Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though.

think can restaurant owner not serve blacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

The supervisors claimed that streets would be cleaner without plastic bags. Now the streets have more doggie droppings than before the ban. Those bags did serve a purpose.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup.



this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though.

think can restaurant owner not serve blacks.



So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want?

[/ QUOTE ]

no I think if it is not open to the general public like if you need a membership to get in, that's how some bars used to operate in dry counties anyways.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see. The old "we can solve the slippery slope problem by drawing an arbitrary line" pipedream.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like you to expand on this. I've laid out my case in more than a single sentence, I'd appreciate it if you did the same. I believe that a voluntary interaction between A and B can affect C, and we must somehow decide what level of affect is socially allowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a huge question you've begged. It's just yet another personal subjective opinion that someone wants to impose upon a bunch of other people.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that there is some line that is not arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a voluntary interaction between A and B affects C (and I agree this is possible), then you may very well have an involuntary transaction. In those cases, you now have a non-arbitrary "line".

Are you saying that this line should be determined by the market (whatever that means)? Are you saying this isn't a problem in the first place (if so please explain)?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ah, great idea. Obviously, nobody has a problem with Bush. If they did, they simply would have elected someone else. Interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't increase scale by several orders of magnitude and imagine that the same problems or difficulties arise. This would be like me saying quantum mechanics is obviously bogus based on watching a tennis ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so anyone who wants to can replace their *local* elected representative on a whim as you suggested they do if they aren't satisfied?

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup.



this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though.

think can restaurant owner not serve blacks.



So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want?

[/ QUOTE ]

no I think if it is not open to the general public like if you need a membership to get in, that's how some bars used to operate in dry counties anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

[/ QUOTE ]

hey bud, the whole legal system is a joke imo.

I'm just saying you could have a "whites only" membership dining club, but if you're a restaurant without the joke legal b.s. and you hang a "whites only" sign and enforce it, youre gonna be in big trouble.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

[/ QUOTE ]

hey bud, the whole legal system is a joke imo.

I'm just saying you could have a "whites only" membership dining club, but if you're a restaurant without the joke legal b.s. and you hang a "whites only" sign and enforce it, youre gonna be in big trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.webdesign.org/img_article...ppointment.jpg

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

I remember being in a gas station in town here (Whitewater, WI) and a customer asked the clerk if he could buy booze on Sundays. The clerk was some college chick who gave him a wtf look and said yeah, of course. I think his plate was from Arkansas. Dry counties are totally alien to Wisconsinites except for some village I've never heard of before (Ephraim). Suck it Arkansas/(Tennessee?)! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

I bought the reusable cloth bags, but I'm a SF hippie [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. And there's no right to plastic bags.

This has nothing to do with the point that you're derailing, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little bit off topic and a slight hijack, but I didnt want to start a whole new thread just to make a comment. I was watching PTI today, and while this is probably inexcusable, I was also studying at the time and wanted something mindless in the background. So anyhow, they start talking about the Green Bay/Dallas game, and the situation with the NFL Network. It was at this time that I realized that you AC guys wont ever win. Or at least not any time even remotely soon.

Both Wilbon and Kornheiser were railing against the greedy, evil cable companies...so far so good, I suppose. But then they started explaining how it was completely unfair and that these cable companies were holding the viewers hostage, and victimizing them. They used both of those phrases exactly. And they were serious. Of course they are prone to hyperbole but in this exchange it doesnt make sense if its just hyperbole, it was central to their complaint that these cable companies were actually IN THE WRONG because they were holding fans hostage, and that something needed to be done about this.

So I talked to some of my (sports loving) friends about it. They feel the same way. Cable companies are out of control, what are they supposed to do? They cant afford a dish, and they deserve to see the game too. People honestly feel like they have a RIGHT just because they have a WANT. I understand the confusion between these two concepts when we are talking about, say, healthcare (understand, not agree with) because health is extremely central and important for most people and they misunderstand what a right to life means. But people legitimately feel VICTIMIZED and held hostage by cable companies because they wont provide them what they want. I dont see how this is surmountable in anything but the long, long term. People are incapable of listening to, much less trying to understand, the arguments you put forward here when they are laboring under the impression that they have a RIGHT to the Packer game.

Just to be clear, this rant doesnt apply to the statists who post here, it wasnt meant to insult you or try to paint your arguments or positions as childish and stupid. You guys have nothing in common with the PTI guys/all of my idiot friends/family, and you guys really DO understand or try to understand the points made on this thread. And you have many good arguments. I was simply extremely disheartened by this series of events.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a voluntary interaction between A and B affects C (and I agree this is possible), then you may very well have an involuntary transaction. In those cases, you now have a non-arbitrary "line".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what if I tell you that 99% of what you might consider "voluntary transactions" do affect 3rd parties, and thus are "involuntary". So, again, where do we draw the line?

