Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[warbeak2099]

Ok, what if I could prove that a race, of any age, was intellectually slower than the rest. That they were not capable of understanding "the issues in America"? Should we not allow that race to vote? Wonder how that would go over with the populance.

I am not saying that children are as developed as adults, just that I, personally, disagree with a universal age in which a person becomes fully developed.

Minors are not a race. They are a group within America, yes, but not a race. Don't use hyperbole to win your argument. It just makes you further look like a religious fanatic instead of an intelligent, sentient individual.

Now, do most children understand fully the isues in America? No they do not. No sireee. Does a small minority understand them fully? Say, the upper 3% of the unit normal curve. Yes of course. However, what would happen if we let the children who weren't part of that small 3% vote about important issues and take part in important facets of our government. Well I don't think you'd want that either. Not everyone is underdeveloped before 18, but most kids are. Do you understand what I'm saying? Just because a handful of kids can FULLY understand important issues, doesn't mean the rest should be allowed to screw up the country. You yourself display that you don't know the total ramifications of your views. The adults, not including myself, on this board have proved that they understand the issues more than you do. Why? You're 16 bud, you aren't fully developed up in the cabeza. See what would happen if we followed your ridiculous system? 5yos would be making important decisions that could change the course of our nation. It's a little asanine to say that would be a good thing.

[teufelhunden]

OEP's style of discussion seems strikingly familiar..

Oh, yeah, it's like that of the MTV-taught liberal college students.

"Facts? History? Who needs that! MOVEON.ORG GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL OMG KARL ROVE HELPPPPPPPP"

[OneEyedPimp]

I am not, nor ever have been liberal.And I HATE MTV.

[warbeak2099]

You're conducting yourself like one. You aren't using facts to back up your argument. You aren't including the whole picture in your argument. You're forming an ideology entirely from your own "feelings" instead of observations about history, government, etc.

[OneEyedPimp]

This is my last post in this thread:


I accept the fact that my "views" will not work in today's modern society. It can never work, not because the views themselves are flawed, in my opinion, but because the Judo-christian values in this country, as well as most countries in the world, have created a wanting for security above all else. They also wish to project their views on everyone else, everyone is guilty of it, even I.

The only way that my views will work is if the U.S. government is overthrown. This will only happen when the U.S. progresses to a socialistic point in the far off future. Only then as people will finally realize what they have lost, allowing them to form together and get systematically wiped out by the U.S. armed forces that have been growing since 1940. Only when humanity advances to a point where we are all equals, by our own accord, and where poverty, illness, and other "reasons" to have the government are all but distant memories will my views be able to exist in a modern society.

Your argument becomes weaker and weaker the further you try to justify it. The fact of the matter is you don't have history or economics on your side. Once the base of your argument is debased it becomes logically harder to justify it. The accounting that comes up with a 1.5% theory is dubious as well. Considering since 1940 we have not spent less than that one and a half percent of GDP on our military alone the numbers do not come out. That doesn't consider roads, hospitals, administration, etc. Even if one accepts the theory that the private sector will step up and provide for the greater good you certainly cannot make an argument that they should directly fund / control the military can you?

I wonder why the Military has been growing since 1940? What could the reason be? Wait, could it be that the U.S. has taken an agressive policy of invading sovereign nations? No, that can't be the reason.

The 1.5% figure is just one to provide for the basic necessities for the Federal governement. States can apply higher taxes as necessary for their needs. Temporary taxes, larger ones, can be applied during times of war in which the army has to be grown as I do not believe in a free standing army.

No, I do not believe that the private sector should control the army, they can help but not control it.

You guys continue to ask me to provide "historical" proof as to why my system would work and you say that it won't without any proof. I would like to see some proof as to why it would not work. Since I mean, I remember the U.S. constitution completely collapsing. Like I said, my realistic government is that set out in the consitution. I think that is working alright. Lets just reset it to what it was, it worked before, it can work again. No, I am NOT talking about a communal system. And no, I am not talking about Anarchy. Geeze, one mention of the A word and everyone declares me an idiot.

