And there I was thinking I had killed this topic.....

Regardless I will admit that the majority of my overwhelming wall of text was not drawn from your previous points. Most of my points were a logical continuation of your proposed style of government (or lack there-of). I realize you most likely disagree with my eventual conclusions. You have a certain faith in the shred of good will in human beings. I can respect such a view and I see how it would lead to the offense caused by my later stated conclusions.

I will not start an argument over the issue of the human kindness vs. human depravity despite it being the core issue of your proposed government. This thread has stayed true to the board it was posted on and has truly strayed off topic. Your personal gripes with socialism (which I do as a matter of fact, share) are distracting your original points about the upcoming election (I am aware that my previous post also had nothing to do with the election and for that I apologize)

To try to curtail my response before it fill up another half page I will finish briefly. You denied me the pleasure of a debate with you by discarding my entire post as a mischaracterization of your views. While this mischaracterization was unfortunate it was in no way intentional and I meant no offense by it. As I have previously stated I have understood the basic outline for your future world (privately run, no government whatsoever) but what we seem to disagree upon is what the eventual outcome of your plan will be. I stated that in your world human greed will reign supreme and ensure a monopoly while you appear to believe that human charity and kindness will ensure that monopolies and oppression will be kept in check. This debate is a whole other issue and should not be carried out in this thread.

So once again I apologize for any insult you incurred from my post and would remind you that I am mostly in agreement with your views but disagree only with your proposed execution. Yet again I bid you good night.

Well giton you sure do like to talk.

After all your quote trees and walls of text your arguments basically boil down to this. Government is bad and capitalism and money should rule the world. You don't want any of the services provided by the government and would prefer that you earn everything in your life through hard work.

This would all be fine and dandy if everyone started out equal. Unfortunately as you should have learnt money has very little to do with hard work in the real world. People are born poor every day, just as people are born rich every day. While this is unfair it is a sad fact of life. While socialist ideas try to balance out this fact of life by redistributing money and services to allow the poor people cursed at birth by fate a fighting chance of crawling up to the position of the rich, your extreme capitalism ensures that the rich stay rich and that the poor stay poor. With your privately run police the rich few become the most powerful and gain, quite basically a military power over the poor. No one can stop them from taking what the poor have left by force.

Thanks to your privately owned police the poor cannot afford enough military power to stop the rich from eradicating them. Eventually once the poor are left literally penny-less or dead the rich will turn their private armies on one another and whoever has the most money will win. After all the inevitable privately run wars as a result of your mercenary police and military one rich corporation will control everything and a dictatorship will rise. Who's going to stop them? There's no government to step in and save the day.

In the end you can call your ideals basic social and economic Darwinism, survival of the fittest. The stupid end up poor and are eliminated while the smart and talented become rich and prosper. Maybe you are an elitist and this is fine with you but you must also realise the downsides of this. Its all very nice for you to sit behind your screen and say that you would let the poor rot but I feel that it is safe for me to say you haven't thought about actually living through the death and wars that are inevitable if you abolish all government.

The fact is that to truly turn your back on the needy you would need to remove your compassion. Survival of the fittest is by human morals cruel. We cherish and protect our weak by nature we ourselves defy Darwinism by helping the disabled and the elderly even though they might not benefit our society. Your propositions of anarchy will almost certainly produce immoral results and will be shunned by human nature as being too cruel. Are your ideas inherently bad? No I actually see perfectly where you are coming from. Are your ideas realistic and feasible? Not in our lifetime. All of societies morals point against the fierce competition of extreme capitalism, therefore it will never be initialized. The end result of your anarchy will be basically a dictatorship ruled by the richest and by conventional logic, the smartest person left after the massive struggle for money. This will surprisingly enough ensure that future generations are smarter as they will be descended from the survivors of the inevitable struggle for power.

In the end despite how bitterly I have seemed to fight your ideal I do acknowledge that your capitalist anarchy would ensure the advancement of the human race but thanks to the moral handicaps of our society it cannot and will not be initiated anytime soon. While your opinion may be sound it is simply too far ahead of the times for you to even bother trying to apply it to the modern political arena. I thank you for your time and bid you good night, good morning, or good day.

On the topic of infants going to Hell may I ask at which age does one lose their innocence. Is there a certain age or mental maturity required for them to be fully responsible for their actions. The true answer is that we never lose our so called innocence of a child. Like any child every decision we make is a result of our genetic makeup and the environment we are raised in. There are no real free choices in life. Even if god decided to give you free choice it would not be true free choice because he would be in control of it. As long as we are gods creations he is fully responsible for all of our actions. If someone is a sinner in their life it is only because god made them that way. There is no way that god can give people free will simply because he is omnipotent and would know exactly what the person would do with the free will he gives them.Despite this God continues to make sinners and send them on their merry way to hell every day knowing full well that they will sin and that he is forever damning them. There is no logical reason to do such a thing. The true objective of life is to weed out the weak sinners but first you must ask yourself, why were the weak sinners made in the first place if even before they are made god knows they will be damned.

