Most truth is very visible to those that see it.
Attempting to force someone to see it is fruitless don't bother. Some folks are simply lost causes
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.
It seems to me there is a very large gray area between these arbitrary beliefs, one may even come to the understanding our Republic was built between them.
A statist supports a state (whatever form that state takes), an anarchist supports anarchy. It really is black in white, you're ether a statist or an anarchist, the terms are mutually exclusive.
The point being, calling people statists while arguing for a state is just...
It is your lack of understanding that makes it seem so.
There is a better path than either statism or anarchy. Constitutionally-limited governments, beloved and revered by Conservatives is the best path offering the greatest benefits of liberty, freedom, and economic prosperity. All other paths lead to worse outcomes.
No one is saying there isn't a potentially better solution. What we are saying is that the opposite of the state is no state, something that I thought was pretty obvious
Constitionally limited government supports a state... (and is what I am for too, the difference lies in what we consider limited; I believe in the harm principle and general utilitarian goals; you believe in your definition of liberty...)
A statist who thinks the state should have restrictions on it's power is still a statist.
No one is saying there isn't a potentially better solution. What we are saying is that the opposite of the state is no state, something that I thought was pretty obvious
The issue has never been state or no state. That is the straw man you and your friend T came up with. The issue is statism versus liberty. Statism is a state without limits. Liberty is a state with limits. Perhaps you should lay off posting when you haven't been thinking.
Your very words betray you for the statist that you are. For you the focus is the state, as it is with all statists. Those of us who are not statists recognize that the highest good for the greatest numbers comes from individual liberty where the state's actions are tightly constrained by a written Constitution.
Every step we move beyond the Constitution is one more step toward revolution. It took the Russians more than 70 years of tyranny before their rebellion. Unfortunately after that long living under the yoke of oppression they knew not liberty any longer. Let us hope that it does not take so long this generation forgets what it was like when we lived free.
A statist who thinks the state should have restrictions on it's power is still a statist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. In such cases it is best to be quiet.
Read a dictionary before using words next time.
The hilarious part is that nowhere in this thread do we disagree yet you keep trying to fight me over the definition of a word...
An anarchist might call you a statist and anti-liberty for supporting any state at all. Why do you not understand that?
Also, last I checked me, David, and pretty much everyone here supports a state with limits- no one wants a totalitarian government...
It is an important word that defines an important concept. To be a statist is to support tyranny. For the statist the state is the means to power and control. So we have a vast regulatory state created of the statists, by the statists, and for the statists that devours our wealth and our liberty.
The Conservative, in my opinion really has only one central, one core belief. All governments must be tightly constrained, limited by written documents, charters or constitutions. The individual's liberty is more important than the state's compulsion to dominate, to control, to coerce its citizens.
All other issues are mere details.
don't bother. some people choose to reject your reality. you can't convince a delusional person that their delusion isn't real, or that they are in fact deluded.
are you familiar with Sisyphus? Sometimes its wise just to let the boulder fall. In this case its not a real loss.
It is funny that you two (clax and misterveritis) think you know more about MY positions than I do.
Of course one of the issues is how you define Constitutionally limited government, but if you two think people like Reagan defended such government, then I can easily be considered such.
Of course one of the issues is how you define Constitutionally limited government, but if you two think people like Reagan defended such government, then I can easily be considered such.
Uh, no. Statist is the antonym of anarchist... Not sure why you refuse to recognize this.
Can we get back on topic now?
Similar threads
- Locked