Another day, and STILL no ethical justification for redistribution given

[Rudy Canoza]

The left keep admitting, time and again, that they don't have one.
Actually, they don't believe they need one - might makes right to leftists.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 10:31 PM, Paul wrote:
> Rudy Canoza has brought this to us :
>> On 1/10/2014 9:48 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight
>> *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>
>>> In article <3660d$52d07a84$414e828e$27...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

>>> "The subjects of
>>
>> Not a refutation, "billy" bitch, you impotent squat-to-piss homo.
>
> As you say when anyone attacks Ayn Rand.

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Steve Rothstein <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:cJydnWD2Z7CwGkzP...@earthlink.com:
>
>> On 1/11/2014 9:57 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in
>>>
>>> That only works where everyone's income (and wealth) is near equal.
>>> Doesn't work in a world where 300 rich people have enough money they
>>> could feed half the world, while that half the world doesn't know
>>> where their next meal is coming from.
>>>
>>
>> Why would you say it doesn't work? It seems perfect to me. You pay 10%
>> of your income, no matter where you get it or how much it is. That
>> means that if 300 people have half the income, then 300 people pay
>> half the taxes.
>>
> Because it let's the rich establish themselves as an aristocracy

No, it doesn't.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 3:32 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Steve Rothstein <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:cJydnWD2Z7CwGkzP...@earthlink.com:
>
>> On 1/11/2014 9:57 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>> That only works where everyone's income (and wealth) is near equal.
>>> Doesn't work in a world where 300 rich people have enough money they
>>> could feed half the world, while that half the world doesn't know
>>> where their next meal is coming from.
>>>
>>
>> Why would you say it doesn't work? It seems perfect to me. You pay 10%
>> of your income, no matter where you get it or how much it is. That
>> means that if 300 people have half the income, then 300 people pay
>> half the taxes.
>>

> http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5986/e5m3.jpg

Not an argument.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 5:33 PM, Mike Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:46:07 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Rothstein <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:cJydnWD2Z7CwGkzP...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2014 9:57 AM, Baxter wrote:

>>>> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in
>>>>

>>>> That only works where everyone's income (and wealth) is near equal.
>>>> Doesn't work in a world where 300 rich people have enough money they
>>>> could feed half the world, while that half the world doesn't know
>>>> where their next meal is coming from.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would you say it doesn't work? It seems perfect to me. You pay 10%
>>> of your income, no matter where you get it or how much it is. That
>>> means that if 300 people have half the income, then 300 people pay
>>> half the taxes.
>>>

>> Because it let's the rich establish themselves as an aristocracy - which
>> leads to the end of democracy and liberty.
>
> Are you really this stupid? You simply do not have the first clue how
> life works, do you...

He is that stupid - in fact, you don't know the half of it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 6:02 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
bitch, lied:

> In article <548d5$52d174f6$414e828e$20...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@phingersinhisears.con> wrote:

>
>> On 1/11/2014 8:25 AM,Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>> "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>>

>>>> "The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
>>>> the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
>>>> abilities;
> that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy
> under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has
> written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches
> as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"

Smith didn't write any such thing. That is an editor's footnote.


>>>
>>> Subjects? Really? Sounds a lot the old Soviet Union. Are you a commie?
>>
>> Adam Smith was Scottish, hence a subject of the British crown.
>>
>> "billy" bitch misunderstands the quote, anyway. Smith's comment was
>> about supporting (financing) the state in its minimal legitimate
>> functions: defense, police, courts. Smith did not see redistribution
>> from producers to parasitic consumers as the legitimate function of the
>> state...because it isn't.
>
> Just so like you

No dodging.



> Anyway, the main point of Smith's quote, which scared you enough to
> delete it was that [a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality
> of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the
> rich.'"

Smith didn't write that. You lied.

[Max Boot]

On 1/11/2014 6:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in news:q6s3d9dqak2e4rt50mclu5059gollh85fa@
> 4ax.com:

> Are you that stupid that you don't already realize that it's to a great
> extent happened?

No, it has not.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 7:18 PM, mackerel cunt (GOP_Decline_and_Fall) lied:

>>> Also note that Hank Paulson made a loan worth $7 trillion
>>
>> No.
>
> Correct it was slightly more.

