(05-25-2018, 05:56 PM)mikesez Wrote:

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

Your issue is that you're dealing in absolutes. Government does restrain freedom, but to varying degrees. Having government doesn't mean no freedom, it means limits on freedom; no matter how much or little, any government means some level of freedom is necessarily restrained. The balance is how much government to accept. Your No taxes = No government = No freedom is false, government restrains freedom and sometimes protects it, but freedom does not require government to exist. It might be at risk, but it can certainly exist absent any form of government.

---