Re: Why Isn't Socialism Dead?
Quadibloc
> ...and the fatal flaw of socialism is that every time its implemented
> on a national scale, it quickly becomes a tyranny.
>
> Any counterexamples?
Depends what kind of socialism you're talking about.
If you mean state ownership of the means of production, the dictionary
definition, then there's only Cuba and North Korea left at the moment.
Tyrannies? Yes, both of them. Check.
But the topic of this thread seems to be the sort of "socialism" that
exists when the government has the power to levy taxes, to pass laws
which regulate commercial activity, to conscript people into the armed
forces. Counterexamples to that? From the United States to Sweden to
New Zealand... pretty well every industrialized democracy is an
example of a "socialist" state that hasn't become a tyranny... yet.
John Savard
cryptoguy
Odd, responding so long after my post. Failing to follow the timeline,
you fall into error.
The people I was asking the question of were, at the time I started
pointing out this flaw, using the more traditional Marx & Engels model
of socialism. Indeed, they responded by pointing to Cuba and
Sandinista Nicaragua as counterexamples, only to be laughed at by all.
It was only long after my posting that they shifted ground to discuss
the Liberal Western Democracy version. My point was that the M&E model
is based on a flawed notion of human behaviour, and every attempt to
implement it at a national scale has turned into a tyranny. I never
addressed the LWD model.
pt
Michael Gordge
> If you mean state ownership of the means of production, the dictionary
> definition, then there's only Cuba and North Korea left at the moment.
> Tyrannies? Yes, both of them. Check.
Absolute garbage, when the state is stealing 30-70% of the income
profit from a business, as happens in almost every country in the
west, then by default the state becomes an owner of that production,
an owner without the responsibility that ownerships demands, which is
what makes socialism so fuckng disgusting and anti-human.
MG
1Z
> Absolute garbage, when the state is stealing 30-70% of the income
> profit from a business,
who only get an educated workforce, a transport infrastructure,
a communications infrastructure, a non-violent dispute-resolution
procedure...
and...oh....about a million other
useful things in return.
Michael Gordge
> who only get an educated workforce, ........nauseating lefist garbage snipped
Fuck off, people were getting an education and a better education long
before any fucking state stole that responsibility from parents.
MG
Ray Fischer
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> If you mean state ownership of the means of production, the dictionary
>> definition, then there's only Cuba and North Korea left at the moment.
>> Tyrannies? Yes, both of them. Check.
>
>Absolute garbage, when the state is stealing 30-70% of the income
There is no stealing, kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> who only get an educated workforce, ........nauseating lefist garbage snipped
>
>Fuck off, people were getting an education and a better education long
You have no basis for whining. If you don't like paying taxes then
don't earn any money. Don't USE money since that is just part of the
benefit of government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Quadibloc
> On Dec 22, 12:08 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Odd, responding so long after my post.
Not so odd. For one shining moment, the posts of this thread were
united back into a single thread, instead of being split between
dozens of threads, by Google Groups.
John Savard
tooly
taxation to maintain needed public goods [or even to manage public
bads] is a legitimate role of government.
taxation to redistribute wealth is not.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Why not?
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you implying that caring for those
who need help is not a role of government? Should the poor starve or
freeze to death?
Michael Gordge
> You have no basis for whining. If you don't like paying taxes then
> don't earn any money.
Fucking idiot, barter is taxed whether money changes hands or not,
fuck ewe Kantian socialists are stupid.
MG
Michael Gordge
> What exactly do you mean by that? Are you implying that caring for those
> who need help is not a role of government? Should the poor starve or
> freeze to death?
tooly is implying that if you want to give your money to those who you
believe are poor, then you should be left free and alone to do so, he
is implying that you have no moral mandate / justification to demand
anyone else be forced to pay, sacrifice themselves, for your values.
MG
Michael Gordge
> There is no stealing, kook.
Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
MG
William December Starr
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> said:
If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition.
(Note: I fully believe th above, but mostly I'm saying it just
to set you off some more. You're funny when you fulminate.)
-- wds
Quadibloc
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:19:57 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
> >taxation to maintain needed public goods [or even to manage public
> >bads] is a legitimate role of government.
>
> >taxation to redistribute wealth is not.
>
> Why not?
>
> What exactly do you mean by that? Are you implying that caring for those
> who need help is not a role of government? Should the poor starve or
> freeze to death?
Well, one reason for that claim is that the U.S. Constitution limits
the Federal government to collecting taxes for the *common defense*
and the *general welfare*. Thus, if you believe that it is _not_
necessary to go to anarchy or minarchy or Libertarianism, but are
content with the existing government system in the United States -
except that you want it to return to its roots, to the original
principles in their pristine purity as brought forth by the Founding
Fathers - then one might support such a position.
