Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[rightwinger]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

 

[Billo_Really]

All the money you spent was first sucked out of some taxpayer's pocket.

Which would include my pocket to. I also pay taxes, you stupid dumbass *****!

Those taxpayers could have spent it if it wasn't taken from them to give to your fat ass.

Instead, I spent it. Why is their spending better than my spending?

Wow, you're argument is going down in flames with every post.

There were no smart phones. There were also no personal computers before Apple built the first one.

But there were computers.

How much investment did the auto industry get before the invention of the combustion engine?

 

[bripat9643]

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

How have they shown that? Did they get a chance to vote on it?

Every year for 75 years

What representatives have gotten anywhere promoting your anarchy? Why don't you try it?

Nope. The electorate has never voted on Social Security.

Another anarchist unfamiliar with the constitution

What does the Constitution have to do with it? The bottom line is that a bunch of sleazy lying politicians voted on Social Security, not the electorate. Furthermore, if the program was voluntary, we all know that no one would participate. I doubt even someone as clueless and brainwashed as you would argue that point.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Actually, they don't.

 

[rightwinger]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Actually, they don't.

No poll taken in the last six months supports you

 

[gipper]

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a ******* idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

Very few government leaders today have the power to punish and use force that tribal chiefs had

Off with your head

ROFL! You are such a ******* moron. When Congress passes a law, why does anyone obey it? Because if you don't men with guns will come to your house and arrest you. They will eventually kill you if you continue to resist. Tribal leaders had no power to punish anyone. Beheadings never occurred until the rise of the state.

Leftnutter is just nutty. He can't help it. He has been brainwashed by the Left like so many Americans into believing an unlimited government is good.

As you well know and anyone capable of logical thinking knows, government at its essence is the legal use of force. Maybe that is why progressives and statists like it so much.

 

[Billo_Really]

Several points to make...
Sorry, I don't know any rich people who don't spend money or have nicer things than the middle class.

What? Floyd Merryweather has about 20 Ferrari's; I drive a Camry. Are you saying he doesn't have nicer things?

What is the purpose of being wealthy if they aren't going to spend it? The idea that wealthy people all live frugally and don't spend their money is ludicrous.

That's not what I said. Those that plan on investing in industry, will not do so, unless there is a market that offers a potential return for that investment.

So the tax cuts are spent by rich people the same as everyone and to borrow from one of your recent anecdotes... the economy doesn't care if it's rich people money.

But I care if they receive tax cuts I don't get. Or if they pay 10% less tax rate than I do.

I also want to take exception with "rich, middle class and poor" designations. Someone who reports a high income for the year may not be "rich" at all... maybe it's a convenience store worker who hit the lotto? Maybe someone's parent died and left a small inheritance? Or perhaps they own a small business and file as an individual as all small businesses do? You don't know the circumstances, you just ignorantly assume people who earn high incomes are wealthy. Here's an eye-opener for ya... most rich people do not earn taxable incomes.

Most rich peoples income is in capital gains and stock dividends, which they pay 10% less tax rate than I do. And that shit must end.

Sorry, but you are perverting what the general welfare clause means. First, it does not call for government to "provide for the general welfare of the country." The SCOTUS has ruled (repeatedly) that it "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Jacobson v. Massachusetts

You are citing a policy position of FDR which he had to stack the SCOTUS in order to implement. What's even more astounding is, it's a policy which absolutely failed to revive the economy during the Great Depression. In other words... it did not work as you describe above. FDR nearly lost his first re-election bid because his plans didn't do what he claimed they would. It wasn't until FDR eased monetary constraints on private sector capitalists that the economy began to turn around. WWII didn't hurt him any either.

In Federalist 41, James Madison writes:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

His point is quite clear... IF the general welfare clause is, as you claim, an all-encompassing authority of government to do whatever it thinks is best for the "general welfare" of the country, there is no need to enumerate the powers in the following Articles. It makes no sense to say... You can do whatever the hell you please as long as you call it "general welfare" but, oh by the way... here is a list of the specific things you are allowed to do.

Madison goes on to explain "general welfare" simply refers to the enumerated powers listed in the subsequent Articles. This was perfectly natural grammatical styling of the day and as Madison points out... it's hard to find a reason for such an awkward description of authority to legislate in all possible cases. Why not skip the Articles and just say... Government has authority to do whatever it thinks is best for the general welfare?

