How Deniers Deny Reality

[Bret Cahill]

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/

[George Plimpton]

On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> [...]

Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.

[Unum]

How about subsidies? In favor of those?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/world-bank-fossil-fuel-subsidies?newsfeed=true

"New OECD estimates indicate that reported fossil fuel
production and consumption supports in Annex II
countries [24 OECD countries] amounted to about $40-$60bn
per year in 2005-2010"

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:

>http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/

Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?

Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?

Or are you in the habit of posting references to things you can't be
bothered to check out?

[Unum]

On 11/13/2011 5:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/
>
> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?

Why Wally, did you watch it? I figure you didn't.

> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?

Anything in particular there you want to take issue with?

> Or are you in the habit of posting references to things you can't be
> bothered to check out?

I figure he did check it out. Now, what's your personal problem?

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:28:21 -0600, Unum wrote:

>On 11/13/2011 5:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:
>>
>>> http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/
>>
>> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
>Why Wally, did you watch it? I figure you didn't.
>
>> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>
>Anything in particular there you want to take issue with?

Yes: a climate scientist channeling a psychologist.

>> Or are you in the habit of posting references to things you can't be
>> bothered to check out?
>
>I figure he did check it out.

Based on what?

Are you, like Dawlish, clairvoyant?

>Now, what's your personal problem?

Personal problem?

More an objection:
People trying to waste the time of others on crap that they can't be
bothered to check themselves.

Now that you have chimed in on this twice in the alt.global-warming
group, what is *your* opinioin of the video?

Or can't you be bothered to inform yourself about things you comment
on, either?

[Bret Cahill]

> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...

>
> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?

Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
concensus is "just like Hitler."


Bret Cahill

[Wally W.]

What is the time stamp for that part?

You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
erroneous. On the face of it, an eco-socialist agenda would seem to
fit the parallel.

Maybe the video debunks the connection effectively. I'm not going to
scan the entire video to find out.

If you want to sell that point, it needs a better reference.

[James]

"Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:j9peq8$ljf$1...@dont-email.me

But they produce something.

http://tinyurl.com/7vp6wbg

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...
>
> >> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
> >> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>
> >Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
> >concensus is "just like Hitler."
>
> What is the time stamp for that part?

Just admit you never had any intention of watching the video.

> You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
> erroneous.

That's your job.

Of course, you'll have to watch the video.


Bret Cahill

[Wally W.]

Unlike the CAGW alarmists, who produce only fear.

In a previous economic crisis, the US president spoke to abolish fear:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth,
frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions
in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured,
will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm
belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless,
unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to
convert retreat into advance.

-- FDR, a democrat who made things better.

[James]

"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:l3n0c7hoaahvp8tus...@4ax.com

These are the same ones who routinely answer questions or believe they
are debunking something they don't like by posting a couple dozen links
that rarely bring up the subject at hand. It's an old scam. Safety in
numbers. Just like the claims of 'all the scientists' in the world.

Some years ago, you could expect about 3 links that said nothing. Now,
it's the more the merrier. I don't know who holds the record for the
number of links posted, explaining zilch, but it may be desertphile aka
agwfacts.

Quantity and not quality seems to rule in their world and I doubt
they've read them all either.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:59:02 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:

>> >> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...
>>
>> >> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>>
>> >> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>>
>> >Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
>> >concensus is "just like Hitler."
>>
>> What is the time stamp for that part?
>
>Just admit you never had any intention of watching the video.

Again, the reading comprehension skills of the collaborators suck.

I watched part of the video. It seemed like a waste of my time.

>> You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
>> erroneous.
>
>That's your job.

No.

If you want to sell a point, sell it.

>Of course, you'll have to watch the video.

Not all of it.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...
>
> >> >> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
> >> >> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>
> >> >Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
> >> >concensus is "just like Hitler."
>
> >> What is the time stamp for that part?
>
> >Just admit you never had any intention of watching the video.
>
> Again, the reading comprehension skills of the collaborators suck.

It's all a Great Global Conspiracy!!!!

> I watched part of the video. It seemed like a waste of my time.

