Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[Quantum Windbag]

Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.

Congress and the President work for We The People.

Government is a good thing.

We The People are failing because of monetary interests.

Let me see if I can explain this to you using small words.

The use of force to accomplish your goals is wrong. Using the government to accomplish your goals is using force. Forcing people to do things just because you can is evil. Ergo, government is evil.

You bring up a good topic. Using force to install rules.

When debating Liberty there is a question that always has to be asked.

"Necessity vs. Risk"

I'm sure you are mad right now because you probably think Liberty is Freedom and we need it no matter what!

There are HUNDREDS of examples but I always discuss Biker Helmets, because Bikers are generally Libertarians. Let's discuss the helmet "Liberty".

What does the Biker gain? Freedom of riding a motorcycle without a helmet. So tough!

What is the risk? The biker is very likely to lay the bike over when it hits an onslaught of things that aren't predictable.

So the gain may be Freedom but the risk is an entire family that has to visit you in the hospital when you are on the vent in critical condition driving up everyone's healthcare costs. You have now "infringed" the Liberty of your family members and the people in your healthcare network because you were too stupid to make a common sense decision.

Risk vs. Necessity.

Wow, that was almost an intelligent attempt to address the issues.

Almost.

Let's start this by looking at some definitions.

Liberty
1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

2a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits

3: an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health>
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
d : a distortion of fact

4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

Freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2
a : a political right

Gotta admit, I didn't see that one coming, liberty is the quality or state of being free, while freedom is the quality or state of being free. That means that you are wrong, liberty and freedom actually are the same thing.

As usual, you are asking the wrong question. The question is never what does the individual gain from government, it is what does he lose.

What does the biker lose? The right to legally exercise his inherent ability to make up his own mind. What does the biker gain? Ultimately, he gets a gun pointed at his head telling him what to do.

Is there a risk in not wearing a helmet? Of course there is, everyone knows that, but it is his choice, not yours. You do not have the right to tell any adult how to live their lives, the idea that you can is fundamentally evil. It is the same mindset that gave us Castro, Duvalier, Gaddafi, Ceausescu, Hitler, Hussein, Mussolini, Stalin, Tito, and all the other tyrants throughout history. It also gave us slavery, because everyone knows that those people cannot take care of themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.

Diversions?

The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.

Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.

Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........

Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech. What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up.

YOU seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.

I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!

Wow, wrong again.

FYI, it was Buckley v Vallejo that said that money is speech.

Buckley v. Valeo | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

As for banning books, that came straight from the mouth of Kagan's deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart during oral arguments.

For example, Stewart was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what would happen if a corporation were to publish a 500-page book discussing the American political system which concluded with a single sentence endorsing a particular candidate. Kagan’s deputy answered that such an endorsement would constitute “express advocacy” and therefore the corporation could only fund the publication of the book through a political action committee. “And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” asked the chief justice. “If they didn’t, we could prohibit publication of the book,” Stewart replied.
Even the most liberal justices, usually the most willing to curtail political free speech, seemed a little troubled. Justice David Souter asked what would happen if a labor union paid an author to write a book advocating the election of a particular candidate and then submitted the manuscript to Random House, which then agreed to publish it. The deputy solicitor general replied that he was unsure whether there would be a basis for suppressing such a book, but clearly stated that “the labor union’s conduct would be prohibited.”
Later, the argument turned to other forms of media that the government would have the right to censor. The implications of the administration’s position were so enormous that Justice Antonin Scalia seemed almost incredulous. He sarcastically interrupted to say “I’m a little disoriented here, Mr. Stewart. We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not; the one that I remember which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? That’s what we’re interpreting here?” With no apparent irony, Stewart replied, “That’s correct.”

Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? - Reason.com

Come back when you can debate me using actual facts, not stuff you make up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hyperbole? What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.

Hyperbole? Not hardly. Try history bub. I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country. When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed. Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists. You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.

Go ahead, I dare you.

I stopped reading at "Liberal and Capitalistic"..........The majority of Left Wingers are Capitalists and the majority of Liberals are Republicans. But I use the words by definitions.

Most Left Wingers notice the flaws in Capitalism. It doesn't mean they are all against it. The Right tends to see it as an attack on Capitalism and wants to attack them for it instead of fixing the flaws. It's like someone telling you that your motor isn't functioning properly and you put sugar in the gas tank , boy you showed them.

I've met very few Left Wingers that stand for what Fox news says they are. Most of them have guns and brains.

All the flaws in capitalism come from the same place your belief that Citizens United declared that money is equal to speech.

In case you missed the point, that means they all exist only inside your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.

It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.

The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?

When do you plan to start thinking for yourself instead of blaming all the facts that you don't like on Fox?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!

Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.

You never say it outright, but you imply it often. For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.

"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians." The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.

Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation. When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.

You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom. You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).

Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting. You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.

Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives. Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives? Different argument, I'll stay on topic). This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills. That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.

Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health. You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?

Holy shit. Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy? You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.

You are about to discover the wonders of a mind without bias that blames everything it doesn't like on Fox News.

 

[gnarlylove]

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?

That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.

The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.

The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.

My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?

That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.

The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.

The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.

My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.

 

[gnarlylove]

That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.

The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.

The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.

My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.

Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.

As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.

 

[Crystalclear]

I do not consider myself to be a liberal (a libertarian, so pretty liberal on many issues that are not fiscal), but there is one sort of politics I started despising more and more since I first visited this board: conservatism. It is just the hypocrisy, ignorance, total unrational arguments and just some idiot politic views.

