The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Oddball]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

BTW, Rousseau was a socialist prototype.

If you want to talk French revolutionaries, my views much more reflect Frédéric Bastiat than Rousseau, whom Bastiat also believed to be all wet.

I recommend this brief (novella length), highly informative and absorbing read....

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

 

[Agit8r]

You can't help but notice how he labels his new party after the party he left, so he never really stopped being a Democrat. At Democrat is a Democrat, no way to slice it.

Not trying to bullshit you on anything Pogo. And my name isn't "Jack." I am an exploratory debater. In the process of debating I pick a person's brain, win or lose, I have the tools to attain a solid argument the next time around.

Why are we doing what again? What were we doing? Are the cops coming? Quick, we'd better hide, Pogo!

It's worth noting that the 1908 GOP platform tried to conflate the terms socialism with democracy as well:

"The trend of Democracy is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism. Socialism would destroy wealth, Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give to each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possession which would soon leave no one anything to possess, Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions. In line with this tendency the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation."

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1908

And what sort of socialist agenda were the Democrats pushing that year?

We denounce this great and growing increase in the number of office-holders as not only unnecessary and wasteful, but also as clearly indicating a deliberate purpose on the part of the Administration to keep the Republican party in power at public expense by thus increasing the number of its retainers and dependents.
...

"Believing, with Jefferson, in "the support of the State governments in all their rights as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies," and in "the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad," we are opposed to the centralization implied in the suggestion, now frequently made, that the powers of the General Government should be extended by judicial construction."
...

"We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the reduction of import duties. Articles entering into competition with trust-controlled products should be placed upon the free list, and material reductions should be made in the tariff upon the necessaries of life, especially upon articles competing with such American manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply than at home; and gradual reductions should be made in such other schedules as may be necessary to restore the tariff to a revenue basis"

Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1908

 

[Agit8r]

Hardy har har. You're just too fucking funny.

No, seriously though. Was it during Washington's administration when they bailed out Wall Street and adopted the Whiskey Tax?

The Adams Administration with the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Jefferson with his Barbary War?

Any of the other presidents who presided over our mercantilist economy prior to 1947?


I'm seriously at a loss for when you might be referring

You're making the same fallacious argument as Michael Lind. That the U.S. wasn't perfectly libertarian at any one time doesn't mean that it wasn't founded on libertarian principles, and that it wasn't largely libertarian for a period of time, or even several different periods of time.

Some examples might be helpful

 

[Oddball]

No, seriously though. Was it during Washington's administration when they bailed out Wall Street and adopted the Whiskey Tax?

The Adams Administration with the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Jefferson with his Barbary War?

Any of the other presidents who presided over our mercantilist economy prior to 1947?


I'm seriously at a loss for when you might be referring

You're making the same fallacious argument as Michael Lind. That the U.S. wasn't perfectly libertarian at any one time doesn't mean that it wasn't founded on libertarian principles, and that it wasn't largely libertarian for a period of time, or even several different periods of time.

Some examples might be helpful

The first 150 years of America, prior to the progressive era, as was already pointed out.

Once again, perfection is not an option.

 

[Pogo]

The repeat of the word "Democratic" under his political affiliation was no typo. There was such a thing as a Democratic Party, as far back as 1860. Debs was a member of the Democratic party in the earlier part of his political career (1884). Fifteen years later, he split from the Democratic Party to form his own, the Social Democratic Party in 1896.

"In the early part of his political career, Debs was a member of the Democratic Party. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884."

Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



(/disproven)

-- and in 1884 he would have turned twenty-nine years old, and from 1895 through the rest of his life, the part he's known for, Debs was an avowed and vocal Socialist. Dis-disproven.

You're not going to bullshit me on history, Jack.

Why are we doing this again?

You can't help but notice how he labels his new party after the party he left, so he never really stopped being a Democrat. At Democrat is a Democrat, no way to slice it.

