|
You missed a few, let's review:
So you've clearly missed a great deal of what I've said. Now let's get into the meat of your response:
Hey, the ball's in your court. Why isn't it supportable?
And yet you don't provide any questions. You do provide a piece of supporting evidence but do not draw any conclusions or invalidate my argument with it:
No, this is completely wrong. How do you know they don't have internal checks and balances? Do you really think your blanket statements affect everybody in the US? Do you think that you could possibly create a blanket law that would make it so everyone is treated fairly without favoring large corporations and armies of lawyers that are knowledgable enough to sift through the ton of laws and ambiguous wording that you might propose to rectify the situation? Do you think that this considerable loss of freedom is outweighed by the benefit of the consequence? Do you think this even though a great deal of the people effected do not have utilitarian moral philosophies? You never even provide a motiviation for your desired consequences, and yet you want to impose this loss of freedom on those of us who enjoy it and purposely avoid your shackles?
|