Real Life Ragnar
TC
"The most intriguing alias listed in court papers is Ragnor Danksjold,
a variation on the character Ragnar Danneskjold in the Ayn Rand novel
"Atlas Shrugged.""
John Alway
Great story! They guy is heroic, but taking on a daunting task.
Btw..., Ragnar isn't a Robin Hood in reverse. He robs from the
taxers and gives to the taxed. That's what Robin Hood did.
...John
moralre...@hotmail.com
Ken Gardner
> Great story! They guy is heroic, but taking on a daunting task.
> Btw..., Ragnar isn't a Robin Hood in reverse. He robs from the
>taxers and gives to the taxed. That's what Robin Hood did.
I have a slightly different take on this story. Pretty soon I am
going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars to the government,
in part because assholes like this guy cheat on their taxes and
consequently leave more of the tax burden for the rest of us.
Ken
Chris Cathcart
Ken Gardner wrote:
> I have a slightly different take on this story. Pretty soon I am
> going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars to the government,
> in part because assholes like this guy cheat on their taxes and
> consequently leave more of the tax burden for the rest of us.
Kool-Aid Ken, right on cue.
n
n
n
n
nn
Atlas Bugged
news:0hkq21tm6vkh519u5...@4ax.com...
> I have a slightly different take on this story. Pretty soon I am
> going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars to the government,
> in part because assholes like this guy cheat on their taxes and
> consequently leave more of the tax burden for the rest of us.
Oh, c'mon Ken. That's like saying your neighbors lock their doors at night,
and you don't, so it's the neighbors' fault you were burgled.
fred...@papertig.com
Or, a little better analogy, though on the same principle, to this
particular case might be: the one rich guy in the neighborhood who
normally would be the prime target of thieves installs very expensive
and high tech security devices. So the thieves direct their attention
to everyone else. Whose fault is it? The rich guy because he denies the
burglars access to his house which if he did they would bother everyone
else less.
Or, let's not identify the real source of the problem: the thieves.
My position on this is that we should all pay as little taxes as we
prudently think we can get away with (the advice of a good tax attorney
is probably recommended). Whether this guy has acted prudently is
another question. But he - no more than anyone else - doesn't owe us
his sacrifice. What needs to stop is the sacrificing.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> Or, a little better analogy, though on the same principle, to this
> particular case might be: the one rich guy in the neighborhood who
> normally would be the prime target of thieves installs very expensive
> and high tech security devices. So the thieves direct their attention
> to everyone else. Whose fault is it? The rich guy because he denies
the
> burglars access to his house which if he did they would bother
everyone
> else less.
>
> Or, let's not identify the real source of the problem: the thieves.
>
> My position on this is that we should all pay as little taxes as we
> prudently think we can get away with (the advice of a good tax
attorney
> is probably recommended). Whether this guy has acted prudently is
> another question. But he - no more than anyone else - doesn't owe us
> his sacrifice. What needs to stop is the sacrificing.
And more, someone please give me some evidence that "when the rich pay
more" it reduces the tax burden on everyone else. When has the gov't
once it starts taxing us ever stopped on some principle of, "if the
rich pay their 'fair share', we'll tax everyone else less"? The rich in
fact pay and pay and pay. As a percent of the population all the data
indicates that they pay a disproportionality high percent of the total
taxes collected. I don't know the actual numbers, but it wouldn't
surprise me if the top 10% of the wage earners pays something like 50%
of the taxes.
The primary issue is gov't spending and does anyone know of any
examples of gov't spending being reduced. Any?
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
>
> I have a slightly different take on this story. Pretty soon I am
> going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars to the government,
> in part because assholes like this guy cheat on their taxes and
> consequently leave more of the tax burden for the rest of us.
You blame the potential victim of theft for avoiding theft instead of
the thief. Why do you do that? It is the gummint that is taking your
money. I will bet you object to free riders.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
> >taxers and gives to the taxed. That's what Robin Hood did.
>
> I have a slightly different take on this story. Pretty soon I am
> going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars to the government,
> in part because assholes like this guy cheat on their taxes and
> consequently leave more of the tax burden for the rest of us.
Man, that's pretty naive.
Do you remember the Grace Commission back in 1981 or so? IIRC, they found
about half of the money government spent each year was wasted and could only
identify about 25% that they could even say was remotely authorized by the
Constitution.
Do your even begin to think that eliminating tax "cheats" would reduce tax
rates? I suppose if heroin prices went up that the addicts would just cure
themselves.
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Ultra Benevolent Guy
Yes, but Robin Hood, the taxed just happened to be poor, which provided
the moral backdrop, and Ragnar Danneskjold does not represent the
over-taxed poor, he represents the over-taxed producers -- the would-be
rich.
Robin Hood and Ragnar Danneskjold are not from the same moral universe
as you think.
John Alway
First, I doubt what you say.
Second, if everyone were like that guy, there would be no compulsory
taxes.
You're blaming the victim for the actions of the likes of people like
Kennedy.
...John
fred...@papertig.com
> Ultra Benevolent Guy wrote:
>
> > Yes, but Robin Hood, the taxed just happened to be poor, which
provided
> > the moral backdrop, and Ragnar Danneskjold does not represent the
> > over-taxed poor, he represents the over-taxed producers -- the
would-be
> > rich.
> >
> > Robin Hood and Ragnar Danneskjold are not from the same moral
universe
> > as you think.
>
the
> unproductive consumers *are* the rich. Simple as that.
Yes. Society at that time essentially being divided between the
nobility and...everyone else.
The other problem is that the status of the original Robin Hood is
something of a mystery, of who he was and what he actually did or
didn't do, or even if he actually ever existed.
Of course why would little matters of this nature stop a Cat-Toy from
pontificating.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> Great story! They guy is heroic, but taking on a daunting task.
http://tinyurl.com/3sorp
On a much smaller scale, but just as uphill, I'll be keeping an eye out
for this fed-up guy quoted in the local fish-wrapper.
" At the end of the meeting, Ratigin calmly explained to the
board why he was starting the revolt. He also passed out a list to
everyone of the 12 reasons he thinks it is time for a taxpayers' revolt.
Included in his list:
- Property taxes are immoral. They steal from certain classes and are
unfair in proportion and distribution.
- Property taxes are discriminatory - favor certain types of property.
- Tax system gives a blank check to local, county and state spending.
This check was made to be good by the property owner.
"I want the ear of the people sitting at this desk," he
said. "The people are fed up. I have decided the system is broken." "
xexist
> The other problem is that the status of the original Robin Hood is
> something of a mystery, of who he was and what he actually did or didn't
> do, or even if he actually ever existed.
I was once googling for "Braveheart" and came upon a website that claimed
the RH story was based upon William Wallace. (caveat: The site was a
Scot's, who claimed, "the British steal everything from us.")
Ken Gardner
Wow. Is everyone so utterly clueless when it comes to the distinction
between tax avoidance and outright tax evasion? Or is it merely the
fact that they don't pay enough in taxes to care that they are getting
stuck with the bill for someone else's tax evasion?
I hope the IRS nails the asshole and he goes to jail for the next ten
thousand fucking years. I also want a POG and a tax structure -- or,
better yet, voluntary financing -- commensurate with such a
government. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Do your even begin to think that eliminating tax "cheats" would reduce tax
>rates?
I ultimately foot the bill for someone else's tax evasion. That's
different.
Ken
John Alway
David Buchner wrote:
[...]
> "I want the ear of the people sitting at this desk," he
> said. "The people are fed up. I have decided the system is broken." "
A 20% increase? Unbelievable! I hope he prevails.
One problem is that his reasons aren't quite right. It's immoral
because a man's wealth is his and he should be secure in it. In fact,
a legitmate government has the job of providing that security, not
undermining it.
...John
Ken Gardner
> First, I doubt what you say.
> Second, if everyone were like that guy, there would be no compulsory
>taxes.
> You're blaming the victim for the actions of the likes of people like
>Kennedy.
When the tax evaders don't pay their legal share, we who do are the
ones who get fucked by the tax man even worse than if they did. Being
a rational egoist, I object to getting fucked over even worse because
someone else is cheating on his taxes. This is an entirely different
issue from whether the government itself is to blame for taxing me too
much in the first place. If government is already taxing me too much,
then the tax evaders are merely pouring more gasoline on the fire.
Ken
R Lawrence
Maybe, but it doesn't seem like a very good match. The early stories of
Robin Hood aren't much like the modern image of him. They don't have
much to do with robbing the rich to give to the poor, or seeking justice
for the oppressed. (There's no Maid Marian in the earlies tales,
either.) They're more just adventure stories, with an anti-clerical
bent. For example, Robin helps a knight regain property from an abbot.
I've found that a good use for the Robin Hood legend is as a test for
different approaches to historical controversies, because he mostly
lacks religious, ethnic or nationalistic significance. If you try to
argue about how to interpret documentary evidence in the context of,
say, Jesus, or the afformentioned William Wallace, you inevitably
encounter problems with lack of objectivity from people who have
pre-existing commitments to proving that this person did X, or didn't do
X, or didn't exist, or did exist, all of which distorts their
evaluations of different historical methods. Robin doesn't carry as much
baggage.
--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
John Alway
Ken Gardner wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > First, I doubt what you say.
> > Second, if everyone were like that guy, there would be no
compulsory
> >taxes.
> > You're blaming the victim for the actions of the likes of people
like
> >Kennedy.
> When the tax evaders
Tax "evaders" are men who expect to keep what they have *earned*.
> ...don't pay their legal share,
Nobody has any such obligation, period. A gun is not an argument.
> ...we who do are the
> ones who get fucked by the tax man even worse than if they did.
The problem is that you are presuming ownership of others. If you
uphold rights, then you will recognize this as being morally
horrendous.
