Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Well there you have it, if we will never agree what to spend government monies on why force each other to spend money on each others pet projects.

Besides, if you like it or not all that financing of big government spending can be avoided quite easily by parasites like me and LM.

142

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

A whois lookup from your ip address in my Apache log. It’s public info man, I didn’t dig any further than that =] No more info than you leave at any other website. Yes, if you’re surfing from inside their network over a VPN you will report an address in their range. What’s interesting is that they are also their own access provider.

143

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

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

I… see. I suppose their are people who could somehow make sense of this statement. I am gratified in not being one of them.

144

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

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

I… see. I suppose their are people who could somehow make sense of this statement. I am gratified in not being one of them.[/quote]

The very notion of taxation is that people will rely on money that is not theirs for services. Progressive income taxes put a heavier burden on the rich, making them, in the eyes of those who are against taxation, even more unfair.

145

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What’s interesting is that they are also their own access provider.[/quote]

I would think that is common for a company this large with their need for security, etc.

146

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

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

I… see. I suppose their are people who could somehow make sense of this statement. I am gratified in not being one of them.

The very notion of taxation is that people will rely on money that is not theirs for services. Progressive income taxes put a heavier burden on the rich, making them, in the eyes of those who are against taxation, even more unfair.

[/quote]

It’s a bit disheartening that I should have to spell this out, but there is a world of difference between making use of necessary PUBLIC services which every civilization in history has done, and “living off others” which means drawing a PRIVATE livelihood. I’m not giving up hope for you. You will one day get this.

What’s the old saying? "If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you have no brains?

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

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

I… see. I suppose their are people who could somehow make sense of this statement. I am gratified in not being one of them.

The very notion of taxation is that people will rely on money that is not theirs for services. Progressive income taxes put a heavier burden on the rich, making them, in the eyes of those who are against taxation, even more unfair.
[/quote]

That is not entirely true.

Every tax sponsored project includes an element of redistribution, like highways for example. Some use it more, some use it less.

Progressive taxation is ethically unique because its expressed aim is redistribution.

The first is inevitable if you support even a minimal state, the second violates the raison d etre of governments, to protect its citizens property, for the expressed purpose of violating it.

148

[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]

If he makes a decent amount of money, even by hiding some of it, he pays more than enough taxes to pay for roads, etc. I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a contract to pay for John Murtha airport, the turtle crossing, or any of the other stuff they waste money on in Washington.

I don’t agree with him hiding his income, but to say that he is necessarily living of others is just not true. If you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits other people are living off of you. If you hide some of that income, other people are just living off of you less.

149

[quote]Unaware wrote:
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.

If he makes a decent amount of money, even by hiding some of it, he pays more than enough taxes to pay for roads, etc. I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a contract to pay for John Murtha airport, the turtle crossing, or any of the other stuff they waste money on in Washington.

I don’t agree with him hiding his income, but to say that he is necessarily living of others is just not true. If you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits other people are living off of you. If you hide some of that income, other people are just living off of you less.
[/quote]

Plus, we all pay consumption taxes and the tax of inflation – this is the true cost of your government – think of it as a CC bill that can never be paid off because the interest rates keeps going up every year…thus leaving the problem to future generations.

This will diminish our great-grand-children’s quality of life and they haven’t even been born yet!!

Yeah for us!

150

[quote]orion wrote:

But hey, why not debate the voices in your head?[/quote]

The voices in my head informed me you were a buffoon - clearly, the voices are to be trusted.

151

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

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

The voices in my head informed me you were a buffoon - clearly, the voices are to be trusted.[/quote]

I came to the same conclusion, but based on Geometric Logic and the True Axioms!

152

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

It’s a bit disheartening that I should have to spell this out, but there is a world of difference between making use of necessary PUBLIC services which every civilization in history has done, and “living off others” which means drawing a PRIVATE livelihood. I’m not giving up hope for you. You will one day get this.

What’s the old saying? "If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you have no brains?[/quote]

For the record, I have never been for programs like welfare where residents draw a livelihood without working. I am, however, in favor of working welfare.

At no point will I be a conservative. I am not some kid who had his ideas formed and cemented by a college professor. You and I just have fundamental differences in the way we think of the purpose of government. That’s fine… but at the same time, don’t attribute any of how I think to youth. I am not neither a communist nor a fool.

And I think at 40, Thomas Paine, FDR, and a host of other strong liberals had plenty of brains.

153

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

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

The voices in my head informed me you were a buffoon - clearly, the voices are to be trusted.[/quote]

Hearing voices and circular reasoning?

Are you training to become a tv preacher?

