Sorry for the double post. The servers were apparently being worked on.
Yes, and cleaning up all the extra posts takes (as a conservative estimate), oh, three years or so. Stupid servers. Although you guys could help me out by not hitting the submit button again if it looks like it didn’t post. It almost always goes through–our little quirk is that you can’t see it when it does.
Sorry Gaudere, as a network admin you’d think I would be more intuned with the nature of the servers, but I am not familiar with UUB software, also the internet as a whole has been acting up today.
I will be more mindful of this the next time 
Well said.
Many thanks. I’ll leave the double post and our comments here for the Teeming Million’s benefit. Meanwhile, I’m off to try to find and eradicate the rest of the multi-posts. 
Gaudere, I remember that lesson you taught me. I’m sure glad you did. Trust the CGI!
PS regarding my double posting…in the time I thought that my first post didn’t make it and the second post did, I was able to get more into the article.
In this I found, not only does our government forgo local US laws, it seems as though is hasn’t given one rat’s behind about other countries which we have set up base in.
(I still have day four to read…)
This is not only bad policy, it proves that our government clearly doesn’t care about much of which it does except enforcing ridiculous laws it won’t even hold upon its self.
Then you must accept the FDA as a necessary evil. As I said earlier, the intent is not the problem (and you agree, sorry to misrepresent your views) - the problem is beauracracy and I don’t personally know of any solution - nor have I ever heard of an alternative to beauracracy.
First, you misrepresent this belief. We do not believe chaos will rein, we believe J.P. Morgan and Henry Ford and Andrew Carnaghie will do any goddamn thing they want - to the detriment of millions of people personally and society generally. We imposed government monopoly control - the federal banking system, welfare and social security because the bloody market was incapable and incompetent of meeting the desires of the majority of its participants. If you wish to call this ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ you are free to do so - but you cannot demonstrate that there is anything inherently good in a ‘free market’.
Sam Stone posted this whopper:
quote:
The whole mechanism of stock prices, stock markets, capital markets for funding new
ventures, etc. is vastly complex, and was built without centralized control. It was the
result of hundreds of thousands of people pursuing their own self interest, but being
guided by an invisible hand to create something bigger than themselves and which
by-and-large regulates itself.
quote:
No offense meant to Sam Stone but THIS COULD NOT BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
The securities industry is the most highly regulated industry in the entire world. IT is that way because of the huge abuses which took place in the past. God, I could list them for days.
Blue Sky Laws are a whole area of security law that came into being because people were creating companies with no assets or jope of making money except “The Blue Sky” to bilk investors out of millions.
The Investor Protection Act of 1940 to stop rampant suitability abuses.
The Investment advisors act
The creation of the SEC which monitors each and every trade that occurs to catch Insider trading, stock and market manipulation, free-riding etc. etc.
MICHAEL MILKEN for chrissakes!
ARRRRRRG!
Suffice it to say that the entire securities industry is a historical testament to man’s willingness to absolutely &$%* over his fellow man by any means fair or foul unless the Somebody is playing referee. The fact that it works efficiently today is largely do to the 200 years of evolution and regulation that it has undergone to wipe out the inequities and abuses, and even 200 years hasn’t been enough because problems continue to exist.
Sam that is just such an absolutely untrue statement it practically proves capitalism cannot exist in an unrestricted environment without grotesque abuse.
The whole thing was absolutely built with centralized control, and it regulates itself not at all.
If you think otherwise please enlighten me.
And if there aren’t enough people to boycott a discriminatory business? Should people’s rights and liberties only be protected when a majority of other people want them to be?
In your previous post on this subject, you specifically exempted politicians and bureaucrats as being part of the solution. Who exactly does this government consist of?
[quote]
What invariably happens in these debates is that the Libertarian is marginalized, because the ‘status quo’ defenders set an unrealistic standard for the new system, then proceed to pick apart at details to ‘prove’ that the new system won’t work. This is a standard that they won’t hold for the current system.
It is not necessary to prove that Libertarianism is perfect - it is simply necessary to show that On Balance it would result in a better society than what we now have. Of course there will be problems. Of course there will be victims. But there are already problems and victims. The question is whether or not there will be less of them.
Another problem with arguing Libertarianism is that we libertarians believe that society will find a way to regulate itself, through dynamic change and the fundamental controls of behaviour brought about through the market. Therefore, it’s impossible to describe what form that change will take. So the attackers produce a system that is controlled by government, and then demand to know how that system will function without the government. The Libertarian is then forced to respond with vague details because HE DOESN’T KNOW. That’s crucual to his belief system - that the market will find a way, and it may not be an obvious way.