> Being
> a rational egoist, I object to getting fucked over even worse because
> someone else is cheating on his taxes.
I would say it's irrational and non-egoistic, because 1> you're
supporting collectivism (the idea that a man must sacrifice for the
state), and 2> you're supporting coercion. Both of these are
logically unsupportable.
As a rational egoist, I recognize a man's right to keep what he has
earned, and I further recognize his right to his own life and
happiness.
>... This is an entirely different
> issue from whether the government itself is to blame for taxing me
too
> much in the first place. If government is already taxing me too
much,
> then the tax evaders are merely pouring more gasoline on the fire.
It shouldn't be taxing you at all.
The more people who fight the government, the more chance we have of
improving the situation. Guys like that should be encouraged, because
they are the front men in the battle. They are people willing to take
huge risks to battle the theft. These are exactly the people that we
should be supporting.
It's not the way I would fight the battle, because I don't like the
risks, but those who do chose that way, I will give moral support to.
...John
Ken Gardner
> Tax "evaders" are men who expect to keep what they have *earned*.
You mean, as opposed to people who don't evade taxes?
In fact, we all want to keep as much of our own property and income as
we can. In this regard, the people who cheat on their taxes are
making it harder for the rest of us. I am amazed that so many people
here don't get this very simple point. Either that, or they don't pay
enough taxes to give a shit. I do, and I do.
>> ...don't pay their legal share,
> Nobody has any such obligation, period. A gun is not an argument.
As a real world reality check, try this approach on April 15 and see
how far you get. Unless you want to live in fantasyland -- or, more
likely, in prison -- the choice isn't between paying or not paying
taxes that you legally owe, but between paying less and having to pay
more because of tax cheaters. If I have to pay, I want to pay as
little as possible -- and the less tax cheating that goes on, the less
I will have to pay myself.
>> ...we who do are the
>> ones who get fucked by the tax man even worse than if they did.
> The problem is that you are presuming ownership of others. If you
>uphold rights, then you will recognize this as being morally
>horrendous.
I'm not presuming anything except the existence of a choice between
bad enough and even worse. It is bad enough that I have to pay tens
of thousands of dollars in taxes. It is even worse that I could be
paying less but for the tax evaders.
>> Being
>> a rational egoist, I object to getting fucked over even worse because
>> someone else is cheating on his taxes.
> I would say it's irrational and non-egoistic, because 1> you're
>supporting collectivism (the idea that a man must sacrifice for the
>state), and 2> you're supporting coercion. Both of these are
>logically unsupportable.
The only logically unsupportable statement here is what you just said.
It isn't "supporting collectivism" or "supporting coercion" to pay the
taxes you legally owe -- note for emphasis that I said "legally owe,"
not "morally owe" -- upon pain of going to jail and/or seeing the
government seize my property.
> As a rational egoist, I recognize a man's right to keep what he has
>earned, and I further recognize his right to his own life and
>happiness.
Well, that's just great. It is also totally nonresponsive to my main
point, which is that I don't see why I should have to pay more in
taxes because someone else is evading his separate tax obligation.
>> ... This is an entirely different
>> issue from whether the government itself is to blame for taxing me
>> too much in the first place. If government is already taxing me too
>> much, then the tax evaders are merely pouring more gasoline on the fire.
> It shouldn't be taxing you at all.
Perhaps, but this is, again, totally beside the point, which is why
should I have to shoulder a disproportionately higher percentage of
the tax burden than the tax cheat?
> The more people who fight the government, the more chance we have of
>improving the situation. Guys like that should be encouraged, because
>they are the front men in the battle. They are people willing to take
>huge risks to battle the theft. These are exactly the people that we
>should be supporting.
[Insert "barf" here. Really.]
> It's not the way I would fight the battle, because I don't like the
>risks, but those who do chose that way, I will give moral support to.
I hope the IRS finds and prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the
law, including extensive jail time as well as payment in full of all
back taxes along with interest and penalties -- and then returns it to
those of us who did pay their taxes and consequently had to shoulder a
disproportionate share of the tax burden because of these losers.
Ken
xexist
> I've found that a good use for the Robin Hood legend is as a test for
> different approaches to historical controversies, because he mostly
> lacks religious, ethnic or nationalistic significance. If you try to
> argue about how to interpret documentary evidence in the context of,
> say, Jesus, or the afformentioned William Wallace, you inevitably
> encounter problems with lack of objectivity from people who have
> pre-existing commitments to proving that this person did X, or didn't do
> X, or didn't exist, or did exist, all of which distorts their
> evaluations of different historical methods. Robin doesn't carry as much
> baggage.
Interesting. I would like to try this, but am unsure of what you're
testing. Do you mean you ask someone, say, "Who was Robin Hood?" or
some-such, and this gives you a clue/insight into how they might approach
some other legendary/historical figure? You think Robin Hood has reached
a universal status, where someone will 'fill in the blank'? (i.e. Robin
Hood serves as a 'blank' or an algebraic 'X')
John Alway
Ken Gardner wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > Tax "evaders" are men who expect to keep what they have *earned*.
>
> You mean, as opposed to people who don't evade taxes?
Tax "evaders" is a term used by statists, not men who value life and
liberty. These men expect to keep what they've earned, and they have
the absolute right to it. They are acting on that right.
Learn this.
[...]
> >> ...don't pay their legal share,
> > Nobody has any such obligation, period. A gun is not an argument.
> As a real world reality check, try this approach on April 15 and see
> how far you get.
I said a "gun is not an argument".
Do you know that that means? Or are you going to repeat statist
justifications ad infinitum?
> ..Unless you want to live in fantasyland -- or, more
> likely, in prison -- the choice isn't between paying or not paying
> taxes that you legally owe, but between paying less and having to pay
> more because of tax cheaters.
I'm fully aware of the reality of the thugs with the guns. They
require the guns, because that's the only way to get people to pay.
This has zero to do with my point, which is that NOBODY HAS THE MORAL
OBLIGATION TO PAY TAXES, PERIOD.
The fact that people are forced to does not make it right, and in no
way justifies your argument.
> If I have to pay, I want to pay as
> little as possible -- and the less tax cheating that goes on, the
less
> I will have to pay myself.
By your argument you should be paying more, because you are harming
others who won't take advantage of tax loopholes.
> >> ...we who do are the
> >> ones who get fucked by the tax man even worse than if they did.
> > The problem is that you are presuming ownership of others. If you
> >uphold rights, then you will recognize this as being morally
> >horrendous.
> I'm not presuming anything except the existence of a choice between
> bad enough and even worse.
You are presuming ownership. You seem to have this twisted belief
that people who don't pay are cheating you, which means that you
believe they have the moral obligation to pay, which means you believe
that their time and effort is not theirs, which means you believe you
own them. This is the chain that absolutely follows from your
position.
> ...It is bad enough that I have to pay tens
> of thousands of dollars in taxes. It is even worse that I could be
> paying less but for the tax evaders.
If the guy died, and his productivity went to zero, would you be
better off? Btw, the fact that he is so productive means that he is
an awesome benefit to his fellow man.
Somebody on the welfare dole is another story.
> >> Being
> >> a rational egoist, I object to getting fucked over even worse
because
> >> someone else is cheating on his taxes.
> > I would say it's irrational and non-egoistic, because 1> you're
> >supporting collectivism (the idea that a man must sacrifice for the
> >state), and 2> you're supporting coercion. Both of these are
> >logically unsupportable.
> The only logically unsupportable statement here is what you just
said.
> It isn't "supporting collectivism" or "supporting coercion" to pay
the
> taxes you legally owe
This is almost too bizzarre to respond to. It most certainly is
supporting collectivism. You don't have the right to that man's life.
Yet you seem to have all of this pent up desire to support the
governments coercion of him.
This is the sort of argument I hear from statist all of the time, and
not one of them has the ability to back the position up. You are no
different.
>..?///-- note for emphasis that I said "legally owe,"
> not "morally owe" -- upon pain of going to jail and/or seeing the
> government seize my property.
You can't arbitrarily make such a distinction. It IS a moral case.
You can't separate that from reality. You have no moral right to
anyones life, and the law doesn't suddenly give you that right.
> > As a rational egoist, I recognize a man's right to keep what he
has
> >earned, and I further recognize his right to his own life and
> >happiness.
> Well, that's just great. It is also totally nonresponsive to my main
> point, which is that I don't see why I should have to pay more in
> taxes because someone else is evading his separate tax obligation.
Again, I doubt you would, and even if you did, it's not that man's
fault, which you strangely believe is. And it is fully responsive,
because it crushes your "He's a tax evader and should be prosecuted"
argument.
> >> ... This is an entirely different
> >> issue from whether the government itself is to blame for taxing me
> >> too much in the first place. If government is already taxing me
too
> >> much, then the tax evaders are merely pouring more gasoline on the
fire.
>
> > It shouldn't be taxing you at all.
> Perhaps, but this is, again, totally beside the point, which is why
> should I have to shoulder a disproportionately higher percentage of
> the tax burden than the tax cheat?
It's not besides the point, and I've been on point entirely, you just
don't seem to grasp the principles involved.
You should not be being taxed. So when you say "why should I", the
answer is you *shouldn't*. You only are because there are people out
there willing to tax you. Stop blaming the victim.
> > The more people who fight the government, the more chance we have
of
> >improving the situation. Guys like that should be encouraged,
because
> >they are the front men in the battle. They are people willing to
take
> >huge risks to battle the theft. These are exactly the people that
we
> >should be supporting.
> [Insert "barf" here. Really.]
Did you "barf" at Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged, too?
> > It's not the way I would fight the battle, because I don't like
the
> >risks, but those who do chose that way, I will give moral support
to.
> I hope the IRS finds and prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the
> law, including extensive jail time as well as payment in full of all
> back taxes along with interest and penalties -- and then returns it
to
> those of us who did pay their taxes and consequently had to shoulder
a
> disproportionate share of the tax burden because of these losers.
Of course, men should be sacrificed to the state, and if they don't,
well, we'll show 'em.
...John
Ken Gardner
>> > Tax "evaders" are men who expect to keep what they have *earned*.
>> You mean, as opposed to people who don't evade taxes?
> Tax "evaders" is a term used by statists, not men who value life and
>liberty. These men expect to keep what they've earned, and they have
>the absolute right to it. They are acting on that right.
> Learn this.
> [Additional proselytizing snipped for brevity]
This is going nowhere.
Ken
James E. Prescott
> John Alway wrote:
>> Learn this.
> This is going nowhere.
> Ken
Hang in there, Ken. I thought you were doing fine.
Ayn Rand never counseled anybody even just to go on strike like the
characters in her novel, nor to commit any unlawful act, much less to commit
such a serous felony as tax evasion. She herself paid the taxes that she
owed. And she herself even advocated continued taxation when she wrote of
voluntary financing that "it would not work."
Any program of voluntary government financing is the
last, *not* the first, step on the road to a free society
--the last, *not* the first, reform to advocate. It would
work only when the basic principles and institutions of
a free society have been established. It would not work
today. [VOS, Chap. 15.]
And even about this she was wrong. Voluntary government financing is
impossible, practically, and terribly wrong, morally -- all for precisely
the reason you were driving at, Ken. Voluntary government financing is a
concept that rewards freeloaders and punishes traders. It demands excess
payment from those of us who want to pay for the values that we receive in
order that we make up for the payments that are withheld by those among us
who simply choose to benefit from the military, police and court protection
we provide them while choosing to pay nothing for it.
To her credit, Ayn Rand did attempt, in the essay cited above, to propose
schemes by which this flaw might someday be overcome. She noted that the
issues were complex and that she did not really have a definitive answer.
But anyway it was a vain attempt. The flaw is in fact rooted in the very
concept of "voluntary" payment, which in truth is anathema to the
Objectivist trader principle that proclaims, You *must* pay for what you get
from others, and to effect the enforcement of this just principle you *must*
never sanction, excuse or tolerate anyone taking something for nothing, from
you or from anyone else.
That's why John's words, which you snipped, are so sadly ironic.
>> As a real world reality check, try this approach on April 15
>> and see how far you get.
> I said a "gun is not an argument".
> Do you know that that means? Or are you going to repeat
> statist justifications ad infinitum?
You were simply statng a fact of reality, not a "statist justification."
However, behind that fact -- and fully justifying it -- there lies a
profound truth. Argument sometimes fails to persuade moochers that they must
pay their bills. True, a gun is not an argument. But a freeloader's whim is
not an argument, either. And that's why a gun is *always* necessary -- not
as an argument, but simply as a last resort protection when argument fails.
Ayn Rand herself wrote in this same essay that our "entire network [of
credit/contractual agreements] is made possible by the existence of the
courts, and would collapse overnight without that protection." Was she
suggesting that a gun -- legal enforcement by the courts -- was "an
argument"? Of course not. She was simply saying that the integrity of our
agreements depends on the universal understanding that in a free society
nobody will tolerate anybody failing to live up to his obligations.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Atlas Bugged
> I hope the IRS finds and prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the
> law, including extensive jail time as well as payment in full of all
> back taxes along with interest and penalties -- and then returns it to
> those of us who did pay their taxes and consequently had to shoulder a
> disproportionate share of the tax burden because of these losers.
I hope a desperately horny squad of cheerleaders comes to my house. The
differences between our respective fantasies are (1) the odds of mine are
better, and (2) you seem to want everyone to get fucked, whereas I am just
looking for my own little dividend.
Really, Ken, they're going to prosecute the shit out of evaders, and then
you'll get a check? How high is that?
If tax prosecutions had to justify their own cost, no working joe could
*ever* be prosecuted.
If IRS laws were ever fully enforced, America would be half the population
employed in guarding the jail cells containing the other half.
Conclusion, based on this and the "Terri" thread: No More Coffee for Ken.
Decaff ONLY. Then: Read Rand's "Faith and Force" talk from West Point.
Rinse. Repeat.
Atlas Bugged
news:YoOdnbSHK_e...@comcast.com...
> Ayn Rand herself wrote in this same essay that our "entire network [of
> credit/contractual agreements] is made possible by the existence of the
> courts, and would collapse overnight without that protection." Was she
> suggesting that a gun -- legal enforcement by the courts -- was "an
> argument"? Of course not. She was simply saying that the integrity of our
> agreements depends on the universal understanding that in a free society
> nobody will tolerate anybody failing to live up to his obligations.
As you know, I regard you as a gentleman and a scholar, but profoundly
mislead in the second instance. I wonder: Have you ever read Nozick? His
opus, Anarchy State, and Utopia explains how a state arises without
violating rights. You might have a look, or at least check out summations
of the book.
fred...@papertig.com
> I hope the IRS finds and prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the
> law, including extensive jail time as well as payment in full of all
> back taxes along with interest and penalties -- and then returns it
to
> those of us who did pay their taxes and consequently had to shoulder
a
> disproportionate share of the tax burden because of these losers.
Give me a single instance where the gov't after instituting some
program to catch tax "cheats" used that money to give "refunds" to
those who didn't "cheat"?
You're accepting the collectivist premise that your income belongs to
the gov't and if they demand you pay some percentage of it and you
don't that *you're* cheating, that *you're* the thief!
I'll just add that a good deal of business in this country (it's much
more in some others) is conducted in whole or in part on a "cash" basis
precisely to avoid taxes. If you think you would get a "refund" if
these cash payments were taxed, think again. What would happen is that
either the work wouldn't be done or prices would go up to offset the
losses. So, not only wouldn't you benefit but it's likely neither would
the gov't, i.e. that tax revenues would actually go *down* as a result.
This is simple economics, Ken, that you should know.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
And furthermore, to whatever extent anyone stops money from going to
the gov't where a huge percentage of it is squandered on non-productive
- or worse, anti-productive - activities it benefits the economy...and
therefore benefits you.
In short you should *thank* so-called "tax cheats" instead of
condemning them. They are doing the economy - and you - a great
service.
Fred Weiss
James E. Prescott
"Atlas Bugged" <atlas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pGdne-sk5u...@comcast.com...
> "James E. Prescott" <jep...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YoOdnbSHK_e...@comcast.com...
>> [...]
> As you know, I regard you as a gentleman and a scholar, but
> profoundly mislead in the second instance.
Thank you. I regard myself as a gentleman. I hope I am not misled.
> I wonder: Have you ever read Nozick?
I have.
> His opus, Anarchy State, and Utopia explains how a state arises
> without violating rights. [...]
I have not read his opus entirely, but segments of it, and some summaries
and commentaries. I am certainly open to discussing his views.
The problem with Nozick, as with many anarchists and minimal-state
libertarians (and quite a few Objectivists I must confess) is that they
begin with a feelings- or intuition-based pre-conceptual notion of "rights,"
and then they try to reason from this notion as if it had been logical
derived.
That leads to all sorts of problems, and even accounts, I believe, for
Objectivists making some of the same mistakes as anarchists.
There are no rights.
Well, not in a jungle anyway.
To create and to acquire rights you need to settle down into a civilized
society, which means striking agreement and making and keeping moral
commitments between yourself and your fellow men and women. That's logical.
That's rational. The consequence -- or the nature of this act of agreement,
actually -- is a moral/legal commitment to abide by law and to support the
enforcement of law, including payment for it (taxes), as the price of the
agreement upon which your own rights are based. "Outlaws" do not have
rights.
The contrary notion that men and women somehow just come together and say to
one another, "We happen to already possess these things called rights (by
some unknowable unspecifiable mechanism), so let's just agree to respect
these existing rights," is just utter gibberish; mystical nonsense. If they
do exist, then where did those purported pre-existing rights come from? From
God? From Robert Nozick's intuitions? From *where*???
Nozick could not answer this question. He admitted he could not (as I
recall), and he did not even try to answer it. He merely asserted (again, as
I recall; feel free to correct me, anyone) that he felt compelled by his
intuitions to /posit/ their existence, because such rights, alone, he felt,
satisfied his feeling that individuals as autonomous beings required them.
So, feeling. Feeling. Feeling. It is not logic.
And it is imply illogical to suppose the existence of rights absent a moral
commitment to abide by law. To do so reverses the proper logical order of
things and gets Objectivists, libertarians and anarchists into such a deep
quagmire of illogic that you cannot tell one from another.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Robert Kolker
>
> However, behind that fact -- and fully justifying it -- there lies a
> profound truth. Argument sometimes fails to persuade moochers that they must
> pay their bills. True, a gun is not an argument. But a freeloader's whim is
> not an argument, either. And that's why a gun is *always* necessary -- not
> as an argument, but simply as a last resort protection when argument fails.
Since guns are the ultimate enforcement of tax payment, we should work
to have government do as little as possible for us, so very little will
have to be paid for under compulsion. If the government does anything
more than maintain an army, a police force and courts of law, it is on
its way to becoming a bloodsucking tyranny. Which is what we have right
now, this instant. If taxation is not theft (as it is in its worst
state) then (in its best state) it is a necessary evil, precisely
because there are freeloaders. As long as we are surrounded by bad guys
who want to kill us we will have to get the money to buy our defense by
any means necessary.
The only way we can live with a money collecting monster is to keep it
smallish and make sure it has litte opportunity to grow larger. If and
when peace breaks out again, the government should be shrunk very
quickly to an entity that performs the function of a watchman.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> I'm fully aware of the reality of the thugs with the guns. They
> require the guns, because that's the only way to get people to pay.