However, note the the Constitution does not enjoin the several States
from levying taxes for purposes of poor relief. But since the
Fourteenth Amendment means that people can move easily from one State
to another one, this would mean in practice that while the states
would perhaps engage in some very limited poor relief, to catch those
who are missed by private charity, they would be ill-advised to
attempt any... ambitious plans of social engineering, since those who
would generate the income that would have to be taxed for such schemes
would swiftly go elsewhere.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In article <7fecdbb5-6750-4c2b-af9e-c49cbb269...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> said:
> > On Dec 23, 12:32 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> There is no stealing, kook.
>
> > Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>
> If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition.
Oh, that's just stupid. Next you'll be saying that since abortion is
legal, it isn't murder, by definition.
Right. Then I suppose we should stop whining about the six million
Jews who went missing from Continental Europe during World War II.
Theft and murder are bad things people do to other people. Right and
wrong, which define what things are bad, have an intrinsic existence
apart from the whims and desires of individual humans or groups of
humans. Laws are decrees made by one or more humans.
Under favorable conditions, laws may approximate to right and wrong.
Thus, most forms of theft and murder are indeed crimes in most
jurisdictions.
And laws can even affect right and wrong in certain cases, in the same
way that a contractual agreement can affect which future actions are
right and wrong. Thus, a copyright law is an agreement by a society to
compensate creators in return for encouraging their creations. A law
that says red lights mean stop, and green lights mean go, is a
standard that benefits everyone.
But right and wrong aren't things people can just manipulate any way
they wish. A government may enact laws like the Fugitive Slave Laws,
but no matter what it might try to do, no government can take a wrong
like Negro slavery and make it right just because it says so.
So it is possible to argue that any legislative measure of taxation
that has not received the unanimous consent of the electorate is on
the same moral level as a gang of ten thugs "democratically" deciding
to help themselves to the contents of an eleventh person's wallet. I
don't actually agree with that particular belief. I think the
situation is much more complicated than that.
But the argument is a complicated one, involving things like "abuse of
market power" and "the tragedy of the commons" and "externalities",
and probably needs a book rather than a USENET posting to do it
justice.
John Savard
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 23, 12:33�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> You have no basis for whining. �If you don't like paying taxes then
>> don't earn any money. �
>
>Fucking idiot, barter is taxed whether money changes hands or not,
You really are a stupid wingnut.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> There is no stealing, kook. �
>
>Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook? You think you have
the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
for nothing?
Assholes like you end up dead or in prison.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 23, 1:50�pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> In article <7fecdbb5-6750-4c2b-af9e-c49cbb269...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> said:
>> > On Dec 23, 12:32�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> There is no stealing, kook. �
>>
>> > Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>
>> If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition.
>
>Oh, that's just stupid. Next you'll be saying that since abortion is
>legal, it isn't murder, by definition.
That too, pro-liar.
>Right. Then I suppose we should stop whining about the six million
>Jews who went missing from Continental Europe during World War II.
Non sequitur.
>Theft and murder are bad things people do to other people.
Like the way you want to steal a woman's freedom and labor.
> Right and
>wrong, which define what things are bad, have an intrinsic existence
No they don't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
If it were only to prevent starvation or freezing to death...
But we all know that government, once given that 'inch', proceeds to
make it into a mile...
What responsibility do YOU have to keep ME up if I happen to be poor?
And what makes me poor? How about the lack of a good job? But the
more the governemt takes away from YOU to feed ME, they also diminish
the incentive for YOU [and others NOT poor] to create new jobs so I
might obtain and then crawl out of my poverty to become a truly 'free
man'.
Otherwise, you hold me in bondage with your compassion, meaning well,
but crippling me under government 'nanny-ism'.
And it gets worse too. And too, I understand you could care less
about ME, but only to assuage your own selfish guilt.
No man needs pity, or any other man to think they are 'better' [if
only richer] to provide handouts, but deserves the respect of any Lion
in the jugle as king of his own domain. OPPORTUNITY. If you must
tax, use it to create new opportunity. That is all any poor man would
ask. I know I would rather die than have someone else keep me up; it
robs the human being of their pride, integrity, even their very soul.
Take your socialism and shove it up your arse...give me FREEDOM and
the OPPORTUNITY to live unbeholding to no other.
Quadibloc
> You think you have
> the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
> for nothing?
But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
Without taxes, nobody works for anyone else for nothing, everyone
works only for themselves, and gets paid for the entire value of their
work, without other people grabbing a cut by force.
Just because he might be a kook doesn't mean you can win the argument
by getting it exactly backwards.
John Savard
Alan Ford
>> You think you have
>> the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
>> for nothing?
>
> But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
> you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
> Without taxes, nobody works for anyone else for nothing, everyone
> works only for themselves, and gets paid for the entire value of their
> work, without other people grabbing a cut by force.
Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
extinguish it. Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
defibrillator yourself. Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
country, you work for yourself against a few million of them. Or when a
rapist assaults your daughter, you work yourself to find, apprehend, try
and imprison the suspect. Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
safety.
Taxes... pffffffffffffft! They're for losers.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Michael Gordge
> You really are a stupid wingnut.
Ewe fucking pig ignorant knuckle-dragging commie fuckwit, increase in
property values, where no money changes hands, is taxed in many
western mobocracies, provisional tax is tax paid on unrealized money,
you fucking ignorant twat.
