<<To believe that we need a set of rules that comprises over 74,000 pages is beyond psychotic.>

Please show me where I said that. I said we need laws - you said we need laws. To imply I said we need 74,000 pages of them is as irrational as it would be had I implied you said it.

How was that statement, in the context of this "discussion", constructive or intellectually honest?

<Governments don't "raise" money. They take it under threat of imprisonment, confiscation of property, or worse.>

That's not "raising"? Def: "(v.) To bring into existence and foster the development of:" How was that statement, in the context of this "discussion", constructive? Why pick on a logic-chopping and erroneous point? It doesn't make sense.

<If someone needs something badly enough, they should have a right to take it by force from someone who has it.>

Your statement, presumably about taxes. You piously point out the Constitution. I don't think you mean that people should purchase those Rights. Those Rights belong to citizens because they exist, right? What the religious would call "grace". Or would you sell them? I would gather from your statement that you begrudge those because taxes pay for their defense. That may be wrong, but I couldn't tell it from your statements.

Now, how about the large corporations who pay no taxes? (There are a load of them.) They still get the benefits of the laws, and in many cases subsidies. Is it like robbing a guy at the ATM to take 15% federal income tax from some poor SOB to pay those subsidies?

Is it a George Bush tax increase on the guy who will buy a car made with American steel when there is a tariff on foreign steel? The government collects the tariff, and the car buyer pays more. Is that robbing the rich at their ATMs? Or the less well off?

It's hard to maintain any enthusiasm when it's impossible to find a constructive dialogue. There has to be some measure of intellectual honesty for that to take place.

I'll end as I started. Sigh.

Arf