No, wrong. It was a minute fraction of that.

It also was only necessary because of Democrats' destruction of the
mortgage and housing markets, which you have already acknowledged.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 9:03 PM, mackerel cunt (GOP_Decline_and_Fall) lied:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 02:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Baxter

> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in news:q6s3d9dqak2e4rt50mclu5059gollh85fa@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:46:07 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> half the taxes.
>>>>>
>>>> Because it let's the rich establish themselves as an aristocracy - which
>>>> leads to the end of democracy and liberty.
>>>
>>> Are you really this stupid? You simply do not have the first clue how
>>> life works, do you...
>>>
>> Are you that stupid that you don't already realize that it's to a great
>> extent happened?
>

> It would appear so.

Wrong. There is no such thing as aristocracy here, and you know it.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

You can stomp your little feet in denial but it's headline
international news that your stomping has no effect on whatsoever.

Half of US Congressional politicians are millionaires

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25691066

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa is the wealthiest member of
Congress, with a net worth upwards of $598m (file photo)

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:29:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

The richest 1 percent made as much every year as the bottom 60 percent
combined. They called the group with all the power the "plutonomy"

http://www.alternet.org/economy/rich-people-spending-sprees-may-find-one-day-income-inequality-bites-them-wallet?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Rich People on Spending Sprees May Find One Day That Income Inequality
Bites Them in the Wallet

The richer they get, the more blind the 1 percent is to the
consequences of their greed.

For the past five years, the market for luxury goods has been on a
roll, even as the rest of the economy sputtered. Fancy cars are flying
off the production lines. Tiffany and Prada are in the pink. Even Big
Tobacco is in on the action, doing brisk business in high-end cigars.
Consumer spending is up! the latest headlines shout. Rejoice! But wait
� if a big chunk of this is driven by sales of luxury goods, is that
ultimately a good thing for the economy?

Despite the Great Recession, the U.S. has remained the world�s
number-one nation for luxury goods consumption. The 1 percent has
never had such fawning attention and splendiferous choices. The stock
market returns of 2013 only served to further escalate the spending
sprees of the wealthy. That's great for them. But what about the rest
of us?

Well, we don't really count, according to the banksters. If you'll
recall, back in 2005, the number-crunchers over at Citigroup released
a report on the economy that made it all clear. The report announced
that there is "no such thing as the U.S. consumer." Notions like
"average" consumer and "average" debt were totally irrelevant.
America, they explained, actually consisted of two groups: the rich
and everybody else. There was no reason to worry about the second
group, because what it did just didn't matter much. The richest 1
percent made as much every year as the bottom 60 percent combined.
They called the group with all the power the "plutonomy".

"Economic growth is powered by and largedly consumed by the wealthy
few," the analysts said. Just like it was in the Gilded Age and the
Roaring Twenties. The idea was simple: the rich alone can keep the
economy humming. Who cared, in that case, about income inequality?
Thinking along those lines, many conservative neoclassical economists
over the years have argued that income inequality is actually
necessary for growth because it puts money into the hands of
capitalists who will do things like create jobs and spend their money,
which supposedly helps everyone out eventually. Trickle-down
economics, some call it.

Our government officials are tooting the consumer spending horn as the
rich are burning up their credit cards. But the rest of us are still
cutting back on many things. Socked with high, out-of-pocket
healthcare expenses, job insecurity, and disappearing pensions, the
middle class has less disposable income. Instead of taking trips,
we're taking staycations. We're not spending as much on electronics or
new cars. At the lower rungs of the economic ladder, workers are stuck
in low-wage hell and struggle merely to survive.

Meanwhile, just as in the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties, the
richer the rich become, the less they believe is expected of them, and
the louder they cry out against paying their share of taxes and call
for budget cuts even as the federal deficit continues to shrink
(according to the Congressional Budget Office, the government actually
ran a $44 billion surplus in December). The rich push policies that
only increase income inequality.

If the Citigroup folks were right, then the rich need not worry. The
economy will be okay.

But maybe the Citigroup folks were wrong.

