futurama.

Plus I think privacy is more of a principle than anything. It's just that there are things people have a right to keep private regardless of weather it's important or not.

[sheramil]

It still sounds very 1984 meets Terminator esque to me.

excuse me; didn't i say "Not like Skynet?" if you have trouble imagining machines that don't want to destroy mankind, go read some Iain M Banks. his "Culture" novels have AIs and humans living together in perfect harmony, everyone's happy and this isn't at all far-fetched.

as to the inevitable "oh noes you want to take away my freedoms" = 1984 comparison, i will gently remind you that the government in Orwell's book was comprised of people - humans, with agendas, limitations and a desire to hang on to power for it's own sake. primates, with all of the nasty evolutionary baggage that comes with having to survive on the planet of the apes. a machine operating independantly of political groups would be beholden to none of them.

I think privacy is important extremely importnat. Even if it's a machine gathering information there's nothing fool proof; anyone can get to that information because it's floating around somewhere.

am i being too obscure here? a CAPABLE machine. not running windows. one that doesn't have ports open for bored l33t skript kiddies. one that can tell when someone's trying to haxx0r it. the only reason these children can hack a windows box is because they target the unprotected ones, and because their work is hard to detect. if the machine had some sort of self-awareness, it would know - just like you can tell when a chimpanzee is trying to steal your cellphone out of your hands while you're using it.

Plus I think privacy is more of a principle than anything. It's just that there are things people have a right to keep private regardless of weather it's important or not.

if you are planning to **** my children, i believe your right to privacy goes right down the toilet.

i'm thinking about a society where victimless crimes aren't crimes. if you want to sit in your room shooting skag into the roof of your mouth every two hours, that's fine. go right ahead. load up on acid? why not - i would. get drunk? not a problem. as someone - probably Heinlein - once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose." so, to sum up: do whatever the hell floats your boat, as long as you don't try to mess with my life.

next reply: someone compares me to George W Bush, because they think i want to wiretap everyone.

[sheramil]

there are some very predictable word filters here. and i'm scratching my head, wondering why i can say "fuck" but i can't say "****** ** ******".

[Jax]

No government.

[BloodredProject2402]

there is no such thing as no government, people will be unstable for a while and then powers will start rising and dominating eachother and then youll have like what they're having in africa.

[Jax]

Good, then all the stupid people will kill each other off.

Maybe if man had some CONTROL over himself and only himself, the idea of no government would be welcome. Why should I allow humans who cant control themselves to control me...or try too?

Its kinda like natural selection...but not.

[Jax]

Oh fuck it. Im down with communism. I dream about it every night.

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

excuse me; didn't i say "Not like Skynet?" if you have trouble imagining machines that don't want to destroy mankind, go read some Iain M Banks. his "Culture" novels have AIs and humans living together in perfect harmony, everyone's happy and this isn't at all far-fetched.

Just because you say, "not like skynet" doesn't mean that excuses the similarities between your ideas and skynet. It's still a very Orwellian invasion of basic privacy. You even said the difficult would be determining and setting these parameters would be difficult. Who would set these parameters? Whose basic values would they be calibrated on? All of these are values that can't be left to a machine and if they were how would that automatically lead to a harmonious relationship as opposed to antagonistic one?

So WHY wouldn't it be a skynet situtation? You never really said WHY it wouldn't be. Just, "it wouldn't be" is just very arbitrary...

[Black Spiral Dancer]

I agree with sheramil's original post. Sounds like a good idea, as long as it doesn't start thinking "These Organics are too much hassle, let's wipe them out and save me some trouble."

A machine government might be better than the one's we have.

[BloodredProject2402]

i think i have to side with jax on this one, the reason i posted this thread was to see if anyone else thought about communism. it is the ideal government as long as the people in charge stay clear headed and fair. anyways my plan would be to become the governer of texas, succeed, and then,well, become comunist while still pulling off being allies with america and canada...... thats the part i havent quite figured out yet.

