I only have time to deal with some of your comments over my lunchtime. I hope to address others later.
I think its fair to say, we agree on a few points. Americans are subject to excessive taxation and the federal...
I don't see how you can "agree" with me that the taxation is "excessive," unless you agree with me that the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. If the federal government is acting within the Constitution, all our federal taxes are "necessary and proper" per Article I, Section 8. I only think federal taxation is "excessive" because I think the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. (And not just a little bit outside either. In my opinion, fully 80-90+% of what the federal government does is outside the Constitution.)
According to you, everything is lost, period.
Well, we are no longer governed by the rule of law. That is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks, as I do, that 80-90+% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. (Including, specifically, ALL federal laws and regulations regarding ALL drugs.) Now, whether we can return to the rule of law is an interesting question. (Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times.") And in my opinion, the United States is actually headed AWAY from the rule of law, rather than towards it. But I'm an optimist. As long as there is a Libertarian Party in the United States, there's hope. :-) Or, if things get really bad, I could move to Costa Rica, where Libertarians have more than 10% of the seats in their Congress. :-)
The Constitution has been trashed,...
Of course it has. Once again, this is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks that 80-90+% of what the federal government does violates the Constitution.
...the government is filled with idiots,
That is my charitable assessment. I'll address this later.
the American people are a bunch of foolish, idiotic sheeple,...
Well, certainly scores of millions of them are. But I should have included the thought that a great many others (possibly even a majority of The People) are simply "rationally ignorant." It's actually "rationally ignorant" for one to not worry if the federal government is ILLEGALLY taking 25% of one's income...if the costs of getting the federal government to stop doing that exceed the amount one could expect to recover.
...President Bush is a corrupt tyrant
Well, he could simply be an idiot. I ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. ;-) Maybe he can't read the Constitution, or any of the supporting literature. Still, one would hope/expect that he'd have someone on his staff who could read and explain the Constitution to him. :-/
...and I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do.
That's certainly true vis-a-vis whether or NOT (my emphasis) the federal government can legitimately criminalize drugs under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. Once again, if you think that it's possible for the federal government to LEGITIMATELY criminalize any drug, under the Constitution, please explain to me why the 18th Amendment was (or wasn't) necessary to criminalize alcohol.
I don't think you can do that. That's why you're wrong, and I'm right (regarding federal criminalization of drugs).
Other practices based on custom and usage have become practically unassailable and have been recognized as valid extensions of Constitution interpretation: political parties, procedures for nominating presidential candidates, the electoral college system, the appointment of a presidential cabinet.
???? Why do you bring up all those things? When have I ever criticized those things as being unconstitutional? What about federal criminalization of drugs? THAT'S not "unassailable"...because it quite clearly VIOLATES the Constitution (absent a constitutional amendment, such as the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol).
Your absolute view of the Constitution, isn't consistent with the view of other American's.
These "other Americans"...they'd be the "foolish, idiotic" (or rationally ignorant) "sheeple"? Yes, I'm (painfully!) aware that my (correct) view of the Constitution isn't "consistent" with theirs.
If the Founding Fathers were around today and were presented with the facts of events, covering the last 225 years, I don't think many of them, would side with you.
Of the 55 Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution, I'm reasonably sure that 54 of them would largely agree with my interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton probably wouldn't, but I never liked him anyway. ;-)
Now, that may be somewhat presumptuous on my part, but whose to say I'm wrong and whose to say you're right.
That's not presumptuous at all...to ask "who can say" that you're wrong and I'm right. In fact, I wouldn't consider it terribly presumptuous for YOU to say, "I'm right, and you're wrong." You'd be wrong, but not presumptuous. (You really ought to answer my question about the 18th amendment before you make any claim that you're right, and I'm wrong.)
Oops. Lunchtime is over.
Congrats! Now you're making some sense. At least your qualifying this remark, as only your opinion. Because in the bigger context, it definitely doesn't fit into the catagory of factual reality.
Well, we are no longer governed by the rule of law.
And in my opinion, the United States is actually headed AWAY from the rule of law, rather than towards it.
America is a society that has always been based on the rule of law. Libertarians do not support the rule of law, or the will of the people, has represented through their elected officials. Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior. Such extremism, will only lead to chaos and anarchy.
But I'm an optimist.
Very funny. In my time on Freerepublic, you're one of the most pessimistic individuals I've ever come across.
After this point, your post becomes irrational, illogical and convoluted. More endless libertarian rhetoric. Its impossible to have any further reasonable communication with you. But I wish you well.
I suggest you put another log on the fire and relax.