Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Chongo · Jun 30, 2009, 02:17 AM

Is there a legal coup?
BHO suddenly gets vocal when Comrade Zelaya is ousted from office, unlike the Iran election.
Obama says coup in Honduras is illegal | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country's Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.

The European Union and a string of foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and "see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way."

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 04:43 AM

Birds of a feather...

Wiskedjak · Jun 30, 2009, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Is there a legal coup?
BHO suddenly gets vocal when Comrade Zelaya is ousted from office, unlike the Iran election.
Obama says coup in Honduras is illegal | Reuters

It's pretty easy to be critical of a coup; what happened is obvious. It's much more difficult to be critical of an election unless you have direct evidence that the election was rigged. Right now, we all strongly *believe* that the Iranian election was rigged, but can anyone *prove* it?

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 08:41 AM

So, let's get this straight. What's happened here is that Zelaya tried to set himself up as a dictator, got told to shove it by his courts as it was unconstitutional and ended up being ousted because he was essentially anti-democratic.

No wonder Barry likes him. He was prolly testing Barry's plans to stay in power until 2050.

SpaceMonkey · Jun 30, 2009, 08:45 AM

I'm not sure how you get to be a dictator simply by having more than one elected term in office.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not sure how you get to be a dictator simply by having more than one elected term in office.

Simple: You go against the country's constitution to do so.

SpaceMonkey · Jun 30, 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Simple: You go against the country's constitution to do so.

But in this case, it sounds like he was seeking to have the constitution legitimately changed.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

But in this case, it sounds like he was seeking to have the constitution legitimately changed.

And got told "no" by the courts but still carried on. Hence the court-ordered coup.

Wiskedjak · Jun 30, 2009, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

but still carried on.

Where's that bit in the news?

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 09:28 AM

BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Mistimed coup' in Honduras?

SpaceMonkey · Jun 30, 2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Where's that bit in the news?

The WSJ seems to more clearly portray the timeline:

- Zelaya plans referendum
- Court declares referendum illegal, per constitution's ban on referendums within 6 months of election, and military refuses to take part in distributing ballots
- Zelaya fires chief of the army, pledges to "press ahead"
- Court issues order for Zelaya's removal.

I don't know enough about Honduran law to know whether the court's ultimate action was appropriate. It certainly wouldn't be in the United States.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I don't know enough about Honduran law to know whether the court's ultimate action was appropriate. It certainly wouldn't be in the United States.

So the supreme court hasn't got the power to remove Barry from office if he breaks his pledge to uphold the constitution? What kind of game are you guys running over there? Doesn't your constitution mean anything?

Paco500 · Jun 30, 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So the supreme court hasn't got the power to remove Barry from office if he breaks his pledge to uphold the constitution? What kind of game are you guys running over there? Doesn't your constitution mean anything?

Yes it does. And it says only congress can remove a sitting president through the impeachment process.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Doesn't your constitution mean anything?

Unfortunately, not more than the nutrition table at McDonald's.

Nobody ever seems to read and understand it.

-t

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Paco500

Yes it does. And it says only congress can remove a sitting president through the impeachment process.

So, only a dem congress can remove a dem president from office? Doesn't that strike as a conflict of interests? Surely the better way is have an impartial court do it?

For all the guff Amerika goes on about democracy and spreading it around the world, it itself has possibly the worst democratic system on the planet. Fsk me, the US can't even get its chads to not hang and then thinks it has the authority to lecture the rest of the world about how to do things?

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 11:08 AM

Since there isn't a general in office I'll wait to see if they hold their upcoming elections before I cry coup. Looks more like he just got kicked out of office. Is interim president there now the next in the line of succession? I would guess since there is talk about the military distributing ballots that their military fulfills the same roles as the FBI, National Guard, and Secret Service here.

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

it itself has possibly the worst republic system on the planet.

Fixed

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Since there isn't a general in office I'll wait to see if they hold their upcoming elections before I cry coup. Looks more like he just got kicked out of office. Is interim president there now the next in the line of succession?

Vice president resigned late last year, so their constitution dictates that the head of congress (Roberto Micheletti) serves as interim president until the next election.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 11:21 AM

In light of that, it doesn't really sound like a coup.

And since the ousted president's mentor is Hugo Chavez, I'll give the Honduran courts the benefit of the doubt.
After all, we have seen how Chavez manipulated his way of staying in power.

-t

kobi · Jun 30, 2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Unfortunately, not more than the nutrition table at McDonald's.

Nobody ever seems to read and understand it.

-t

The GOP/Whig party is allowing you guys to read the constitution now? Progress, I tell ya.

