Applying the principle of charity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) to cheez's remarks, one would assume that preventing violence is not one of the powers he advocated taking from the government.
If his argument is a silly one-liner that's demonstrably refuted with a pointer to Somalia as an example of "less government", it's not javek's responsibility to fill in the blanks for him.
Or, to use a political example, if anyone advocates more regulation of X, it's incumbent on them to explicitly explain they aren't actually advocating Stalism.
This gives us an easy way to dismiss all views we disagree with without even having to consider the actual proposal.
And I'd similarly pile on anyone who asked for quote "more regulation" without specifying so much as an industry and type of behavior to be regulated.
Note to self: don't hire pedantic employees who interpret my statements in the most unreasonable way possible just to prove a point.
Of course not, because you wouldn't be trying to set up a strawman to attack if I said that.
"it's incumbent on Cheez to make a less simplistic argument if he doesn't want to be subject to reductio ab adsurdum."
Bullshit. Bullshit in any circumstance.