@Obiwan: "Do you like having a (still) top-of-the-line, world-leading Army and Navy and Air Force to protect you from invasion and potential threats?" No, I don't like it.
"Do you like the roads and other public works that are, at least in part, made possible by a big state effort?" Why does the state have to provide that?
"Do you like the fact your rights as a minority won't be trampled by a mob or majority rule, that the majority can have its say and edecide but not unjustly kick around the minority parties?" this would not happen in properly set up anarchy.

@Obiwan and @Jack Klein... good responses.

@krellin, judges making judgments about the law is pretty central to the Constitution. If you support there being a constitution to protect rights and provide checks and balances, and in particular, if you support the "original intent" of the founders, and you understand what you mean by that, then surely it follows that you would support judges doing their job according to Article III of said Constitution. This is not tyranny, it is indeed defense against tyranny by the other two branches. It is checks and balances. Not to say that the judicial branch is immune to making unsound decisions but it is doing its job when it makes decisions on the Constitutionality of the law... and in this particular case, on the federal Constitutionality of the state Constitutional amendment. ...and the possibility of making an unsound decision is checked by getting second opinions through the appeals process.

A benchmarking question:

Those of you who dislike the ruling against Prop 8 because you feel the judge ignored and subverted the will of the people, how do you feel about DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago? Activist judicial tyranny or safeguarding Constitutional rights?

Jeepers, if there was anything a 'conservative' should absolutely loathe it should be the tyranny of the majority.

Come guys, be consistent with yer principles. Otherwise people will think you are spineless as liberals. :P

@Conservative Man:

Well, if you don't like all those anemities the nation provides, ie, protection and public works projects and public education (though admittedly there your mileage and quality may vary there from state to state) then, as cliche as this retort is...

Why not leave?

It is cliche and admittedly so, but in this case, I think it's justified; after all, you do give up natural rights to live in a state via a social contract, Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau had wildly different ideas of how government should be but they all could at least agree on that, so if you aren't pleased witht eh services of the sate, why not void your social contract, so to speak, and leave the state for the State of Nature, ie, no nation, or at least not the nation you are dissatisfied with?

@obiwan: Why should I have to leave? And where the hell should I go? Governments are everywhere.

Well, its good to know that my elbow from the turnbuckle finished this off. :)

@obiwan again: "you do give up natural rights to live in a state via a social contract"
What social contract? A contract would require my consent, which I have never gave.

Sure you did, conservative man. You remain in your society, which is clear implied consent.

@obiwan's last reply to me:
I see where you're coming from,
though we got somewhat side-tracked about the Bible's references to adultery. I should have been a bit more clear: when I said "adultery", I was using it in the broad sense (almost non-existent in secular usage, which I think is where I confused you on my meaning), which covers any and all wrongdoings relating to sex or marriage, as are expanded upon in other areas of the Law of Moses.

@Bob: WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU WANT ME TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LEAVE MY SOCIETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT IMPLIES CONSENT, SO HOW THE FUCK COULD I HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????

I can't believe this anti-government, completely unregulated market, supply side economics crap that Reagan started peddling actually caught on with people. I hope the other side starts speaking up, because I do not want to go down this path of anarchy and live in a society where our best idea is handing money to rich people to help the economy. These are failed ideas, why is it so unpopular to stand on the other side of them?

Or, look at what happened last time when there was talk of a social contract, and people were pissed off at the establishment...

@Tantris: I don't want an unregulated market, I want no market.

@ConMan:
Well...Somalia would be the closest to anarchy. There are also some parts of Africa, Asia and South America. When they are crowded places, they are generally the scariest places on earth.

@Tantris: What if I don't want to live in a third world country? And Somalia isn't in good anarchy, it is in bad anarchy. Good anarchy takes time to set up. Bad anarchy is Somalia.

@ConMan:
How can there be no market? Man, are you some person who read Rand and just couldn't get back to reality? Even in Rand, there was a market, there was just no money, they traded goods. What does no market even mean? Everyone living completely on their own, isolated from everyone else, no using anything they don't produce completely on their own?

@Tantris: By no market, I meant no money.

Tantris, you should read one of his other threads. This one was about proposal 8 and somehow he turned it into his ideal government thread. Try reading the Conservative Man Weekly thread or The State thread. He outlines and gets bashed for his stupid ideas in those. No need to bring it into this one.

@ConMan
You could become Amish.

No, CM is not a primitivist. He may be a hard-core Christian, etc BUT, communists and anarchists are NOT primitivists.
My apologies for the caps, but for some reason, everyone equates communism/anarchism with primitivism.

@Tantris: But wouldn't I still live in the US? So wouldn't I still have that "social conract"? Anyway, I kind of like technology, so no.

@Conservative Man-

An honest query here. Don't you see the contradiction when you say "good anarchy takes time to set up"? After all, if its anarchy that means you do as you please right? No government, everyone can do as they want, etc. So what is there to "set up"? Setting something up implies a group of people in charge, or in other words, not anarchy.

@Drano: It requires money to be abolished, people need to learn about anarchy, and probably some other minor things to set anarchy up.

I see. I think I remember this conversation from the Priceless Economic System discussion. If I recall it became a stalemate. Because no one really listened to the other sides arguments. My view is that while in theory anarchy may be better, it would be nigh impossible to properly implement and thus would end up worse most likely. For my reasons, simple refer to that other thread.

@Drano: I started that thread, so...
But still, the only way to really find out is to try it out, which is what I really want to do.

By all mean conservative man, try it out and let us know. You'd obviously have to do a small scale tryout first because there's no way anyone will get a government to try it. It sounds great, but I just think its too good to be true. You'd have to have a group of people who all participate in the PES, and as we know, there are many many people in the world who would just take advantage of the system and screw things up.

I can't for a while, I'm not even 18 yet. But eventually I will. I want to be known as the person that actually set anarchy in motion.

Textbook liberalism. The left knows they can't win at the ballot box, so they bypass the majority by picking a liberal judge and winning in court.

A gay judge should never hear a homosexuality-related case. Ever. That's bypassing democracy.