Not trying to bullshit you on anything Pogo. And my name isn't "Jack." I am an exploratory debater. In the process of debating I pick a person's brain, win or lose, I have the tools to attain a solid argument the next time around.

Why are we doing what again? What were we doing? Are the cops coming? Quick, we'd better hide, Pogo!

Um, not really. "Democrat" is just a word, coined from "democracy/democratic". Anyone can use it, just as "Republican" comes from republic. And just to muddy these waters, what we now call the Democratic Party started as the Democratic-Republican Party, and was in the early days commonly referred to as the "Republican" Party for short.

But as for Eugene Debs he turned to socialism in 1895 and never looked back, and that's how he's historically known, so whoever's attempting to paint him as a "Democrat" is playing loosely with the facts.

Then again I can recall one of our dimmer posters trying to make a case that the current Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson so there's a whole lotta revision goin' on.

(/offtopic)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, seriously though. Was it during Washington's administration when they bailed out Wall Street and adopted the Whiskey Tax?

The Adams Administration with the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Jefferson with his Barbary War?

Any of the other presidents who presided over our mercantilist economy prior to 1947?


I'm seriously at a loss for when you might be referring

You're making the same fallacious argument as Michael Lind. That the U.S. wasn't perfectly libertarian at any one time doesn't mean that it wasn't founded on libertarian principles, and that it wasn't largely libertarian for a period of time, or even several different periods of time.

Some examples might be helpful

Reading my original post in this thread might be helpful too.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's an agreement forced by being present. It's not voluntary and I never signed it. It's imposed as the contract that never was.

So you think you should be able to ignore the constitution because you never signed it? It is imposed on you without your consent? You should be able to ignore federal laws or state laws or your local laws because you never agreed to them?

As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution imparts no obligation upon We the People...It is the politicians and bureaucrats who have the compact with us.

There's a vast difference in the flow chart on that one.

Surely you can see what chaos would ensue if everybody took a point of view like that. Nobody would have any rights. It would be survival of the fittest all over again.

Straw man argument all over again....Just because you see the ruination of the entire world doesn't mean that it would in fact happen.

Social contract is how people organize themselves to provide mutual protection and security and quality of life. Nobody should be able to tax us or coerce us for any indiviual's benefit. But for mutual benefit, social contract protects freedoms and quality of life and cultural values by collectively agreeing to forego legal right to exercise other freedoms. Such as public nudity or child pornography or defecating in the street or dumping your trash in the city park.

The key is by mutual agreement and not via dictate by some authority figure.

But there is no mutual agreement...Your "social contract" is imposed upon the populace by coercive authority of the mob....Contracts, by their very definition, imply a volitional relationship between the principals, which would exclude any coercion.

When you misrepresent what I say and presume to assign what, in your eyes, I see, no productive discussion is possible. I have engaged in many social contracts and not one of them was a coercive action of any mob. I accept that you reject the concept of social contract. Should I assume that you are sitting alone on a desert island in some remote part of the world where you don't ever have to interact with other human beings?

If unanimous consent is the only non coercive way for people to mutually cooperate on something and make you happy, we might as well disband everything and find one of those desert island for everybody.

But since you want no restrictions or expectations of any kind put on you that you don't consent to, I wonder how you handle that trashy neighbor who has brought your home value down by tens of thousands of dollars?

 

[kaz]

Want to try answering my question or would you like to save time and admit FAILURE now?

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

I said it's not my responsibility, meaning they cannot take by force. None of the reasons you stated make it my responsibility. Your answer changed nothing.

BTW, in no way either did I say I wouldn't help them. In fact I have always given a lot to charity. It's ironic that you think I wouldn't help them because if you have a choice, you won't. However, giving freely and giving by coercion are entirely different things. The first is charity, the second is theft.

