Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by KnivesOut.

"Top down moral authority"

Sounds like central planning to me.

Republicans pray to an all good, all knowing, all powerful god.
Libertarians pray to an all good, all knowing, all powerful market.

Two sides of the same coin. Both based on faith.

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.

You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.

You don't understand what 'intelligent designer' means.

1) God (from the point of view of a Christian)
2) A sentient being whom has designed something (from the point of view of science)
3) A skilled designer (from a literal point of view)

Renounce democracy and repent, godless liberals. Accept the market as your personal lord and savior and it shall self regulate. Thus sayeth the Fist of Nothingness! Hallelujah!

>> ^blankfist:

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.
You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.


Let me see if what I'm inferring about you from your sarcastic post is correct:

Your arguments against, what I think is pretty much socialism, don't have to do with not wanting to subsidize your dying neighbors cancer treatments, or believing big business should run wild and free, or an appreciation for the American dream wherein any man has the, albeit statistically irrelevant, chance to become a billionaire.

No, your problem with the idea of a strong, controlling, altruistic government that bends over backwards to improve the lives of it's citizenry, is that it's simply impossible.

You would insist that humans are too savage, animalistic and competitive for this kind of cooperation to last?

It's probably the best argument against wasting our time trying.

Meh, I dunno. I think we'll get there someday. I mean, we're already so much less savage than even 500 years ago.

P.S. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouths. DFT, NetRunner are socialists, yes? blankfist is the opposite, which is a capitalist? It's funny, I think I've heard the term socialist used as an insult before. As in, you bastard socialist. Sup wit' dat?

@dystopianfuturetoday, I think you don't understand what faith means. Asking for people to interact freely without coercion has nothing to do with faith. Straw man.

The market has no moral values. The market is what people want to pay for, what people want makes up the market.

Faith is belief without evidence.

There is no evidence to suggest that a completely unregulated free market would be a positive thing.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Faith is belief without evidence.
There is no evidence to suggest that a completely unregulated free market would be a positive thing.

So are you saying there's no evidence to suggest not coercing people under the threat of violence is a positive thing?

^Don't be naive, the invisible hand loves violence. Private armies are a 120 billion dollar industry and growing:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/making-a-killing-how-private-armies-became-a-120bn-global-industry-403062.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Don't be naive, the invisible hand loves violence. Private armies are a 120 billion dollar industry and growing:
http://www.i
ndependent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/making-a-killing-how-private-armies-became-a-120bn-global-industry-403062.html


And that went away in your regulated Crony-Capitalist US market?

^So you are conceding that point? Excellent!

Also, I'm calling fallacy on your 'coercion' argument. You are begging the question. Your argument that taxes are 'coercion' is an opinion that is far from universal and thus cannot be assumed. Taxes are part of the social contract you enter into when living in a representative democracy.

@dystopianfuturetoday, free markets are what?

I want to keep it simple for you, because you seem to be jumping all around from taxes to your unresponsive answers. So, what are free markets?

(wiki)

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property.

Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people.

From http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html

"Free Market" is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Also, I'm calling fallacy on your 'coercion' argument. You are begging the question. Your argument that taxes are 'coercion' is an opinion that is far from universal and thus cannot be assumed. Taxes are part of the social contract you enter into when living in a representative democracy.


I have been thinking about this idea for awhile now. Did any of us actually accept the contract? Citizenship is merely bestowed upon us at birth. I have been toying around with the idea of explicit citizenship. In part, I find it could perhaps make the general population more interested in the affairs of government, and perhaps stave off the entropy of the system. It would also make people more aware of the roles of government.

I have also been reading on some neat alternatives to the ways to construct a legislature (from fiction). One that was of particular neatness factor was a 2 part legislature. One branch only passed legislation and needed a 2/3s majority to do so. The other part was a body dedicated to the repeal of legislation and only needed a 1/3 majority to revoke legislation. I thought this was a rather neat concept for organizing a legislature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority (nothing can stop it in a democracy), while also being a democratic way to adopt to things that most all people hold to.

