Hobbes and Locke

[aeest400]

This is what scares me about even having this type of argument. You clearly have no understanding of what logic is--just because some theory makes sense to you based on whatever information you have does not make it "logical." Logic has nothing to do with these arguments other than to structure them in the same way it structures arguments about any topic (e.g., it's invalid logic to say: all X are Y, Z is an X, therefore Z is not a Y.) Please don't confuse what you beleive to be logic with truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

As for the rest, just read the Federalist Papers. It's all been written before. Here's a link, No. 10 is a good start.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

[ QUOTE ]
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Riddick]

I was once like you. Seriously. Then I read the first few pages of Man, Economy, and State. Needless to say, I'm no longer like you.

Check it out. For free. Greatest Book Ever Written

Also, either debate or debate while lobbing insults, but stop lobbing content-less insults.

[aeest400]

The first section looked interesting, but if I keep reading I strongly suspect I'll have some issues with it. Nevertheless, thanks for the link.

As for being insulting, I've spent too long thinking too hard about these things to be overly civil to folks I think are deluded. I try to respond based on the quality of the post to which I'm responding, though sometimes I can get a bit snarky. This is, after all, the interweb.