[Morning Glory]

communsim is an economic principle, not a tool of governing people. communism means that business is non competitive. what exactly about one stop shopping coordinates people on how to live thier lives?

as far as the notion that it's impossible for people to go without government, that's true. But not because of a Darwinist notion of leadership, in fact the opposite. As I've said before in my post about relationships, it's peoples natural instict to collect into groups and then make decisions about how to operate as a group. nearly all animals have governments. we just don't think of them as government, as if the idea of a social structure is unique to the human "intelligence".

As a person that follows the ideals of anarchism, I can understand the wish for "no government". But as a person who naively followed that ideal to it's end, discovering the impossibilty of such a thing as a politcal system, I studied deeper into anthropology to find out the truths that I've just spoken of. It's only because we've made such a bloody mess out of human relationships that we desire to live a solitary existance. If social structures weren't beneficial over solitude, then everything wouldn't be participating in them. And if we lived them in such a way as thier true state, then we wouldn't be feeling any dissatisfaction over them.

So that being said, I'd say the form of government that seems to work best would be a tribal consesus confederacy. what we have now in america is a feudal regional federation. There's no such thing as a capitalist economy, just like a socialist government. These concepts have never existed in a society, other then in "primitive" ones that wouldn't understand the meaning of them because they don't know what property is.

I use the term consensus rather then "democracy" for the same conceptual reason I listed above.This covers the way the society is governed. I don't really know how to describe the one that we have now, it's not really a republic either. I guess the only definition that fits would be an oligarchy.

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

communsim is an economic principle, not a tool of governing people. communism means that business is non competitive. what exactly about one stop shopping coordinates people on how to live thier lives?

as far as the notion that it's impossible for people to go without government, that's true. But not because of a Darwinist notion of leadership, in fact the opposite. As I've said before in my post about relationships, it's peoples natural instict to collect into groups and then make decisions about how to operate as a group. nearly all animals have governments. we just don't think of them as government, as if the idea of a social structure is unique to the human "intelligence".

As a person that follows the ideals of anarchism, I can understand the wish for "no government". But as a person who naively followed that ideal to it's end, discovering the impossibilty of such a thing as a politcal system, I studied deeper into anthropology to find out the truths that I've just spoken of. It's only because we've made such a bloody mess out of human relationships that we desire to live a solitary existance. If social structures weren't beneficial over solitude, then everything wouldn't be participating in them. And if we lived them in such a way as thier true state, then we wouldn't be feeling any dissatisfaction over them.

So that being said, I'd say the form of government that seems to work best would be a tribal consesus confederacy. what we have now in america is a feudal regional federation. There's no such thing as a capitalist economy, just like a socialist government. These concepts have never existed in a society, other then in "primitive" ones that wouldn't understand the meaning of them because they don't know what property is.

I use the term consensus rather then "democracy" for the same conceptual reason I listed above.This covers the way the society is governed. I don't really know how to describe the one that we have now, it's not really a republic either. I guess the only definition that fits would be an oligarchy.

That seems really pessimistic to call America an oligarchy. True, the power can appear centralized into a small group's hands. I still have faith in American as a republic though. For the most part - in spirit the American government hasn't diverged insanely off track. I think most of the problems with American government stem from the people electing bad leaders or supporting poor choices. America is largely what people want it to be - most people are just too apathetic. America still functions off of elected representation. On the city, state, and federal levels. So it's not as though a small group has abrogated the intentions of the founders.

I wouldn't say that there's no such thing as a capitalist economy...since most people have jobs and most people pay for their posessions.

I wouldn't support a tribal concesus because that smacks of group think. At least the way I interpreted your description. Ignoring an apathetic public a republic fosters a variety of perspectives and a larger pool of ideas and beleifs. A variety of ideas is important for innovation...

[sheramil]

Just because you say, "not like skynet" doesn't mean that excuses the similarities between your ideas and skynet.

the whole Skynet thing goes all the way back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - Asimov called it the Frankenstein Complex - further back to Faust and even further back to Prometheus. there always has and probably always will be people afraid of change. and technology is a very capable agent for change.

a primate feeling self-satisfied with a newly invented weapon can't help but think "what if someone builds an even better one and uses it against me?"

same deal with technology escaping control. i'll bet that one goes back to the first ape who ever deliberately spread a forest fire, only to see it burn their own tree down as well.

