Comment: Straw man

(See in situ)


Straw man

I do not argue.

If you offer an argument then I reject it.

If you claim that I am arguing, I reject that too.

History records what has happened.

The present is happening.

The future can happen as people will it to happen, within their, our, power to do so.

If you must argue with someone, then you must know by now that you need to find someone who will argue with you, for whatever reason you agree upon between you and whoever finds reason to argue.

I don't.

As to your viewpoint, I can look at it, and comment on it, in a competitive way.

Example:

"As the number of "states" approaches infinity, the choice of government approaches a free market."

You define government as you define government. Daniel Shays's or I, or Ron Paul, or Thomas Paine, or Adam Kokesh, all have their ways of defining government. If your definition of government is an involuntary association then it is not in any way a free market, it is an involuntary association, and no amount of involuntary associations numbering any absurdity whatsoever will change the fact that it is un-free, involuntary, and criminal by that definition.

Your argument, with whoever you are going to find to argue with, appears to require some goal posts so as not to have you argue your way into moving the goal posts as you see fit.

I do not agree with that type of involuntary association, you can have it that way, at your pleasure, I WILL have none of it.

You can take your false math problems and find some other sucker to buy into such nonsense.

Joe