MG
Michael Gordge
> In article <7fecdbb5-6750-4c2b-af9e-c49cbb269...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Dec 23, 12:32 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> There is no stealing, kook.
>
> > Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>
> If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition.
Idiot, the fucking government and no fucking dopey law tells me when
something has been stollen from me, legalized theft means there is
nothing I can do to stop the cunts stealing from me, being legal does
NOT mean a theft has not taken place, it sanctions the parasitical
scum's actions and that is all it does.
MG
Michael Gordge
> You think you have
> the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
> for nothing?
Ewe fucking pig ignorant parsitical knuckle-dragging commie cunt, this
is not about me, its about ewe pig ignorant commie cunts who demand
others at the point of a gun sacrifice their values for yours.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
> extinguish it.
Nope, you take out fire insurance.
> Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
> defibrillator yourself.
Nope, you take out medical insurance.
> Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
> country, you work for yourself against a few million of them.
Less than 5% of the average western country's total income would
provide the best police and defence forces in the world for that
country.
If only they were your only objections to the removal of the
government's fucking guns.
> Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
> toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
> safety.
Yeah pretty much, why the fuck would ewe ever want to trust a fucking
bunch of parasitical politicians to do that for ewe?
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 11:38�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> You really are a stupid wingnut.
>
>Ewe fucking pig ignorant knuckle-dragging commie fuckwit, increase in
The "logic" of the rightard asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:50�am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> In article <7fecdbb5-6750-4c2b-af9e-c49cbb269...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> said:
>>
>> > On Dec 23, 12:32�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> There is no stealing, kook. �
>>
>> > Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>
>> If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition.
>
>Idiot, the fucking government and no fucking dopey law tells me when
>something has been stollen from me, legalized theft means there is
>nothing I can do to stop the cunts stealing from me, being legal does
>NOT mean a theft has not taken place,
You have NO right to enjoy the work of other people without paying for
it, crook. YOU have not right to steal.
> it sanctions the parasitical
>scum's actions and that is all it does.
"Parasitical scum" like you. You just want to leech off of society
without paying your share.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 23, 7:40�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> You think you have
>> the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
>> for nothing?
>
>But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
>you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
So you get to enjoy all of the benefits of government, but you think
you have no obligation to pay for it.
You're just a hypocritical leech.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 4:44�pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>
>> Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
>> extinguish it.
>
>Nope, you take out fire insurance.
Taxes.
>> Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
>> defibrillator yourself.
>
>Nope, you take out medical insurance.
Taxes.
>> Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
>> country, you work for yourself against a few million of them.
>
>Less than 5% of the average western country's total income would
>provide the best police and defence forces in the world for that
>country.
Taxes.
>> Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
>> toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
>> safety.
>
>Yeah pretty much, why the fuck would ewe ever want to trust a fucking
Tell us, asshole: Since you don't believe in taxes then you don't
actually use any money, do you? And you don't use any roads, or cars,
or medical services, do you?
Or are you a hypocritical leech?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> The "logic" of the rightard asshole.
The logic, ewe dishonest sack of shit, is you saying that one can
avoid tax by not dealing with money and I am giving ewe numerous
examples where that proves you to be talking a load of envy riddent
leftist crap.
Avoiding death is not the meaning of life, ewe disgusting anti-human
moron.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Since you don't believe in taxes then you don't
> actually use any money, do you?
There ewe go again, you stupid commie cunt, the government can demand
tax be paid when no money has changed hands.
MG
Michael Gordge
> You have NO right to enjoy the work of other people without paying for
> it,..........
Yes thats right, so why the fuck are ewe a socialist?
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:36�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> The "logic" of the rightard asshole.
>
>The logic, ewe dishonest sack of shit,
And still the rightard can't spell and can't stop being an asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:38�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> You have NO right to enjoy the work of other people without paying for
>> it,..........
>
>Yes thats right,
Then quite whining like a child that you're not allowed to
steal from others, rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:41�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> �Since you don't believe in taxes then you don't
>> actually use any money, do you?
>
>There ewe go again, you stupid commie cunt, the government can demand
The stupid asshole runs away from his rank hypocrisy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
1Z
> On Dec 22, 4:59 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec, 20:45, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > Absolute garbage, when the state is stealing 30-70% of the income
> > > profit from a business,
>
> > who only get an educated workforce, a transport infrastructure,
> > a communications infrastructure, a non-violent dispute-resolution
> > procedure...
> > and...oh....about a million other
> > useful things in return.
>
> taxation to maintain needed public goods [or even to manage public
> bads] is a legitimate role of government.
>
> taxation to redistribute wealth is not.
And educated workforce is a public good.
Equality of opportunity is not levelling down of income.
1Z
More like compulsory payment for services rendered.
1Z
> On Dec 23, 2:00 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:19:57 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> > >On Dec 22, 4:59 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On 22 Dec, 20:45, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >> > Absolute garbage, when the state is stealing 30-70% of the income
> > >> > profit from a business,
>
> > >> who only get an educated workforce, a transport infrastructure,
> > >> a communications infrastructure, a non-violent dispute-resolution
> > >> procedure...