I will leave you with one more question. On another aspect of god.Answer me this, why an omnipotent, perfectly good, being would require that you worship him? If you can give me a logically sound response to this question I will go to my nearest church and repent all my "sins".

Everything in life is pre-determined.

It may seem a bold statement but it is simple to prove. First you must accept that if something can be perfectly predicted then it is guaranteed to happen. If you know absolutely every possible factor of a certain event, lets say for example the toss of a coin. If you know everything about the situation the coin is being tossed in down to what the person next to the coin tosser had for breakfast. You should be able to put it all together and make a perfectly accurate prediction as to whether the coin will be heads or tails. Once you know exactly how the coin will land its fate has been determined and it cannot possibly land any other way. If you then think of life as one giant coin toss with even more factors and possible outcomes the same logic still applies. Even humans free will and thoughts are determined by their environment and genetics. By knowing and being able to perfectly piece together all the information in the universe any event can be predicted. Of course to

a) be able to gather all the required information in the universe, and

b) piece the information together perfectly to see the end result,

you would need to be infinitely intelligent and dare I say omnipotent. Hmm who do we know who fits these requirement. Oh its GOD.

If god is perfectly intelligent he can perfectly predict what people will do from the moment he creates them. Well here there lies a little contradiction. If life is designed as a test it is pointless because

a) God already knows what you will do and if you will go to heaven or not

b) God is perfect so he shouldn't need to mold people into perfect beings by putting them through trails in their lives because he should be able to make them perfect to begin with.

This logic makes our entire existence on earth meaningless. Either that or your omnipotent God is nothing more than a child with a sandbox that makes us like imperfect sandcastles merely because he wants to see the castles he constructed poorly fall in the wind while he has the sick satisfaction of toying further with the ones that survive.

If God does exist he may be omnipotent but he is far from perfect.

[QUOTE="Ocelot500"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]A person could be the smartest person in the world and simply not care about doing well in high school. Does that make him any less smart? I don't think so. Then there are people like a friend of mine, who had a 104 average in high school and goes to a good college, yet if you were to ask him a question about anything that he hasn't read a text book about, he will have no idea what to say. Does that make him smart? To me, honestly, it doesn't. Being able to memorize text books is one thing, it might mean you've got a good memory, but memory isn't the only factor in intelligence.Mumbles527

Not to be rude or anything..but if a person chooses willingly to do bad in high school (when there is so much at stake)..doesn't that make them in a way stupid..afterall they are throwing away thier education.

Another thing is that if the "smart" person chooses not to care in high school, will he/she learn anything then? Without any learning, he/she will fall behind in society.

Plus, this is a motto/saying that I believe in:

"It doesn't matter how smart a person is...if he/she can't prove it to others".

So by refusing to show others, through thier GPA and SAT scores, that they are smart, people will think they are stupid and most times in life: Perception is reality.

Would you say that, despite all of that, I'm stupid because I didn't feel a need to pay attention in useless classes that you will very rarely, if ever, use in the real world?

I can relate to that. I NEVER study for tests and constantly slack off on homework. Despite this I got a 1900 on the SAT and recently tested my IQ to be 173.

name these prophecies please

Science cannot peacefully coexist with religion.

The advancement of mankind to its current position at the top of the food chain has been due to the use of the scientific process to discover things like fire. A society ruled by such ideas will advance quickly as the Human race has proved by being far weaker physically than most creatures, but still gaining complete dominance of the planet. On the other hand you can choose to take a society ruled by a religion and the opposite effect seems to happen. Take the dark ages for example. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the only time in history when a religion alone ruled society happened to be one of the only times in history when technology and general standards of living were decreased to levels not seen since three hundred years before. A society ruled by religion and faith will fail. The dark ages religion told the peasants that they didn't need to be rich to be happy and all they needed was to pay the church and make more worker children for the fields. The very ideas of the church were manipulated to fit better for the religious in charges own desires for money and power. To this day the corrupt ideas of their church have not been cleansed from the basic ideas of Catholicism.

The fundamental ideas of most religions these days bear close resemblance to one another but they are all different enough to cause argument between believers. The one strange constant that the modern religions have evolved is the basic laws of doing good things for society. While this was the original idea for most major religions, it is strange that these laws for doing good and going to heaven coincide almost perfectly with the fundamental ideas that keep society together. Take the seven deadly sins; every single one has a practical application into a functioning society. For just two examples take gluttony and greed. In society if you are greedy with food or material possessions you leave less for everyone else and become an inefficient part of society. The only sin that does not coincide with the perfect idea of society is Envy. By including envy as a sin they are going against the fundamentals of scientific advancement. To put it in simple terms without envy there is no advancement. "Only for envy of the bird does man learn how to fly." Being without envy means being content with what you have no matter how terrible it may be. This goes against the fundamental concepts that brought mankind to the top of the food chain

Well I could go on but you are probably tired of reading this buy now