I'm not even going to bother being civil here, but I'll try to keep the venom to a reasonable level.

>*sighs* Such is the problem
>with people today. Important
>issues are too "mundane" for
>them, and they rather gossip
>or clown around. I'll
>get into this a lil
>further below.

Then what do you think we've been doing for the past few days? Scratching our balls?

>The comment was not meant to
>be taken as the United
>States is the sole/top authority
>in the world. It
>means our system is the
>most successful in the history
>of the world. Bottom
>line. Therefore, why get
>rid of a good thing
>because others are jealous of
>it's success?

Because it's also done the most damage--socially, politically, and environmentally. It's true that the United States has been wildly successful in its two centuries of existence, but there's always a trade-off.

>Well what you want me to
>do, lie? You made
>that statement after your question
>because you know I never
>said I have hated "the
>people".

Then why the elitist "holier-than-thou" attitude?

>I do think they can govern
>themselves, but not each other.
> People are individuals.
>We are all born with
>individual thoughts, grow up having
>individual experiences, and we each
>have individual desires. Therefore,
>why try to clump everyone
>under one whole group?
>That doesn't make sense.

Oh, so you're special?

>So, when you allow "the people"
>to try to decide what's
>best for each other, instead
>of simply minimizing government to
>the point where people are
>individually in control of their
>own lives and own prosperity,
>then you are taking away
>the freedoms of the people
>who don't agree with the
>status quo.

Huh? What? Say that again?

Ever heard of something called the common good? Compromise? People do from time to time make concessions to each other so they don't end up killing each other.

>Government is/shouldn't be established as a
>national parent council. Government
>should be there to keep
>the nation together, and to
>prevent other people from taking
>away your human rights, along
>with your right to life,
>liberty, and property.

But that directly contradicts your premise that government should be minimized so that people are in control of their own prosperity. If I want to maximize profits, shouldn't there nothing to stop me from taking what I consider mine--and in unregulated capitalism, this means practically anything?

> Those
>ideals shouldn't be established by
>the fickle and wishy-washyness of
>the opinions of men, it
>should be based on something
>concrete, something that doesn't vary.
> What better way to
>do this than put it
>on paper for all to
>see and abide by?
>Then there is no question
>whatsoever about what the law
>is, or what the principles
>of that law are based
>on. Any future laws
>and acts should be based
>on those principles.

Oh, God...another legalist.

Ask any law student worth his or her tuition where law ultimately comes from. Laws are determined by people's opinion.

>When you base a nation on
>men and not laws, then
>what you're doing is weakening
>the laws, saying they should
>be scrapped for certain purposes.
> Laws are not flexible;
>they shouldn't be scrapped or
>overridden because of public opinion.

What are the laws without the people?

Abolition of slavery.
Women's right to vote.
Prohibition and the repeal thereof.

The laws were changed because the powers that be responded to public opinion and acted accordingly.

Also, it's possible for laws that have lost their irrelevance to be simply ignored. When was the last time you heard anyone being prosecuted for blasphemy? Several states still have statutes of blasphemy on the books.

> Law should be constant,
>whether you're on the right
>side of it or the
>wrong side of it.
>That way, everyone knows where
>the law stands, and don't
>have to worry about if
>a certain law only appeals
>to just them or appeals
>to everyone.

Then why do we have the courts? The way you make it sound, there shouldn't be any chance to defend ourselves since the law sets it down in black and white.

>I guess you can simply call
>me a free spirit.

Yeah...a free spirit on a high horse. }>

<SNIP>

>So, I will never approve of
>democracy. Maybe representation, but
>never legislation based on public
>opinion. I like people,
>but just because I like
>them doesn't mean I trust
>them to make accurate decisions

Okay, that's it. That's all I needed to know. The preceding drivel was just not necessary.

And guess what? You just done pissed me off. Because you just insinuated that I am incompetent, uninformed, and apathetic when it comes to social and political affairs. I'm taking this personally because I've been at the front lines of political struggles since I was a child--and for you to sit there and insult me by saying that I am not qualified to help determine where this country goes just makes my blood boil.

You're right--the masses do not know what's best for you, just as you don't know what's best for them. So, who the fuck are you to shit on us for trying to bring about some change? We're busting our asses here working for something that may or may not come--and here you are sitting around, looking down at us with contempt from your high horse, telling us that it's not worth the effort because we're MORONS!

I said it before and I'll say it again--you're all talk. Anybody can quote Tyler, Voltaire, or Sowell. The question is: have you done anything?

Think you have a stake in this country? Think again. Rewards come only to those who strive for them--I think we can agree on that.

You don't even know who Ayn Rand is. And you dare call yourself a libertarian. Whatever.

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"Iki ga tomaru kurai no
Amai kuchizuke wo shiyou yo
Hitokoto mo iranai sa
Tobikiri no ima wo
Yuuki wo kureta kimi ni
Tereteru baai ja nai kara
Kotoba yori mo honki na
La la la love song..." - Toshi Kubota

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/