The Fuk?
Jul 2, 2008
Material Points:
Local Time:
9:50 PM
Total Ratings:

Post Ratings

Received: Given:
Like 650 453
Dislike 0 0
Rude 0 0
Agree 0 0
Disagree 0 0
Informative 0 0
Useful 0 0
Creative 0 0

Awarded Pins 1


The Fuk?

Dead, Male


Goodbye KHV. You've been okay. Dec 5, 2015

    1. Makaze

      I don't believe that. I don't believe that this country could collapse and the people wouldn't seek to start a new government.
      You wouldn't, being passive like that. Everyone I have met who has been willing to discuss the subject has come to the same conclusion—that anarchism is a good idea, but people will never buy it.

      If just the few hundred that I have spoken to decided to work together on what they all say is a good idea, why wouldn't it work among them?

      People will do what they are taught, and they have been taught to trust and depend on government. If they are taught something different, maybe they will take what they already acknowledge is the better choice.

      The problem is re-educating so many people.

      What makes you think people wouldn't put up with deception for security? What happens the weak links are sorted out and are out of business? Only the strongest will survive, and in that sort of competition, it will end up just like it is today. Private security will become a monopoly.
      Eventually, yes, but again, that is an argument for sustainability. No system is sustainable into infinity. In a democracy, evil people will eventually take over, and be far more dangerous thereby. It will not go on forever. Neither in a state socialist society will it be able to function without tyranny from the overseers. The difference there is that you give them the tools to do so of your own will from the start. It is in the original plan for evil to prevail when you create the position from the get-go.

      You argue that we should create a government monopoly because we fear a private one.

      "I do not want to die, so I will shoot myself now."

      Anarchism will not cure all ills, it will just cure the biggest one... As long as people hold the principles close to heart.

      It is better to go from freedom to tyranny to freedom than to go from tyranny to tyranny to tyranny, which is what you are suggesting.

      Once again, how do you expect any entire population to remain true to the anarchist ideals? What happens to the ones that go against it? Do you let these people live?
      Of course. I do not expect everyone to be good, I just expect a vast majority to be anarchists because what is good for others is good for them. Before compulsory education and the industrial revolution, there was very little government and the average person shared many anarchist traits. The only president I respect, Thomas Jefferson, was a philosophical anarchist:

      "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

      Philosophical anarchists do not believe in the sovereignty of the state. They feel that the state has no right to enforce and feel that the individual has no obligation to obey; that it is a co-existence that is allowed to happen only so long as the state enforces only anarchist laws. Basically, the philosophical anarchist is the guy who would be willing to see if the democratic model works while still believing in anarchist principles.

      The democratic model has not worked, and I bet Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

      My view can be stated as, "The more anarchists there are, the better the world will be." Anarchist ideals have been the common ideal throughout history until they started factory farming humans in schools, and without government schools I feel that anarchism is the natural conclusion of the freeborn individual. Does that help you get the picture?
    2. LARiA
      Apathetic in the face of others' miseries? If said other is an unknown, that is. A lack of imagination prohibits much empathising, an inability to place yourself in the shoes of the worse off allows for a careless attitude. It's a far swig, how far off am I?
    3. Makaze
      They won't be safe, though. You won't be able to do anything without fear before too long.

      I understand that you can't trust them, but the fact is that very few people will come onto your land uninvited. In fact, the people most likely to come onto your land uninvited are government officials.

      The question you should ask yourself is, what don't you trust them with? Do they currently have control over it? How could you limit their control over it?

      No matter what you are afraid of, it doesn't do to quake in fear.

      To be honest, the economy is going to collapse (bank runs, lack of school funding, lack of anything but military and police funding) either way and anarchist society will hopefully rise from the rubble. Not in the next five or ten years, of course, but perhaps over the next thirty.

      What you should fear most is people doing things without natural competitors and consequences. In a free society, everyone is at the mercy of everyone else, and everyone is essentially equal. In a state society, there is a specific class of people who have no repercussions for their actions. Anyone who wishes to avoid consequences should seek out government office in order to both gain more power and avoid repercussions. The private sector is too dangerous, because the police will come against you. But if you want to be safe from other people, then the safest position in the world is in a government office chair.

