Tea Party

“where do you get this "stealing money" crap from?


From my own logical understanding of the word "stealing." Also from Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, Spencer, ...

There are many of my own ideas that have been confirmed (much more eloquently) by those philosophers. They've also exposed me to new ideas which make perfect logic and ethical sense to me.

I do not believe in forced coercion of any form except for defense of property.

I also expose myself to Chomsky, Krugman, Keynes, Stiglitz, and many others over the years.

What economics and philosophical ethics reading do you enjoy, Pepsi? Any person is way too intelligent to be spouting the standard party lines or getting an education from journalists.




I don't find it fair, no. Taxes as a whole are government sponsored extortion with the threat of kidnapping (jail) or murder (if you resist jail) to enforce them. It's as dirty and wrong as you can get.


Dang Skippy! Extortion is stealing.




But that's never going to change.

Now that's down right defeatist. A life of principles is an honest life. I think we owe it to everyone's welfare to work for honest change.




It sounds as if we probably agree on many things; maybe not on others:

I favor abortion as a woman's right over her own body.

I favor homosexual marriage on the grounds that government has no right to restrict contracts between consenting adults.

I favor legalization of drugs on the grounds that everyone has a right to abuse their own body.

I am against war for any purpose except defense of property. And property includes my natural right to my own body and my own labor.


And government has continued to trample my rights at least since 1884 (see my previous posts quoting Herbert Spencer).”

“Arc, can you please elaborate about how your rights, and I mean you personally, have been trampled?”

“10th Amendement. Look it up.

Those are our PERSONAL rights.”

“sounds like we are indeed in agreement over a lot of things. I would disagree with you that my outlook is defeatist though (although it may be defeated). I would argue that our government is built in such a way that the only possible road to success is through maintaining this broken system. I can't say I understand a lot of what Salebored says, but he's completely correct (once again, in my humble optinion only) when he rambles about how the gov't is corporate run and controlled. The only way I see that this will ever change is through complete armed revolution (and that itself I see having an extraordinarily low chance of success) - besides, I think Americans are too splintered and apathetic to lay their lives on the line for such a cause - assuming they could even find a single cause to all agree with (plus, most of them still believe that voting for change will actually bring it about).

for me, in particular, the "brave new world" I want is such a far leap from what the overwhelming majority (despite its disagreement with itself) believes in, that I have zero chance of ever seeing it. The closest thing I'll ever be able to find that resembles the "freedom" I believe in is when I get as far away as possible from government and society and spend a few days/weeks with some close friends or alone in the wilderness. It's the only way I'll ever be able to take my personal rights back from the government - the only time that I don't feel like I'm being screwed by the government and/or the corporations that control it. and I know that it's temporary and escapist - one might even say cowardly, I know - but it's all I have.

To be honest, before I came to this board, I intentionally and vehemently avoided any talk of politics. I didn't watch the news (hell, I didn't have a television - still don't), didn't vote (see above - I do now but not with any belief that it's worth anything), and walked away from anyone talking politics. The word itself speaks of filth and corruption to me. Pundits, congressmen, lobbyists - it all makes me sick. Of course, once I got here, boredom led me to click that little flame checkmark and that was the end of the story...

As I already said, this bill is no different than the rest of the filth and corruption that every (D) and (R) president has perpetrated - except, in this one, I see at least a flicker of good. I don't support it - I'm against it all - but this one will at least help some people. In a broken system that (I feel) can never be fixed, that's as close to a victory as I can ever expect.

I don't want to lump you in with the tools like HPD because you've already proven capable of independent thought. My "gloating" and "chest-thumping" on here was directed at him and his like - the people who follow lock-step with the so-called independents who conveniently are made up almost exclusively of republicans and whose "revolutionary" fix for this "fascist" government is, surprise surprise, to put the republicans back in control. They are the reason why real change is impossible - because they'll so eagerly follow a lie they want to believe under the illusion that it is aimed at real reform. This just further splinters the people who might have a shot at making change - causing infighting that eliminates unity and leaves any real change spinning its wheels in the mud. I'd've left it completely alone, except HPD spreads so much douchebaggery and asshatism across this board that I just had to give him a little kick while that bee was in his bonnet. And I have to say, it provided me with a day's amusement - which is all one can ask from a stupid online message board, right?”

