Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?
What do you mean by "how"? Do you mean a path to transition from the current government configuration to one which more respects personal freedom or a plan as to how to change government to lead into that change? Cause if it's the latter, I have to admit, it's not looking too hopeful and I'm sure you collectivists will drive things into the ground at least once, if not more before things start to look hopeful.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm a fan of Bitcoin.
HERE, HERE... if you take out the attacks on your fellow posters.. I largely agree that it looks as if there are a lot of problems in current government.... including its trampling on personal freedoms... and its irresponsible monetary policies that seem to be doling out money to the rich as if it were candy.
Example 1:
Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog
Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another.
Example 2
one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion)
You in no way made the case that your situation 1 was materially different from your situation 2. Your claim amounted to "It's the government, innit?".
I was NOT trying to make any case, and I do NOT believe that i need to - b/c it should seem pretty obvious that the two situations are different. I outlined situation 1 and situation 2 in order to outline what appeared to be the parameters of the various arguments that seemed to have been being put forth to suggest that those two situations are the same, even though it should be logically and analytically obvious that the two situations are different. ... even thought they "feel the same" on the self-centered person who cannot imagine a world beyond him/herself
YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing.
You guys are a riot. You attempt to impugn my reading, writing and maths skills to which I respond that they are adequate and suddenly it's me claiming amazing academic credentials? This kind of thing is only to be expected, of course. Hyperbole, straw men and straight up ad-hom
Ah well, I'm done with running through logic with you. To descend to your level, "I'm right and you're wrong" and let that be an end to it. Your inability to express the reasoning behind your beliefs duly noted.
There is NO
ad hominem attack here. And, maybe finally, you may be seeing the light that we have adequately explored this topic to realize that we do NOT need to keep discussing a matter in which the foundational presumptions cannot be agreed upon. So, yes, we can agree to disagree and move on to other topics.