154

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

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

The voices in my head informed me you were a buffoon - clearly, the voices are to be trusted.

I came to the same conclusion, but based on Geometric Logic and the True Axioms![/quote]

Every time someone is not able to attack a certain school of thought without misrepresenting it AND ridiculing the parts he did not understand I just know that a) this school of thought has a lot to offer and b) said someone has more of an emotional than intellectual response.

So please, carry on.

Austrian economics is a valuable tool, but I also understand the importance of willfully ignorant sheeple.

155

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

It’s a bit disheartening that I should have to spell this out, but there is a world of difference between making use of necessary PUBLIC services which every civilization in history has done, and “living off others” which means drawing a PRIVATE livelihood. I’m not giving up hope for you. You will one day get this.

What’s the old saying? "If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you have no brains?

For the record, I have never been for programs like welfare where residents draw a livelihood without working. I am, however, in favor of working welfare.

At no point will I be a conservative. I am not some kid who had his ideas formed and cemented by a college professor. You and I just have fundamental differences in the way we think of the purpose of government. That’s fine… but at the same time, don’t attribute any of how I think to youth. I am not neither a communist nor a fool.

And I think at 40, Thomas Paine, FDR, and a host of other strong liberals had plenty of brains.[/quote]

Maybe they had too much brains. One accusation from Hajek was that liberals suffer from hyperconstructivism, meaning that they believed that they could build societies even though these are far too complex systems to be tampered with without serious consequences.

So yes, they may be smart but they also suffer from hubris.

156

[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

It’s a bit disheartening that I should have to spell this out, but there is a world of difference between making use of necessary PUBLIC services which every civilization in history has done, and “living off others” which means drawing a PRIVATE livelihood. I’m not giving up hope for you. You will one day get this.

What’s the old saying? "If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you have no brains?

For the record, I have never been for programs like welfare where residents draw a livelihood without working. I am, however, in favor of working welfare.

At no point will I be a conservative. I am not some kid who had his ideas formed and cemented by a college professor. You and I just have fundamental differences in the way we think of the purpose of government. That’s fine… but at the same time, don’t attribute any of how I think to youth. I am not neither a communist nor a fool.

And I think at 40, Thomas Paine, FDR, and a host of other strong liberals had plenty of brains.

Maybe they had too much brains. One accusation from Hajek was that liberals suffer from hyperconstructivism, meaning that they believed that they could build societies even though these are far too complex systems to be tampered with without serious consequences.

So yes, they may be smart but they also suffer from hubris.

[/quote]

but, but…man is the measure of all things!!

I read that somewhere.

157

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< For the record, I have never been for programs like welfare where residents draw a livelihood without working. I am, however, in favor of working welfare. >>>[/quote]

It’s statements like this that give me encouragement that you will eventually grow out of this boneheaded point of view.

Kinda tragically comical actually. Welfare has very successfully created a permanent underclass with the right to vote other people’s money into their own pockets and the hacks that put it their into office.

Paine was a visionary revolutionary who thankfully had minimal impact on the final product. FDR was on the power receiving end of his abominable philosophy. They are rarely cured.

160

[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

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

The voices in my head informed me you were a buffoon - clearly, the voices are to be trusted.

I came to the same conclusion, but based on Geometric Logic and the True Axioms!

Every time someone is not able to attack a certain school of thought without misrepresenting it AND ridiculing the parts he did not understand I just know that a) this school of thought has a lot to offer and b) said someone has more of an emotional than intellectual response.

So please, carry on.

Austrian economics is a valuable tool, but I also understand the importance of willfully ignorant sheeple.
[/quote]

Now who is the internet psychiatrist?
And I suppose I am “sheeple” when you blindly follow the Lewnytarians of Auburn? Now that is a reach, Herr Mooncalf.

It was not the Austrian Clown School I was ridiculing, but you, Your Fraudulence. Do not confuse yourself with some other ridiculous abstraction–you stand apart.

161

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
And I suppose I am “sheeple” when you blindly follow the Lewnytarians of Auburn? [/quote]

And you blindly follow science. So what?

The thing is we are both capable of knowing which methods of understanding are appropriate and when.

You still haven’t figured that out yet.

But then, that isn’t necessary information for you. Carry on.

162

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
And I suppose I am “sheeple” when you blindly follow the Lewnytarians of Auburn?

And you blindly follow science. So what?

The thing is we are both capable of knowing which methods of understanding are appropriate and when.

You still haven’t figured that out yet.

But then, that isn’t necessary information for you. Carry on.[/quote]

My goodness! Coming from you, why, that was almost coherent.
I do not need to encourage you; it seems you are always carrying on about something.