I haven’t read it yet, but at first glance, it could use some line breaks…
My god, Carleas - I’m gonna make a cup of tea, and then settle down to read your opening post… I haven’t read this much since I left art college, for christ’ sake! 
Lacks a convincing bridge - ok cooperation for specialization, but why government.
ILO’s response: Yes cooperation is necessary, but the large scale cooperation spoken of cannot be ensured even by the most powerful government. Other factors are at work, and other factors suffice. Government is a self-fulfilling prophesy that generates unequal power structures to begin with, this unequal beginning ensures future strife, and future strife ensures the need for future government. Government itself guarantees that cooperation is dependent upon it. Dissolve power structures at the start, and you radically alter large scale human relationships and the need for government, without altering the need for cooperation.
Rebuttal: Human nature.
Response: You only have access to humans behaving under well defined power structures, what you call human nature is human behavior within governmental systems. Is it surprising that human nature, a most elusive chimera, has been defined in a way that maintains the status quo?
We may not know what human nature outside of mega-government looks like, but we can be certain that it is preferable to the modern oppressive mega-government that generates a society of walking-dead and sustains itself on the backs of foreign slave-labor. The truly “successful” governments are western governments, but that’s not because they are preferable governments, it is because they are efficient governments. They maintain themselves by sucking a planets worth of resources and a species worth of labor. They work in the same way that a parasite works, in a way that would allow the most abortive structure to work, by using exponentially more than they produce. This is preferable to nothing, absolutely nothing.
Well, that’s it folks ol’ ethical lilfe there has solved everything. Let’s go home.
nice bird
-Imp
Relax Tab, you’re already in the debate, let your fascist instincts subside and quit trying to control the conversation. It will be okay.
Yeah well, at least Fascists don’t go around shouting “Hey everyone - Look at how fucking clever I am” all the time. They just gas you and chuck your corpse in a big hole.
Seriously, just quit trying to control this thread and mediate behavior with meta-posts. People will criticize and you won’t be able to defend yourself. If you’re unsure how to act, just mimic Carleas’ behavior.
Suriously people…suriously.
Someone confiscate that man’s motivational poster template.
Anyone read the ILO Debate Discussion thread? Good stuff. No pissing monkeys yet, though.
Sittlichkeit, I have read this thread over and tried to look at this in the most favorable light.
After due consideration, I have come to the conclusion that you are bitter due to not being selected to represent ILP in this debate, and are quite possibly over-acting.
I say these things with all due respect.
My conclusion may be wrong, but if it is not, I would like you to know that I think you are an excellent intellect and would have made a great debater for ILP. I have read through some of your post history.
If I was voting for ILP’s debaters I could have easily found twenty reasons to vote you in, the only problem is that, by necessity, I would have had to have not voted for someone else that is already in this debate and that would be very hard to do.
I believe that I would put you on an equal plane with the debaters chosen by ILP, so then I think it becomes a question of familiarity. How familiar are those voting with you as compared to others?
You have the right to criticize the indivudal voters for incorporating this question into their decisions, but the voters all have the same right to incorporate same question into their decisions. The people voted for whoever they voted for for whatever reason they voted for them, and there were no rules guidelining why you should or should not vote for a certain person.
At the end of the day, popular approval had you not in this debate, rejection can often be very hard to swallow, but it is a fact of life. Perhaps if ILP emerges from this on the losing end, or wins a very narrow victory, then next time around the voters will think differently about who they wish to vote for.
I think you’re saying “sweet ass” here.
I just found Tab’s attempt to mock me for discussing the topic to be fascist. Notice what is implied here, that he can discuss the topic, but no one else ought to. I saw right through his retarded and over-done images.
[size=85][dropped][/size]
[size=85][those are Smarties™ btw.][/size]
Who’s posting first for ILO? The best for us would be Gobbo, and the worst for us would be SIATD.
Their lineup should go SIATD, SS, OG, Gamer.
Looks like OG is on point.
I have just posted OG?..Gift Please’s introduction.
Remember the unwanted advice I gave ILP about OG and SIATD? The trap is set, will ILP’s next up fall into it and get tricked into arguing for a specious understanding of government? Or could one concede every point and suffer no damage whatsoever. What would be truly impressive is if the next post allowed them to continue to argue their straw man without endorsing or destroying it.
Dear OG:
Federalist papers 51.