[hrothgar]

I find the following much more interesting than theories that the Fed's blew up the WTC

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...be_hacked/print

[Winstonm]

Unfortunately, I think it no longer matters which candidate is elected or which party is in charge. It takes very little to fool the masses - just get the talking heads on MSNBC to repeat the mantra often enough and soon the majority believes it is true, regardless of facts.

[akhare]

Winstonm, on Sep 22 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

Unfortunately, I think it no longer matters which candidate is elected or which party is in charge.  It takes very little to fool the masses - just get the talking heads on MSNBC to repeat the mantra often enough and soon the majority  believes it is true, regardless of facts.

Couldn't agree more w/ that statement -- it seems that Orwell was off by just a couple of decades about 1984. Doublespeak, Newspeak and so many themes from Animal Farm as well seem to have come home to roost.

[DrTodd13]

Fooled is not the right word I think. It isn't like people don't know what the government does. It is that they have been endoctrinated to believe that that is good. Like Atul says, it is doublethink. People simultaneously believe "thou shalt not steal" and "taxes are necessary." To me, these are mutually exclusive beliefs because I see no moral difference between whether one person takes my money versus 300 million.

On a slightly different note, I ran into this show on cable-access last night by this guy Alex Ansary. He was interviewing Aaron Russo who is some movie/TV producer and who ran for president last time...I think he barely lost the Libertarian nomination to Michael Badnarik. Russo said that he was friends with one of the Rockefellers and that one time this friend asked him what he thought the motivations behind the women's liberation movement were. Russo spouted the concensus opinion that it was about equal pay for equal work...yada, yada. The Rockefeller laughed at him and said that those high-up in government had sponsored the women's lib movement because it did two things. First, it moved more people into the work force which then increased tax revenue and gave government more money to spend and gave politicians more power. Second, it relinquished much of child care to institutionalized settings where endoctrination could more readily happen. An interesting theory. I don't know if it really was sponsored with this in mind but that is certainly a consequence of that movement.

[Winstonm]

Speaking of voting fraud, has anyone read Vincent Bugliosi's book: None Dare Call It Treason?

I became a fan of Bugliosi when I first read "Helter Skelter" and a couple of his other books - he seems to be a straight arrow and a his knowledge of law is impressive (at least to me).

Sadly, I have not found the time to read None Dare....

Can anyone give me a thumb up or thumb down?

[joshs]

DrTodd13, on Sep 29 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

Fooled is not the right word I think.  It isn't like people don't know what the government does.  It is that they have been endoctrinated to believe that that is good.  Like Atul says, it is doublethink.  People simultaneously believe "thou shalt not steal" and "taxes are necessary."  To me, these are mutually exclusive beliefs because I see no moral difference between whether one person takes my money versus 300 million. 

On a slightly different note, I ran into this show on cable-access last night by this guy Alex Ansary.  He was interviewing Aaron Russo who is some movie/TV producer and who ran for president last time...I think he barely lost the Libertarian nomination to Michael Badnarik.  Russo said that he was friends with one of the Rockefellers and that one time this friend asked him what he thought the motivations behind the women's liberation movement were.  Russo spouted the concensus opinion that it was about equal pay for equal work...yada, yada.  The Rockefeller laughed at him and said that those high-up in government had sponsored the women's lib movement because it did two things. First, it moved more people into the work force which then increased tax revenue and gave government more money to spend and gave politicians more power.  Second, it relinquished much of child care to institutionalized settings where endoctrination could more readily happen.  An interesting theory.  I don't know if it really was sponsored with this in mind but that is certainly a consequence of that movement.

Who is stealing from you Todd? If you didn't have any income, but instead had $1,000,000 under your pillow, no one would ask for any of that. Instead you choose to work for Intel under the following terms:

Intel Pays $X to you and approximately $Y to the citizens of the US for providing the schools that edjucate their employees and their families, the garbage men for taking there garbage, the police for protecting them, and so forth. The approximently, has to do with how much money is already being paid in support of your working from other places, since there is a sliding scale for your share of the work being done. If you don't like Intel's terms, don't work for them. The fact that Intel is calling your salary X+Y is just confusing you, since the Y part is not yours. Maybe if you agree to pave some roads yourself, periodically fly to another country and bomb them, teach a class at the public school, and walk the neighborhood watch, than Intel might give you that money instead. But probably not since they might not beleive that you can beat north korea is a fair fight.