>
> This has zero to do with my point, which is that NOBODY HAS THE MORAL
> OBLIGATION TO PAY TAXES, PERIOD.
Maybe so. But as long as there are Bad Guys out there who want to kill
us ALL, the taxes to buy our defense will be collected by any means
necessary. I don't like it. You don't like it. But paying the taxes is
preferable to being dead or living under a constant barage of terror
attacks which will bring our society down to ruin. Taxation is evil, but
it is the less bad alternative.
There we no way we can fight the War of the Wogs by private means, so it
will be fought with government means.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>>
> When the tax evaders don't pay their legal share, we who do are the
> ones who get fucked by the tax man even worse than if they did. Being
> a rational egoist, I object to getting fucked over even worse because
> someone else is cheating on his taxes. This is an entirely different
> issue from whether the government itself is to blame for taxing me too
> much in the first place. If government is already taxing me too much,
> then the tax evaders are merely pouring more gasoline on the fire.
There is only one use for tax money that justifies force in taking it
and that is collective defense which cannot be rendered as a divided and
apportioned service. Either the entire society is defended or none of it
is. The problem is that much of the money collected does not go to
defense. Every cent taken from us by force, which is not allocated to
our defense (and the allocation should be rational and economically
sensible) is LOOT. You cannot morally justify LOOT. The part for our
defense is a necessary evil imposed upon us (individually and as members
of our society) by Bad Guys who want to bring us ALL down.
Remember that without a proper defense our future will be defined by
Muzzein calling the Faithful to Prayer in the mosques that we cover our
land like an evil plague.
Money spent to subsidize corporation, who are the biggest welfare bums,
or feed the maimed the lamed and the stupid is money gotten for bad
reasons and in a bad way.
You should be working to end the welfare state and promote a warfare
state. I want our government to become a war machine. Like the Imperium
Romanum. I want to pay for a army that will stomp the living shit out of
any group, nation or entity that has the timerity to threaten us. I want
our warfare state to induce a terror in the world such that people
outside our country will shit blood at the very mention of "U.S.A.".
That is what I am willing to pay taxes for. I want our legions to make
the world safe for us 'Murkins.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> One problem is that his reasons aren't quite right. It's immoral
> because a man's wealth is his and he should be secure in it. In fact,
> a legitmate government has the job of providing that security, not
> undermining it.
And if an external enemy threatens us the price of keeping your wealth
is paying your share of its protection. Since protection cannot be
parceled out (in the context of a threat against the Nation) it has be
be payed for whole, or not provided at all. I, for one, will not sit
idly while you are protected at my expense. We all will pay for our
protection or we all will be victims together. And that is the only
basis on which I approve of forcible collection. Anyting other than
national defense is a pretext for theft.
I want to see the Imperium Americanum come about in my life time. I want
to see our Legions marching out and grinding our enemies into the mud. I
want to here the lamentations of their women and the cries of their
children. That is what I want
Bob (the Bobarian) Kolker
Robert Kolker
> I hope the IRS nails the asshole and he goes to jail for the next ten
> thousand fucking years. I also want a POG and a tax structure -- or,
> better yet, voluntary financing -- commensurate with such a
> government. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As long as a voluntary system makes freeloading possible, you will have
freeload. A voluntary system for providing an indivisible service cannot
work. The closest we can come is a subscription system that keeps the
freeloading to a controllable level.
We cannot have an Army and a voluntary tax system. The world just does
not work that way. So which do you prefer: Our version of the Roman
Legions, or a voluntary system.
Bob Kolker
fred...@papertig.com
> We cannot have an Army and a voluntary tax system.
The only useful thing Prescott has done in his screeds in defense of
taxation is quoting AR that this is last thing we should worry about.
Considering where we are now and the distance we have to cross before
that issue comes up, it's an intensely boring issue.
That aside, I disagree. At least in theory voluntary "taxes" are at
least possible, e.g. use or contract fees - a small percentage of every
transaction going to the gov't in return for its defense in court
should that be necessary. One would not have to pay it, but then you
would lose the right to sue (in a gov't court) for failure to deliver.
In principle it would work like a sales tax, but it would be voluntary.
Arguably no one would buy anything unless the fee were paid (so
possibly it would be paid by the seller). However this admittedly is
all theory.
Frankly, I can't get too excited by this whole issue because first we
need to get rid of a few trillion dollars of gov't spending. We're not
even yet heading even slightly in the right direction on that one.
Let's get there first and then worry about this.
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
>
> Frankly, I can't get too excited by this whole issue because first we
> need to get rid of a few trillion dollars of gov't spending. We're not
> even yet heading even slightly in the right direction on that one.
> Let's get there first and then worry about this.
Absolutely first things first. We have to get rid of our welfare system,
particulary the system of corporate welfare and subsidies. In dollar
amounts the corporations are the biggest welfare bums. Poor folks
welfare, especially welare to persons of color (aka niggers) is a small
second compared to corporate welfare.
Bob Kolker
fred...@papertig.com
>
> ...We have to get rid of our welfare system,
> particulary the system of corporate welfare and subsidies. In dollar
> amounts the corporations are the biggest welfare bums.
What are you talking about? If you are referring to subsidies and
tariffs, that's one thing. I agree. But if you are referring to various
tax deductions and write-offs then we're back again to the fallacy of
"your not being taxed raises my taxes". As regards subsidies and
tariffs, my guess is they represent a very (relatively) small amount of
the total problem.
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
> What are you talking about?
Subsidies. Gigantic food corps like Archer Daniels Midland are
subsidized under laws intended to benefit small farmers.
you are referring to subsidies and
> tariffs, that's one thing. I agree.
That is what I am talking about generally. Also laws that give
corporations legal advantages in selling their goods and services that
sole proprietors and unincorporated firms do not get. Particularly the
limitation of liability. Also non-tarrif restrictions on imported goods
like making foreign goods conform to a higher standard of safety than
domestically produces good.
The biggest handout of course are the well know defense contracts. I
used to work in the land of the six hundred dollar hammer and the
thousand dollar toilet seat. That kind of shit is a subsidy. If the
government wants standard boilerplate goods they should by it at
Wal-Mart like the rest of us. Special arrangements which are contrived
solely to benefit corporations whose officers have politically and
financially supported the Powers That Be are an example of corporate
Welfare. Also restrictions the prevent competition between corporate
vendors, like rules that prevent banks from being stock brokers and such
like restriction.
The defense contract business is a rip off and a scandal.
But if you are referring to various
> tax deductions and write-offs then we're back again to the fallacy of
> "your not being taxed raises my taxes". As regards subsidies and
> tariffs, my guess is they represent a very (relatively) small amount of
> the total problem.
I am not talking about tax breaks. I assume income from corporations
should be taxed at the point where they are spent, namely when people
collected dividends or capital gains on stock that is sold (I don't
particularly like those taxes, but there they are).
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> I want to see the Imperium Americanum come about in my life time.
From your lips to God's ears, Bob! :-)
> I want
> to see our Legions marching out and grinding our enemies into the mud.
We will make a desolation and call it Victory! :-)
> I want to here the lamentations of their women and the cries of their
> children. That is what I want
>
> Bob (the Bobarian) Kolker
You are a man who truly knows what is best in life! :-)
Mark
Joe Teicher
I couldn't agree more. Corporate welfare (or more generally all
government assistance not based on need) is an enormous issue. There
are so many ways in which the government, not just through spending but
also through legislation, aids some small group at the expense of
everyone else and to the net detriment of society. The annoying thing
is that I think most people find most of it pretty repugnant, and if
they knew more about they would probably find it even more repugnant,
and yet there just doesn't seem to be the political will to do anything
about it. Instead we get new and larger pieces of corporate welfare
like the medicare prescription drug thing. Its very disheartening to
think that while most people are against something it can still
continue to get worse in a democracy.
Joe Teicher
Atlas Bugged
>> Frankly, I can't get too excited by this whole issue because first we
>> need to get rid of a few trillion dollars of gov't spending. We're not
>> even yet heading even slightly in the right direction on that one.
>> Let's get there first and then worry about this.
"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nfGdnc_ldr4...@comcast.com...
> Absolutely first things first. We have to get rid of our welfare system,
> particulary the system of corporate welfare and subsidies. In dollar
> amounts the corporations are the biggest welfare bums. Poor folks welfare,
> especially welare to persons of color (aka niggers) is a small second
> compared to corporate welfare.
Yeah, but in net-terms, I doubt it. Are you seriously suggesting the tax
base would be larger if all corporate interaction in both directions were
separated? I don't *think* so. Corporate welfare is better thought of as
market winner-picking.
Atlas Bugged
> Maybe so. But as long as there are Bad Guys out there who want to kill us
> ALL, the taxes to buy our defense will be collected by any means
> necessary. I don't like it. You don't like it. But paying the taxes is
> preferable to being dead or living under a constant barage of terror
> attacks which will bring our society down to ruin. Taxation is evil, but
> it is the less bad alternative.
Obvious false alternative. The vast bulk of people being taxed are probably
contributing less than half of revenues
>
> There we no way we can fight the War of the Wogs by private means, so it
> will be fought with government means.
Clearly untrue. Everyone always talks of the evil corporations that are
running the world. That's nuts, but they are powerful, they do have
interests (particularly in protecting their markets and keeping them free),
and they'd have a whole lot more money if vast sums weren't being stolen and
wasted.
America has endless examples of "the rich" providing public benefits. One
thing I can tell you is that a well-managed defense would cost only a
fraction of what it now does, and it would be superior by far.
Bert Hyman
news:TtadnXKNj_t...@comcast.com:
> The biggest handout of course are the well know defense contracts.
> I used to work in the land of the six hundred dollar hammer and the
> thousand dollar toilet seat. That kind of shit is a subsidy. If the
> government wants standard boilerplate goods they should by it at
> Wal-Mart like the rest of us.
