>but this conversation (which has been
>the same since we "met"
>you, Expertise) is getting very
>boring, and the posts way
>too long.

*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.

>1. Here are a few things
>you said recently
>"However, like I said before that
>is irrevelant because the federal
>government doesn't have jurisdiction over
>the domestic affairs of other
>countries and their governments. Not
>to mention that government and
>national issues are based within
>the confines of our national
>borders. Other countries may model
>them, but we do so
>for our own interests. Therefore,
>we aren't going to simply
>break down our government and
>principles simply because other countries
>want it to be that
>way. That's why there is
>a thing called national soverignty.
>You can do what you
>want to with your own
>country, but you have, nor
>should have, any influence on
>how we govern ourselves here."
>
>
>but then you say
>
>"You have no choice but to
>accept our system. It is
>our system that runs the
>world, and will probably do
>so until doomsday. The US
>sets the pace for the
>rest of the world. As
>I mentioned about high achievers,
>if they aren't doing good,
>then the rest of the
>world isn't either. It's the
>same with international prosperity as
>well. You don't have to
>agree to it, but you
>might as well get used
>to it."
>
>Does a comment need to be
>made? You're libertarian, we're authoritarian?

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? Like I said, people can model our success, but that doesn't mean we will necessarily take their other wishes in high regard, at least until we see that they work. Therefore, you, Krewcial, and the rest of the Euros can continue to complain about the US's system, however, there isn't another out there that can even compete with ours. That's just how it is.

>I think the fundamental question is:
>why do you hate people
>(or "the people")?
>You obviously don't think they can
>govern themselves, and that the
>most important decision they should
>be allowed to make is
>which brand of soap to
>buy.
>I have a few more things
>to say, but reply to
>this first, please. And don't
>tell me "I never said
>I hate the people", because
>that's one of the few
>things you have been saying
>over and over.

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".

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

I guess you can simply call me a free spirit. I feel I should be able to do what I want as long as I am not hurting others. 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. I am an individual. I don't do everything everyone else does, and I'm sure you know I don't think the same way anyone else does either. Am I not entitled to the same influence others have? Why should they have direction over MY life?

So I ask, what's stopping people, if they feel strongly about certain issues, from doing it themselves individually? 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? If a group of you want to do it, what's stopping you from doing it in a group? If you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one. Why must you force other people not to also? If you want to make more money, why can't you get it yourself? Why must you force other people to give it up? There are no options when it comes to government; everything they do is through force, because they are the law. 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.

That's what the Tyler quote means. It means that voters are going to vote for candidates that look out for their best interests and not necessarily for the interests of all. What better interest is there than having money in your pocket?
Why should the masses collectively have power over what everyone else does?

The simple fact is that "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. Therefore, they shouldn't make decisions that affect my life and my prosperity. They don't know how my money should be spent. They don't know what is going on in domestic, national, and foreign affairs every minute. They all don't know what's best for the economy. They all don't know whats best for society. And they never will, because it is impossible, nor does everyone desire, to know everything that's going on everywhere in their state, nation, or world. Just like you didn't want to continue the conversation because it was too long and boring for you, most people don't involve themselves in politics and current events because THEY don't want to. So, why/how are you going to force them?

If you want people to be involved/interested in daily affairs, you can't just simply invite them to. You have to educate them, and show them why they should. If you give vegetables to a carnivore, he isn't going to eat it, but if you show him it's in his best interests to eat them, then perhaps he will. To simply think you can entice someone with something for the mere fact that it enticed you means nothing.

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 on how
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"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