The question libertarians just can’t answer

[krych3k]

That old stuff proves nothing. Paul is a master manipulator.

While I am not a fan of Ron Paul, you throwing out vicious accusations of him being a racist shows just how low you are. This is typical leftism, going through your Rolodex of denigrative terms to dehumanise those you disagree with: racist, bigot, misogynist, homophobe, Islamophobe, sexist, chauvinist, hater, etc.

If there's any benefit to your posts, it's that they serve as an illustration of a nasty strain of leftism within America which you reflexively parrot.

 

[Foxfyre]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

No, laws passed by an authoritarian government without the consent of the people is NOT social contract. Most especially laws that take from Citizen A, who will not benefit, for the benefit of Citizen B who did nothing to earn it are NOT social contract. The welfare state is not social contract. Obamacare is not social contract. Environmental laws that restrict my property rights on pretext of protecting habitat of some endangered rat or turtle are NOT social contract. Laws that dictate what toilet and I can buy or what lightbulb I will be obliged to use or what sort of automobile I will be required to drive are NOT social contract. Dictating what I must pay my employees or what benefits I must provide fro them is NOT social contract. Dictating that I cannot choose what to pack in my kid's school lunch is NOT social contract. Dictating to me what kind of health insurance I will be allowed to have is NOT social contract.

One more time: social contract is citizens voluntarily organizing themselves for MUTUAL benefit; i.e. that which will be mutually beneficial to all without respect for politics or individual circumstnces or socioeconomic status.

 

[RKMBrown]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

No, laws passed by an authoritarian government without the consent of the people is NOT social contract. Most especially laws that take from Citizen A, who will not benefit, for the benefit of Citizen B who did nothing to earn it are NOT social contract. The welfare state is not social contract. Obamacare is not social contract. Environmental laws that restrict my property rights on pretext of protecting habitat of some endangered rat or turtle are NOT social contract. Laws that dictate what toilet and I can buy or what lightbulb I will be obliged to use or what sort of automobile I will be required to drive are NOT social contract. Dictating what I must pay my employees or what benefits I must provide fro them is NOT social contract. Dictating that I cannot choose what to pack in my kid's school lunch is NOT social contract. Dictating to me what kind of health insurance I will be allowed to have is NOT social contract.

One more time: social contract is citizens voluntarily organizing themselves for MUTUAL benefit; i.e. that which will be mutually beneficial to all without respect for politics or individual circumstnces or socioeconomic status.

 

[kaz]

Actually you said that I can't.



You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of not answering questions when you refuse to even acknowledge this statement, let alone defend it.

On point #1) Welcome to message boards. You can and will get opinions. But how you translate my opinion that you're not a libertarian into a belief that means I'm saying you are not allowed to call yourself a libertarian is beyond my comprehension. Explain.

On point #2) Twice you've failed to find my posts on subjects and asked me to do it for you. The first time I did, the second time I passed. But dude, I wrote an op and started an entire THREAD answering your question. I actually wrote it for the purpose of this discussion so we stop doing it in every libertarian thread. Alas, you're going to have to find the thread yourself. Good look with your quest, young man.

Oh god, please tell me this isn't one of those boards where everyone is expected to read and remember every previous thread ever discussed on the board before actively participating and/or do a search for every topic before mentioning it to make sure you are in the right thread.

I understand why you ask the question, but it's not. In both cases, the post was within a half dozen posts of his post. I didn't knock him for not having read it, I just told him I'd just addressed it. He wasn't willing to scroll up. And this is not the first time he's asked me a question with the answer within his quote of my post. That's where I'm drawing the line. And again, the first time I did it anyway.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What would you retain?

.

Good question! The framework it was originally founded on is sufficient.

I don’t think so. It lost its way far too quickly. The intention behind that framework might have been but there need to be changes, clarifications and most importantly MORE limitation on what government is authorized. The vague language in what government can and cannot do needs to be eliminated.

There are places where the document needs to be vague BUT the enumerated powers are not one of them. The ‘general welfare’ type statements need to go.

You are correct. There should be language about what it cannot do, in regards to our liberties. Give the citizenship plurality over their government.

 

[Foxfyre]

As long as 'general welfare' is understood as the Founders intended it--i.e. for the mutual benefit of all without respect for politics and/or socioeconomic status--there is no problem. We just have to be better in teaching that concept. "General welfare" is not the same thing as mandatory charity or social welfare that benefits some and drains resources from others. The interstate highway system, for instance, serves the general welfare. Rich and poor alike use it, and even those who do not drive benefit from the cheaper goods and services that are made possible because it exists.

 

[RKMBrown]

On point #1) Welcome to message boards. You can and will get opinions. But how you translate my opinion that you're not a libertarian into a belief that means I'm saying you are not allowed to call yourself a libertarian is beyond my comprehension. Explain.

On point #2) Twice you've failed to find my posts on subjects and asked me to do it for you. The first time I did, the second time I passed. But dude, I wrote an op and started an entire THREAD answering your question. I actually wrote it for the purpose of this discussion so we stop doing it in every libertarian thread. Alas, you're going to have to find the thread yourself. Good look with your quest, young man.

Oh god, please tell me this isn't one of those boards where everyone is expected to read and remember every previous thread ever discussed on the board before actively participating and/or do a search for every topic before mentioning it to make sure you are in the right thread.

I understand why you ask the question, but it's not. In both cases, the post was within a half dozen posts of his post. I didn't knock him for not having read it, I just told him I'd just addressed it. He wasn't willing to scroll up. And this is not the first time he's asked me a question with the answer within his quote of my post. That's where I'm drawing the line. And again, the first time I did it anyway.

Yeah, I'm new here too. New threads seem to come so fast to this board so as to push old threads off the bottom of the list of threads on page 1 within a few min. Additionally there are sooooo many different subjects related to politics that I would not even begin to know which ones to skim over. I just look at my user CP for replies and skim over active topics to look for new interesting threads.

 

[RKMBrown]

As long as 'general welfare' is understood as the Founders intended it--i.e. for the mutual benefit of all without respect for politics and/or socioeconomic status--there is no problem. We just have to be better in teaching that concept. "General welfare" is not the same thing as mandatory charity or social welfare that benefits some and drains resources from others. The interstate highway system, for instance, serves the general welfare. Rich and poor alike use it, and even those who do not drive benefit from the cheaper goods and services that are made possible because it exists.

You mean general welfare doesn't mean individual welfare? Shock! You mean general welfare doesn't mean legislating morality/religion? Shock!

If libs are good at one thing, it's redefining terms of a contract after the fact to suit their desires. These folks bring a whole new meaning to "no means yes."

 

[Contumacious]

There are places where the document needs to be vague BUT the enumerated powers are not one of them. The ‘general welfare’ type statements need to go.

James Madison clearly and repeatedly defined general welfare as adhering to the specifically enumerated powers. But the fascists, parasites and socialists find it inconvenient.

"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. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

James Madison

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh god, please tell me this isn't one of those boards where everyone is expected to read and remember every previous thread ever discussed on the board before actively participating and/or do a search for every topic before mentioning it to make sure you are in the right thread.

I understand why you ask the question, but it's not. In both cases, the post was within a half dozen posts of his post. I didn't knock him for not having read it, I just told him I'd just addressed it. He wasn't willing to scroll up. And this is not the first time he's asked me a question with the answer within his quote of my post. That's where I'm drawing the line. And again, the first time I did it anyway.

Yeah, I'm new here too. New threads seem to come so fast to this board so as to push old threads off the bottom of the list of threads on page 1 within a few min. Additionally there are sooooo many different subjects related to politics that I would not even begin to know which ones to skim over. I just look at my user CP for replies and skim over active topics to look for new interesting threads.