You guys still need to work on the comprehension part, you'll learn after the next 4-5 elections don't worry.

It's nice to have a sitting President who is a Constitutional lawyer and taught Constitutional law for 12 years.

It's better than Bush suspending habeas corpus, and wanting to suspend the 1st Amendment.........all in the name of fear.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by kobi

It's nice to have a sitting President who is a Constitutional lawyer and taught Constitutional law for 12 years.

It doesn't show, that's for dang sure.

Where in the constitution does the government get the right to interfere in the free markets like that ?

-t

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by kobi

It's nice to have a sitting President who is a Constitutional lawyer and taught Constitutional law for 12 years.

Yet still doesn't know what the second amendment says.

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

It doesn't show, that's for dang sure.

Where in the constitution does the government get the right to interfere in the free markets like that ?

-t

I don't recall the constitution saying anything about free markets.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

I don't recall the constitution saying anything about free markets.

It says something about what the government's purpose. Interfering with free markets isn't one of the things mentioned, you are right.

-t

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

It says something about what the government's purpose. Interfering with free markets isn't one of the things mentioned, you are right.

-t

This is fairly close.

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

...

ghporter · Jun 30, 2009, 12:57 PM

Doofy, ever BEEN to Honduras? This ouster of Zelaya is a really bad, yet quite mild upheaval there. Through about the last 30 years, Hondurans have been working very hard at building a viable representative democracy after many years of junta-dominance. Being a very poor country, Honduras has a lot stacked against it, but the people have been working diligently at insisting on governmental accountability and service, rather than governmental oppression. Note that Zelaya was trying to change his constitution to allow him to serve more than one term-that "one term limit" was a hard-fought part of the Honduran constitution, intended to prohibit strong-men from railroading the country for their own benefit.

It appears that Zelaya's bid to add a constitutional change to the upcoming referendum was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior that has the population up in arms-at least a large chunk of them. However, being a buddy of Hugo Chavez, Zelaya has a number of hold cards, such as street gangs and hired crowds (paid for apparently by Hugo, if I read things correctly) to keep things "lively" in the streets.

The Honduran people deserve a decent government that is not influenced more by outside agencies (like Hugo) than it is by its citizens. I think Zelaya stepped over a very important line in pushing to hold office for more than one term, and the Honduran people have demanded something be done about it.

As for the US Constitution's procedures for removing a president, the Founding Fathers felt that being immune to civil court harassment was important enough that this was specifically written into the Constitution. Impeachment is no light matter, and I'll point out that, though Nixon faced a Democratic Congress, there were very few Republicans that disagreed that he should be impeached. While there is a slim possibility of "conflict of interest" in a sitting president only being subject to impeachment by a same-party Congress, the way the rules work means that it's hard for the House to not take action in passing a Bill of Impeachment if there is enough public support for it, and it would be extremely hard for the Senate to not convict if the evidence were strong enough. Does Parliament have strong enough rules to oust a Speaker over his own failings? It doesn't look like that's the case-it took behind-closed-doors dealings to change things in London recently.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Well, I might just be narrow minded, but I don't see the bailouts of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citibank etc... as general welfare, nor as regulating commerce.

Also, I don't see that the government could just print money to buy themselves out of a crisis.

-t

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, only a dem congress can remove a dem president from office? Doesn't that strike as a conflict of interests? Surely the better way is have an impartial court do it?

For all the guff Amerika goes on about democracy and spreading it around the world, it itself has possibly the worst democratic system on the planet. Fsk me, the US can't even get its chads to not hang and then thinks it has the authority to lecture the rest of the world about how to do things?

Americans being put in jail by an American Jury? Surely that's a conflict of interest. What a crappy judicial system.

Americans should be trailed by a jury of impartial Canadians and Mexicans!

Or maybe the impartial judges can just decide on the criminal case. Forget the jury system.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Doofy, ever BEEN to Honduras?

No. But what's that got to do with anything? Have you ever LIVED there? Because LIVING there would be the only measure beyond "stayed in a hotel for two weeks" or "follow the story on the Internet" which would be appropriate here.

Originally Posted by ghporter

This ouster of Zelaya is a really bad, yet quite mild upheaval there.

I don't understand how you can say it's really bad. The democratic systems in place did their job to prevent Zelaya from becoming another Castro. As you outline below:

Originally Posted by ghporter

Through about the last 30 years, Hondurans have been working very hard at building a viable representative democracy after many years of junta-dominance. Being a very poor country, Honduras has a lot stacked against it, but the people have been working diligently at insisting on governmental accountability and service, rather than governmental oppression. Note that Zelaya was trying to change his constitution to allow him to serve more than one term-that "one term limit" was a hard-fought part of the Honduran constitution, intended to prohibit strong-men from railroading the country for their own benefit.