To that end, I see unregulated capitalism very closely tied to democracy in the way it needs to be setup. With the proper foundations, you don't really need "regulations". If contract fraud, property rights, and constitutional rights are all well defined, you shouldn't need government regulators. You would need government legislators and democracy to determine what level of justice to extract from wrong doers, but that is something that works itself out through democracy quite well.

I think that is where a lot of the verbal confusion comes in on "free markets" is when it comes to fraud and disputed contracts. A more classical liberal would say let what happens happens, and if there is a dispute, the courts can handle it. A liberal today would want to regulate the market through government oversight to marginalize the occurrence in addition to the courts being available. The second option seems harmless enough, and indeed wanted, but as we have seen how it has played out..and it is into the hands of those with power and influence (which aren't voters). I agree with the idea of "a well regulated market" to the end that fraud/contract disputes have a government avenue available for resolution that is binding, this would include standard of indisputable denominated units (you can't claim to be selling pounds of beans that are your own version of what a pound is), among other things. But pre-government intervention isn't a good idea (in practice).

In closing, I think "free markets" is a loaded word. What I think is right in a market is a post regulated one established on a solid framework of understandings that are iron clad. I am currently trying to work out a system that also makes it harder for people to pass down wealth; that wealth is only earned, but that is a subject of a different conversation.

>> ^blankfist:

but it's fair to say it's a method of exchange where two people are mutually benefited without coercion


So, everything governments due EXCEPT PROPERTY is violence? Why exclude property? Why pretend that "this is mine" is not a coercive threat of violence?

@dgandhi, government is the monopoly on violence and everything they do is violent. When you say everything they do "except" property, what do you mean? If you're citing DFT's wiki definition, then in that instance government is being used to protect property rights (as well as private contracts) by way of force. So, that's violence as well. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Forcing people to do things that aren't voluntary is wrong. Forcing people to redress damages is not wrong.

To that end, @dystopianfuturetoday, your social contract notion is fallacious in nature. There are three elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and legal consideration. For your social contract example there's neither an offer or acceptance on the part of the people. A contract is also called a what? An agreement.

It's pretty much in the word that contracts are to be voluntary, not forced.

Libertarianism: the belief that doing nothing solves everything.

Which Libertarianism are we talking about here...European or American...there's a world of difference.

>> ^StukaFox:

Libertarianism: the belief that doing nothing solves everything.


Oooooo. That's fun! Let me try.

Democratism: the belief that voting minorities into slavery solves everything.
Republicanism: the belief that biblical jurisprudence solves everything.

>> ^StukaFox:

Libertarianism: the belief that doing nothing solves everything.


Hehehe, because if the gubment doesn't do it, it doesn't get done! Thank goodness the gubment invented itself or else it wouldn't exist!

The American variety. They think the free market is somehow a component of liberty. While they talk a good game about corporations, they really don't ever act on that part of the rhetoric, perhaps because corporations give huge dollars to free market/right wing think tanks, front groups, organizations and candidates. >> ^Yogi:

Which Libertarianism are we talking about here...European or American...there's a world of difference.

Geesus and blankfist,
Yes, citizenship is bestowed upon birth in most countries, and yes, taxes are a pretty basic, common sensical part of a successful civilization. (I'd lurve to here some examples to the contrary if you've gottem) There aren't many countries that don't have taxes. The few exceptions are failed states like Darfur and Somalia.

If you don't like living in a modern civilization, you can either go galt and move to darfur, go off the grid -unibomber style- or work from the inside to change our system to something more anarchical. The last one probably won't happen, because I don't think there has ever been a successful country that didn't have taxes, so just basic common sense is your enemy in this fight.

Beyond all this, I'd think you two would be more happy, because we are about to see government elected on all that free market rhetoric that you both so oft spew.

A huge wave of corporate candidates wrapped in the flag, waving free market ideology have been swept into office, taking over a majority of state legislatures, governors mansions and the house. That combined with a supreme court in the pocket, a filabustable senate and a President who doesn't like to use executive orders very often (which is basically the only thing he can do from here on out), means that free market ideology will have free reign. I expect you will see much privatization, deregulation and tax cuts in areas that benefit big business. Also, Iran is back on the table, because markets just love all the money there is to be found in the weapons of war and the plunder of resources. Tax giveaways to the super-rich are also taking a front seat.