 

[gnarlylove]

I do not consider myself to be a liberal (a libertarian, so pretty liberal on many issues that are not fiscal), but there is one sort of politics I started despising more and more since I first visited this board: conservatism. It is just the hypocrisy, ignorance, total unrational arguments and just some idiot politic views.

I like what you say on despising conservatism. Sadly this term has been stripped of its meaning and people who are proto-fascists call themselves conservatives. Conservatism exists today, but we call it the Democratic party. But proto-fascists do not represent the party. The party represents the super rich. It's hard to rally support in this scenario since policies for the super-rich are often negatively correlated to how it effects the mass of people. So what they do is mobilize enough people through divisive political topics called wedge issues (look it up, it's a interesting read). Wedge issues are abortion, gun rights and the like as if those were the most important issues of our time. And don't get me wrong, they are to many people, but when you're focused on gun rights, you miss the big picture about how the government operates day in and day out (along with crony capitalism) to suck the mass of people dry. It's a hard manueaver but as long as you keep uncritical goofs focused on wedge issues, you can keep the attention away from the really important stuff that's going on in their name. The only way to believe Fox news (or even MSNBC for that matter) is to shut down the critical thinking faculty in the human brain, never listen to other sources and just absorb the narrative of lies mingled with loosely related facts.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?

That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.

The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.

The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.

My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

So we need a unification of the masses so that the US can stop revoking their responsibility to obey international laws?

Holy shit!

Based on what is it our responsibility to obey the laws of foreign politicians who don't represent us? Why is it lawlessness if we recognize -our- law over the law of these international bodies? What is it that gives them factual authority over us, and why are you implying that we owe "international law" our loyalty?

 

[gnarlylove]

This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.

It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.

If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I joined the anti-party movement in 1963 when my fraternity threw me out for being late on my dues....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.

Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.

As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.

Read the thread. I pointed out that he was wrong about Citizens United and he accused me of getting all my information from Fox. Like you, AntiParty is a total hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.

It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.

If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.

There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.

He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.

Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.

As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.

Do your homework. Read his threads , notice how he not EVER questions the Liberal opinions, decisions or positions. I pointedly ask him several times to explain why his positions are all the same as Liberals and why he NEVER attacks, questions or calls to question a single Liberal policy idea or statement. The best he could do in rebuttal was that he is opposed to abortion.

More to the point EVERY single time I ask him to clarify why he has absolutely nothing to say about Liberals and their policies he runs away. And he stays away for several days till the question is lost in the background. Or he never comes back at all.

He claims he is opposed to all parties, yet the only party he actually attacks is the Republican party. The Tea party. NOT a single time has he voiced a single concern over liberal policy or positions. Further he lies. He makes outrageous claims and when called on them disappears.

Again do your home work look up his threads and read them. According to him he is smarter then anyone else here as well.

Don't believe me, do your homework and read his threads.

 

[gnarlylove]

There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.

So you think there should be no laws period? How can communities exist if they behave without regard for store policies to not steal? There must be some common agreement among a community in order to exist. A community is a gathering of people who have lowered the normal barrier of trust. People lower this barrier by engaging in civilized (i.e. lawful) exchanges with one another. Thus, there already exists constraints on human behavior in order to simply have a globalized capital exchange like we do. The barriers of trust must be so, that we trust one another not to do us harm and the way to do that is through agreed upon standards called statues or laws. So to think we should not discuss what laws is strikingly ignorant. There are laws that are good and these laws help maintain conditions of freedom (like agreeing no one should be allowed to kill another person). I agree that certain laws are bad and enable destructive tendencies to breed thereby taking away liberty. Laws are being passed and overturned on a regular basis and no civil society can function without them. To not discuss them is to close your eyes. Closing your eyes is a very stupid way to help create the conditions for human freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.

So you think there should be no laws period? How can communities exist if they behave without regard for store policies to not steal? There must be some common agreement among a community in order to exist. A community is a gathering of people who have lowered the normal barrier of trust. People lower this barrier by engaging in civilized (i.e. lawful) exchanges with one another. Thus, there already exists constraints on human behavior in order to simply have a globalized capital exchange like we do. The barriers of trust must be so, that we trust one another not to do us harm and the way to do that is through agreed upon standards called statues or laws. So to think we should not discuss what laws is strikingly ignorant. There are laws that are good and these laws help maintain conditions of freedom (like agreeing no one should be allowed to kill another person). I agree that certain laws are bad and enable destructive tendencies to breed thereby taking away liberty. Laws are being passed and overturned on a regular basis and no civil society can function without them. To not discuss them is to close your eyes. Closing your eyes is a very stupid way to help create the conditions for human freedom.

I must have missed the part where I said that you don't need laws. What I said is that there is nothing to discuss because anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong. In response to this you blithered about laws against theft. If you want to be a thief, feel free, just expect to run into someone who thinks that killing thieves is justifiable at some point in your career.

Government is like fire, the smaller it is, the safer we are.

 

[gnarlylove]

So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Is that the only way you can debate? Go back and read what I actually said, then feel free to come back and defend the OP.

Speaking of defending the OP, have you noticed that you are defending a thread that the OP deserted because I totally trashed his opinion? Isn't that a little strange for a person that said:

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

To say:

My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.

Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.

Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)

Still want to know why everyone who interacts with him thinks he is a hack?