The State Is a Deluded, Dangerous Religion

All large-scale forms of government are totalitarian to some degree.

 

Seeing it wasn't intended to prove anything, I don't know why I should give a damn.

How about if the purpose is to prevent some individuals from coercing other individuals?

And the difference between a society making laws and the individuals comprising that society making laws is what, precisely?

Afraid I'm still utterly at a loss as to the connection to anything I said.

 

Philosophically I agree

I think you and I are pretty well aligned with one another philosophically and politically speaking

 

This guy read the Leviathan and thought it was about a real monster with tentacles and horns and ****.

 

I agree with the OP 100%

 

Wow... you really put me in my place with that thoughtful response. I'm positively distraught.

 

In other words, you made a useless statement that had no relevance to our discussion.

Voluntary cooperation for purposes of legitimate self-defense is entirely justifiable. But that is not why the state exists. The state exists for purposes of extortion and fraud.

The former is imaginary while the latter is not. Society without reference to the individuals who comprise it is nonsensical.

That's fine. Others will comprehend my meaning.

 

How are you measuring success?

 

Lots of good points, but what's the alternative?

 

Longevity and advancement, for starters.

 

Decentralized, localized, democratic government.

 

But rule of the people really means rule by majority and a majority can only be attained by some sort of vote. So the majority can vote to abrogate the individual rights of a select few (mob rule if you will). In a true Constitutional Republic the rights of the individual are protected so that can't happen (in theory).

IMO it can be given a defect free Constitution. The framers also wanted a small federal government and to retain states that have their own individual rules (as long as those rules do not violate the Constitution). In practice it failed because the Constitution had too many critical defects. See first and last post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

 

I'm fine with that

 

Your theory has never worked in real life

 

Yes the government prints the money

 

That law would be unconstitutional

 

More accurately, I made a statement that was every bit as useful and relevant to the discussion as that which I was responding to.

Then perhaps you'd like to provide evidence that your beloved microdemocracies have any other purposes.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

To be sure - which is why it is passing strange that you insist on maintaining the pretense to the contrary.

No, those with an affinity for nonsense will agree with you. Having provided nothing comprehensible, that's the most you can hope for.

 

Longevity, I'll give you.

Advancement in what way?

 

It is not in the constitution.

 

OK, on a technicality it does print currency, but a private firm first orders it.

 

Well then welcome to the Trump club.

 

Our founders did their best to set it up like his explanation is. I blame to a degree Abe the outlaw Lincoln but the SOB that drove in the spike was FDR.

 

You benefit greatly from what FDR did all those years ago

 

How nice for them

 

Yes it is