Chucktshoes

Maybe I should have used the /sarcasm tag. I figured the quotation marks (as in I was quoting someone else if not in word, but attitude) and the whistle smiley would have imparted that was my intent. I guess not, my bad. If you read the other CT thread it is more than obvious what my stance on this is and what I think is the proper solution to correct it as well.

I'm calling shenanigans as well. 

Waiting for it to complete then I will binge watch it. I have a hard time keeping up with TV shows. The advent of the streaming and the ability to binge watch an entire season over the course of a week has been a godsend for me.

"it'll never happen here."  :whistle:

I got the Liberator as well. Usually a virtue, your single-mindedness can blind you to what is around you. Sometimes crude, you don't put up with formalities and don't need the finer things in life, just the things you really want, like nachos.

  YES!

I would suggest that you should read some more Old Testament. Specifically everything prior to Kings. It was the people of Israel that beseeched God for a king and he gave them one, only after telling them of the sorrow it would bring them. A very strong argument exists that He desires for us to live directly under His rule.       Prior to God giving Israel a king, he sent them Prophets and Judges at the specific times that they needed them. They chose instead to reject Him for a king and political solutions.     Edited to add: I am not attempting to actually make the argument that God endorses my political views. My real point is that the scriptures are large and varied and one should be very careful before claiming He endorses ANY man made solution as God likely has His own ideas.

Nice job slightly altering your language there but it doesn't fool me. I still don't think you actually understand the words you are using. Your civics teacher gets an F.   What has been proven time and time again is that men of baser instinct are attracted to government because of the power it wields and then use that power to control, steal from and murder their fellow man by the millions. Once again, I ask of you the question Frederic Bastiat asked nearly 200 years ago.  

Mark, you are half right. I am not looking for definition B, but would be very  happy with A. The strain of anarchism that I most closely identify with is Anarcho-Capitalism. This would be the system I would choose if it were up to me, but it isn't. As I mentioned before, I can accept a semi-minarchist style of government which would very closely resemble the very small federal system our government initially resembled, not the many tentacled leviathan that seeks more and more control that currently exists. So while I do advocate ultimately moving towards a voluntary based society, I also advocate returning to the constitutionally limited republican form of government this nation once had as a more immediate method of restoring individual liberty. I can start a thread about Anarchism/ Voluntaryism and we can discuss its merits and flaws as it may provide a nice illuminating discussion. I'm going to leave that subject here with this quote on the supposed rampant violence of anarchy folks love to bring up.       All of that aside; Now to Robert.   You did an admirable job of deflecting the subject away from your own confusion of democracy with the republican form of government that our nation was intended to and at one time did have. The founders of this country viewed democracy with the same sort of revulsion that most of us here today view communism. They understood that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. Here are a few quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on the matter.      Just to throw this in as a bonus, make what you will of these quotes from Jefferson and Adams.  

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113878" timestamp="1392913739"]Yes...do look at the context. The US. IS a representative democracy and always has been it is also a Constitutional republic in that we are guided by a constitution. As to the "property rights"; yes..I believe people have a right to voluntarily come together and set rules and standards for themselves...that's part of freedom of choice or the right of the individual which you claim to hold dear...[b]I suspect, however, that you are only for free choice/individual rights for people if they make the choices you want them to make[/b].[/quote] :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: <--regarding the bolded portion. Do you even read or comprehend anything I have posted here? For that matter, do you understand the words that you are using? I'm really not sure you do. As far as the property rights debates, I'm not gonna rehash those arguments for the umpteenth time, but yeah, you just contradicted almost everything you have ever written here on the subject of property rights. :rofl:

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113841" timestamp="1392910040"]I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".[/quote]Look at the words you used and compare them to the ones I used because the terminology matters. Control the language and you control the mind. The difference between a democracy and a representative democracy is that in the latter you send representatives to engage in mob rule in your place as opposed to doing it directly. The rights of the individual still have no protection from the whims of the masses. A constitutional republic with individual liberty as its core principle protects the rights of the individual to their life, liberty and property from the whims and desires of others. As far as the second point goes, all anyone has to do is look at any debate I or JayC has had with you on the subject of property rights to see that contrary to your present denials, you absolutely view the whims of the masses as superior to the rights of the individual.

I love the honesty about how the only real use is to piss off the gun grabbing legislators. :lol:

Still not answering how if people can't be trusted to govern themselves, they can be trusted to govern others. That's okay as there isn't an answer that actually has any logical consistency. On the other hand, I am not surprised by your elevation of democracy (like we have now) over a constitutional republic (like our founders instituted) as time and time again you have stated a belief that majority vote trumps the rights of the individual. To paraphrase a famous sci-fi character "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one".

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113525" timestamp="1392850933"]Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history. If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.[/quote] Read the quote from Bastiat again, Robert. I will absolutely agree with you that people can't be trusted. So why do we trust them with the power to govern others if they can't be trusted to govern themselves?

