sexual_chocolate

Oh my! I don't think you are at all familiar with the "left", are you? NIXON was further left in some ways than Clinton was. He enacted social programs that "modern" Democrats would have run from with their tails tucked between their legs!

"By the People, For the People." A representative government, with individuals voted into office who enact policy changes that the individual citizens want. Somewhat taken over by monied special-interests (often money "buys" access), but still theoretically sound, in my estimation(?). So you see, it's not really some abstract "government" disconnected from the people, it's the people themselves. I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend. (This idea works best with active citizen (and non-citizen) involvement.) Of course they do! Without outcome specificity, no regulation would exist in the first place! (The outcome in this case is an ordered traffic system, beneficial to most individuals most of the time.) In the same way, if a particular entity (SUV?) is deemed a "disordering" agent, it can likewise be regulated. wonk n. Slang 1. A student who studies excessively; a grind. 2. One who studies an issue or a topic thoroughly or excessively: “leading a talkathon of policy wonks in a methodical effort to build consensus for his programs” (Michael Kranish). I used it loosely, concentrating on its initial definition: "grind". I agree also that complex issues cannot be discussed with overt brevity, yet much can be said with few words.

This isn't going to be a one-liner, is it?

Oh, and by the way: Good Afternoon!

Someone's view of safety is imposed on you every time you take to the streets. Speed limits, stop signs, turn signals, etc., rules that most people seem not to view as an egregious burden. Only you, my friend. And as far as my earlier comments about the fringe nature of Libertarianism: Fringe status hardly negates the legitimacy of any given movement, but I checked on the stats, just for fun.... Ralph Nader: 2, 781, 109 votes (almost qualified for matching funds with limited tv exposure). Harry Browne: 382, 869 votes. That's quite a showing for the "third most powerful" party in American politics, no? By the way, in no way do I attempt to dismiss Libertarian philosophy on the grounds of its (lack of) popularity. We were simply speaking of its relevance, and you defended its popularity and power. I beg to differ. I would also tend to think that its irrelevance as a political power is tied closely to its naive idealism (plus total hegemony enjoyed by the two major parties), expressed quite clearly by its leading spokesman at CC.com. Some thought Gore to be "wonkish"?

Trask says: "Only in Baghdad."

Don't tell me you favor tanks on city streets too?

As an example to the above, see Viagra Spill, under spray.

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.