Well guys, I would like to thank you for this fun little argument. Keep tha ge laws, really doesn't matter in the larger picture. Yes, I know I made a complete fool of myself. Again. O-well.


Edit: The only facts and history that I have is the lack thereof. Age laws are a product of the industrial age, originating in England and then into the United States. The people wanted the children to get educated as opposed to work all day for meager wages. Not much else to say other than we as a society have advanced considerably since then.

Edit: The closest that this world has gotten to a true libertarian system is in some parts of Africa. What happened there? Someone declared themselves dictators and it has been a poverty-stricken war-zone ever since. I know that we are not at a point in our "evolution" for a libertarian system to work. However, a viable alternative lies in the Constitution.

[warbeak2099]

That entire post contained more horse manure than a Morrocan stable. He basically described his system coming into power out of a Marxist revolution and then said that he does not support communism. I say again, underdeveloped brain functions!

[OneEyedPimp]

That entire post contained more horse manure than a Morrocan stable. He basically described his system coming into power out of a Marxist revolution and then said that he does not support communism. I say again, underdeveloped brain functions!

I lied:

Did you even understand what I said? I said the revolution would not work(!). The government would simply shut it down. I believe that I implied that the people have to come to a libertarian system out of their own accord. Geeze.

Now where is that unsubscribe button...

[warbeak2099]

You're talking in circles! How are the PEOPLE going to set up this libertarian system???

[Lohman446]

This is my last post in this thread:


I accept the fact that my "views" will not work in today's modern society. It can never work, not because the views themselves are flawed, in my opinion, but because the Judo-christian values in this country, as well as most countries in the world, have created a wanting for security above all else. They also wish to project their views on everyone else, everyone is guilty of it, even I.

The only way that my views will work is if the U.S. government is overthrown. This will only happen when the U.S. progresses to a socialistic point in the far off future. Only then as people will finally realize what they have lost, allowing them to form together and get systematically wiped out by the U.S. armed forces that have been growing since 1940. Only when humanity advances to a point where we are all equals, by our own accord, and where poverty, illness, and other "reasons" to have the government are all but distant memories will my views be able to exist in a modern society.



I wonder why the Military has been growing since 1940? What could the reason be? Wait, could it be that the U.S. has taken an agressive policy of invading sovereign nations? No, that can't be the reason.

The 1.5% figure is just one to provide for the basic necessities for the Federal governement. States can apply higher taxes as necessary for their needs. Temporary taxes, larger ones, can be applied during times of war in which the army has to be grown as I do not believe in a free standing army.

No, I do not believe that the private sector should control the army, they can help but not control it.

You guys continue to ask me to provide "historical" proof as to why my system would work and you say that it won't without any proof. I would like to see some proof as to why it would not work. Since I mean, I remember the U.S. constitution completely collapsing. Like I said, my realistic government is that set out in the consitution. I think that is working alright. Lets just reset it to what it was, it worked before, it can work again. No, I am NOT talking about a communal system. And no, I am not talking about Anarchy. Geeze, one mention of the A word and everyone declares me an idiot.

Well guys, I would like to thank you for this fun little argument. Keep tha ge laws, really doesn't matter in the larger picture. Yes, I know I made a complete fool of myself. Again. O-well.


Edit: The only facts and history that I have is the lack thereof. Age laws are a product of the industrial age, originating in England and then into the United States. The people wanted the children to get educated as opposed to work all day for meager wages. Not much else to say other than we as a society have advanced considerably since then.

Edit: The closest that this world has gotten to a true libertarian system is in some parts of Africa. What happened there? Someone declared themselves dictators and it has been a poverty-stricken war-zone ever since. I know that we are not at a point in our "evolution" for a libertarian system to work. However, a viable alternative lies in the Constitution.