It's ugly, smelly and not too bright, but it's still your baby, it has your DNA. Kiss the baby.

dghandi is right. Telling people where they can and cannot go is an infringement on individual liberty. Creating a contract that uses the threat of violence keep people from freely moving as they please is coercion. Why do you support the violent tyranny that is private property? Why this double standard?

>> ^blankfist:
Forcing people to do things that aren't voluntary is wrong. Forcing people to redress damages is not wrong.


You are dancing around an 800 pound gorilla: property is violence, markets require property, therefore preferring markets over governments does nothing to address what you claim is your primary motivation.

example:

You have a car in front of your house, you claim it is your property. I have no contract with you or anybody else where I agree not to use said car. If I take it, you or your surrogate, will use violence to coerce me into returning "your property", and then you will also likely take something which I use as penalty. -- by your definition this can not happen in a free market, because the implementation of the property system itself requires the use of coercive violence applied subject to a non-voluntary (social?) contract.

This is not to say that markets/property are a bad technology, only that your "solution" does not address the problem you claim it does.

^Great point. In addition, this is also a good illustration of how grafting free market values onto the concept of liberty perverts liberty in the process.

@dgandhi, thanks for finally clarifying your confusing question above. I disagree with your assessment of property rights, and here's why. First, you're confusing the idea of a contract. A contract has three elements: offer, acceptance and legal consideration (promised value). Your position is that you haven't agreed to a contract not to use the car, but here's where your logic is faulty:

A) You know how to operate and use the car so we can reasonably assume you understand it's not a wild plant growing in a field somewhere but instead specific property (wealth) that typically requires ownership;
B) The owner of the car hasn't given you an "offer" to own it;
C) By your own admittance you haven't "accepted" an "offer".

To summarize: A. is the acknowledgment of an item being property and not owned by you, B. & C. shows the two parties didn't engage in a voluntary contract. That is textbook theft.

@dystopianfuturetoday, don't try to pin the Republicans who go voted in on our ideology, brother. You're just grasping at straws at this point.

But let's talk about some of the things you're bringing up.

1. Government services. The go to argument for statists any time you attack the amount we pay in taxes and what we're taxed on (income & inheritance tax being the worst of them) is "What about the roads? The fire department? The police?!" What's important to point out here is that these cited governmental "services" are always the bare minimum offered, and never do they scream out "What about our defense budget? The unreconciled transactions each year in the Treasury Department (reaching $25 billion in 2003 alone!)? The jackbooting swat teams at the G20 summits?! The prison industrial complex?!!! Homeland Security?!"

Roads, police and firefighters are all paid for by local taxes (not Federal), mind you, and most of which can be paid for by excise taxes or other voluntary taxes. Can we put that dog to rest?

2. Social contract. I didn't sign it. You didn't either. As mentioned above, a contract is an agreement where both parties voluntarily agree to the terms. Those who believe in the social contract idea tend to think, as you do, that it's a trade for living in a 'democracy'. That's ridiculous on its face. And your 'like it or leave it' mentality on the matter has the intellectual maturity of the Republican 'this is a Christian nation' philosophy. Bravo.

3. Taxes. Offering services and goods under the threat of violence is immoral, therefore compulsory taxes are theft. If you agree with compulsory taxes, then you agree services and goods should be offered under the threat of violence, and in any other arena outside of government that would be considered sociopathic.

>> ^blankfist:
To summarize: A. is the acknowledgment of an item being property and not owned by you, B. & C. shows the two parties didn't engage in a voluntary contract. That is textbook theft.


Again you dance.

Your argument A posits conclusion as premise, and assumes that I agree to a social contract of property in the first place. If I do not, then the fact that a thing is made has no bearing on whether I am bound by your claim to ownership. Since A is false, B&C are irrelevant.

Your claim to ownership is, by structural necessity, a threat of violence, but you claim that it is not. You do this presumably because you believe "property" and "ownership" are somehow part of a state of nature. They are not natural or inherent, they are arbitrary social norms, just like taxes and borders, and they circumscribe liberty far more than any of the things you seem to be inclined to complain about.