[quote]
Jodi has already pointed out the contradiction between saying you don’t know how Libertarianism will solve problems but you know the solutions will be better. He has already pointed out that democratic majoritarian government is already an operating system; its existence proves that it works. Other systems of government such as totalitarionism, theocracy, aristocracy, tribalism, and the dictatorship of the proletariot also have a historical track record, so these systems can be compared. But as far as I know, there’s never been a society that operated on libertarian principles. Before we take it up, we’d like some strong evidence it will work as well as our current system.
Others have pointed out the fallacies about the stock market and English language. I’ll point out that your computer was undoubtedly designed in late 20th century America. Isn’t that society considered to be a prime example of one in which government regulations are pervasive? And I know that the Internet was a direct creation of government action (albeit not Al Gore’s).
And a society which required unanimous consent for every action would be more consistent?
I’ll grant you that the FDA needs improvement. But that doesn’t mean it should be abolished. There is not a tenth as many “snake-oils” in use now as there were before the FDA was created. As you pointed out, if anything the FDA has been overly cautious in banning medicines that may have had marginal values.
That presumes a false dilemma, as if there is only the FDA or nothing.
Well, at least now I know of at least one person who isn’t checking out Free-Market. Perhaps you don’t want to hear of any alternative.
If that’s true, then why isn’t the Libertarian Party number one, with routine victories and limitless funds?
It is because the business politicians could no longer partner with the government politicians to abridge the rights of people with weak political clout. Big business routinely contributes big bucks to both the Democrats and Republicans to cover their bases.
If they thought the LP could help them make their dreams come true, they would support it.
What rights?
When I asked whose property you have rights to besides your own, where were you? Are you saying that people have a right make decisions with respect to a business that you own? What kind of ownership is that?
This anti-discrimination crap is the most hypocritical sentiment I have ever seen. Why not prohibit discrimination in marriage? Marriage is an institution for the [gag…]
“public good”, isn’t it?
If you are going to force your will on the owner of a restaraunt, then why not force your will on the patrons as well? Why not require that there shall be no all-white tables?
The cherry picking gives it away as a political tool rather than a genuine sentiment.
A straw man.
How does giving consent to be governed translate into giving consent for every action? Once you’ve contracted for a service, do you then re-contract every time a step in the service is completed?
Could your logic be any more confused? The original statement pointed out that most people think that Libertarian policies would hurt society, and your response is why then don’t most people vote Libertarian? Maybe this is where the communication problem lies in this thread. Let me explain that most people are not in favor of policies that hurt society.
As many people have pointed out, your property rights are only meaningfully defended by how it sets the limits on the rights of other people. In fact, as a general proposition, all rights are only defined by how they limits the rights of others.
Jones wants the right to walk across a field. Smith owns that field and wants the right to forbid anyone walking across his property. They can’t both exercise their rights. Either Jones’ right to move freely is greater than Smith’s right to control his property, or Smith’s property rights are greater than Jones freedom of movement. So who decides which right is greater?
Judging from your past posts, I assume you hold property rights as the greatest right. But who decided this? In a Libertarianian society, shouldn’t I have the right to not consent to this decision and declare that freedom of movement is more important than property rights? Or do the majority of people who believe that property rights are more important have the right to oppose my belief and enforce their own beleifs upon me?
I didn’t make up my examples. They were all historical. So while I’m pointing out real world problems that Libertarianism couldn’t correct, you’re creating artificial problems and claiming Majoritarian government couldn’t correct those. And you’re doing a poor job. We live in a majoritarian democracy, and we obviously don’t require restaurant patrons to integrate tables. So that problem has already been solved.
So are you saying that once a person consents to something, they cannot revoke their consent? Will their compliance with something they’ve previously agreed to be forced if they change their mind? If I agree to something when I’m eightteen will I still be bound to it when I’m fifty?
Anyone want to take a bet that Libertarian doesn’t answer these question?
More than your comprehension, you mean? 
The point is that if you think, however wrongly, that the fatcat tycoons would welcome libertarianism, then it would seem to follow that you could reasonably expect them to contribute heavily to the Libertarian Party and help bring it to power. Instead, they contribute to the status quo parties because it insures their continued access to special favors and privileges.