      In a free society, no one, no matter how untrustworthy, would be able to gain such a position of invulnerability, and because everyone is vulnerable, everyone can be more "trusted", or kept in check. They will have economic incentives to be decent (not guaranteed a job, must be likable; not guaranteed customers, must be ethical) and will have less incentive to be dishonest, violent or a thief (anyone else could arrest them and force them into a disputes court). There would be absolutely no way to avoid such an arrest save literally going on the run. They would have no authority to hide behind.

      The anarchist is usually someone who both distrusts people in the extreme and sees that they are untrustworthy because they were raised by the untrustworthy and that the system allows them to be untrustworthy, to the point that untrustworthiness is encouraged by the current definition of order.

      As Kropotkin said:

      "When we ask for the abolition of the state and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!"
    4. Makaze
      What are you afraid of, then? The unknown?

      If you live in the US or the UK, things are pretty much going to fascism and economic collapse, so the unknown should start looking better to you at some point...
    5. Makaze
      In that case, doesn't it make even less sense to give people more power than you?
    6. Makaze
      While I acknowledge the notion that you cannot understand how it would work, a state is provably a bad idea.

      If you were raised in a school and taught to respect authority repetitively, it has probably greatly affected the way you think about the way the world works.

      No matter what you believe, and I urge this of those who believe what I say straight off too, is to break down and find flaws in what you believe right now. Remove yourself from the equation, take no side, and tear it apart as best you can. Don't stop, either. Every time you take on a belief and are faced with a contrary one, tear your own down.

      When you are free of loyalties and criticize all systems as if you are the judge, independent of society and teaching, you are then free to imagine how something could work.

      The problem seems to be that you are afraid, or simply do not see how things could work without the current structure. The difference between us is that I see how things could work and could go wrong in all systems, and the chances of a state going wrong are 100% while anarchist societies have less than 100%. I never counter something I do not understand because I see that as intellectual laziness.
    7. Makaze
      But how do you continue to keep those principles? How do you keep so many people from changing their ideals?
      You don't. You just take care of disputes in an anarchist fashion. In the US, how do you keep people from changing their ideals? You don't. You just take care of the dispute in a state court fashion.

      What happen when one side can't pay? What's to stop private defense agencies from becoming too corrupt? This sounds a lot like the current court system we have, where someone with money can provide a better lawyer and have an unfair advantage.
      Competition. The more corrupt an agency is, the less support they will have from the community.

      The difference is that in my system, the two lawyers have to agree on a verdict. There is no "winning", they have to resolve the dispute by agreeing.

      Bribery will always be a problem in any society, but as I have seen first hand, blacklisting, boycotting and ostracism are very effective among anarchist communities. If you want a personal example, I can provide the case of someone who was taking advantage of the liberty movement to molest women involved. My friends and I caused the information and testimonies of the women to spread and he was effectively banned from any libertarian left events across the US without police involvement.

      Who pays these people? No government funding means it would be all up to the parties involved.

      What happen when one side can't pay at all?
      In today's system, what happens when people can't afford a lawyer?

      Because anarchist court theory is not based in the authority of a third party's rules but rather on the wills of the two parties having the dispute, the person could represent themselves or call for a jury, which I'm sure could be arranged voluntarily. Like I said, anarchists are activists and they would probably show up to major disputes just to write a review of the companies involved.

      Theoretically, in a community where no one gave a ****, the guy without money would be screwed. But a society of people not giving shits is not an anarchist society. In fact, today, we have a society of people who don't give too many shits about corrupt verdicts.

      You make it sound like the free flow of information is powerful enough to keep things under control, and it's not. I don't underestimate, I think you overestimate it. What's stopping every private agency from becoming corrupt and working against the people?
      Other agencies, and the people themselves who would rather avoid corruption. Once again, your argument is that we should instate a government to avoid private companies from becoming them.

      In a market where multiple such agencies exist, they would constantly be on the lookout for a chance to one-up each other and gain more customers. Assuming that the public wants an agency that is not corrupt, other agencies will jump on a corrupt agency and arrest the criminals within it. The fear that another agency could do this to you if you pissed the people off enough creates an economic incentive to stay on the straight and narrow.

      On the other hand, if you create a company that has no competitors, as you suggest, then what is to stop them from becoming corrupt? They have no economic incentive. The only thing that might stop them is a boycott by the people... And you are seeing how the Occupy movement is going.

      People not knowing what to expect and people not caring are the greatest threats to any society. In a society full of Ghandis (Ghandi was a professed philosophical anarchist), such a corrupt company would never be able to take advantage of that society because they would not go along with it.

