Unhygenic response to Mike's glazed response

These are obviously no-brainer questions.

#1: I've never met anyone that wants government more involved. Statistically, people think that most laws apply to "those other people, not me." When the majority of the people can say that about a law, it's probably bad. I borrowed that from somone I read today, I forgot who.
#2: I became a staunch libertarian when I read Lew Rockwell argue about taxation as a policy. Specifically, can there be a voluntary tax? Answer: No, a tax isn't voluntary. He then argued that taxes are basically theft. The only way the government gets money is from the citizens. If I take your money, theft. If the government takes it, taxes. In neither case do you really have a say in how much money gets taken or what it gets used for. Taking that, and realizing how much worthless pablum issues out of Congress every year (anything by Stevens from Alaska for example), it became a lot easier for me to want to hack and slash my way through the spending. All spending from Congress starts with theft from the people. If the people end up wanting it, great. But how many people really want the pork that's out there? How many benefit? Even if you assume an entire state benefits from a piece of state pork, that's not even approaching a majority of defrauded citizens.
#3: Don't need to say much here. If you truly think the government can think better for you, just commit a crime and go to jail. Then they think for you, plus feed, clothe, and shelter you. Little more sodomy than average though.
#4: You have thus touched on why democracy, as an ideal, has remarkably evil shortcomings. The majority can rule their way right into any damn fool idea they want and fuck everyone. Is that really the goal of our system of government? How many times does the Constitution menton democracy? Answer: 0. Even the Fathers thought it had a few flaws in it, and most of them read political theory that our mudflinging miscreants reps have never heard of.
#5: Your analogy is not particularly apt. We can have a discussion regarding this issue, but you'll need a better platform to work for. Specifically, show me your right to have a view of Mars. You can't because there isn't one. The effect I'm allowed to have on you stops at your right to have something or prevent me from doing something to you. A right is something you are guaranteed to have, something you can compel others to let you have. A responsibility is something others can compel you to give them. You can argue about outlawing smoking in homes because second hand smoke can leave the yard (like the geniuses in MD did), for example. That would be more apt for this topic. Natural law, basis for the Constitution, says there IS a private property right that is absolute, or as absolute as anything can be. But the right to own property is becoming more and more muddied by Congress' interventions. Think about it this way. Banning smoking in bars. Private property issue. If I own the bar, I have the right to decide what goes on there. YOu can come in or not, as you choose but while here, you have to abide by my rules. Until Congress decides that "No, no no, we know better." So you decide for yourself how much you want to be told what you can and can't do. Because if Congress can do it to a privat ebusiness, eventually that same principle will be used to skewer the populace.