> > >> and...oh....about a million other
> > >> useful things in return.
>
> > >taxation to maintain needed public goods [or even to manage public
> > >bads] is a legitimate role of government.
>
> > >taxation to redistribute wealth is not.
>
> > Why not?
>
> > What exactly do you mean by that? Are you implying that caring for those
> > who need help is not a role of government? Should the poor starve or
> > freeze to death?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If it were only to prevent starvation or freezing to death...
> But we all know that government, once given that 'inch', proceeds to
> make it into a mile...
Since it is possible for small-government reformists
to be elected, that generalisation is not particularly true.
Michael Gordge
> And still the rightard can't spell and can't stop being an asshole.
Where is the spelling mistake ewe issue avoiding sack of shit?
MG
Michael Gordge
> you're not allowed to
> steal from others, rightard.
Yes that right, so why the fuck are ewe a leftist retard?
MG
Michael Gordge
> The stupid asshole runs away from his rank hypocrisy.
Lets see who is the fucking hypocrite here:
If am armed thug comes to your door and demands you hand over 40% of
your money / value of your property - or he will kill you / put ewe in
jail, you would regard that as an immoral repugnant act of theft
giving you no choice, and yet, when the fucking taxman makes that
identical demand ewe embrace that parasitical cunt's actions as a
moral virtue for no other reason than the dishonest prick promises to
give ewe a fraction of YOUR money back in the form of roads and
welfare, which incidentally can be provided by the private sector at a
fraction of the cost, fuck ewe Kantian commie cunts are soooooo
stupid.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> So you get to enjoy all of the benefits of government,
Where is the fucking benefit in you being forced at the point of a gun
to hand a dollar over to the fucking taxman and getting less than
twenty cents back in value?
MG
Michael Gordge
Ewe may believe a sow's purse can become a silk purse just by fucking
around with words, reality is, tax is legalized theft.
MG
Quadibloc
This isn't about me. But the people who do advocate getting rid of
taxes mean getting rid of them for everyone, not just not paying their
own taxes. They feel that a Smith and Wesson will more than take the
place of all the protection they get from government police. They may
be mistaken, but you do have to argue more clearly than you have been
doing to make the point.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> More like compulsory payment for services rendered.
Yes, but not services *freely contracted for*. It's a crime to switch
someone to a different telephone company without that person's
permission, for example.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
> > But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
> > you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
> > Without taxes, nobody works for anyone else for nothing, everyone
> > works only for themselves, and gets paid for the entire value of their
> > work, without other people grabbing a cut by force.
>
> Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
> extinguish it. Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
> defibrillator yourself. Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
> country, you work for yourself against a few million of them. Or when a
> rapist assaults your daughter, you work yourself to find, apprehend, try
> and imprison the suspect. Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
> toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
> safety.
>
> Taxes... pffffffffffffft! They're for losers.
You are making good points here. There do seem to be tasks that only a
government can perform. And if a government is needed, somehow it will
have to be paid for.
Those who object to taxes believe that free enterprise competition
will allow people to get a reasonable deal hiring private companies to
do for them what government does now in many areas.
Many smaller communities in the United States have volunteer fire
departments.
Medical care in the United States is provided by the private
enterprise of individual doctors, not by the government.
Competition, and free circulation of information about products, would
serve as well or better than heavy-handed government regulation,
because individuals would be free to decide for themselves which
characteristics of products really endanger them.
Libertarianism doesn't grant individuals the right to *initiate
force*. People who commit acts of violence won't be imprisoned,
because keeping them in jail would cost money that would have to be
stolen from taxpayers. Presumably, people guilty of small crimes might
be allowed to make restitution and pay fines, but the penalty for
something like rape would be death. Instead of a standing government,
one would have town hall meetings - and volunteer citizen posses.
Note that crime would be reduced because there would be no drug
problem; drugs would be legal.
I'm not saying this would really work. In a world where one has to
worry about immense tyrannies like ancient Egypt and Babylon - or the
Soviet Union and Red China, armed with nuclear weapons - freedom would
not last long if individuals, concerned with the day-to-day scramble
of saving their pennies to buy a bigger car than their neighbor so as
to attract a mate, fail to make enough voluntary contributions to the
national defense charity. The "Tragedy of the Commons", when
circumstances create overwhelming overhead expenses, is the likely
doom of Libertarian and minarchist dreams.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Tell us, asshole: Since you don't believe in taxes then you don't
> actually use any money, do you? And you don't use any roads, or cars,
> or medical services, do you?
> Or are you a hypocritical leech?
Why can't someone pay taxes, and use the services, while that
situation exists, and still advocate change to a better system that
works on a different principle?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >Right. Then I suppose we should stop whining about the six million
> >Jews who went missing from Continental Europe during World War II.
>
> Non sequitur.
> > Right and
> >wrong, which define what things are bad, have an intrinsic existence
>
> No they don't.