      You could then say "but eventually", but then you are arguing for sustainability. If you bother, then I will counter you when the bridge comes.

      On another note, what happens to all the government funded programs and services? What happens to funding infrastructure? Schools? NASA? How will all these government funded services and business stay operational without taxation? Without labor laws, what's stopping corporations from getting richer and richer and paying their employees less and less? What happens to employment benefits?
      All of those services and programs have a market demand and were once private. In fact NASA has more or less been given up on and the first private rocket just sent supplies to a satellite unfunded by federal money.

      If people want a service, they will buy it. If they do not want it, they will not buy it. If you have to force someone to buy a service, is it really a service to them? Furthermore, is it ethical to force someone to buy a service? What is next, forcing them to continue being alive?

      I don't think the human race is able to handle these things you suggest. There are many people who are too greedy and selfish to co-exist properly in the world that you're imagining. I know because I'm very selfish and I have been through too much at the hands of other people to believe that we're able to live in a society like this. I'm sorry, but I don't really want to discuss this any more and I'm sorry I started this. I didn't mean to insult you or your beliefs. You make some very good points, and have some good ideas, but overall, I just don't possibly see how it could work.

      "So you're going to go on record stating that in Voluntaryist Utopia, everything that is currently provided to the citizenry by the state would continue to be available to everyone in at least an equally hassle-free manner?"

      The term "Libertopia" is similarly used to imply that libertarians expect that everything will be perfect (for some value of "perfect" defined by the complainant) in a free society.


      ‎"OMG, you want to abolish rape? You stupid utopian! OK, then tell me how guys are gonna get laid, huh? How's that gonna happen? Unless you can guarantee that every single guy everywhere is getting laid constantly in your system of 'non-rape', then you are a utopian and your system can't work!" (JG)

      Longer version:

      Frequently voluntaryists are attacked with the baseless assertion that voluntaryism (anarcho-capitalism) is a "utopian" philosophy. By that what is generally meant is that it assumes and relies on all men being good, or at least (in context) respecting the non-aggression principle. Despite the reams of literature about crime and punishment in a free society, this fallacy is perpetuated. From Books/ForANewLiberty (Rothbard):

      While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and “extreme” ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a “utopian.” The true utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The utopian goal of the left: communism—the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity—could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction.

      In short, the term “utopian” in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the rightness of the doctrine. “Utopian” in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently “practical” result generally scorned by true utopians as evil “materialism.”

      The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.
      On the contrary, it is those that think, despite history, the nature of man, and all logic, that a government will remain limited, that are utopians:

      Thus, even in the United States, unique among governments in having a constitution, parts of which at least were meant to impose strict and solemn limits upon its actions, even here the Constitution has proved to be an instrument for ratifying the expansion of State power rather than the opposite. As Calhoun saw, any written limits that leave it to government to interpret its own powers are bound to be interpreted as sanctions for expanding and not binding those powers. In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government—an institution with a coercive monopoly of force over a given territory—and then hoping to find ways to keep that government from expanding. The libertarian alternative is to abstain from such a monopoly government to begin with.

      If we look at the socialist program advanced sixty, or even thirty years ago, it will be evident that measures considered dangerously socialistic a generation or two ago are now considered an indispensable part of the “mainstream” of the American heritage. … In fact, one of the reasons that the conservative opposition to collectivism has been so weak is that conservatism, by its very nature, offers not a consistent political philosophy but only a “practical” defense of the existing status quo, enshrined as embodiments of the American “tradition.” Yet, as statism grows and accretes, it becomes, by definition, increasingly entrenched and therefore “traditional”; conservatism can then find no intellectual weapons to accomplish its overthrow (Ibid.)

      Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them. If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is said directly—“You are a dangerous experimenter, a utopian, a theorist, a despiser of the laws; you would shake the basis upon which society rests.” (Bastiat, The Law)
      So let us hear no more of this folderol of a voluntaryist belief in “perfect people” or utopianism, which we see is rather a bit of the pot calling the kettle black coming from any statist.

      Interestingly, the original, i.e. Thomas More's Utopia was much more like socialism or communism and was almost entirely unfree. Of course, that does not mean the term could not be more widely applied if it fit; the problem is that it clearly does not.

