Who's "Howell"?

I can't believe that Howell has the guts to come out in public to admit that he employs workers at poverty wages every single day. He should not be treated as the voice of reason but rather publicly shamed; non-profit directors like himself are responsible for expanding services at the expense of the workers who make those services possible.

I know that Hobson was make $145k three years ago, and I can only assume he makes even more now. We should not be listening to the well-paid directors but rather the non-profit workers who are on the front lines, struggling to provide for themselves and their families. Unless Hobson is willing to be paid minimum wage until his poorest employee is "phased in", I think he needs to shut up.

For a while it seemed like the Democrats plan was to make Socialist Alternative irrelevant by stealing their thunder and showing they could deliver what working people need. But they don't really know how. Seattle city governemnt has no experience with actual change. So they're back to their old habits. Running out the clock and being proud they gave everybody a say before they did nothing.

This hands the momentum back to Sawant and the socialists. What are the Democrats going to campaign on in 2016 if the Socialist brand is "We brought you $15/hr in 2015"?

@1

Maybe Ansel is combining Hobson and Stowell into "Howell"? It's kind of confusing, if that's what he's doing.

Apathy = status quo. So of course she wants to leave it to the policymakers (not including Sawant).

@1: Yikes! Corrected, thanks!

First of all, "poverty wages" is a fallacy. Only about 11% of minimum wage earners actually live in poor households. If they are not living in poverty with those wages, than how the hell are they "poverty wages"?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/typic…

Second, I've been waiting tables for fifteen years and I've NEVER had trouble paying my bills. Let's do some math, shall we?
So, in Seattle, a server works a slow night at a low end restaurant. That server has a total of fifteen guests who spend $20 on average and tip 20% on average. That equals $60. The server is at work for five hours, with the first and last hour dedicated to opening and closing sidework. From that $60 in tips, 15% is "tipped out" to the busser and the food runner and hostess (and bartender, depending on the restaurant) Leaving the server with $51.

Now, 9.36/hour for five hours is $46.80. Plus the $51 a server walks with is $97.80. Divide that by the five hours worked and you end up with $19.56/hour...

AND THAT'S ON A SLOW DAY AT A LOW END RESTAURANT!

I have yet to hear a Red Shirt of one of their apologists answer that simple math that servers do time and time again. We make good money and MOST OF US WANT A TIP CREDIT. Why? Because at $15/hour people will tip less and we'll end up making less. I'm no mathematician, but I think $15/hour is less than $19.56/hour.

No matter how you look at it, 15Now is full of shit.

$15 an hour waiters = prix fixe, no tip.

>If they are not living in poverty with those wages, than how the hell are they "poverty wages"?

It doesn't matter if the employee is living at home, or has a trust fund, or a lucrative escort sideline. The metric at issue is the wage total.

@8

With all that opposition from restaurant staffers, it's really surprising that I haven't seen restaurants with "No to $15" signs posted on their windows and doors. What better way to get what they want by showing that their workers are behind them?

@11
So only wages are to be factored into income to decide who is and isn't in poverty? Okay then...so I guess the capital gains tax should be removed completely? After all, capital gains aren't wages. Or how about bonuses for CEOs? I mean, their yearly bonuses are, again, not wages.

And, BEST OF ALL, we should give money to small business owners because they don't make a wage either! They make a profit! So should we campaign to stop "poverty profits"?

This is why I love arguing with authoritarian-leftists: they lose so easily.

@12
Here's why there are not signs in restaurant windows (yet) :"The owner of a flower shop near one of the McDonald’s protests didn’t want to go on camera because she’s scared of retaliation, but said if the minimum wage goes to $15, “I’m going to close my shop. They (the protesters) don’t think about us, the small businesses."

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/02/20/15-wage-pro…

The Red Shirts have created a climate of fear in this city that looks less like socialism and more like fascism.

@14,
exactly. Who wants to be the next target for firebrand Spear and Sawant to stage an all weekend rally outside ? McDonalds people will get their food and try to leave relatively quickly. What about that restaurant where the average guest spends an hour ?

I have an idea, how about we just help the homes to get foreclosed on so that they can be turned over and sold to someone at a reduced price ?

What part of "propping up overzealous homebuyers" doesn't equate to "reducing the supply of affordable housing for others who have been saving to buy" ?

As for Ansel Herz's observation that big businesses were not a part of this debate, that brings up something 15Now supporters HAVE to be noticing: big businesses are silent about this...and APPROVING SILENCE. Target, McDonald's etc can EASILY afford 15/hour while small businesses can't. The big businesses WANT an increase in the MW to kill their competition.