High school drop outs just aren't going to be very interested in
science.

> >> You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
> >> erroneous.

> >That's your job.

> No.

If you have nothing to say, why post?


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>>http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...
>
> >>> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
> >>> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>
> >> Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
> >> concensus is "just like Hitler."
>
> > What is the time stamp for that part?
>
> > You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
> > erroneous. On the face of it, an eco-socialist agenda would seem to
> > fit the parallel.
>
> > Maybe the video debunks the connection effectively. I'm not going to
> > scan the entire video to find out.
>
> > If you want to sell that point, it needs a better reference.
>
> These are the same ones who routinely answer questions or believe they
> are debunking something they don't like by posting a couple dozen links
> that rarely bring up the subject at hand.

Which for deniers is socialism, Al Gore and everything else except
AGW.


Bret Cahill

[Wally W.]

I did have something to say:
If you want to sell a point, it will take some effort on your point.

You choose not to make the effort.

No sale.

[Unum]

On 11/13/2011 5:43 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:28:21 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/2011 5:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/
>>>
>>> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>>
>> Why Wally, did you watch it? I figure you didn't.
>>
>>> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?

How about you just answer my question first.

>> Anything in particular there you want to take issue with?
>
> Yes: a climate scientist channeling a psychologist.

What part in particular. Was there anything factually inaccurate.

>>> Or are you in the habit of posting references to things you can't be
>>> bothered to check out?
>>
>> I figure he did check it out.
>
> Based on what?
>
> Are you, like Dawlish, clairvoyant?
>
>> Now, what's your personal problem?
>
> Personal problem?
>
> More an objection:
> People trying to waste the time of others on crap that they can't be
> bothered to check themselves.

You didn't watch it did you Wally.

> Now that you have chimed in on this twice in the alt.global-warming
> group, what is *your* opinioin of the video?
>
> Or can't you be bothered to inform yourself about things you comment
> on, either?

You can answer my questions first.

[Unum]

In other words, Wally didn't watch it. But the main points were
spelled out on the website. Anything there you want to challenge?

[Unum]

Yeah, a lot of pollution. So in the twisted world of right
wing zealots its bad to tax but okay to subsidize things
that can kill us.

[Gary Forbis]

On Nov 13, 4:56 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j9peq8$ljf$1...@dont-email.me
>
> > On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> >> Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.
>
> > How about subsidies? In favor of those?
>

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/world-bank-fossil-f...

>
> > "New OECD estimates indicate that reported fossil fuel
> > production and consumption supports in Annex II
> > countries [24 OECD countries] amounted to about $40-$60bn
> > per year in 2005-2010"
>
> But they produce something.

What a low threshhold. If value is less than cost then
producing nothing at a lower cost might be more efficient.

[James]

"Gary Forbis" <forbi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:306cd688-23af-4b0d...@s40g2000prg.googlegroups.com

What kind of value does one get throwing money down a rat hole as in
startup, corrupt and unproven businesses. When desire is more important
than reality, you have only stupidity to fall back on.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic...
>
> >> >> >> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
>
> >> >> >> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?
>
> >> >> >Looneytarian/teabaggers will tell you the part on the necessity of
> >> >> >concensus is "just like Hitler."
>
> >> >> What is the time stamp for that part?
>
> >> >Just admit you never had any intention of watching the video.
>
> >> Again, the reading comprehension skills of the collaborators suck.
>
> >It's all a Great Global Conspiracy!!!!
>
> >> I watched part of the video. It seemed like a waste of my time.
>
> >High school drop outs just aren't going to be very interested in
> >science.
>
> >> >> You don't provide enough information to conclude that the parallel is
> >> >> erroneous.
>
> >> >That's your job.
>
> >> No.
>
> >If you have nothing to say, why post?
>
> I did have something to say:

About AGW?

If so, why are you being so coy?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Isn't that what King George did in the colonies?



The King used taxation to limit liberties of the colonies and they
eventually revolted from all the tactics used to steal the Liberty of
the colonies....

Look at the list in the *Bill Of Rights* to see that we are again being
subjected to.



