How does that address the problem of oppresive government? Ignoring it won't make it go away. In fact, ignoring it has allowed it to become so oppressive. In order to change it, we have to elect people who will make it smaller.
lostinwilderness: How does that address the problem of oppresive government? Ignoring it won't make it go away. In fact, ignoring it has allowed it to become so oppressive. In order to change it, we have to elect people who will make it smaller.
I said use your mind in other words, reason, and you say I'm ignoring an "oppresive government". How do you jump around like that? Don't be rational, I'm not dictating this to you. Your choice.
Are you trying to be some sort of Zen master? I asked a simple question. I propose electing politicians who support reducing the size and scope of government. What alternative do you propose?
lostinwilderness: Are you trying to be some sort of Zen master? I asked a simple question. I propose electing politicians who support reducing the size and scope of government. What alternative do you propose?
Just wondering how you got from me stating the use of reason to I ignore an oppressive government. Thought you might like to elaborate on that conclusion of yours. How did you get from (A) Exercising Reason -- to -- (B) that means ignoring oppressive government?
The other means of a plausible alternative is either; (A) Revolts where the uneducated masses select another form of government dictatorship . (B) Some sort of Anarcho-Capitalist/ Libertarian Che Guevara.
lostinwilderness: How does a libertarian get elected in the US?
How does a libertarian get elected in the US?
They don't need to, the best thing for RP was not being elected. Look at the political wing of any "radical" organization anywhere and you'll see that the political authorities see them as a threat and do their best to silence them (ETA and Batasuna) even though they're not going to win for a long time. Same goes for Ron Paul, nobody seriously believed that he was going to win, they did their best to silence him anyway because what he was saying was a threat to the establishment and he gave people a person whom they could rally behind, that's all that is needed. That in itself is victory, if RP had won he'd have wasted years in office doing everything he originally opposed.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I prefer to avoid A and B above, thanks.
GilesStratton: They don't need to, the best thing for RP was not being elected.
They don't need to, the best thing for RP was not being elected.
Did it make government less oppressive because Ron Paul lost? Is government shrinking because Ron Paul lost? No doubt, power corrupts. But it doesn't corrupt everybody at the same rate. It doesn't seem to have corrupted Ron Paul yet. I contend the FairTax is a policy, that if Paul had championed it, would have made him a viable contender. The vast majority of Americans would love to keep 100 percent of their paychecks. If Paul had run on the FairTax with the promise to abolish it when he brought home our overseas troops and made other deep cuts in spending, he might have gotten elected and been able to do a lot of what he promised.
lostinwilderness:Did it make government less oppressive because Ron Paul lost?
No, but because he ran there is a sizable number of people who are now far suspicious of the state than they were beforehand. What would RP have done if he had won? If there was even the slightest bit of doubt that he would have attempted to abolish the Fed or whatever else he'd have been killed.
The game is too heavily rigged for a libertarian candidate to win, even if they're not running on a particularly libertarian platform unless they're friends with the right people they're not going to win it. GWB ran on a somewhat respectable platform, he didn't scare anybody because they knew at the end of the day he was part of the political elite.
If you're playing poker against somebody no matter how well you play, you're not going to win if the dealer is giving the guy next to you pocket aces every hand.
lostinwilderness: I prefer to avoid A and B above, thanks. GilesStratton: They don't need to, the best thing for RP was not being elected. Did it make government less oppressive because Ron Paul lost? Is government shrinking because Ron Paul lost? No doubt, power corrupts. But it doesn't corrupt everybody at the same rate. It doesn't seem to have corrupted Ron Paul yet. I contend the FairTax is a policy, that if Paul had championed it, would have made him a viable contender. The vast majority of Americans would love to keep 100 percent of their paychecks. If Paul had run on the FairTax with the promise to abolish it when he brought home our overseas troops and made other deep cuts in spending, he might have gotten elected and been able to do a lot of what he promised.
Why do you go on about this Fair Tax and yet have no idea how it will change anything? I asked for facts about it so I could consider it, and you didn't have any. It makes me think you just like it cause it's popular. I showed you how income taxes pay off interest to the debt via Reagan's Grace Report. I know of nothing different than that status quo. So if the State would just spend less, then our taxes could drop cause the debt would drop. But... Keynes economics says debt is good. I wouldn't let the State have another tax option. I've seen no reports that say taxes will drop. Even the writer of one of the books that Nitroadict quoted admitted that the Fair Tax probably wouldn't lower taxes. The supposed expert on Fair Tax saying that... no thank you. They advocate the Fair Tax cause it will make doing taxes easier. How nice.
