My Dear Seeker...

Thank you so much for the touchingly rational and well-defined comments you made on the post titled "Yes, let's discuss this further...". I thought of NOT publishing them on the off chance that someone with just a bit of character and taste might read them here on our little blog and think we all shared your mannerisms and rapier-like repartee... but it is so rare that we get to actively engage with people like you that I couldn't pass up the opportunity.

I'd first like to address your opening comment...

" What a moron you guys are. "

Man, I simply can't adequately explain how much I struggle to take seriously anyone that opens their argument with that kind of a grammatical handicap. I'm not sure how far along you are in your grade school career, but I'd like to recommend some additional study time in remedial English next time you decide to attend that class.

Moving on...

I find it difficult (and, frankly, embarrassing) to directly quote your diatribe on my comments concerning eminent domain again here, so I'll let those that wish to read them again if the want. I will simply respond by saying that I wasn't defending the "Libertarian" position on the evils of eminent domain... I was defining them as I understand them to be. I am NOT a Libertarian, so I might be quite wrong in my assessment of the position, but I got my basic understanding from their own publications, so the Libertarians will have to share some of that blame with me.

I would add, however, that your point: "Yes, there are OFTEN disputes about what the land is worth, no s**t sherlock. People almost always want five times what it's worth, because we are all selfish greedy bastards if we can be. So courts have to get appraisals, and then disputes are settled by various means, including juries. " seems to ignore a very basic and simple fact... courts, even courts that include juries, are NOT the equivalent to a "free market" and if there is no choice BUT to sell to the Government, then there is no freedom of choice. In fact, I'd say that there is a solid argument to be made that there is no "private property" at all, if that is a de facto legal position for the Government to be able to take.

The seller of a property (in this case, the owner) sets the PRICE of the property, but the actual VALUE of that property is established when someone else PAYS FOR IT. If the value is determined by the prospective buyer to be less than the price asked, then no sale should take place and the owner, for good or bad, keeps the property. That is the essence of a free market system, and if you doubt me please read (I'm forced to assume you haven't already) Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I'm sure you can find it at your local library, should you care to try.

If the Government has the authority (and there are solid arguments that ours DOES NOT) to both determine the VALUE of a piece of property and force the sale of that property against the will of the owner, well then, my friend... we find not a free market system but a centralized economic plan formulated by a governing body. That is also known as socialism. It is very clearly defined in another popular book written by Karl Marx called The Communist Manifesto. I have no doubt that you can find that book in your high school library (probably just down the hall from where you posted your comments).

"Oh, I see you bird brains like the so called Fairtax. I should have known you morons would.
Why doesn't that surprise me."

Without putting too much of a strain on the conversation, at no point in my post did I say I "liked" the "Fair Tax". The entire premise of my post was that the Libertarians seems to support it, since it is listed on their website and in numerous other publications as a viable alternative to the income tax we now utilize. To the best of my knowledge, very few prominent GOP members that are front-runners in the 2012 election cycle favor this alternative at all, and thus I thought it a good point of difference between the two parties and their platforms.

In all seriousness, I do apologize if my sarcasm and hyperbole have given offense. I found your comments to be rambling, inarticulate and amusingly droll, even taking your juvenile use of expletives into account. What little success you might have seen in making your points was completely over-shadowed by your inability to actually read what I had written and see it for what it was. All of us here have had episodes in our lives where we have indulged ourselves and followed the path you chose, but we also recognized that no good came from the indulgence and we did nothing to further our point of view.

If, in the future, you choose to make comments in a more rational, mature manner, then perhaps we can compare opinions and views and actually learn from each other. If, however, you choose to comment with more of the same adolescent, immature, expletive-filled rants... then know that they will be deleted out of hand until such time as you choose to make your point just a little bit clearer. If the latter is the choice you make, it might be better for all involved if you simply didn't bother at all.

Good luck with the therapy, okay?