It does follow logically from the claim that right and wrong don't
exist independently, but are just what the government says they are
that, since the Nazis governed Germany and Poland (surely the fact
that they conquered Poland by force, and any irregularities in Hitler
declaring himself chancellor are just quibbles - after all, you don't
advocate giving the U.S. back to the Indians) and authorized the
concentration camps... then they must have been just as "right" as
anything else, because they were authorized by law.
It is true that the Nazis were somewhat embarrassed by the
concentration camps, and didn't embody their details explicitly into
statute, but they did enact the Nuremberg laws, they did enact gun
control laws, they did enact laws like the _Nacht und Nebel erlass_
(Night and Fog decree) which all added up to allowing the State
representatives with the fancy uniforms to do these things and to
making it a crime to resist them.
So if right and wrong have no meaning in themselves, and what the
government says is the law is what is right, where is your independent
yardstick of morality to stand on from which to criticize the Nazis?
There is only the will of the Leader, and how effectively and
efficiently the will of the Leader is carried out, if there is no
other right and wrong than the will of the Leader.
I suppose one could say that the general sentiments of the community
are what create right and wrong, and that Hitler didn't represent
those sentiments of the German people the way that, say, Roosevelt
represented the sentiments of the American people. But the German
people at least seemed enthusiastic about Hitler, and anti-Semitism
was common in Germany, so this argument is not trivial.
And if you do dismiss the Holocaust as an extreme case, what about
Negro slavery? Surely that has a long history of being *authorized by
law* in a *democratic nation*. Yet, it, too, was WRONG. How could that
be, if right and wrong are the creation of governments?
I suppose you could say that, no, they're not the creation of
governments - but they _are_ the creation of people.
Now, *that* would make more sense, but quickly becomes
indistinguishable from natural law theory when you add conditions like
this:
People when they honestly follow their consciences, not when they
distort right and wrong for their own self-interest.
The golden rule, or the "Categorical Imperative", are ways to
approximate such a condition by a simple rule.
John Savard
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>
That's not the way taxes work.
>
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:54�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> The stupid asshole runs away from his rank hypocrisy.
>
>Lets see who is the fucking hypocrite here:
Still you, rightard.
>If am armed thug comes to your door and demands you hand over 40% of
We're not interested in your paranoid idiocy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 5:40�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> So you get to enjoy all of the benefits of government,
>
>Where is the fucking benefit in you being forced at the point of a gun
You're still alve. Without government to protect your crazy ass you'd
have been dead a long time ago.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 24, 1:40�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Quadibloc �<jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Dec 23, 7:40�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >> You think you have
>> >> the right to sit on your lazy ass and expect people to work for you
>> >> for nothing?
>>
>> >But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
>> >you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
>>
>> So you get to enjoy all of the benefits of government, but you think
>> you have no obligation to pay for it.
>>
>> You're just a hypocritical leech.
>
>This isn't about me. But the people who do advocate getting rid of
>taxes mean getting rid of them for everyone, not just not paying their
>own taxes.
Because anarchy works _so_ well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>
>> Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook?
>
> That's not the way taxes work.
Yes it is.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Quadibloc �<jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >Right. Then I suppose we should stop whining about the six million
>> >Jews who went missing from Continental Europe during World War II.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>> > Right and
>> >wrong, which define what things are bad, have an intrinsic existence
>>
>> No they don't.
>
>It does follow logically from the claim that right and wrong don't
>exist independently, but are just what the government says they are
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. Just because they do not exist does
not mean that they are defined by the government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
NO. Taxes take money from me to pay for some stuff I use, and some I don't.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>>>>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>>> Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook?
>>> That's not the way taxes work.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> NO. Taxes take money from me to pay for some stuff I use, and some I don't.
You get some services for free and some you pay for. Just like
everybody else. On average it works out.
Of course, some really stupid people who LOVE bureaucracy think that
we should pay a million people to do the accounting for each and every
use of government services.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>>>>>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>>>> Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook?
>>>> That's not the way taxes work.
>>> Yes it is.
>> NO. Taxes take money from me to pay for some stuff I use, and some I don't.
>
> You get some services for free and some you pay for. Just like
> everybody else. On average it works out.
So, as I said, taxes do not work like "paying for the services I
enjoy". They work, well, like taxes. Pay into big pot and maybe stuff
you want gets done.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>>>>>>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>>>>> Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook?
>>>>> That's not the way taxes work.
>>>> Yes it is.
>>> NO. Taxes take money from me to pay for some stuff I use, and some I don't.
>>
>> You get some services for free and some you pay for. Just like
>> everybody else. On average it works out.
>
> So, as I said, taxes do not work like "paying for the services I
>enjoy".
Yes, they do. From phone service to cable TV to banking to
supermarkets to software to cars, costs are not itemized out to the
minute detail. They are bundled. Just like government.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
>
> ........... Without government to protect your crazy ass you'd
> have been dead a long time ago.
That costs a tax rate of less 3% of GDP ewe fucking brain dead commie
moron.