      Stefan Molyneux writes in Books/PracticalAnarchy:

      First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. To be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherworldly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible. Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases—in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society because some people are bad, and a free society will not make them good.
      He continues discussing societal makeup and the implications of various combinations of good and evil and how none of them justifies a state:

      Two objections constantly tend to recur whenever the subject of dissolving the State arises. The first is that a free society is only possible if people are perfectly good or rational. In other words, citizens need a centralized State because there are evil people in the world.

      The first and most obvious problem with this position is that if evil people exist in society, they will also exist within the State—and be far more dangerous thereby. Citizens are able to protect themselves against evil individuals, but stand no chance against an aggressive State armed to the teeth with police and military might. Thus, the argument that we need the State because evil people exist is false. If evil people exist, the State must be dismantled, since evil people will be drawn to use its power for their own ends—and, unlike private thugs, evil people in government have the police and military to inflict their whims on a helpless and largely disarmed population.

      Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

      That all men are moral;
      That all men are immoral;
      That the majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral;
      That the majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral.

      (A perfect balance of good and evil is statistically impossible.)

      In the first case, (all men are moral), the State is obviously unnecessary, since evil does not exist.

      In the second case, (all men are immoral), the State cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The State, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of State retribution (police, prisons etc). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do. However, the State itself is not subject to any force, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail? Thus if evil people wish to do harm but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a State to exist, because evil people will immediately take control of that State, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.

      The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If this is the case, then the State also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the State will be evil, and will rule over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted to exist, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic will of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably take control of the State, and use its power to do their evil free of that fear. Good people act morally because they love virtue and peace of mind, not because they fear retribution—and thus, unlike evil people, they have little to gain by controlling the State. And so it is certain that the State will be controlled by a majority of evil people who will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

      The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the State, in order to shield themselves from retaliation. This option changes the appearance of democracy, of course: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills with the police and military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the State remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power—to the detriment of all good souls—and so the State cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

      It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically or morally be allowed to exist. The only possible justification for the existence of a State would be if the majority of men are evil, but all the power of the State is always controlled by a minority of good men. This situation, while interesting theoretically, breaks down logically because:

      The evil majority would quickly outvote the minority or overpower them through a coup;
      Because there is no way to ensure that only good people would always run the State; and,
      There is absolutely no example of this having ever occurred in any of the dark annals of the brutal history of the State.

      The logical error always made in the defense of the State is to imagine that any collective moral judgments being applied to any group of people is not also being applied to the group which rules over them. If 50% of citizens are evil, then at least 50% of the people ruling over them are also evil (and probably more, since evil people are always drawn to power). Thus the existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed existence.

      Why is this error always made? There are a number of reasons, which can only be touched on here. The first is that the State introduces itself to children in the form of public school teachers who are considered moral authorities. Thus is the association of morality and authority with the State first made, and is reinforced through years of repetition. The second is that the State never teaches children about the root of its power—force—but instead pretends that it is just another social institution, like a business or a church or a charity. The third is that the prevalence of religion has always blinded men to the evils of the State—which is why the State has always been so interested in furthering the interests of churches. In the religious world-view, absolute power is synonymous with perfect goodness, in the form of a deity. In the real political world of men, however, increasing power always means increasing evil. With religion, also, all that happens must be for the good—thus, fighting encroaching political power is fighting the will of the deity. There are many more reasons, of course, but these are among the deepest.

      I mentioned at the beginning of this section that people generally make two errors when confronted with the idea of dissolving the State. The first is believing that the State is necessary because evil people exist. The second is the belief that, in the absence of a State, any social institutions which arise will inevitably take the place of the State. Thus, Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), insurance companies and private security forces are all considered potential cancers which will swell and overwhelm the body politic.

      This view arises from the same error outlined above. If all social institutions are constantly trying to grow in power and enforce their wills on others, then by that very argument a centralized State cannot be allowed to exist. If it is an iron law that groups always try to gain power over other groups and individuals, then that power-lust will not end if one of them wins, but will spread across society until slavery is the norm.

      It is also very hard to understand the logic and intelligence of the argument that, in order to protect us from a group that might overpower us, we should support a group that has already overpowered us. It is similar to the statist argument about private monopolies—that citizens should create a State monopoly because they are afraid of a private monopoly.
    8. Makaze

      That's the problem with it. If the people aren't united, who will protect them when the people that are united decide to attack them? The entire world living together without fighting sounds great, but it just can't happen. War is inevitable.