--
Kill da`Wabbit

[BeamMeUpScotty]

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent
should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records,
for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for
that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his
Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior
to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign
to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any
Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high
Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of
their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless
Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress
in the most humble terms:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+




*This Describes the Democrat-Socialist Government of today*


Change Indians with Muslims....

--
Kill da`Wabbit

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U



--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:57:43 -0800, George Plimpton
<geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.

Appears mental.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:25:12 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:54:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> >http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/12/a-republican-ex-climate-skeptic-explains-how-people-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/

> Did you watch all 40 minutes of this?
> Which part do you recommend in particular? Why?

Idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > [...]
>

> Taxation destroys liberty.  That's how collectivists do it.

Taxes
"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
revenue is spent in getting it. . . . It is not very unreasonable that
the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in
proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that
proportion." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"If the money is raised by taxation, then the burden will fall where
it ought to fall, . . . and the rich and stingy will no longer be able
to evade the duties of citizenship and of humanity." Robert Ingersoll
"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in . . . a
graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, . . . increasing rapidly in
amount with the size of the estate." Theodore Roosevelt

"the logical outcome of Rand's philosophy is a
fractured world, where the wealthy pay paramilitary forces to protect
them in their gated communities. It is a world not of some ideal,
free
market competition, but one in which the absence of regulations leads
to monopolization, the further concentration of wealth, and the
breakdown of consumer protections. And in that sort of world, the
production of wealth becomes more difficult, even for the wealthy. As
trite as the phrase has become, it does take a village. Individual
success and triumph often requires individual initiative and
perseverance, but it also depends upon so much else and so many other
people to create and maintain the foundations of a stable society.
Rand's lone individual is an illusion that must be challenged, not
only because it is a lie, but because it will never work, at least
not
in the long run."

once you have helped the richest 2% , accumulate almost all of the
wealth and power in the united states, which side of the wealth divide
will you find yourself on?

"Money is like manure. If you spread it around it does a lot of good.
But if you pile it up in one place it stinks like hell."

Clint Murchison (1895 - 1969)
U.S. industrialist
Time Magazine, June 16, 1961.

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell

Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.

"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim

[Bret Cahill]

Deniers will deny those quotes as well.

Deniers have one MO and that's to deny everything like a criminal.


Bret Cahill

[George Plimpton]

On 11/14/2011 10:21 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.
>
>
>
> Taxes
> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
> Holmes Jr.

Rubbish.

[Nickname unavailable]

it looks like the leader of a failed cult, also thought that taxes
are a good deal:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


lets not forget, that in 1972 ayn rand wrote "“Morally and
economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state
creates an ever accelerating downward pull:then she got sick and
collected from the welfare state:)



http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/?page=1


AlterNet / By Joshua Holland
627 COMMENTS
Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social
Security and Medicare When She Needed Them
At least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of
the real world.
January 29, 2011  |
Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor
of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the
wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the
lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and
"moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her
heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received
Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann
O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the
American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she
could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine
marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative
rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service,
by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be
Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event
honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes
the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”
“Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the
welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”
Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:
[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who
perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and
“moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that
accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual
enslavement.”
Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of
tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69,
required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of
vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the
1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the
director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book,
100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays
Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality.
Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.
“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive
the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social
Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was
going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that
there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political
discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see
that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost
an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally
wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had
worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a
right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's
true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers
remained true to their principles.
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of
American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel
“Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle.
Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an
editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato
Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and
“told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system
that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in
1968.
Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.
But at least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives
of the real world – one in which people get sick, and old, and many
who are perfectly decent and hardworking don't end up being
independently wealthy.
The degree to which Ayn Rand has become a touchstone for the modern
conservative movement is striking. She was a sexual libertine, and,
according to writer Mark Ames, she modeled her heroic characters on
one of the most despicable sociopaths of her time. Ames’ conclusion is
important for understanding today’s political economy. “Whenever you
hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between
‘producers’ and ‘collectivism,’” he wrote, “just know that those ideas
and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a
serial-killer groupie....And when you see them taking their razor
blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from
total abject destitution—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—and
bragging about how they are slashing these programs for ‘moral’
reasons, just remember Rand’s morality and who inspired her.”
Now we know that Rand was also just as hypocritical as the Tea Party
freshman who railed against “government health care” to get elected
and then whined that he had to wait a month before getting his own
Cadillac plan courtesy of the taxpayers.
But, as I note in my book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy,
that's par for the course. A central rule of the U.S. political
economy is that people are attracted to the idea of “limited
government” in the abstract—and certainly don’t want the government
intruding in their homes—but they really, really like living in a
society with adequately funded public services.
That's just as true for an icon of modern conservatism as it is for a
poor mother getting public health care for her kids.

