-4 votes

If you don't like and respect our Republic, The Constitution

Then move out. There are plenty of other places on this globe that you can move to where there is communism, dictators, oppression. I am sure that they will welcome you.

You see, our nation was built by free thinkers, innovation and hard work. We didn't ask permission or need others holding our hand to be productive and to build great things, and to make our country the greatest, freest nation the world has ever seen.

So, if you don't like freedom, Liberty, the Constitution [Law of the Land], then MOVE OUT and leave me and my country alone.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I figured this was

I figured this was over.

Where we differ is on the issue of taxation.

You think it is ok, I do not.

I see that I cannot convince you that taking things by force is wrong, and that is ok.

I'm just being consistent.

Taking things by force is always wrong, even if the founders thought it was ok.

But they were only mere men.

Back then, slavery was seen as acceptable, but now we know that it is wrong.

In the future, taxation will be seen to be just as evil as slavery.

Or can you give me a moral case for taxation?

Steve

I certainly don't need to defend rp4pres, but I can tell you that he is a good man. The folks on here are varied, we sometimes call each other out, hostile names included. For me it's idiot, moron, lol. But hey, it toughens us up and life is good. So don't take offense, ok?

Taxation is never good, especially forced. But there is also reality, and when justified, such as declaration of war under Congressional Authorization which hasn't happened since the last world war, things do cost money.

Striving for perfection should always be a goal. Striving for utopia is also nice, but in this reality unless you live under a rock or an everything-proof shell, there are things that humans need to work together to address. And if I pay and you don't to defend our borders, do you think that THAT is right?

Btw Steve: oh looky, my thread got -5 votes! I feel so unpopular, lol!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

It's ok, insults never bother

It's ok, insults never bother me, it is just a sign that I'm on to something!

You said:
Taxation is never good, especially forced.

But all taxation is force, or else it would be called payment, a due, or a contribution.

To maintain civilization, we must maintain the integrity of words.

And to define taxation is to mean a payment due by force of weapons and threats.

Weapons and threats are a poor basis to build a society upon.

And as for utopia, no one here is advocating that.

The world is imperfect, I agree.

But if we have an imperfect system, like one designed over 200 years ago, then we should strive for something that works better.

Man, being imperfect, will always be in a constant state of improvement.

I'm just saying that it would be retrogressive to go back to something that has so obviously failed.

How many more decades are we going to keep slamming our heads off the same wall?

The study of economics has progressed so much that we would all be fools to ignore the treasure-trove of new knowledge that has been uncovered in recent times.

And as for borders, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I don't own any land so I don't have any borders to defend.

There is no "our" borders.

If you own land then you have borders to defend, and so do all the other land owners of the continent.

And if socialism fails abysmally in EVERY OTHER aspect of human interaction, why should socialization of border defense magically work?

Steve, likewise, I know where you are going this...

I think that although we agree on many things, there are some that we disagree.

Many people work, raise families, want to relax, etc. Paying minimal taxes may be forced, but I would rather pay that minimal tax a little each paycheck to keep roads operational, keep miltary funded and trained, things of that nature. Whether we own property or not, we live in this country and we must be defended/protected. Paying for war, even if it is ligitimate, still requires day to day operational expense. There is no way that we would be able to pay for whatever war only at the moment that it is declared, if we choose not to fund it on a consistent basis. Same with roads. Sure, your example companies could pay for roads if they use them, such as truck routes, receiving and delivering, but what about road that don't intersect routes of business? We can pay for roads ourselves out of pocket, but then humans have a tendency to slack off because of other expenses, laziness, whatever the excuse. That would then place the burden on those who are consistent and demand good roads, leaving those who slack off getting a free ride. That to me is unjust, unfair.

The Constitution may or may not be perfect, but I believe that it was very well thought out and one of the best documents aside from Ten Commandments that we have. It is by the people for the people in the fairest manner considering that we all must coexist with one another. Others like obama believe that it is deeply falwed. I do not for a second believe that it is 'deeply' flawed or has failed, but rather we have failed by not enforcing it when others do not adhere to it. There again, the Constitution is only as good as the people want it to be. When people don't defend their natural or God-given rights, it is not the Constitution that has failed. Likewise, when elected representatives do not follow the Constitution and resort to bribes and special interest, again it is NOT the Constitution that has failed, but rather you, me and others who have failed by not holding our reps accountable.

The Cosntitution is merely words on paper. Bill of Rights, on paper. It is each and every individual that must open the document and ensure that it is followed. When you don't, that is when we are taken advantage of and we are in the situation that we are in today. And this even goes back over 100 years, because the people let it happen.

I am glad that we are discussing this, I hope that we can continue :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Very good. I do believe you

Very good.

I do believe you are incorrect on the issue of roads, but I understand where you are coming from.

Why should you believe me, especially since we all grew up in an environment where the state maintained the roads?

I can see how you might think; "this is the way it has always been, and I cannot imagine it any other way."

But I do not care HOW the roads are maintained, as long as people who refuse to pay are not subjected to violence to get the job done.

There would be no "free-loaders" since that phenomenon only exists with socialized services.

With marketed services, no one free loads, either you pay and get the good or service, or you do not and you go without.

A quick note on national defense:

Do you know why one state invades another?

Could it be that the foreign state wants the tax revenue of the opposing state?

So hear this out:

China invades America.

But in this America, there is no compulsory tax system. Everything is market based. (and the people are quite prosperous and happy because of this, I might add)

So China foolishly invades this stateless society that has no tax structure.

They are met with a whole continent of well armed folks who are defending their homes.

China cannot win.

It would be like Vietnam situation for China, Americans fighting guerrilla warfare-style.

There is no way for China to win.

If there is no formal state for China to apprehend, and there is no tax structure for the Chinese to leech off of, there is no prize.

China is better off trading with this free nation.

Let me repeat, all states invade one another to gain control of their tax structures.

That is what the "civil" war was about.

So, in this case, we are actually at a higher risk of invasion by having a state with an existing tax structure.

The very reason we need a national defense is not to protect YOU, silly, but the protect the power structure that our rulers now maintain.

Without a tax base, no foreign state would ever want to launch an invasion.

Foreign governments invade so that they can take over other governments.

If you have no official or imposed structure for them to take over and start collecting tax revenues from, then you have no reason to invade.

One last time, tax structures are the very reason we are at risk of other nations invading.

The tax system is the ONLY thing that a foreign state is after.

But what if China invaded, killed enough of us, and then tried to start imposing taxes?

Good luck, China.

A country that is not used to paying taxes would be impossible to start collecting from.

The sheer cost of occupying America would not be worth it.

In the end, China is better off trading with the Americas.

National defense is not for you, but for the bankers, the politicians, and the fascists.

I bet you never heard something make perfect sense like this one, huh?

Here's a scenario..

If we were armed with guns. Say we had natural resources like oil, gold, wheat... and every citizen was armed, which they are not. And China, Russia, whoever, wanted our resources. If I wanted those resources, I'd save my troops from gun-toting Americans, drop a few nukes and be done with it, wait until the fallout clears and then send the troops and freighters in. Not only the resources, but they would have our land, set up their bases here so that it would be easier to take Canada, Mexico and other locations strategic to America. They would insert their government here and there ya go, China or Russia just won.

In an ideal situation, my preference would be to pay small taxes to keep intelligence up and the sophisticated equipment required to do so, train and keep military, ships, subs, satellites, tanks, jets on standby and keep our borders well defended.

Our founding fathers had pretty good insight.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

First, there are more guns in

First, there are more guns in America than anywhere else in the world.

Not everyone is armed, but there are more than enough guns to go around.

Second, China, Russia, and the rest of the world for that matter are economically dependent on each other so just nuking America would do more harm to their own economies than good.

It is really just a silly worst case scenario argument.

And also, China and Russia own a lot of companies that operate in America.

This makes the nuke situation impossible.

I will not accept small forms of domestic oppression just because I am scared of some boogey-man from distant shores.

Theft is always wrong and I only pay my taxes because I am afraid of the men with guns.

In a dark alley, when a man points a gun to the back of your head and demands your wallet, if you value your life, you give him the wallet.

Yes... Justified defense.

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

lol

I'm sure as hell going to appreciate and invite that mob that will go against that gun ban they're trying to snake through. Power to the freedom loving mob!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

LOL

You know it!

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Same here Steve :-)

I have studied "Limiting Government Excesses vs. A Virtuous Moral People" before, and again just now.

I am now even more committed to enforcing The Constitution, Bill of Rights. Yes, the Articles of Confederation 'grant', if you believe it is truly granted, rights than The Constitution itself. But as of now, it is The Constitution that is the Law of the Land. The flaw that I see is that most people do not defend and enforce it, thus why it is not 'considered' valid.

I DO agree that Liberty is within, granted by God, natural-born, whatever term one needs to reconcile. But without written documentation, something to reference, it will be near impossible, if not tremendously difficult to uphold human rights in a court of law. We humans are not perfect. Everybody has different beliefs and roads traveled. Even the person next door may not see eye to eye with me concerning right to bear arms, or my freedom to speak if they believe that I should keep my mouth shut if it opposes authority/politicians.

We are a nation of laws. If the Constitution is abolished, if we procede with Constitutional Convention, if we attempt to write up a new document, all that I see are "unintended consequences" which will NOT be in our favor. It is difficult enough trying to persuade red blooded Amercian citizens to understand and abide by the Bill of Rights. Do you believe that the masses, the powers that be, corrupt politicians, will ever promote or entertain a document which will outline complete and utter Liberty, Freedom, more power to The People?

What I outline can be directly related to Ten Commandments. There are some who believe that Ten Commandments serve no purpose. In fact many places have restricted it from even being posted. Does that mean that I should abandon Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule?

Ron Paul states the following in the above document:

* government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

* Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections.

* Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

* Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.

Ron Paul also insists that the Constitution be OPENED.

The Constitution was designed, power of the people, beginning with the individual. Short of unatainable utopia, people require guidelines, permitted by the people and then granted to the state, in order to coexist with one another. Complete anarchy...well, imo, as long as I and others are human on this earth, that is also what I refer to as unintended consequences.

As I have stated before, it is difficult enough for average people to embrace Liberty, let alone Bill of Rights. I use the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, to try to reach the people that I converse with. Once the spark has been set, it is up to them to search their own hearts and minds to fully understand and embrace Liberty, Freedom, and live accordingly, even possibly by which you have outlined.

We are indeed in dangrous times. obama himself states that the Constitution is deeply flawed. The only flaw that I see is that people do not enforce it. For if they did, we would not be in the situation that we are in now. Imo, it may not be perfect, but like the Ten Commandments, it is as close as one can get on this imperfect world. And as with anything, it is not the Constitution that has failed us, it is the CORRUPT that can and will undermine anything if we do not hold them accountable.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

We agree on many things. And

We agree on many things.

And I must add, that I do NOT agree with everything Ron Paul says.

But putting all that aside, may I ask you a question?

You say that we must enforce the constitution.

Enforcing something means just that, force, threatened or actual.

To enforce the constitution means that all opposition against the document must be put down, by force.

Now let us say that I export some sort of widget out of the country.

Constitutionally, I must pay duties and export taxes on said widgets.

My question is this:

In your efforts to enforce this social contract, the Constitution, would you use violence and threats against me?

Would you follow your constitutional duty and have me jailed for not handing over a portion of my earnings to the federal or state apparatus?

Would you command federal agents to use threats or actual physical force against me?

After all, taxes ARE constitutional.

In your course of enforcing this document, would you take what's mine simply because a piece of paper gives you some sort of perceived authority?

Would you use force against me?

Yes or no?

Tough questions require tough answers.

I abide by the Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. For if I did not, how could I expect Bill of Rights to be upheld. Amendments can be added, taken away, with ratification.

Please also understand that those same Bill of Rights defends your right to due process, which you would otherwise not have in the court of law.

We must seek to make things better, in Liberty. Anarchy will not work.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Hehehe, very tough questions

Hehehe, very tough questions indeed.

I see you did not answer my question, though.

I must first say that the Bill of Rights, which I admire for the words it contains, does not protect me in court.

That is a fiction.

Judges can do whatever they want and no one will stop them.

Especially a piece of paper or a concept.

We have been lied to.

We were told that these national documents would protect us, but the truth is... they can't.

No more than the Magna Carta can secure due process can a dictionary cause all men to spell correctly.

Love for the Constitution is utopian.

Striving for a voluntary society (like how most of the business world operates) however, is realistic.

We won't have it tomorrow, or maybe even in my lifetime, but like the end of slavery, it will eventually come and our posterity will enjoy the fruits of voluntary interaction with respect of property rights.

These documents, no documents will ever protect you from men

who wish to do you harm. It is up to those that in the event, we feel it necessary and with a heavy heart, enforce those documents as was laid out in the second amendment.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Knowledge is power.

http://www.dailypaul.com/263868/constitution-know-your-argum...

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

You don't see any problem with your statements?

So we should NEVER use force? We should allow murderers to run free because we are so opposed to "force" that we can't enforce laws?

You did the same thing to my use of the word "mob".. you zoomed in on the word without understanding the context.

If a tax is Constitutional, then yes, I would arrest your ass at gun point, just as I would, at gun point, stop you from committing a murder, or stealing. Not all taxes are Constitutional though.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Force, in self defense, is

Force, in self defense, is justified.

I have a shotgun in the off chance someone breaks into my house.

I find it interesting that I should be classified in the same category as murderers for my dissent on the legitimacy of the Constitution.