playing on peoples' fears has always been a staple of dramatic fiction and horror films. that's why Skynet was devoted to eliminating mankind rather than trying to sell us online porn.

there aren't any real safeguards against machine rebellion. there's a principle that goes: "Treat your inferiors as you'd have your superiors treat you." Vernor Vinge, in his essay on artificial intelligence and the Singularity, stated that the benefits to living by this rule are hard to list, but just by imagining it in work you can see the benefits. unless the machine was somehow directly threatened by humanity it wouldn't have any reason to eliminate us. what other reasons would it have? Dr John Lilly (also known as The Dolphin Communication Guy, and as The Guy Who Took Too Much Ketamine And Went Crazy) supposed that machines would always fight against organic life because organics are "based on water and water makes machines rust."

i hope you can see the absurdity of that.

do people and machines compete for resources? i don't think so. living space? that's a primate need; you never hear of network servers demanding a bigger closet.

the supposed fight over energy between humanity and the machines in the Matrix films was one of the most obvious failing points; they tried to cover it up with hand-waving about "scorching the sky" and ".. combined with a kind of cold fusion". anyone who's read Pournelle's rants about free solar energy in orbit knows there's more power out there than anyone on Earth needs, even if you happen to like smelting platinum in your back yard.

what could people and machines compete for? bandwidth? food?

hugs?

It's still a very Orwellian invasion of basic privacy.

since you like the word "Orwellian" so much, you'll appreciate *why* Big Brother was spying on people 24/7; the EngSoc rulers couldn't tolerate ANY independant thought.

this governmental AI wouldn't be about making sure a gang of freedom-fighters wasn't about to stage a raid to shut it down; it would be about making sure that the obvious nutcases aren't out at night with razors, collecting eyeballs. checking to see if that new family is working out, what with the father drinking heavily and smashing stuff. spotting the drunk teenagers who stole a car, went joyriding and are now about to wrap themselves around a pole.

You even said the difficult would be determining and setting these parameters would be difficult. Who would set these parameters? Whose basic values would they be calibrated on? All of these are values that can't be left to a machine and if they were how would that automatically lead to a harmonious relationship as opposed to antagonistic one?

okay then. whose values? mine. because i'm the one typing the commands into the console. i know i'm not the best choice for forcing moral choices on people, but i do believe i'm a hell of a lot better than, say, corporate heads whose factories shit all over the environment because they imagine they're above the law. or Xtian priests put in charge of children, who then beat the kids to death out of a sense of their own impotence, or parents who can't handle the burden of bringing up a baby that needs constant care and accidentally on purpose kill the child. i concede i'm not the best, but i am far from the worst.

ideally this machine wouldn't be threatening you with instant death because you open your hard-boiled egg from the big end rather than the little end, but if you spend the evenings with an unloaded rifle, leaning out of a fourth floor window and leading the pedestrians as they pass, the machine would certainly keep a couple of cameras on you.

if someone was promoting a bill in the courts to ease restrictions on dumping waste, the machine would be able to see all of the possible ramifications and would insist on adding riders to prevent abuses of the bill (ideally all of that garbage would be completely recycled, but that's another SF fantasy).

this whole idea goes back to an essay by David Brin; the gist of it was "what are you doing that you don't want surveillance cameras to see?", trying to emphasise the good points of all-pervasive surveillance.

[BloodredProject2402]

what all of yaall say is true............. morning glory what do you call what russia has then, if its not economy i dont think ive ever heard of thier government then......i do see where you are coming from though.

[sheramil]

further to what my principles actually ARE, i tend towards Robert Anton Wilson's "as long as i'm not bothering you i can do whatever the hell i want".

"bothering" covers everything from playing my Tool MP3s too loud late at night, to napalming your vegetable garden. it also includes any attempts to restrict other peoples' freedoms. sure, the church moralists won't like it, but you know what? fuck them. fuck them twice with a McCulloch chainsaw. if they don't like things here in Cyberfreedonia they can sod off and start their own civilisation.

oh, and one more "one more thing" - if people didn't like living under this system they would be free to leave. and if people living in other systems didn't like living where they were, they should be able to come and live under the all-seeing protecting gaze of The Machine. North Korea, i'm looking at you.