[Nickname unavailable]

oh dear, of my my. looks like other rugged individual types ,
understand this,

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr.

tea party darling frederick Hayek had written against Social Security
in The Constitution of Liberty calling such safety net programs the
pathway to social and moral decay:click here for the definition of
hypocrisy


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/a-tea-party-darlings-route-to-social-security/

September 29, 2011, 5:00 PM
A Tea Party Darling’s Offer on Social Security
By KATE ZERNIKE
The writings of Friedrich Hayek, the 20th century free-market
enthusiast and Nobel laureate, have long been a favorite of
libertarians, who have used them to argue that government programs
like Social Security and Medicare put the nation and its people on
what Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party
movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on
their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go
blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on
the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying
fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a
useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and
libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works
for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to
enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs —
by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire
industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr.
Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at
the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr.
Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in
Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of
falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take
advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this
country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private
health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter,
enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting
that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for
government benefits because of his earlier employment at the
University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written
against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such
safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations
whose primary mission is to work against government spending and
regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea
Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against
legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more
Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the
legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do
they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security
programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s
simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore
should be used.”


"

[Nickname unavailable]

the libertarian hitler proclaimed in may of 1945, we will win. and
the faithful believed him.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/14/2011 4:26 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 14, 3:53 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2011 10:21 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.
>>
>>> Taxes
>>> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
>>> Holmes Jr.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
> oh dear, of my my. looks like other rugged individual types ,
> understand this,
>
> Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
> Holmes Jr.

So if you taxed people at 100%, they'd enjoy more civilization.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You fucking idiot.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<20e3ae3d-3a34-4f1c...@s7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:


> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
> Holmes Jr.

We also pay them for an uncivilized society.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<af67276f-0d35-456e...@41g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > "Money is like manure. If you spread it around it does a lot of good.

but only for those spreading it around, as labor unions have known for
decades.




snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<ba5f9115-91b1-4e0f...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:


> the libertarian hitler proclaimed in may of 1945, we will win.

Cite?


sniker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 14, 8:13 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ba5f9115-91b1-4e0f-babc-f900b19b2...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >  the libertarian hitler proclaimed in may of 1945, we will win.
>
> Cite?
>
> sniker

yet, as usual, you have nothing.
obtw, von mises worked for the fascists:)))))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 14, 8:12 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <af67276f-0d35-456e-91c4-ec0f18282...@41g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,

>  Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Money is like manure. If you spread it around it does a lot of good.
>
> but only for those spreading it around, as labor unions have known for
> decades.
>
> snicker

yet, he was a wealthy man, you are nothing.

[George Plimpton]

No.

[Nickname unavailable]

only a extremist would say what you just said. to bad you have
nothing but black or white.

[Nickname unavailable]

then you must agree with these statements correct?
"We must take from state authority those functions for which it is
incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should
renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through
monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We
must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state
insurance."
"hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises."
"We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."

[Harold Burton]

In article
<a2a6da81-90f0-4ed0...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

If you say so.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<dcdffd4d-9f8d-4d51...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 8:13 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ba5f9115-91b1-4e0f-babc-f900b19b2...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >
> > >  the libertarian hitler proclaimed in may of 1945, we will win.
> >
> > Cite?
> >
> > sniker
>
> yet, as usual, you have nothing.

I got something, the fact that you lied.


