Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Slavery is not evil

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:12:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sick of hearing that slavery is bad. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.

That's the biggest selling point for that philosophy. "Hey guys, we're original and cool because we're making you QUESTION stuff".

When we really look at the basis, it's all BS. Complete and utter BS.

***

1. Natural rights- Don't bleeping exist the same way the laws of nature do. It pisses me off beyond belief when people pretend that the arbitrary philosophy of natural rights is some form of morality written in stone by the finger of God.

Why is this relevant? Because understanding that natural rights aren't God-given eliminates a series of absolutes. Arguments for this "slavery is bad" philosophy hinge on the absolutism of natural rights. If you allow room for exceptions, you cut out idealistic crap with no practical application. Much like this philosophy.

2. When you have a piece of idealistic floof, the main goal is to make it sound good. Give it a good central argument.

Slavery is bad because you are forced to work with a body that is yours

How is this a screwed up concept from screwed up logic?

Because natural rights don't manifest in any form until a society is formed. Some may argue that they exist inherently, but they never manifest until a society is formed. It is society that gives meaning to the rights. Freedom is something respected by society, not something inherent to man. It is respected by society because respecting the possession of others leads to greater societal good. However, even greater good comes from contribution to group projects. Slavery i not bad. Slavery is an outgrowth of the same mechanism that respects the "right" of freedom.

3. Other arguments. Prepare for a counter.

"Well, slavery comes from social contract"

"Whaat? I don't remember signing a contract! (I'm so witty and clever, let me come up with some flawed analogies now).

This retort has about as much intellectual validity as the statement

"It is immoral for a man to incur oxygen debt after running because he never spends any oxygen that he did not earn".

Screwed up terminology. You can't take nature to court, and nature doesn't care what you assume your imaginary rights are. A bear will still eat you, and your wife, and your children.

Natural laws have a tendency towards what optimizes a society. Human beings are social creatures, who evolved from a long line of social creatures. Formation of a society is as natural as incurring oxygen debt when running. Just as natural as contributing to group causes to accomplish large goals. Slavery is just efficient, modern versions of band hunting activities. TSlavery is natural.

4. And of course, never leave yourself open. Proponents for this BS like to poke tiny holes and make their fallacious counterpoints when faced with reality. The problem is, I have never once seen one of these proponents set forth an illustration of a society that exemplifies this philosophy, even theoretically.

Tell you what, you set up a society where we can do away with slavery, set up a free labpor market, etc. and *I'll* poke holes wherever I see BS. If you can reconcile all that, then I'll entertain the notion that what you say can be deemed legitimate.

For the love of god, it's like dealing with Intelligent Design >.>
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:13:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
10/10 *tears in eyes*
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:16:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
INB4 kelly224 takes this thread seriously and gets all racist against whites up in herr
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:21:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"A bear will still eat you, and your wife, and your children."

WE MUST START A WAR AGAINST BEARS!!! BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:37:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Treeting peeple bad iz bad..wellz cuz its mean itz bad
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:39:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Agreed. ITT, Ragnar wins.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:13:34 PM, Tamikajones wrote:
10/10 *tears in eyes*

*nods vigorously* ;_______;
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:43:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The sad part is that Kleptin agrees.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 10:47:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:45:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Agrees that it is or isn't evil?

Kleptin styles himself as a cultural relativist. He essentially has no moral principles and thinks that whatever society does is acceptable.

Please correct me if I misrepresented you, Kleptin.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:05:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:47:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:45:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Agrees that it is or isn't evil?

Kleptin styles himself as a cultural relativist. He essentially has no moral principles and thinks that whatever society does is acceptable.

Please correct me if I misrepresented you, Kleptin.

That's part of the thing. I do have moral principles. If you ask me to designate Murder as either evil or good, I will say "evil". Same for slavery. But I personally believe that my beliefs on good and evil are compromised. From the time I was born to now, (as per the cultural relativism you designated me with), my environment and upbringing gave me the set of values on which I base that designation.

I feel that this is the same way for everyone. This, "cultural relativism" as you call it.

I don't feel that whatever society does is acceptable. To me, those terms run together. Society can ONLY do what it deems acceptable. That's how I believe morality can both steadily change over time and resist crazy psycho outliers trying to blow up the earth.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:17:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:05:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:47:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:45:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Agrees that it is or isn't evil?

Kleptin styles himself as a cultural relativist. He essentially has no moral principles and thinks that whatever society does is acceptable.

Please correct me if I misrepresented you, Kleptin.

That's part of the thing. I do have moral principles. If you ask me to designate Murder as either evil or good, I will say "evil". Same for slavery. But I personally believe that my beliefs on good and evil are compromised. From the time I was born to now, (as per the cultural relativism you designated me with), my environment and upbringing gave me the set of values on which I base that designation.

