Not a formal essay or anything, just tossing ideas around:

At the age of 18,19, 20, or 21, it's debatable which one, you should be given the choice to continue being a US citizen or not. I understand that you can voluntarily renounce citizenship, but it's too obscured. A reminder at your coming-of-age birthday would be an important psychological check/balance. Government is a monopoly on force and it should be opened to competition against all lifestyles. Naturally, selective service should end as well. If the government operates satisfactorily, it should be able to continue running off of volunteer power.

When a previous law that influences cultural values reaches a satisfactory level, the law should expire.

Example:
Racial discrimination laws should be ended. The vast majority of entities would remain non-discriminant. The law is unnecessary redundancy. The outliers shouldn't be subjected to men with guns enforcing it. The loss of revenue via public awareness of their practices should be the only consequence they should face.

Symbolism is very important, and people need to be reminded that in most cases, it is NOT the government that maintains societal order.

Racial discrimination laws should be ended. The vast majority of entities would remain non-discriminant. The law is unnecessary redundancy. The outliers shouldn't be subjected to men with guns enforcing it. The loss of revenue via public awareness of their practices should be the only consequence they should face.



LOL, like hell they would, but it's no surprise you're ignorant on the matter given that you're a negritoid mestizo looking motherfucker from northern VA. Been to the south lately? I just got back from conservative America, even cities in the 100,000 population bracket have Confederate flags flying at businesses in the town square. The smaller towns? Don't get me started black people stay in their houses far more than they used to. White people outside of liberal cities use the word nigger openly now. They no longer pretend not to be racist. You're going to see a huge shift in racially oriented matters in the coming years, ever since November 4th whether you like it or not. I was amazed at what I saw, everything has changed.

By the way in quite a few areas in the south/midwest/northeast racial discrimination laws aren't even followed.

LOL, like hell they would, but it's no surprise you're ignorant on the matter given that you're a negritoid mestizo looking motherfucker from northern VA. Been to the south lately? I just got back from conservative America, even cities in the 100,000 population bracket have Confederate flags flying at businesses in the town square. The smaller towns? Don't get me started black people stay in their houses far more than they used to. White people outside of liberal cities use the word nigger openly now. They no longer pretend not to be racist. You're going to see a huge shift in racially oriented matters in the coming years, ever since November 4th whether you like it or not. I was amazed at what I saw, everything has changed.

Let those small towns be. Everyone has a right to say the word nigger or put up a flag that symbolizes idiocy and shopkeepers have a right to deny service to anyone. What are you scared of, Dale and Bubba's saloon franchising in your neighborhood? Their discrimination policy inherently limits their market share. If a particular community can function homogeneously, then so be it.

It's no wonder you're a subscriber to this idiotology, let's not forget who produces grain, cotton, cattle, and so fourth. Under your libertarian policies these individuals will reap the benefits of state's rights and secede immediately. It's not just rural white areas either, it's the majority of the south, and even a good deal of liberals who voted for Obama feel the same exact way, and are on a guilt trip. It's not just dale and bubba it's the millionaire who runs a tractor supply company, farmers, principals, city officials, local politicians, police officers, and so forth. If people are given the right to serve anyone they want, I assure you that will be one mitigating factor that ultimately would lead to your insectoid ass getting deported to Guatemala where you can enjoy getting your arms cut off with a machete for stealing sugar cane. I'm just trying to let you know, what you're arguing for isn't in your best interests Libertarianism is a white concept only whites can fully understand and have passion for it.

@title, government "shrinkage"

I know you weren't being serious however I couldn't help but wonder what the right word would be.

Downsizing? Slimming?

It's no wonder you're a subscriber to this idiotology, let's not forget who produces grain, cotton, cattle, and so fourth. Under your libertarian policies these individuals will reap the benefits of state's rights and secede immediately. It's not just rural white areas either, it's the majority of the south, and even a good deal of liberals who voted for Obama feel the same exact way, and are on a guilt trip. It's not just dale and bubba it's the millionaire who runs a tractor supply company, farmers, principals, city officials, local politicians, police officers, and so forth. If people are given the right to serve anyone they want, I assure you that will be one mitigating factor that ultimately would lead to your insectoid ass getting deported to Guatemala where you can enjoy getting your arms cut off with a machete for stealing sugar cane. I'm just trying to let you know, what you're arguing for isn't in your best interests Libertarianism is a white concept only whites can fully understand and have passion for it.

Ok that was lame. You're slacking.

It would be retarded for someone to renounce their citizenship without being a citizen of another country, and even then, it's generally better to have multiple passports than just one.

And there are way too many racists out there to get rid of the laws. Are you high?

I think we should abandon all laws and simply rely heavily on a duel to the death system.

And there are way too many racists out there to get rid of the laws. Are you high?

Y'know something's seriously fucked up when I start agreeing with DerDrache.

No offense but I am having trouble following your train of thought.