And as to Ron P. being able to do that... maybe.
I think you might be missing something significant about the free market and freedom minded people keeping statists in check.
While I applaud the idea of mass gatherings of people protesting the state, and wish such action nothing but the best, I cannot shake the feeling that the majority of those in attendance are there only because a Democrat was elected recently.
Dbsafc: While I applaud the idea of mass gatherings of people protesting the state, and wish such action nothing but the best, I cannot shake the feeling that the majority of those in attendance are there only because a Democrat was elected recently.
Very true. My own mother, a hyper-partisan Republican, attended the same one I did. To her, because McCain lost the state is now oppressive. If McCain had won - things would be all hunky-dory.
Still, I support the sentiment as reducing or eliminating any tax is a very libertarian goal. A great number of Ron Paul'ers attended the Dayton tea party despite the heavy presence of FAIR(sic)taxers. Some other TEA parties were a bit more successful; a friend of mine attended one in a small town where they were 'confronted' by the mayor with a small entourage of police. Clearly, some statists feel threatened by these, as evident by the bombastic media coverage - "astro-turf movement, not grass roots", "..set up by a LOBBYIST". And from the Daily Show "..a cause the right can get behind - tax breaks for the rich!". (Any one else noticed the Daily Show getting more statist all of a sudden?)
lostinwilderness: Nitroadict: Using The State to minimize itself doesn't seem like it would be effective, especially on a national scale, imo. What's your alternative?
Nitroadict: Using The State to minimize itself doesn't seem like it would be effective, especially on a national scale, imo.
What's your alternative?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
lostinwilderness:I prefer to avoid A and B above, thanks.
By those who do not want to hear, by those who believe the Neocon lies, and by those who are asleep.
wilderness: "only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning.
"only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning.
Well, be fair, that's not what I'm saying. I mean that we can't cut all taxes down to zero all at once. It's like a drug addict quitting their addition--even the doctors don't have them simply stop. I don't think the main problem is economic--if the government stopped stealing today we'll be adding a lot to the debt every year until spending can be slowed (there will have to be a long transition period)--but we're already adding mass amounts to the debt anyway aren't we? So I think the problem is more a political one than an economic one. Even if we're in a depression, dollar collapses, etc, I have doubts that the political mood of the nation will change so radically that people will accept eliminating almost all taxes. Everyone wants to run to the state for help in those situations...
I couldn't say which alternative system would be the best step backwards, but whatever it is it has to be politically feasible (yeah, I probably know what you're thinking here), this is all I'm saying.
Ansury: wilderness: "only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning. Well, be fair, that's not what I'm saying. I mean that we can't cut all taxes down to zero all at once. It's like a drug addict quitting their addition--even the doctors don't have them simply stop. I don't think the main problem is economic--if the government stopped stealing today we'll be adding a lot to the debt every year until spending can be slowed (there will have to be a long transition period)--but we're already adding mass amounts to the debt anyway aren't we? So I think the problem is more a political one than an economic one. Even if we're in a depression, dollar collapses, etc, I have doubts that the political mood of the nation will change so radically that people will accept eliminating almost all taxes. Everyone wants to run to the state for help in those situations... I couldn't say which alternative system would be the best step backwards, but whatever it is it has to be politically feasible (yeah, I probably know what you're thinking here), this is all I'm saying.
Actually, no, I don't know what you are saying here.
Nitroadict:Out competing the state, to put it simply, but this should be libertarianism 101, honestly. The political means of de-clawing or minimizing will continue to fail as long there are those around opposing it with political power. I thought one the entire points of libertarianism was to analyze how & why the political means continue to fail, & why the economic means (vis-a-vis Austrian Economics) of change would bring about more permanent change.It also seems hypocritical when purported followers & students of libertarianism and/or Austrian economics ignore that the economic means of achieving freedom do not require coercion (i.e. counter-economics, civil disobedience, microscession, etc), whereas the political either does, or ends up doing so via other political entities hijacking ideas, movements, armed revolutions, etc.
It's hard to outcompete the state when they have the monopoly on states. (More accurately, I mean a monopoly on coercion.)