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so anyone who wants to can replace their *local* elected representative on a whim as you suggested they do if they aren't satisfied?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they can't change it on a whim, that would be absurd. But presumably people would choose to surround themselves with others who share some core values, philosophies and cultural traditions (we call this a community). When their elected officials act in a way that violates these fundamental tenets, it should be fairly easy to rally up the support of one's neighbors. If you find that you are unable to do so, you ought to consider that maybe your neighbors don't, for the most part, share your values and philosophies and that you ought to find a new community.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a voluntary interaction between A and B affects C (and I agree this is possible), then you may very well have an involuntary transaction. In those cases, you now have a non-arbitrary "line".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what if I tell you that 99% of what you might consider "voluntary transactions" do affect 3rd parties, and thus are "involuntary". So, again, where do we draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I consider those voluntary if they aren't?

I'm still not sure what you mean when you ask where to draw the line. You draw it at "involuntary".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so anyone who wants to can replace their *local* elected representative on a whim as you suggested they do if they aren't satisfied?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they can't change it on a whim, that would be absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please never, ever, ever again use the blame-the-victim "zomg you elected the wrong person dummy" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
But presumably people would choose to surround themselves with others who share some core values, philosophies and cultural traditions (we call this a community).

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds great. In the real world, however, people are compelled to participate in "communities" with other people not of their choosing. When governments become optional organizations that you can join and leave just like you do a health club or phone company, then this "elect someone better" argument might hold water. Until then, it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
When their elected officials act in a way that violates these fundamental tenets, it should be fairly easy to rally up the support of one's neighbors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. In your fantasyland yootopia.

[ QUOTE ]
If you find that you are unable to do so, you ought to consider that maybe your neighbors don't, for the most part, share your values and philosophies and that you ought to find a new community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%. In the fantasyland yootopia.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there's a lack of empathy. It's San Francisco!!!!!!!!!! Anyone who lives there knows exactly what they're getting and deserves it! I mean seriously, it's the national capitol of loony liberal laws!


[/ QUOTE ]



LOL... Sorry... no possible other answer than laughing at your post!

PS I have lived, and visited SFO many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

R U saying there is a more loony liberal city in the US Midge? Please name if that is the case.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there's a lack of empathy. It's San Francisco!!!!!!!!!! Anyone who lives there knows exactly what they're getting and deserves it! I mean seriously, it's the national capitol of loony liberal laws!


[/ QUOTE ]



LOL... Sorry... no possible other answer than laughing at your post!

PS I have lived, and visited SFO many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

R U saying there is a more loony liberal city in the US Midge? Please name if that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berkeley?

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I can't believe so many people think this is a bad idea.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are getting a little extreme here. First of all ,yes the city SHOULD be able to "mess" with private buisness. This is a good thing. I'm stretching here but should a buisness be allowed to dump toxic waste in your parks? Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? I think yes.

I do not agree that the cost should be places on the businesses though ..but it dosn't have to. Simply charge the customer for these costly more "green" bags. If the customer dosn't want to pay then they can bring their own bags/boxes.

Side note - Politics aside, if you don't think trying to minimize creation of plastic bags is a good thing then you are ignorant at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the market would take care of any restaurant serving rotten dog meat. Does not sound like a successful business practice to me.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why would I consider those voluntary if they aren't?

I'm still not sure what you mean when you ask where to draw the line. You draw it at "involuntary".


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that you can't base a society on voluntary interaction and trading when so few things don't affect others. Nobody can drive a car, nobody can really do anything that pollutes the environment, nobody can play loud music. Again, you haven't actually replied to this, you simply keep saying "voluntary transactions" and I'm trying to talk about the practical complications therein.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]

That sounds great. In the real world, however, people are compelled to participate in "communities" with other people not of their choosing. When governments become optional organizations that you can join and leave just like you do a health club or phone company, then this "elect someone better" argument might hold water. Until then, it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you continue to think I'm the one living in a fantasyland utopia, this is going nowhere. I'm not even sure where to place your belief, since all I see you do is bitch and moan about the government. My solution isn't perfect, but it is a solution. If you honestly think it is impossible to affect the outcome of a mayor's election (how many people even vote in these elections??) so that someone is elected that supports your basic tenets, or to move somewhere where that is already the case... I don't know what to tell you. America is a very, very diversfied country. For better or worse, you will find people who agree with what you say, almost regardless of what that is. It may mean moving to New Hampsire or Montana or whatever other forgotten corner, but that's just how it is. If you want to have no government whatsoever, then I'm simply going to have to question which one of us lives in a fantasyland utopia and move on.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why would I consider those voluntary if they aren't?