That’s cute. Blast me about logic and then open with an argumentum ad populum.
Their rights with respect to what?
The libertarian view seems eminently reasonable to me. Every person has the right to be free from the coercion and economic fraud of all other people. Why does that innocent notion so terrify you?
You assume a priori that Jones has the right to walk across any field in the land. You seem to look at rights as some sort of permissions, as though there is the right to do this and the right to do that absent any reference frame whatsoever. You seem to be rigidly absolutist about rights.
No wonder you think rights can conflict. Everybody has his own set of absolute rights. It’s like having sic billion Jehovahs.
Rights are meaningful only when they are with respect to yourself and not others. You have all rights with respect to yourself, and by extension, your property, but no rights whatsoever with respect to the self of others or their property.
There are no minor rights and great rights. There is only the right to be free from the coercion and fraud of others. That ties rights to property, beginning with your own self, by simple association.
One of the few consistent things about your “majoritarian democracy” is its propensity for inconsistency. And the inconsistency is its problem. That’s why the society is so incredibly violent. Nothing seems fair. Nothing makes sense. Nothing is based on good principle.
Everything done by the majority mob is for the purpose of political expedience.
That depends on the terms of their consent. If they consented to a nonrevokable contract, then no, they cannot revoke their consent. If they consented to a contract that expires in one year, then they may revoke their consent after one year.
Why on earth am I having to explain that to a grown person?
You know, Libertarian, it would have been polite of you to wait until I made those bets. Next time let’s get together on this. You refuse to answer the questions, I collect the money, we split it fifty-fifty.
You’ve claimed that both the Democrats and Republicans are hurting businessmen with pointless restrictions. You’ve said that one of the main goals of Libertarianism would be to eliminate these restrictions. Now you say that these businessmen favor the Democrats and Republicans and oppose the Libertarians. So in addition to the 99% of the electorate that continues to vote for other parties, you don’t even have the support of the group that you claim will be helped most directly by your policies. You ever stop to consider maybe all of these hundreds of millions of people may know something you don’t?
Your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not always use words in the sense that they are generally meant. That’s not necessarily an insurmountable problem, but you have repeatedly refused to answer the people who have asked you to explain what you specifically mean by terms like “right”, “free”, “coercion”, and “economic fraud”. When someone asks you what you mean by term “X”, you either ask them a question or talk about term “Y”.
As for your notions, you haven’t shown me that they’re innocent. I feel your ideas have the potential for great harm. But I don’t know how I gave you the idea I was “terrified”. Rest assured that while there are political agendas I consider to be threatening, yours is not among them.
Okay, let’s take it from the top and talk about rights.
You’ve said that rights derive from God and Nature. Now my first instinct is to worry when a political party starts invoking God, but let’s move beyond that. Current events in Afghanistan show that, while God did an admirable job creating the heavens and earth, running a country isn’t one of his strong suits. And Nature, as anyone who’s been the victim of a hurricane, a shark attack, or a cholera epidemic can attest, can be a little cranky before she’s had her first cup of coffee in the morning. Sorry, but I’d just as soon keep these two away from my rights.
You’ve also said that laws derive from the unanimous consent of the governed (I won’t churlishly belabor the point that you’ve said rights derive from two different sources). So let’s consider the hypothetical day after the Libertarian revolution. All laws have been repealed and we’re starting out fresh. In deference to you, we’ve decided the first law up for consideration will be “All property owners have the absolute right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it doesn’t affect the property of others.” Now most of us agree that this is a good law and vote yes. But there are a few hundred people that have other ideas. They’re anarchists, communists, utopians, hippies, American Indians, whatever, but they all feel that “all property is theft” and people should be free to go where ever they want as long as they don’t harm the land they’re traveling on. So your response would be:
1 - “Screw you, hippies! The majority has spoken and you’re just going to have to live with it. Property rights are in.”
2 - “Darnit. I was really hoping this property thing would pass. Oh well. Hey everybody, if there’s a trespasser or squatter on your property, don’t call the police or use force to evict him. He’s not breaking any laws.”
3 - “Law or no law, you go ahead and try to step on someone else’s property and he’ll kill your ass. Might makes right. Of course some of you might have bigger guns than the property owner and will kill him first, in which case I guess you were right.”
Maybe it only seems inconsistent because you don’t understand how it works. So let me explain it to you.
