No offense but I am having trouble following your train of thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zay
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Re: Are there better ways to promote government shrinkage?
Linear Mode