I feel that this is the same way for everyone. This, "cultural relativism" as you call it.

I don't feel that whatever society does is acceptable. To me, those terms run together. Society can ONLY do what it deems acceptable. That's how I believe morality can both steadily change over time and resist crazy psycho outliers trying to blow up the earth.

Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?

The only rational conclusion to being constantly against violence is to be an Anarchist. Before supporting any government action you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:32:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?

I dunno. He's dead. Haven't researched his past; only heard that he was one.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:33:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:31:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?

The only rational conclusion to being constantly against violence is to be an Anarchist. Before supporting any government action you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand.

Violence is the best answer to violence. And you did not answer the question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:36:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 10:12:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm sick of hearing that slavery is bad. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.


Would you care to debate it?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:36:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:33:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:31:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?

The only rational conclusion to being constantly against violence is to be an Anarchist. Before supporting any government action you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand.

Violence is the best answer to violence. And you did not answer the question.

Minarchy applies force where not needed in preventing alternative defense agencies. And yes I did; if Gandhi was truly anti-violence than he was also Anarchist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:37:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:31:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:24:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:20:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lol. By your definition then moral reformers (Ghandi, MLK Jr, etc) are evil.

Moral reformers? you mean socialist reformers right?

Ghandi's an anarchist.

A consistent one?

The only rational conclusion to being constantly against violence is to be an Anarchist. Before supporting any government action you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand.

Violence and coercion are not the same word.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:36:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:12:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm sick of hearing that slavery is bad. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.


Would you care to debate it?
This was a parody thread dude.

Minarchy applies force where not needed in preventing alternative defense agencies.
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

And yes I did; if Gandhi was truly anti-violence than he was also Anarchist.
Irrelevant, since you haven't proved he was "truly" anti-violence
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:47:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:44:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:36:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/15/2010 10:12:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm sick of hearing that slavery is bad. Seriously. I honestly believe that the sort of philosophy that preaches this has no application whatsoever and mainly exists because it's cool to hang on to because it rebels against something we held to be a fact of life.


Would you care to debate it?
This was a parody thread dude.

Oh... right... I so did not get that... it just seemed to be the sort of thing you would say.


Minarchy applies force where not needed in preventing alternative defense agencies.
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

That is my objection to anarcho-capitalism as well and it generally gets ignored.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:49:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

That is my objection to anarcho-capitalism as well and it generally gets ignored.
This sort of thing is why:

National Health CarePro

How are they supposed to debate ancap versus minarchist if they don't take you seriously as a minarchist in the first place?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:52:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In other words, it makes far more sense for them to focus on bringing you in on the general level before trying to take you the last few steps.

This is assuming they actually are ignoring you and they are remotely rational of course.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:56:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:49:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

That is my objection to anarcho-capitalism as well and it generally gets ignored.
This sort of thing is why:

National Health CarePro

How are they supposed to debate ancap versus minarchist if they don't take you seriously as a minarchist in the first place?

I never claimed to be a minarchist. The point of conflicting jurisdictions still stands irrespective of if I am a fascist, socialist or whatever.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:57:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:52:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In other words, it makes far more sense for them to focus on bringing you in on the general level before trying to take you the last few steps.


I dont regard it as a progression, more of a decline into adolescent idealism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2010 11:58:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:56:53 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:49:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

That is my objection to anarcho-capitalism as well and it generally gets ignored.
This sort of thing is why:

National Health CarePro

How are they supposed to debate ancap versus minarchist if they don't take you seriously as a minarchist in the first place?

I never claimed to be a minarchist. The point of conflicting jurisdictions still stands irrespective of if I am a fascist, socialist or whatever.

And if you are a fascist, socialist, whatever, they no doubt have more important things to try to get your attention on ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 2:34:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/15/2010 11:58:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:56:53 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/15/2010 11:49:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It is needed to defend jurisdictional property against the encroachment of competing governments. Allowing governments to compete, instead of forcing them to surrender, means there will be a civil war the moment their court rules differently than yours, as you will both be in contempt of each other's court. It is impossible to uphold 2 rulings on one question in the same jurisdiction at the same time.

That is my objection to anarcho-capitalism as well and it generally gets ignored.
This sort of thing is why:

National Health CarePro

How are they supposed to debate ancap versus minarchist if they don't take you seriously as a minarchist in the first place?

I never claimed to be a minarchist. The point of conflicting jurisdictions still stands irrespective of if I am a fascist, socialist or whatever.

And if you are a fascist, socialist, whatever, they no doubt have more important things to try to get your attention on ^_^

Actually after cursory reading of minarchy it seems remarkably attractive and overlaps to a suprising degree with my current beliefs. Though clearly I am not a minarchist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.