Still waiting for that cite that I knew you couldn't provide.



As the idiot Ray Fischer almost likes to say: Leftards lie, always.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<2ffd5708-7e94-43cf...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

You're accusing him of being a leftard?



snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 14, 8:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <dcdffd4d-9f8d-4d51-8efd-d97385917...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 8:13 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ba5f9115-91b1-4e0f-babc-f900b19b2...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > >  the libertarian hitler proclaimed in may of 1945, we will win.
>
> > > Cite?
>
> > > sniker
>
> >  yet, as usual, you have nothing.
>
> I got something, the fact that you lied.
>
> Still waiting for that cite that I knew you couldn't provide.
>
> As the idiot Ray Fischer almost likes to say:  Leftards lie, always.
>
> snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 14, 8:47 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <a2a6da81-90f0-4ed0-a456-aa6c365bb...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 8:12 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <af67276f-0d35-456e-91c4-ec0f18282...@41g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Money is like manure. If you spread it around it does a lot of good.
>
> > > but only for those spreading it around, as labor unions have known for
> > > decades.
>
> > > snicker
>
> >  yet, he was a wealthy man, you are nothing.
>
> If you say so.
>
> snicker

amazing:)

[George Plimpton]

It refutes your crap about taxes being the price of civilized society.

[Nickname unavailable]

nope, your opinion is that of a crank. however, adam smith understood
it well, and so did the founders of america.

[Unum]

I've always thought it would be fair for the society to permit
people to opt out of paying taxes and therefore not participate
in the civilized society.

No police protection, no firefighters, cannot drive on public
roads, can't eat food that has been inspected, kids can't go
to public schools. No social security or medicare. No access to
national parks or monuments. Anything stemming from national
defense would be forbidden. The list could be almost endless.

But you don't have to pay taxes! Does it sound like a deal to
you George? If so I'm all for you getting that option.

[George Plimpton]

Nope.


> however, adam smith understood

You don't have the first fucking idea what Adam Smith understood.

> it well, and so did the founders of america.

The founders of America held no such view of a relationship between
taxation and civilization. Furthermore, there was no income tax.

[Bret Cahill]

> > "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
> > Holmes Jr.

> We also pay them for an uncivilized society.

Some also go out and pay money for a lemon of a car in an
individualist free market free trade when they could get a good deal
at a reputable dealership.

Just like any individualist free market free trade taxes are necessary
but not sufficient. Just as you need to get a mechanic to check out a
car you also need to get a political scientist to make sure a
disreputable political party isn't wasting _your_ money on a quagmire
of mass distraction.


Bret Cahill

[George Plimpton]

I want to pay lower taxes.

[George Plimpton]

Most taxes fund transfer payments to deadbeats. There is nothing
civilized about that.

[Nickname unavailable]

then you can prove he did not say this correct? you will provide
verifiable, credible sources and cites to back up your statement,
correct? otherwise i will consider it to be the opinion of a crank.
here is what he said,

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes Jr.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
revenue is spent in getting it. . . . It is not very unreasonable that
the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in
proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that
proportion." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

> > it well, and so did the founders of america.
>
> The founders of America held no such view of a relationship between
> taxation and civilization.  Furthermore, there was no income tax.

you can refute the fact that the constitution states that government
has the right to tax. you can provide credible verifiable sources and
cites providing me the proof, that the founders did not put into the
constitution the right to tax. and it matters not if its a income tax,
a tax is a tax.
here is the article of the constitution that states the right to tax.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

you can of course refute this, if you cannot, then we know by the
above section of the constitution, that providing for the general
welfare of the united states through taxation, is the price we pay for
a civil society. which either makes you a liar, or a crank. i bet in
your case its both.

[George Plimpton]

Not my job, kid - it's your job to prove he did say it.


> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Collectivist Holmes Jr.

It's a lame witticism, not anything founded in economics, law or philosophy.

> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They
> find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little
> revenue is spent in getting it. . . . It is not very unreasonable that
> the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in
> proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that
> proportion." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Still doesn't say that taxes are the price of civilization.

>
>
>>> it well, and so did the founders of america.
>>
>> The founders of America held no such view of a relationship between
>> taxation and civilization. Furthermore, there was no income tax.
>
> you can refute the fact that the constitution states that government
> has the right to tax.

Not the right - the power. Governments don't have rights.

It does give the power to tax, but apparently it didn't give the power
to tax income.

[Nickname unavailable]

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! you have refuted nothing, you are a crank and a
certifiable liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bret Cahill]

They were a minority -- much like today's teabaggers who are good
natured and vicious.


Bret Cahill


"Good natured and vicious -- such a combination . . ."

-- Nietzsche on the proto nazis

[Nickname unavailable]

yet, like here today, they got to rule even though they are in the
minority. extremists are very good at being the tail that wags the dog.

[Nickname unavailable]

go to somalia.

[George Plimpton]

No. He wasn't libertarian in the slightest.

[George Plimpton]

I want to pay lower taxes here. I want the government to stop
transfering money I make to deadbeats. Most taxes go to fund transfer
payments. That's not civilization, that's theft. I want it to stop.

[George Plimpton]

The Constitution did not give Congress the power to tax income. Why
else was the 16th Amendment necessary, fuckwit?

[Nickname unavailable]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-economics.htm



"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad
effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the
sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing
concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with
regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain
only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the
natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"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.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters.
When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is
always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor
of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The interest of dealers, however,... is a always in some respects
different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The
proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes frm this
order ought... never to be adopted till after having been long and
carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose
interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be
one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence,
or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the
labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of
what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means
made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary
those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a
great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much
greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks
and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a
great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides
the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the
produce, than three times an equal number of artizans, who, under
their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The
artizan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the
injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience
of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor
labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who
while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the
other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his
shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be
buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building."
-- Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

[And here is what Adam Smith thought about labor unions:]

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is,
unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of
those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that
masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and
uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their
actual price."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"....Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
of our moral sentiments.”

[Unum]

You aren't very bright are you George. How about if the civilized
people just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
nothing else either.

[Unum]

Yeah, its the libertarian utopia.

[George Plimpton]

Plenty bright.

> How about if the civilized people

You mean the parasites.

What good would that do them?

> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
> nothing else either.

So, the parasites get to decide whether I live or die? That's not
civilization.

[Unum]

You are welcome to post something that shows it.

>> How about if the civilized people
>
> You mean the parasites.
>
> What good would that do them?

But this is all about you. And Ayn Rand, lol.

>> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
>> nothing else either.
>
> So, the parasites get to decide whether I live or die? That's not civilization.

Afraid to walk the talk? Just imagine the amazing amount
of 'liberty'.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
> nothing else either.

Mao Stalin and Pol Pot would be proud......




--

[tooly]

Imperfect Information. A bugaboo on all trade.

[George Plimpton]

>>> How about if the civilized people
>>
>> You mean the parasites.
>>
>> What good would that do them?
>
> But this is all about you.

You didn't answer the question. What good would it do the parasites if
they killed me?

>>> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
>>> nothing else either.
>>
>> So, the parasites get to decide whether I live or die? That's not
>> civilization.
>
> Afraid to walk the talk?

Answer the question, cocksucker: What good would it do the parasites,
other than feeding their sense of power?

[Nickname unavailable]

it sure is, yet, i cannot get one of these pampered by civil society
cranks, to go to their paradise.

[Nickname unavailable]

you are the parasite.

[Nickname unavailable]

no one is stopping you from moving.

[Nickname unavailable]

lets face it, the sociopath wants all of the perks of civil society,
the sociopath just does not want to pay for it.

[Bret Cahill]

He'd be a parazoid if he could git anyone to believe his sock puppet
shows.

The funniest part of all is looneytarians wonder why we delight in the
prospect of them "taxpatriating" themselves to low tax paradise
Somalia.


Bret Cahill

[George Plimpton]

Nope. I earn my own way, despite the parasites sticking me up and
taking money from me.

[George Plimpton]

You're running away, screaming in terror, from The Question as well.
Have a go at it: what good would it do the parasites to kill me?