“show us your twat pepsis”

“pepsis, you call me a "tool", but you have no idea who I'm supposedly following. In no way could you ever argue that I follow the Republicans, I don't watch Glen Beck or listen to Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps you could associate me with Ron Paul, but I was expressing my constitutionist viewpoints on here years before I ever "discovered" the virtues of Ron Paul or knew much about him, so you're just jealous and need to show us your twat.”

“Don't go around exposing yourself to Krugman and Chomsky, arc. You're liable to get arrested.

You're much like the teabagger crowd who, to borrow the words of Bill Mahr, took a phrase that referred to dangling one�s testicles in someone else�s face and managed to turn it into something gross and ridiculous.”

“Bill Mahr. LOL”

“What does Rosie O'Donnell have to say about it vioLiN?”

“Has Woopie Goldberg said anything enlightening lately?”

“Rosey, it's hard to speak with someone who I think reads at a functional level and still doesn't get it.

I'd say you should read all of my previous posts on this thread but let me waste my breath once again:


I am being forced to provide a portion of my wealth as "tribute" to programs I do not support. Government forces me to give up my right to a portion of my labor.

Government forces me to pay for the war on drugs.

Government forces me to pay for it's military wars.

Government forces me to pay for my retirement pension.

Government forces me to pay for art.

Government forces me to pay for the outrageous retirement benefits of senators and congressmen who are ostensibly representing the populous by "serving their country."


Shall we go on and on with the obvious?


What about my right to my own body?

Government forces me to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle in certain states.

Government forces me to wear a seat belt.

Terminally ill patients in extreme pain don't even have the right to assisted suicide.

And now government is forcing us to have health insurance?


Shall we go on and on with the obvious?”

“



What?”

“HPD spreads so much douchebaggery and asshatism across this board that I just had to give him a little kick while that bee was in his bonnet. And I have to say, it provided me with a day's amusement - which is all one can ask from a stupid online message board, right?�

see above.

and make that two days of amusement. Thanks Sarge, you're a peach”

“ditto - I rest easy knowing that you can only smack talk on the internets because you gots nothing.”

“FYI: Sounds like Mexico is the spot for you, Arc. They don't give a shlt if you wear a helmet, seatbelt or not. They won't require you to have health insurance. I am sure you can find someone to kill you if you can't do it yourself. You can get all the abortions you want. Drugs are rampant and some would argue, run the country. No retirement pension.

I mean, just head to Mexico. Problem solved.”

“roseymonster hates mexicans”

“Nice slander there, Sarge. Tiene una pinga piquena, comprende?”

“roseymonster thinks all mexicans are drug dealers”

“Dang Pepsi, I like your style!

I don't mind discussing politics or religion. It's just words. It's a free exchange of ideas. I always go into it with the idea of learning something, not like violin who has faith in a Taliban-like approach to imposing his will on others.




Here are a series of eloquent quotes that I think distill much of what I see in your post:


It has been recently maintained by economists that taxation is “really” voluntary because it is a method for everyone to make sure that everyone else pays for a unanimously desired project. Everyone in an area, for example, is assumed to desire the government to build a dam ... There are, however a great many flaws in this doctrine.

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (p 163)




First is the inner contradiction between volunteerism and coercion: a coercion of all-against-all does not make any of this coercion “voluntary.” Secondly, even if we assume for the moment that each individual would like to contribute to the dam, there is no way of assuring that the tax levied on each person is no more than he would be willing to pay voluntarily even if everyone else contributed .