It appears that Zelaya's bid to add a constitutional change to the upcoming referendum was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior that has the population up in arms-at least a large chunk of them. However, being a buddy of Hugo Chavez, Zelaya has a number of hold cards, such as street gangs and hired crowds (paid for apparently by Hugo, if I read things correctly) to keep things "lively" in the streets.

The Honduran people deserve a decent government that is not influenced more by outside agencies (like Hugo) than it is by its citizens. I think Zelaya stepped over a very important line in pushing to hold office for more than one term, and the Honduran people have demanded something be done about it.

Originally Posted by ghporter

As for the US Constitution's procedures for removing a president, the Founding Fathers felt that being immune to civil court harassment was important enough that this was specifically written into the Constitution. Impeachment is no light matter, and I'll point out that, though Nixon faced a Democratic Congress, there were very few Republicans that disagreed that he should be impeached. While there is a slim possibility of "conflict of interest" in a sitting president only being subject to impeachment by a same-party Congress, the way the rules work means that it's hard for the House to not take action in passing a Bill of Impeachment if there is enough public support for it, and it would be extremely hard for the Senate to not convict if the evidence were strong enough.

So how come Clinton wasn't found guilty of perjury? It's not like everyone on the planet with a TV set didn't see him commit it. How much more evidence is needed?

Originally Posted by ghporter

Does Parliament have strong enough rules to oust a Speaker over his own failings? It doesn't look like that's the case-it took behind-closed-doors dealings to change things in London recently.

To change what? I'm not sure what you're referring to. The expenses "scandal"? I'd be hard pressed to tell you of any MP who actually broke the law there. The scandal was more over the fact that the public didn't like the law, rather than any laws being broken.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Americans being put in jail by an American Jury? Surely that's a conflict of interest. What a crappy judicial system.

Americans should be trailed by a jury of impartial Canadians and Mexicans!

Or maybe the impartial judges can just decide on the criminal case. Forget the jury system.

Actually, the jury system is pretty crap. Bunch of morons with an IQ barely over burger-flipping territory expected to make a decision about whether a complex multi-million-dollar tax case is illegal or not? I don't think so. Do they all read and understand the zillions of words in that tax code? No. They'll judge the bloke on whether or not they like the shape of his eyebrows.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually, the jury system is pretty crap. Bunch of morons with an IQ barely over burger-flipping territory expected to make a decision about whether a complex multi-million-dollar tax case is illegal or not? I don't think so. Do they all read and understand the zillions of words in that tax code? No. They'll judge the bloke on whether or not they like the shape of his eyebrows.

QFT.

The jury system should not be used for cases that are complex and require a lot of understanding of the subject matter.

Unfortunately, most judges are also not really qualified, but that's why a lot of independent experts are needed.

-t

hyteckit · 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually, the jury system is pretty crap. Bunch of morons with an IQ barely over burger-flipping territory expected to make a decision about whether a complex multi-million-dollar tax case is illegal or not? I don't think so. Do they all read and understand the zillions of words in that tax code? No. They'll judge the bloke on whether or not they like the shape of his eyebrows.

What a minute.

You, as an anarchist you so claim, believe there is no role for a government, and private citizens are better at making decisions and running things. Now you believe private citizens are a bunch of morons with IQ barely over burger-flipping territory and unable to make a decision about whether a complex multi-million-dollar tax case is illegal or not?

Tax code? You mean government regulations which you want to abolish along with the government?

You are one sorry @ss anarchist. I say power to the people!

Besides, tax code violations or the legality of tax codes aren't decided by private citizens.

kobi · Jun 30, 2009, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Well, I might just be narrow minded, but I don't see the bailouts of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citibank etc... as general welfare, nor as regulating commerce.

Also, I don't see that the government could just print money to buy themselves out of a crisis.

-t

There's that problem with reading comprehension you guys on the right have.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by kobi

There's that problem with reading comprehension you guys on the right have.

Reading comprehension ?

Sorry, but you have to be a retard / economic illiterate to equate general welfare and regulating commerce with bailouts and money printing.

But then again, there are enough retards and economic illiterates in the current administration, so I'm not shocked...

-t

finboy · Jun 30, 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, only a dem congress can remove a dem president from office? Doesn't that strike as a conflict of interests? Surely the better way is have an impartial court do it?

