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

Hey, I dunno what you've been doing while typing...

Anyways I do appreciate your participation. The point was that more people aren't interested in talking about it, and at lengths at a time. Wasn't it ya boy Nader that said, "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you."? I'm just turned on to politics. So sue me.

>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.

The point is it's the most successful, which you just acknowledged.

>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.

Who is to decide the common good? Who is to say that "the common good" is good for me? And you just criticized me for being elitist?
Also, compromising doesn't mean unaminous. Therefore that means people can still disagree on how those compromises are set up. And does every issue people dispute turn into violence? I haven't had the thought of killing you?

>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?

That doesn't mean you have the right to take other people's freedoms away from them. That example is absurd and has nothing to do with capitalism. What you consider yours and what actually is yours is two different things.

>> 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.

But it was of certain people's opinions though. It wasn't based on the opinions of today's majority or even the opinions of the majority then. Do laws need the support of the people in order to be effective? Sure. But to begin and base legislation by polls and popular opinion won't work. Minorities can cause as much rebellion as the majority.

>What are the laws without the
>people?

But not all people agree. People have different views on how their lives should be led. That's the point.

>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.

No. Absent of prohibition repeal, if there was a democratic referendum on those other three, I'd bet none of those would have went through. As I mentioned before to Korr, people were more interested in saving the Union than actually abolishing slavery. The South was more populated and has more states in favor of slavery than the North. I'd bet the South would have won a referendum hands down. As for women's right to vote, it's simple....white men were the only ones able to vote. Although it's understandable that some men were for it, I don't believe there was a majority of them. Abolition probably was based off of a majority of Christians. However, considering those strong Christian ties throughout US history, I'd say there was still a majority for keeping liquor illegal.

>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.

Actually I read about a woman that was arrested for saying goddammit in front of a child. There was another law passed in Mississippi last year in which one of the provisions was that men can be arrested for having erections in public. You'd be surprised how many laws from way back when are still being enforced, and some that are made even in this day by state governments. It mostly happens in the socially conservative South however.

>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.

The courts interpret the rules based on that specific case. However if they find that the plaintiff is guilty, that doesn't mean he is let off the hook because "he didn't know". He still has to serve his punishment, no matter what.



>And guess what? You just done
>pissed me off.

So.

Because you
>just insinuated that I am
>incompetent, uninformed, and apathetic when
>it comes to social and
>political affairs.

Did I say you individually? No, unless you consider yourself the majority.

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.

So? Does that mean you have the right to tell me how to live my life? No. Just as I don't have the right to tell you either. So you are NOT qualified to tell me how to run my life, nor the matters of this country. Now you may REPRESENT my districts interests in government, should you win a democratic election, but that doesn't mean that you, or government itself, should tell me how to live my private life, considering I don't obstruct or invade anyone elses. Your idea is true elitism.

>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!

Hey, reality bites doesn't it? No group of people can accurately know what's best for other people's private lives. If so, totalitarianism would actually be successful in this world. If anything you're busting your asses for the authoritarian right to rule someone else life. That's a right that you don't have, and hopefully, you never will.

>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?

I live my life to the fullest and I strive every day to be a better person than the day before. That's all I need to do.

>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 are right. And I will continue to strive for that stake. If not, there's no reason to live. Stalemating is not an option.

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

The most intelligent people allow their ideals to speak for themselves, and not let their ideals only speak for them. Maybe Rand is/was a libertarian thinker. I dunno. But I'd rather know his ideals than simply the person. I could care less about him personally.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee