On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 03:05:11 +0100, Snit <
brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2023 at 4:39:06 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.13ipb...@ryzen.home>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because the people who run the courts are the ones doing the stealing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ones who run the courts were put there by the people.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you really believe that? Actually we have a choice of idiots or bigger
>>>> idiots. No sensible person ever goes into politics.
>>>
>>> See the rest of the paragraph. LOL!
>>
>> In which you refute the people running the courts were put there by the people.
>
> I note we do not have a representative government. I wish we did.
>
>>>>> Does not mean we have a representative government. The US is an oligarchy.
>>>>> THAT I want to see change.
>>>>
>>>> The best change would be to delete the government in it's entirety. We can
>>>> think for ourselves, we don't need controlled like pet dogs.
>>>
>>> The government sucks. The Libertarian alternative of control by corporations,
>>> or war lords, would be worse.
>>
>> No, control by nobody. Why do you want to be controlled? Can you not think for
>> yourself?
>
> This with power WILL take control.
But that's what we have with the government. If there was no government, and some rich folk tried to take control, others of us could fight back. But you can't fight the government, they're a monopoly with arms.
> The role of the government is to have protections for human rights and the environment.
Neither of those things should ever be protected.
> Libertarians suggest getting
> rid of those controls but refuse to accept the consequences of not having
> those controls (reduction in human rights and the environment).
Which would be cheaper, easier, and fun.
>>>>>>> And moral -- they are needed for a modern
>>>>>>> society to function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are not. They are required for the lesser people to live. Society would
>>>>>> be better off if we weeded them out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "lesser people". I do not even know what you mean. You mean people who are
>>>>> handicapped? Kids? The elderly? People who cannot produce more? The value of a
>>>>> person is tied to what they produce?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Your charitable nature is fine with your own money, just don't
>>>> force others to do so.
>>>
>>> I understand that feeling and optimism, though I think in most cases it is
>>> stated as an excuse for the person to not donate... but there is no reason or
>>> evidence to think it would work.
>>
>> There are two possibilities:
>>
>> 1) Plenty of people think like you and donate. This will presumably be the
>> case for 50% of the population who currently votes left wing.
>
> How do you figure? And donate to WHAT?
Because those who vote left wing think donating is good, so why would they stop?
And donate to charity. For example in the UK,the life boats are not government funded, but they still run. The RSPCA (animal protection) is also a charity, it still runs.
>> 2) Voters of left wing are actually liars and scroungers and want to receive
>> but not send. In which case they won't get.
>
> Again, how do you figure?
They vote left wing to get benefits. If I'm wrong, the above would work.
> You set up a false dichotomy based on a faulty premise.
Stop using big words to sound clever.
>>>>>>> It is fair. Does not
>>>>>>> mean all taxing is fair or spending is done well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's monumentally fucked up, even the poorest people pay VAT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think the rich should pay more (in terms of percent of income). In the US
>>>>> they do not.
>>>>
>>>> They already do, that's how percentages work. x% of 50,000 is more than x% of
>>>> 30,000.
>>>
>>> I terms of percentage of income. But even in raw numbers they often pay less.
>>> Look at Bezos. And Trump.
>>
>> If you've worked hard to get where you are, why the fuck should you pay for
>> the minions?
>
> They benefitted from a system. They should give some back. Be required to give
> some back.
No, rich folk never received benefits.
>> Although I have no idea why people buy from Amazon.
>>
>> Amazon take 15%
>> Ebay take 10%
>> Ebid take 5%
>>
>>>>>>>>>> obviously I steal it back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the only fair way is to pay for the services IF and when you use them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does not work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't work for the weak or lazy, no,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not work for a society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your strange mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> You already excluded those you see as weak or lazy.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, they don't do anything to help society. They are a burden.
>>>
>>> You are open your ideas would not work for society, but only for those you
>>> deem worthy. And that excludes the elderly and infirm, the disabled and the
>>> young. No thanks.
>>
>> Society is what's left after the weak have gone. Go ask a herd of buffalo what
>> happens to the weak. They slow them down. So they let the predator get them.
>
> You have little value for human life. I do. OK. But keep in mind others
> support you. You want to get but not give.
I do not believe I should get. But if they're willing to throw away money I'll take it.
> The Virtue Of Selfishness.... Ayn Rand. It is what Libertarians push.
No, they believe in every man for themselves.
>>>>>>>> but it works for the fit healthy ones, the ones we want to continue the human
>>>>>>>> race.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course your own family is free to help, and so are charities. You'd
>>>>>>>> donate to the needy wouldn't you? Are you saying hardly anyone would? That
>>>>>>>> would prove your point, we don't want it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not find the big picture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rewrite that in English.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would not work for the big picture. Damned autocarrot.
>>>>
>>>> How can "Would not work for" change to "I would not find"?
>>>
>>> Do not recall the exact wording. Went with the idea.
>>
>> Your autocarrot is changing the words around? Not just a spellchecker? Don't
>> give that much control to your "computer".
>
> Do not recall the exact wording. Went with the idea.
What?
>>>>>>> We should get a group that is tasked with
>>>>>>> looking at that. Oh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh here we go, everything needs a study group and a committee. That's what
>>>>>> stops things getting done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence and organization is not all bad. Your feelings are not a way to run a
>>>>> society.
>>>>
>>>> Those with intelligence know simple things without having to study them.
>>>
>>> You mock those who do not share your feelings. That shows insecurity with your
>>> ideas.
>>
>> The exact opposite.
>
> Nope. When others disagree you try to minimize them and their ideas. It shows
> you are not confident in your ideas enough to use logic and evidence to back them.
Why would I waste effort dismissing the obviously stupid?
> You jump to ad hominem.
I'm not even going to bother looking that up.
>> I am very secure in my feelings being correct, therefore anyone with different
>> feelings is completely wrong. How the fuck did you come to the opposite
>> conclusion?
>
> Your ad hominem goes counter to your claims.
I'm still not going to look that up.
>>>>>>> We have it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we have a group of thieves we didn't want in power.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do want a representative government. In the US we cannot have that -- more
>>>>> from the Republicans but really both major parties suck.
>>>>
>>>> then vote for a small one. Oh wait, most people are thickos and vote
>>>> tactically, so they'll never get in. But they would if you just voted who you
>>>> wanted, nevermind how many others you think will vote that way.
>>>
>>> I have voted for third parties... but our Constitution makes it so they
>>> basically cannot win the presidency, even if they get more votes than the two
>>> big parties. It is stupid.
>>
>> You mean like our first past the post? You need to get over 50% in each area
>> to get a person in?
>
> For presidency. If you do not then it goes to the House, but instead of the
> normal rules of the house which are at least closer to fair representation,
> those in less populated states get extra representation.
It's a big complicated mess. Even so called proportional representation just makes it more complicated. They should simply have one vote for one voter. Whoever gets the most votes is in power, or has that proportion of power.
Party A gets 40 million votes.
Party B gets 30 million votes.
Party C gets 20 million votes.
The only sensible ways are either:
Party A gets in power absolutely.
Or all parties get to vote on everything, with a ratio of 4:3:2.