sexual_chocolate

I do truly believe tanks should not be allowed on public streets, meaning: I believe it should be (which I think it is) illegal, punishable (yes, coercion!) by law. How about that for an infringement on your personal freedoms! I think the tank example shows, quite accurately, the differences between us: You think anything goes; I think we can collectively (as individuals with individual voices!) decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Pretty basic, really. We collectively decide that murder isn't allowed, because it's an impingement on other indivuals' rights. In the same vein, we can decide that SUVs must be regulated (and tanks!), because they are an impingement on other individuals' rights. I think this stance has a constitutional basis; pretty simple really. Out of all your responses, this I singled out, because it I think encapsulates the root of our disagreements most completely. You assume that since I believe the individual's actions must be curtailed in certain instances, I automatically support your assertion above. Hah! Nice troll, gotta go. Have a nice weekend.

Such as... the systematic misrepresentation of the second amendment?

Oh, and I should have offered a warning, as in "Incoming!", Or "Here we go again....", or at least "Sorry!". Better late than never? And mtgoat, nothing personal above, I've never even met you; I think you know that. I just really think the philosophy you espouse is terribly naive and idealistic, disregarding all ramifications in favor of its trumpet-call: The Individual Above All!

Competition? You don't believe a damn word of what you say; it simply provides a platform from which you can argue. I think the reason you found Libertarianism attractive is cuz it was the most antagonistic philosophy, suiting your personality to a tee. The only reason I say this is because your arguments above prove your position to be entirely irrevelevant and short-sighted. This is why Libertarianism will continue to be only a marginalized sect, devoid of any powers of influence (in a positive sense), except on the already marginalized. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think it's readily apparent.

Oh my god! Mtgoat has turned into a bodysnatcher!

(It's supposed to be laughing. Really. Mr. irreverence.)

You're getting your maths mixed up, oh pile-of-poo.

Your puppy is calling.

Ah yes. A worthy reason for an animal to lose its life. Perhaps we should bring back ivory.

You weren't this high:

You weren't a dumb blonde back then.

Of course you can be as shallow as you want. Even Mtgoat will defend your right to be as such.

Cheap shot from the side-lines. Debate him. I'm still waiting for my tank answer.

Hey, Ian's got a house and money out in DC area now (I think that's who a friend was visiting). He can afford to live up to his ideals.

And there was smoke and stuff? Oh wait, you're just in character, right?

Oh my god. You were stuck in traffic for how long?

Well, get on it then.

"Pitiless oppressive legislation". Kinda dramatic, no?

That's why you're supposed to steal all Fugazi products.

Goddamnit, I make a smart-ass comment and mtgoat responds to it as if it's serious. Mtgoat, don't be such a tool. And answer my tank question please. Or are you avoiding its ramifications?

The architecture of your Libertarian philosophy is inherently violent, condoning much more than simple arson.

Force versus choice.

Kinda like Poindexter and his cronies (Reagan, Bush, etc.) in the early '90's?

Hey, no one's forcing the others to buy a safer car, so they can make it to work alive. It's a choice, see? And that's the difference!

I'm still waiting to hear if I can drive my goddamn tank to work tomorrow. It's been disarmed. Mtgoat, let me know, ASAP!