A) I never asked you for proof, I showed multiple disproofs. Major difference

B) I've seen enough HS "elections" to support my opinion of why minors shouldn't vote if all we need is qualitative observations, which is all you have offered.

Funny, I was going to mention Africa as another proof that libertarianism doesn't work. As to America's aggressiveness since 1940 being a change of policy... again there are historical disproofs. Consider the Naval involvement with the pirates of Barabas (sp), the Mexican American war, the westward expansion, the war of 1812... I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.

[teufelhunden]

I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.

I count that being the 9,426,582nd time that he has been told that. I wonder if 9,426,583 will do the trick.

[warbeak2099]

I count that being the 9,426,582nd time that he has been told that. I wonder if 9,426,583 will do the trick.

Silly Teufel, of course the answer is no! He can't listen to or understand reason, but he wants to be able to vote.

[OneEyedPimp]

Funny, I was going to mention Africa as another proof that libertarianism doesn't work. As to America's aggressiveness since 1940 being a change of policy... again there are historical disproofs. Consider the Naval involvement with the pirates of Barabas (sp), the Mexican American war, the westward expansion, the war of 1812... I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.

I never said it was a change in policy. Nor did I say that I necessarily agree with any of those. I simply stated it as the reason for the taxes required to support it.

Oh well, the 9,426,582nd is the one for me. I am stupid because I am younger, less experienced. My opinions are less because it does not conform. Oh well.

Lohman446, thank you for agruing with me as opposed to attacking me personally. My hope for humanity has been decreased by a couple degrees from this "conversation."

[teufelhunden]

You're not stupid because you're younger. I know plenty of stupid old people. You're inexperienced because you're still in high school and don't have bills to pay, books to balance, and a real life to manage. Your opinions are less because you go in a circle trying to defend them and then land back where you started saying "See? I'm right."

I'd hardly call anything myself or warbeak or whoever else said a personal attack; more an attack on your attempts at debate. I tried to argue your points [WB may have as well, I don't remember nor care to search] but you stuck to your methods and dodged or parried anything anybody brought up instead of taking their point and using logic and understanding of how things go to make a legitimate point.

In all fairness and honesty, all you've really said is "I'm young and society sees me as less of a person because of this. I don't like it and so we should change to *this is where you begin the fuzziness* because *fuzzy* and I like fuzzy animals. According to the principle of circular logic, I'm right because I am correct, hence I am right. I'll say history doesn't have a context for me to reference, but I'm correct and therefore, I am right. Your history is irrelevant. Stop personally attacking me. I want to be able to vote at age 7 and drink beer with a shotgun in hand by 9. *Fuzzy logic, jumbled points*.

Good day, sir.

[warbeak2099]

Hahaha, *spews milk out nose*. Oh I'm writing a paper I don't want to write, but you made me smile Teufel. I have a new found motivation now.

[PumpPlayer]

OEP, forgive me but I have absolutely no idea what your argument is anymore.
Nobody's calling you dumb; we just can't understand what it is you are trying to say.
As good as your 'arguments' might sound (it's on the internet and not grossly misspelled, so that's always worth a few bonus points), they lack cohesion and flow. You randomly jump around from one point to another before ending back where you started, throwing your hands up and saying, "Ta-dah!"
That is why I said your arguments are not logical.

Believe me, if you have a new system of government that would solve all of our problems, I am sure we would all be more than willing to hear about it. Tossing together conflicting points and citing unresearched material really tends to get in the way, though.



We are doubtful of your proposed system because it starts with a result (a 'perfect' society) and then works backwards to try to fix problems as they are presented. It is in no way proactive and it lacks the authority of precedence.

Oh, and whether or not you say you believe in communism or not... when you start talking about voluntary taxes and the government providing for the people but the people not having to pay for it... you're certainly headed in that direction. I hope your system isn't just "Communism, but this time it'll work!"

I really do want to hear about your perfect society. Please enlighten me as to your new system.