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (p 163)




Thirdly, the argument proves far too much. For the supply of any service, not only dams, can be expanded by the use of the tax-financing arm.

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (p 164)




And fourthly, the argument is simply a mystical one. How can anyone know that everyone is “really” paying his taxes voluntarily on the strength of this sophisticated argument? What of those people – environmentalists, say – who are opposed to dams per se? Is their payment “really” voluntary?

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (p 164)




It is also contended that, in democratic governments, the act of voting makes the government and all its works and powers truly “voluntary.” Again, there are many fallacies with this popular argument. In the first place, even if the majority of the public specifically endorsed each and every particular act of the government, this would simply be majority tyranny rather than a voluntary act undergone by every person in the country. Murder is murder, theft is theft, whether undertaken by one man against another, or by a group, or even by the majority of people within a given territorial area. The fact that a majority might support or condone an act of theft does not diminish the criminal essence of the act or its grave injustice. Otherwise, we would have to say, for example, that any Jews murdered by the democratically elected Nazi government were not murdered, but only “voluntarily committed suicide.” – surely , the grotesque but logical implication of the “democracy as voluntary” doctrine. Secondly, in a republic as contrasted to a direct democracy, people vote not for specific measures but for “representatives” in a package deal. …

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (pp 164-165)




Furthermore, even on its own terms, voting can hardly establish “majority” rule, much less of voluntary endorsement of government. In the United States, for example, less than 40 percent of eligible voters bother to vote at all; of these, 21 percent may vote for one candidate and 19 percent for another. 21 percent scarcely establishes even majority rule, much less the voluntary consent of all. … And finally, how is it that taxes are levied on one and all, regardless of whether they voted or not, or, more particularly, whether they voted for the winning candidate? How can either nonvoting or voting for the loser indicate any sort of endorsement of the actions of the elected government?

Neither does voting establish any sort of voluntary consent even by the voters themselves to the government. As (Lysander) Spooner trenchantly pointed out:

In truth, in the case of individuals their actual voting is not to be taken as consent that, without his consent having been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers…

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, New York 2002, (pp 165-166)




This is good stuff too:

“And now when there has been compassed this desired ideal, which “”practical” politicians are helping socialists to reach, and which is so tempting on that bright side which socialists contemplate, what must be the accompanying shady side which they do not contemplate? It is a matter of common remark, often made when a marriage is impending, that those possessed by strong hopes habitually dwell on the promised pleasures and think nothing of the accompanying pains. A further exemplification of this truth is supplied by these political enthusiasts and fanatical revolutionists, Impressed with the miseries existing under our present social arrangements, and not regarding these miseries as caused by the ill-working of a human nature but partially adapted to the social state, they imagine them to be forthwith curable by this or that arrangement. Yet, even did their plans succeed it could only be by substituting one kind of evil for another. A little deliberate thought would show that under their proposed arrangements, their liberties must be surrendered in proportion as their material welfares were cared for.

For no form of cooperation, small or great, can be carried on without regulation, and an implied submission to the regulating agencies. Even one of their own organizations for effecting social changes yields them proof. It is compelled to have its councils, its local and general officers, its authoritative leaders, who must be obeyed under penalty of confusion and failure. And the experience of those who are loudest in their advocacy of a new social order under the paternal control of a Government, shows that even in private voluntary-formed societies, the power of the regulative organization becomes great, if not irresistible: often, indeed, causing grumbling and restiveness among those controlled. Trades unions which carry on a kind of industrial war in defense of workers’ interests versus employers’ interests, find that subordination almost military in its strictness is needful to secure efficient action; for divided councils prove fatal to success. And even in bodies of cooperators, formed for carrying on manufacturing or distributing businesses, and not needing that obedience to leaders which is required where the aims are offensive or defensive, it is still found that the administrative agency gains such supremacy that there arise complaints about “the tyranny of organization.” Judge then what must happen when, instead of relatively small combinations, to which men may belong or not as they please, we have a national combination in which each citizen finds himself incorporated, and from which he cannot separate himself without leaving the country. Judge what must under such conditions become the despotism of a graduated and centralized officialism, holding in its hands the resources of the community, and having behind it whatever amount of force it finds requisite to carry out its decrees and maintain what it calls order.”