[sheramil]

what do you call what russia has then, if its not economy i dont think ive ever heard of thier government then......

the Russians gave up on their noble experiment with Socialism Lite. right now the official stance is Very Confused while most things are run by organised crime.

[Morning Glory]

well in theory Russia was supposedly a socialist government. I guess the government that it's most fitting of would be an Empire.

[Morning Glory]

That seems really pessimistic to call America an oligarchy.

how so? I think you are getting the idea that I'm saying any such system is better or worse then another. that's not true. they all are just as good. some of them just have worked better then others. It's people that are fucked up, not concepts. if you had a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by ghandi, then it would probably be pretty sweet. I just say that america is an olgarchy becauses it's ruled by a group of people. I does have segments of a republic, but I don't think that it can really be defined as such. all of these concepts are really kind of vague and easy to branch off from, that's why most governments use several different ones at the same time.

I wouldn't say that there's no such thing as a capitalist economy..

well the whole idea is a little fuzzy to begin with. It means an ecnomic system based on capital- which is redundant. all economic systems are based on capital, that's the defintion of an economy. even a barter system. but what it really means is a free market, which is the idea that anyone can own and sell capital. That's the theory, the reality is that most people in america don't own capital. That's really what I mean by feudalism, that a minority owns all of the capital and leases it out to everyone else.

I wouldn't support a tribal concesus because that smacks of group think. At least the way I interpreted your description. Ignoring an apathetic public a republic fosters a variety of perspectives and a larger pool of ideas and beleifs. A variety of ideas is important for innovation...

I don't really see the conflict here. that's my whole point, that a government needs to be made up of smaller groups for the entire purpose of furthering more perspectives. it's just a simple matter of numbers. the larger the groups of people are, the more out of touch they are going to be with thier leader(s). I don't mean just one tribe, that wouldn't get anything done, and we'd have so many useless roles in society, like we do now, hence the call for a confederation.

[BloodredProject2402]

i guess im up for confederation too

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

there aren't any real safeguards against machine rebellion. there's a principle that goes: "Treat your inferiors as you'd have your superiors treat you." Vernor Vinge, in his essay on artificial intelligence and the Singularity, stated that the benefits to living by this rule are hard to list, but just by imagining it in work you can see the benefits. unless the machine was somehow directly threatened by humanity it wouldn't have any reason to eliminate us. what other reasons would it have? Dr John Lilly (also known as The Dolphin Communication Guy, and as The Guy Who Took Too Much Ketamine And Went Crazy) supposed that machines would always fight against organic life because organics are "based on water and water makes machines rust."

i hope you can see the absurdity of that.

do people and machines compete for resources? i don't think so. living space? that's a primate need; you never hear of network servers demanding a bigger closet.

the supposed fight over energy between humanity and the machines in the Matrix films was one of the most obvious failing points; they tried to cover it up with hand-waving about "scorching the sky" and ".. combined with a kind of cold fusion". anyone who's read Pournelle's rants about free solar energy in orbit knows there's more power out there than anyone on Earth needs, even if you happen to like smelting platinum in your back yard.

what could people and machines compete for? bandwidth? food?

The argument that there wouldn't be at least some competition for resources isn't totally correct. Even though there is a possible abundance of energy it doesn't mean there's necessarily an infrastructure to harness it. To power such a massive computer and it's all pervasive surveillence system would be a feat onto itself. Then to actually build all the surveillence devices and have the parts on hand for repairs would be quite daunting as well. Don't forget the earth is pretty big. It'd be mighty easy for someone to escape the watchful eye of this computer if there weren't cameras all over Earth. Earth may not be the largest planet but last time I checked, it's still pretty darn big. That's a lot of resources being devoted to powering and building this system - the same resources that would otherwise be devoted to man's needs.