15/hour won't turn Seattle into a ghost town, but it will turn it into a strip mall.

This is one more example of why I switched from Marxism to left-libertarianism: corporations actually like regulations and are their biggest supporters, because regulations hurt their up-and-coming competition while they, who can afford armies of attorneys to find loopholes for them, while small businesses can't.

The LAST THING corporation want is real laissez fair capitalism. That would end their government-given edges and force them to (gasp!) only make a profit by providing a superior service or product at a better price!

It is a fact that big businesses love a high MW, and one of the many reasons why I oppose such a thing.
http://sustainablewages.org/

@17- meth fumes have cooked your brains.

@17: Serious question: What are your thoughts on children? I think I may know the source of my disagreement with you, so I'm curious. I know it seems a non sequitor, but I think it's at the root of the issue. By thoughts on children, I mean do you want them, do you think you have any responsibility to pay for public education (which wouldn't be in minarchy I think?) etc.

@17 I am really exited for the large national chains to roll out efficiencies like ordering kiosks and drive throughs outsourced to india.

Between laying off staff ( think self checkout on crack ) and the fact any small business loophole will work for franchises, the obvious losers will be locally owned small business.

#popcorn.jpg

@19
I have no children and will probably never have any, but I still give money every month to the United Way to help with their mentoring program (and I also give to Northwest Harvest, a fine charity!) Society is obligated to take care of its children because they are our future. The question is, is the government society?
My answer is "no." Government should only protect against aggression against people and their property including fraud and abusing the environment (which is everyone's property) and the rest should be decided through voluntary society. Government is involuntary by its nature, as no one can "op-out" of being governed or taxed.
But will children be cared for in such a society? OF COURSE! Human beings are naturally a mixture of personal ambition and social altruism. If left alone, we as a society would be more than able to ensure children are educated and taken care of through voluntary taxation and a voluntarily funded education system, just like the co-ops that exist today.
And in fact, when taxation stops for all but preventing aggression, people would have so much money left over that MORE money will be used to help children and the poor, as opposed to going to things like endless wars and fighting victimless crimes as they are today.

But, government will protect children from abuse. Hurting a child is aggression, and sexually or emotionally abusing them is fraud (they can't understand sex and someone is taking advantage of their lack of knowledge, hence fraud)

In short, I believe that government is an unnecessary middle man getting between society's desire to care for our children, and he's a middle man who uses that money for things that do more harm than good (wars, war on drugs, outdated programs etc) Get rid of the middle man and we as a free society will be able to care for each other naturally, without coercion.

@14

Bullshit, you bullshitter. Anyone with an eighth of a brain would be smart enough to just tell the truth you claim: "The workers and owner of this business stand together: No on $15."

@17
http://christopherpatrickross.files.word…

Ah, I meant @20
http://christopherpatrickross.files.word…

@22
Ahh...when did I say that? I said no such thing. I said that many workers are against 15Now, and they are. Many are for it, others are against it. I'm just saying that it is completely dishonest to say no workers are against 15Now.

@21- meth consumption hasn't helped, either.
Seriously, speed kills. You have my sympathies for your personal struggles. There are, fortunately, tax funded outreach programs that can help you with your addiction. They are, unfortunately, underfunded, thanks to asshats such as yourself, but they are there to help you when you decide to confront your demons and rejoin the human race.

@26
Thank you! Do keep up the name calling and avoid all rational discussions: it makes my side look good.
I mean, who needs those silly "facts" and "sources" when you have name calling?

@17: "left-libertarianism"

HAHAHAHA! Fuckin' hell, man. Capitalism isn't voluntary, you nitwit.

27- in order to provoke a rational conversation, you have to say something rational. As it stands, you make the Black Bloc kids sound positively erudite.

@21: Given that the rich in this country are currently on a crusade to destroy public education by implementing Charters which have had proven negative outcomes for those most at risk, why should I believe that they will suddenly care about them? And that's just the rich who care about public education, the rest would let it whither and die. Are you currently suggesting that the rich are so heavily taxed that they cannot give to charity?
In the past education was a luxury, if we cease public funding, why would it not return to that state?

@30
First, big government benefits the rich, not us. They are the ones who can use tax loopholes, regulations etc to better themselves. Also, the rich don't use public school: they force our kids into them while they get great private schools.
I'm suggesting that we the 99% are too taxed. We are the ones who give to charity the most, not the rich and if left to our own devices we would be able to run things better, not the rich with their purchased government.
As for charter schools, most of the evidence that shows they don't work is from the NEA...not an unbiased source to say the least. In reality most, but not all, charter schools are much better than public child-warehouses, especially for minorities:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta…

Also, there is school choice. In Sweden there is so much school choice that entire industries have popped up to provide inexpensive but effective education: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehav…

And the rich are against school choice: they don't want their little silver spoons mixing with minorities and working class people at their schools.

@28
Actually, it is. One can easily set up a collectively run business and share all profits, as happens in Seattle today Black Coffee: http://blackcoffeecoop.com/

Historically there have been many socialist communities in America and around the world, like New Lanark, Scottland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark

In a truly free-market system, people would be free to set up worker owned collective enterprises and even entire communities to live under voluntary socialism.

BUT, under socialism, there is no alternative. If I want to work for someone other than the state and/or workers collective, there is no alternative and no choice.

And yes, most people who aren't ignorant about politics know what a Left-libertarian is. I'm a libertarian who hates big business as much as I do big government and I'm a libertarian who remembers our anarchist roots.

Wow, great moderation, really great moderation.

@25

Well, if you want to parse, you originally wrote "most" not "many," and if you want, we can drop my word choice of "the truth you claim" and still go with the slogan, since "most" workers--and thus, likely a unanimity at some establishments--stand with the owners against $15, according to you. I mean, your fevered imagination can make up all the fear it wants, but in a city like Seattle, businesses still freely posted McKenna and McCain placards openly; cars still had Bush stickers on their bumpers without incident.

@16 Fuck yeah. Tell it like it is Chef. Overzealous home buyers brought down the economy in 2008. We should make them work for nothing as indentured employees till they make up all estimated loss of investment income to middle class pensions!

@21 Uh, ok.....what...wait..huh...?

"If left alone, we as a society would be more than able to ensure children are educated and taken care of through voluntary taxation and a voluntarily funded education system, just like the co-ops that exist today."

@35
People who unwisely bought homes without putting in 20% down payments on variable rate mortgages should unburden themselves of the shackles of underwater homes. That doesn't mean it should be more tax money to keep that house from being sold (at used home prices) to someone who can make the payments.

and Jess Spear is something else... if someone makes a point she starts throwing out red herrings of Wage Theft and "I didn't realize I should have tip credit when I was in VA". One thing young workers in a tipped environment are usually very vocal about to each other is what they should be earning when they feel they're poorly paid. Exhibit A: a lot of red shirt wearing/SA/$15 Now-ers.

@32: God, this is ridiculous. Black Coffee, while being a worker-owned co-op, has no choice but to participate in a capitalist system. They have to pay rent for their space, they have to buy their goods, and on and on. The socialist and anarchist colonies in the USA had no choice but to exist within a capitalist system, selling their goods if not within their communities then to the people and organizations outside it and purchasing whatever they needed with money - not to mention that they had to purchase the land they resided on. Your wiki link on New Lanark says that it was a "prosperous, viable business venture" and notes the "profitability of the mills". This is just shocking ignorance on your part.

Capitalists have no anarchist roots. I'm aware that Murray Rothbard tried to co-opt the anti-capitalist thought of Benjamin Tucker for Rothbard's capitalist nonsense, but anarchism has always been against capitalism - something that even market anarchists realize as obvious. You're using words that you don't know the fucking meaning of and think you're so fucking radical for doing so, while demanding the right to be a slave.

How fucking pathetic.

yep. the momentum is fizzling out like a wet fart.

I work a minimum wage job. I get tips. I'm against the $15 minimum wage, as are every single one of my coworkers regardless of their varied political leanings.

All of this just seems like a side show to where the real economic battle should be occurring, where the 0.1% are under taxed on "income" they collect as rentiers and not taxed on wealth at all.

@39
Again, you didn't answer the question: What if someone wants to op-out of socialism, do they have a choice? And in a minarchist society there would be no property taxes, so once a worker's collectives buys a property, it is their's to own collectively and live a happy and voluntarily socialists existence.

As for your HILARIOUS claim that "capitalists have no anarchists roots" and then your bringing up Rothbard out of nowhere, here is ANOTHER QUESTION you can't answer: WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT THE MAN IN MY PROFILE PICTURE?!

