posted by moonlightbae on September 8th, 2015 at 7:56PM
I am perfectly fine with them, but other people would probably be rude and point them out harshly, wouldn't want her hurt.
That is the truest sentence I have read, the only idea that pops in my mind of how that could've been done was that they were being paid to agree with others.
Wouldn't want to sound stereotypical, but usually the people who go against the government are named as 'rebels.' Thinking of how the world would be without the rules followed today is actually terrifying, there would be so much freedom people wouldn't even know how to react. It would be a mental asylum outdoors, that is the only way that I could actually phrase it.
That is the truest sentence I have read, the only idea that pops in my mind of how that could've been done was that they were being paid to agree with others.
Wouldn't want to sound stereotypical, but usually the people who go against the government are named as 'rebels.' Thinking of how the world would be without the rules followed today is actually terrifying, there would be so much freedom people wouldn't even know how to react. It would be a mental asylum outdoors, that is the only way that I could actually phrase it.
|
posted by dennisn on September 8th, 2015 at 8:09PM
You probably don't want to change her, just to appease other assholes :p. Is that really the only reason you point out these flaws in her--just to protect her from other people?
About anarchy, if people really were afraid of psychos running around the streets, obviously they would buy protection services. Having "no government service X" doesn't mean that nobody will provide "service X", only that it won't be forced upon people, and many possible people can compete to provide that service... which should mean that it'll be far cheaper and better.
|
