>>*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.

Oh I sincerely do appreciate it. You've been able to do more than most people. Imagine me going to BET.com and trying to spur up political debate? How long you think that would last?

>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.

I noticed the repetition. I appreciate it.

>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).

Because national soverignty and accept our system has two different meanings. National soverignty refers to government jurisdiction. When I say accept our system, that means you need to accept that WE are going to keep our system alive. That doesn't mean we are going to force you to implement our system into your government or even your way of life. Therefore it wasn't a contradiction.

>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?

I think korr explained this better than I could, but tell me, can you name a country that has had more economic, technological, and a bigger influence in world issues than the United States, without the hopes of world domination?

When you ask about the environment and labor, do you actually mean the US or do you mean international companies working in soverign countries?

>The most succesful in raising
>a generation of people who
>don't care (the very people
>you hate)?

When you talk about a generation that don't care, can you actually direct that to the United States, or can you actually direct that into their own individual desires that override political interests because people like you tell them that they have no power or influence in government, and thus should not be concerned with it? Is this "no voice" idea different in other countries? If there was another government, would it differ? The answer to the last two questions is no.

>The most succesful
>in creating maintaining the world
>in an unprecedented state of
>insecurity?

Really now? I guess we started both World Wars, and was the aggressor of the Cuban Missle Crisis, which almost started WW III. If you are talking about the development of nuclear weaponry, believe me when I tell you that if we hadn't, someone else had, and you probably wouldn't like the person it was. If the US hadn't developed nuclear weapons first, then this world could/would have been in control of the 3rd Reich. But I guess you will blame us for allowing them into power too, instead of the fickleness and easy going appeasement of western European countries, most notably Britain and France.

>Making money for
>Bill Gates?

Ha. Actually Gates doesn't even have the grip on the economy as everyone thinks. In actual dollars he might be the richest man ever, but in comparison to the economy, he doesn't have the riches that the Rockefellers, Carnegie, and others had. Not to mention most of his money is invested in shares of Microsoft, which is being broke up. So therefore we are not making money for him. Considering he broke out into a new industry, he's made new money. We aren't making money for him.

>Bringing me an
>amazing amount of pointless material
>goods?

If the goods are pointless then why are you buying them? That doesn't make sense.

Providing millions of people
>with demeaning and uninteresting jobs?

Like what? Tell me what jobs are there now that didn't exist back in history that didn't demean people? Sweatshops? I guess working in cotton, tobacco, rice, and other fields with manual tools are not considered demeaning and at times inhumane. I guess working in the tech world making a high 5-6 figure salary is considered uninteresting. I guess the fact that more people than ever have control over their futures and a chance to fight a vitural caste system than ever in order to make something of themselves is considered uninspiring.

In other words, there is alot that needs to be done in this world, but that doesn't mean you have to dismiss the advances and the contributions that we have made.

>>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?

Just because there is a society doesn't mean you're codependent on each other. Nor do you have the right to tell someone how to live.

>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.

That's not the point. Just because we have things in common doesn't mean we don't disagree on certain things either. The point was that we all have different experiences. And, even if two people have simular experiences that doesn't mean they are going to view experiences the same. You might see a glass as half-empty, but I might see it as half-full.

>>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?

Read the sentence again. I asked why would you try to. I never said we should.

>>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.

The Civil War saga, before, during, and after; the 1960's; the Great Depression era; etc.

>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...

Since when does saying I don't care to put trust in everyone I see to make decisions on my welfare constitute as hate? Do/Can you trust everyone in your country to make correct decisions on your welfare?

>> 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.

Not true, because if that was the case then America's Founding Fathers would have made a government based on the existing governments of that time, which were monarchies. They developed new ideas and new principles by examining the mistakes of those governments and learning from them. If they were products of their times, then territorial independence itself would not have come to pass because it hadn't happened before.

>>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.

But that wasn't because of public opinion that's because it was necessary for the future of the nation. In fact I believe that if it would have come down to a national democratic referendum on slavery in the United States in the early 1800's the abolitionists would lose.
Not to mention the principles of the law, aka the Constitution didn't change. Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, therefore the slaveholders were in the wrong ALREADY, and were already contradicting the Constitution.

>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?

No. A dictatorship changes with the will of the dictator. There is no constant law; it changes when he wants to change it.

>>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"?

Well, it IS their government's responsibility to look out for the interests of their own people. It's not that I don't care, I think you should simply hold the right people responsible for the fate of others. Laws can't enforce themselves. If they are criminal, then charge them, if they aren't but it still hurts the country, then make a law that abolishes that practice. Simple.

>>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.

Wrong. I never said they shouldn't have a voice. I simply said that laws should not be based simply on a majority's wishes. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to voice their concerns like I do. That's why I added the conjunction "as well as the majority".

>> 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.

Foreign aid is charity. Wealth redistribution is charity. Anytime you give money or products to someone else without a service being performed, it's charity.

>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.

Don't worry I will. Who says I will never visit that area the hospital is in and not get sick or injured? Therefore your comparison with hospitals to my comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. I do believe, however, that money in a certain district should be used inside that district first to ease the needs of the public, before it is used in other districts.

>What exactly is the point of
>this whole rhetorical question tirade
>(hmmm... maybe I shouldn't criticise,
>I did one in this
>very post!)?

The point is who are you to make decisions for another adult? That's the question.

>>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.

*shrugs* If you say so...
The point of that was to say that whatever government does, it does by force. There is no deciding whether you are going to abide by a law. If caught, you go to jail. Period. Therefore, laws should not be based merely on the beliefs of the majority because their beliefs aren't everyone's beliefs.

>>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.

How are you to do that if the laws are based on majority opinion?


>>They don't know how my money should be spent
>
>Just say it: you don't want
>to pay taxes. Is that
>it?

No that is not it, nor is that realistic. The reason we pay taxes, or at least it should be, is to compensate for public services, such as fire, police, rescue, and utilities, as well as compensation of government officals and employees. Not for the numerous government programs in existence.

>>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?

Is that better than having an even more unimformed majority decide the fate of the nation, or possibly in the US's case, the world? That's ridiculous.

>>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.

Bingo. That's why I don't have or want full control over your life. Your life is your concern, not to be put in the hands of my lazy, stupid, uninformed, irrational self. You're starting to understand.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.