If the Founding Fathers wanted more of the Federalist Papers to be the law of the land, they would've included more of them in the Constitution. They didn't and that argument is nothing more than conjecture.

 

[bripat9643]

All the money you spent was first sucked out of some taxpayer's pocket.

Which would include my pocket to. I also pay taxes, you stupid dumbass *****!

No, actually you don't pay taxes. You perform a book keeping transaction were you deduct a certain amount from the tax money you received. Your net contribution to the general fund is zero.

Those taxpayers could have spent it if it wasn't taken from them to give to your fat ass.

Instead, I spent it. Why is their spending better than my spending?

One: they earned the money. Two: Government deducted a large transaction fee for transferring the money from them to you. Third, the "job" you performed caused distortions in the economy. You produced something the consumers didn't want. You decreased the sum total of material well being in this country.

Wow, you're argument is going down in flames with every post.

Your delusions of grandeur are charming.

There were no smart phones. There were also no personal computers before Apple built the first one.

But there were computers.

How much investment did the auto industry get before the invention of the combustion engine?

Henry Ford invested millions building the River Rouge plant before he could mass produce Model-Ts and bring the price down to $250/vehicle. Automobiles were a novelty prior to that.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Actually, they don't.

No poll taken in the last six months supports you

Post a link to one.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, actually you don't pay taxes.

Yes, I do pay taxes. Every year, in fact. If I didn't, they wouldn't be taking out 25-30% out of my paycheck, idiot.

You perform a book keeping transaction were you deduct a certain amount from the tax money you received. Your net contribution to the general fund is zero.

My net contribution is a lot more than yours.

One: they earned the money.

So did I.

Two: Government deducted a large transaction fee for transferring the money from them to you.

How the **** do you know what the government did?

You're just some hayseed-dickboy-inbred-redneck, shooting his fuckin' mouth off.

Third, the "job" you performed caused distortions in the economy. You produced something the consumers didn't want. You decreased the sum total of material well being in this country.

My job produced energy, consumers are still using today.

Your delusions of grandeur are charming.

It's so easy whipping your ass in a debate, not only is it not grand, I don't even count it as a win.

Henry Ford invested millions building the River Rouge plant before he could mass produce Model-Ts and bring the price down to $250/vehicle. Automobiles were a novelty prior to that.

And prior to that, there was no investment, because there was no market.

 

[rightwinger]

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a ******* idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

Very few government leaders today have the power to punish and use force that tribal chiefs had

Off with your head

ROFL! You are such a ******* moron. When Congress passes a law, why does anyone obey it? Because if you don't men with guns will come to your house and arrest you. They will eventually kill you if you continue to resist. Tribal leaders had no power to punish anyone. Beheadings never occurred until the rise of the state.

Leftnutter is just nutty. He can't help it. He has been brainwashed by the Left like so many Americans into believing an unlimited government is good.

As you well know and anyone capable of logical thinking knows, government at its essence is the legal use of force. Maybe that is why progressives and statists like it so much.

Government is the legal use of force

Anarchists at their finest

 

[rightwinger]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Actually, they don't.

No poll taken in the last six months supports you

Post a link to one.

What will happen when I do?

 

[Boss]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Well, no... no, they don't. The liberal left is running a campaign to convince Americans that most Americans support it... that's what's happening. They run out there and grab some bogus poll of 1,000 people from mostly liberal areas and with a loaded question to boot... and they think this translates to "most Americans want it." The fact is, every ballot initiative which has ever been voted on by the people, has rejected Gay Marriage. In most places, it wasn't even close.

Not too long ago, liberal political pundits were crucifying Karl Rove for the "sneaky trickery" of putting Gay Marriage on so many ballots so that Bush benefited from the massive turnout to reject it. In Missouri, the Gay Marriage initiative failed by 70% It spiked to 80% in some areas.

The people in the one state you'd think would be totally 'cool with it' ...the bright-blue state of California... went so far as to pass a proposition banning Gay Marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Actually, they don't.

No poll taken in the last six months supports you

Post a link to one.

What will happen when I do?

You'll turn into a pumpkin.

 

[Boss]

Several points to make...
Sorry, I don't know any rich people who don't spend money or have nicer things than the middle class.

What? Floyd Merryweather has about 20 Ferrari's; I drive a Camry. Are you saying he doesn't have nicer things?