Next thing you are telling me is that Intel when they highered you they also hired a secretary, a mail clerk, a security guard, and other support personal and you want their salaries also, since you didn't specifically ask for their jobs to exist.

Come on.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Sep 30 2006, 01:15 AM, said:

Fooled is not the right word I think.  It isn't like people don't know what the government does.  It is that they have been endoctrinated to believe that that is good.  Like Atul says, it is doublethink.  People simultaneously believe "thou shalt not steal" and "taxes are necessary."  To me, these are mutually exclusive beliefs because I see no moral difference between whether one person takes my money versus 300 million.

Josh sums it up quite nicely:

If you like the deal that you are getting here in the US, leave...

There are plenty of place on this planet where you can just disappear. Take your money, buy some camping equipment and wander off into the Great White North. If you prefer more tropical climes there's lots of wide open spaces down in South America. Alternatively, there's always the Hindu Kush. Spend a few years in Waziristan and tell us how you like the "state of nature".

If you really thought that you were getting such a raw deal, you'd go off and do something about it. Instead, you prefer to live a nice cushy life, complaining all the time about how things aren't perfect and the evil collectivist state is oppressing you.

Its also interesting to note how you're willing to compromise your ideals by working for a large collectivist organization like Intel. I'm sure you recognize how large centrally planned organizations like Intel or Cisco department from market oriented organizational structures.

[akhare]

DrTodd13, on Sep 29 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

The Rockefeller laughed at him and said that those high-up in government had sponsored the women's lib movement because it did two things. First, it moved more people into the work force which then increased tax revenue and gave government more money to spend and gave politicians more power.  Second, it relinquished much of child care to institutionalized settings where endoctrination could more readily happen.  An interesting theory.  I don't know if it really was sponsored with this in mind but that is certainly a consequence of that movement.

Hmm..., that must have been a joke or the Rockerfeller was truly off his rocker. Was he really serious about a social revolution engineered by the government in the hopes of bloating its own coffers??!! Couldn't the increased tax revenue be achieved by the simple expedient of raising taxes? Or were the powers that be afraid of a rebellion by the overtaxed masses?

[hrothgar]

akhare, on Sep 30 2006, 03:20 AM, said:

Hmm..., that must have been a joke or the Rockerfeller was truly off his rocker. Was he really serious about a social revolution engineered by the government in the hopes of bloating its own coffers??!! Couldn't the increased tax revenue be achieved by the simple expedient of raising taxes? Or were the powers that be afraid of a rebellion by the overtaxed masses?

You missed one possibility: Aaron Russo has lost it...

[DrTodd13]

[QUOTE]
Who is stealing from you Todd?
[\QUOTE]

You are and everyone else who blindly supports government.

[QUOTE]
If you didn't have any income, but instead had $1,000,000 under your pillow, no one would ask for any of that. Instead you choose to work for Intel under the following terms:
[\QUOTE]

You get a majority of people together and then give me the decision of starving to death or giving them money for the privilege of working. Screw that. That is what the mob does.

[QUOTE]
Intel Pays $X to you and approximately $Y to the citizens of the US for providing the schools that edjucate their employees and their families, the garbage men for taking there garbage, the police for protecting them, and so forth. The approximently, has to do with how much money is already being paid in support of your working from other places, since there is a sliding scale for your share of the work being done. If you don't like Intel's terms, don't work for them. The fact that Intel is calling your salary X+Y is just confusing you, since the Y part is not yours. Maybe if you agree to pave some roads yourself, periodically fly to another country and bomb them, teach a class at the public school, and walk the neighborhood watch, than Intel might give you that money instead. But probably not since they might not beleive that you can beat north korea is a fair fight.
[\QUOTE]

What Intels pay to me or the government is irrelevant. They are forced to pay $Y to the government or the government will use force to shut them down. As a stockholder, this $Y is coming out of my pocket either way so this shell game of it wasn't really my money to start with is bullshit. Somebody is forcing either me or Intel to pay money for the privilege of employing me. This is extortion and it is only doublethink and some special exemption from morality you think government has that stops you from seeing that. I don't want anything for free. I want to pay for what I use. I pay directly for trash collection. I expect to pay when my children go to school. I want to pay for my own health insurance. If I could, I would pay for the roads, police, and fire protection of my choice willingly. I don't want to pay to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, to bomb people back into the stone age half a world away, or pay for some jackass's healthcare who ate himself into oblivion. The use of the money is irrelevant though. I don't care if they are doing great things with it or things that I would myself with it, if they are stealing it from me then I'm pissed.