EVEN if there was an appropriate infrastructure to power and build this system and there isn't competition for resources or space it doesn't mean conflict still wouldn't arise. Competition for resources isn't necessarily the only reason conflict could arise. Even if the computer didn't want to wipe man out there it is still an opressing force being imposed on man kind. If this master computer were to be in charge of watching over humanity wouldn't there be resistance to it similar to the normal resistance any authority figure faces?

since you like the word "Orwellian" so much, you'll appreciate *why* Big Brother was spying on people 24/7; the EngSoc rulers couldn't tolerate ANY independant thought.

this governmental AI wouldn't be about making sure a gang of freedom-fighters wasn't about to stage a raid to shut it down; it would be about making sure that the obvious nutcases aren't out at night with razors, collecting eyeballs. checking to see if that new family is working out, what with the father drinking heavily and smashing stuff. spotting the drunk teenagers who stole a car, went joyriding and are now about to wrap themselves around a pole.

If it's not, "about making sure a gang of freedom-fighters isn't about to stage a raid to shut it down," how would it survive? Something of this magnitude I imagine would require some degree of self preservation. The urge to preserve oneself can drive people to do some pretty crazy things - a computer couldn't be all that different. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that a computer would grow to fear independent thought.

Not to be redundant but it is still very Orwellian. In 1984 The Party was striving to create a utopian society. I imagine that's somewhat similar to the goal of this computer. To eliminate crime and to protect the citizenery at large. It's a slippery slope - it may start as a watchful eye but who knows where it can end up? How would it know who to watch without building up a dossier on every individual? Without building a background on every person how would it logically know who's veering closer and closer to the edge?

okay then. whose values? mine. because i'm the one typing the commands into the console. i know i'm not the best choice for forcing moral choices on people, but i do believe i'm a hell of a lot better than, say, corporate heads whose factories shit all over the environment because they imagine they're above the law. or Xtian priests put in charge of children, who then beat the kids to death out of a sense of their own impotence, or parents who can't handle the burden of bringing up a baby that needs constant care and accidentally on purpose kill the child. i concede i'm not the best, but i am far from the worst.

ideally this machine wouldn't be threatening you with instant death because you open your hard-boiled egg from the big end rather than the little end, but if you spend the evenings with an unloaded rifle, leaning out of a fourth floor window and leading the pedestrians as they pass, the machine would certainly keep a couple of cameras on you.

EXACTLY, whose values? It's not like this computer could spawn it self. There would be an inherent bias from day one. By design this seems to be an extension of an already far too invasive group of leaders. What about subtler issues? Like smoking? That can harm a person and people around the smoker as well via second hand smoke? Or gay rights? Or what about sex? How would it know if someone doesn't have some kinky **** fantasy?

this whole idea goes back to an essay by David Brin; the gist of it was "what are you doing that you don't want surveillance cameras to see?", trying to emphasise the good points of all-pervasive surveillance.

There's lots of things I don't want surveillance to see. I don't want it to see anything that's private. Things are kept private for a reason it's an emotional and human desire to keep things private. It's not enough to just say, "if you don't have anything to hide."

---

Not only that but nothing is ever perfectly secure - who's to say a person wouldn't be able to hack his way into the computer and invade anyone's privacy? Steal information about people? Identity theft would become an even greater problem.

How would it go about stopping people? Would there be a judge? Would it use humans to follow through on its findings?

[Agent Vicious Vivaldi]

how so? I think you are getting the idea that I'm saying any such system is better or worse then another. that's not true. they all are just as good. some of them just have worked better then others. It's people that are fucked up, not concepts. if you had a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by ghandi, then it would probably be pretty sweet. I just say that america is an olgarchy becauses it's ruled by a group of people. I does have segments of a republic, but I don't think that it can really be defined as such. all of these concepts are really kind of vague and easy to branch off from, that's why most governments use several different ones at the same time.

I wouldn't agree to that. True certain governments may work well on the basis of a good leader but that doesn't indicate that form of government is successful. That means that particular leader is successful. A good form of government should be able to function leader after leader regardless of their strengths and weaknesses. It should shine under strong leadership and survive under weak leadership. Then that's the quality of the form of government.

well the whole idea is a little fuzzy to begin with. It means an ecnomic system based on capital- which is redundant. all economic systems are based on capital, that's the defintion of an economy. even a barter system. but what it really means is a free market, which is the idea that anyone can own and sell capital. That's the theory, the reality is that most people in america don't own capital. That's really what I mean by feudalism, that a minority owns all of the capital and leases it out to everyone else.

capitalism n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

America does have a capitalist system by definition. There are numerous privately owned companies.