@dgandhi, I believe you're confused. Would a bear protecting its cave also be seen as an 'arbitrary social norm'? When you reach toward a dog's food bowl and he snaps at your fingers, do you call that arbitrary violence because you did not 'agree' to his 'social contract'? No. Property and ownership are extremely natural and certainly inherent. It can be seen within nature specifically as it relates to territorial behavior and theft of women and children in primitive cultures.

Let's change the variables a bit in your previous scenario: replace the inanimate object (car) with ownership of self. If a woman used violence to fight off a rapist would that be seen as an 'arbitrary social norm' akin to the state (a political body of people who gave themselves authority over others) using violence to extract wealth from someone's labor?

It's violence whether it's offensive or defensive, that I agree with, but there's an inherent difference between protection vs. aggression. Self defense vs. theft/harm. And it has nothing to do with whether or not you accept someone's reality of property and ownership, but rather that instinctively you should know better than to stick your fingers in the face of an eating dog. The same is true whether you steal a car or rape someone or murder someone.

Violent aggression will almost always be met with protective violence, because it is in fact very natural.

I've told you many times that your ideology is too corruptible to ever work in practice. I've also provided you with evidence that both your ideology and party have been heavily influenced by corporations. In the current election, corporations used your ideology -and heaps of cash- to buy a sizable chunk of the United States government. Grasping at straws my ass. I nailed it to the wall.

1 and 3. Taxes are a rudimentary part of all modern civilizations. Find me an example of a modern civilization that doesn't tax and then maybe, MAYBE, you will have the beginnings of an argument.

2. By living in a country, you tacitly agree to its laws. This is called a social contract. You don't sign a social contract. If you did, it would become a regular contract.

I think your arguments would have more traction if they didn't contain so many disingenuous emotional buzzwords: STATIST! TYRANNY! COERCION! THEFT! COMPULSORY! VIOLENCE! BUTT OF A GUN! Having to use forced and phony words to make a point is a telltale sign of a weak argument.

Do you know what corporate backed, free market loving party prints up lists of disingenuous emotional buzzwords for their foot soldiers to use?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/23/luntz

Just sayin'...

So blankfist does support violence and coercion under certain circumstances. Good to know. Nice argument Aikido, dghandi!

@dystopianfuturetoday, I don't have to show you an example of anything for two reasons: 1. I'm not your puppet. 2. It's irrelevant.

I just want people to not steal from me or others. I just want people to not use violence to coerce others to do things they don't want to do. It's simple really. You and dgandhi are trying to make it convoluted in order to obfuscate the frailty of the statist argument.

The ideology of the people is changing from these centrally designed and corrupt safety net societies to these naturally evolving 'no guarantee' free societies. You can say taxes are a rudimentary part of modern society, and I can show you it's also part of old corrupt monarchies, but it doesn't matter. In the end it's just obfuscation.

Leave people alone. Let them make a life for themselves without coercion and theft and aggression.

3. you don't have an example

Do you ever listen to your own rhetoric?

Why is the language you use to promote 'liberty' so full of insults, slogans and loaded language? You can't make a single point without employing disingenuous Rovian power words. COERCION! THEFT! STATIST! CENTRAL DESIGN! SAFETY NET!

Do you ever feel phony using this kind of cheap, fear based, language of intimidation? Wasn't it George Bush who said that anyone who disagrees with him hates freedom? Does anyone who disagrees with you hate liberty? If I disagree, does that make me a violent statist?

If your ideas cannot stand on their own without you having to resort to this kind of dishonest cable news rhetoric, then maybe your ideas are flawed.

>> ^blankfist:
Violent aggression will almost always be met with protective violence, because it is in fact very natural.


You need to conflate property with possession to make your argument, you pretend that the imposition of property is an act of self defense, when in fact all you have done is use a subtle linguistic trick.

All that you say is true for possession: If I have something in my hand, and I do not wish to relinquish it, then you must use force to take it.

But what you say is not true of property: If I place a pen which I claim to own on a table, and you take it, you do not need to accost me to succeed.

Your natural examples are about possession, dog at a bowl, bear in a cave, but you can't get to property from that.