Majoritarian democracy is based on the principle that the members of a society, either directly or through representatives, decide on what the rights and laws for every member of that society will be. Both the majority that agreed and the minority which disagreed will be equally bound by these rights and laws. This principle is based on the idea that the majority of members of a society will generally choose to enact rights and laws which are beneficial both to the society as a whole and the individuals who belong to that society.
Now I’ll admit that this plan doesn’t always work. It’s possible that the majority will choose to do things that hurt society through ignorance or malice. It’s also possible that the majority will abuse its power over the minority. But the fact that this system has some flaws does not negate the fact that, for the most part, it works as claimed. And what flaws it produces are correctable within the system. Your Libertarian system cannot make this claim. It’s never existed so you can’t show it functioned in the past. And a number of poeple here have given you reasons it would not function if tried.
I’m afraid you’ve misspun what I have said.
The point of the restrictions, as I have said, is political expedience. Clearly, if they were not politically expedient, they would not exist in a society ruled by the majority mob. The businessmen, like most antilibertarians, have come to accept the restrictions as inevitable and unavoidable — a necessary evil like pulling teeth.
But not to worry. There’s plenty of Novocain. Laws are not made by government politicians alone, but by business politicians and government politicians working together. For every restriction, there is a favor.
It is a surreal symbiosis. They open wounds and balm them in a sadomasochistic frenzy.
Y’know, that’s why argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Believe it or not, there might be plenty of things you know that hundreds of millions of others don’t. Einstein knew the nature of reference frames when billions of people were ignorant of it.
Besides, hundreds of millions?
According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, only 36% of the electorate voted in 1998.
I’m afraid your hundreds of millions are evaporating. According to CVD, “On Nov. 5 1996, 95.8 million Americans found their way to the polls to vote for the next president of the United States, a figure 8 million people fewer than in November 1992. Thus continued a much-discussed trend in American politics: the proliferation of the non-voter. For the first time in more than 70 years, less than half the eligible electorate voted in a presidential election.”
The people? Do you mean jodih?
I don’t pay any attention to jodih’s posts. But I defined most of those terms in the “Libertarianism” thread and probably all over the place. I know I just defined freedom for you in the post you’ve just responded to. For your convenience, I’ll recap them all here.
Coercion is the initiation of force. Economic fraud is misrepresentation in an economic transaction. Freedom is the absence of coercion. Rights are the measure of your freedom. When your rights are not abridged, you are fully free.
How delightfully disingenuous!
The supernaturalist will say that his rights come from God, while the naturalist will say that his rights come from nature. It simply means that you are born with your rights, that they are not bestowed by magistrates or scribbles. The magistrates and scribbles can only abridge them.
You churlishly believe that rights and laws are the same?
Let’s not. That’s your straw man. You deal with it.
Get someone to read to you the posts where I quoted Franz Kafka, “Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.”
I think you meant “the majority of individuals”. At least you said “generally”.
But it seems to me that leaving every single individual free to pursue his own happiness in his own way, so long as he is peaceful and honest, is of greatest benefit to the society as a whole, and that the society as a whole will always suffer when the rights of even one individual in it are abridged.
Well, this is my most successful topic to date in GD, judging by the number of replies, but I can’t go home and sleep at night or I get behind!
jodih, thanks for the thoughtful response. I have one overall problem with it though, and that is your insistance on defining Libertarianism in absolute terms and claiming that any more moderate view is not TRULY libertarian. For example, the idea that unanimity is necessary for any government action is not one I hold; yet when I look around at the various political paradigms I find that the one that comes closest to what I do believe is Libertarianism. So what should I call myself?
It’s like when a fundamentalist protestant claims that Roman catholics aren’t really Christians because they - worship Mary, follow the Pope, whatever. Or in politics if someone were to insist that Russia was not really communist, whatever the Russians themselves may have thought, because in true communism there is no money system.
By the definitions you’ve given, I’m not libertarian; I suspect few of the people here who claim to be libertarians would do so under the strict definitions you’ve given. But if we have enough in common to feel a mutual kinship of thought, and a shared set of goals, isn’t that enough? I don’t think we all have to follow a rigid adherence to some specific extremist set of beliefs defined from the outside. Isn’t it up to the libertarians to decide what we think?