MG
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But (A) I get to choose which of these services I want and need, and
(B) The phone, cable, bank, etc., don't have the power to come to my
house and make me pay for those services if I don't want to. The
government does.
There is a HUGE difference between these. The fact that taxation may be
necessary for certain purposes does not change the fact that it is
different from "I go out and pay for services that I want".
Michael Gordge
> We're...........
Ewe fucking obnoxious arrogant knuckle-dragging piece of leftist crap,
on here ewe speak for ewe and no-one else but you, ewe fucking got
that?
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 25, 4:25�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> We're...........
>
>Ewe fucking obnoxious arrogant knuckle-dragging piece of leftist crap,
To the wingnut fascist, everybody who doesn't goose-step with them is
"leftist crap".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> There is no stealing, kook.
>>>>>>>>> Taxation is legalized theft, kook.
>>>>>>>> Paying for the services you enjoy is theft, kook?
>>>>>>> That's not the way taxes work.
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>> NO. Taxes take money from me to pay for some stuff I use, and some I don't.
>>>> You get some services for free and some you pay for. Just like
>>>> everybody else. On average it works out.
>>> So, as I said, taxes do not work like "paying for the services I
>>> enjoy".
>>
>> Yes, they do. From phone service to cable TV to banking to
>> supermarkets to software to cars, costs are not itemized out to the
>> minute detail. They are bundled. Just like government.
>
> But (A) I get to choose which of these services I want and need,
And if you decide that you don't want/need the services of your state,
you're free to live in a different state, and if you don't like the
package that the US government is offering, you're free to move to a
different country.
> and
>(B) The phone, cable, bank, etc., don't have the power to come to my
>house and make me pay for those services if I don't want to.
If you steal their services then you can bet that they're going to
force you to pay up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> To the wingnut fascist, everybody who doesn't goose-step with them is
> "leftist crap".
Ewe fucking stupid arrogant obnoxious knuckle-dragging leftist cunt,
who the fuck do ewe think are? what the fuck makes you believe that I
would want a leftist wanker like ewe stepping within the same fucking
universe as me?
MG
Michael Gordge
> you're free to move to a
> different country.
And so the fuck are ewe free to leave, so why the fuck dont ewe fuck
off to North Korea? Because you are a fucking parasite of the
productive, thats why.
Without doubt that statement of yours (telling those who oppose your
views to find somewhere elese to live), proves conclusively just how
fucking disgusting, gutless and utterly bereft you are of any moral
rational ethical sound argument to support your disgusting anti-human
leftist ideology, ewe fucking commie coward.
Now read my lips, ewe fucking arrogant obnoxious knuckle-dragging
leftist cunt, the avoidance of death is not the meaning of life, and
how fucking dare ewe suggest otherwise by telling someone to fuck off
to avoid your fucking guns.
Support your case with rational sound arguments, which ewe cant, or
fuck off to North Korea and see where your disgusting ilk are taking
the US.
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 25, 6:00�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> you're free to move to a
>> different country.
>
>And so the fuck are ewe free to leave,
I'm not the hypocritical asshole who hates America.
You are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
>
> I'm not the hypocritical asshole who hates America.
I hate what ewe fucking anti-human retards are doing to what was once
the greatest, in all respects of man the human individual - being the
standard of all good things, nation on earth.
> You are.
On the contrary, ewe fucking disgusting anti-individual commie morons
would not be doing what ewe are doing today to American individuals,
if ewe did not hate American individuals being the greatest, freest
individuals on earth.
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 26, 4:48�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> I'm not the hypocritical asshole who hates America.
>
>I hate what ewe fucking anti-human retards are doing to what was once
Q.E.D.
>the greatest, in all respects of man the human individual - being the
>standard of all good things, nation on earth.
While you're just some selfish asshole.
>> You are.
>
>On the contrary, ewe fucking disgusting anti-individual commie morons
You don't believe in liberty. You want to force everybody to
goose-step according to your dictates.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> While you're just some selfish asshole.
How the fuck am I being selfish saying that you and you alone, no-one
but you, ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the
results of your energy?
> You don't believe in liberty.
As a statement of my belief in liberty my statement is, "You and only
you ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results
of your energy and that you alone are the highest possible standard of
all your moral values."
> You want to force everybody to
> goose-step according to your dictates.
Ewe talk like a fucking birdbrain goose so why wouldn't ewe want to
walk like one? btw, I dont want ewe stepping within a fucking universe
of me.
I promote the idea that ewe be left alone so as that ewe, and only
ewe, can step in any fucking manner and direction that you want, over
a cliff would be nice, but on one and only one condition, that you
leave others alone to step where and how and when they want.
"Live and let live", is my political moto, whats yours?
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 26, 10:20�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> While you're just some selfish asshole.
>
>How the fuck am I being selfish saying that you and you alone, no-one
>but you, ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the
>results of your energy?
Because you don't accept that for anybody else.
>> You don't believe in liberty.
>
>As a statement of my belief in liberty my statement is, "You and only
>you ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results
>of your energy and that you alone are the highest possible standard of
>all your moral values."
