Yeah, like the free games are stupidly hard and you can realistically only complete it if you pay for an upgrade or hints.

The Constitution came to be as an agreement between people that was voted on and approved. It's not magic pixie dust, but it is the document which is the people's contract with our government. I think it's a pretty good foundation. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got now. I can read the entire Constitution. I have read it several time in fact. It's a concise document that is pretty clear on most issues. It's been changed because the political class always desires more power and the people have lost the enthusiasm for liberty that the founding fathers had. Bread and circuses is what we have now to keep the masses content. How long do we have to wait for the fiddling to start?

Well then fuck you too. Libertarians respect people who don't believe what they do. Apparently you can't do the same. I don't take the Federalist Papers as the bible, but I do see the wisdom in the words it contains. The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law. The Constitution is written to protect individual rights regardless of what is popular by limiting the powers of government. Libertarians only ask that the government stay within the bounds of its charter. A federal enforcement arm such as the FBI or federal marshals is fully within the bounds of the Constitution and a Republic, even one with democratically elected representatives. However, your original argument of "like a democracy" was bullshit as a monarchy or even a dictatorship can still have government enforced tort law.

So basically you attack a libertarian because you don't respect them and don't even put together a coherent argument. So if you aren't going to respect me, or anyone who believes as I do, then I will return your lack of respect with another fuck you in closing.

I think you are mixing up what I am saying. Poor people would take coal power without hesitation because it's cheap and it's better than what they have. They then can use electricity to heat their food instead of burning wood. Coal is the cheapest power source and thus the most likely to be within reach of the poor. Thus coal burning is going to replace wood and charcoal burning in the long run.

From Federalist #10 by James Madison

My point was that people who are choosing between wood and charcoal to cook food aren't going to think about climate change at all if it means they get electricity in their home. This is why coal power is growing in places like China and India, and will likely continue to grow around the world. What 1st world countries do to stave off climate change will be dwarfed by the 3rd world catching up to our standard of living.

Except most of our oil comes from domestic and friendly sources. The largest imported oil source is Canada.

1) A democracy is where 51% of the people decide the needs and force it on the other 49%
2) Most libertarians support the idea of a police force and law enforcement.

I think you are confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians believe "The government that governs least governs best." The government and laws exist in a libertarian utopia, but their task is to make people adhere to fair play.

So libertarian strawmen are insightful now. Metamoderators, please act accordingly.

I give this post a hearty libertarian "HARUMPH!"

Not only will I take lower taxes, but the GP somehow made the leap that even if the government brings in less revenue, that's a bad thing and a corporate giveaway. I agree Rand is in the GOP and not a libertarian, but let's be honest and say if the government brought in less tax revenue and spent less (hopefully by even more than the decrease in income to bring us to parity) we'd probably all be better off.

That's all fine and dandy in the 1st world. But when your choice is between wood and charcoal to cook your food over an open fire in your makeshift home, the climate change debate is pretty political. People with no electricity don't decide between CFLs and LEDs.

Except in this case, we don't have an experiment where we can reproduce the earth and any falsifications or confirmations will happen when we are all dead... Hence the need for debate.

Yes, but people use these undisputed facts to shut down any dissent to the projection that the human caused warming will be catastrophic. If there isn't a catastrophe looming, no one can use climate change to push their political agenda...