>>
>>>>> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
>>>>> nothing else either.
>>
>>>> So, the parasites get to decide whether I live or die? That's not
>>>> civilization.
>>
>>> Afraid to walk the talk?
>>
>> Answer the question, cocksucker: What good would it do the parasites,
>> other than feeding their sense of power?
>
> no one is stopping you from moving.

You're still whiffing off from The Question. Why are you so afraid?

Here's another great Question for you, cocksucker: What's in it for me
to allow the parasites to hold me up and take money from me? Shouldn't
exchange be mutually beneficial? Is this really an exchange?

[George Plimpton]

They invent goofy words and never address the questions.

[Bret Cahill]

Looneytarians always blame their paralysis on their lack of "freedom"
because of [elective] gummint.

That's just one more internal contradiction with them even posting.
If they cannot get from statism to libertaria because they've been
hamstrung by statists, why are they posting?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Solyndra... was a money laundering scheme.


This is warping the political process of [elective] government.

[Bret Cahill]

The solution is just a simple 2 line self evident truth:

The economy cannot possibly improve for most Americans until free
speech on _economic_ information is reintroduced to American society.

The rich currently have their shills in the media gush hyping every
culture war and Jerry Springerizing every political discussion off of
free speech for economic information like there's no tomorrow.

These fears are well founded.

The gush hypers know once the American people get wise to this "free
speech only for non economic issues" scam, there really won't be a
tomorrow for them

They will be discredited and the rich aren't going to give them any
more dough except maybe out of charity.


Bret Cahill

[George Plimpton]

Non responsive to The Question. Try not to run away screaming in terror
from The Question this time. What good would it do the parasites, other
than feeding their sense of power, to kill me and other people from whom
they steal?

[George Plimpton]

clown sophist Bret Cahill wrote:

>>>>> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
>>>>> Holmes Jr.
>>>> We also pay them for an uncivilized society.
>>
>>> Some also go out and pay money for a lemon of a car in an
>>> individualist free market free trade when they could get a good deal
>>> at a reputable dealership.
>>
>>> Just like any individualist free market free trade taxes are necessary
>>> but not sufficient. Just as you need to get a mechanic to check out a
>>> car you also need to get a political scientist to make sure a
>>> disreputable political party isn't wasting _your_ money on a quagmire
>>> of mass distraction.
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Imperfect Information. A bugaboo on all trade.
>
> The solution is just a simple 2 line self evident truth:
>
> The economy cannot possibly improve for most Americans until free
> speech on _economic_ information is reintroduced to American society.

It was never removed.

The production and acquisition of information is costly. Economic
agents optimize, not maximize, their use of information in exchange.

[George Plimpton]

clown sophist Bret Cahill wrote:

>>>>> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
>>>>> Holmes Jr.
>>>> We also pay them for an uncivilized society.
>>
>>> Some also go out and pay money for a lemon of a car in an
>>> individualist free market free trade when they could get a good deal
>>> at a reputable dealership.
>>
>>> Just like any individualist free market free trade taxes are necessary
>>> but not sufficient. Just as you need to get a mechanic to check out a
>>> car you also need to get a political scientist to make sure a
>>> disreputable political party isn't wasting _your_ money on a quagmire
>>> of mass distraction.
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Imperfect Information. A bugaboo on all trade.
>
> The solution is just a simple 2 line self evident truth:
>
> The economy cannot possibly improve for most Americans until free
> speech on _economic_ information is reintroduced to American society.

[David Johnston]

On 11/14/2011 9:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 6:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2011 4:26 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 3:53 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2011 10:21 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2011 12:54 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>

>>>>>>> Taxation destroys liberty. That's how collectivists do it.
>>>
>>>>>> Taxes

>>>>>> "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
>>>>>> Holmes Jr.
>>>

>>>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>>> oh dear, of my my. looks like other rugged individual types ,
>>>> understand this,
>>>

>>>> Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Justice Oliver Wendell
>>>> Holmes Jr.
>>>

>>> So if you taxed people at 100%, they'd enjoy more civilization.
>>>
>>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You fucking idiot.
>>
>> only a extremist would say what you just said.
>
> It refutes your crap about taxes being the price of civilized society.