Your self-defense example replaces the primacy of moral autonomy, with property, apparently in a facile attempt to make property good for something.

In none of the cases you mention is property relevant, or necessary. Possession suffices for all legitimate claims of defense, and in no case have you shown a link between defense of property and defense of self.

Really interesting debates going on here...

I was reading about property and possession the other day while trying to find a label for myself, might be libertarian socialist, not sure yet hehe

Anyhow, it seems there is this idea of eliminating property, essentially replacing it with possession. But what if I had plans for that pen a couple of hours from now?

Eliminating property in favor of possession means no one would 'own' anything anymore. The word mine would disappear? I could never say about something: This is mine?

Not sure how I feel about that.

@dystopianfuturetoday, so I'm not supposed to use certain words in my conversation because you find them scary?

The phrase "central design" is scary to you? I'll try to change my "rhetoric" to best suit you, then. Now excuse me while I head to the video store to rent the first season of Strawberry Shortcake. I have a lot to learn about speaking to children.

Your ideology consists of things you've heard other people say; your arguments are regurgitations. Whenever the conversation strays away from the things you've been taught, you are unable to adapt and think on your feet. Instead, you become angry and resort to insults. If nothing else, this thread is evidence of that.

Here is a list of the things you've been unable to address in this thread.

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.
-Your double standards on 'coercion by threat of violence' as it pertains to private property.
-An example of a successful modern society that doesn't tax.
-Your use of deceptive slogans and frames in lieu of an actual argument.
-Your frequent use of 'begging the question'.
-The striking similarities between your own opinion and corporate opinion.
-How markets reward violence, labor exploitation and pollution.

No need tiring out the gray matter on any of these troublesome topics. No need to observe the theme that connects these things that shut you down. No need for critical thought when insults are so quick and easy.

I rest my case.

I west my cwase.

Phew what a ride. Good one guys.

Let's go again!

There's someone wrong on the internet.

>> ^blankfist:

There's someone wrong on the internet.


Please refer to #1 in this article:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

I believe you used a few others while in the throes of this awesome beatdown that you just took.

*edit* Thanks for the correction blankfist. See how easy it is to admit that you can be wrong? (Oh god, did I just use #1 as well? INCONCEIVABLE)

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
I believe you used a few others while in the throws of this awesome beatdown that you just took.

It's "throes".

@Tymbrwulf, I don't know what prompted your lame and sudden attack against me, but you do understand you're citing a cracked.com comedy page to bolster your argument, right?


@dystopianfuturetoday, glad to see you had to edit your comment above and add a bullet list. Very classy, sir. Allow me to touch on that NEW list.

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.

You keep citing the Kochs as being supporters of CATO as if their contributions are in any way a strike against the liberty movement. Here's a fun fact: how many corporations can we count that donate to your Democratic Party? A whole helluva lot more than donate to any liberty movement. And don't get me started on the Democratic support of the military industrial complex.

You're trying to compare defensive and offensive violence. Fail.

Irrelevant. Also, I noted compulsory tax vs. voluntary tax above. I hope you're actually reading the comments before posting responses.

Not sure what you mean unless you're trying to paint words like "central designer" and "statism" as being deceptive slogans? I've given nothing but cogent and well framed arguments. I understand I may be in the minority on this site and a lot of people vocally disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm not giving you strong arguments. To the contrary, I must be because I've brought on the wrath of several Sifters in here already. That's me tickling that cognitive dissonance.

Where have I proposed a premise as truth that requires proof? This, to me, is grasping at straws. I know we love to accuse people of fallacious arguments, but this seems out of left field

Like your striking similarities to white land owners and their democratic belief in slavery?

This is unfounded. You can post links to isolated incidents all day long, or how corporations (government created entities) are doing bad things under the limited liability protections of the state. And labor exploitation is real, but you're forgetting a part of the market that corrects for these things: the consumers. You like to use Nike as an example, but there's a couple problems with that argument: 1. You can't assume to know the economy of the country with these "sweatshops" (otherwise that would be begging the question, sir). 2. This may be more money than they can make in that part of the world. 3. Nike is a corporation, therefore a government protected entity that enjoys crony capitalism and corporate welfare that keeps competition in the marketplace noncompetitive, so there are less companies able to compete with Nike.