Herbert Spencer - The Man Versus The State - Williams and Norgate, London and Edinburgh, 1884 (pp 63-65).




Sorry for the long post. But I've tried to distill some ideas after reading the entire text of those books.”

“I like Murray - I read "The Case Against the Fed" when it came out. A little dry, but I'm not sure how you can make economics and politics an exciting read - maybe they can talk Krakauer into writing a book on economics. anyways, he's got some good stuff to say. The problem with just about every political book I've encountered is they're all heavily slanted one way or another - they all have some good ideas/opinions, but you have to wade through a lot of partisan BS to get to it. If you know of any decent objective books, I'd love to hear 'em

as for the state of discourse on TT, I think that everyone expects everyone else to be a prick, so we come into it automatically defensive and insulting. I think the anonymity of it helps justify this. It gets tough to have an open discourse/debate because nobody follows the rules. Anyways, I've gotta actually get some work done today, but it was good sharing some opinions/ideas - I'll catch you later”

“Then you can save this for later.


Yes, political bias is rampant. Personally, I've found economics pretty cool. Although I lack the math to question the models.

I find Austrians accessible in that they provide logic arguments. As Von Mises said (and I paraphrase), "It's ridiculous to calculate whether I want a TV 2.5 times more than you want one." But I'd like to believe in the science of mathematical models.

It's obvious that economics is still in its infancy and that economists haven't found all the right questions. Any study that has so many divergent schools has no unified theory.

This is quite a mix:

Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps of Columbia University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the market for labor, unemployment, and the evolution of macroeconomics over the past century. The conversation begins with a discussion of Phelps's early contributions to the understanding of unemployment and the importance of imperfect information. Phelps put his contribution into the context of the evolution of macroeconomics showing how his models were related to those of Keynes, the Austrian School, and rational expectations. The conversation then turns to the issue of whether macroeconomics is making progress, particularly in understanding business cycles.




What I like about The Ethics of Liberty is that it's a logic argument for the ethical basis of the philosophy of Libertarian thought.

It doesn't spend time angrily ranting about how one political party is the source of all evil while the other is for righteous good, as does Krugman's book, The Conscience of a Liberal. Krugman's message gets polluted by his anger.




The Ethics of Redistribution by Bertrand de Jouvenel is another book that doesn't preach. It merely shows consequences of the redistribution of wealth both good and bad.”

“- @ arc”

“Death threats to elected representatives, cutting a gas line to a home?!!

What the #&%!$ is wrong with these people?

Our system has survived for over 200 years because there is a mechanism for an orderly change of power.

Protest all you want. Write letters, make phone calls, send emails.

But death threats and now actual action? That's terrorism.

I hope the FBI finds these people and locks them up. They are a threat to democracy, not its noble protectors.


PS - Has stratdood gone underground? I worry about that boy.”

“"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson”

“Sarge is a wanna-be homicidal maniac.”

“War is war.

These guys have ignored the constitution. They are changing the country by ignoring the law of the land. That is worthy of a revolution. Obama is wrong to think as president, he gets to make the rules. That is the opposite of what the founders intended and created. It is our duty to protect the constitution. If we fail to do that, then freedom is lost.

We know you libbies would like us to just be quiet, to go away, so that you can turn this country into a socialist one, but I got news for you. It ain't going to happen. So when a brick goes through a window, or somebody yells at a senator walking by, and you cry about it ... I laugh thinking "these guys ain't seen nothing yet".

Either this country will return to it's original state, or there will be a rebellion. There is no other option.”

“What the #&%!$ is wrong with these people?

False flag operations. I bet at least half are, anyway.”

“The constitution and the bible have their place, but neither should replace logic and reasonable thinking under any conditions.”