For all the guff Amerika goes on about democracy and spreading it around the world, it itself has possibly the worst democratic system on the planet. Fsk me, the US can't even get its chads to not hang and then thinks it has the authority to lecture the rest of the world about how to do things?

Seems to me that the courts in Honduras are just responding to the will of the people. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? No, wait, they're interpreting the Constitution, which IS what they're supposed to do.

One can only wonder how a couple of Latinas on the court would have made things so much better. Until they were overturned, at least.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

One can only wonder how a couple of Latinas on the court would have made things so much better. Until they were overturned, at least.

-t

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What a minute.

You, as an anarchist you so claim, believe there is no role for a government, and private citizens are better at making decisions and running things. Now you believe private citizens are a bunch of morons with IQ barely over burger-flipping territory and unable to make a decision about whether a complex multi-million-dollar tax case is illegal or not?

Tax code? You mean government regulations which you want to abolish along with the government?

You are one sorry @ss anarchist. I say power to the people!

Besides, tax code violations or the legality of tax codes aren't decided by private citizens.

Yes, there's no place for government in DoofWorld.
And there's no place for low IQ burger-flippers to be making decisions either.

Again, go and look up the definition of "anarcho-capitalist".

ghporter · Jun 30, 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. But what's that got to do with anything? Have you ever LIVED there? Because LIVING there would be the only measure beyond "stayed in a hotel for two weeks" or "follow the story on the Internet" which would be appropriate here.

I lived there for a year. Quite a beautiful place, really, with some extremely nice people.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I don't understand how you can say it's really bad. The democratic systems in place did their job to prevent Zelaya from becoming another Castro. As you outline below:

It's bad because it took this level of action, rather than a less militant action. Not that removing Zelaya was bad, just the size of the prybar needed to unseat him.

Originally Posted by Doofy

So how come Clinton wasn't found guilty of perjury? It's not like everyone on the planet with a TV set didn't see him commit it. How much more evidence is needed?

Got me. I guess the Senators figured his weasel-words were enough to make anyone confused about the meaning of ANY word. Ol' Bill also seems to have made thousands of US teens think that "oral" isn't sex. But the main purpose of his impeachment was to find out if his lying reached the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is left to the Senators to define, then decide. Getting a little pneumatic attention and then trying to hide it turned out to not quite reach that level. Note to future presidents: dry cleaning is cheap.

Originally Posted by Doofy

To change what? I'm not sure what you're referring to. The expenses "scandal"? I'd be hard pressed to tell you of any MP who actually broke the law there. The scandal was more over the fact that the public didn't like the law, rather than any laws being broken.

It was the kind of scandal that undermined the faith of the British people in their elected officials to the extent that even the Speaker's own party decided they were better off without him. That sort of thing doesn't come from the old boys own thoughts, it comes from their political sense of self preservation. It was big enough and bad enough that it was big news over here-not just "oh, look what the prince wore to the costume party" news, but "is England in political chaos?" news. I think the last time there was a scandal on the level that made Americans concerned about Parliament to this degree was in the 60s and involved MPs in an organized sex scandal...

kobi · Jun 30, 2009, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Reading comprehension ?

Sorry, but you have to be a retard / economic illiterate to equate general welfare and regulating commerce with bailouts and money printing.

But then again, there are enough retards and economic illiterates in the current administration, so I'm not shocked...

-t

Retards and economic illiterates?

That sounds like a great campaign slogan for the GOP/Whig's in 2010! You guys will be sure to win some votes with that one.

You must have your parties mixed up or did Romney, Sarah Palin, Rush, Glenn Beck, Hannity, McCain and the rest of the GOP/Whig party become Democrats?

I'll send you a copy of the Constitution for Dummies, if you really want to read it; I'll even highlight the sections that are important.

It's painfully obvious that you or your party has never read, must less understood the constitution. Sorry for that. I really am.

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes, there's no place for government in DoofWorld.
And there's no place for low IQ burger-flippers to be making decisions either.

Again, go and look up the definition of "anarcho-capitalist".

For an "anarcho-capitalist', you sure have little faith in private citizens and there ability to make decisions.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I lived there for a year. Quite a beautiful place, really, with some extremely nice people.

I can imagine. Still, folks is just folks wherever you go.

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's bad because it took this level of action, rather than a less militant action. Not that removing Zelaya was bad, just the size of the prybar needed to unseat him.

Maybe it was just the easiest/cheapest option. I mean, it was obvious that force would be necessary in the end, so why bother with all the in-between bit?