      There's nothing wrong with national pride. Nationalism is dangerous, but there nothing wrong with being proud of what the people in your country have accomplished together. You don't have to think you live in the greatest country in the world to take pride in working together as a country and achieving great things. What kind of justice system would there?
      Your logic is that war is inevitable, therefore we should embrace it.

      Anarchists are united by principles and not by location. Solidarity, not patriotism. Do not underestimate the power of open source guerrilla warfare. It takes a decade for the US itself to defeat "unorganized" local militias and a small bands of terrorists.

      Also do not underestimate journalism and the internet in a free society. The free flow of information is the greatest defense in any society. Anarchists realize that open source warfare and sharing information is extremely important. The more people you have working on the same problem, the better you will do.

      Any "united" group that tries to invade and subjugate an anarchist society will have an extreme amount of trouble not only because anarchists are the type to have every household armed but they will continue to rebel and stir things up. Do you really think that a group of one hundred thousand anarchist civilians would be as easy to subjugate as one hundred thousand statist civilians? And you should already know how much trouble that is.

      Your argument is similar to this fallacy and can be countered similarly:


      "If there was a free society without a state, wouldn't warlords take over?"


      This is best answered by Robert P. Murphy's article, serendipitously named But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

      In a little more detail, (1) with a state they already have, and you're paying tribute and obeying their edicts, and (2) distributed power is a great deterrent.

      It must be realized that if there is one band with superior force, yeah, they're going to take over and possibly institute a state. "We must have a state to prevent the institution of a state" doesn't make much sense, however. Maybe "To prevent the institution of a worse state" but it's still just fear-mongering. The hope is that a free society will survive though education and distributed force—there are no prohibitions on building, importing, or trading arms—and be able to repel invasion from without and enslavement from within; but it is certainly possible it could fail… a guerrilla war might be fought to defeat the new tax-eaters; there are many possibilities.
      On a justice system, it would not be justice, but rather private defense. Anarchists believe that an individual is sovereign over their own property, especially their body, and that all transactions or transferals concerning property must be consensual on the parts of all parties involved.

      In the event that there is a dispute, or one of the parties does not consent, a court of sorts would be assembled. The structure would vary from person to person because it would be up to what service you bought, but the basic idea is that both sides would hire a private defence agency to judge for them. For simple disputes, each party would choose a judge for their side and hold a trial. The judges chosen by each side must come to an agreement in order for the dispute to be settled. If they cannot, then they must instead agree on a third judge to make the decision. The thing about anarchists is that they are very concerned about monopolies on enforcement (government) so these proceedings would be overseen by a large portion of the local community to avoid arrests behind closed doors.

      There will be private defense companies that will violate this, but there will be others in competition with them, and the free flow of information will ensure that they are boycotted or arrested themselves by a competitor if they engage in protection racketeering or the like.

      It should be noted that I do not profess to have a nirvana or utopia planned, and that problems will arise, but I feel that anything a state monopoly can do, a free market can do twice as well because it will have competition to drive it to excellence.

      The statist alternative is that we should avoid the problems anarchists fear by instituting them intentionally from the start and call it order. That is hardly a more efficient means of avoiding them.
    9. Hayabusa
      True...this is an annoying predicament :|
    10. Hayabusa
      Gah, I want to get it on PC for mods and teh graphics, but I also want it on Xbox 360 for playing with friends and sharing ;.;
    11. Hayabusa
      Dude right?

      What'd you get it on? My brother sold our PS3 copy, so I'm going to buy it again on either PC or Xbox 360.
    12. Hayabusa
      I've barely played it, but its cool, except for the spawn points my friend and I've had so far. I'll give more input when I've actually played a competent amount.
    13. Hayabusa
      Nevermind, 4 pianos. Missed one >.>
    14. Hayabusa
      Probably. I'll just say that there are 3 pianos in the game. Each time he plays, he gets better at it.
    15. Hayabusa

      And he learns to play his own theme song in the game...
    16. Hayabusa
      Good idea. My brother bought it for the PS3. I hated that, but I got used to the controls. Felt a bit like playing Uncharted again, except fun.
    17. Hayabusa
      You finish it yet?
    18. Hayabusa
      What about it exactly?
    19. Machazo
    20. reptar
      oh i meant ok
  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About



  • Loading...