Lysander Spooner: Anarchists, radical abolitionists, and the father of libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Sp…

And here is ANOTHER QUESTION anarcho-fascists (none-free market anarchists) can't answer: once capitalism has been destroyed, what is to stop people from using a new mode of capital (i.e., money) to help facilitate the voluntary exchange of good and services?

In other words, once capitalism has been destroyed, what is going to be there to stop people from re-inventing it?

To stop people from engaging in voluntary trade (capitalism) you would need some agency to use force against them, i.e., A STATE.

None market anarchism would soon dissolve into either free-market anarchism or totalitarianism, hence it is unviable. While in a voluntaryists society (anarcho-capitalism) workers would be free to create voluntary socialists institutions and even communities, and would be allowed to live tax free (as would everyone else) and own their own land collectively.

@34
Actually, I didn't see any McKenna signs in Seattle, and conservatives have often targeted. I didn't see ANY McKenna or Romney signs on businesses or even houses in Seattle. This city is intimidated by this Red Shirted fascists.

@23, 24: http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/fun…
NOWHERE in post #20 was any sort of argumentum ad hominem made; the entire post was actually in critique of the line of reasoning you had advance. Was is mocking in tone? Sure. Was it still a sound argument? You betcha. YOUR response was to simply dismiss it as "ad hominem" because you didn't like what was said and couldn't think of a way to refute it. You're a dishonest and egotistical person who is so convinced of his own correctness that he's unwilling to accept evidence that suggests otherwise.

@31: Are you saying that government regulation inherently is of more benefit to the rich than to the poor? I'm right with you on the issue of tax loopholes, but regulation of industry and markets actually PROTECTS the masses from the wealthy. Cases in point: the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (which was opposed heavily by industry, particularly manufacturers of patent medicines) and the 1933 Banking Act (whose separation of commercial banking from riskier investment banking has been under attack by pro-deregulation advocates).
If you're going to argue for a smaller government, you need to acknowledge the benefits as well as the detriments of our current system rather than trying to paint it all as tyrannical.

@44: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

@45
The line between "mocking tone" and "ad hominem" is a very thin line...

As for regulations, there are two kinds: laws that protect people from aggression and fraud of businesses, and regulations. Things like workplace safety, monitoring food and drugs etc are fine in a minarchist society. What I'm talking about is, for example, regulations that say you need an expensive permit, that a big barber shop can easily afford but someone just cutting hair at their house cannot, to braid or cut hair:
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2…

There are a hundred thousand other regulations just like that. The best libertarian film ever made (aside from V for Vendetta) was "Tucker: The man and his Dream" about the true story of Preston Tucker who created a new revolutionary car. Well, the big established car companies used their political power to crush him with new regulations and absurd legal action.

Big business loves big government because they can use it to their advantage. America is NOT a capitalist country: it is Socialism for the corporations.

If government was unable to help the giant corporations, they would be forced to either reform or die. Without government to do their dirty work, businesses would be rendered incapable of creating tyranny.

As for Glass-Steagall, we could do the same thing with simply disclosure. Let people know if their banks do investments and not just regular loans and let people decide. If a bank is involved in both investment and commercial banking, without letting their customers know that, they are guilty of fraud and should be punished. Otherwise, let them.

Most people, however, would not choose so high-risk a bank and hence there would be little incentive for banks to do so in a truly free market system.

In short, socialists want to replace the corporate-owned state with a socialist-state, and that would be just as bad. We libertarians want to replace the corporate-owned state with a minimal state and maximized voluntary community. Which sounds better?
This illustration puts it best: http://theruleoffreedom.files.wordpress.…

@46
I don't know of anyone taking data on such a thing.
But do you REALLY think someone walking down capitol hill with a "Rick Perry 2016" t-shirt would be treated the same as someone with a "15Now" shirt?

@47: "The line between 'mocking tone' and 'ad hominem' is a very thin line..."
No, it's not. Not remotely. Argumentum ad hominem isn't name-calling and it isn't using a mean tone; it is attacking the PERSON making the argument rather than the ARGUMENT itself. Meanie didn't make ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to you, only to your argument. Don't use technical terms unless you know what they mean.

I didn't ask if there are better ways to regulate industry. I made the point that regulation of industry is, by and large, a protection for the hoi polloi against the wealthy and powerful. CAN it be abused by those in a position of power? Certainly. IS it often abused? Sure. But is the vast majority of industrial regulation actually a protection against businesses exploiting their customer base? Absolutely.
(As far as Glass-Steagall goes, we tried letting banks do both before. It led to banks holding people's life savings making risky investment decisions and leaving people destitute. If you think that separating investment and commercial banking is bad for the common man, you're objectively wrong.)