I'm still not sure what you mean when you ask where to draw the line. You draw it at "involuntary".


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that you can't base a society on voluntary interaction and trading when so few things don't affect others. Nobody can drive a car, nobody can really do anything that pollutes the environment, nobody can play loud music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You're suggesting that the possibility of involuntary transactions makes a voluntary society impossible? This is the "zomg there will still be murderers in AC land, it's doomed to failure" argument.

Of course there are things that effect other people. Most of them aren't enough of a problem for anyone to do anything about it.

The kid down the street sometimes drives by my house with his radio blaring. You're saying that because of this I must logically accept a state? The state hasn't put a stop to it (just as it hasn't stopped pollution), so I'm not really sure how you jump from "problem" to "necessity of a state".

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you haven't actually replied to this, you simply keep saying "voluntary transactions" and I'm trying to talk about the practical complications therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an involuntary society doesn't magically make those practical complications disappear. So what exactly do you want to talk about?

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there's a lack of empathy. It's San Francisco!!!!!!!!!! Anyone who lives there knows exactly what they're getting and deserves it! I mean seriously, it's the national capitol of loony liberal laws!


[/ QUOTE ]



LOL... Sorry... no possible other answer than laughing at your post!

PS I have lived, and visited SFO many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

R U saying there is a more loony liberal city in the US Midge? Please name if that is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berkeley?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Berkeley is the source of the """thinking""" (I use that term loosly).... but I think SFO still puts them into practice more.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

50 years ago. Supervisors in SF were part-timers. Had no power. It was better that way.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why not? You're suggesting that the possibility of involuntary transactions makes a voluntary society impossible? This is the "zomg there will still be murderers in AC land, it's doomed to failure" argument.

Of course there are things that effect other people. Most of them aren't enough of a problem for anyone to do anything about it.

The kid down the street sometimes drives by my house with his radio blaring. You're saying that because of this I must logically accept a state? The state hasn't put a stop to it (just as it hasn't stopped pollution), so I'm not really sure how you jump from "problem" to "necessity of a state".


[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm not sure where I said anything about the necessity of a state. I'm saying that using the philosophical underpinning of a purely voluntary transactions is specious. And, as I said, there ARE people who believe that cars are a serious enough problem to do something. They go and blow up Hummers and get called ecoterrorists.

Now, since they are being affected by the "involuntary transactions" that others are making, what recourse do they have? Does not the fact that no courts exist which would serve their desires and preferences mean anything? Is this not the definition of the tyrnanny of the majority?

I read that living in NY city and just breathing the air is as bad for you as smoking X cigarrets a day (I'd have to look up the specific number and study, but it was >1). Do people living in NY city have the right to sue? Are their courts that will hear their case? Or is this also tyranny of the majority?

My point is not that we need a state or that we need anything, my point is that "tyranny of the majority" is a fact of life that is overcomable only by the use of FORCE by a minority willing and powerful enough to do so. This force may be physical violence, it may be emotional pleading, it may be something else, but it is force and power nonetheless.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That sounds great. In the real world, however, people are compelled to participate in "communities" with other people not of their choosing. When governments become optional organizations that you can join and leave just like you do a health club or phone company, then this "elect someone better" argument might hold water. Until then, it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you continue to think I'm the one living in a fantasyland utopia, this is going nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're NOT living in the fantasyland utopia. That's the problem with your "if you don't like it elect someone else" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even sure where to place your belief, since all I see you do is bitch and moan about the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. All you do is bitch and moan about people who want to do things their own way without bothering anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
My solution isn't perfect, but it is a solution. If you honestly think it is impossible to affect the outcome of a mayor's election (how many people even vote in these elections??) so that someone is elected that supports your basic tenets, or to move somewhere where that is already the case... I don't know what to tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that isn't possible. But the "vote someone else in" argument assumes that it's not only easy but a decision that is entirely up to the person the argument is aimed at. It's not like buying shoes. If you don't like the shoes you have, go buy some better ones. That

[ QUOTE ]
America is a very, very diversfied country. For better or worse, you will find people who agree with what you say, almost regardless of what that is. It may mean moving to New Hampsire or Montana or whatever other forgotten corner, but that's just how it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, everyone understands "that's just how it is."