Originally Posted by ghporter

It was the kind of scandal that undermined the faith of the British people in their elected officials to the extent that even the Speaker's own party decided they were better off without him.

Everybody hated the speaker before all this hit the fan anyway. The British electorate has had no faith in their politicians for a long time.

Here's a quickie on the government trying to curry favour ready for next year's election (and check the comments for exactly what the people think of them):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-U-turn.html

Originally Posted by ghporter

That sort of thing doesn't come from the old boys own thoughts, it comes from their political sense of self preservation. It was big enough and bad enough that it was big news over here-not just "oh, look what the prince wore to the costume party" news, but "is England in political chaos?" news. I think the last time there was a scandal on the level that made Americans concerned about Parliament to this degree was in the 60s and involved MPs in an organized sex scandal...

Trust me, it's nothing more than the press letting off a bit of steam and getting a run out of it. Most folks here haven't had their opinions of the politicians swayed in the slightest by this - they were already at rock bottom.

dcmacdaddy · Jun 30, 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

For an "anarcho-capitalist', you sure have little faith in private citizens and there ability to make decisions.

I think it's safe to say Doofy is a misanthrope first and "anarcho-capitalist" second.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

For an "anarcho-capitalist', you sure have little faith in private citizens and there ability to make decisions.

That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist, muppet. Those private citizens always seem to vote a bunch of prats into power.

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by kobi

I'll send you a copy of the Constitution for Dummies, if you really want to read it; I'll even highlight the sections that are important.

Ah, that explains. No wonder you Lefties get it all garbled up
If "Constitution for Dummies" is your source, I have no further questions.

-t

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist, muppet. Those private citizens always seem to vote a bunch of prats into power.

That's why you are not an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-capitalist treats every private citizen as a sovereign entity being able to make their own decisions.

What you want is to transfer the power away from private citizens to big organizations such as the Church or big corporations.

You believe corporations should make up rules and laws such as speed limit. You believe Churches should make up laws about marriage.

What you are is closer to an Authoritarian-Capitalist rather than a Anarcho-Capitalist. You don't believe private citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

That's why you are not an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-capitalist treats every private citizen as a sovereign entity being able to make their own decisions.

Exactly. They can make their own decisions. I just don't trust them to make any for me.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What you want is to transfer the power away from private citizens to big organizations such as the Church or big corporations.

Oh really?

Originally Posted by hyteckit

You believe corporations should make up rules and laws such as speed limit. You believe Churches should make up laws about marriage.

I do, do I?

Originally Posted by hyteckit

You don't believe private citizens are smart enough to make their own decisions.

Yet all of them seem smarter than you, somehow.

hyteckit · 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I do, do I?

Yes. You made that argument 3 weeks ago about hating speed limits but have no problems with corporations setting speed limits.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yet all of them seem smarter than you, somehow.

I see how you argue your point.

Now I know why you claim yourself to be an anarcho-capitalist and at the same time have no faith in private citizens to make decisions.

An anarcho-capitalist has more faith in private citizens in making decision over elected officials. Anarcho-capitalist are individualist, not anti-individualist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ualism&spell=1

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Yes. You made that argument 3 weeks ago about hating speed limits but have no problems with corporations setting speed limits.

You'll have to show me. Go on, quote it.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Now I know why you claim yourself to be an anarcho-capitalist and at the same time have no faith in private citizens to make decisions.

An anarcho-capitalist has more faith in private citizens in making decision over elected officials.

You appear to be confusing the following two items:
Private citizens making decisions for themselves.
Private citizens making decisions for others.

Now, you're either trolling or you're an idiot. Which is it?

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You'll have to show me. Go on, quote it.

You appear to be confusing the following two items:
Private citizens making decisions for themselves.
Private citizens making decisions for others.

Now, you're either trolling or you're an idiot. Which is it?

I can definitely post the link where you talk about speed limit and that it's okay for the property owner to set speed limits but not the government.

You know you did say it's okay for private citizens or corporations to set speed limits right?

You do know when private citizens make a decision for themselves, they can affect others right? Like driving way too fast, driving drunk, running around naked, having sex in public, dumping toxic waste in the ocean, and so far.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I can definitely post the link where you talk about speed limit and that it's okay for the property owner to set speed limits but not the government.

If I post the link, would you admit you have no idea what you are talking about nor what your beliefs are?

You know you did say it's okay for private citizens or corporations to set speed limits right?

He who owns the land says what goes on on that land. This is the anarcho-capitalist way.

It's quite clear that you haven't got the slightest idea what anarcho-capitalism is about. Suggest you go read some more about it before making a further spectacle of yourself.