Yup. And I confess to a bit of snobbery in what posts and sometimes what threads I visit. Some posters have so much to offer, if they are the last one to post in a thread I'm active in, or in a new thread,, I'm at least gonna peek in. And there are members who have so little to say other than silly or hateful nonsense that if they are the last one to post, even on a thread I'm active on, I don't bother to look in at that time. And I rarely ever visit their threads at all. Of course I do miss a lot of posts as a result of that. But any of us have only so much time.

And we libertarians tend to be pretty picky by nature.

 

[FA_Q2]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

 

[RKMBrown]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

For example, up till a few days back I really had no idea that some of the libertarians were really corporate anarchists who wanted a corporate led governing system. Amazing the new things you can learn about people when you talk to them.

 

[krych3k]

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

Well said. Although we're talking about political ideologies, in many ways we're discussing people, and the minds of people cannot be measured in centimetres, inches, grams, ounces, or any other objective metric. We are complex creatures and cannot always be pinpointed to such precision with "objective" terms, as editec the Wikipedia professional would lead us to believe. Life is full of such subjective quantifications.

 

[kaz]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

For example, up till a few days back I really had no idea that some of the libertarians were really corporate anarchists who wanted a corporate led governing system. Amazing the new things you can learn about people when you talk to them.

I guess I should have mentioned that's what we want. Sorry about that, it just never came up before...

 

[Foxfyre]

The social contract is our collective laws.

One might reasonable include in that the customs that are also in place in society as part of the social contract.

I note that we are still debating the issue of what the world LIBERTARIANISM really means.

Until we can COLLECTIVELY agree on a clear and precise meaning, this debate will continue to be contentious and pointless.

Contentious and pointless debates seem to be the favorite kinds of debates we have here.

We USMBers just seem to love WEASEL WORDS like libertarian, liberal, and conservative because we can use them knowing perfectly well they have no commonly accepted meanings.

WEASEL WORDS --propagandists and partisans absolutely LOVE em!

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

For example, up till a few days back I really had no idea that some of the libertarians were really corporate anarchists who wanted a corporate led governing system. Amazing the new things you can learn about people when you talk to them.

I'm guessing that some have heard/read the term anarcho-captialist for the first time in this thread too. And I'll admit I was surprised that some here who have called themselves libertarians are those who embrace anarcho-capitalism. And we are at odds with some of them who claim the label of 'libertarian' to describe themselves when those of us who identify libertarianism as the philosophy/beliefs of the Founders do not identfy with the anarcho-captialists much at all.

So the shades of gray continue to develop and make for an interesting discussion. I even raised an eyebrow at CATO's take on Ron Paul being the godfather of the Tea Party. I'm a pretty strong Tea Partier, but I haven't seen any emphasis on anarcho-captialism within our midst. All Tea Partiers I know are Constitutionalists in the Founders' style.

In fact, there is one anarchist who could be considered influential in Washington, but he wasn’t among the activists who participated in the Occupy movement—he died nearly twenty years ago. His name is Murray Rothbard, and, among small-government Republicans, he is something of a cult hero. He was Ron Paul’s intellectual mentor, which makes him the godfather of the godfather of the Tea Party. Justin Amash, a young Republican congressman from Michigan and a rising star in the Party, hangs a framed portrait of him on his office wall.

Rothbard was an anarchist, but also a capitalist. “True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism,” he once said, and he sometimes referred to himself by means of a seven-syllable honorific: “anarcho-capitalist.” Graeber thinks that governments treat their citizens “like children,” and that, when governments disappear, people will behave differently. Anarcho-capitalists, on the contrary, believe that, without government, people will behave more or less the same: we will be just as creative or greedy or competent as we are now, only freer. Instead of imagining a world without drastic inequality, anarcho-capitalists imagine a world where people and their property are secured by private defense agencies, which are paid to keep the peace. Graeber doesn’t consider anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists; no doubt the feeling is mutual.
Rothbard in the New Yorker | Cato @ Liberty

 

[RKMBrown]

I disagree. We are debating the different shades and impacts of libertarianism and that is far from ‘contentious and pointless.’ There is no such thing a decisive and clear definition of a subject as deep and pervasive as personal political belief systems. Define liberal or conservative. Democrat or republican. There are dozens of issues that members of those groups fall all over in.

