The IRS goes shopping
#62
Posted 09 February 2010 - 10:38 PM
Nidrah, on 09 February 2010 - 11:23 PM, said:

The level of intellect to acquire a Doctorate was just greatly discounted.
Though much concerned we are not involved with decisions that are made by you" - LSW
#63
Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:31 PM
Are you logically going to support U.N. rulings over U.S. sovereignty, since majority rule trumps property demarcations, as you have previously alluded?
If I were his lawyer, I would point out that using a government office for having sex with his secretary was far less ruinous for Britain than how he might otherwise have been using it. While Prescott was harmlessly fucking his secretary, the rest of the cabinet were probably hatching schemes to make us all line up and be fingerprinted. Put it this way: would you rather he was shafting his secretary, or the nation? We got off lightly.- Harry Hutton
"Politics, from the Greek 'poly', meaning many, and 'ticks', small, annoying bloodsuckers." - Dave Barry
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.... While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.--Learned Hand
#65
Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:34 PM
It made exactly as much sense as your reply to JTR.
And 15 minutes for that low level insult? Seriously? You're slipping Doc.
If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it.
Anything you want to, do it.
Want to change the world? There's nothing to it.
- W.W.
#66
Posted 10 February 2010 - 12:21 AM
Doc, on 09 February 2010 - 09:17 PM, said:
Is that really what you're going to go with? Just a throwaway line of sarcasm? I'll admit, I'm a bit disappointed, as I was honestly expecting some reasonable discourse. What happened to the Doc who was willing to come up with a thought-out response?
You ought to know me from this board and the Other Board. When have I ever tried to go back and forth with you using insults and pointless sarcasm? You may get that from other people, but you haven't gotten that from me. It's a real shame we couldn't actually get anything out of this discussion.
"Do not allow yourself to imagine that revolutionary thinking can be propagated by governmental power." Vinoba Bhave
"...The Constitution... has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Lysander Spooner
"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." H.L. Mencken
#67
Posted 10 February 2010 - 05:45 AM
Doc, on 10 February 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:
1) Here (the USA) is not perfect.
2) No where else is anymore perfect, and doubtful, as.
3) Anywhere else one may go to live, if it is amongst others, there will be rules.
4) At least here, unlike some places, we can attempt to change things, and are allowed armchair muttering
5) Attempting to change things, via violence, is wholly fruitless.
See most of us would say the exact same thing. Yet the interpretations or conclusions seem to be different usually.
the fact that there are rules everywhere is not the issue for libertarians, but that many of these rules are aimed at violating personal rights.
We all agree that things are not perfect. We differ, however, on how much is acceptable.
#68
Posted 10 February 2010 - 06:02 AM
http://serendip.bryn...hange/node/2451
If that was the case we'd
Apart from that, what a group does is shuffle power until it is concentrated on one individual or a small sub-group acting as such (as JTR pointed out),
which means the members of that group are reduced to footnotes, automatic ticks on the voting ballot, while only the group leader truly steers the happenings affecting the group as a whole.
Modern democracies obviously work that way, or we had no presidents, prime ministers, chancellors etc... not even static representative parliaments.
Put a million people in a consistent group and you get a "speaker" whose opinion is the only one you need to appeal to.
That can be good for some smaller scales, like sports clubs or teams, but not on national scales with the threat of force backing up the leader's decision against dissent.
This post has been edited by freeBatjko: 10 February 2010 - 06:03 AM
#69
Posted 10 February 2010 - 07:22 AM
Oroboros, on 10 February 2010 - 12:21 AM, said:
You ought to know me from this board and the Other Board. When have I ever tried to go back and forth with you using insults and pointless sarcasm? You may get that from other people, but you haven't gotten that from me. It's a real shame we couldn't actually get anything out of this discussion.
I'm still waiting for any sort of rebuttal from Doc to my post from page 2 (post #33) on the topic of whether majority rule has ever been true in America. Doc has been invested in the sanctity of majority rule for many years now, and seems to repeat the same argument over and over, ad nauseam. But I don't know that he has ever really questioned the historical validity of the position he espouses. He argues quite vehemently against the idea of minority rule, yet minority rule is precisely what we have here in America.
I think Doc uses "throwaway sarcasm" when he's got nothing else. *shrug*
Beef at a groat, and meat at a shilling.
Whisky for nothing, beer at the same.
A bonnie wee wife; and a cosy wee hame.

Help



MultiQuote


"It's not 1789 anymore" isn't a valid argument.












