You are quite simply wrong. Have a day.Uh, no. Statist is the antonym of anarchist... Not sure why you refuse to recognize this.
Can we get back on topic now?
You are quite simply wrong. Have a day.Uh, no. Statist is the antonym of anarchist... Not sure why you refuse to recognize this.
Can we get back on topic now?
This will be my last comment. Statism is the enemy of constitutionally-limited government. Anarchy is irrelevant.And so you're a statist. This is 1 of the few issues that are black and white, ether you're a statists or your an anarchists.
All we can go upon until you ban us is what you write.
All I have written is that I support Constitutionally limited government. You two somehow read the opposite.
Indeed I have. This is the first time I can recall you using those words.All I have written is that I support Constitutionally limited government. You two somehow read the opposite.
Indeed I have. This is the first time I can recall you using those words.
I believe we mean two different things.
Let's try a simple test. Is the Environmental Protection Agency's massive regulatory bullying part of what you believe is limited government? If so what is the limit?I seriously doubt it.
Let's try a simple test. Is the Environmental Protection Agency's massive regulatory bullying part of what you believe is limited government? If so what is the limit?
Your answer will identify that your view of a limited government is anathema to those who actually believe that Constitutionally limited government is the only means to maintain and sustain our individual liberty.
It becomes clear a rational and unbiased debate is unlikely, as you obviously have a strong opinion on the subject that will not be swayed by any opinion projected by others.Is the Environmental Protection Agency's massive regulatory bullying
As I expected it to do so your answer makes clear that you have no interest in limited government.Let's give a less simple answer:
The EPA is not something we can place into a Constitutional framework, any more than the FAA. Neither of these (or indeed most of our current agencies) were needed or conceived of as a part of Government or Regulation.
Limited Government may mean something very different to you than to others, as it seems from your posts the limits you envision are instead the elimination of such progress and intervention that we as a society have placed upon technology and civilization to prevent inevitable chaos.
When you post something like this
It becomes clear a rational and unbiased debate is unlikely, as you obviously have a strong opinion on the subject that will not be swayed by any opinion projected by others.
Basically...you end debate before it can begin.
As I expected it to do so your answer makes clear that you have no interest in limited government.
Thanks.
Let's try a simple test. Is the Environmental Protection Agency's massive regulatory bullying part of what you believe is limited government? If so what is the limit?
Your answer will identify that your view of a limited government is anathema to those who actually believe that Constitutionally limited government is the only means to maintain and sustain our individual liberty.
I do not need to add to this. It clearly identifies you as part of the problem. Your view of limits is that there are no limits.As stated, your concept of a limited government does not quite mesh with mine, as I prefer the writings of James Madison, our Constitution, and even to an extent the Magna Carta to define what it means. I also understand the way a government is required to adapt to societal change.
I simply do not see the evolution of this adaptation as an unneeded expansion.
By the way, short of an active dictatorship, or tyrannical kingdom all government is limited.
Try rephrasing your question in such a way that it doesn't force a partisan response and I'll answer.
It works for me.Okay...it seems you cannot debate, and instead simply wish to express your opinion.
There is no reason to continue.
Have fun stormin' the castle.
I have my answer. You are part of the problem. We do not have the same view for what a constitutionally-limited government is.
I believe we mean two different things.
Well, except for your soft statements you give no other indications of any support for a meaningful limit on government. I believe you give it lip service. But you don't really mean it. I do not see any indication that you even understand limited government.That is the POINT. The Constitution or any document is naturally open to a certain level of interpretation. I know I support limited government and I know you do too.
One need not support communism to be a firm support to those who do. There are many paths to tyranny. There are fewer paths that avoid it. Marxism never actually reaches that utopian stage where the dictatorship of the proles is no longer needed. Never.But for some reason you find the need to label me a Marxist despite me not supporting communism (which by the way in the Marxist form is a LACK of government), you feel the need to label my policy proposals tyrannous based on a very particular interpretation of the definition, etc.
The issues are all very simple. We have a government that has chosen to ignore the Constitution. There are no effective limits. We are in a regulatory tyranny that grows larger every day.Well, except for your soft statements you give no other indications of any support for a meaningful limit on government. I believe you give it lip service. But you don't really mean it. I do not see any indication that you even understand limited government.
One need not support communism to be a firm support to those who do. There are many paths to tyranny. There are fewer paths that avoid it. Marxism never actually reaches that utopian stage where the dictatorship of the proles is no longer needed. Never.
Maybe instead of using these labels which really just comes down to a soft form of name-calling, you can discuss the actual issues and data?
We know where you stand. We know that you are the enemy. Thank you for so clearly revealing yourself.You know, Marxism's dictatorship of the people is just a dramatic and long winded way of saying democracy...