Socialism's Eventual Result

[reddog6376]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Are you guys serious?

I get it. You guys think you’re all rich and don’t need the government. You think the social safety net is being abused by all those brown people who are lazy, right? (Someone said “staying home having babies”? Wonder who you were talking about?)[/quote]

So, brown people are the only ones who can have babies? Nice race baiting, but I’m not biting.

The way commerce works is to do business in a state, country, the entity must pay some sort of tax. With that revenue, the country can function–build infrastructure, pay govt workers–and, yes… Take care of people that are unable to take care of themselves. This stabilizes the economy, which is compromised 68% on consumer spending. If you guys have a problem with that, you are so far out of the mainstream and reality that we really have nothing to discuss.

You want to use “the mainstream” as your measure of right and wrong? That’s what the Weimar Republic used. If our Founding Fathers went with mainstream thinking you’d still be bowing to the queen. How’d mainstream thinking work out for blacks before 1864? Yeah mob rule!!

[quote]These views are VERY Draconian. Thus, you have the results of this week’s election.

BTW: LOVE those smartass “professor” comments. I assure you, your kids most probably couldn’t get into our school or make it very far if they have the same Michigan Militia views as you. And THAT’s the truth![/quote]

You’re a self-proclaimed economics expert who had to have a layman explain subsidy. And I still don’t think you understand it. Therefore you deserve all the scorn I can heap upon you. Based on the level of thought you’ve put into you argument here I’m certain I have a Australian Shepard that could teach your class.

[666Rich]

Regarding the oil issue, I have posted this already

"There is no doubt that oil as a function of price, realized in all years except the past decade is most likely gone. There is however significant amounts of oil available, with higher costs to extract. Considering the growing and relatively inelastic demand for it, it will still be very sensitive to supply shocks. The value of the us dollar being the worlds reserve currency, and thus what oil is pegged to is also an issue.

Natural gas is relatively abundant, and would run your vehicles on somewhere near 2 something a gallon. There is a lack of infrastructure such as fueling stations at the moment, though conversion for auto’s currently on the road would be fairly inexpensive. Why this has not caught on yet I am at a loss to explain. Considering the lobbying power of the oil industry relative to the natural gas industry I am not suprised. When companies like Exxon, Conoco and others purchase smaller companies that have significant acreage in domestic natural gas plays you know where the future will lay. Especially Exxon, who rarely undertakes aquisitions."

When you explicitly say you are “only asking about oil” that is rather misleading. Natural gas and other “ane” group hydrocarbons are substitute goods of differing degrees for oil.

Regarding the PhD, what do you teach at Penn State, where are the links to your publications. If one is going to use that as leverage for an argument, I feel that is a claim that should be verified, and it seems somewhat in congruent with the nature of your posts.

I would say the majority of posters in this thread need to stop getting their panties in a twist.

[reddog6376]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my suggestions to make the
world a fairer and better place to be in;[/quote]

There is no “fairness” you create your own world and you live in it. You don’t know this do you? Furthermore, you cannot create fairness for those who refuse to help themselves. Sorry for the harsh dose of reality. Are you going to be okay?

[quote]-try and avoid cooperations. Try not to work for them and dont do business with them. I know
this will be difficult, but try and do what you can.[/quote]

One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on T Nation. Do you realize that millions of people are employed by corporations? Those people are dependent on their corporation to profit so that they can put food on the table for their families. Why do you want to hurt working class and middle class people? Also by trying to cripple corporations this will only harm the economy. The millions of people employed by corporations spend a great deal of money in the economy if that money is no longer there many, many others will become unemployed. Why do you want to see people without jobs? I guess you didn’t think this one through either huh?

[quote]-try to avoid purchasing mass produced goods. Even if you have to spend an extra dollar, purchase
something that has been made locally by locals.[/quote]

Another dumb idea for obviuous reasons.

-use less oil. Ride a bike.

