If the approvers are Democrats, absolutely. If they are Republicans, maybe, and maybe not.

But that's because that's what the people want: they want a judiciary that will violate the law. That is part of what has to be taken into account, and wasn't, in the design.

True.

False.

False.

You apparently don't know what "self-evident" means. That the sky is blue is not self-evident. In fact, it's not even true: at most you could say the fact that the sky appears blue means it has the properties of every color except for blue.

You could argue that water being wet is self-evident, as it is sortof definitional.

But you could not claim that my exegetical principles or practices are self-evident. That's just stupid.

Correct.

Incorrect.

Shrug. Until you give any evidence that I made a mistake, you're lying by saying I am lying.

It depends on what you mean by "represents." Our federal system represents the members of the population only in a very limited sense, by law and by design. Again, we just haven't had enforcement of that, and we've allowed explict and intentional degradation of that design (e.g., the 17th Amendment). The population is only supposed to be represented in those areas the government is allowed to operate, most of which have nothing to do with domestic policy at all.

I don't know what you mean by "transcend." We should all transcend the system. The system should be smaller than us. That's how you know you're doing it right.

The system of government that protects free markets should be essentially orthogonal to free markets. It's only the achilles of free markets like it's the achilles of every other economic system. This is a political question, not an economic question: how do you design and enforce a system that is self-limiting? We designed one that was self-limiting, but due to human error, we no longer enforce it. You can't take human error out of the equation, so how do you account for human error and still give the thing a chance of success?

That's the challenge.

Well, no. Sometimes money can buy it, sometimes it can't. Usually, I think, it can't. But when you have a system so massive that there's so many places for purchase of the system such to affect the whole ... that's what we've got today.

The key is a small and open system with hard and specific limits on what that system is allowed to do. Is it a guarantee? Of course not. But to say it can't work is not really based on reality or even grounded theory.

As usual, you provide no evidence to back up your claim, this time that I selectively read the Bible.

I have no anthropomorphized God. God has no body, according to the Bible. God is spiritual, not physical. And as far as I know, being made in God's image is in the spiritual sense, not the physical sense.

Nope. In fact, that's completely backward from how the process works. I know you want to think it's not, but it is.

You're lying. There is not a single person whom I would, in any way, deny any rights, except where those exercise of those rights involves using force against another person.

From your other comments, I think you're talking about gays. I am in favor of full legal equality for "gay" persons and their relationships. I've been in favor of what I sometimes call "decoupling" since the 90s, where government would essentially get out of the marriage business. Right now we have two marriages: social and civil. I am married by a church, and separately married by government. We should eliminate the former, and replace it with a simple framework that all existing and future marriages would be converted to, something like a civil union or domestic partnership, and the only restriction government would place on it would be people who are legally able to enter into contracts, who are not currently in another union/partnership (not that I am opposed to multi- relationships, but that problem can be solved later).

In this system, a. government would no longer define marriage, b. the rights/privileges/duties of marriage would be equally available to all couples. Everyone would be happy.

(As a side note, the sadfunny thing is that there is no marriage equality anywhere in the United States. There are existing unmarried and legally competent adult couples who are forbidden from marrying due to legally recognized immutable characteristics that exclude them. There is active discrimination, in every state in the Union, in marriage, against these people: close blood relationships, aka incestuous relationships. And the gay marriage proponents are terribly dishonest when they call gay marriage "marriage equality" while discriminating. My proposal is actual legal equality, not the bullshit fake equality we have today in several states.)

So maybe you meant something else, but no, in this case and every other I know of, I am not in favor of violating anyone's rights. I am more for full and equal civil rights for all than those supporting those "gay marriage" laws are.

Um. No one asserts that I didn't say he was a liberal. I said he was a liberal. I said it twice.

How is this evidence that I made a mistake?

You can't be this clueless, can you?

At least you're honest. Many atheists these days think there is such a thing as objective morality without God. It's a desperately silly notion, I think.

But no, you're wrong that morality is simply indoctrination. Some of it is that, sure, but if you really understood the philosophy behind it, you wouldn't say that. Most Christian morality comes from attempts to understand God's nature from his revelations, with the view that morality comes from God's nature. Some sects certainly have taken it and then added on to it to get their desired social results, but that's not what I call morality.

Also, it's terribly queer to say it's about gathering followers to do dirty work. What dirty work were the early Christians doing for Paul? Loving each other and helping the poor? Nonsense on its face.

My "faction" does not selectively read the Bible, no.

Yes, democracy is a failure, but not for the reasons you say. It doesn't matter if "both sides are bought and paid for." It matters if you rely on people.

So, the people are gullible enough to believe the same lies over and over. But even if they weren't, the people would be stupid or short-sighted enough to still vote for their short-term selfish gains, depriving others of their rights in a heartbeat if it got them what they wanted.

That's why we need a republic. We got the first half: the process and the rules and the laws. But we don't have the second half: a judiciary willing to enforce those laws against the government.

You simply need a system that says government has no authority to do X.

And then, of course, proper enforcement of that.

Because in the U.S., we have the former, but not the latter.

Um, unless you make it generally illegal. Which is the libertarian/conservative goal.

It's the socialists/Democrats/statists who miss your point the most: they offer regulation after regulation to combat "the influence of money on the system," which only plays into the hands of the crony capitalists.

No evidence that I have made a mistake has been offered.