So if you want to be a murderer or a thief then that's your right?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Ford
> On Dec 24, 4:44 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>
>> Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
>> extinguish it.
>
> Nope, you take out fire insurance.
Ah, the fire "insurance", I see.
>
>> Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
>> defibrillator yourself.
>
> Nope, you take out medical insurance.
Medical "insurance', got it.
>
>> Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
>> country, you work for yourself against a few million of them.
>
> Less than 5% of the average western country's total income would
> provide the best police and defence forces in the world for that
> country.
So... you get police insurance and military insurance, right?
>
> If only they were your only objections to the removal of the
> government's fucking guns.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>> Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
>> toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
>> safety.
>
> Yeah pretty much, why the fuck would ewe ever want to trust a fucking
> bunch of parasitical politicians to do that for ewe?
What a crock of shit. Because you actually do this on a daily basis, you
fucking twat? You just like raving against it like a hypocrite usually does.
And as far as your "insurance" goes, why don't we also take out roads
insurance, public education insurance, parks insurance, public
transportation insurance, court system insurance, prisons insurance,
immigration insurance, coast guard insurance, and so on, and we'll all
just agree to call it insurance instead of tax, so you retards can sleep
easy.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Alan Ford
>>> But that's what taxes are about - forcing other people to work for
>>> you, by making them pay taxes for the government programs you want.
>>> Without taxes, nobody works for anyone else for nothing, everyone
>>> works only for themselves, and gets paid for the entire value of their
>>> work, without other people grabbing a cut by force.
>> Right. Like when your house is burning, you work for yourself trying to
>> extinguish it. Or when you get a heart attack, you work that
>> defibrillator yourself. Or when a foreign occupying army invades your
>> country, you work for yourself against a few million of them. Or when a
>> rapist assaults your daughter, you work yourself to find, apprehend, try
>> and imprison the suspect. Or when you buy a food item, a medication, a
>> toy, a vehicle, a tool, etc. you work for yourself trying to asses their
>> safety.
>>
>> Taxes... pffffffffffffft! They're for losers.
>
> You are making good points here. There do seem to be tasks that only a
> government can perform. And if a government is needed, somehow it will
> have to be paid for.
>
> Those who object to taxes believe that free enterprise competition
> will allow people to get a reasonable deal hiring private companies to
> do for them what government does now in many areas.
>
> Many smaller communities in the United States have volunteer fire
> departments.
Yeah, they do. Try implementing this in any decent size city and see how
far you get.
>
> Medical care in the United States is provided by the private
> enterprise of individual doctors, not by the government.
And we can all see how successful that is, in the country where a
significant fraction of the population has limited or no access to
quality healthcare, yet the cost per capita is three times what other
developed countries (most of which have government run healthcare) pay.
>
> Competition, and free circulation of information about products, would
> serve as well or better than heavy-handed government regulation,
> because individuals would be free to decide for themselves which
> characteristics of products really endanger them.
In theory. But then, in theory, marxism sounds wonderful. We all know
how it works in practice.
>
> Libertarianism doesn't grant individuals the right to *initiate
> force*. People who commit acts of violence won't be imprisoned,
> because keeping them in jail would cost money that would have to be
> stolen from taxpayers. Presumably, people guilty of small crimes might
> be allowed to make restitution and pay fines, but the penalty for
> something like rape would be death. Instead of a standing government,
> one would have town hall meetings - and volunteer citizen posses.
So, a return to the Wild West, along with unchecked and corrupt local
sheriff/judge power, mob justice, lynching and a Somali style law. No,
thanks, I'd rather pay my taxes and live in a civilized world.
>
> Note that crime would be reduced because there would be no drug
> problem; drugs would be legal.
That's an issue unrelated to the discussion.
>
> I'm not saying this would really work. In a world where one has to
> worry about immense tyrannies like ancient Egypt and Babylon - or the
> Soviet Union and Red China, armed with nuclear weapons - freedom would
> not last long if individuals, concerned with the day-to-day scramble
> of saving their pennies to buy a bigger car than their neighbor so as
> to attract a mate, fail to make enough voluntary contributions to the
> national defense charity. The "Tragedy of the Commons", when
> circumstances create overwhelming overhead expenses, is the likely
> doom of Libertarian and minarchist dreams.
OK, then, so we agree that a lot of this libertarian shit is a pipe
dream put on paper by people who for some reason can't admit to
themselves that they're actually social liberals, so they attempt to
mask this by hanging on to lunatic fringe market fantasies.
Michael Gordge
> Because you don't accept that for anybody else.
I have just fucking told ewe, ewe deaf and stupid commie cunt, that
YOU and YOU alone ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of
the results of YOUR fucking energy, how the fuck is that me not
accepting that YOU and YOU alone ought be the sole benefactor and the
sole decider of the results of YOUR own energy? Fuck ewe are stupid.
> So if you want to be a murderer or a thief then that's your right?