Why would anyone try to use less oil? Don’t tell me, you’re an Al Gore global warming “the world is coming to an end” freak. There is ample oil in the world to last many more thousands of years. So that’s not the reason.
[/quote]

Zeb<

Being that you are so abrasive and crass in your posts, I thought I would simply respond with a question:

a)what is the estimated world supply of oil reserves? --from a CREDIBLE source, not FOX!!
b)what is forecasted world consumption for the next 50 years or so?

What do you get when you divide?

Is that thousands of years of supply?

Moron.
[/quote]

All irrelevant. When oil becomes economically prohibitive, alternative sources will become economical enough to take it’s place. Providing of course the market isn’t manipulated by gov’t subsidies (there’s that word again…).

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

And the regulation is the US constitution, not whatever the mob decides it should be.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

ORLY?

Thats it?

And pray tell, why do we need the state to do that?

[/quote]

Who else would you suggest take the reigns? The private sector?

The state is simply what we call the entity to which we entrust these powers.[/quote]

Based on what? That’s the problem, we DO NOT trust these powers to the state. In fact these powers are forbid from the state. Dumbshits like you spouting crap like this is why we are $14T in debt, have 3 non-wars going on, and have to get felt up the the TSA. You’re an insult to the word American.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

And the regulation is the US constitution, not whatever the mob decides it should be.
[/quote]

Absolutely. The argument goes on and becomes far more complicated as you get into the specifics of our system, our practices, our Constitution.

What I have provided here is, I believe, a simple and sturdy justification for taxation in a world populated by social beings.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

ORLY?

Thats it?

And pray tell, why do we need the state to do that?

[/quote]

Who else would you suggest take the reigns? The private sector?

The state is simply what we call the entity to which we entrust these powers.[/quote]

Based on what? That’s the problem, we DO NOT trust these powers to the state. In fact these powers are forbid from the state. Dumbshits like you spouting crap like this is why we are $14T in debt, have 3 non-wars going on, and have to get felt up the the TSA. You’re an insult to the word American.
[/quote]

I love how three wars and TSA patdowns fall into the same category for you. Is that you in your avatar?

On a more related note: in what way are these powers not entrusted to the State? To my mind these are exactly the things that the State does. Bear in mind that I’m talking about government in general, i.e. local, city, state, federal…it doesn’t matter. I’m talking about the philosophical basis for government and therefore for taxation.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

And the regulation is the US constitution, not whatever the mob decides it should be.
[/quote]

Absolutely. The argument goes on and becomes far more complicated as you get into the specifics of our system, our practices, our Constitution.

What I have provided here is, I believe, a simple and sturdy justification for taxation in a world populated by social beings.[/quote]

No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, oh, please do that.

Since I wrote a thesis on the subject I am downright eager for this incredibly easy justification that I seem to have missed.

[/quote]

Oh boy! A thesis! Now I’m terrified!

For the benefit of all, societal cooperation must be regulated, its disparate components protected from each other, and the machinery of its quotidian comings and goings kept in a state of constant vitality. These things cost money. Since we are the benefactors, and the recipients of the services, we pay the money.

Make it as fucked and convoluted as you’d like. That right there is simple and true.[/quote]

ORLY?

Thats it?

And pray tell, why do we need the state to do that?

[/quote]

Who else would you suggest take the reigns? The private sector?

The state is simply what we call the entity to which we entrust these powers.[/quote]

Based on what? That’s the problem, we DO NOT trust these powers to the state. In fact these powers are forbid from the state. Dumbshits like you spouting crap like this is why we are $14T in debt, have 3 non-wars going on, and have to get felt up the the TSA. You’re an insult to the word American.
[/quote]

I love how three wars and TSA patdowns fall into the same category for you. Is that you in your avatar?[/quote]
They are all examples of extra-constitutional acts by our Fed Gov’t. And yes, I’m the one on the right.

On a more related note: in what way are these powers not entrusted to the State? To my mind these are exactly the things that the State does. Bear in mind that I’m talking about government in general, i.e. local, city, state, federal…it doesn’t matter. I’m talking about the philosophical basis for government and therefore for taxation.