It seems to me the only way to reduce the size of the state is to address it directly, and by obtaining the support of people (where the real political power really rests, emphasis on "rests") who want to reduce government meddling. I think "competing" will just generate crackdowns, more laws, jail time, and so on for those trying to "outcompete" an authority that can just do whatever it wants as long as it can justify it politically. That kind of stuff will alienate people and "the Libertarian" will just fall further into the "crazy person" category than it already is. And once the state realizes that someone is evading their authority, it'll immediately start working to "correct" that. But perhaps I'm just not picturing what you mean by "outcompete" correctly?
Right now I think the best way to get people to open their minds to real freedom is to do what we're trying to do now, obtain credibility by explaining our positions as reasonable alternatives, challenge misconceptions and attack arguments that try to keep us in the "crazy extremist" category. Call me an optimist, but I think a side effect of having a more and more intrusive state is that it becomes more obvious, more annoying, and provides more recent examples of it's failure to expose.
wilderness: I don't know what you are saying here.
I don't know what you are saying here.
I mean that I have doubts that eliminating all tax is politically feasible in the near future because people have such a shocked reaction to hearing it. Maybe it is feasible, of course I can't say definitely, I'm just trying to imagine a path that sounds like it could actually happen. If it were up to me, yeah I'd skip right to stopping legalized theft right away, sure.
Ansury: wilderness: I don't know what you are saying here. I mean that I have doubts that eliminating all tax is politically feasible in the near future because people have such a shocked reaction to hearing it. Maybe it is feasible, of course I can't say definitely, I'm just trying to imagine a path that sounds like it could actually happen. If it were up to me, yeah I'd skip right to stopping legalized theft right away, sure.
So it's not "...politically feasible in the near future..." and? Ron P. isn't feasible?
From Don Cooper’s scathing review on LRC…
“I watched closely all the tea parties all over the country Wednesday. What a showing of national pride and solidarity. What a showing of subservient compliance and casual indifference. What a joke.
In Lafayette Park, Washington D.C., of all places to protest, the plan was to dump one million tea bags in the park, but the brave dissidents never did it because they forgot to get the proper permits. Are you kidding me? What is civil disobedience without civil disobedience? They even went so far as to say that they were willing to put down plastic tarps and clean up after themselves.”
Examples like these indicate to me that events such as these Tea Parties are ultimately little more than huffing and puffing. However, as other have already noted, there are some signs pointing to more promising trends. It would have been interesting to see how many would have showed up at something like a Ron Paul rally that day. That would be more indicative of popular support towards ideas much more palatable for our side. Otherwise, I think the actual proceedings were much too diluted by mere partisanship to really mean anything for conservatives genuinely interested in limited government, libertarians, and even an-cappers. In short- I’m interested in seeing a snapshot of how many potential allies we might have out there. Because those pulling up to dump tea bags with McCain bumper stickers probably are not among them.
Better yet, I should have voted for Obama I guess. It would have been more feasible?
I don't see way to multiple quote in here, so I'll just quote this one.
Nitroadict: Out competing the state, to put it simply, but this should be libertarianism 101, honestly. The political means of de-clawing or minimizing will continue to fail as long there are those around opposing it with political power. I thought one the entire points of libertarianism was to analyze how & why the political means continue to fail, & why the economic means (vis-a-vis Austrian Economics) of change would bring about more permanent change.
Out competing the state, to put it simply, but this should be libertarianism 101, honestly. The political means of de-clawing or minimizing will continue to fail as long there are those around opposing it with political power. I thought one the entire points of libertarianism was to analyze how & why the political means continue to fail, & why the economic means (vis-a-vis Austrian Economics) of change would bring about more permanent change.
How's that outcompeting the state working out for you? It sounds like an excuse to do nothing to me. The state controls our economy. It infringes on our economic, political and person freedom. That's what we should work to end. Educating the public about freedom is a wonderful thing, but to what end? Sitting on the sidelines waiting for the system to collapse is not a good plan. That's the Road to Serfdom.
As for facts on the FairTax, they're all over the place. Since several people poo-pooed my idea of a libertarian using the FairTax as tool to get elected, using it to dramatically improve the lives and economy of America, then using the political capital gained to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, I was just soliciting alternatives. All I've gotten in response is non-answers and Zen-like responses. Maybe I need to know the secret handshake or something before I can get a straight answer.