 

[kaz]

The question is whether or not the right exists, and the answer to that is obvious. That somebody can come in and steal my property doesn't mean that my right to that property is nonexistent. In that scenario, the anarchist would say that you either defend your property yourself, as you have the right to do, or you hire somebody to defend your property for you.

OK, I understand what you're arguing now. But you are splitting hairs. The statement that property rights don't exist didn't mean there isn't a right in the way you are arguing it, it was that you'll spend all your time sitting with a gun looking for bad guys trying to take it and won't benefit from your ownership.

You can't sell it, you can't leave it or someone will squat, you can't get borders which are recognized, you have no remedy if someone torches your house. It's the right to benefit from your ownership by having it recognized which allows to to genuinely utilize it and prosper.

Seriously, read the de Soto book I recommended.

And why do I need the state to have my property right recognized?

See above.

 

[Oddball]

So you think you should be able to ignore the constitution because you never signed it? It is imposed on you without your consent? You should be able to ignore federal laws or state laws or your local laws because you never agreed to them?

As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution imparts no obligation upon We the People...It is the politicians and bureaucrats who have the compact with us.

There's a vast difference in the flow chart on that one.


Straw man argument all over again....Just because you see the ruination of the entire world doesn't mean that it would in fact happen.

Social contract is how people organize themselves to provide mutual protection and security and quality of life. Nobody should be able to tax us or coerce us for any indiviual's benefit. But for mutual benefit, social contract protects freedoms and quality of life and cultural values by collectively agreeing to forego legal right to exercise other freedoms. Such as public nudity or child pornography or defecating in the street or dumping your trash in the city park.

The key is by mutual agreement and not via dictate by some authority figure.

But there is no mutual agreement...Your "social contract" is imposed upon the populace by coercive authority of the mob....Contracts, by their very definition, imply a volitional relationship between the principals, which would exclude any coercion.

When you misrepresent what I say and presume to assign what, in your eyes, I see, no productive discussion is possible. I have engaged in many social contracts and not one of them was a coercive action of any mob. I accept that you reject the concept of social contract. Should I assume that you are sitting alone on a desert island in some remote part of the world where you don't ever have to interact with other human beings?

If unanimous consent is the only non coercive way for people to mutually cooperate on something and make you happy, we might as well disband everything and find one of those desert island for everybody.

But since you want no restrictions or expectations of any kind put on you that you don't consent to, I wonder how you handle that trashy neighbor who has brought your home value down by tens of thousands of dollars?

That you believe that you have engaged in this "social contracting" does not make it so....The word "contract" has very specific and defined meanings, almost all of which preclude its credible use in the semantic contradiction that is the term "social contract".

And, yes, unanimous consent is the only non-coercive way to mutually cooperate on anything....Therefore, when you use the coercive power of gubmint action to do something, you had damned well be aware that when you trample another's rights to their life, liberty and property in doing so (i.e. take their taxes and use them to feather the nests of someone who did nothing to earn those resources), you're going to engender a certain degree of resentment and mistrust....That level of resentment and mistrust is directly proportional to the amount of compulsion being put into play in your coercive "social contract" model of doing things....That's not just me, that's human nature.

And I deal with that trashy neighbor by either joining a condominium HOA, a covenant controlled community, where such things are written into the HOA contracts (real contracts with hard copies and all that), and/or control enough land to where that slob's mess becomes pretty much irrelevant....All things that work perfectly well within the model of a libertarian philosophy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

I said it's not my responsibility, meaning they cannot take by force. None of the reasons you stated make it my responsibility. Your answer changed nothing.

BTW, in no way either did I say I wouldn't help them. In fact I have always given a lot to charity. It's ironic that you think I wouldn't help them because if you have a choice, you won't. However, giving freely and giving by coercion are entirely different things. The first is charity, the second is theft.