By the way, DFT, can we stick to a single topic debate instead of a laundry list of items you want me to address? It's really impossible to effectively address five or ten different tangential questions in a single post.

Also, because you don't agree with my position doesn't mean I didn't "answer" your question.

First off, it's very cool that you are tackling these tough questions. If you want to hit me up with a list of your own, I'll take a shot at them. Let's hash these out one at a time for the sake of clarity.

Funding - You seem to be tacitly conceding the fact that your highly principled, anti corporate movement is funded by corporations. This is at odds with your claim that market libertarianism rises above partisan politics and special interest groups. Instead you are saying Democrats do it too. Does that make it OK?

Let's take this topic a little deeper.

It is true that corporations fund viable candidates from all parties - though more money is spent on politicians on the right - but you don't see the same kind of funding behind liberal ideology. Current corporate funding of think tanks and front groups almost exclusively favors market libertarian/right wing organizations.

In the 90's, corporations attempted to create a Liberal mouthpiece for their message, called the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). This group had much success early on - they are credited with helping their candidate, Bill Clinton, get elected to the executive office. They also nurtured the careers of Joe Loserman and Dick Gephardt.

Obama was briefly a member as well until he parted ways on ideological grounds. I find it interesting that in the 2008 primaries, Hillary (a DLCer) used the same arguments against Obama that right wing think tanks used against him, probably because the DLC IS a right wing think tank in disguise If you remember correctly, Obama barely wrestled the nomination away from Hillary with a clever strategy that won him the states that had a particular caucasing process. (In my own opinion, I think Hillary was the 'the chosen one' to become president.)

The fact that Obama and Hillary, two DLC candidates were the only contenders in this race does raise some questions, but to take that line of questioning further means you would need to take a more skeptical look at your own politics too.

I digress...

Anyway, since the 2000 elections, the DLC has become a dirty word among liberals, and no corporately funded front groups have been able to gain any traction among the liberal mainstream since.

Beyond the fact that corporations choose to give their money to libertarian/right wing thing tanks, Koch was actually once a vice presidential candidate for the libertarian party, which seems instructive.

How do you square the fact that corporations are so intimately involved with your party, ideology and its dissemination in a way that they are not with the Democrats?

Double Standards - So it's OK to defend private property, but not public property. That's still a double standard.

Civilization sans tax - So find me a country with optional or voluntary taxes then.

Phony language - Is the term statist invective? I'd say yes. If not, then my new name for you shall be blanky, the brown nosed plutocrat.

You've dodged four questions in a row. I've not yet read the rest of your response, so I'm curious to see if you have even a single straight answer.

Begging the question - When you say 'Using coercion under threat of violence to collect tax money is immoral', you are using an opinion that you have not proved 'using coercion under threat of violence' as a given in your argument.

Another dodge.

Market violence - So if deregulating the market is a force for good, why do you find so much market oppression in countries with deregulated labor markets? Consumers have no idea what kind of exploitation, abuse or pollution went go the manufacturing of the products they buy, other than 'cool, a blue t shirt for $5.99!' Your doctrine is in conflict with reality here.

Similarity to corporatist opinion - Slavery, which was championed by industry and ended by government is probably not the best analogy for you to dodge this question with.

Sorry, I read ahead, but I did at least break them into individual comments for you to respond to at your leisure. I want to make it clear that these aren't intended to be 'gotcha' questions or tricks, these are legitimate concerns that keep me skeptical of your brand. You would be in a much stronger position if you were able address this issues with clarity, honesty and without politi-speak. Also, it's not the end of the world that there are flaws in your ideology. The last 2 years, heck, the last 10 years have certainly been humbling for me.

I'm going to make an attempt to remove the insults and antagonism from my own writing. If I'm going to preach about integrity of argument, I should practice it too.

You know what, I actually don't need a response to any of this. In the grand scheme of things, our squabbles don't mean much, and we just ended pissing each other off anyways, so fuck it. Believe what you like. If you want to write something, I'll read it, if not, no biggie. Peace brother.

She's cute; I just wish she'd stop talking.