stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Well, it would be an interesting conversation if the critics were to actually discuss rather than duck, distort, and evade.
For example, SteveinCO, even after I explained that nothing about consensual government would preclude arresting and trying criminals from a self-defense point of view, went on to ignore what I had just said, creating the strawman argument that a criminal could nullify the prosecution by claiming he didn't consent. I guess it never occurred to him that the whole reason government can arrest criminals now derives from self-defense--people, aggregated into a society, protecting themselves from further criminal depredations by tracking down the criminal and tossing him in the pokey. In his view, government didn't get a delegated power arising from self-defense to detect and prosecute crime. It does it just because it can.
Another example would be the moderator's comment above about being fascinated by people that find fault...but do not have a viable plan. I'll bet he would have said the same thing in 1689 to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You know those new-fangled ideas where people, gathering into a society for mutual protection of property...delegated powers...consent of the governed...all that stuff. Pretty radical stuff; no real solution on how to implement it. I'll bet certain contrarians would have said the same thing about Locke--no viable solution. Well, not until 87 years later, anyway, when Tom Jefferson put pen to paper and summarized it with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
So, since the critics to this point are employing a number of different dodges, demonstrating a genuine unwillingness to discuss fairly and rationally, maybe you and I will have to be the ones to discuss it. You see, in my absence, I became a lot less concerned about OCDO. It doesn't really matter much to me whether I stay or go. I'm relaxed enough to determine my price to participate in a discussion, set that price, and then adhere to it. Basically, my price is that anybody wants me to talk to them here, they must completely eschew the whole litany of goofy debate techniques designed to avoid the actual point. You know--ad hominem, strawman, etc., etc., etc. It will probably sound arrogant, but if they're not good enough to discuss something without resorting to those techniques, they don't deserve my attention.
Well, I noticed you started posting again the other day, and I was pleased to see you back. I hope you find some value in continuing, but, I understand if you don't. For what it's worth, I typically enjoy reading your posts a great deal.