But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson

[garcia1970]

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Regarding the oil issue, I have posted this already

"There is no doubt that oil as a function of price, realized in all years except the past decade is most likely gone. There is however significant amounts of oil available, with higher costs to extract. Considering the growing and relatively inelastic demand for it, it will still be very sensitive to supply shocks. The value of the us dollar being the worlds reserve currency, and thus what oil is pegged to is also an issue.

Natural gas is relatively abundant, and would run your vehicles on somewhere near 2 something a gallon. There is a lack of infrastructure such as fueling stations at the moment, though conversion for auto’s currently on the road would be fairly inexpensive. Why this has not caught on yet I am at a loss to explain. Considering the lobbying power of the oil industry relative to the natural gas industry I am not suprised. When companies like Exxon, Conoco and others purchase smaller companies that have significant acreage in domestic natural gas plays you know where the future will lay. Especially Exxon, who rarely undertakes aquisitions."

When you explicitly say you are “only asking about oil” that is rather misleading. Natural gas and other “ane” group hydrocarbons are substitute goods of differing degrees for oil.

Regarding the PhD, what do you teach at Penn State, where are the links to your publications. If one is going to use that as leverage for an argument, I feel that is a claim that should be verified, and it seems somewhat in congruent with the nature of your posts.

I would say the majority of posters in this thread need to stop getting their panties in a twist. [/quote]

Sir, that is a well-thought-out overview. I agree with all of it and concur with the “panties in a bind” statement.

I do not teach at Penn State. It is where I received my degrees. I will NOT disclose my identity for obvious reasons, as I am posting political opinions which do not necessarily represent the views of our administration. I could be fired. I only mentioned the degree because one of the brown shirts in this discussion tried to say that I didn’t know what a corporation was. I regret ever mentioning it.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.[/quote]

If you have something to argue, then by all means, argue. Take issue with a specific notion in my original justification for taxation. Prove it wrong. That’s the only way to do it.

Otherwise, you are just typing unsubstantiated bullshit about debt and TSA pat-downs…which have literally NOTHING to do with this particular aspect of the overall discussion. This is about theory and philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed.

[garcia1970]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my suggestions to make the
world a fairer and better place to be in;[/quote]

There is no “fairness” you create your own world and you live in it. You don’t know this do you? Furthermore, you cannot create fairness for those who refuse to help themselves. Sorry for the harsh dose of reality. Are you going to be okay?

[quote]-try and avoid cooperations. Try not to work for them and dont do business with them. I know
this will be difficult, but try and do what you can.[/quote]

One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on T Nation. Do you realize that millions of people are employed by corporations? Those people are dependent on their corporation to profit so that they can put food on the table for their families. Why do you want to hurt working class and middle class people? Also by trying to cripple corporations this will only harm the economy. The millions of people employed by corporations spend a great deal of money in the economy if that money is no longer there many, many others will become unemployed. Why do you want to see people without jobs? I guess you didn’t think this one through either huh?

[quote]-try to avoid purchasing mass produced goods. Even if you have to spend an extra dollar, purchase
something that has been made locally by locals.[/quote]

Another dumb idea for obviuous reasons.

-use less oil. Ride a bike.

Why would anyone try to use less oil? Don’t tell me, you’re an Al Gore global warming “the world is coming to an end” freak. There is ample oil in the world to last many more thousands of years. So that’s not the reason.
[/quote]

Zeb<

Being that you are so abrasive and crass in your posts, I thought I would simply respond with a question:

a)what is the estimated world supply of oil reserves? --from a CREDIBLE source, not FOX!!
b)what is forecasted world consumption for the next 50 years or so?

What do you get when you divide?

Is that thousands of years of supply?

Moron.
[/quote]

All irrelevant. When oil becomes economically prohibitive, alternative sources will become economical enough to take it’s place. Providing of course the market isn’t manipulated by gov’t subsidies (there’s that word again…).
[/quote]

Are in favor of getting rid of farm subsidies, then?