@48: I have no bleeding idea. I'm a Chicago boy.

@47: why should I let people only pay taxes on things they support?

@49
If someone says "you're an idiot" is that an ad hominem or just name calling? If someone is advocating war and I say "you're klingon attitude makes you ignorant of all sides of the issues" is that ad hominem?

I've seen college debates stop and judges get into debates as they tried to decide what is and is not ad hominem and an appeal to ridicule.

As for regulations on business, beyond environmental and workplace safety, they do more harm than good. For example, as you ignored, why should someone need a license to cut hair? I guess you're okay with shutting down a little girl's lemonade stand too? After all, she didn't have a business license: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/201…

If the government only made sure businesses didn't pollute or put workers in danger without their consent, corporations would be rendered harmless. All they could do then would be buy and sell products, and they would no longer have any incentive to buy a politician.

Look at it this way: does anyone bribe congress to ban the religion of Islam? No, because congress is banned from doing so by the Constitution. So, if congress was banned from effecting business beyond watching out for worker abuse, fraud and pollution, would businesses buy a politician? What would be the point?

As for banking, again, just let people know what's happening. Glass-Steagal is absolutely unnecessary. Just let people KNOW it is a two in one investment bank or commercial bank and let the consumer make up their own mind.

And trust me, you don't want more banking regulations. It will probably look like this: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/06/…

@50 A scenario:
5 friends are hanging around an apartment. Four say they want to all chip in to order pizza, one guy says no. They have a vote, four to one in favor of pizza. The guy still says no. His friends say they'll give him a couple of slices, and he says he's not stopping them, but he doesn't want to put money in for pizza.
Finally, one guy puts a gun to his head and threatens to lock him in the closet for a week if he doesn't put money into the pot. The man who didn't want pizza pays up. The pizza arrives, the man gets two slices of pizza he never asked for that was paid for with money stolen from him by a majority, acting on force. A majority who could have easily ordered pizza themselves and just left him out of it.

Is the above scenario theft? Yes. So, what is the real difference between that and the government taxing someone on threat of violence (prison) because the majority says they want to do things with his or her money?

Morally, if you believe as I do in the non-aggression principal, involuntary taxation is simply wrong. I do not steal, nor would I make someone do the dirty work of stealing for me, be that person a mafia thug or a government.

And keep in mind everything done with stolen money (taxation) can just as easily be done with voluntarily given money.

And yes, it worked before: in the western territories of the US, for decades there was no taxation or central government, and services were still taken care of and there was LESS violence than in today's cities: http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-…

But KEEP IN MIND I know going straight on anarchists now isn't possible. The best thing to do is slowly reduce the size of government starting with the Imperial Budget (I refuse to call it defense) corporate-welfare, foreign aid (most of which goes to arm people who are our friends this week) and money wasted on victimless "crimes" (prostitution, drugs, gambling) That way we can take care of the people who have, by no fault of their own, grown dependent on government while slowly lowering taxes, starting with the poorest tax payers.

So we go from what we have no to smaller government, from smaller government to minarchism, and from minarchism to, eventually, a completely voluntary society based around the non-aggression principal.

@52: None of what you said there has any bearing on the fact that EVERYTHING in post #20 was attacking your ARGUMENT. You were not called any names. You yourself were not mocked. Your ARGUMENT was mocked and satirized, but in a way entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
You, in fact, are the one guilty of argumentum ad hominem, since you responded to a perfectly valid criticism of your points by calling Meanie childish. You use words without any understanding of their meaning, misplace the burden of proof, treat anecdotes as admissible fact, and generally make a mockery of reason while claiming to espouse it. In light of these observations, I believe you are generally a disgrace.

@53: Your viewpoint doesn't account for "belling the cat" type scenarios, where everyone wants something done but nobody wants to be responsible for doing it. Suppose those four roommates are debating buying a smoke detector to reduce their risk of dying in a fire, and one guy opposes it while the other three support it. The options are:
-The three buy their smoke detector. The fourth guy benefits unfairly, getting all the extra security of the smoke detector without contributing anything towards it.
-The three guys force the fourth guy to chip in for it. He was forced to act in accordance with collectivism rather than misguided individualism. I have little sympathy for him.

