That isn't the problem, or at least certainly not the whole problem.

They want the money and they have no ability to effectively collect it from the person whom the courts regard as obliged to pay it: the customer.

Nothing about the way the several governments of the United States of America levy and collect taxes is anything at all like anarchy.

Calling the varieties of tax policies in the states of a federal republic "anarchy" is like calling the ascension of an absolute monarch based on his divine bloodline "democracy".

I dislike politicians as much as anybody, but seriously?

You know you can go into any hardware store and get metric automotive tools, right? They're not even any more expensive.

We can only hope this is as successful as the drug war. All of the violence may have been tragic, but it was worth it to live in a world where no one ever smokes weed.

I don't think it would work. I doubt that Summer Glau, while a she is right purdy lady, can pull off 17 anymore.

Now, I would love them to do another season or two, I just don't think a timeline that involves Wash and Book would work.

I agree, they shouldn't have to put up with that. Maybe you should stop doing it.

Supercars are statistical outliers. If they're using those cars to cheat mpg fuel efficiency requirements, it's so they can avoid raising the mileage of ordinary cars like the Passat. If you're an environmentalist or a peak oil weirdo and you're worried about supercars, you're wasting your time.

Mine too. 1980. Station wagon. Rust colored. (Not rusty, rust colored.)

That terrible car has a special place in my heart.

I suspect that's it's more about white busy bodies trying to help those poor white people who can't face history.

We have always been at peace with East Asia.

So when you buy corporate stock, you cease to be a person deserving of rights?

Like whom, for example?

The debate we're currently having is about the meaning of words "right" and "privilege", not whether people deserve any particular rights or privileges. In that context, constructing a grammatically incorrect use of the words in question does not actually address my point.

However, I will attempt to address the argument I think you're trying to make.

Rights are inherently inalienable. Privileges are subject to the whims of those that grant them.

If rights can be given and taken away, what separates rights from privileges? Practical example: Is it just and proper that a person in the US or Western Europe can criticize his government and a person in China may not?

My government does a lot of things that I don't agree with. That concept of rights is dangerously flawed, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

If social services become human rights when a society is prosperous enough to provide them, do they then cease to be human rights when that society goes into decline?