And it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a jailer and a person who frees people from jails.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. What did you mean about Ron Paul getting killed? Were you saying if he tried to abolish the Fed, he'd be assassinated?
lostinwilderness: I don't see way to multiple quote in here, so I'll just quote this one. Nitroadict: Out competing the state, to put it simply, but this should be libertarianism 101, honestly. The political means of de-clawing or minimizing will continue to fail as long there are those around opposing it with political power. I thought one the entire points of libertarianism was to analyze how & why the political means continue to fail, & why the economic means (vis-a-vis Austrian Economics) of change would bring about more permanent change. How's that outcompeting the state working out for you? It sounds like an excuse to do nothing to me. The state controls our economy. It infringes on our economic, political and person freedom. That's what we should work to end. Educating the public about freedom is a wonderful thing, but to what end? Sitting on the sidelines waiting for the system to collapse is not a good plan. That's the Road to Serfdom. As for facts on the FairTax, they're all over the place. Since several people poo-pooed my idea of a libertarian using the FairTax as tool to get elected, using it to dramatically improve the lives and economy of America, then using the political capital gained to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, I was just soliciting alternatives. All I've gotten in response is non-answers and Zen-like responses. Maybe I need to know the secret handshake or something before I can get a straight answer. And it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a jailer and a person who frees people from jails. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. What did you mean about Ron Paul getting killed? Were you saying if he tried to abolish the Fed, he'd be assassinated?
By paragraph:
1 - So we should not outcompete the State and support the State? So I guess you are for the State with its theft and murder?
2- Fair Tax facts all over the place yet you can't even show me any. Sounds like you didn't think (aka that reason thingy I talked to you about) about Fair Tax. If you thought this through intellectually, you would have something to immediately share for you would have already done your homework on this. You just jumped on the bandwagon apparently.
2 - As to the "Zen-like responses"... since you don't favor being reasonable, then I guess you favor irrationality. It was simply about thinking for yourself.
3 - something about jailer?
4 - question to somebody else
wilderness: Better yet, I should have voted for Obama I guess. It would have been more feasible?
Why am I detecting hostility here? Please, take it onto the Obamafreak forums if you want to display a patronizing attitude. Besides, they deserve it, and we probably don't disagree fundamentally at all...
In the near future (as long as the Republicrat party is still in charge) we all know there isn't going to be a 0% income tax or anything close. Personally what I could see happening, maybe, is a halfway-point alternative at best. I'm just saying we should be partially receptive towards those stepping stones in the same way Ron Paul is. The way he seems to handle it is something like "Yeah, that's okay for a start I guess, so I'll support it, but the long term goal should be...[stop legalized looting speech here]" I think that's a bit more feasible approach, as opposed to demanding elimination of all taxes the day after inauguration--a candidate with that position would get laughed off the stage.
I was talking about political feasibility specifically from a politician's perspective, and the approach the politicians will need to take for voters to accept the change. Even though RP supports dropping income tax for example, he still has said that he'd probably support "FairTax" (as in vote for it if it got that far), because he understands that a step in the right direction is better than fighting for the decisive victory that can't be won.
I'm willing to consider that my thinking is wrong on this and that perhaps we need to be as aggressive as possible, but I still feel that the more moderate (in the short term) Ron Paul style approach is less likely to scare people away.
"Lostinwilderness" you could clinge to your false hopes for as long as you want. The reality of the situation is dire. The way to convert the dumbed-down populace is usually during an extreme circumstance. Until then, the government is ahead in every aspect. The only real change would be educating the future. . . . of course big brother is currently ahead . . . for the moment. After the calamity balances we'll have our opportunity.
wilderness:By paragraph: 1 - So we should not outcompete the State and support the State? So I guess you are for the State with its theft and murder? 2- Fair Tax facts all over the place yet you can't even show me any. Sounds like you didn't think (aka that reason thingy I talked to you about) about Fair Tax. If you thought this through intellectually, you would have something to immediately share for you would have already done your homework on this. You just jumped on the bandwagon apparently. 2 - As to the "Zen-like responses"... since you don't favor being reasonable, then I guess you favor irrationality. It was simply about thinking for yourself. 3 - something about jailer? 4 - question to somebody else
I'm unreasonable? 230 years of libertarians opting out of the political process has led to the leviathan government we have today. I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, like you're trying to put words in mine, but the few answers I've received here sound like they support continuing that failed strategy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. What does outcompeting the state mean? Buying more shares in banks? Buying more tanks? Ignoring the law? Winning a softball game? What does it mean?
I don't have the secret decoder ring to translate these vague non-answers.
As for the FairTax, I understand it very well. I have read, debated and written about it. Here's a link to get some facts on it: www.google.com
But I'm not trying to convince anybody to support the FairTax. If you don't like it, that's fine. I've laid out a reasonable plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. All I wanted to see is clear, alternative plans from the people dissing mine, but I haven't seen one yet.
