(05-25-2018, 01:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-25-2018, 12:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: "No one is advocating for that," except you, when you said, " 
Any Government equals Reduction of Freedom. Always"

---

Right.  If you're in the interior of the country, and your sister gets raped, the government should stay the hell out of it and let you go revenge-rape the rapist's sister.  As long as it doesn't involve the border or foreign governments, it should be up to the family to solve.  Right?

So you do have reading comprehension problems then. Good to know.

Edit: Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Allow me to elaborate...a person can state a fact without using that particular fact as a platform to advocate for a tangentially-related position. In this case, you, I, and everyone else can agree to the fact that government in any form is a restraint on human freedom without suggesting it's abolition is desired, or even beneficial. As you say, vigilante justice is, for the most part, an undesirable outcome for violating other people's rights. A functioning government with fair laws and a desire for justice is a much better solution to that kind of crime. I'm not sure where you pulled your wild accusations from, but you might want to return them because they are sour.

So if you state the government always restrains freedom, and then state that the abolition of government is not desired, by the transitive property of logic you are saying that freedom, however you define it, is also not desired. This is a surprising result because we usually assume that freedom is a good thing, and because you rejected my suggestion about taxes on grounds that it impinged on freedom.  You're faulting my reading comprehension but, I have to fault your logic.

---