"The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less."

I'm sorry that I couldn't posted my last round in time -- life struck again. Luckily, we have a 5 round debate on our hands. ________________________________________________________________________ "My suggestion is guidelines and a democratic application of law. Instead of a grand jury to determine if a law has been broken a grand jury to determine if it matters in this case. Grand juries don't get to say 'yes he broke the law but in this case the law was wrong' the position legally that law is always right is absurd, that is the nature of the law. Law is not a guideline, a guideline is what I suggest. Guidelines flex, laws only flex via deception, interpretation, or enforcement. The complexity of the law is such that everyone is a criminal to some degree or another. From stealing pens to jay walking to mp3s to drugs and up, everyone is a criminal to some degree. This will only get worse until we realize what law is and what to do about it." I find it awful unfair to me as a debater when you consistently change your position everytime I defeat the one that has been presented. It was much implied in your arguements that you suggested the removal of all law for the betterment of society -- that more freedom is always better. Then, you admit that there are exceptions to both stances, and act as if I know that you mean 'in general' when you had not said so until round 3 of the debate. All I can do now is point out another apparent contradiction in your argument, and attempt to chop away at its premises by doing so. What exactly are the voters voting on here? Whether or not the title of the debate is truthful, whether or not bedstraps are a successful solution, whether or not laws are corrupt, or if guidelines are the best solution for society as opposed to laws? Or is it something else? If we are simply engaging in a discussion in which voters must determine who is 'most right' on the 'most issues' then this will get awful hairy. I'm perfectly fine with discussion, debate, and argument for the purposes of eliminating flaws and learning, but that is not the only factor here. This -- would there not be more freedom if we did not use any guidelines? Surely, if guidelines are superior to laws because they offer more freedom, then having no guidelines would be superior to having them, because it would offer more freedom. But, you suggest guidelines as the solutions to our problems of lack of freedom, and crime. Well, let's assume that they are, even though a major part of your reasoning for them seems to have a contradiction, and I will attack that idea as well. Your proposed guidelines are so flexible, they are inevitably due to mean too little too much of the time. How can one truly determine if the law is wrong in particular situations on a great deal of situations? For just as many situations that propose the ability to say, 'the law is wrong', and let someone off the hook, there will be situations where it is very unclear as to whether or not it is. You also open up the ability to have people who are tried argue whether or not the law was wrong rather than whether or not they were wrong. 'Guidelines' would be difficult to enforce, and ultimately lead to a lack of credibility in the entire system -- simply because it will be bended with its flexibility all the way until it starts to break. That is until you start adding more rules, and more guidelines as to how exactly it will work. Laws exist, and people are still able to lead happy lives -- the addition of a wishy-washy way of enforcing guidelines will do little to help it. In general, most 'good' (I use the term loosely) people are not negatively affected to any reasonable extent by law. But, rather, the 'bad' (") are affected by the law. The law does what it can and does it well. It provides a means for order, and stability where otherwise it may not be. Yes, it provides for the state, but inherently in doing so it aids the people. The repeal of certain laws -- warranted. The complete removal of the entire system -- not warranted. "Teach a person to defend themselves and you don't have to defend them." Easier said than done. In a world where everyone can defend themselves, it is little different than a world where everyone cannot. The 'evil, and the 'good'. in each situation. still remain on the same level. "Again, freedom would be better. But this opens up a dangerous door. Are straps any different form a padded room? From an island? From a planet?" Padded room -- no. Island -- yes. Unless you propose that the island houses no other roaming people on it, but in any case, we don't know have enough islands to simply place on the people that need to be restrained in the world. A planet -- yes. A planet isn't restraining anybody from anything unless we place that person on their own planet all alone in order to 'restrain' them. "I believe I have, but if you feel I have not please try again, and I apologize for the delay." Your words have become a bit twisted along the way on this matter that I brought up -- I probably can't explain it any better than I already have. You've claimed that bedstraps help people and at the same time the idea that bedstraps help people are insane. "Uhh, yes it does. Outside the physical constants ALL things change given sufficient time. Because 'things' are human descriptors. And we change. You speak of immortality and murder, but an immortal may have no concept of murder. And unfortunately for you I am a transhumanist, I do see immortality in our (somewhat near at these scales) future." The statement 'all things change' cannot be proven from what I can see. But this part of our discussion seems to be a bit off-topic. Sorry for my delays, and I am sorry that I haven't had time to proofread this round's post sufficiently. I am pressed for time.