A lot of people lack capital because they don't save. There's nothing explicitly keeping anyone in America from gaining capital. A lot of it's just people don't save wisely and waste their money.

I don't really see the conflict here. that's my whole point, that a government needs to be made up of smaller groups for the entire purpose of furthering more perspectives. it's just a simple matter of numbers. the larger the groups of people are, the more out of touch they are going to be with thier leader(s). I don't mean just one tribe, that wouldn't get anything done, and we'd have so many useless roles in society, like we do now, hence the call for a confederation.

Well the word "concesus" has a group think connotation - at least how I read it. Your particular confederation descritpion doesn't distincitly differ from America's representative republic. How would being a confederation necessarily change anything? That wouldn't change the size of a population. The whole point of a reprsentative republic is for groups of people to be able to turn to their congressmen who then turns to the federal government.

[BloodredProject2402]

i think the people dont know what they want and if we give one group what they want then the other will turn on the government so why not just brain wash the genral public, take over, and be done with it?

[Jax]

Howabout we all just be National Socialists. Better than Bush;]

Sadly.

[BloodredProject2402]

lol, cuz then we'll have no one to kill or anything to do....how boring.

[bohoki]

its hard to come up with a method to govern people without immediatly obvious flaws

i like a nation of laws and clearly defined freedoms

but the first thing i would instate that everyone is required to learn law and become lawyers(just another subject in school you need to pass) before you can recieve a drivers licence , insurance will be bought at the pump included in the price of gasoline,if you want more insurace you can pay extra throug private insurace

health insurace will be placed as a tax on foods porportional to its health rating(super healthy soylent gruel paste will be tax free)

human life will have a value if you take a life(unexcused)you will be charged a pro-rated fee according to their age
prisoners will work untill their debts are paid

people can be allowed to sell their organs

every one has the right to choose , even prisoners

prostitution is only legal if enacted through a written contract with all terms specified(every one is a lawyer remember)


there will only be one age of majority and it will be hmm
19 and 1 month old, only then can you apply for a licence vote,buy pistols ,rifles, drink,smoke ,take pills shoot smack,steroids whatever, be held accountable as an adult(althought you can accumulate criminal debt as a minor that will become due )

[BloodredProject2402]

pretty good but wat about the 14 year old punk kids who dont want to pay for insurance when they go down to the local quicky mart just to get a damn soda?

[Mr Karl]

Howabout we all just be National Socialists. Better than Bush;]

Sadly.

might as well

[Mr Karl]

I used to think about stuff like this a long time ago, and you know what it's a waste of time!

How many people are there? how many are in charge? well if all those people decided one day that they were all pissed off then they should all go and make a nice bloody mess of the leader, what? like who's going to arrest 20 million people? maybe then the next guy will think before he goes for a job like that.

That's why thinking about stuff like this is a waste of time, cause try to get more than a few people actually to .......

a forget it

[Bondage Clown]

Ninja's and Pirates

[Buster Friendly]

gub'ment cheeez

[sheramil]

but the first thing i would instate that everyone is required to learn law and become lawyers(just another subject in school you need to pass) before you can recieve a drivers licence...

because the one thing the world needs is more lawyers.

(shakes head) Ma de mo kau ah.

[BloodredProject2402]

wat does Ma de mo kau ah.mean?

[Chaotika]

Ninja's and Pirates

Yaaar!!
That's a good one
Call me a weirdo, but I would prefer to have no government or advanced civilization at all. Why don't I get the option of living naked in the jungle in some hunter/gatherer tribe?
*sigh*

[BloodredProject2402]

u can, just go to south america, just dont expect to live very long....

[sheramil]

wat does Ma de mo kau ah.mean?

www.insultmonger.com

under swearasaurus.

i think, from memory, it's Cantonese.

[sheramil]

Call me a weirdo, but I would prefer to have no government or advanced civilization at all. Why don't I get the option of living naked in the jungle in some hunter/gatherer tribe?

if everyone lives naked in the jungle, you don't get the option of living in a city with a sewage system, clean running water and electricity.

if the city exists, you at least have the option of running off to the jungle if you want. it's a matter of choice...

... weirdo.