THAT is pretty much how civilization works. Things like roads or armed forces or protection against transmissible diseases can't be decided on an individual basis the way pizza slices can. It's all or none in these concerns, and the petulance of the few cannot be allowed to unnecessarily endanger the many.
This country, with its system of representative democracy, has been here far longer than you have. If you don't want to be a part of it, you're free to leave, since the United States of America has seniority over you.

@55

What you are talking about is minarchism: using public money (taxation) only for protection from aggression. So, you are saying you're okay with people only being taxed for defense and police but not for things like the War on drugs, welfare, education etc? If so, I agree.

And representative democracy is mob rule. As Ben Franklin once said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the results."

By your own logic, it is okay for Uganda to have their "kill the gays" law. After all, they too are a representative democracy. Or how about if Utah voted away rights for gays? Hey, it's a democracy.

As for the old "Roads" fallacy, they can be built just as effectively without taxation. We could create a system of tolls and private roads or people with cars could pay taxation on roads while others don't. We already have something like that in the form of gasoline taxes.

And yes, taxation has always been a part of civilization. But that doesn't make it moral. Slavery was also "how civilization worked" until we evolved. Likewise, eventually we will evolve into seeing taxation as just as evil as slavery.

And America has also had a system of anarch-capitalism. Again, the old west had lower crime than today's cities and still had schools, towns, services etc without government or taxation.

And telling someone to leave if they don't like it can be turned around just as easily: Luxemburg has a high minimum wage, why don't YOU move there?

Much of what @55 said, but there is a further issue: Nobody got where they are by themselves. Everyone incubated and was completely helpless for the first several years of their life. Collectivism built our society, and we are all irreparably indebted to it. Ultimately, I care about the species more than individuals. Individuals should be treated well, but in cases where individuals interests and society and the species' interests conflict, I will favor society's claim.

Education is too important to leave only to those who care to support. It is a public good, and must be a public cost. If you want to live in a society with education, you want to reap the benefits (lower crime, etc), you have to pay. MYOB fails because too many things ARE everyone's business. You say we should go to minarchy, but that still has government and taxes, you just only want enough force to protect individuals, without the force to HELP. People do not act rationally most of the time, so expecting them to start by just cutting government is laughable. Your monarchist society places individual rights and freedoms above the community, but you TELL us that people will still care about others. Your focus is on individualism, but you say other people will be cared for.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch…

A bit of research on voluntary societies and their abilities.

@56: Don't you put words in my mouth, boy. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned protection against infectious diseases in my list of things that are "all or nothing", referencing the concept of "herd immunity" which comes up a lot when we are forced to put anti-vaxxers in their place.
What I ACTUALLY SAID was that some situations where either everyone benefits or no one does, and that allowing people to exempt themselves from providing the benefit either forces their will on the rest or allows them to unfairly benefit from the very thing they oppose. That includes but is by no means limited to public education, food and drug purity standards, military defense, large-scale transportation systems, water and power infrastructure, judicial systems, fire and police departments, and many many other functions, most of which are (surprise surprise) commonly managed by governmental bodies.

Additionally, Benjamin Franklin NEVER said the quote you falsely attributed to him. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

I did not make an argument in favor of pure democracy (a.k.a. "mob rule"). In fact, I exhibited what by my own claims was an EXCEPTIONAL situation where the right of the many to protection actually trump the right of the few to self-determination. In most cases, it is unjust to allow a majority to force a minority into a certain course of action; I explicitly referenced a scenario which is the exception that proves the rule.
You deliberately misconstrued that as an argument in favor of government by plebiscite and attacked THAT position rather than the position I actually took. This is what is known as a "strawman". (You have previously applied the term "strawman" to various other tactics of debate, such as raising extraneous points, but I don't recall you ever using it correctly to describe a mischaracterization of an opponent's argument as an entirely different argument that is easily refuted. This does not lend credibility to your debate skills.)

Finally, I'm advocating a change to current laws, which is compatible with our current system of government. You're advocating for a complete overhaul thereof, which would necessitate writing a new constitution, since the current one requires the federal government to perform certain duties from which you think it should be forbidden.

In conclusion: kiss my ass. QED

@59: One issue: an exception can never prove a rule, and that common phrase is stupid =P

On the other hand, I like your post.

@60: "The exception that proves the rule" is a much-misused phrase but capable of correctly describing a situation. Specifically, the exception must be contingent on unusual and improbable circumstances taking the situation outside the bounds of the rule. My example of the smoke detector was the exception to the rule of self-determination based on the unusual circumstance of the one man's self-determination inherently infringing on that of the other three.