The six hundred dollar hammer and thousand dollar toilet seat came
about because the government DOESN'T want "standard boilerplate
goods", or at least they don't think they do.
There are pages and pages of specifications for just about every
piece of hardware the government buys, and it's particularly bad if
it's for the military.
It may just be that the specifications for the hammer exactly matches
the specifications of the $5 hammer sold at Wal-Mart, but unless the
manufactuer and vendors can provide detailed proof that they do, and
detailed documentation on a dozen other things, the government won't
buy it.
All that costs lots of money.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
John Alway
[...]
> And if an external enemy threatens us the price of keeping your
wealth
> is paying your share of its protection. Since protection cannot be
> parceled out (in the context of a threat against the Nation) it has
be
> be payed for whole, or not provided at all. I, for one, will not sit
> idly while you are protected at my expense.
I have little truck with those who won't pay for their own defense,
but they still are not responsible for those who will take your
freedoms, e.g. Islamo Fascists. In fact, it would be a good idea to
make the Islamo Fascists pay.
And I do strongly believe that payments to the government can all be
done via voluntary contributions, and by fee for gov't service methods.
Remember, also, freedom brings prosperity. In America we are half
free. If we were fully free our prosperity would be much better, and
our ability to afford defense would be much better. We'd run rings
around any non-free nation, as we do even now.
The bureacrats love their power to control and tax. I just read that
Congress is subponaing baseball players for an inquisition on steroids.
Initially they were "invited" to testify, but when only two
volunteered, they had to bring out the guns.
...John
Robert Kolker
> I have little truck with those who won't pay for their own defense,
> but they still are not responsible for those who will take your
> freedoms, e.g. Islamo Fascists. In fact, it would be a good idea to
> make the Islamo Fascists pay.
In the long run they will. We will take their oil away from them. In the
mean time we need Front Money. That is our burden.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
[...]
> Ayn Rand never counseled anybody even just to go on strike like the
> characters in her novel, nor to commit any unlawful act, much less to
commit
> such a serous felony as tax evasion. She herself paid the taxes that
she
> owed. And she herself even advocated continued taxation when she
wrote of
> voluntary financing that "it would not work."
> Any program of voluntary government financing is the
> last, *not* the first, step on the road to a free society
> --the last, *not* the first, reform to advocate. It would
> work only when the basic principles and institutions of
> a free society have been established. It would not work
> today. [VOS, Chap. 15.]
All this means is that we can't expect things to change quickly. It
takes time for people to realize how wrong taxation is.
It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't pay taxes is committing a
crime. Ayn Rand believed that a man is sovereign over his own life.
I'll quote from Rand in that same article you cite.
"The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the
following premises: that the government is *not* the owner of the
citizens' income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that
income--that the nature of the proper governmental services must be
constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power
to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.
Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards
the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens."
> And even about this she was wrong.
> Voluntary government financing is
> impossible, practically, and terribly wrong, morally -- all for
precisely
> the reason you were driving at, Ken. Voluntary government financing
is a
> concept that rewards freeloaders and punishes traders.
This implies that a man's life is owned by the state. Exactly what
is not true.
Now, if you want people to voluntarily pay for proper government
services, which they should, then you have a couple of tools: 1>
rational persuasion and 2> social astracism.
Those are effective tools. Using the gun, however, is criminal.
>... It demands excess
> payment from those of us who want to pay for the values
The stolen *values*. The *loot*. I wonder if you even noticed what
you wrote.
> that we receive in
> order that we make up for the payments that are withheld by those
among us
> who simply choose to benefit from the military, police and court
protection
> we provide them while choosing to pay nothing for it.
> To her credit, Ayn Rand did attempt, in the essay cited above, to
propose
> schemes by which this flaw might someday be overcome. She noted that
the
> issues were complex and that she did not really have a definitive
answer.
She was very clear on the fact that government can and should be
supported purely voluntarily. Again, in same article:
"A program of voluntary government financing would be amply
sufficient to pay for legitimate functions of a proper government."
> But anyway it was a vain attempt. The flaw is in fact rooted in the
very
> concept of "voluntary" payment, which in truth is anathema to the
> Objectivist trader principle that proclaims, You *must* pay for what
you get
> from others, and to effect the enforcement of this just principle you
*must*
> never sanction, excuse or tolerate anyone taking something for
nothing, from
> you or from anyone else.
I hope nobody is buying into his rhetoric. The trader principle is
based on *voluntary* agreement. You can't be any more in harmony with
it if you support voluntary contributions to the government, especially
when those contributions are fees for services. An anathema? Jim
Prescott, words mean things.
> That's why John's words, which you snipped, are so sadly ironic.
So, here is the payoff, based on your wobbly foundation:
> >> As a real world reality check, try this approach on April 15
> >> and see how far you get.
> > I said a "gun is not an argument".
> > Do you know that that means? Or are you going to repeat
> > statist justifications ad infinitum?
> You were simply statng a fact of reality, not a "statist
justification."
Do you realize that the IRS is run by people? Do you realize that
people make choices in order to live? Do you realize that all of those
choices have a normative content? This means that the very existence
of the IRS is open to moral evaluation. So, at foundation, what is
the justification for them pointing a gun at someone who doesn't pay
his taxes? Where do they get the right?
Some how you missed the whole point.
> However, behind that fact -- and fully justifying it -- there lies a
> profound truth. Argument sometimes fails to persuade moochers that
they must
> pay their bills.
> ...True, a gun is not an argument. But a freeloader's whim is
> not an argument, either.
The argument is that a man's life is his own, and not anyone elses.
That's not a "whim". Note, the state has no obligation to protect his
rights, but, at the same time, it has no right to violate them.
...John
Robert Kolker
elections, that's all you *can* do. There's a flipside to this as well.
> NASA's "faster, smarter, cheaper" approach has cost them some missions,
> and lives even.
We can afford NASA failures (NASA = Not A Space Agency). We cannot
afford main military failures in a time of war and strife. The best
thing is to close NASA down. The manned missions make little sense and
their unmanned missions have nothing much to do with national defense.
So why are we funding them?
Bob Kolker
Lionell Griffith
>
> All this means is that we can't expect things to change quickly. It
> takes time for people to realize how wrong taxation is.
>
>
People have had all the time since the first thug invented the
Protection Scam and called it government. That was likely several
hundred thousand years ago more or less. What makes you think a few
more years is going to make any difference? Unless and until we start
explaining the issue more clearly to the tax thugs and wannabe receivers
of stolen wealth, it will continue. We must give THEM an offer they
can't refuse. Then perhaps they would discover that they need us but we
don't need them. Not one of them even for a nanosecond.
TC
..... The best
> thing is to close NASA down. The manned missions make little sense
and
> their unmanned missions have nothing much to do with national
defense.
> So why are we funding them?
NASA exploration is one of the few things the government does that
I would gladly contribute to. It lifts the human spirit.
Tom
John Alway
Lionell Griffith wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > All this means is that we can't expect things to change quickly.
It
> > takes time for people to realize how wrong taxation is.
> People have had all the time since the first thug invented the
> Protection Scam and called it government. That was likely several
> hundred thousand years ago more or less. What makes you think a few
> more years is going to make any difference?
Ideas! John Locke, and now Objectivism give us a real chance.
>... Unless and until we start
> explaining the issue more clearly to the tax thugs and wannabe
receivers
> of stolen wealth, it will continue. We must give THEM an offer they
> can't refuse. Then perhaps they would discover that they need us but
we
> don't need them. Not one of them even for a nanosecond.
Just the selling of Ayn Rand's books, which rack up big sales
annually, will improve the situation.
...John
Robert Kolker
>
> NASA exploration is one of the few things the government does that
You get a kick out of it? Good. Then you pay. Keep the hands off my
money. I will pay for defense and law courts, not for third rate rocket
ships. NASA is a corrupt bloated abomination unable to bring about the
Space Age. Their latest accomplishment is a low orbit space station, ISS
Alpha Shithole One aka Space Station FUBAR, which is down to its last
two stabilizing gyro and cost ten times its original estimate. As far as
I know, no new scientific breakthroughs have flowed from experiments
done aboard Space Station FUBAR. The closest thing to good science has
come from the telescopes sent aloft and that has nothing to do with
national defense. By what constitutional principle is your tax money and
mine being allocated to something that is totally unrealted to our
define or to maintaining order?
NASA struggled mightily and brought force the tiled abomination STS
which blows up and kills its crew every thiry flights or so. NASA is no
incompetent that we have to rely on a -Russian- ferry (!!!!) to feed and
water the poor suffereing bastards aboard Shithole One.
Bob Kolker
James E. Prescott
news:1110394868....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> James E. Prescott wrote:
>> [Ayn Rand] herself even advocated continued taxation when
>> she wrote of voluntary financing that "it would not work."
>> Any program of voluntary government financing is the
>> last, *not* the first, step on the road to a free society
>> --the last, *not* the first, reform to advocate. It would
>> work only when the basic principles and institutions of
>> a free society have been established. It would not work
>> today. [VOS, Chap. 15.]
> All this means is that we can't expect things to change quickly.
> It takes time for people to realize how wrong taxation is.
Sure. But that's not all it means. It will take people a long time, also, to
realize how wrong the welfare state is. And, as Mr. Kolker has noted, until
they do the costs of government are so extreme that no scheme of voluntary
financing can possibly work. Ayn Rand meant what she wrote. Until the
society is otherwise fully free, it is wrong even to advocate financing
reform.
> It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't pay taxes is committing a
> crime. Ayn Rand believed that a man is sovereign over his own life.
>
> I'll quote from Rand in that same article you cite.
>
> "The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the
> following premises: that the government is *not* the owner of the
> citizens' income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that
> income [...].