No, it doesn't. "Some is necessary" does not mean "More is always
better".

[George Plimpton]

Statist/collectivists *do*, in fact, believe that more is always better.
Libertarian-leaning people believe some is necessary. Most
libertarians, pace Thoreau, believe that government is best that governs
least.

The prevailing presumption should always be that government should not
act, until a compelling case can be made that it should.
Statist/collectivists like Holmes, the clown sophist and, I presume, you
believe the opposite.

[Nickname unavailable]

a parasite lives off of others. civil society allows you many
comforts. you just do not want to pay for them. you are a parasite.
now move to your paradise. walk the talk.

[Nickname unavailable]

what question. i think you have not been taking your meds perhaps? or
the tin foil cannot stop the other voices? i am sure that the liberty
you are looking for, is on the horn of africa, just waiting for you to
live in comfort and security:)))))))))

>
> >>>>> just throw you off the train. No taxes for you, and
> >>>>> nothing else either.
>
> >>>> So, the parasites get to decide whether I live or die? That's not
> >>>> civilization.
>
> >>> Afraid to walk the talk?
>
> >> Answer the question, cocksucker:  What good would it do the parasites,
> >> other than feeding their sense of power?
>
> >   no one is stopping you from moving.
>
> You're still whiffing off from The Question.  Why are you so afraid?
>

its not a question, its a psychotic rant.

> Here's another great Question for you, cocksucker:  What's in it for me
> to allow the parasites to hold me up and take money from me?  Shouldn't
> exchange be mutually beneficial?  Is this really an exchange?

its called the price we pay for a civil society. if you do not like
it. you are DRUM ROLL PLEASE "FREE TO LEAVE".

[Nickname unavailable]

if the sociopaths would only walk the talk.

[Nickname unavailable]

just think, AYN RAND had to see someone about her idiotology, because
she became afraid that she would die a horrible death, broke,
penniless, and very sick in pain. she was consoled into a sorta form
of functional insanity. where at least she could get help for her
sickness from civil society.

[George Plimpton]

Somalia is not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist country.

[George Plimpton]

I don't do that.

> civil society allows you many comforts.

No, I pay for every comfort I consume.

The deadbeat parasites to whom my income is transfered do nothing for
me, but I do something for them, yet they want to kill me.

[George Plimpton]

It is a question, and it scares you shitless. Try answering it anyway:
What good would it do the parasites to kill me, other than feeding
their sense of power?

You won't answer - you're afraid.

>
>> Here's another great Question for you, cocksucker: What's in it for me
>> to allow the parasites to hold me up and take money from me? Shouldn't
>> exchange be mutually beneficial? Is this really an exchange?
>
> its called the price we pay for a civil society.

Now you're just begging the question. A civil society is not defined as
one that steals from producers and gives to deadbeat consumers.

[Nickname unavailable]

the founders ended up loathing the confederation. just read the
constitution, and if you are not functionally insane, you can see it
in every one of the articles.

> The prevailing presumption should always be that government should not
> act, until a compelling case can be made that it should.
> Statist/collectivists like Holmes, the clown sophist and, I presume, you
> believe the opposite.

i am sure neville Chamberlien agreed with you.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<82943fb5-cb78-4f85...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> lied:

And if we can't, can you explain it?




snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<579beaea-0d68-4948...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> whined:

"What good would it do the parasites to kill me?"



Why is that so difficult for an imbecile like you to understand?

snicker




> i think . . . .




Nah, no evidence of that.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <6IGdnZgz5rKIjl7T...@giganews.com>,

Got it in one, and two, and three. How many times have you asked it and
still the idiot Nickname doesn't understand it . . . . or claims not to.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<df7f422b-ba52-4069...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

They're called wellfare mothers.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<9c5446d4-0ccc-45b4...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

If the welfare layabouts would only walk the walk. i.e. get a job and
quit leeching off productive people.



snicker