BTW: What’s on Fox News today? Palin? Beck? Rove?
Fair and Balanced!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
You think the social safety net is being abused by all those brown people who are lazy, right? (Someone said “staying home having babies”? [/quote]

No, most of us are smarter than you – you seem to be the only one who brought up brown people – you racist. You cannot even see the biggest recipient of Welfare – Wall Street and politicians.

You are naive if you think the government can take care of anyone. It has to hurt people that are in a better position to help themselves that they can help those “less fortunate”.

No, government cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves already.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]

Jesus Christ man, how fucking thickheaded are you?

Read this next part slowly: the argument in question is about the theoretical justification for taxation. It does not condone, condemn, or in any substantive/practical way deal with the realities of government in modern America.

Yes, there are constraints. Yes, the government has run wild in recent years. Yes, the Constitution must be held in higher regard than it recently has been, especially with regard to war in my opinion.

But…and here is the part you seem not to be able to grasp…that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about the THEORETICAL reason why taxation is PHILOSOPHICALLY justified. If I’m not mistaken, you said yourself a few pages back that taxation is a necessary evil. So you agree with me on this?

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.[/quote]

If you have something to argue, then by all means, argue. Take issue with a specific notion in my original justification for taxation. Prove it wrong. That’s the only way to do it.

Otherwise, you are just typing unsubstantiated bullshit about debt and TSA pat-downs…which have literally NOTHING to do with this particular aspect of the overall discussion. This is about theory and philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed.[/quote]
I have. The Fed Gov’t is justified in taxing only to cover those things spelled out for it in the Constitution.

[reddog6376]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Regarding the oil issue, I have posted this already

"There is no doubt that oil as a function of price, realized in all years except the past decade is most likely gone. There is however significant amounts of oil available, with higher costs to extract. Considering the growing and relatively inelastic demand for it, it will still be very sensitive to supply shocks. The value of the us dollar being the worlds reserve currency, and thus what oil is pegged to is also an issue.

Natural gas is relatively abundant, and would run your vehicles on somewhere near 2 something a gallon. There is a lack of infrastructure such as fueling stations at the moment, though conversion for auto’s currently on the road would be fairly inexpensive. Why this has not caught on yet I am at a loss to explain. Considering the lobbying power of the oil industry relative to the natural gas industry I am not suprised. When companies like Exxon, Conoco and others purchase smaller companies that have significant acreage in domestic natural gas plays you know where the future will lay. Especially Exxon, who rarely undertakes aquisitions."

When you explicitly say you are “only asking about oil” that is rather misleading. Natural gas and other “ane” group hydrocarbons are substitute goods of differing degrees for oil.

Regarding the PhD, what do you teach at Penn State, where are the links to your publications. If one is going to use that as leverage for an argument, I feel that is a claim that should be verified, and it seems somewhat in congruent with the nature of your posts.

I would say the majority of posters in this thread need to stop getting their panties in a twist. [/quote]

Sir, that is a well-thought-out overview. I agree with all of it and concur with the “panties in a bind” statement.

I do not teach at Penn State. It is where I received my degrees. I will NOT disclose my identity for obvious reasons, as I am posting political opinions which do not necessarily represent the views of our administration. I could be fired. I only mentioned the degree because one of the brown shirts in this discussion tried to say that I didn’t know what a corporation was. I regret ever mentioning it.

[/quote]

No, I said you don’t know what a subsidy is, and I don’t think you do yet. And I’m wearing a blue shirt… Not to change the subject, but did you realize that Hitler and his brown shirts were socialists?

[reddog6376]

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my suggestions to make the
world a fairer and better place to be in;[/quote]

There is no “fairness” you create your own world and you live in it. You don’t know this do you? Furthermore, you cannot create fairness for those who refuse to help themselves. Sorry for the harsh dose of reality. Are you going to be okay?

