so, what you're saying is that national republicans are for privacy?

You pose an interesting question. Can one be free without privacy? Where government officials track and know the physical location of everyone; know when they get home; what they eat, read, spend their money on, watch on TV and everything else? Under such a watchful eye are you still a citizen of that society? Or are you something lower (maybe above a serf) but still not quit a citizen?

Just asking. I haven't an answer but I think an omnipresent state is almost indistinguishable from a police state.

I wouldn't call Britain, France, Norway (and others) as being a police state. But a police state also includes the scenario where citizens are micromanaged, are under the watchful and benevolent eye of the state apparatus AND they do not resist said micromanagement.

I see the US and the EU hurtling toward serfdom (as defined by Hayek)

Is there a difference between shooting an unarmed person fleeing the scene and having a shoot-out? I think so. I can't access these articles from work but simply tallying totals is not accurate. The phrase I reacted to was "gunning down civilians". That phrase implies something totally unwarranted. If the police are being fired, or they interfere in the course of a crime (say armed burglary) then those actions are not "gunning down civilians."

There would be a lot fewer shootings if the US police simply did not engage (as the French police simply do not engage in the banlieues.) If the French police did engage then there stats would sky rocket.

All the above does not mean that there isn't horrible actions done by the police; nor does it mean I excuse or condone those actions.

Do you have stats for that? In France what happens in the banlieues are, for the most part, unreported.

Yes we have gunning down of civilians? Give me figures comparing the US with Europe (from Norway to Greece and Iceland to Ukraine).

Bitcoin is traceable and is far more identifiable than most people realize.

Except for people who lurked and ACed for years or had an account that they abandoned for whatever reason.

Nothing is invisible and completely anonymous except ... maybe ... for professionals, and by professionals I mean people active in the crypto and surveillance fields. Your wallet is on a phone (a burner for each wallet which you haven't used for ANY other purpose); purchased where (in the same city where you live?); connected to the internet, which does what? connects to DNS, uses 4G towers? You can be traced.

The greatness of the bitchain is not complete anonymity from a rapacious, malicious government. It doesn't protect you from that. The cure to that is limited government. The way to get that is by electing people who want to limit government and not elect people who want to make it ever-so-bigger and more intrusive.

If we have a truly malicious government then bitcoin will not help.

Inadvertently modded you "Troll". This post cancels that.

The key phrase there was: "If you can get admitted to a German university, you will pay nothing (at least in tuition, that may not represent a totally free ride)."

Here anyone can go to college. Even those who can barely read, write, count (not talking about any so difficult as quadratic equations) and many have no desire to work or study hard.

Every dollar and ounce of energy we spend with them we don't spend on those that have the aptitude and desire as per the German system.

Not saying that we shouldn't give people second chances in life later on. We should. But to simply say "it's free" is not the solution.

If you want information for the love of information you needn't go to college for that. Nor should taxpayers subsidize your partying and making friends.

I have a degree in Art and a MA in history and I'm a programmer so I understand what you're saying.

Nonetheless college is for getting a J.O.B. Else just go to a bar and hang out there for 4 years.

It's an interesting question - but part of the problem is that universities expecting everyone to subsidize all their pet projects and programs. You can't learn everything in college. It's interesting that people who have contempt for a subject while in school (say art or history) can fall in love with it 20 years later. Furthermore there are plenty of places to learn just about any subject. You needn't learn in it a University and you certainly don't need to go into debt for it.

Universities are no longer places where those will money get well-grounded in the humanities. It's a place where you learn skills to get you ahead in the world. Universities are getting less and less relevant and getting 250,000 dollars in debt to go to a top ranked school does not make any sense. Sociology course should be taught on line and cost minimal dollars for proctored exams.

We shouldn't be promoting this option and we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing it.

No. 1. Stop forcing people to take courses that they don't want.

2. Stop subsidizing degrees that won't get you anywhere. A Women's Studies degree will not get you a job. Why should anyone subsidize another for taking those courses? If you're curious about a subject then take it on your own dime. (I have a MA in history - not very useful in the job market.)

Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for courses for your enlightenment. You want to spend time learn in depth about the rise of the concept of individual sovereignty; or the development of the market economy in the post-antebellum south - go ahead (but with your own money).

and? That's true but and that shows that Islam does not equal the salafist bullsh*t being promoted by ISIS et al.

Now that we no that Islam is not necessarily equal to ISIS then what? (if ISIS wins and converts all muslims to their viewpoint and / or kills the rest) then ISIS = Islam).

Provoked in what way? By saying - you don't want to eat pork? Fine. But f*** you for prohibiting it for me. You want to say praise muhammad go ahead. But if I want to say f*** muhammad then no laws or violence or threats of violence should be issued against me. If they do - they you (the oh-so-offended-defender-of muhammad) are the aggressor.