[I think this just a big aside, but: I have no problem with the existence of the FDA. I think it does more good than harm. That is not to say it does NO harm, however, and I feel it needs a restructuring that takes into greater account the interaction between the drug testing process and the epidemiology of the targeted disease and its victims. Terminal patients, for instance, should have greater opportunity to try new drugs, provided they are given complete disclosure of everything that is known about the drug, the disease, and the organization testing the drug.]
I call myself a Libertarian because I would like to see several principles of governance adhered to:
- Legislation should intrude on people in a minimalist way. There are several parts to this.
(a) Legislation is passed almost exclusively to address a specific problem that demonstrably exists, and the problem is laid out in plain English as part of the legislation. If you can’t do this, you shouldn’t be passing a law. Anticipatory legislation, i.e. laws designed to address problems that are expected to arise in the future but do not actually exist now should be possible, but much more difficult. this is to avoid the “falling sky” so often invoked to trample individual freedoms. The difference between the two types of legislation should be explicitly acknowledged. [This is a minor change in the way the system works now, but I would make it more formal.]
(b) A definite measure of the success of a law should be written into all laws, together with a timeline for expected changes if practicable. Laws should be reviewed after they have had a chance to take effect, and scrapped or altered if they are not effective. [Is this really such a radical, unworkable notion?]
© The most important part. Laws should be aimed at as few people as possible, and with the least restrictions possible that still effect the desired change. If drinking is a societal problem, congress should pass laws that restrict drunk driving, or maybe public consumption, or perhaps the selling of booze after 2AM. It should NOT pass prohibition. The blanket forbidding of EVERYONE to drink to solve the problems of a FEW drinkers is exactly wrong under libertarianism.
I will comment further upon ©. If a law is passed to correct problem A, that law should proscribe the fewest actions of the fewest people. If, after a time, the law is found to address the problem imperfectly (recall that a measure of the law’s success was defined at its writing), a more restrictive law may be passed, and the process repeated. The goal is to delimit personal liberty as little as possible while still effectively addressing recognized problems. We want to progress towards the line of success from the side of liberty, not backing off from overly restrictive fiats. This approach could, I feel, be used to good outcome in issues like, say, gun control which is currently polarized between those who refuse to recognize the problems guns are causing and those who refuse to see any answer but a blanket prohibition.
This minimalism is very much NOT the approach of liberals. It is not the approach of conservatives, either, judging by their actions (though they sometimes claim it is). It is, as I see it, closest to the approach espoused by libertarians.
- The government’s legitimate spheres of interest should be outlined in the constitution. This is already so for the feds; I would further outline the legitimate areas of action that State governments might address [This is, I grant, a radical restructuring of the current system; however, the constitution hasn’t really been followed with respect to States’ rights since the civil war anyway, and I think this would return some autonomy.] NO further aggrandizement of power would be allowed by government at either level without a modification of the constitution, “commerce clause” be damned.
Just as the US constitution reserved rights not granted to the feds for the states, I would reserve any rights not specifically granted to the federal or state governments to the individual.
I think the constitution, as written, is pretty good at outlining the feds’ powers, but I would modify it to add one area to their bailiwick: it should be legitimate for them to ensure that US citizens are not victimized according to their race (I’m not saying HOW they should accomplish this, only that I think history has shown it is a legitimate concern of the central government).
- If a goal can be obtained in the private sector, the government should allow it to be so. Many people don’t like this idea; I can’t quite fathom why. If we wish, for example, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, the government can just tax the piss out of gas until we are all forced to take public transit, right? (Don’t laugh, some people think this is exactly the right approach). A libertarian (this one anyway) would recommend that the government offer tax breaks to companies that research alternative energy, provided they meet some measure of legitimate research. Or, the government could offer a reward for the person or organization who manages some technical milestone. A set of rewards for a successive series of advances would probably get us the results cheaper than if the government just went and funded the research itself - many more dollars worth of resources would come to bear on the problem by people seeking the reward than the amount of the award itself. (Read: Less taxes)
How broadly applicable is this approach? Could it be used for social problems? I don’t know, and neither do any of you (though I’m sure that won’t stop some from arguing against it); I’d like to find out. This is not a view of the Democrats.