We have a unique opportunity to get conservatives to work in the cause of freedom. We shouldn't squander it.
lostinwilderness: wilderness:By paragraph: 1 - So we should not outcompete the State and support the State? So I guess you are for the State with its theft and murder? 2- Fair Tax facts all over the place yet you can't even show me any. Sounds like you didn't think (aka that reason thingy I talked to you about) about Fair Tax. If you thought this through intellectually, you would have something to immediately share for you would have already done your homework on this. You just jumped on the bandwagon apparently. 2 - As to the "Zen-like responses"... since you don't favor being reasonable, then I guess you favor irrationality. It was simply about thinking for yourself. 3 - something about jailer? 4 - question to somebody else I'm unreasonable? 230 years of libertarians opting out of the political process has led to the leviathan government we have today. I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, like you're trying to put words in mine, but the few answers I've received here sound like they support continuing that failed strategy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. What does outcompeting the state mean? Buying more shares in banks? Buying more tanks? Ignoring the law? Winning a softball game? What does it mean? I don't have the secret decoder ring to translate these vague non-answers. As for the FairTax, I understand it very well. I have read, debated and written about it. Here's a link to get some facts on it: www.google.com But I'm not trying to convince anybody to support the FairTax. If you don't like it, that's fine. I've laid out a reasonable plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. All I wanted to see is clear, alternative plans from the people dissing mine, but I haven't seen one yet. We have a unique opportunity to get conservatives to work in the cause of freedom. We shouldn't squander it.
Unreasonable cause you show no facts. You just show fad. All that hard work you put into it, and again another post goes by and you can't even know off of the top of your head anything about this process. Meanwhile Nitroadict showed you that the so called expert on Fair Taxes doesn't even believe taxes will decrease with them, that the process of taxing will simply become easier.
Read up on Rothbard. He'll help you decode this. The faculty of reason is something all people are born with. That's really not a difficult statement to understand. You're making this harder than it need be.
I need not discuss with you anymore. It's clear that I've tried to consider your position but you have no facts, nothing but fad and fashion to try to persuade me. Til next time.
Ansury: wilderness: Better yet, I should have voted for Obama I guess. It would have been more feasible? Why am I detecting hostility here? Please, take it onto the Obamafreak forums if you want to display a patronizing attitude. Besides, they deserve it, and we probably don't disagree fundamentally at all...
Feasibility is a slippery slope and is a premise that can slide all over the place is my point.
Ansury: In the near future (as long as the Republicrat party is still in charge) we all know there isn't going to be a 0% income tax or anything close. Personally what I could see happening, maybe, is a halfway-point alternative at best. I'm just saying we should be partially receptive towards those stepping stones in the same way Ron Paul is. The way he seems to handle it is something like "Yeah, that's okay for a start I guess, so I'll support it, but the long term goal should be...[stop legalized looting speech here]" I think that's a bit more feasible approach, as opposed to demanding elimination of all taxes the day after inauguration--a candidate with that position would get laughed off the stage. I was talking about political feasibility specifically from a politician's perspective, and the approach the politicians will need to take for voters to accept the change. Even though RP supports dropping income tax for example, he still has said that he'd probably support "FairTax" (as in vote for it if it got that far), because he understands that a step in the right direction is better than fighting for the decisive victory that can't be won. I'm willing to consider that my thinking is wrong on this and that perhaps we need to be as aggressive as possible, but I still feel that the more moderate (in the short term) Ron Paul style approach is less likely to scare people away.
Can't argue with "style".
So I'm wrong for wanting freedom, law, and morality is basically what you're saying.
lostinwilderness:Ignoring political reality isn't helpful.
Enabling political action only encourages the existing paradigm that monopoly government can be controlled without competition. It validates democracy (mob rule) and undermines property rights.
I'm not going to criticize people who vote or campaign, that's their choice, but to claim there is no cognitive dissonance would be dishonest.
All politics is based on redistribution of property.
wilderness: Feasibility is a slippery slope and is a premise that can slide all over the place is my point. Can't argue with "style". So I'm wrong for wanting freedom, law, and morality is basically what you're saying.
Well, I'm not going to disagree with that. Except of course I'm not saying those things are "wrong". Come on now, you know that. I don't see your point really, this seems silly. It sounds like you're saying that since I'm accepting of a more gradual (realistic?) path to "freedom, law, and morality" that this is worse than demanding it immediately. I'm just saying that change is more likely to happen if it's gradual so we have to be accepting of that instead of fighting it because it's not perfection. Of course right now we're on a gradually accelerating course in the other direction...