Local, Private, and large National orgs carry the bulk of this burden.. I find that leftists are satisfied to see a check cut in Wash, DC and 240 new bureaucrats to administer another program.. Guess what? These people don't need checks and programs. They need VOLUNTEER time and patience and room/board as an option. No way ANYTHING you coerce me into supporting thru Wash even COMPARES to a Rescue Mission or a soup kitchen or the Salvation Army.

Leftists have this basic disconnect with what the REAL NEEDS are. Hard times people need LOTS of personal attention to make a diff. You should go work at a Rescue Mission for a week.. Maybe your "solutions" to this problem would suck a lot less.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK, I understand what you're arguing now. But you are splitting hairs. The statement that property rights don't exist didn't mean there isn't a right in the way you are arguing it, it was that you'll spend all your time sitting with a gun looking for bad guys trying to take it and won't benefit from your ownership.

You can't sell it, you can't leave it or someone will squat, you can't get borders which are recognized, you have no remedy if someone torches your house. It's the right to benefit from your ownership by having it recognized which allows to to genuinely utilize it and prosper.

Seriously, read the de Soto book I recommended.

And why do I need the state to have my property right recognized?

See above.

That precludes the possibility of private defense and private law. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe in no law. Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to it as a "private law society."

 

[AmazonTania]

Want to try answering my question or would you like to save time and admit FAILURE now?

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

If you are so concerned about these people, you would take the time to help them directly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

If you are so concerned about these people, you would take the time to help them directly.

Yup, it's real easy to be all concerned and caring and generous when you can force other people to pay for that concern and caring and generosity.

That in a nutshellis the #1 difference between true libertarians and other ideologies. The libertarian can accept concepts of social contract, no matter how much Kevin and Oddball reject that. The libertarian may give away most or all of what he has to help somebody else.

But he will never agree for the government or anybody else to confiscate property from one individual and give it to another individual just because the second individual NEEDS it or as any other wealth redistribution gimmick.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution imparts no obligation upon We the People...It is the politicians and bureaucrats who have the compact with us.

There's a vast difference in the flow chart on that one.


Straw man argument all over again....Just because you see the ruination of the entire world doesn't mean that it would in fact happen.


But there is no mutual agreement...Your "social contract" is imposed upon the populace by coercive authority of the mob....Contracts, by their very definition, imply a volitional relationship between the principals, which would exclude any coercion.

When you misrepresent what I say and presume to assign what, in your eyes, I see, no productive discussion is possible. I have engaged in many social contracts and not one of them was a coercive action of any mob. I accept that you reject the concept of social contract. Should I assume that you are sitting alone on a desert island in some remote part of the world where you don't ever have to interact with other human beings?

If unanimous consent is the only non coercive way for people to mutually cooperate on something and make you happy, we might as well disband everything and find one of those desert island for everybody.

But since you want no restrictions or expectations of any kind put on you that you don't consent to, I wonder how you handle that trashy neighbor who has brought your home value down by tens of thousands of dollars?

That you believe that you have engaged in this "social contracting" does not make it so....The word "contract" has very specific and defined meanings, almost all of which preclude its credible use in the semantic contradiction that is the term "social contract".

And, yes, unanimous consent is the only non-coercive way to mutually cooperate on anything....Therefore, when you use the coercive power of gubmint action to do something, you had damned well be aware that when you trample another's rights to their life, liberty and property in doing so (i.e. take their taxes and use them to feather the nests of someone who did nothing to earn those resources), you're going to engender a certain degree of resentment and mistrust....That level of resentment and mistrust is directly proportional to the amount of compulsion being put into play in your coercive "social contract" model of doing things....That's not just me, that's human nature.

And I deal with that trashy neighbor by either joining a condominium HOA, a covenant controlled community, where such things are written into the HOA contracts (real contracts with hard copies and all that), and/or control enough land to where that slob's mess becomes pretty much irrelevant....All things that work perfectly well within the model of a libertarian philosophy.