:rofl: Well played. :rofl:   I hadn't thought of it like that before, but I can't necessarily deny it either.

Yes, because people that can't be trusted to rule themselves should instead be given the power to rule over others.     

I'm all for ditching DST. Never made much sense to me. 

Government? While I can very grudgingly accept some limited, minarchist forms of government, I would never seek to create one. I find the very concept of government fundamentally flawed and so I am an anarchist. If governments are built on the consent of the governed, only the individual can grant that consent and it cannot be granted for him no matter how many others vote on the matter.     I'd say that history has shown us that without fail, the answer to Jefferson's question is a resounding "no". 

 She's a wise woman, but that awkwardness is almost over.

That's pretty well spot on. I have a couple of friends that are communists. I don't mean commie like your average college age liberal idiot or teamster boss, but red dyed in the wool, celebrating Che's birthday card carrying members of the CPUSA commies. These are guys I consider friends and have had plenty of arguments and debates about politics over beers. I don't have any desire to stick a gun in their face or gut them and hang them by their own intestines because they have no ability to be a danger to myself or my family. They don't have the ability to get together with a couple of other folks, take a vote and then grant themselves the power to take my life, liberty or property with the ability to send armed folks to my door. They don't have a national audience and use it to sell the lies of thieves and murderers and increase the power of the state to control the lives of the citizenry. My two friends and I have a difference of political opinions, The bastards that I am talking about that need shooting have the means to enforce their will upon me.

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112946" timestamp="1392742635"]I, for one, am immensely glad that we don't have a Confederate Stats of America today but if by some chance the CSA has won the war and we did have two countries where there used to be one I've not doubt that both would be just as screwed up as the current USA is.[/quote] I'd agree with that assessment. As long as people believe they have a legitimate right to use violence and coercion to rule others, we will have a screwed up state of affairs. When folks are allowed to voluntarily choose their associations, only them will things begin to not be so fucked up.

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1112675" timestamp="1392681782"]You would have to be an idiot to start murdering people that are no immediate threat to you. From reading your posts I don’t think you are an idiot. It’s just easy to pump yourself up and start talking non-sense about what you would do in a given situation when you know the chances of that situation happening are about the same as winning the lottery.[/quote] Dave, those politicians and media whores are the most immediate threat to not just me, but everyone you or I know. It is their actions that are going to bring this whole American experiment to an end.

[quote name="JayC" post="1112650" timestamp="1392678907"]I meant they are successful in overthrowing the current government in the vast majority of cases. [size=4]And I completely agree in the vast majority of cases the outcome is just as bad if not worse than what they had before.[/size] Which is why I don't advocate for an insurgency... which is why I tend to make sure people don't have a false sense of bravado... Our Government and by extension the military won't win an insurgence here at home... and neither will we the people. So we should do everything in our power to avoid it... but the fact remains many politicians don't see it that way... and they're playing with fire... we're maybe 2 steps away from a civil war, and many in both parties are happy to keep marching along in the same direction hoping we don't step into a pothole and kick off the worse war any of us have ever seen. Eventually they'll poke the wrong bear... and all of us and for 4 or 5 generations to come will be paying the price.[/quote] Well stated. I know some folks view me as some bloodthirsty internet blowhard clamoring for an excuse to start shooting folks. That isn't the case at all. I would love it if the fed.gov would return to its original semi-minarchist form. I just don't see that happening and I have determined that a point does exist where I won't take anymore. As far as my position on the targeting of politicians and media partisans, look at it this way. If there is someone who is hiring hit men to kill you and they will never be prosecuted for it no matter how many they send, do you just attempt to defend yourself against the hit men until one of them gets you? Maybe the real solution is to go after the person paying the hit men. The agents tasked with enforcing the intolerable acts like this gun registration in CT aren't the real enemy (though if they catch lead trying to kidnap a citizen for not complying with it, so be it) the politicians who passed the laws and the media whores who sell their lies for them are. If one is going to possibly die resisting these intolerable acts, might as well take out some of the real villains first.

That's exactly what I was saying. Robert didn't misunderstand it, he just rejects the premise because he apparently believes that as long as some body, somewhere that calls itself a government took a vote on the matter then it's violence against the individual is legitimate and should not be resisted.   Robert, if you are going to paraphrase and butcher my words by leaving out the key portion in an attempt to twist them against me, do yourself a favor and at least attempt to form a grammatically coherent sentence. You managed to quote it correctly the first time but I'll go ahead and quote myself for you again for clarity's sake. Compare the bolded texts if you will.     Those few words really have a profound effect on the thrust of the argument as they provide the moral justification for the act of self defense. I am not advocating that anyone take any specific action, especially actions of such profound consequences. I am only explaining what I believe to be is the moral basis for those actions which I view as an inevitability. 

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html[/URL] :D