You said:
I would arrest your ass at gun point, just as I would, at gun point, stop you from... stealing.

You would stop me at gunpoint to prevent me from stealing, and you would be justified in doing so. Here, we agree.

However, you would also kidnap me at gunpoint if I did not consent to federal agents stealing from me?

So what you are telling me is that if it says on a piece of paper that it is ok to steal, that is fine and dandy?

Majorities can steal from the individual and justify it with this thing called a social document, right?

But if an individual steals, and does not create some sort of documentation justifying it, then he is criminal?

So stealing is ok if documented and called taxation?

I thought taking what one person earns by force was wrong?

Can you help me sift through this apparent contradiction?

Do I get to keep what I earn or not?

."Can you help me sift through this apparent contradiction?"

I could try but I think you see contradictions where there are none. You seem to manufacture them for arguments.

I put you in the same category because you would also, be breaking the law if you did not pay a tax that was Constitutional. You seemed to skip right over the the differences in Constitutional and Non-Constitutional taxes.

This is the law of the land as was laid out by the Founders. You're welcome to take it up with them.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

OK, I

OK, I understand.

Constitutional theft is alright.

And by the way, I cannot take it up with these founders because they are dead...
Just like the Constitution.

But when it comes down to it, you are willing to rob me because a piece of paper says it is justified.

I don't care how you justify it, taking what is not yours by force is wrong.

You can point to all the words in the English language and why you are right, but in the end, what is mine is mine and you have no right to it.

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL....
(except what is constitutionally mandated.

It is contradictions like this that are unraveling civilization.

Okay, let's cut to the chase.

So no form of tax is okay for you? No tax for defense in the time of crisis? No state tax for building the roads that you drive on?

I saw that you quoted spooner.. Are you an "anarchist"?

Because I am not.. I believe in enough tax, CONSTITUTIONAL TAX<---- Note I said Constitutional.. Do you know the difference between Constitutional and Non-Constitutional tax? Was the tax you named specifically called out in the Constitution? Do you know?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

rp4pres, go to the

rp4pres, go to the library.... what are you talking about??? Spooner had the idealogy right.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I've read a little about Spooner.. In your opinion he has it

right but in mine, He's off in lalaland on some of his stuff.

If I'm not mistaken, he was for labor unions. I am not.

He's for complete abolition of all government and I am not. The Founding Fathers had it right. Government is evil but it's a necessary evil.

I was an anarchist when I was younger, no shit.. then I grew up to the realization that it wasn't practical in all cases.

When I say too it's a necessary evil.. I'm personally speaking about a very very very small amount of people and I'm talking a individual state controlled US, not a Federally controlled one.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yes, all government functions

Yes, all government functions can handled by the market. Yes, even defense and the roads.

BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?!?!?!

If people want roads, they will pay for them, just like shoes, food, and before Nixon, healthcare.

Would roads dry up and disappear if not payed for by taxes?

Do you think that the military would go to war so easily if they had to ASK for the money?

And if we were actually threatened by another country, do you not think that people would pull together to repel the threat?

I understand where you are coming from, and a couple years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But hey, if you want low quality, government subsidized roads and defense systems, be my guest.

Okay but practically speaking how exactly would that play out?

"If people want roads, they will pay for them, just like shoes, food, and before Nixon, healthcare."

Let's follow this out to it's conclusion.

You say people? So you think people will voluntarily pay for services? The old "Libertarian" Socialist argument.

A teacher did a socialist experiment in his classroom a while back and it was listed on DP.. Maybe you saw that?

It didn't pan out well because it relied on every individual wanting to help the collective. Sure, you'd get some who were willing to do more of the load just as you'd get people who enjoyed roads so they would chip in.

Here's the problem though.. after a while, I think those who chipped in might resent those who didn't and still wanted to use the road. You might say then.. "Well, then we could set up some form of toll system" Then I would say but what about those who would choose not to pay the toll.. would they then not be allowed to get to work or would they have to ask permission to jump through peoples yards for 10 miles to avoid using the roads? Sounds ridiculous because it is.

The idea of voluntarism is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper. When you throw in the human variable.. things get fucked up fast.

I have no problem with very small and I mean bare-bones small state administrations collecting sales tax for such projects as long as it's used to go directly to private companies to build.

I also don't have a problem with a very bare-bones Federal government taking it's Constitutional tax from the places it's supposed to and not that of the labor of free men and women..

Edit: So if you don't mind, could you give me a full linear breakdown as to how you see the problem of roads working out?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I went to a family gathering,

I went to a family gathering, but have returned!

Roads:

Each state would sell off their major roads to a multitude of paving and engineering companies.

