1. None of my logic is faulty. If you think it is, don't merely state it, prove it.

2. I state a fact (bedrock) and build upon that. You don't have the right to force me to pay to educate your kids. This means no matter how many people vote on such a law, it is illegitimate. If I refuse to comply with an illegitimate law, I'm still morally and ethically correct.

3. I think if you and a bunch of other people want to get together and pool your money for a school and you agree to pay a certain portion of your income to support such schools, that's just great. Kudos to you. Just dont' try FORCE others to contribute with illegitimate legislation.

4. I'm sorry if my civil tone chafes you. It's just my normal conversation style.

I am indeed, but don't limit me to only being a scholar of Constitutional law and the principles behind it. You can add other areas where I've devoted a significant amount of study like computer science, libertarian philosophy, American history, etc...

I just don't get how people who live in society, who use public roads, have probably pissed in a public toilet, who have access to public libraries, who have access to a public legal system and have access to public health if their situation calls for it, can sprout so much crap.

If you don't like society, go live in a fucking cave dickhead.

Society won't let him. Why so pissed about an alternative viewpoint? Last I checked we hadn't evolved into a perfect society.

To be fair, Radar's point has often been that those public facilities shouldn't exist in the first place NOT that it's unfair he should have to pay for something he wants to exist.

The thing is that Radar's interpretation of the constitution (and yes, Radar - that's all it is - YOUR interpretation, if it was hard fact there would be no debate)and the basis for the founding of this country lead him to these extreme views. There is no point in arguing the very real details of our social and political machines with someone who begins with the view that it is all illegitimate and ends with you're a poopy head. Only frustration can come from it.

Sure. As long as you understand that when you're 75 and need prostate surgery, all doctors aged 55 and younger (the ones who were getting educated during all your working-adult-but-non-school-tax-paying years) are morally and ethically correct if they choose not to operate on you, or to only operate on you at a higher price than they would charge someone who helped educate them.

You're ok with a doctor picking/choosing patients for that type of reason Clod?

I've got no problem with that. Health care isn't a right. I'm willing to pay a fair price for that service. I have no right to force someone to provide me with service, or to force them to pay for services I want.

Socialism is not "society". I buy my own books, I hire my own lawyers, I pay for my own education, etc. Why should I also be forced to pay for someone else's?

If you don't like me keeping what I earn than go into that public toilet and flush your head down the toilet because it's more full of shit than your ass. Being against government funded schools is not the same as being against education. Being against government funded retirement is not the same as being against the elderly. Being against government funded healthcare does not mean you're against the poor getting healthcare. In fact the exact opposite is true. Those who rely on government programs get LESS help than they would otherwise privately and through non-profit charities. Only an ignorant cunt would claim otherwise.

My views are not extreme. Those who think it's ok for them to steal from others to suit their own desires are the extremists, not me.

Also, NO it is not my "interpretation" of the Constitution. I don't interpret the Constitution because it means what it says and it says the federal government may not be involved in, or legislate over areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution. End of story. I don't interpret the Constitution...I read it and unlike most people (including many on the supreme court), I actually understand it.

Each and every single thing the federal government does that is not enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional and illegitimate, PERIOD. End of story. There is no gray area.

No, just pointing out the other side of Radar's coin. I personally think the education of a society's children benefits everyone in society, not just the parents/children, and thus everyone should contribute to it in some way, whether or not they have children themselves.

Radar - Mr. Semantics

Doesn't this assume that there's a public benefit to having children? What about that one guy who thinks that the worst thing you can do to the planet is to have one more kid. I, oops, he shouldn't have to pay for public schools, should he?

EDIT: Here's another timely quote from the TipMug:

Public benefit and planet benefit are different. I've already demonstrated there is a public benefit to having children. Unless you're prepared for your quality of life to plummet significantly in your old age as the human race and all its infrastructure dies out, basic population maintenance is necessary, on the order of two children per couple. So at that point you're either going to enforce maintenance a' la China, or you're going to select which children are cared for and which have to fend for themselves. Or you're just going to suck it up and pay for public schools. :)


ETA: I'm not saying the current public school system itself is necessary or any good at all. I'm just saying that even if a better system were put in place, it should still be everyone's responsibility to contribute to that system in some way.

Those old people need something to complain about.