Wow, I finally got some answers out of you, and, for one question, I only had to ask five times! So let's review your answers.
Leading question. Not worth touching.
This was in answer to my question, "What is asinine about asking questions to which the answers destroy your argument?" If you're not going to answer the question, then your implication that my questions are "asinine" is completely pathetic.
Again, I didn't slander you, just your ideology.
Please, a little more honesty. It's pretty clear to me that you think I'm a moron. Do you need me to go back and cut-and-paste the slanderous implications you've made against me?
Democracy. Now argue against it.
This is your answer? Pathetic! How can this be an answer when you can't even define the word "democracy"?
No, why, I know that people abuse power, this has little to do with the question, just your answer to it.
This was in response to my asking if you've read about Clinton's EO 13083. Your response is plain wrong, it has everything to do with the question. Your argument is that government only gains power when the governed consent to it. My argument is that government takes power without the people's consent. I am using Clinton's EO 13083 to support my argument. And now you are stating, "I know that people abuse power." So, do you agree with me that governments will take power without the consent of the governed?
No, why should states have anything to do with it. Why not address the umpteenth other ways the Federal gov't has grabbed power? What does it matter.
This was in response to my question about how many states violated their constitutions in ratifying the 16th amendment. "What does it matter"? Well, I'll tell you why it matters. The 16th amendment was fradulently ratified, but the federal government adopted it anyway and started taxing the people with an unconstitutional and illegal income tax. This supports my argument that the government seizes power without the consent of the governed, and it destroys your argument that the government only has power that the governed gives them. And here you are also agreeing with me that the federal government has "grabbed power." So much for your position.
Dunno, don't care. Did they? Why?
Because Hitler appointed himself chancellor. After that, he made the Nazi party the only legal party in Germany. After that, he implemented the "Final Solution." So much for the "consent of the governed," right?
Lots, what does it matter? (Godwin's law AGAIN)
More, yes, and?
You act as if this has no relevence. Stalin killed 100 million Russians. We know what Hitler did, but Stalin was far, far worse. This is big governments "greatest hits." Big government is responsible for more death, destruction, and misery than almost anything else in human history.
Because I live in a society, and not in some shack out in the boonies.
More slander from you. You treat me as if I am some kind of hermit who hates society, and then insist that you are not attacking me. You are a liar.
Furthermore, this is a pathetic answer. Humans are social creatures, and thus, by defintion, live in societies. This would happen regardless of the type of government these people lived under. What does this have to with allowing another to make decisions for you when you have admitted that you know they will make decisions worse than you can?
Where have I lied? That's a loaded accusation. Prove it!!!!
I'm happy to prove it. You claimed that you had answered my questions, and then I provided you with a list of my questions which you ignored. Sounds like a lie to me. All I did was go back through our dialogue and look for the question marks in my posts.
You hate big government, yet big government destroyed the Nazis, totalitarian Communists, and created the Internet.
Tell me exactly what laws and regulations destroyed the Nazis and the Communists. History tells me that it was armies that destroyed the Nazis and many, many factors which destroyed the Communists (not the least of which was the U.S. military action against the Communists). Furthermore, you state that big government created the Internet. Yeah, right. And big government runs Microsoft, Amazon, and all universities, too. More crap facts from you.
What you seem to be arguing for is some impossible ideal (that's why your ideology sucks) that did exist, or at least something close to it, and then had to change because people are smarter than you, and me. They learn to break the system. The only way to do keep them from doing this is to not educate them, which I can't agree with. Yes, we have too many laws, and lawyers, but rather than say it all sucks, why don't you work to fix it?
I am working to fix it. The fix is to get rid of it. Social (In)Security, Medicare, The Department of (fill-in-the-blank), The War on (Some) Drugs, all of it needs to go. We need a small government that preserves the liberty of individuals. Have you read any of Harry Browne's writings? If so, what parts do you specifically disagree with? If not, then what do you have to criticize? Me? I am a Libertarian, but I don't necessarily represent Libertarianism. It's not fair for you to be so anti-Libertarian when you aren't educated on what it is.
Let's test your honesty. I'm 26 years old. How old are you? I'm guessing a teenager, based on your limited understanding of most of this stuff and rote typing of someone else's worldview. Feel like being honest?
Yes. I'm 27. How would you know if I was being honest? Do you expect me to lie to you as you have lied to me ("I have answered your questions...")? And how did I "rote type" someone else's worldview? Please provide specific examples, and explain how this criticism cannot be levied against you for the way you've treated me. I remember questioning your ideology, but I don't remember type-casting it or you in any way.
Furthermore, your slander comes shining through once again, this time I am a "teenager" with which comes the labels of "immature," "arrogant," and "undereducated." Now there is no way you can claim that you were criticizing my ideology instead of me. Explain to me exactly what I have a "limited understanding" of. You apparently didn't want to get any more specific that "most of this stuff." Not very compelling. I'd say your criticism is more aptly attached to you! It is you who does not understand what "democracy" is (I have yet to hear a definition from you), it is you who continually mischaracterizes the views of the Libertarian party, and it is you who continues to distort facts ("big government brought down the Nazis"). Now, answer me: do you feel like being honest? It would be a welcome change!
-- Dare not to be in agony, but in truffles!
[ Parent ]