Ewe fucking dishonest and desperate prick, ewe snipped "LIVE AND LET
LIVE"
And ewe fucking well ignored my statement that YOU YOU and YOU and YOU
and YOU ought all be left alone to be the sole benefactor and the sole
decider of the results of YOUR energy.
MG
Ray Fischer
>> extinguish it.
>
Smirk. Who's going to enforce the contract and what are you going to
pay with?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 26, 3:06�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Because you don't accept that for anybody else.
>
>I have just fucking told ewe, ewe deaf and stupid commie cunt, that
You're a liar and a dumbshit asshole. You write idiotic, selfish crap
worthy of a spoiled two-year-old.
>YOU and YOU alone ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of
>the results of YOUR fucking energy,
Then you'd damn well better make sure sure that you have enough trees on
your property to produce enough oxygen for you to breathe since you
don't want to be leeching off of other people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> You're a liar and a dumbshit asshole.
Oh my aren't ewe a brave little knuckle-dragging commie cunt with a
few thousand miles of ocean between us, what a coward and wanker ewe
are showing yourself to be.
> You write idiotic, selfish crap
> worthy of a spoiled two-year-old.
Why dont ewe want to be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of
the results of your energy? It means after all, you keeping and giving
as much as ewe want, sheeeeeesh that's got to be a good thing.
What is is about owning and therefore being held responsible for YOUR
mind, body and actions?
MG
William December Starr
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> said:
> Ewe fucking pig ignorant knuckle-dragging commie fuckwit, increase
> in property values, where no money changes hands, is taxed in many
> western mobocracies, provisional tax is tax paid on unrealized
> money, you fucking ignorant twat.
It just occurred to me: Tourette syndrome?
-- wds
William December Starr
1Z <peter...@yahoo.com> said:
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> But we all know that government, once given that 'inch',
>> proceeds to make it into a mile...
>
> Since it is possible for small-government reformists to be
> elected, that generalisation is not particularly true.
But do they *stay* small-government reformists?
-- wds
Yap
America is so-called free, but never totally free.
No country in this world is free, in the real sense.
And american is a fucking arrogant country, that's why those Muslim
radicals want to blow you up.
Just one example, Bush invented nuclear excuse to go after Iraqi oil.
Are you denying?
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 28, 3:59�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> You're a liar and a dumbshit asshole.
>
>Oh my aren't ewe a brave little knuckle-dragging commie cunt with a
Look what the dumbshit coward ran away form:
You'd damn well better make sure sure that you have enough trees on
William December Starr
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> said:
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Quadibloc �<jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Right and
>>> wrong, which define what things are bad, have an intrinsic existence
>>
>> No they don't.
>
> It does follow logically from the claim that right and wrong don't
> exist independently, but are just what the government says they are
> that,
Who made that claim? Not me.
I said "If it's legal then it's not theft, by definition." Nothing
about right and wrong.
-- wds
William December Starr
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> said:
> Idiot, the fucking government and no fucking dopey law tells me when
> something has been stollen from me, legalized theft means there is
> nothing I can do to stop the cunts stealing from me, being legal does
> NOT mean a theft has not taken place, it sanctions the parasitical
> scum's actions and that is all it does.
Like I said, you're funny when you fulminate.
-- wds
James A. Donald
> > elected, that generalisation is not particularly true.
On 28 Dec 2009 02:22:32 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:
> But do they *stay* small-government reformists?
No matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected.
What this means is that politicians as a class face certain
incentives. They have to get the apparatus on government on their
side, working for them rather than against them. This is best done if
you can provide more jobs, thus growth in government is driven by
growth in government payrolls, not the other way around.
People attempting to engage in small government reform face exactly
the same problems and incentives as those attempting to engage in
regulatory reform after the financial collapse, or security agency
reform after 9/11.
The only feasible way to do a shakeup is to give more money and power
to government employees. In private industry, those who screw up,
lose their jobs. In government, those who screw up get promotions in
order that their rivals can be given even bigger promotions.
After 9/11 those who had screwed up got more power, more money, and
more jobs to hand out. The goal was that those who had screwed up
less should get more benefits than those who had screwed up more, but
it is far from clear that this goal was achieved - observe the recent
fuck ups with Hasan and Abdullah.
Since the recent fuck ups are intolerable, there will probably be yet
another expansion. But in order to create more high level jobs, the
government needs to create a proportional number of low level jobs.
Thus, in the previous security re-organization, they had to create the
horde of arrogant morons who harass and humiliate those getting on
planes so that those who fucked up last time around would still have
important underlings to boss around.
So for the next security re-organization, a horde of arrogant morons
to harass and humiliate those going to the toilet, or purchasing
certain substances, or some such. Perhaps a slip-and-emergency will
be declared, and a new force created to supervise entry and exit to
potentially slippery floors, or a smoking emergency - perhaps tobacco
smugglers are inadvertently funding terrorism.
Bill Snyder
Starr) wrote:
"Never attribute to mental illness what can be adequately
explained by dumbass."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Michael Gordge
> Just one example, Bush invented nuclear excuse to go after Iraqi oil.
> Are you denying?
Am I denying what?
MG