Ricardo: > Ok, let's try and have a civil argument Bob.
LOL, despite the subject you chose to sport for our "civil" debate (which I've taken the liberty to correct for civility), sure, I'll give it a whirl. It'll be a refreshing departure from the norm. :) > I often see you praising police force and military, and at the same > time > I see you ranting against the state taking control etc. > So I have two questions (I'd expect you to answer BOTH) Yes Sir. (Actually there are about thirty or forty questions embedded in the two you claim to be asking; but we shall whip out our scalpels and dissect them clinically, as you like.) > Bobby, it would be nice if , only for this thread, we keep arguments > limited to the topics at hand and avoid name calling and stuff. We > could > agree that any side arguments will be dealt in different threads, and > that if someone resorts to personal attack or emotional arguments it > means he's got no more arguments to refute his opponent. Deal Any time you (or Goeff, or Ed, or anybody) want to step up to an adult debate level, I'm happy to oblige. I just figure you like flicking boogers most of the time, so I adapt my methods. But if you will keep it classy, so will I... LET us go then, you and I, When the evening is spread out against the sky Like a patient etherised upon a table; Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets, The muttering retreats Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells: Streets that follow like a tedious argument Of insidious intent To lead you to an overwhelming question . Oh, do not ask, "What is it?" Let us go and make our visit. > > i - If you reduce or eliminate the state, then you reduce or eliminate > the military forces and police forces. So where do you stand on this? Let us formulate the question more precisely: "How much force/state power is precisely sufficient for a strong national security and internal stability, that is at the same time NOT inimical to the goals of a free republic?" Is that the question on which you'd like me to opine? Or is it something else? I may be injecting my own assumptions here. > > ii - You often speak of socialists or 'leftists' as if they where a > different species from you. They are. I have the DNA tests to prove it. Technically I'm homo sapiens sapiens, and they are homo sapiens tyrannicus. ;-) > Are you against the existence of a state? No, I am not an anarchist, if that's your question. > Would you wish the dissolution of USA? Or else, they are not a > different > species and the only difference between a socialist and you is where > they draw the line of state involvement, only a difference of > proportion. The first question has zero connection to the next, except insofar as your line of reasoning implies about a dozen corollary arguments to arrive at the conclusion which you ham-fist into the first question. But anyway. The question is actually this: What is it about "socialist" philosophy that rubs me so adversely at whatever level my animus is aroused and why?----right? And aren't socialists just like me, in that we occupy some perhaps different point on a straight-line continuum from anarchy to totalitarianism? Confirm/clarify the questions, and we shall proceed with our experiment in elenchus. I am formulating a few of my own to share at the appropriate time. - Bob > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