Economists who do not subscribe to conservative neoclassical theories
are beginning to do research on how income distribution impacts
economic growth over the long run. The subject is controversial at
this point, and tricky because it's hard to get empirical evidence.
But it looks like there could be some problems with the Citigroup
theory, particularly as it relates to consumer spending. The rich have
contraints on their spending, for one thing. There are only so many
Prada bags, cars and fancy cigars one can buy. So if you can't spend
it all, what do you do with it? You might just end up saving most of
it, which doesn't help the rest of the economy, and might be bad for
it in the long run. There are other problems, too. Some of the rich
will use the excess money they can't figure out how to spend on
speculation, which can destabilize the economy.

Long-term economic growth isn't the only reason we should be worried
about income inequality. There are many problems, like social unrest,
health crises and the breakdown of democratic institutions that result
from the rich and the rest being separated by a wide gulf. But the
damage to the economy is something even the rich might stop and think
about. They may find that income inequality will eventually come back
to bite them in the long run � right in the wallet.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 10:12 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:29:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2014 9:03 PM, mackerel cunt (GOP_Decline_and_Fall) lied:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 02:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in news:q6s3d9dqak2e4rt50mclu5059gollh85fa@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:46:07 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> half the taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it let's the rich establish themselves as an aristocracy - which
>>>>>> leads to the end of democracy and liberty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really this stupid? You simply do not have the first clue how
>>>>> life works, do you...
>>>>>
>>>> Are you that stupid that you don't already realize that it's to a great
>>>> extent happened?
>>>
>>> It would appear so.
>>
>> Wrong. There is no such thing as aristocracy here, and you know it.
>
> You can stomp your little feet in denial but

There is no aristocracy here. That's just more left-wing spew - utterly
baseless.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 10:35 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:29:44 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2014 9:03 PM, mackerel cunt (GOP_Decline_and_Fall) lied:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 02:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in news:q6s3d9dqak2e4rt50mclu5059gollh85fa@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:46:07 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> half the taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it let's the rich establish themselves as an aristocracy - which
>>>>>> leads to the end of democracy and liberty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really this stupid? You simply do not have the first clue how
>>>>> life works, do you...
>>>>>
>>>> Are you that stupid that you don't already realize that it's to a great
>>>> extent happened?
>>>
>>> It would appear so.
>>
>> Wrong. There is no such thing as aristocracy here, and you know it.
>
> The richest 1 percent

No aristocracy. You don't even know what the word really means,
mackerel cunt.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:36:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza

The richest 1 percent made as much every year as the bottom 60 percent
combined. They called the group with all the power the "plutonomy".

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 10:39 PM, mackerel cunt (Sheila Bryant) bullshitted and
continued fearfully to avoid the topic:

Not an aristocracy.

You *STILL* can't give any ethical rationale for redistribution. You
have admitted that you can't and never will.

[Rudy Canoza]

So what? Unless and until you can show it was earned unethically or
unlawfully, it's meaningless. You can't. All your bullshit about
"rigging the rules" is just that: so much bullshit. Little piddly-ass
bullshit about tax rules is only about the rich trying to *KEEP* what
they earn. Your basic complaint is that they earn so much *BEFORE* tax.
You simply can't show that they earn it unethically. You know you
can't show it, and we know you can't.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 9:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:3e033$52d41304
> $414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 8:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>> Do you support raising the minimum wage?
>>
>> No, of course not. I oppose all price-fixing schemes. Raising the
>> minimum wage prevents some people who would have jobs from having any
>> job at all. If I offer employment to someone at $5.00 an hour and he
>> finds that wage acceptable, it's none of your fucking business. If you
>> tell me - and him - that I have to pay him $15 an hour, I won't hire
>> him. Keep your fucking snout out of mutually agreeable contracts
>> between free people.
>>
> That's not a free person who has to take a job at less than minimum wage.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage, just as there isn't a minimum price
for a can of beans at a grocery store. There should be no government
price rigging, period. It's immoral.

If I offer $5 an hour and someone contemplates the offer and decides to
accept it, that's none of your business, none of <scoff> "society's"
business. It's a private matter between me and my prospective employee.
I'm not holding a gun to his head; he is free to accept or reject the
contract as he sees fit. Keep the fuck out of the private, mutually
agreeable business transactions of others; you have no business in them.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 9:48 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

> news:754c3$52d4133f$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 8:23 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2014 11:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Do you support raising the minimum wage? Or do you just hate the
>>>> working poor?
>>>>
>>> First, try to explain your criticism of investing. The only
>>> alternative you have ever offered is to increase taxes. Yet you
>>> cannot explain where the money for those very taxes come from.
>>
>> He just assumes that people will cheerfully allow themselves to be
>> robbed.
>>
> I remember the riots of the 60's and 70's.

