Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]orion wrote:
tom63 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And it was “this country” that did it, so fuck yourself with that one.

You are wrong. It was a certain few individuals who collected tax monies that had the ability to do the work. “This country” does not actually exist other than as some abstract collective idea. “This country” cannot act. The individuals in “this country” act.

That is the way it is.

Individuals that have consented to being taxed, elect their government, and pay for the projects that are run by that government.

That’s “this country.”

I know it doesn’t fit your little anarchist world model, but we’ve already determined that you preach and preach and then bitch out and pay your taxes anyway, so you may as well take some credit for having funded the space program.

I have not consented to being taxed.

I do not elect the government nor does the populous.

Everyone is powerless except for the people with coercive authority.

That is the way it is.

Fine. Go live on a deserted island. And stop freeloading and making use of a single benefit that the government provides. If it was possible to parce exactly what you want to contribute and exactly what you’d like to receive in return, that’d be one thing. But it’s not outside of a society of 5 people. If then.

True, once we’re out of a small tribe situation, that’s about right.

No it is not because both of you hide a mountain of expenses for which this is evidently not true behind a mole hill of government functions for which it is.

If government only did those things that absolutely positively needed to be done by a collective you’d have no income tax, no payroll taxes and next to insignificant indirect taxes.

Your point of view is much more distorted than LMs because whereas he sees government for what it is you think one can exculpate every abuse of power with the real or imagined need for police departments. That would only justify the existence of police departments though and nothing else.
[/quote]

No your position suffers from a central fallacy. Everyone has a DIFFERENT view of what “needs” to be done and what they’re willing to pay to have done. Outside of societies of a small handful of people, everyone is going to be very happy with some of the things government spends their money on and very UNHAPPY with other things they spend on. And I’d wager to say almost everyone in the world has a different view of what government ‘should’ be spending money on than you do. So, you’ll never be marginally happy in any society.

Whether or not governments abuse power in practice and waste money (they certainly do), the central point is that it’s impossible to be satsified with ALL of the priorities government spends on outside of a tribe or handful of people. Really not even then if the principles of majority rule apply. So, sorry, if your standard is agreeing on absolutely every way money is spent and how the leadership functions, you are shit out of luck unless you go remove yourself to a society of one. Then you only have yourself to answer to.

122

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You and a couple other guys here are quintessential object lessons in what happens when a reasonably intelligent guy allows his mind to be polluted with bullshit ideology.

Its not like I am saying one shouldn’t do spend their own money on it. I am just saying I don’t want to pay for it and I should not be forced to pay for it. I really fail to see how that is bullshit.

On one hand you don’t mind stealing from people to support what you consider good but on the other hand you don’t like being stolen from when it comes to funding things you consider bad. Do you not see how it is YOU that is inconsistent – and therefore immoral.

At least my moral convictions are consistently against theft whereas yours can be swayed by politics. How sad for society as a whole, really.

If your “moral convictions” were so strong, you wouldn’t pop off all year about not consenting to being taxed… and then go file your tax return for April 15.

You, like all of your whining “anarchist” brethren, are full of shit.

My wife is not prepared to go to jail for my convictions, nor am I prepared to tear apart my family for my convictions. Though, I have convinced her that we can get away with lying about our taxable income…since we are both “self employed”. The government will never know how much I really make and I like it that way.

So, I protest the only way I can.

You are just angry because you do not know what to believe.[/quote]

You are disgusting and freeloading and make things worse for the rest of us that adhere to our contract with society by making a proper contribution despite not always agreeing with how the money is spent (or necessarily our tax rate) because we reap and participate in the benefits. In all fairness, you really should be declining medical services and live on a street full of potholes. By not paying your share of taxes when others do, you are essentially a social welfare case. We are supporting you.

123

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You and a couple other guys here are quintessential object lessons in what happens when a reasonably intelligent guy allows his mind to be polluted with bullshit ideology.

Its not like I am saying one shouldn’t do spend their own money on it. I am just saying I don’t want to pay for it and I should not be forced to pay for it. I really fail to see how that is bullshit.

On one hand you don’t mind stealing from people to support what you consider good but on the other hand you don’t like being stolen from when it comes to funding things you consider bad. Do you not see how it is YOU that is inconsistent – and therefore immoral.

At least my moral convictions are consistently against theft whereas yours can be swayed by politics. How sad for society as a whole, really.

If your “moral convictions” were so strong, you wouldn’t pop off all year about not consenting to being taxed… and then go file your tax return for April 15.

You, like all of your whining “anarchist” brethren, are full of shit.

My wife is not prepared to go to jail for my convictions, nor am I prepared to tear apart my family for my convictions. Though, I have convinced her that we can get away with lying about our taxable income…since we are both “self employed”. The government will never know how much I really make and I like it that way.

So, I protest the only way I can.

You are just angry because you do not know what to believe.

You are disgusting and freeloading and make things worse for the rest of us that adhere to our contract with society by making a proper contribution despite not always agreeing with how the money is spent (or necessarily our tax rate) because we reap and participate in the benefits. In all fairness, you really should be declining medical services and live on a street full of potholes. By not paying your share of taxes when others do, you are essentially a social welfare case. We are supporting you.[/quote]

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.

124

125

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.[/quote]

No. You’re a welfare case. A pathetic loser taking what he doesn’t deserve to take.

126

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.

No. You’re a welfare case. A pathetic loser taking what he doesn’t deserve to take.[/quote]

ah, does someone need to get her shots in today? I hope you feel better now.