Give me some credit, John. I'm an Objectivist. I endorse the trader
principle. I believe in voluntary relationships. And if you yourself are a
true Objectivist and not a whim worshiper at heart, then you ought to agree
with me that once a person enters into a binding agreement he cannot simply,
by his own unilateral whim, excuse himself from the obligations that he has
voluntarily accepted. In other words, contracts, to be meaningful, are
enforced. EnFORCED. That does NOT make them "non-voluntary."
I can quote further from Ayn Rand on precisely this point, if you need that.
> [...] Voluntary government financing is a concept that rewards free-
> loaders and punishes traders.
> This implies that a man's life is owned by the state. [...]
It implies no such thing. It implies only that /my/ life, as a producer,
does not belong to /you/, as a freeloader. If you do trade in a free society
and you thereby benefit from the protection of military, police and courts
(without which, as Ayn Rand correctly noted, trade would be impossible),
then you owe payment for those services, or else you are a whim-worshiper
who is demanding the uncompensated service of others.
> Now, if you want people to voluntarily pay for proper
> government services, which they should, then you have a
> couple of tools: 1> rational persuasion and 2> social astracism.
And prison. If I want people to pay me what they owe me, I do not have to
rely on "persuasion" or "social ostracism." I have the courts at my
disposal. Courts for which I pay a price (taxes). If someone refuses to pay
for those courts, fine. Let him do no trade with me, or let him rot in
prison. His choice. It's a voluntary arrangement.
> [Ayn Rand] was very clear on the fact that government can
> and should be supported purely voluntarily. Again, in same
> article:
> "A program of voluntary government financing would be amply
> sufficient to pay for legitimate functions of a proper government."
That's where she was wrong. She was not wrong in wanting basic social
commitments to be voluntary. She was wrong A) in thinking that the
obligation to pay taxes to support legitimate government functions was
somehow involuntary, and B) in thinking that her suggested schemes (a
lottery; pay for courts or your contracts go unenforced) could possibly
work. Those schemes would be immoral and, in consequence of their
immorality, utterly impractical.
> The trader principle is based on *voluntary* agreement. [...]
I agree. Again, give me a bit of credit here, John. As a consistent
Objectivist firmly upholding the trader principle, my position is simply
that military, police and courts are *necessary* to a civilized society of
free trade and therefore when you *voluntarily* participate in such a trade
society you are freely taking upon yourself the *obligation* to pay for
these services.
The only possible contrary view, logically, is that you somehow are entitled
to these services for no payment. That is not the trader principle. That is
the moocher principle. Ayn Rand should have known better. You should know
better.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Lionell Griffith
> Lionell Griffith wrote:
>
> What makes you think a few
>>more years is going to make any difference?
>
One of John's responses.
>
> Just the selling of Ayn Rand's books, which rack up big sales
> annually, will improve the situation.
>
I have been waiting for that to work for over 40 years. The situation
is worse now than it was then. I think we are going to have to back up
all the pretty words and ideas with some kind of action or things will
continue to get worse.
Its either them or us. They need us but we don't need them. It is way
past time both we and they understand the full implications of that
fact. If they were to vanish, we would notice it only as a removal of
impediment and a drastically lowered cost of doing business. If we were
to vanish, they would vanish shortly thereafter.
Robert Kolker
>
> Its either them or us. They need us but we don't need them. It is way
> past time both we and they understand the full implications of that
> fact. If they were to vanish, we would notice it only as a removal of
> impediment and a drastically lowered cost of doing business. If we were
> to vanish, they would vanish shortly thereafter.
The first thing you would notice is that we would have no military
capable of protecting or avenging attacks by Moslem fanatics. When the
Wogs blow up the tunnels, the bridges, the power stations, the water
mains, you will notice it quite readily.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96147463BD9...@news.visi.com...
> now...@nowhere.com (Robert Kolker) wrote in
> news:TtadnXKNj_t...@comcast.com:
>
> > The biggest handout of course are the well know defense contracts.
> > I used to work in the land of the six hundred dollar hammer and the
> > thousand dollar toilet seat. That kind of shit is a subsidy. If the
> > government wants standard boilerplate goods they should by it at
> > Wal-Mart like the rest of us.
>
> The six hundred dollar hammer and thousand dollar toilet seat came
> about because the government DOESN'T want "standard boilerplate
> goods", or at least they don't think they do.
The hammers and toilet seats cost that amount because the were to be used on
AWACS aircraft and they had to be made from metal that wouldn't cause
interference with the navigation systems or avionics. That is not standard
outside the aviation industry. Similar goods for commercial airliners have
similar price structures.
> It may just be that the specifications for the hammer exactly matches
> the specifications of the $5 hammer sold at Wal-Mart,
They aren't...not by a long shot. While the price was high by most
standards, they are not manufactured in lots of more than a couple hundred.
There was another similar old myth about fire extinguishers that cost the
government $2000, but that one died out when it was pointed out that the
same ones were in use on Boeing commercial jets and the cost the same amount
for the same reasons.
BTW, the hammers were to be used to smash the electronic evavsdropping
equipment in the event of potential capture. The used of discrete and
digital electronics (IIRC) has elminated the use for such highly specialized
equipment aboard aircraft.
> but unless the
> manufactuer and vendors can provide detailed proof that they do, and
> detailed documentation on a dozen other things, the government won't
> buy it.
>
> All that costs lots of money.
See above.
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Matt Barrow
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1110375568.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ken:
>
> And furthermore, to whatever extent anyone stops money from going to
> the gov't where a huge percentage of it is squandered on non-productive
> - or worse, anti-productive - activities it benefits the economy...and
> therefore benefits you.
Recall the 1981 Grace Commission that found roughly half of all government
spending was wasted and another 50% unconstitutional. (I'd say it was more
like 80% unconstitutional).
--
fred...@papertig.com
> BTW, are you bucking for a part in a new Tarantino film, or what?
Are you kidding? If he could play a scene with Uma Thurmin, he'd do it
for free. We've already got the name of his character, "Slab".
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>If he could play a scene with Uma Thurmin, he'd do it
>for free.
Me too.
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> John Alway wrote:
> > Lionell Griffith wrote:
> >
> > What makes you think a few
> >>more years is going to make any difference?
> >
>
> One of John's responses.
> >
> > Just the selling of Ayn Rand's books, which rack up big sales
> > annually, will improve the situation.
> >
>
> I have been waiting for that to work for over 40 years. The
situation
> is worse now than it was then.
First of all, the situation is not worse than it was then. In fact it's
significantly improved. The death of communism and the fact that no one
with half a brain any longer advocates socialism is proof enough of
that.
Further, 40 years is nothing for radical ideas to take hold. It has
taken 3 generations even for moderately radical ideas to take hold,
e.g. free trade in England, the abolition of slavery, women's rights,
etc. It took several *hundred* years for Christianity to replace
Greco-Roman culture. It took several *hundred* years from the
re-introduction of Aristotle into the West for Renaissance and
Enlightenment to fully blossom.
Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
Kool-Aid Ken wrote:
> > ...It is bad enough that I have to pay tens
> > of thousands of dollars in taxes. It is even worse that I could be
> > paying less but for the tax evaders.
>
> If the guy died, and his productivity went to zero, would you be
> better off? Btw, the fact that he is so productive means that he is
> an awesome benefit to his fellow man.
I can hardly believe my eyes -- John Alway winning in a slam-dunk over
Zero-Sum, Kool-Aid Ken.
--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-addresss: leave out [revolmaps]
Lionell Griffith
>
> The first thing you would notice is that we would have no military
> capable of protecting or avenging attacks by Moslem fanatics. When the
> Wogs blow up the tunnels, the bridges, the power stations, the water
> mains, you will notice it quite readily.
>
> Bob Kolker
Oh? The politically handcuffed military that we do have is so great? I
think the major cities of at least five islaamic nations should have
been turned into radioactive craters within a week of 9/11. Then, if
anyone objected extend the action until that part of the world is
silent. It would have taken no more than about ten multi-megaton bombs.
We couldn't do that because we might hurt someone in a culture who's
members are determined to destroy us. Gack!
We have spent a major fraction of a trillion dollars and over 1500 lives
trying to save lives not worth saving by their own words and actions.
They did zip to save themselves and are doing vanishingly little now.
We shouldn't do any more for them than they are willing to do for
themselves. I don't think we should do even that much.
As for them coming here to blow us up. IF every man, woman, and child
in the US were properly armed and trained to use the weapon, that would
be no lasting threat. However, our lovely government has all but
totally disarmed us both materially and intellectually and has given us
a military that must fight a war for our continued existence with roses
and permission notes from home.
Atlas Bugged
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ejmv215fpt3bcmgap...@4ax.com...
> Me too.
Yecchhh. I hate skinny-ass broads. You know who bothers me? The
really-hot, youngest of the "Desperate Housewives," Eva Langoria. From the
waist down, she is WAY too skinny, with stick-figure, bony legs like a
starvation victim. Check out cooking-diva Nigella Lawson or baywatch babe
Yasmine Bleeth for what a woman ought to look like.
The above just demonstrates Ken's malevolent sense of life and Fred's
erroneous epistemology.
Chris Cathcart
"Kool-Aid Ken" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3p1t21lmnck7gvtrr...@4ax.com...
> I hope the IRS finds and prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the
> law, including extensive jail time as well as payment in full of all
> back taxes along with interest and penalties -- and then returns it to
> those of us who did pay their taxes and consequently had to shoulder a
> disproportionate share of the tax burden because of these losers.
That must be some great stuff you're drinking. Yeah, when the government
captures these "cheats" and collects all back taxes and fines, it'll do the
honorable thing and return that money to you. Right.
Atlas Bugged
news:11307tg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Still it was not pretty words, ideas, and endless argumentation that lead
> nowhere that did it. It took effective action based upon the ideas. All
> I see are big O's and little o's talking - talking - talking. How about
> stopping the life support we provide for the bulk of the population of the
> earth? They can go to hell for all I care. I think we should allow them
> to go there and refuse to pay their travel expenses.