As for minor and country roads, the people who live there would come together voluntarily to manage their roads.

Example, have you ever driven through a condominium or planned community? The roads are kept in EXCELLENT condition and it is done voluntarily by those who choose to live there. No threats, all voluntary action.

Yeah, we would have a lot more dirt and gravel roads, but there is a lot of that in Texas and it works for them.

Due to the fact that in this scenario, property taxes would be eliminated, country folk would have plenty to pay a competitively priced company to tar and chip or pave or lay gravel down on their road.

Freedom and the market can solve these problems.

And don't say this is ridiculous, that is what they said about freeing slaves and that turned out to be workable.

If you cannot imagine how the roads would work in a free society, that is due to your lack of imagination.

Get the hell out of the way and let some smart young entrepreneurs solve this problem, because you are being of no help.

Hell, if private companies can manage to put satellites into space, manage nation-wide cell phone networks, and build super-powered computers the size of a thin book, then do you think that people can manage to lay a measly strip of pavement down a country lane?

Now, I shall leave the stage so that a more well-studied gentleman can make the case for a market based solution.

I give you, Dr. Walter Block:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM

Now, after watching the above, what have you to say?

I'm headed to bed so I'll answer this all, line for line

tomorrow but I wanted to leave you with this question and statement..

Statement: Anyone can come up with ideas but the practical applications aren't that easy.....no matter the ageist remarks. I have no problem out thinking the majority of younger people half my age, sport. :)

Question: You still never answered the main problem I addressed with my question last post.. "What about those who refuse/choose to not pay?"

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Then they cannot use the

Then they cannot use the service.

Roads are a service.

If I find that a toll road is too expensive then I will not use that road.

If people can afford a car, especially if there were no taxes, then they surely could afford to use private roads.

Your argument is akin to saying that if the state didn't tax us to pay for shoes we would all walk around barefoot.

Yet shoes are left to the free market and EVERYONE can afford shoes.

Even the poorest of people have shoes and it wasn't because someone put a gun to another person's head to pay for them.

What about that?

P.S. And you better take the time to watch the Walter Block video... or I won't take you seriously!!!!

In case you forgot, here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM

These debates must be had, the future of liberty depends on it!

Dude, I listened to 14 minutes of that and all he did was do the

same thing you're doing.. Throwing out sound good ideas but there was no substance, no details. That's exactly what I said about you.

Look, these are wonderful ideas but they're not rational.

"Then they cannot use the service."

So they can either pay or be punished. Pay and they get to go to work, refuse to pay, and they are punished and have to stay home. That doesn't sound very voluntary. No more so than, if they refused to pay their taxes. If they pay, they get to be free and use the service.. If they don't, they go to jail and/or have their bank account frozen.

All choices and they are free to make them. Sure in one scenario, you don't have a gun pointed at you but it's still coercion.

"Your argument is akin to saying that if the state didn't tax us to pay for shoes we would all walk around barefoot.

Yet shoes are left to the free market and EVERYONE can afford shoes. "

Your analogy has flaws.

If a person wants shoes, they have a huge selection of possibilities and even the choice to make their own or go barefoot. If a private company owned the route I take to work or the grocery store, I literally would have no other options than to pay or walk in the grass beside the road.

That's unless you think it's a practicality that we would have side by side competing highways? Possible I suppose but highly unlikely to the point of being ridiculous.

I'm going to try and answer some of the other post you made here to keep our conversation on one place.

"As for minor and country roads, the people who live there would come together voluntarily to manage their roads."

I still see problems with that because we have a shitload of dirt roads and not all of them have enough people living down them that would probably have enough money to scrape the roads and do fills when needed. Especially in areas that get heavy rains.

Now I've personally seen this work in some areas but I've also personally seen some really bad roads that didn't get attention they needed.. Seriously, you'd have to have a 4x4 and drive really slow to get down them.

"Hell, if private companies can manage to put satellites into space, manage nation-wide cell phone networks, and build super-powered computers the size of a thin book, then do you think that people can manage to lay a measly strip of pavement down a country lane?"

Again.. because your idea works in one area doesn't mean it will work for everything.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

First, I find it interesting

First, I find it interesting that you want to debate, but when I present evidence, you only listen/watch half of it.

How can a real debate exist if one side will only listen to and answer half of the argument?

To me, that sounds kinda like how these sham-debates are run on TV.

Also, since it seems that this post is getting a little crowded, I figured I would start a new topic, so that we have the wiggle room and a fresh stage to settle the matter.

If you still wanna play:

http://www.dailypaul.com/268271/but-who-would-pave-the-roads