You are utterly ignorant of the underlying issues. All you know is the
left-wing dogma, which is wrong.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 10:07 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:48499$52d426db
> $414e828e$39...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 9:33 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:VpUAu.263432$2s6.1...@fx16.iad:

>>>
>>>> On 1/13/2014 11:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> Do you support raising the minimum wage? Or do you just hate the
>>>>> working poor?
>>>>>
>>>> First, try to explain your criticism of investing. The only
>>>> alternative you have ever offered is to increase taxes. Yet you cannot

>>>> explain where the money for those very taxes come from. That framework
>>>> is as looney as the one for Obamacare.
>>>>
>>> Your evasion, and hatred of the poor,
>>
>> Nope - *YOUR* evasion, and *YOUR* hatred of the poor. The minimum wage
>> makes poor people worse off - it prevents them from getting work.
>>
> Nope.

Yep. Minimum wage destroys employment. That's a fact.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/13/2014 11:26 AM, blue cunt oozed:

> In article <4b30e$52d42e8e$414e828e$70...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2014 9:46 AM, Bugster lied:

>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:3e033$52d41304
>>> $414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>

>>>> On 1/13/2014 8:14 AM, Bugster lied:

>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you support raising the minimum wage?
>>>>
>>>> No, of course not. I oppose all price-fixing schemes. Raising the
>>>> minimum wage prevents some people who would have jobs from having any
>>>> job at all. If I offer employment to someone at $5.00 an hour and he
>>>> finds that wage acceptable, it's none of your fucking business. If you
>>>> tell me - and him - that I have to pay him $15 an hour, I won't hire
>>>> him. Keep your fucking snout out of mutually agreeable contracts
>>>> between free people.
>>>>
>>> That's not a free person who has to take a job at less than minimum wage.
>>
>> There shouldn't be a minimum wage, just as there isn't a minimum price
>> for a can of beans at a grocery store. There should be no government
>> price rigging, period. It's immoral.
>>
>> If I offer $5 an hour and someone contemplates the offer and decides to
>> accept it, that's none of your business, none of <scoff> "society's"
>> business. It's a private matter between me and my prospective employee.
>> I'm not holding a gun to his head; he is free to accept or reject the
>> contract as he sees fit. Keep the fuck out of the private, mutually
>> agreeable business transactions of others; you have no business in them.
>

> And now you're an expert on contract law.

Nope, nor did I claim to be, although I undoubtedly know more about it
than you. What I *am* expert in is the idea that you and Bugster don't
have anything to say about a voluntarily entered exchange by others, nor
*should* you have anything to say about it.

You're not an expert in anything except narcissism, bluecunt. How much
time have you spent this morning admiring your [not really] "witty"
comments in Usenet?

[Eddie Haskell]

"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:4b30e$52d42e8e$414e828e$70...@EVERESTKC.NET...

Bravo.

-Eddie Haskell

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 7:49 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

> news:e1732$52d4885d$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 1:21 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:lb1l63$j40$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>> I got news for ya - they, and -you-, are going to be replaced with a
>>> robot sooner or later. It's not a question of if, it's a question of
>>> when. How are people going to earn money then?
>>
>> There is always more work to be done than there is labor to do it -
>> always.
>
> That was before we could build machines to do that work.

Nope.


>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
>>
> Non sequiteur

No, it absolutely describes your fallacious thinking.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 7:57 PM, Baxter wrote:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:lb25ed
> $gs0$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:lb1tsp$oo5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

>>> news:11d80$52d47650$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the minimum wage *DOESN'T* give anyone money - it takes money
>>>> away. If the person was earning $7.25 an hour and worked 40 hours a
>>>> week, that's $38 a week. If you kick the minimum wage to $15 an hour,
>>>> he's not going to make $60 a week - he's going to make *ZERO* dollars
>>>> per week because his job is going to evaporate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No sane businessman is going to let go of a worker that brings in $200-
>>> $300/week just because he has to pay him $60/wk instead of $38/wk.
>>
>> Hmmm... So according to you minimum wage should be $60/wk?
>
> Clearly, you're too stupid to follow a conversation - I'm using Rudy's
> numbers

Except that I already posted that I fucked up the original arithmetic,
asshole. I corrected it.