127

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.

No. You’re a welfare case. A pathetic loser taking what he doesn’t deserve to take.

ah, does someone need to get her shots in today? I hope you feel better now.
[/quote]

I don’t have to get in anything. But I did want to let T-Nation’s very own welfare case know how pathetic he is.

Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us.

128

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.

No. You’re a welfare case. A pathetic loser taking what he doesn’t deserve to take.

ah, does someone need to get her shots in today? I hope you feel better now.

I don’t have to get in anything. But I did want to let T-Nation’s very own welfare case know how pathetic he is.

Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us. [/quote]

Even if what you say is true, so what?! You wouldn’t know how to make a valid argument in defense of that statement even if I helped you to connect the dots.

But by all means carry on with your nonsense. I am sure your statists buddies, like Dunderbolt, will come to your aid to help you complete a coherent argument – though, as we have seen, they cannot refute anything I say either.

Therein lies the source of my joy – I will always be right and you will always need others to help you reason stuff out.

129

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, I should be out trampling those of you who get in my way.

No. You’re a welfare case. A pathetic loser taking what he doesn’t deserve to take.

ah, does someone need to get her shots in today? I hope you feel better now.

I don’t have to get in anything. But I did want to let T-Nation’s very own welfare case know how pathetic he is.

Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us.

Even if what you say is true, so what?! You wouldn’t know how to make a valid argument in defense of that statement even if I helped you to connect the dots.

But by all means carry on with your nonsense. I am sure your statists buddies, like Dunderbolt, will come to your aid to help you complete a coherent argument – though, as we have seen, they cannot refute anything I say either.

Therein lies the source of my joy – I will always be right and you will always need others to help you reason stuff out.[/quote]

Someone put acid in their coffee this morning I see.

130

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Someone put acid in their coffee this morning I see.[/quote]

Every post you make proves me more and more correct. Please, carry on.

131

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us. [/quote]

This is pretty ironic coming from somebody who supports an administration that is hell bent on creating as much “living off others” as possible.

That said, I’m pretty sure he works for a well known bank in California.

132

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us.

This is pretty ironic coming from somebody who supports an administration that is hell bent on creating as much “living off others” as possible.

That said, I’m pretty sure he works for a well known bank in California.[/quote]

Please. The same could be said about anyone who supports a progressive income tax, and that’s probably most of the damn country.

133


Fuck.

134

[quote]pookie wrote:
Fuck.[/quote]

HAHAHAHHAHAH

135

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Now I see why you’re an “anarchist”- because you live off others, and it’s easy to say what you want then when you’re not feeling the crunch like the rest of us.

This is pretty ironic coming from somebody who supports an administration that is hell bent on creating as much “living off others” as possible.

That said, I’m pretty sure he works for a well known bank in California.[/quote]

oh, you sneaky little…contracting for them, actually…best gig ever and it beats academia’s ass!!

I knew I should not have clicked on your link while using the VPN.

136

[quote]pookie wrote:
Fuck.[/quote]

You got lots of triangles there! Good work.

137

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Fuck.

You got lots of triangles there! Good work.[/quote]

Yeah, but they’re not fucking.

138

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Fair enough. I was taking ideology to basically be a synonym for firmly held world view.

I ordinarily do too, but when Jacobin dilettantes like Orion or Lifticus accuse others of being “ideologically deficient”, I am reminded of that distinction.[/quote]

If your reading comprehension skills were anywhere near normal you would know that I insinuated that he too has an ideology.

But hey, why not debate the voices in your head?

139

[quote]pookie wrote:
Fuck.[/quote]

Well I guess in that case numbering the dots would hardly help, eh?

140

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You and a couple other guys here are quintessential object lessons in what happens when a reasonably intelligent guy allows his mind to be polluted with bullshit ideology.

Its not like I am saying one shouldn’t do spend their own money on it. I am just saying I don’t want to pay for it and I should not be forced to pay for it. I really fail to see how that is bullshit.

On one hand you don’t mind stealing from people to support what you consider good but on the other hand you don’t like being stolen from when it comes to funding things you consider bad. Do you not see how it is YOU that is inconsistent – and therefore immoral.

At least my moral convictions are consistently against theft whereas yours can be swayed by politics. How sad for society as a whole, really.

If your “moral convictions” were so strong, you wouldn’t pop off all year about not consenting to being taxed… and then go file your tax return for April 15.

You, like all of your whining “anarchist” brethren, are full of shit.

My wife is not prepared to go to jail for my convictions, nor am I prepared to tear apart my family for my convictions. Though, I have convinced her that we can get away with lying about our taxable income…since we are both “self employed”. The government will never know how much I really make and I like it that way.

So, I protest the only way I can.

You are just angry because you do not know what to believe.

You are disgusting and freeloading and make things worse for the rest of us that adhere to our contract with society by making a proper contribution despite not always agreeing with how the money is spent (or necessarily our tax rate) because we reap and participate in the benefits. In all fairness, you really should be declining medical services and live on a street full of potholes. By not paying your share of taxes when others do, you are essentially a social welfare case. We are supporting you.[/quote]

Me too, me too and there is no contract.

You cannot, not ever, make a contract that forces other people to do something.

Whatever you call that, a contract it is not.

Introducing Lysander Spooner:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

http://thestressblog.com/2006/02/11/the-constitution-of-no-authority-by-lysander-spooner/

“What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power. It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.”