A static definition would be disastrous anyway. That would mean that there was no more discourse or thought going into our political positions. As perfection is impossible, that would certainly NOT be a positive.

For example, up till a few days back I really had no idea that some of the libertarians were really corporate anarchists who wanted a corporate led governing system. Amazing the new things you can learn about people when you talk to them.

I'm guessing that some have heard/read the term anarcho-captialist for the first time in this thread too. And I'll admit I was surprised that some here who have called themselves libertarians are those who embrace anarcho-capitalism. And we are at odds with some of them who claim the label of 'libertarian' to describe themselves when those of us who identify libertarianism as the philosophy/beliefs of the Founders do not identfy with the anarcho-captialists much at all.

So the shades of gray continue to develop and make for an interesting discussion. I even raised an eyebrow at CATO's take on Ron Paul being the godfather of the Tea Party. I'm a pretty strong Tea Partier, but I haven't seen any emphasis on anarcho-captialism within our midst. All Tea Partiers I know are Constitutionalists in the Founders' style.

In fact, there is one anarchist who could be considered influential in Washington, but he wasn’t among the activists who participated in the Occupy movement—he died nearly twenty years ago. His name is Murray Rothbard, and, among small-government Republicans, he is something of a cult hero. He was Ron Paul’s intellectual mentor, which makes him the godfather of the godfather of the Tea Party. Justin Amash, a young Republican congressman from Michigan and a rising star in the Party, hangs a framed portrait of him on his office wall.

Rothbard was an anarchist, but also a capitalist. “True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism,” he once said, and he sometimes referred to himself by means of a seven-syllable honorific: “anarcho-capitalist.” Graeber thinks that governments treat their citizens “like children,” and that, when governments disappear, people will behave differently. Anarcho-capitalists, on the contrary, believe that, without government, people will behave more or less the same: we will be just as creative or greedy or competent as we are now, only freer. Instead of imagining a world without drastic inequality, anarcho-capitalists imagine a world where people and their property are secured by private defense agencies, which are paid to keep the peace. Graeber doesn’t consider anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists; no doubt the feeling is mutual.
Rothbard in the New Yorker | Cato @ Liberty

Yeah I really hate using adjectives, but it would seem to be more clear one needs to explain what kind of democrat, republican, or libertarian one is. I could say I'm a constitutional conservative libertarian... which to me means pretty much the same as constitutional conservative republican... the only difference being the identification on my voters registration card.

At any rate I see nothing appealing about anarcho-capitalism. Seems to me that is just trading one political circle for another.

 

[FA_Q2]

For example, up till a few days back I really had no idea that some of the libertarians were really corporate anarchists who wanted a corporate led governing system. Amazing the new things you can learn about people when you talk to them.

I'm guessing that some have heard/read the term anarcho-captialist for the first time in this thread too. And I'll admit I was surprised that some here who have called themselves libertarians are those who embrace anarcho-capitalism. And we are at odds with some of them who claim the label of 'libertarian' to describe themselves when those of us who identify libertarianism as the philosophy/beliefs of the Founders do not identfy with the anarcho-captialists much at all.

So the shades of gray continue to develop and make for an interesting discussion. I even raised an eyebrow at CATO's take on Ron Paul being the godfather of the Tea Party. I'm a pretty strong Tea Partier, but I haven't seen any emphasis on anarcho-captialism within our midst. All Tea Partiers I know are Constitutionalists in the Founders' style.