Yes, a business owner or manager quite likely *WILL* fire an unskilled
worker if he has to pay him $600 a week instead of $290.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/17/2014 7:07 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

> news:3097b$52d8ce71$414e828e$22...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>>
>> Architects are all imbued with left-wing "urban planning" dogma. They
>> deserve to be unemployed.
>>
> You get the Ridiculous Statement of the Day award.

My statement is correct and insightful.

With the return of “autonomy” as a topic in contemporary
architectural theory, it’s time that this idea and its
relationship to Italian Marxism be more fully explored. After
all, it’s within that context that the Kantian concept of
“disentanglement” reached a type of disciplinary expression
within architecture. The excellent, but frustratingly brief, The
Project of Autonomy offers us a history of the autonomous turn,
in a highly readable account of the often-difficult concepts of
Italian Marxists Mario Tronti, Manfredo Tafuri, Aldo Rossi and
the Archizoom group.

Of its many insights, this book begins to disarticulate the
presumed and compact links between the architectural explorations
of autonomy within late-modern Italian architecture, even as it
establishes some new philosophical connections. In many English-
language accounts of Italian architectural Marxism, the figures
in Aureli’s book are often collapsed together (eg. Rossi and
Tafuri) , or needlessly disentangled (eg. Tafuri and Archizoom).
Aureli demonstrates the ultimately technocratic character of
Tafuri’s concept of autonomy, relative to the more monumental
route explored by Rossi. But he also demonstrates how Archizoom
must be understood as an extension of a Marxian philosophy that
extends back to the ideas of Tronti.


http://htcexperiments.org/2010/05/18/current-reading-the-recent-marxist-architectural-and-urbanism-criticism/



If students in architecture school spend even five seconds on this kind
of shit, then they are worthless to society, and they deserve to live in
poverty.

People want architects to design buildings that people find attractive
and like to be in and around. They don't want architects blabbering at
them about "autonomy" and "disentanglement."

Your acquaintance undoubtedly believes in this horseshit. He deserved
to be unemployed, and it's a shame he got a job at all.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/20/2014 7:25 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

> news:c23d9$52dcca43$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>>
>> You still haven't given any ethical justification for redistribution
>> of wealth. That's because you don't have any.
>>
> You've been given plenty of such justification.

Nope - not any. You have whiffed off, in fear, every time. You have
given *NO* justification at all, except for your jealousy, and that
isn't an ethical justification at all.

Try again: What is *ethically* wrong with some people having much
greater wealth than others? Hint: saying that wealth inequality is
"anti-democratic" <chortle> is not answering the question.

[Uncle Steve]

You don't give a shit ass about ethics. All your spew on this and any
other subject is all bullshit noise.

I'd like to know what you do when you aren't spewing crap on Usenet.
That's a much more germane question.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
The real motto of the military/intelligence security services in the
West is "Panem et Circenses". Their bread and circuses, while the
civilian population is directed to floor of the Colosseum. "This way
to the fantastic egress!"

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/20/2014 8:28 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> news:lbjf5e$kd1$4...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:c23d9$52dcca43$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>>
>>> You still haven't given any ethical justification for redistribution
>>> of wealth. That's because you don't have any.
>>>

>> You've been given plenty of such justification. You've just chosen to
>> handwave it away - to ignore it.
>
> You've not produced anything, other than maybe claiming it's ethical
> because you say it is.

He hasn't even attempted an ethical justification. All he does is
assert, by implication, that wealth inequality is unethical /per se/.
It isn't, of course.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/20/2014 10:19 AM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:25:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:c23d9$52dcca43$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>>
>>> You still haven't given any ethical justification for redistribution
>>> of wealth. That's because you don't have any.
>>>
>> You've been given plenty of such justification. You've just chosen to
>> handwave it away - to ignore it
>

> He is two centuries behind.

*STILL* you haven't given any ethical justification for redistribution
of wealth.

Just admit that you can't do it, mackerel cunt.