“logic and reasonable thinking would have predicted this reaction. A hugely expensive, highly unpopular socialist bill crammed down our throats by legislative trickery. Whodathunk that that would pi$$ people off.”

“Mutt, I have had many conversations about the "false flag" operations with people but never knew there was a term associated with it. Thanks.”

“Death threats to elected representatives, cutting a gas line to a home?!!

What the #&%!$ is wrong with these people?


Yeah, that's new. (rolls eyes)”

“You're no patriot and Obama is no tyrant.

LOL”

“suddenly, the whole "the patriot act impedes our civil liberties" talk is put into perspective ...”

“Darth Vader: You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor!

signed,
Rev Wicked, and the other libbies”

“The truth is, it was already an expensive boondoggle that was quickly becoming more expensive. This mess, even though on the surface, crude and seemingly unfair to the recipients of the old boodoggle, is the only thing that can attempt to stop the old boondoggle from eating this country alive. None of you could reasonably expect that the taxpayer could continue to fund over half the Employee System That more and more favored the cadillac planes of the unions and executives of these employers. The control that corporations have over you employees is down right scary and this motion will only piss yawl off more as time goes on. It's was about time.”

“So forcing people to buy insurance policies from private companies and providing a subsidy to those who can't afford to is socialism?

Has the word been redefined?


If the bill is unconstitutional, won't the conservative Supreme Court right the wrong?


We all know that Sarge won't be able to pry himself away from his government provided internet access long enough to join the revolution.”

“Alex Trebek: "And the answer is.....Forcing people to buy insurance policies from private companies and providing a subsidy to those who can't.

Violin: "What is___________________."”

“So forcing people to buy insurance policies from private companies and providing a subsidy to those who can't afford to is socialism?

No. Socialism is requiring the general population to pay for the poor's healthcare. Socialism is taking over the industry.

Has the word been redefined?

No. You just are asking nonsensical questions.

If the bill is unconstitutional, won't the conservative Supreme Court right the wrong?

Not necessarily. That's part of the problem. The constitution is clear that this is not a power granted to government. Just like when the SC voted 5-4 on DCers ability to own guns when it should have been a 9-0 vote, we can see that the SC court often legislates from the bench.

We all know that Sarge won't be able to pry himself away from his government provided internet access long enough to join the revolution.

You know what they say about people who assume.”

“vioLiN, why is it that abortion is okay because the government should not tell us what to do with our bodies, but this healthcare bill is not okay? Still not getting a response on that bad boy.”

“So, IS HighPocketsDresser a WOG( worker of the government)?
last edited: 3/25/10 7:28:25 AM”

“That's the word on the street,salebored. A rumor based on assumptions.”

“Interesting story about Schwenkler, mutt. A quick search turned this up:

When news of the window smashing hit, state Democratic chairwoman Pat Waak initially blamed conservatives for stoking animosity around the health care debate.

Republicans later rejoiced when it was revealed Schwenkler had worked for a Democratic candidate in 2008 and alleged the vandalism was an attempt to frame conservative opponents to Obama's proposal. Now it appears possible that Schwenkler ascribes to neither political ideology.

Bash Back is a group of radical gay, lesbian and transgender individuals who began organizing in 2007 to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions last year, according to its website.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13212870#ixzz0jCNYIl5a
”

“yes the nets are quick to blame the Republicans.

any retractions?

no?

Didn't think so.”

“It would be taking over an industry if the government were providing health care or insurance. Neither is happening.


So you no longer work for the government agency that you emailed from a couple of years ago? Are you stealing this much time from a private employer?”

“LOL! BUSTED!”

“violin - if I email from Starbucks does that mean I work there? .... assumptions”

“Sucking at the teat and griping about it. Sheesh. You are just full of contradictions, Sarge.”

“it's amazing just how often you're wrong, roseymonster”

“Once a WOG, always a FROG- or something like that?”