No, I am saying he didn't pull Ferrari's outta his ass because he's rich. He had to buy them from someone and he had to pay money for them. Again... the economy doesn't care that he's rich.

You made the statement that middle class tax cuts are spent and therefore stimulate the economy while top income tax cuts are not spent but hoarded... now you are talking about 20 Ferrari's which had to come from somewhere other than the rich person's ass.

What is the purpose of being wealthy if they aren't going to spend it? The idea that wealthy people all live frugally and don't spend their money is ludicrous.

That's not what I said. Those that plan on investing in industry, will not do so, unless there is a market that offers a potential return for that investment.

Right, so why aren't you supporting every effort to create a market which is attractive to them? Punishing their potential return on investment is the OPPOSITE of what you should be supporting. Raising their taxes on investments and stocks... counterproductive to what you want to accomplish. I agree with you 100%... If we choke the market and make investment unattractive, those with wealth will avoid participation.

So the tax cuts are spent by rich people the same as everyone and to borrow from one of your recent anecdotes... the economy doesn't care if it's rich people money.

But I care if they receive tax cuts I don't get. Or if they pay 10% less tax rate than I do.

Well that is called "envious greed" and it's indicative of most godless liberals. You can't help but look at what someone else has and covet it... wish you had what they have... jealous and envious that they have more than you have.

The "tax cuts" you are talking about are negotiated in Congress by YOUR representatives. They have some great and lengthy arguments on both sides for every single one of these "tax cuts" and they usually center around some particular problem that is trying to be addressed or solved. I'll add more about this later.

Sounds to me like you would be supporting a flat or fair tax, where everyone pays the same rate and there are no deductions or tax breaks. I personally like the idea of eliminating ALL income-based taxation and moving to a consumer-based tax system. Reason being, we are a consumer-driven nation. We haven't always been, and income tax was fine when we weren't. But there is far too much time, energy, effort, money, resources... devoted to dividing us into economic classes and exploiting political power to gain unfair advantages.

I also want to take exception with "rich, middle class and poor" designations. Someone who reports a high income for the year may not be "rich" at all... maybe it's a convenience store worker who hit the lotto? Maybe someone's parent died and left a small inheritance? Or perhaps they own a small business and file as an individual as all small businesses do? You don't know the circumstances, you just ignorantly assume people who earn high incomes are wealthy. Here's an eye-opener for ya... most rich people do not earn taxable incomes.

Most rich peoples income is in capital gains and stock dividends, which they pay 10% less tax rate than I do. And that shit must end.

Well okay... so we're going to tax CapGains at regular income tax rates? This means all the money the wealthy are currently making available for business and industry to expand and grow... will transfer over to tax-free municipal bonds.. .and that shit won't end because municipalities need the money. Some will also invest in foreign enterprises because... funny thing... foreign nations don't seem to mind rich folk's money at all.

Again... you are cutting off your nose to spite your face... biting the hand that feeds you. As I said earlier re: tax cuts negotiated in Congress, so is the case for capital gains taxes. There is a valid and legitimate reason the rates are lower for investment and capital gains. It is to ENCOURAGE those things to happen. We NEED the wealthy tycoons making billions of dollars available to entrepreneurs and business so they have the capital needed to grow and expand, to start new ventures, to build new factories and create new jobs in the private sector, where they count.

Raise the taxes on that and you will get less of it. Every time. Never fails. Irrefutable fact of life.

Sorry, but you are perverting what the general welfare clause means. First, it does not call for government to "provide for the general welfare of the country." The SCOTUS has ruled (repeatedly) that it "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Jacobson v. Massachusetts

You are citing a policy position of FDR which he had to stack the SCOTUS in order to implement. What's even more astounding is, it's a policy which absolutely failed to revive the economy during the Great Depression. In other words... it did not work as you describe above. FDR nearly lost his first re-election bid because his plans didn't do what he claimed they would. It wasn't until FDR eased monetary constraints on private sector capitalists that the economy began to turn around. WWII didn't hurt him any either.

In Federalist 41, James Madison writes:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

His point is quite clear... IF the general welfare clause is, as you claim, an all-encompassing authority of government to do whatever it thinks is best for the "general welfare" of the country, there is no need to enumerate the powers in the following Articles. It makes no sense to say... You can do whatever the hell you please as long as you call it "general welfare" but, oh by the way... here is a list of the specific things you are allowed to do.