Without some major media figure or movie or tv series or whatever talking about these things it's hard to imagine people in general starting to change their thinking. Hmm, maybe that's something we should be focusing on--infiltrating popular culture with libertarian type ideas? I could imagine that working if it managed not to be overwhelmed by the trash they're making in TV and movies now.
Ansury: wilderness: Feasibility is a slippery slope and is a premise that can slide all over the place is my point. Can't argue with "style". So I'm wrong for wanting freedom, law, and morality is basically what you're saying. Well, I'm not going to disagree with that. Except of course I'm not saying those things are "wrong". Come on now, you know that. I don't see your point really, this seems silly. It sounds like you're saying that since I'm accepting of a more gradual (realistic?) path to "freedom, law, and morality" that this is worse than demanding it immediately. I'm just saying that change is more likely to happen if it's gradual so we have to be accepting of that instead of fighting it because it's not perfection. Of course right now we're on a gradually accelerating course in the other direction... Without some major media figure or movie or tv series or whatever talking about these things it's hard to imagine people in general starting to change their thinking. Hmm, maybe that's something we should be focusing on--infiltrating popular culture with libertarian type ideas? I could imagine that working if it managed not to be overwhelmed by the trash they're making in TV and movies now.
"change is more likely to happen if it's gradual" that's your opinion and you've chosen your path
wilderness: "change is more likely to happen if it's gradual" that's your opinion and you've chosen your path
Well yeah, that's my opinion. I'd rather have instant change too but I just can't imagine it happening like that, realistically. Is that wrong?
Ansury: wilderness: "change is more likely to happen if it's gradual" that's your opinion and you've chosen your path Well yeah, that's my opinion. I'd rather have instant change too but I just can't imagine it happening like that, realistically. Is that wrong?
Well I know there's one less individual that supports freedom right here, right now.
wilderness: Well I know there's one less individual that supports freedom right here, right now.
I don't know what else to tell you. I do support freedom right here, right now, and of course would jump to support that. I just don't think it'll happen like that in the current climate. If you want to hate me for being a realist, what can I say?
Ansury: wilderness: Well I know there's one less individual that supports freedom right here, right now. I don't know what else to tell you. I do support freedom right here, right now, and of course would jump to support that. I just don't think it'll happen like that in the current climate. If you want to hate me for being a realist, what can I say?
You're grappling with this too much. Just let it go. The thought of hating you never crossed my mind. You have your own life and there is no need to get an ok from somebody for a choice you made in your life. You made that choice now be excellent in your pursuit.
Hate to break it to you, but you're the only one who comes off as grappling too much in this discussion. Ansury made is making concise, rational points and you're acting like a troll.
mrwiizrd: Hate to break it to you, but you're the only one who comes off as grappling too much in this discussion. Ansury made is making concise, rational points and you're acting like a troll.
I don't know. Ansury thinks I hate him. I have no idea why. I told him awhile back that I don't need to discuss this anymore with him, it's obvious we don't agree. But for some reason he wants to convince me he's right. It's a mute issue left for moral arguments that just sometimes end up being an expression of individuality. I'm not for gradualism. You can't prove that is an irrational decision of mine. I'm for freedom now. He's for it gradually. So what. So if you need a daddy to make you feel more secure about your decisions too, mrwiizrd, I can't help you with that. Debate me intellectually and stop looking like a cheerleader it doesn't help.
Aside from the false flag, war drum mrwiizrd is trying to wave and beat, I think we agree way more than we disagree. I think it's the way this has been framed. I'm not speaking for other people which is a 'gradual freedom argument'. I've been discussing my stance. When I sit back and weed through what might be called a populist perspective on gradual freedom, I can see you stated, "I do support freedom right here, right now." And that's all I've been saying as well.
He he, the "hate" comment was a bit much wasn't it? (I was exaggerating "dislike".) I was under the impression you were trying to say my opinion was logically or fundamentally incorrect in some way. Anyway, no hard feelings of course, we certainly do agree on the principles that matter and I look forward to future discussions here.
Ansury: He he, the "hate" comment was a bit much wasn't it? (I was exaggerating "dislike".) I was under the impression you were trying to say my opinion was logically or fundamentally incorrect in some way. Anyway, no hard feelings of course, we certainly do agree on the principles that matter and I look forward to future discussions here.