>*sighs* Such is the problem with people today. >Important issues are too "mundane" for them, and >they rather gossip or clown around.

Thanks for appreciating the hours I've spent typing out replies to your opinions.

I said it was getting boring because it was getting repetitive, which is why I tried to change the tack of conversation a little bit.

>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.

After choosing not to address the obvious contradiction in your words ("national sovereignty" turns into "accept our system"), you continue to make statements that place you in the "typical American" category (sorry about your aspirations to individuality).

Nota: I'm trying not to stoop to the level of snide attacks. Please forgive me (sincerely) if I do.

What exactly is the US system the most succesful in? The most succesful in destroying the environment on a global scale? The most succesful in exploiting the labour of many for the benefit of the few? The most succesful in raising a generation of people who don't care (the very people you hate)? The most succesful in creating maintaining the world in an unprecedented state of insecurity?

I'm not saying "things were better before". I'm just asking what the US system (ironically, based on theories developed by Brits and Frogs) is the most succesful at. Making money for Bill Gates? Bringing me an amazing amount of pointless material goods? Providing millions of people with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?

>That's just how it is.

More of your vaunted libertarianism?

>I do think they can govern themselves, but not
>each other.

So why are people compelled to come together and form societies? Cos they're idiots?

>People are individuals. We are all born with >individual thoughts, grow up having individual >experiences, and we each have individual desires.

So the environment that is around you has no influence upon you? If that were the case, there would be no such thing as empathy, and I'm not sure I would be able to recognise (from an emotional standpoint) other people as human beings. It is because we have many things in common (to varying degrees depending on culture, etc.) that we can live together.

>Therefore, why try to clump everyone under one
>whole group?

Who just said that everyone is an individual? Why are you clumping everyone in one big group?

>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.

This statement is great and true. I'm not quite sure what "keeping the nation together" means, but the rest is very cool.

>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.

This is why I say you hate people. Plus you sound like the Vatican in the Middle Ages. What doesn't vary? God? No, what doesn't vary is...

> 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.

Come on man. Who puts these ideals on paper? Men that are the product of there times.

>Laws are not flexible; they shouldn't be scrapped
>or overridden because of public opinion. Law >should be constant

More evidence of your people-hating. And massive silliness to boot. If the law were constant, Krewcial (sorry Krew) would own the both of us, and his girl-friend wouldn't be able to vote.

>don't have to worry about if a certain law only
>appeals to just them or appeals to everyone

If a law doesn't appeal to me, I can fight against it. However, in your system, the law never changes, thus I have no input into the laws I have to obey. Isn't that a dictatorship?

>I guess you can simply call me a free spirit

You guessed wrong.

>I feel I should be able to do what I want as long
>as I am not hurting others

This too is great (I do recognise when you say something true). However, do you realise that the way we (Westerners) live everyday hurts and has hurt millions of people around the globe? Or do you not care and say "That's for their government to take care of"?

>If my opinions and theories are against the >majority opinion, I want to know that the law
>protects my voice and my wishes as well as the >majority

Great. Freedom of speech. Never said I was against it. You however, believe that the opinions of the fickle, wishy-washy people should be ignored. But you don't hate the people.

>I'm sure you know I don't think the same way >anyone else does either

Actually, you'd be surprised.

>Am I not entitled to the same influence others >have? Why should they have direction over MY
>life?

The others (i.e. non-economists, non-businessmen and other non-"cognoscenti") should be ignored. Since you are none of the above (as far as I know), you should have no influence and should be ignored. This is the logical conclusion of your system.

> If you feel that charity funds should go over to
>help people in Rawanda, what's stopping you from
>pulling cash out of your pocket to make that
>happen? Do you have to force other people to do
>it also?

Have you ever been forced to donate to charity?
Didn't think so.
Maybe a more relevant example of what you are trying to say would be: Why should I (speaking of myself, as a member of the middle-class) be forced (through taxes) to pay for a hospital in some poor area of my country that I will never go to?
If that's what you're asking then I think you're an idiot. If that's not what you're asking, please correct me.

>If you don't believe in abortions, then don't
>have one. Why must you force other people not to
>also?

What exactly is the point of this whole rhetorical question tirade (hmmm... maybe I shouldn't criticise, I did one in this very post!)? Some people are campaigning to reduce freedom (anti-abortion). They can because they have freedom of speech. However, I disagree with them because they want to reduce individual freedoms.

>If you want to make more money, why can't you get
>it yourself?

Because they are lazy bums. And for no other reason whatsoever.

>Why must you force other people to give it up?

Damn lazy bums.

>When you make ideals laws, there are no ifs ands
>or buts; if you don't abide by it, you have to
>pay the consequences

I think from here on your post descends into nonsense and platitudes. It's not just you, most long-ass posts tend to turn to nonsense by the umpteenth paragraph, which is part of the reason they get boring. Hell, maybe I'm typing nonsense and platitudes right now.

>Why should the masses collectively have power
>over what everyone else does?

If you have freedom of speech and access to political power (i.e. democracy), then you can fight the masses. I think that is within the bounds of your own motto: "Get off your lazy butt and get to work". Failing that, with all these cheap plane tickets, you can just leave.

>"the people", as well-intentional as they may
>seem, do not know what's best for me, just as I
>and others don't know what's best for them

And yet we can all live under and abide by the same set of inflexible laws. How strange.

>They don't know how my money should be spent

Just say it: you don't want to pay taxes. Is that it?

>They don't know what is going on in domestic,
>national, and foreign affairs every minute.

And who does? And who should make decisions that involve the whole nation? A detached expert (or rather, "expert") who ignores whatever the stupid uninformed people may be asking for?

>I like people

No, you don't.

>just because I like them doesn't mean I trust
>them to make accurate decisions

I like you, I really do, it's just that I think you're a lazy, stupid, uniformed, irrational thief. But I gots love for ya.

Bonsoir.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")