Madison goes on to explain "general welfare" simply refers to the enumerated powers listed in the subsequent Articles. This was perfectly natural grammatical styling of the day and as Madison points out... it's hard to find a reason for such an awkward description of authority to legislate in all possible cases. Why not skip the Articles and just say... Government has authority to do whatever it thinks is best for the general welfare?

If the Founding Fathers wanted more of the Federalist Papers to be the law of the land, they would've included more of them in the Constitution. They didn't and that argument is nothing more than conjecture.

If the Founding Fathers wanted more of the Federalist Papers to be the law of the land...

No one said that! Do you not comprehend what the Federalist Papers were? They were the collection of arguments from the Federalists as our nation debated a Constitutional government. They are directly opposed by the Anti-Federalists who also published the Anti-Federalist Papers. In the end, the Federalists won and we adopted their version of the Constitution.

Now... curiously enough, this very question arose over the "general welfare" clause and the Anti-Federalists argued that it gave the government virtually unlimited powers to do anything and call it "for the general welfare." As I understand you and other pinheads, this is what you believe the general welfare clause means. The Anti-Federalists were alarmed by this and were raising tee-total hell about it.... that's when Madison published Federalist 41... to address this concern.

He specifically points out, the clause "general welfare" cannot mean what you interpret it to mean, it's not logical or possible for it to mean that. Why would the Constitution enumerate specific powers to a government it had granted the authority to do whatever it wanted in the name of "general welfare?" It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Furthermore, IF the government is given such a broad unlimited power, what is the purpose in having the rest of the Constitution? They could have written the Constitution on a cocktail napkin... Government can do whatever it wants as long as they justify it being for the general welfare. Done!

 

[rightwinger]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.

Actually,you are in the minority

Most Americans support it

Well, no... no, they don't. The liberal left is running a campaign to convince Americans that most Americans support it... that's what's happening. They run out there and grab some bogus poll of 1,000 people from mostly liberal areas and with a loaded question to boot... and they think this translates to "most Americans want it." The fact is, every ballot initiative which has ever been voted on by the people, has rejected Gay Marriage. In most places, it wasn't even close.

Not too long ago, liberal political pundits were crucifying Karl Rove for the "sneaky trickery" of putting Gay Marriage on so many ballots so that Bush benefited from the massive turnout to reject it. In Missouri, the Gay Marriage initiative failed by 70% It spiked to 80% in some areas.

The people in the one state you'd think would be totally 'cool with it' ...the bright-blue state of California... went so far as to pass a proposition banning Gay Marriage.

Even a majority of Republicans under 40 support same sex marriage

You just can't win can you?

 

[Boss]

Even a majority of Republicans under 40 support same sex marriage

You just can't win can you?

LMAO... and probably a majority of Christians with tattoos support it as well!

Neither is proof that MOST AMERICANS support it.

Sorry... you're still losing badly.

 

[jon_berzerk]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

of course the government creates jobs

many many needless jobs

which produce nothing more then a bureaucracy

Police, teachers, firemen, soldiers, engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers....all useless

come on dude get your shit together for once

every time congress threatens to close down the government

only essential employees will remain working

leaving 95 percent as non-essential or in other words not needed

that is a hell of a lot of wasteful spending

and a lot of needless jobs

you cradle to gravers crack me up sometimes

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

of course the government creates jobs

many many needless jobs

which produce nothing more then a bureaucracy

Police, teachers, firemen, soldiers, engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers....all useless

Those can all be provided cheaper and better by the private sector.

yup

 

[bripat9643]

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a ******* idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

Very few government leaders today have the power to punish and use force that tribal chiefs had

Off with your head

ROFL! You are such a ******* moron. When Congress passes a law, why does anyone obey it? Because if you don't men with guns will come to your house and arrest you. They will eventually kill you if you continue to resist. Tribal leaders had no power to punish anyone. Beheadings never occurred until the rise of the state.

Leftnutter is just nutty. He can't help it. He has been brainwashed by the Left like so many Americans into believing an unlimited government is good.

As you well know and anyone capable of logical thinking knows, government at its essence is the legal use of force. Maybe that is why progressives and statists like it so much.

Government is the legal use of force

Anarchists at their finest

It isn't clear what that is supposed to mean. You don't agree that the legal use of force is what distinguishes government from other institutions?