Which is exactly what I have been describing as social contract in some detail. Apparently you have no problem with zoning laws, which are a form of social contract, that protect your property values. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement between people in how they organize themselves as a Home Owners assocaition or community or society. It is not a dictate of government or assignment of rules by an outside authority, though the social contract itself can assign responsibilities to a government entity.

But using your and Kevin's own question, why should I have to join a Homeowner's Association and pay dues in order to protect my property values? Why should I have to buy 50 more acres of land to insulate myself from a trashy neighbor? (And of course it begs the question that if you're okay with a Homeowner's Association, why would you object to other people organizing themselves in the same way but with less restrictive rules and far less expense?)

You tie up the bulk of your personal wealth when you buy into a developing rural area. You and your neighbors enjoy the beauty of the area and you all live similar lifestyles and your property values are increasing giving you a nice return on your investments. And then that trashy neighbor moves in and spoils the views with his junk and your property values are declining as a result of it.

Because nobody thought to put restrictions in place initially, chances are you can't do anything about that one neighbor and the eyesore that already exists. But nobody wants to buy into a neighborhood when they might get stuck with neighbors like that. What do you do? You call a meeting of the homeowners and all agree some formal restrictions need to be put into place both to prevent more trashy neighbors and to prevent the existing one from adding even more junk cars, etc. etc. The one neighbor will of course object.

Should he be overruled?

 

[Bfgrn]

No shit Dick Tracy. So that's your argument, you used the wrong TENSE on that word!

I stand corrected, you do admirably defend and justify liberalism, I'm convinced now.

Now if I hadn't known he died, I see your point. Wow, there's no way I could be a libertarian.

Drugs dude, just say no.

I have clearly and intelligently stated many of my beliefs on this thread. I didn't hear your replies, or your beliefs. It seems your beliefs are to just deride and disparage anyone who is a liberal. Sure SOUNDS like the exact same bluster that comes from right wing turds on this board.

Which makes me question if you really are a libertarian. Because Liberals and libertarians have a lot in common in the realm of civil liberties.

Nah, Libert-arian and Liberal have nothing to do with one other, the root word for Libertarian is "Liberty" not "Liberal". You need to read a dictionary, badly.

Prove to us that we have anything to do with Liberalism. Come on, hotshot.

I already did in more than one post. Go back an read.

 

[Bfgrn]

But again your expressed point of view is not libertarian and is much closer to anarchy. Do I trust the collective wisdom of my neighbors more than I trust a dictator to determine what is best for all of us? Yes I do. Do I see value in cooperation and goals for mutual benefit. Yes I do.

But if you want a neighborhood with declining property values because of your neighbors have complete freedom to do whatever they wish with their property, that is also your right. I can refer you to a lot of neighborhoods here in New Mexico that practice that concept.

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

SO true Erand. After reading the strong anarchist beliefs of the OP and others who are absolutist doctrinaire libertarians, we now can answer the OP's question:

"If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

It has been tried...SOMALIA.

 

[dblack]

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

SO true Erand. After reading the strong anarchist beliefs of the OP and others who are absolutist doctrinaire libertarians, we now can answer the OP's question:

"If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

It has been tried...SOMALIA.

For the WIN!!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

BTW, Rousseau was a socialist prototype.

If you want to talk French revolutionaries, my views much more reflect Frédéric Bastiat than Rousseau, whom Bastiat also believed to be all wet.

I recommend this brief (novella length), highly informative and absorbing read....

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Great, except almost everything you are arguing is refuted by Frédéric Bastiat.

Hey Jethro, I thought Friedrich von Hayek was your 'jesus'?

 

[kaz]

And why do I need the state to have my property right recognized?

See above.

That precludes the possibility of private defense and private law. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe in no law. Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to it as a "private law society."

What about providing some substance. I'm tired of your wispy cloud non answers. When you have some content, get back to me. I'm a smart guy who hates government. I'm a low hurdle to convince if you have anything. But we don't need government and it's my job to convince you we do while you give me platitudes isn't interesting to me.