I like LG. He has spunk and initiative.
So what's your action plan? I mean, specifically? I will tell you in
advance I am not amused by any plan where (1) I get shot, (2) I go to
prison, or (3) I live on a subsistence level.
Chris Cathcart
"Atlas Bugged" <atlas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4WdnYEMqPQ...@comcast.com...
> Conclusion, based on this and the "Terri" thread: No More Coffee for Ken.
> Decaff ONLY. Then: Read Rand's "Faith and Force" talk from West Point.
> Rinse. Repeat.
Of course, it isn't coffee he's been drinking.
Lionell Griffith
> Lionell Griffith wrote:
>>I have been waiting for that to work for over 40 years. The
>>situation is worse now than it was then.
> First of all, the situation is not worse than it was then. In fact it's
> significantly improved. The death of communism and the fact that no one
> with half a brain any longer advocates socialism is proof enough of
> that.
That is except for practically every damn government on earth, almost
half the voting population of the US (most of the rest are soft or
confused on the issue), almost all of the population of Europe, the
overwhelming majority of university professors, news reporters and
editors, politicians, political correctness hacks, evironmental wackos,
ADA addicts, public eduction anything, and countless other parisitical
types. Add to that the millions of laws, rules, and regulations that
spread a fine web over any voluntary activity and I have a hard time
seeing it as better than the 50's and 60's.
> Further, 40 years is nothing for radical ideas to take hold. It has
> taken 3 generations even for moderately radical ideas to take hold,
> e.g. free trade in England, the abolition of slavery, women's rights,
> etc. It took several *hundred* years for Christianity to replace
> Greco-Roman culture. It took several *hundred* years from the
> re-introduction of Aristotle into the West for Renaissance and
> Enlightenment to fully blossom.
Still it was not pretty words, ideas, and endless argumentation that
lead nowhere that did it. It took effective action based upon the
ideas. All I see are big O's and little o's talking - talking -
talking. How about stopping the life support we provide for the bulk of
the population of the earth? They can go to hell for all I care. I
think we should allow them to go there and refuse to pay their travel
expenses.
>
> Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
>> As for them coming here to blow us up. IF every man, woman, and child
> in the US were properly armed and trained to use the weapon, that would
> be no lasting threat. However, our lovely government has all but
> totally disarmed us both materially and intellectually and has given us
> a military that must fight a war for our continued existence with roses
> and permission notes from home.
YOu are talking about individual arms. Putzo-boy. The place to fight
these people is where THEY live, not where WE live. How do you propose
to do that. Give every man, woman and child an ICBM with mulitiple
nuclear warheads?
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1110435795.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Lionell Griffith wrote:
> >
> > I have been waiting for that to work for over 40 years. The
> situation
> > is worse now than it was then.
>
> First of all, the situation is not worse than it was then. In fact it's
> significantly improved. The death of communism and the fact that no one
> with half a brain any longer advocates socialism is proof enough of
> that.
That assumes (and I'd say it's a wrong assumption) that our most dangerous
enemies are foreign, rather than domestic. I've wager that the worst enemies
are NOT foreign.
Robert Kolker
>
> That assumes (and I'd say it's a wrong assumption) that our most dangerous
> enemies are foreign, rather than domestic. I've wager that the worst enemies
> are NOT foreign.
What is a greater threat to our physical safety than Islamic Terrorists
striking at targets in our own back yard? Are we in danger of having a
radiological bomb exploded in Manhattan by our own government?
The threat of government to our well being is considerably more
abstract. It has to to with our liberties and choices. We can survive
outrages by our government and live to fight another day. If you happen
to be in the Lincoln Tunnel when Abudul. Mohammed, Ibrihim and Faisal
blow up an 18 wheeler filled with high explosives you will not live to
fight another day. You will drown.
Bob Kolker
Ultra Benevolent Guy
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> The other problem is that the status of the original Robin Hood is
> something of a mystery, of who he was and what he actually did or
> didn't do, or even if he actually ever existed.
Irrelevant. The point is what he represents morally. We know that
Ragnar Danneskjold never existed, why should it matter that Robin Hood
may or may not have been real?
Robert Kolker
> Irrelevant. The point is what he represents morally. We know that
> Ragnar Danneskjold never existed, why should it matter that Robin Hood
> may or may not have been real?
There was a Saxon noble who was the historical counterpart to Robbin of
Locksely. There is no evidence that he went about Sherwood Forrest
(which does exist) in green tights and a funny little hat with a feather
sticking out of the band.
King John and his minions like the legendary ShireReeve of
Nottinghamshire did indeed exist. And it wasn't a bunch of opprossed
peasants that brought him to heel. It was other thugs. That is what
Magna Carta is about. The sub-bosses made the cappo de tutti capi an
offer he could not refuse, in Runnymeade Field.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
> Oh? The politically handcuffed military that we do have is so great? I
> think the major cities of at least five islaamic nations should have been
> turned into radioactive craters within a week of 9/11. Then, if anyone
> objected extend the action until that part of the world is silent. It
> would have taken no more than about ten multi-megaton bombs. We couldn't
> do that because we might hurt someone in a culture who's members are
> determined to destroy us. Gack!
>
> We have spent a major fraction of a trillion dollars and over 1500 lives
> trying to save lives not worth saving by their own words and actions. They
> did zip to save themselves and are doing vanishingly little now. We
> shouldn't do any more for them than they are willing to do for themselves.
> I don't think we should do even that much.
>
> As for them coming here to blow us up. IF every man, woman, and child in
> the US were properly armed and trained to use the weapon, that would be no
> lasting threat. However, our lovely government has all but totally
> disarmed us both materially and intellectually and has given us a military
> that must fight a war for our continued existence with roses and
> permission notes from home.
Oh, LG, how do I love thee, let me count the ways....
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
D
O
L
L
A
R
B
O
T
Atlas Bugged
news:1eVXd.116$qf2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I can hardly believe my eyes -- John Alway winning in a slam-dunk over
> Zero-Sum, Kool-Aid Ken.
Ken inadvertently forgot to pay his Republican Party dues this year so there
were no position papers to tell him what to argue.
Lionell Griffith
society with hydrogen bombs, the few who survive can be eliminated with
slingshots. As it is, we are using little more than slingshots against
them at the same time we are squandering our lives and wealth trying to
rebuild their missbegotton 9th Century society. Either their psychotic
religion needs to be eliminated or they must be eliminated. They are
not about to give up their religion so ..... There is no middle ground.
However, if everyone on the flights used in the 9/11 attack had been
armed and trained to use their arms, the terrorists would not have
survived five minutes and the rest of us could have gone on with our
lives. As it is, we have had a major assault on our rights and our
wealth by our own government.
The thugs of government have aggrandized a massive amount of power from
the "emergency" created by their own, inept by design, policies. Weeeee
the People have and are quietly going along with it. The terrorists
have achieved their goal. Our society has been changed forever and we
have hardly scratched theirs. At least not as deeply as they deserve.
Robert Kolker
> As usual, you have difficulty holding context. After wiping out their
> society with hydrogen bombs
Privately owned H-bombs?
And if you bothered to read what I have written, I have advocated
wholesale slaughter and genocide on the Moslem world. But for this we
need our gummint operated air and missle force paid for with stolen tax
money. If our gummint kills the Moslems I will forgive them for their
minor transgressions.
Bob kOlker
Reggie Perrin
Lionell Griffith wrote:
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > Lionell Griffith wrote:
> >>I have been waiting for that to work for over 40 years. The
> >>situation is worse now than it was then.
>
> > First of all, the situation is not worse than it was then. In fact
it's
> > significantly improved. The death of communism and the fact that no
one
> > with half a brain any longer advocates socialism is proof enough of
> > that.
>
> That is except for practically every damn government on earth, almost
> half the voting population of the US (most of the rest are soft or
> confused on the issue), almost all of the population of Europe, the
> overwhelming majority of university professors, news reporters and
> editors, politicians, political correctness hacks, evironmental
wackos,
> ADA addicts, public eduction anything, and countless other
parisitical
> types. Add to that the millions of laws, rules, and regulations that
> spread a fine web over any voluntary activity and I have a hard time
> seeing it as better than the 50's and 60's.
Oh, come along. Casting the net a little wide, aren't we? Let's talk
about the number of people who openly wish to secure the means of
production for the workers. That would be a more realistic assessment.
Lionell Griffith
>
> I like LG. He has spunk and initiative.
>
> So what's your action plan? I mean, specifically? I will tell you in
> advance I am not amused by any plan where (1) I get shot, (2) I go to
> prison, or (3) I live on a subsistence level.
>
So far I have managed to escape 1, 2, and 3. Though there were periods
during which 3 was a distinct and unchosen possibility.
Step 1: Learn how to think and learn WITHOUT the public education
system getting in the way
Step 2: Connect your knowledge and skills tightly to reality
Step 3: Add at least one new area of knowledge or skill every year
Step 4: Become productively competent in more than one difficult discipline
Step 5: Pay for your own keep by actual work and demand others do the same
Step 6: Say NO! to every demand for your time, thought, and effort to
be consumed on behalf of someone else simply because they need it
Step 7: Accumulate enough wealth so you can tell the world "Go to hell"
and enforce it
Step 8: Vanish
Step 9: Watch the world go to hell and enjoy being able to say "I told
you so."
At this point I am still working on Step 7 and have partially
implemented step 8. Unfortunately, I am doing too much of the watching
part of Step 9 and not enjoying it. There are too many efforts to try
to make me pay for the trip.