At the age of 18,19, 20, or 21, it's debatable which one, you should be given the choice to continue being a US citizen or not. I understand that you can voluntarily renounce citizenship, but it's too obscured. A reminder at your coming-of-age birthday would be an important psychological check/balance.

So you are (I think) advocating that people should be given a reminder on their birthdays that they have the choice to give up citizenship. Then you are claiming that this reminder would be a psychological check/balance...am I correct?

1. You need to establish why it's desirable/needed (as you were implying) for people to have easy access to information on citizenship renouncement. I am not saying you are wrong; I just want to see your reasoning.

2. You need to prove/establish that it's too "obscure" for people to obtain such information.

3. How the hell did you even go from "reminder of the ability to renounce citizenship at birthdays" to "it will also be a psychological check/balance"?? Really, I need to know.

4. You might want to define what a "psychological check/balance" is, followed by why it's desirable/needed.



Government is a monopoly on force and it should be opened to competition against all lifestyles.

1. How did you go from "reminder of ability to renounce citizenship at birthdays, which also doubles as a psychological check" to "government having monopoly on force"? I am not saying the latter is wrong, I am just saying that I am having extreme difficulty following your mental process.

2. How did you go from "government having monopoly on force" to "therefore it should be opened to competition"?

3. "Competition against all lifestyles"? I am sorry but were you high when you typed that? How the heck could someone put "government monopoly" and "lifestyles" in the same sentence?


Naturally, selective service should end as well.

1. More disjointed thinking. You need to show how you went from "having competing lifestyles" to "now let's talk about selective services!!".

2. Also, you need to define what these "selective services" are, so the audience know what you are talking about.

3. You would probably do well to explain why you think these services should end.


If the government operates satisfactorily, it should be able to continue running off of volunteer power.

I think what you are trying to suggest is that, government should consist of volunteers? If this is the case, I believe I agree with you. Although I am perplexed by your usage of the word "continue". I was under the impression that currently governments are NOT running off of volunteer power, though I could be wrong.


When a previous law that influences cultural values reaches a satisfactory level, the law should expire.

1. This does not follow smoothly (if at all) from what precedes it, namely "government should be able to run off of volunteer power).

2. Might want to explain why you think so.


Example:
Racial discrimination laws should be ended. The vast majority of entities would remain non-discriminant. The law is unnecessary redundancy. The outliers shouldn't be subjected to men with guns enforcing it. The loss of revenue via public awareness of their practices should be the only consequence they should face.

1. "Entities" is too vague. Almost everything under the sun is an entity.
2. "Non-discriminant" is not a commonly-understood term/thing. Did you mean "not tend to be discriminated against"?
3. Kindly explain why you think the law is redundant.
4. You need to define what an "outlier" is/tell us what you mean it to be. It's not a commonly-used/commonly-understood word.
5. I have no idea what "The outliers shouldn't be subjected to men with guns enforcing it" means. Then again English is not my first language so maybe I am just having trouble comprehending things.
6. "The loss of revenue..blah blah" does not follow at all from what goes before it.


Symbolism is very important, and people need to be reminded that in most cases, it is NOT the government that maintains societal order.

1. "Symbolism"? I would advise that you refrain from introducing a new concept in the middle of a post, or at the very least, try and define it for the audience.
2. How did you go from "symbolism is important" to "it is not such that the government maintains the social order".

Finally, my advice to you is this: going from one concept to another without making sure the audience follows your logical train of thought, using words not commonly understood...etc does not make you appear smart (not that I am accusing you of trying to appear smart). If anything, they tend to confuse the readers.

To everybody else in the thread who talks like they understood OP perfectly:

You must be very good at deciphering disjointed thoughts, because I surely as hell do not know what zay was on about.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been posting a lot lately on a different forum where there's been a lot of exposure to these concepts already. This isn't esoteric, mind you, simply unfamiliar to most. I suppose that's why my other thread got 0 responses. I'll check back on this later to decide if it's beyond being translatable.

I'm a bit disoriented. Would an individual with a single citizenship not become stateless if he were to renounce his single citizenship? Would he not end up like the man who was the inspiration for that Tom Hanks film, The Terminal?

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been posting a lot lately on a different forum where there's been a lot of exposure to these concepts already. This isn't esoteric, mind you, simply unfamiliar to most. I suppose that's why my other thread got 0 responses. I'll check back on this later to decide if it's beyond being translatable.

You are welcome. I hope I wasn't being rude.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been posting a lot lately on a different forum where there's been a lot of exposure to these concepts already. This isn't esoteric, mind you, simply unfamiliar to most. I suppose that's why my other thread got 0 responses. I'll check back on this later to decide if it's beyond being translatable.

You can't just ignore obvious flaws in your proposal by claiming that we just don't understand.

This country was founded upon Majority Rule with Minority Rights.

Let me ask you this, Zay: Were the initial discrimination laws justified?