Is that really the only thing that matters to you? The status quo is the status quo, so STFU. This is the most ridiculous argument made in this forum, and it gets trotted out more frequently than almost any other, and by people who otherwise seem capable of thinking beyond that level.

Might makes right, yes or no?

If no, then you can't possibly think an appeal to the status quo gives any sort of legitimacy at all.

Go back 200 years. Slavery is legal, that's just how it is! Sure, eventually enough people will change their mind on this and the "right" people will get elected and the law will change. But that's frankly irrelevant. Do you think that while it's "legal" that there can be no meaningful examination of the law to *judge* it right or wrong?

Further, your fixation on moving and geographical proximity begs other questions. There is nothing inherent about voluntary transactions that require either

A) you be near the people you want to interact with

or

B) you interact with people near you

The fact that someone lives next door to me does not give me license to impose upon him, nor does it give him license to impose upon me.

Further, the ease of moving does not create license for any imposition, either.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

pvn,

So long as you continue to think that I support the status quo, or oppose personal liberty and the right to self-determination and self-reliance, I've decided it's not worth the frustration of trying to discuss anything with you. This will be the last post of yours that I respond to.

Have a nice day/week/month/year/however long it takes.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not sure where I said anything about the necessity of a state. I'm saying that using the philosophical underpinning of a purely voluntary transactions is specious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting really close to being a semantical nitpicker here. It doesn't matter what you think of the philosophical underpinnings, if you are in favor of involuntary actions to address certain issues, you're arguing for a state.

[ QUOTE ]
And, as I said, there ARE people who believe that cars are a serious enough problem to do something. They go and blow up Hummers and get called ecoterrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, these people exist. There are also people who think aliens are kidnapping them. They exist. And there are people who hear voices that tell them to kill people. They exist.

What's your point?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, since they are being affected by the "involuntary transactions" that others are making, what recourse do they have? Does not the fact that no courts exist which would serve their desires and preferences mean anything? Is this not the definition of the tyrnanny of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

First recognize that these people aren't *entitled* to have their desires catered to by other people.

Then realize that the market they want to participate in (arbitration services) is incredibly distorted by government intervention.

In fact, the pollution they despise and are damaged by is explicitly permitted by government. Government *immunizes* the aggressors in this case.

So we have a situation where involuntary transactions create this situation. And you think this is some indictment of what would happen in a world where involuntary transactions were not accepted as the norm?

[ QUOTE ]
I read that living in NY city and just breathing the air is as bad for you as smoking X cigarrets a day (I'd have to look up the specific number and study, but it was >1). Do people living in NY city have the right to sue? Are their courts that will hear their case? Or is this also tyranny of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you have a situation that is created directly by involuntary transactions. What this says about a voluntary society is not clear to me. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more to make your point here.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is not that we need a state or that we need anything, my point is that "tyranny of the majority" is a fact of life that is overcomable only by the use of FORCE by a minority willing and powerful enough to do so. This force may be physical violence, it may be emotional pleading, it may be something else, but it is force and power nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this has what to do with my posts that you responded to?

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

So long as you continue to think that I support the status quo,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you do. But you run and hide behind it a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
or oppose personal liberty and the right to self-determination and self-reliance,

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly have made it difficult to believe otherwise. All you do is whine and bitch about "practical complications" of such (ignoring that these practical complications are not restricted to such voluntary interactions) or the "philosophical underpinnings" of leaving other people alone.

You've said that wanting "no government whatsoever" = "fantasyland utopia" and you've denied being a fantasyland utopian, so you must logically then support government. Now, that in and of itself doesn't mean you oppose personal liberty, but as soon as you decide that other people should also be subjected to your government, no matter how limited (and you do suggest this with your repeated cries of "move if you don't like it") then you ARE opposing personal liberty.

[ QUOTE ]
Have a nice day/week/month/year/however long it takes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just let me know whenever you're ready to stop with the doubletalk.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]

You've said that wanting "no government whatsoever" = "fantasyland utopia" and you've denied being a fantasyland utopian, so you must logically then support government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not a logical conclusion. Believing that government is inevitable and working to make that inevitability the best you can doesn't mean you support it in the slightest.

Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You've said that wanting "no government whatsoever" = "fantasyland utopia" and you've denied being a fantasyland utopian, so you must logically then support government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not a logical conclusion. Believing that government is inevitable and working to make that inevitability the best you can doesn't mean you support it in the slightest.

[/ QUOTE ]


If wanting no government = fantasyland utopian, and A is not a fantasyland utopian, then A does NOT want no government, therefore he wants government, which is a lot different than merely believing that it is inevitable.