In fact, there is one anarchist who could be considered influential in Washington, but he wasn’t among the activists who participated in the Occupy movement—he died nearly twenty years ago. His name is Murray Rothbard, and, among small-government Republicans, he is something of a cult hero. He was Ron Paul’s intellectual mentor, which makes him the godfather of the godfather of the Tea Party. Justin Amash, a young Republican congressman from Michigan and a rising star in the Party, hangs a framed portrait of him on his office wall.

Rothbard was an anarchist, but also a capitalist. “True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism,” he once said, and he sometimes referred to himself by means of a seven-syllable honorific: “anarcho-capitalist.” Graeber thinks that governments treat their citizens “like children,” and that, when governments disappear, people will behave differently. Anarcho-capitalists, on the contrary, believe that, without government, people will behave more or less the same: we will be just as creative or greedy or competent as we are now, only freer. Instead of imagining a world without drastic inequality, anarcho-capitalists imagine a world where people and their property are secured by private defense agencies, which are paid to keep the peace. Graeber doesn’t consider anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists; no doubt the feeling is mutual.
Rothbard in the New Yorker | Cato @ Liberty

Yeah I really hate using adjectives, but it would seem to be more clear one needs to explain what kind of democrat, republican, or libertarian one is. I could say I'm a constitutional conservative libertarian... which to me means pretty much the same as constitutional conservative republican... the only difference being the identification on my voters registration card.

At any rate I see nothing appealing about anarcho-capitalism. Seems to me that is just trading one political circle for another.

And one master for another.

As I stated earlier, the power that the government holds does not disappear. Lacking any government at all, another comes in and takes it be that a company or a warlord. There is a reason that people create governments and it is not as has been suggested to steal or use power against others. It is for protection.

 

[kaz]

As I stated earlier, the power that the government holds does not disappear. Lacking any government at all, another comes in and takes it be that a company or a warlord. There is a reason that people create governments and it is not as has been suggested to steal or use power against others. It is for protection.

Agreed. I pointed out also it's not a free world and other countries with bad governments aren't going to say wow, the US went anarchist, let's leave them alone. They invade, we either succumb or we decide to defend ourselves. Either way we have a government again. Anarchy cannot exist but for the moment it's created.

 

[Foxfyre]

I also wonder about those private defense companies that the anarcho-capitalist hires to defend his property. Who defends the anarcho-capitalist against the defense company should it decide it would be more fun to take his big screen TV instead of protecting it against thieves? Who does the anarcho-capitalist appeal to for remedy for that? Who protects the home owner from THEM?

I might hire a private security firm, but if they fail to do the job they contracted to do or steal from me or otherwise violate my rights, I can take them to court, I can report them to the Better Business Bureau, or have any number of other remedies. I might or might not be fully restored, but at least I am not entirely helpless. If there is nobody but me and them, a legal contract is no more legally binding than is a hand shake.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I understand why you ask the question, but it's not. In both cases, the post was within a half dozen posts of his post. I didn't knock him for not having read it, I just told him I'd just addressed it. He wasn't willing to scroll up. And this is not the first time he's asked me a question with the answer within his quote of my post. That's where I'm drawing the line. And again, the first time I did it anyway.

Yeah, I'm new here too. New threads seem to come so fast to this board so as to push old threads off the bottom of the list of threads on page 1 within a few min. Additionally there are sooooo many different subjects related to politics that I would not even begin to know which ones to skim over. I just look at my user CP for replies and skim over active topics to look for new interesting threads.

Yup. And I confess to a bit of snobbery in what posts and sometimes what threads I visit. Some posters have so much to offer, if they are the last one to post in a thread I'm active in, or in a new thread,, I'm at least gonna peek in. And there are members who have so little to say other than silly or hateful nonsense that if they are the last one to post, even on a thread I'm active on, I don't bother to look in at that time. And I rarely ever visit their threads at all. Of course I do miss a lot of posts as a result of that. But any of us have only so much time.

And we libertarians tend to be pretty picky by nature.

Some posters make it too easy. It's easier disproving an argument than quelling a tantrum.