If I could attempt one thing in life without the possibility of failing, I would get a college degree. But then again, there is a reason the phrase is "you earn a college degree." I am in college now and definitely struggling.

I would choose lottery but that has been chosen...

So I shall innocently enter a bank and rob it for trillions of dollars! If it's guaranteed I wouldn't be caught. Then I'd disappear to some far away random country.

If i could do anything and not fail, i would turn in my app for moderatorship, and not have second thoughts about it.

Not sure if this counts as money aspect.

I've been for a few weeks now preparing to open up my own small business, starting with a flea market stall.

Hope to make enough to have my friend work for/with me so we can afford to go on trips with our choir, which plans to go to France this school year (this years trips was Italy, and we couldn't go.), help my parents out with gas money and etc, buy my own things instead of asking them for money, and then I would have my own small business and workers experience to go on the blasted job application forms.

I would build a wicked awesome giant robot thing that talks and walks and knows everything!!

World Peace. Kind of suprised nobody mentioned that before.

TheMichaelOnline : Anti-state/pro-market? That's intriguing. I'm an economics guy and I'm curious as how a market will work without a state?

I hate to say it but that beauracracy we complain about keeps everything in good working order. Without a state entity, there's no enforceable proprietary rights. All heck would break loose.

The state holds up economies.

Tell me more, though. What do you think?

And I change my answer. I would try to learn every language in the world.

warmaker :

Well, I guess from a moral point of view, I tend to view the market as a complex web of primarily economic relationships based on mutually beneficial voluntary exchange and the state as a gang writ large that established something near a monopoly on such aggression and while trying to maintain such also tries to legitimize itself.

Even in order to protect people from and punish non-state sanctioned aggression such as common thieves and murderers, the state must sanction aggress against someone in the process, such as with taxation.

I simply believe that states, even minimal ones that seek to otherwise protect rights, employ aggression and such isn't justifiable and so the state isn't legitimate and the further they get (war on vices, public education, welfare, entitlements, global offensive military, regulating marriage, controlling infrastructure, bailing out firms and individuals, and so on) from even that nonsense claim to authority (violate rights to protect rights) the degree of illegitimacy, evil even, gets larger.

But this also doesn't mean I think things will be perfect without the state, that it'll even be gone for good or even a long time, or that the state will ever be done away with. One way to view it is like this, private crime is wrong but it will never be zero and the same goes for public crime. But it should still be at least condemned and reduced. I guess one could say I'm pessimistic in this regard... though, state aggression hasn't exactly been reduced in a long time!

TheMichaelOnline : You have some interesting ideas. I think free market economies are aggressive. Markets are destroyers themselves and can dominate and control people with the same level of aggression as governments. Think about all the people who made typewriters. They were removed from any kind of competition. There are winners and losers in markets and crushing someone's income can seem violent. That's why you see all the riots over the G summits in Seattle when globalization is discussed.

I think some states exercise an appropriate amount of force and control. I would prefer what I experience in the U.S. compared to an anarchy where there is no law or police force. If that happens, we'd make our own little groups and it would be dangerous to trade with other groups. Globalization and specialization are near impossible.

I see where you're coming from and you have some interesting thoughts. I still maintain that without major states using authority and control (derived from the potential to exercise violence), we would not be able to enjoy the global market as we do now. Information, technology, goods, services, and our quality of life would be as they are now. I support government as a necessary evil which is better than the one without government.

warmaker :

It is true that a person can harm another by wooing away a lady friend and customers, or creating a machine that replaces labor, and so forth, but I don't regard that as aggression because it isn't the initiation of violence against the physical integrity of the other self or property but a peaceful change in the structure of the web of voluntary relationships.

I believe you're mentioning trade agreements? I am opposed to those, I don't regard them as true free trade. No way that removing barriers to voluntary international exchange requires legislation that long or setting up new organizations. If a state actually wanted freer international trade it would just unilaterally reduce or abolish it's interventionism in the market.

Perhaps, as I said I don't have a problem admitting that I am in some sense pessimistic about the possibility and outcomes of my position in the most pure moral form (state is an intolerable evil), though I suspect my wariness is just lingering fear of the unknown, and I try not to be antagonistic with those who I consider to some degree kin in regards to political philosophy such as minimal statists (aka state is a necessary evil, though, at the same time I am skeptical that such is sustainable either, considering the nature of the power of the state, the characteristics of those who tend to become and succeed as politicians and bureaucrats, and so on). At least such people tend to oppose the war on vices, fiat money, global military posture, regulation of marriage, welfare, entitlements, bailouts and so on, which is far closer to my position than most by far in regards to politics and the state.

i will do my best and just like other people do...but all who post here have a point

I would make my own Touhou anime. Since I love the series and would like to contribute something to it, as well as draw anime stuffs. =3

I'd go for VIZZED Syndrome. I wish, though. =P

i would invent travel in all dimensions to be instantaneous and become known as well as einstein for it. By all dimensions i mean time travel up down left right diagonal goign through walls going to different dimensions and with that we can gain knowledge about everything and make a perfect world A EUTOPIA! I HAVE A DREAM....!!!

I would win the lottery. That's all I can think of that I would actually WANT to do.

I would like to win the lottery, if I can actually get to enter.

I wonder if that one attempt includes living cause I would chose not to fail life so would that make me immortal or just give me a life with little to no stress and live out in peace? Sorry if its a strange question.

Anything you say? I would become all powerful in that i'd ask to be a god. And using these powers I would solve the world's problems.


I'm curious why no one thought of that loophole.