There's no place I can go to avoid it so I make the best of what I got. My alternative is to sacrifice myself in some useless revolution but at this point that is futile so I'll be as happy as I can despite that fact that my rights are violated every single day.

Statists can go to hell. Democracy sucks.

[pbleighton]

"Statists can go to hell. Democracy sucks."

And anarchists sulk.

Peter

[EricK]

Quote

If I could, I would pay for the roads, police, and fire protection of my choice willingly

You choose to pay for fire protection your neighbour (whose house is very close to yours) doesn't. His house catches fire. What do you expect your fire protection service to do?

Quote

I expect to pay when my children go to school. I want to pay for my own health insurance

There is a child whose parents, for whatever reason, can not afford to pay for its education or healthcare. Should this child be allowed to go uneducated and untreated?

[DrTodd13]

EricK, on Sep 29 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

Quote

If I could, I would pay for the roads, police, and fire protection of my choice willingly

You choose to pay for fire protection your neighbour (whose house is very close to yours) doesn't. His house catches fire. What do you expect your fire protection service to do?

Quote

I expect to pay when my children go to school. I want to pay for my own health insurance

There is a child whose parents, for whatever reason, can not afford to pay for its education or healthcare. Should this child be allowed to go uneducated and untreated?

If I or someone else chooses to out of the goodness of our own heart contribute to some child's education or health care then so be it. If no one is willing to donate money for this cause then yes, the child should go uneducated and untreated. If someone is living in lavishness and chooses out of selfishness not to help this child then I would say that is wrong. However, it would also be wrong to force this person to be generous.

About the fire thing, my fire protection service could stop the fire from spreading to my house. If my house was so close to theirs that that might not be possible then I could either pay more to have them protect my neighbors house as well or my neighbor and I could agree to use the same service. None of these issues are unworkable. I'll agree it's not as convenient as what you have now but at least you would have a choice and it would all be voluntary.

[Al_U_Card]

Does mental masterbation count as internet porn?

I just don't want to get a virus...

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Sep 30 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

About the fire thing, my fire protection service could stop the fire from spreading to my house. If my house was so close to theirs that that might not be possible then I could either pay more to have them protect my neighbors house as well or my neighbor and I could agree to use the same service. None of these issues are unworkable. I'll agree it's not as convenient as what you have now but at least you would have a choice and it would all be voluntary.

About that fire protection thing...

What if your neighbor doesn't care if the fire spreads beyond his whole house? What if your neighbor doesn't believe that fires are likely and doesn't invest in any kind of fire protection what-so-ever?

[Echognome]

I personally believe it's ignorance to think that public goods can easily be provided privately. The simple fact is that they cannot. Suppose that person X says "I don't want to pay for national defense". Can we put a large X on the top of their house and say "feel free to bomb here without repurcussion, but we'll protect against you attacking anywhere else." Obviously that is not feasible.

Can we provide selective police, fire, judicial system, etc? Do we not have certain inalienable rights regardless of whether we have the money to pay for them? Should only the rich benefit from things like property rights?

Furthmore, we get a benefit from a public good despite not even using the good directly. As an example, suppose that part of your tax money goes to build a road you never use. Do you not benefit from the road if a package is delivered to your house that uses that road? Do you not benefit from that road if the ambulance that comes help you when you get injured drives down that road? What about schools? Do we not benefit from someone else's child going to school if that child becomes our doctor? Do we not benefit more directly by requiring children to be in school rather than loitering around with nothing better to do (and perhaps stealing your property)?

There are actually a lot more issues, such as how voluntary contribution as a mechanism underprovides public goods, but I don't want to write a long essay for a post. I recognise that there is plenty of wastage in government, but I can hardly take anyone serious that feels that the government is so wasteful that we would be better off providing all public goods privately.

