In the last few hours it seems that the offer of yielding their entire chemical arsenal may put all of this into a different light.
First of all we must eliminate the possibility of the problem repeating itself.
Later on we can deal with identifying who is to blame and what the consequences should be.

In general, it is nonsensical to surmise that hitters deserve to be hit. The regression indicates that the entire world would be hitting each other.

Every time some government gets really stupid, they push more people into finding ways around it. IMO, it would be good to see more people using TOR - which at the moment seems to be filled with idiots, but could serve a much better purpose providing political safety.

No, not really.
Although I was talking about the US health system, and you are clearly not a supporter (who is?!) what I haven't heard is any alternatives that you offer, except for the right to self-determination.

The problem with that is that it sort of forgets that a market economy is governed by the inefficiencies of marketing - and profit-making. Neither of which are beneficial to the end-user. I wish it were so that humans were less prone to the mechanisms of advertising, but we are, and we make bad decisions on this.

You aren't stupid - but neither of us are going to change our views - let's agree to differ on this. No-one else is here, I think.

Of course - derived from the greek city states. But states are indeed an extension of society. Look how the concept of the nation state has provided the R&D opportunities to open up the world. The convention of the 'nation state' is a powerful one, which appears to have served us well. National pride, identity, and patriotism, all are focussed by the perception.

As the world gets smaller, it's true that the idea of the nation state begins to lose it's strength over to larger federations of states - something which you feel threatened by. The end-game is a world government. Not the puppet show that is the UN, but a global administration - but don't worry, it won't happen in our lifetimes. Especially while the US chooses to arbitrarily attack impoverished nations based upon trumped up charges.

Once, I guess, you believed that your mind was free.

Look at the marketing budget used by your top healthcare providers, and talk to me about efficiency.
I suggest you learn about Health economics, and likewise recognise that in the US, which has rejected universal healthcare to date (thanks to the lobbying made by big industry there), the per capita cost of healthcare is about $8,233 whereas everywhere else it's less, by about $3,000. Considering that the US has some of the worst healthcare provision, which itself is pretty dehumanising, I suggest you get back to your calculator and policy books.

Brother states help, because they know that they can receive help in kind when they need it. It's a form of mutual assurance, which is what we are pretty good at as a species. The difficulty, for me, is to envisage how a libertarian state could organise itself to assist anyone. Likewise, how would it involve the powerful from becoming miniature despots and tyrants or worse? Taxation is taxation, regardless of whether it goes to the state, or to the country.

In Europe, we have the EU, which is, in some ways, like a federation of states with an extremely diminished, non-executive, central government. Yes, about 0.5% of my income tax goes to the EU. while about 1% goes to foreign aid. The remaining 98.5% goes to the state, who spends it looking after the aged and destitute (35%), provision of universal healthcare (18%), provision of universal education (14%), national defence (5%), policing (3%), roads and rails (3%), and the remainder on things like investing in industry, and paying off the state debt, with a tiny amount going to intelligence, and the civil service.

If someone entered my house and took most of my permissions, it would only be theft if I did not consent. This is true regardless of the number. But your metaphor fails - I don't live in a communist country. I get to keep a lot of what I earn. Most, actually. I have a house, and a convertible, and fly around the world on holidays. But none of that is really very interesting.

Your last question is far more interesting:

Yes. Yes, I would. But it's not how you see it. If you belonged to a destitute family of 12, with nine brothers and sisters, and you managed to go out and earn a couple of loaves, would you keep it for yourself, or would you share it with your family? I don't even have to share that much with my extended family of fellow citizens. But I am really happy that I am in a position to do what I can for them,

Typically in Western Europe spending goes to meet those in need. E.g.
UK Gov. Spending
        Total £715.3 billion
          Pensions £144.6 billion
          Health Care. £130.2 billion
          Education £99.3 billion
          Defence £44.6 billion
          Welfare £114.7 billion
                The rest is made up of investing in new industry, large social programmes, transport, and paying off debts.

I don't see taxation as a theft. I see it as a way for the community to provide for itself.

I am only going to respond in one place, Arker.
You speak of obligations and enforcement, but it's not like that; though it may look that way to you.
Every person has choice - we have the freedom to break laws just as much as we do to keep them. But most of us choose to stay within the law, because we prefer the company of law abiders; and there is a mutual benefit.