Ultra Benevolent Guy
Agent Cooper wrote:
> Ultra Benevolent Guy wrote:
>
> > Yes, but Robin Hood, the taxed just happened to be poor, which
provided
> > the moral backdrop, and Ragnar Danneskjold does not represent the
> > over-taxed poor, he represents the over-taxed producers -- the
would-be
> > rich.
> >
> > Robin Hood and Ragnar Danneskjold are not from the same moral
universe
> > as you think.
>
> In a feudal agricultural society, the producers *are* the poor, and
the
> unproductive consumers *are* the rich. Simple as that.
Ragnar Danneskjold's stated goal was to destroy the myth of Robin Hood,
and Alway comes along and says no, they're really not opposites, if you
think of it *this* way. Who's wrong, Danneskjold or Alway? Perhaps
Danneskjold should have consulted Alway before he made the
pronouncement implying that Robin Hood was the antithesis of
objectivist moral theory.
"Rob from the rich and give to the poor" doesn't give a hoot about
who's doing the producing -- simple as that.
Lionell Griffith
in response to what Lionell Griffith wrote:
>
>>>That is except for practically every damn government on earth, a....
. Add to that the millions of laws, rules, and regulations that
>>spread a fine web over any voluntary activity and I have a hard time
>>seeing it as better than the 50's and 60's.
>
>
> Oh, come along. Casting the net a little wide, aren't we? Let's talk
> about the number of people who openly wish to secure the means of
> production for the workers. That would be a more realistic assessment.
I don't care what you call it, if you don't have the full, absolute, and
unquestioned right of use and disposal of ALL of your thought, time,
energy, and their product, you don't own yourself. The pretense that
one owns that, the use of which, is circumscribed by any other group is
a fatal flaw in one's thinking. Its an outright violation of your right
of self ownership.
By every measure except one, our ability to exercise our right of self
ownership is seriously degraded from what it was during the 50's and
60's. That one measure? We currently are not subject to being
conscripted into the military. Though we are still "required" to
register at age 18 so as to be subject to it if the government thugs so
decree.
There is no such thing as society or public good. There are only some
individuals acting like thugs stealing from other individuals.
Unfortunately some or most of the thug's victims willingly cooperate
with the felony by pretending they are paying for civilization rather
than its destruction. It makes no difference which side calls
themselves government nor what kind of government they say it is. Its
rotten to the core.
It will end. The only question is how. We either stop the stupidity or
mankind will be subjected to a dark ages the likes of which will make
the last one look like a picnic in the park.
fred...@papertig.com
> > fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> >>If he could play a scene with Uma Thurmin, he'd do it
> >>for free.
>
> "Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ejmv215fpt3bcmgap...@4ax.com...
> > Me too.
> The above just demonstrates Ken's malevolent sense of life and Fred's
> erroneous epistemology.
Actually, I don't find Uma that attractive. I think she's a great
actress, even if she does seem to gravitate to fucked-up movies. But
sexy? Not especially.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
[...]
> Ragnar Danneskjold's stated goal was to destroy the myth of Robin
Hood,
> and Alway comes along and says no, they're really not opposites, if
you
> think of it *this* way. Who's wrong, Danneskjold or Alway? Perhaps
> Danneskjold should have consulted Alway before he made the
> pronouncement implying that Robin Hood was the antithesis of
> objectivist moral theory.
The legend of Robin Hood has come to mean robbing from the rich and
giving to the poor. But, in fact, what Robin Hood did (assuming he
existed) was rob from the looters and give to the looted. Back then,
the feudal age, the rich really did live off the backs of the poor.
...John
Matt Barrow
> The legend of Robin Hood has come to mean robbing from the rich and
> giving to the poor. But, in fact, what Robin Hood did (assuming he
> existed) was rob from the looters and give to the looted. Back then,
> the feudal age, the rich really did live off the backs of the poor.
You might want to revisit those myths and legends. The Robin Hood of the
movies was far different from the real Robin Hued (Hood). His character is
much more like one of the Crips than Kevin Costner's character. According to
William Manchester, Robin Hood was a "well born turned thug" and the sheriff
of Nottingham was the "most maligned law enforcement man of the millennium".
Matt
--
"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good." -- SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism. --
Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002
John Alway
Matt Barrow wrote:
[...]
> You might want to revisit those myths and legends. The Robin Hood of
the
> movies was far different from the real Robin Hued (Hood). His
character is
> much more like one of the Crips than Kevin Costner's character.
According to
> William Manchester, Robin Hood was a "well born turned thug" and the
sheriff
> of Nottingham was the "most maligned law enforcement man of the
millennium".
You could be right. I'm simply looking at what he was alleged to
have done. This is even pointed out in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar
confronts Rearden.
At the end of the day, there is no real point in my studying this any
further. Haven't seen the Costner version, btw.
...John
John Alway
Chris Cathcart wrote:
[...]
> I can hardly believe my eyes -- John Alway winning in a slam-dunk
over
> Zero-Sum, Kool-Aid Ken.
Amazing job, Chris. Baiting me and Ken all in one shot.
I shouldn't have gone at Ken so hard. I probably could have used a
better approach.
...John
David Buchner
> NASA exploration is one of the few things the government does that
> I would gladly contribute to. It lifts the human spirit.
Lately, not-so-much...
:-(
David Buchner
> Frankly, I can't get too excited by this whole issue because first we
> need to get rid of a few trillion dollars of gov't spending.
Right-O. Walter Williams keeps pointing this out: nobody'd even CARE
about what kind of a tax system we had, if it only cost each of us a few
bucks a year. Folks are fixating on the wrong end of the whole deal.
Ultra Benevolent Guy
John Alway wrote:
> Ultra Benevolent Guy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Ragnar Danneskjold's stated goal was to destroy the myth of Robin
> Hood,
> > and Alway comes along and says no, they're really not opposites, if
> you
> > think of it *this* way. Who's wrong, Danneskjold or Alway? Perhaps
> > Danneskjold should have consulted Alway before he made the
> > pronouncement implying that Robin Hood was the antithesis of
> > objectivist moral theory.
>
> The legend of Robin Hood has come to mean robbing from the rich
and
> giving to the poor. But, in fact, what Robin Hood did (assuming he
> existed) was rob from the looters and give to the looted.
His credo was "Rob from the rich" not "Rob from the looters." What
you're saying strikes me as an attempt at objectivist reevisionism, so
you can say, "Yeah, Robin Hood, he was one of us!"
Stop that. If Robin Hood robbed from the looters, it was by a
convenient accident, not out of principle.
John Alway
Ultra Benevolent Guy wrote:
[...]
> His credo was "Rob from the rich" not "Rob from the looters." What
> you're saying strikes me as an attempt at objectivist reevisionism,
so
> you can say, "Yeah, Robin Hood, he was one of us!"
You could see a scenario where in his context all rich people were
looters and poor people were the looted. He'd then make the connection
to them being taxed into destitude, and see that as the cause.
> Stop that. If Robin Hood robbed from the looters, it was by a
> convenient accident, not out of principle.
It might have been out of principle.
...John
David Buchner
> One problem is that his reasons aren't quite right.
Hey.
Come March, out here in the frozen tundra, I'm taking what I can get.
Good luck to the poor crazy imperfect bastard.
Chris Cathcart
"Ultra Benevolent Guy" <chuck_u_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110555103.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> His credo was "Rob from the rich" not "Rob from the looters." What
> you're saying strikes me as an attempt at objectivist reevisionism, so
> you can say, "Yeah, Robin Hood, he was one of us!"
>
> Stop that. If Robin Hood robbed from the looters, it was by a
> convenient accident, not out of principle.
(Note: UBG, aka Cat Toy, is a troll, and should be approached accordingly.)
By the same token, if Robin Hood robbed from the rich, it was by a
convenient accident, not out of principle.
--
Ken Gardner
>(Note: UBG, aka Cat Toy, is a troll, and should be approached accordingly.)
And you are a moron, and should be approached accordingly.
Ken
kben
Viagra, didn't they. Sorry to see you go, man.
--Kyle Bennett
Ken Gardner
>Aww, Ken, they tricked you into thinking that blue pill was just
>Viagra, didn't they. Sorry to see you go, man.
No, I'm not gone yet. I have decided instead to be much more
selective about who I respond to and on what subjects. I know better
than to raise certain subjects or to engage certain people (or a
combination of both), but sometimes I just can't resist and then I pay
the price. You would think that after almost eight years here I
would have learned how to do it, but I guess not.
Also, where the heck have you been? :) This place was much better
when you were regularly participating in the various threads.
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
> Kyle Bennett wrote:
>
> >Aww, Ken, they tricked you into thinking that blue pill was just
> >Viagra, didn't they. Sorry to see you go, man.
>
> No, I'm not gone yet. I have decided instead to be much more
> selective about who I respond to and on what subjects. I know
better
> than to raise certain subjects or to engage certain people (or a
> combination of both), but sometimes I just can't resist and then I
pay
> the price. You would think that after almost eight years here I
> would have learned how to do it, but I guess not.
Ken, Ken, Ken, that's the fun of HPO. If you wanted to "play it safe"
there are better places than HPO to spend your time.
Aren't there a few places you haven't been kicked off of yet? :-)
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>> No, I'm not gone yet. I have decided instead to be much more
>> selective about who I respond to and on what subjects. I know
>> better than to raise certain subjects or to engage certain people (or a
>> combination of both), but sometimes I just can't resist and then I
>> pay the price. You would think that after almost eight years here I
>> would have learned how to do it, but I guess not.
>Ken, Ken, Ken, that's the fun of HPO. If you wanted to "play it safe"
>there are better places than HPO to spend your time.
True enough. :) In fact, that's what I like most about this place.
The post that prompted Kyle's response was a mistake, except that it
was good to see Kyle poking his head in here again.
>Aren't there a few places you haven't been kicked off of yet? :-)
Nope. :)
Ken