[Gerben42]

Well maybe a good idea would be to give each tax payer some more options, for example from a certain list of options like

* education
* defense
* social security

etc.

the taxpayer is allowed to cross out one where he does not want his money to be spent. This would then mean if a certain area is crossed out enough that the budget in this area would decrease.

I don't know but I would prefer that governments would spend less money on military and more on other things.

On the other hand this may be a terrible idea since the presidential election results in most countries have shown that many voters react backwards at well-formualted arguments.

[mike777]

Good grief Europe spends almost nothing on defense as it is and you want to spend less? Is everyone in Europe a pacifist or just naive? Do you forget that 10 years ago concentration camps were common in Europe and not common in the America's or Asia?

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Sep 30 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Sep 30 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

About the fire thing, my fire protection service could stop the fire from spreading to my house.  If my house was so close to theirs that that might not be possible then I could either pay more to have them protect my neighbors house as well or my neighbor and I could agree to use the same service.  None of these issues are unworkable.  I'll agree it's not as convenient as what you have now but at least you would have a choice and it would all be voluntary.

About that fire protection thing...

What if your neighbor doesn't care if the fire spreads beyond his whole house? What if your neighbor doesn't believe that fires are likely and doesn't invest in any kind of fire protection what-so-ever?

Would you move into next to someone who didn't have fire insurance/protection and your only choice was to not live there or pay for insurance for his house too? I think this would stop people from moving in and this would reduce this guy's property values so he would be better off paying for the insurance rather than have his house value go down. Second point would be that does this guy have a mortgage? No one is going to give him a loan with fire insurance. CC&Rs are still ethical and communities would make it a prerequisite of buying that you have fire insurance/protection.

[DrTodd13]

Echognome, on Sep 30 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

I personally believe it's ignorance to think that public goods can easily be provided privately. The simple fact is that they cannot. Suppose that person X says "I don't want to pay for national defense". Can we put a large X on the top of their house and say "feel free to bomb here without repurcussion, but we'll protect against you attacking anywhere else." Obviously that is not feasible.

Can we provide selective police, fire, judicial system, etc? Do we not have certain inalienable rights regardless of whether we have the money to pay for them? Should only the rich benefit from things like property rights?

Furthmore, we get a benefit from a public good despite not even using the good directly. As an example, suppose that part of your tax money goes to build a road you never use. Do you not benefit from the road if a package is delivered to your house that uses that road? Do you not benefit from that road if the ambulance that comes help you when you get injured drives down that road? What about schools? Do we not benefit from someone else's child going to school if that child becomes our doctor? Do we not benefit more directly by requiring children to be in school rather than loitering around with nothing better to do (and perhaps stealing your property)?

There are actually a lot more issues, such as how voluntary contribution as a mechanism underprovides public goods, but I don't want to write a long essay for a post. I recognise that there is plenty of wastage in government, but I can hardly take anyone serious that feels that the government is so wasteful that we would be better off providing all public goods privately.

I never said they could be provided easily. My position is that all taxes are inherently immoral. My view is that if enough people aren't willing to voluntarily pay for a defense agency that they don't value their freedom sufficiently. If we had fiscal responsibility in terms of defense, we wouldn't be off all over the world invading people We'd be focusing on defensive technologies and leaving everyone else the hell alone.

You have certain inalienable rights but one of those is not to other people's money. If there is a road that you never use but a delivery service uses then the delivery service uses that road and they pass that portion of the road's toll onto you as part of the delivery charge. In this way, those who gets lots of packages are not subsidized by those who don't get any. Same thing for the ambulance company. I pay for their service and they pay for the roads they use.

All your arguments are "we must force people to do something and contribute their money otherwise bad things X, Y and Z will happen." You talk about rights but essentially you want a society with no rights at all. You want a society where people can take a vote and do absolutely anything based on their definition of good.

It isn't an issue of goverment waste although they are horrendously wasteful. My fundamental axiom is this area is that applying force against someone to get them to conform or contribute money is wrong. Your axiom is that whatever the majority of people agrees to is right and in that kind of society nothing is sacred.