I could go on, but this post is already way too long. The point is, I have no problem with democracy, jodih, and I consider myself a libertarian. I think that SEC and antitrust laws are great, and what’s more I think so because of libertarianism (capitalist competition is one of the goals; trusts diminish that - better 60,000 millionaires throwing their resources at thousands of ideas and investments than one Bill Gates pumping up the single endeavor of Microsoft. This is not a view of the Republicans). I’m obviously a different sort of libertarian than Libertarian himself, but that’s okay. We do have some common ground that we could work together from, and use the philosophy to progress, through give-and-take, toward some kind of coherent political policy. One that would not be unworkable, and would challenge the Big 2, whom I
APB, your post was like a breath of fresh air. It reminded me of some of the reasons I have voted Libertarian and been a registered Libertarian (surprise!). I would basically agree with all of items of your agenda and would support seeing them passed into law.
It’s also true that this thread has turned into a debate about the more extreme forms of Libertarianism. Hopefully, you realize that a large part of the pressure pushing it in this direction has been supplied from the self-declared Libertarian side.
It’s true that there are major differences between Moderate Libertariansim and Doctrinaire Libertarianism. Unfortunately, I don’t have your confidence that the Moderates will be setting the agenda of the party. Internal extremists nearly ruined the Democrats in the 1960’s and the Republicans in the 1980’s when they attempted to seize control of their parties.
Lib, what can I say? In a military campaign you can claim a victory by driving all your opponents from the field. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way in a political campaign. If you refuse to listen to and work with others, you simply marginalize yourself. In your most recent post you said “I don’t pay any attention to jodih’s posts” and it’s clear you really haven’t been reading anyone else’s either. I’m not saying this time was misspent; this thread has lead me to examine my own political beliefs and perhaps other readers will do the same based on what’s been posted here. But I no longer see any reason to continue a sham dialogue with you.
I suppose if I had any interest in these quibbles over scribbles, being ignored by political mud wrestlers would bother me. But I don’t, and it doesn’t.
I made a concession once, and joined the Libertarian Party. I even attended local meetings, and was elected treasurer. What I found was what I had suspected before: principle yielded to political expedience as things began to be done, not for people, but for the party.
We were trying to decide what to do with our measly budget. I recommended that we spearhead a drive to provide meals to local needy families to coincide with the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. But the chairman convinced others that we should spend our money on a booth at the county fair.
That’s when I resigned.
All I care about is the truth being heard, and the truth is that peaceful honest people, by right of birth, ought to be allowed to pursue their own happiness in their own way, free from the coercion and fraud of others.
I ignore jodih because she (or he, or whatever) won’t listen. She asks a lot of questions, but never answers any. She dismisses my own “Yes, but…” as an evasion, but considers “Yes, but…” to be sufficient for herself. No man, except a masochist I suppose, would bother answering a question for the fifth time when it has become clear that the questioner is not interested in an answer, but is only interested in badgering, bullying, and joining in with a gang rape of five against one. Her tactic of rapid firing automatic machine guns belies her true motive of disruption and offense. A questioner who is truly interested in an answer will at least stop a moment to see whether the answer given might be applicable to any number of questions she has in mind. But if she preferes to simply bog me down with hours of answering disingenuous questions about hypotheticals even after I have supplied a link to thousands of articles on such topics, then she is not interested in answers to her questions, but in trying to outshout me with sheer volume of text.
No one answered my question about what would happen in your system if cats and dogs were elected to congress. No one answered it because it was stupid, and it was meant to correlate with the many stupid questions that were slung at me in rapid fire succession during this intellectual gang rape.
At any rate, I’m not interested in your little political pissing contests. Whether the Republicrat Party or the Libertarian Party gets in power, nothing much will change. I am far more thrilled when even one thinking person gives libertarianism a fair hearing than when a hundred points are scored against a hundred disingenuous people.
We never had a dialog. If we were to have a dialog, you would allow me to ask you questions too, and you would answer them.
What you’ve been having is a unilog.
“No one answered my question about what would happen in your system if cats and dogs were elected to congress.”
I doubt that many cats or dogs meet the age requirement. I’d also be skeptical of the citizenship requirement, since I think you’d have to be a person to be considered a citizen. Therefore, in order to elect a cat or a dog to congress, we’d need to get a constitutional amendment passed. I personally doubt if enough people are stupid enough to vote for enough legislators in the appropriate bodies that would approve the requisit changes. If they were, then we’d have a pretty crappy country anyway. You may request clarifications or improve your hypothetical if you wish.
Now, will you start answering the questions people put to you, or will you retreat into empty rhetoric again, and claim that any question that is asked of you (which are asked in order to gain understanding of your political philosophy, not to make you look like a jerk – if you think the answers would make you look bad it is the fault of the answers not of the questions) is disingenuous?