[quote]-try and avoid cooperations. Try not to work for them and dont do business with them. I know
this will be difficult, but try and do what you can.[/quote]

One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on T Nation. Do you realize that millions of people are employed by corporations? Those people are dependent on their corporation to profit so that they can put food on the table for their families. Why do you want to hurt working class and middle class people? Also by trying to cripple corporations this will only harm the economy. The millions of people employed by corporations spend a great deal of money in the economy if that money is no longer there many, many others will become unemployed. Why do you want to see people without jobs? I guess you didn’t think this one through either huh?

[quote]-try to avoid purchasing mass produced goods. Even if you have to spend an extra dollar, purchase
something that has been made locally by locals.[/quote]

Another dumb idea for obviuous reasons.

-use less oil. Ride a bike.

Why would anyone try to use less oil? Don’t tell me, you’re an Al Gore global warming “the world is coming to an end” freak. There is ample oil in the world to last many more thousands of years. So that’s not the reason.
[/quote]

Zeb<

Being that you are so abrasive and crass in your posts, I thought I would simply respond with a question:

a)what is the estimated world supply of oil reserves? --from a CREDIBLE source, not FOX!!
b)what is forecasted world consumption for the next 50 years or so?

What do you get when you divide?

Is that thousands of years of supply?

Moron.
[/quote]

All irrelevant. When oil becomes economically prohibitive, alternative sources will become economical enough to take it’s place. Providing of course the market isn’t manipulated by gov’t subsidies (there’s that word again…).
[/quote]

Are in favor of getting rid of farm subsidies, then?

BTW: What’s on Fox News today? Palin? Beck? Rove?
Fair and Balanced!
[/quote]

Absolutely 100%.

What the f&ck does TV news have to do with anything?

[reddog6376]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]

Jesus Christ man, how fucking thickheaded are you?

Read this next part slowly: the argument in question is about the theoretical justification for taxation. It does not condone, condemn, or in any substantive/practical way deal with the realities of government in modern America.

Yes, there are constraints. Yes, the government has run wild in recent years. Yes, the Constitution must be held in higher regard than it recently has been, especially with regard to war in my opinion.

But…and here is the part you seem not to be able to grasp…that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about the THEORETICAL reason why taxation is PHILOSOPHICALLY justified. If I’m not mistaken, you said yourself a few pages back that taxation is a necessary evil. So you agree with me on this?[/quote]

Boy, I really have to spell it out for you don’t I? Ok. Taxation is justified only if it does not harm one group for the benefit of another, and it must operate within the rules of the organization doing the taxing.

[smh23]

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]

Jesus Christ man, how fucking thickheaded are you?

Read this next part slowly: the argument in question is about the theoretical justification for taxation. It does not condone, condemn, or in any substantive/practical way deal with the realities of government in modern America.

Yes, there are constraints. Yes, the government has run wild in recent years. Yes, the Constitution must be held in higher regard than it recently has been, especially with regard to war in my opinion.

But…and here is the part you seem not to be able to grasp…that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about the THEORETICAL reason why taxation is PHILOSOPHICALLY justified. If I’m not mistaken, you said yourself a few pages back that taxation is a necessary evil. So you agree with me on this?[/quote]

Boy, I really have to spell it out for you don’t I? Ok. Taxation is justified only if it does not harm one group for the benefit of another, and it must operate within the rules of the organization doing the taxing.
[/quote]

I don’t see how this bears on my original thought. Do you agree with what I wrote? Do you not? If not, with what substantive piece of it do you take issue?

Sort shit out in your head before you start vomiting all over your keyboard man. I wrote something, you attacked it. Now explain why you disagree with me. Not with an unrelated rant about harming one group for the benefit of another…because that isn’t what I’m talking about…I’m talking about why taxation–just taxation–just the fucking ACT ITSELF–is philosophically justified. I said it is. I gave a reason. Take issue with the specifics of my argument or move on.

[Bonesaw93]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, government cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves already.[/quote]

^This.