Humans are social by nature. Language - the internet - slashdot - is evidence of this. Social groups depend upon collaboration for success. The benefits of a community are subject to economies of scale - the larger the community, the greater the benefits. These benefits include disposable income, and what may as well be called 'free time' oe leisure time.

Just like as being in a household we do chores, and therefore live in a harmonious state, so do we have to accept some responsibility for the community that we are a part of, and this means aiding those in need, so that when we are needy, we too may benefit. This is most elegantly done through mechanisms such as taxation.

A successful community works for the success of every one of its members, and each member should expect that as a right; yes, universal education, healthcare, retraining, defence, etc. a community which is made of individuals who feel valued, who feel well-met, who feel responsible, and empowered, and engaged, and rewarded - is a community that has little crime, and more free time, more real money to spend.

You don't want to, or cannot, see this the way that I do. I am not misinformed, or deluded, or idealistic. Freedom of expression is important, as is free time, and disposable income, with liberty to spend that in any way I like. I submit that I have more choices available to me with the remaining 60% of my income and my 5 day week and 25 days of holiday than that you would with what was left after your pension plan, healthcare provision, education fees, national defence service, fire services, local policing, library contributions, road maintenance programmes, bank loans supporting new industries, postal programmes, and so on. not only do you have to end up paying separately for pretty much the same ride, but you have to manage each of those separately, and woot. You get to choose between the Blue fire brigade corp. or the red fire fighters company as to who to pay in case your house catches fire. if that's how you measure liberty, brother, you carry on.

I'm really happy having plenty of free time, and plenty of disposable income, and getting all of that paid for, looked after, and managed through my tax.

No, no-one is obliged to be fed, or looked after, within a welfare state. The language of 'enforcement' doesn't make any sense. In any free nation, It's citizens are willing, happy collaborators of their society.

No man should have more rights than any other.
No man should be denied a fair job with fair pay.
No man should be hungry. Or uncared for when ill or old or disabled.
No man should be denied a point of view.
No man should be uneducated.
Anything done on behalf of, in the interest of, or impinging in any way upon, should be done with informed consent.
Rights outweigh freedoms.
Democracy isn't just about voting, it's about being able to take part, to lobby, to represent, and to be represented.

I am against 'enforcement' as you put it. But I am deeply in favour of a common pool of resources, contributed to by all, and given to those whose needs are greatest.

I am not a US citizen, my views don't match any US polarity. my experience of a welfare state has been really positive. Imagine if you set up the state of "Libertaria" and it got hit by a plague, a tornado, flooding, and a massive crime wave; and the federal govt. said, "sorry, you don't pay federal taxes, you are on your own". Would that feel fair, or good? One feature of a centralised government is that it can deal very well with local crises, because it receives taxes from a large, stable area. This is one of the problems that inherently faces a decentralised state, regardless of it's polity.

Taxation creates jobs - it's involved in paying for the armed forces, the healthcare system, the educators, libraries, road networks, housing, new industry, and a whole lot of other stuff.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't think it applies, as I'm not a resident of the USA, as I made clear in my first post.

Read the first sentence of my original post. There was no twisting involved. It's a different culture.
I'm happy, content, satisfied and fulfilled. I don't need a shrink.

So that's the difference, I guess. For me, I don't see taxation as an obligation, but a privilege. Someone who doesn't want to pay taxes, can emigrate - and they do, all the time. We always have choices, unless we are in a police state.

Taxation is nothing more than a state charity. Your system depends upon charities competing with each other, lobbying, and marketing themselves (in the same advertising space as big industry - so most of their money gets eaten up by marketing), whereas a centralised mandatory charity doesn't need to do that. And I get to vote in who spends my money - and they do their best to listen to what I say.

I wish you had responded to my remarks about freedoms vs. rights. Taxation we will never agree upon. Just like I said in the first sentence of my original post.

No. The government provides a currency as well as it can. It does what it can to meet the population's needs. It's not great at it - many politicians are self-obsessed parasitic grubs - but not all of them.

The money that is used in taxes provides armed forces, universal healthcare, universal education, food, clothing and shelter for those who are out of work, pensions, transportation, social projects (such as supporting new and emerging industries). 5% of it goes to paying interest, which is a bit annoying.

It's a bit like a centrally organised compulsory charity, the governers of which are voted into position by me and my fellow citizens. Why would I be bitter about helping my nation? It gives me the ability to live the life that I choose, and provides fundamental rights for everyone within it.