[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah. Nice try, but this is a bait and switch. I'm not trying to impose any particular definition of freedom. And it's *your* position (implicity) that - whatever it is - it won't "work in practice" (and therefore implicitly that it shouldn't be allowed).

Edit: also, please don't ever try any of that hypocritical "you twist things around" crybaby stuff again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't bait and switch anything, I simply refuse your authority to claim I am an opponent of freedom. It's voluntarism principle 101.

It is your opinion that I am, nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have definitely conceded the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I completely fail to see where there is an argument in this. Two subjective opinions meet (you are an opponent of freedom vs you are a proponent of freedom), neither one can be held to be objectively true - there is nothing to concede. I even admitted in the text you quoted that to vpn I am an opponent of freedom, since it is a subjective view.