bloodyminded

Closer to stating outright, actually.

Unless you're rich...then you don't have to suffer as much. It is an elitist view, a class-based view. By definition. But you said there would be a death penalty and restitutive slavery. That's preposterous. The most sought-after judges would be those who provided the most amenable service to their (paying) clients for money. People pay money to win; not to see "justice" done. Everyone who knew such judges were favourable towards them and their cause would indeed very much want them. why wouldn't they?

If none of the scholars (not all of whom are "leftwing") has offered anything substantive, then take them on. They covered most of your points quite nicely, after all. You did bring it up, though, so I don't know where you're getting this. Even if you offer it as a resposne...it's still engaging in the "pissing contest," and it's still summoning authority. Hell, it's present in the first line of this passage of yours to which I'm at this moment responding! At any rate, trying to parse the ideas of scholars and historians on the subject is not automatically a debate fallacy; no more than "I use my own common sense" is. No. You favour your own theory of "conservatism" over reality itself. To you, it makes no difference, none whatever, what conservatives do, or what they say; you determine what is "conservative" based on whetehr it aligns in action with what you think it should do. You even blame leftists for bad rightwing behaviour, which is the height of irresponsibility. In other words, there are no conservatives. So you're defending some non-existent phantom.

That's exactly what he thinks. He's a believer in anarcho-capitalism.

Fair enough, agreed. Hired by whom? What if they, too, behave in a violently criminal manner? I'm not trying at all to be difficult, Zacahry; I honestly don't think you've thought through how this could work. Says who? The private courts you've hired, who have every incentive to "believe you" because they're taking your money? You're insisting on retaining existing problems...and then exacerbating them. So now freedom is slavery, huh? Just a short while ago, you were complaining about how the justice system is corrupted in part because those without money suffer in ways that those of means do not--using your personal experience as an example of this injustice. Now you're saying it's fine; those with money, pay it back, and go on your merry way. Those without: slavery! In other words, stealing is a different crime for the rich than for the poor: the rich shouldn't have to suffer for their crimes to the extent that the poor do. Your view here is absolutely, 100% elitist. Classist. It is an obscene disjunction of Power based purely on wealth, and zero on justice. The rich will rule the Earth under your scenario. Through force. You don't see the contradictions? And one of the primary differences is that, under your scenario, we can't even vote for our rulers. They "earn" it through having money.

I find the leftwing support of Paul quite strange.

Such as?

Kleptocracy only means those in power stealing from everyone else. Often it is used to describe the theft of money by the richest (who also have disproportionate power).

Yes, I understand that you are speaking from principle here, and would wish an end to upwards welfare as well as downwards welfare. But my question still stands: never mind people using welfare for bad purposes or what have you; if you could push a button and end it immediately, could you not see some sudden, devastating and awful things occurring to a lot of people?

But under your scenario, there would still be police: private security firms. What's their incentive to not commit crimes? And who would arrest and sentence them if (actually, when) they did so?

Oh, Bill remains sharp enough, no worries. He also shows some compasison for people; and such compassionate tendencies could someday work in your favour, Zachary, if that sharpens its importance in your mind. And Bill's right; even if the notion of eliminating welfare altogether is sound idea, it shouldn't ever be done immediately (your suggestion). Some people will suffer unbelievable depredations. Why should anyone want that for them?

And who determines this "fairness" and how? The Market???? I agree with our point about money; the poor are the primary victims of institutional injustices. (Not "the businessman," as you might otherwise believe.) If you can't pay the right fees, you go to jail while awaiting trial; if you have money, you do not. That's an injustice by definition, opposed to the very principles of same. Further, the cliche about expensive lawyers versus state-paid defense lawyers is in fact generally true. That's buying jsutice...which you think should be more the case, not less! (For example, what do you propose be done with defendants who have no money to pay lawyers?) I don't see how a competitive, free market justice system (which you as of yet have declined to explain how it could possibly even begin to work) would solve this problem. Why would it? It would have nothing to gain by solving the issue--and therefore, thanks to market principles, it could not in good faith attempt to solve it.

Those are great points. If "the Government" is a bunch of lefties that hate cosnervatives and lionize Trudeau, then what....ah jeez; I cannot maintain this bizarre line of thinking. (That's to my credit, I believe! )

I don't imagine such a thing as an "unbiased news source" is possible within the human realm. So, no, not at all. Sure, and that's perfectly understandable. I don't blame anyone for that. But when claims are made, asking for evidence is not wrong; it's not unreasonable. And if one makes claims, but can't or won't back them up, then the claim remains bland and useless. That's ok too. But it is what it is.

They are laughing Intelligent Design out of the classrooms. That's because it's laughable. So all is good, yes?