YiamCross wrote: Perhaps they'll create a new category of Civil Restraint for failed McKenzie friends and if they do I bet Ebert will be first on the list.
It's a possibility and as such another unhappy by-product of these types of fools, because whilst they think they're bringing the system down they are actually bolstering it and making it more constrictive.
I'm a big fan of freedom, and I'm sure most people are. I'm not talking freetard freedom here, I'm talking more about living in as non-restrictive society, as possible, with pretty much the right to do anything, up to the point where it begins to impact on society and others.
I think it's a pretty universal sentiment, regardless of political orientation, the debates are usually only ever over where exactly the lines should be drawn.
Freedom, however, comes at a price, and that price is responsibility.
When these people can not, or refuse to, act in a responsible manner, it is then that we get legislation and laws to force the issue.
If everyone was a model citizen we wouldn't need a single law, as there wouldn't be a single person to break them, but when people refuse to pay their debts, attempt to con others, commit acts of assault, or affray, commit criminal damage, or waste the courts time with vexatious litigation, then the law has to step in.
