Democracy without constraint eventually leads to more socialism. We are well on our way.

Then your original point must not have been supported by your opening statement, nor any of you claims. Obviously your first sentence about how we're becoming more socialist because of not interpreting the Constitution literally was not in any way disagreed with, nor were any of your lofty unsupported generalizations supported. Take a class on history, you might learn that if you provide a statement that relies on some historical perspective, no one takes you seriously unless you provide examples. You never pointed out how this country has "devolved towards socialism." This statement, "Look back over the last 200 years, and you will see how the government's roll has devolved from protector to provider." Might prove something to you, however without an argument detailing specific historical references as to why you think that statement is true it's just a load of crap. If it were being graded as a historical argument, it would receive 0% Until you learn to write a historical argument, I'm going to suggest you refrain from trying to use them. In the United States, three out of the last four Presidents reduced services while dramatically increasing spending. Three of them pretended to be interested in "small government", while their polices effectively eroded civil liberties and created new layers of surveillance. Out of the last four Presidents, the only President that did not receive a second term is the one that said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then passed new taxes. This may be an indication that people do not vote for more taxes, more services, and less control over their money as "time goes by." During eight years of the Reagan administration, and the last seven years of George W. Bush's administration, taxes have been decreased while spending has dramatically increased. The percentage spent on "domestic programs", and on our entitlements (not including interest) has also shrunk. These facts do not support your view, they contradict it. And they actually are facts as opposed to me just claiming that a belief I have is a fact. I yet to meet a single solitary person who votes based off of the desire to have more control over other people's money. These people must be figments of your imagination. I seldom even meet people with the opinion that those who benefit the most from our nation, owe the most to our nation. Millionaires cheat on their taxes when they don't need to. They spend thousands of dollars to hire accountants and utilize loopholes in the tax code out of no other reason than self greed, and a refusal to pay to support the system which has enriched them. When people talk about closing loopholes in the tax code, they don't mean "I want to control this person's money" they're saying, "I think this person is being a criminal, and robbing from their government and their people." It's not very patriotic. The idea that this nation has become more socialist is not a fact. See the previous data I provided showing how the top 1% earners of this nation have been earning more and more, or the wage disparity between CEOs and their employees, and how dramatically it has increased in the last three decades is a pretty solid indication that we're not moving towards socialism. The dramatic increase in consumer debt among the lower and middle class is a pretty solid indication that you're wrong. You're so afraid about our nation becoming a socialist nation when most of our Representatives and Senators are in the top 1% of earners? That's like being afraid of Santa Claus. I didn't rename your argument that human nature is the path of least resistance, I told you it was wrong. Read 4.) from the first round.I provided you several examples as to why it was wrong. If you believe that "Least resistance" is the same as the "will to surivive", then why didn't those Inuit people all relocate to the tropics 5,000 years ago instead of staying put in the arctic circle? The will to survive is why a starving person will steal and kill to eat, which is why ignoring the problem out of ideology or greed has worse consequences than just feeding the hungry. You can even pretend to be a Christian while you do it. Do you always take the path of least resistance? Because any time you don't do the easiest thing possible, according to your own argument you're being "inhuman." A good philosopher usually doesn't define human nature in such a way that they become inhuman. The only thing that is historically inevitable about democracies is that every democracy has failed because it's a democracy. Other forms of government usually collapse due to outside pressures, Democracies collapse because eventually to voting bloc will do something incredibly incompetent, like support a government with a 500,000,000,000 dollar budget deficit for seven years and then not understand why their economy is tanking. Look at Athens for example, conquered by Sparta because some idiot convinced the people to support a military strategy that bankrupted the city, and lost its entire fleet and army on some ill-fated expedition to Sicily when they could have won the war if they had just continued to follow the original strategy laid forth by Pericles before the Peloponnesian war began. So, in closing; you're wrong. You don't become right by pretending as if my statements that contradict yours never happened, or don't disprove anything so they're not worthy of a response. I'm sorry that you cannot defend or further support any of your views. I know this doesn't mean you'll change your mind, but I was honestly hoping to have a debate with a person who had some substance to their viewpoint.