Wheres Obama and the Libtards on this?

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 28 Jul 2013, 02:18

Why isnt Obama or the leaders of the Civil Rights Industry or the POS Libtards saying anything or demanding justice for this girl. A much worse thing happened to this poor innocent girl. Than that scumbag treyvon. But her story doesnt fit their agenda and lies.

This is a horrible story, and hard to listen to, but everyone should hear this and Glenns comments. And hopefully learn from it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... an-agenda/

East Wind tmnt · Post by **East Wind tmnt** » 29 Jul 2013, 07:15

You know Glenn beck is insane right? Even fox news fired his ass.

SamTheButcher · Post by **SamTheButcher** » 29 Jul 2013, 12:16

East Wind tmnt wrote:You know Glenn beck is insane right? Even fox news fired his ass.

He's not insane at all. I bet you have never actually watched his show. If you did you would see pretty much everything he says is true. He gives all the quotes and evidence to back it up. I'm sure you have come to this conclusion that he is insane from what other people have said about him.

Did you watch this video? Or are you just passing judgment without even seeing it? If you did watch it which part exactly did you find insane. I would like to know. Did you watch any of the other videos I posted?

Fox didnt fire him. Thats something you have heard from someone else and you didnt bother to see if it was true or not. You just took their word for it instead of thinking for yourself. Actually he quite Fox because Fox was holding him back. He started his own network and it is becoming very successful. He has been picked up by a bunch of cable providers and his ratings are awesome especially when you consider it is a new network. Way better ratings that "current" Al Gores former network that he sold to middle east big oil. What a hypocrite.

How about instead of just calling him insane watch the video and tell me what you think is insane and if you cant find anything maybe you should rethink your opinion of him. Draw your own conclusions to just blindly follow popular media.

Not trying to be a dick but if more people listened to Glenn Beck and others like him America would be doing much better. There are so many lies taught in schools and in media it is no wonder America is in the condition it is and so many people believe the wrong things.

East Wind tmnt · Post by **East Wind tmnt** » 29 Jul 2013, 17:53

You know what if you like Glenn Beck, you can listen to him. I'll pray to Jesus for his soul.

dac · Post by **dac** » 29 Jul 2013, 17:59

sam dont worry about ew, he's still in school.

once he gets his first paycheck and notices that half of it (or more, since he's gonna be a MD) is gone he'll figure it out real quick. especially once he sees where all that money being taken out of his check is going day to day.

i've had the same talk with him, dont worry.

seeker would be the only fun one to jump in on this, that dude's got serious issues. EW is just filling his void, and isnt anywhere near insane enough to do it properly.

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 29 Jul 2013, 18:07

I will tell you guys that everyone outside the USA agrees with EW as to Glenn Beck's insanity

I mean come on, the guy is the walking demonstration of cherry picking and logical fallacies. Nothing he's trying to argue can be supported without a proper literature and peer review. Picking numbers that support your case is not science or evidence, it's politics. His entire job is doing exactly what he is claiming everyone else is doing.

As to the story, "no one cares about people anymore" coming from him - barf. He doesn't give a damn about the girl, it's just another political stunt as his comments make completely clear. His faux emotions and practice Shatner-esque delivery are pathetic... you could get a high school drama student to do a more convincing portrayal. If he really cared he would just help the girl, not be making a big deal out of it on TV which completely undermines any argument he could have made about his noble intentions.

No one should be supporting any of this media silliness. Don't fool yourself: it's all political and using real tragedies to support political agendas is the lowest of the low.

But yeah, the guy is completely nuts

His presentation is pretty good comedy for anyone with a math or science education though I will admit, but his faux emotions usually kill the fun for me.

East Wind tmnt · Post by **East Wind tmnt** » 29 Jul 2013, 20:04

I mean I've seen it with my parents dac, I think it's like 1/3 of their income for 250k+ bracket. Conservatives need to ditch the tea party and get back to their roots. The traditional conservative ideals have been clouded by all this ancillary nonsense like gay rights, immigration, religion in schools. Obama hasn't done anything, but jesus christ, I'd rather move than let any of the tea bagger idiots into power. Like where the fuck are the sane conservative voices who have a shot of winning?

Scratch · Post by **Scratch** » 29 Jul 2013, 21:44

All of which completely misses the point...

dac · Post by **dac** » 29 Jul 2013, 23:46

East Wind tmnt wrote:I mean I've seen it with my parents dac, I think it's like 1/3 of their income for 250k+ bracket. Conservatives need to ditch the tea party and get back to their roots. The traditional conservative ideals have been clouded by all this ancillary nonsense like gay rights, immigration, religion in schools. Obama hasn't done anything, but jesus christ, I'd rather move than let any of the tea bagger idiots into power. Like where the fuck are the sane conservative voices who have a shot of winning?

are you in an income free state?

it might be 1/3 to the fed, but go ahead and throw in medicare, social security, state taxes too and you're easily in the 50% range. I make far less than they do (probably because I don't have tax relief like home ownership, etc) and I got rape dayed, it was more than 40% total for me and im not even at the 100k mark.

East Wind tmnt · Post by **East Wind tmnt** » 30 Jul 2013, 01:07

True, i was just considering income tax

Chohan · Post by **Chohan** » 31 Jul 2013, 18:29

Pretty much the jews are to blame for basically everything liberal, feminist, diversity oriented.

zagon667 · Post by **zagon667** » 01 Aug 2013, 04:10

Pfft - I make over 150k as a single adult and live in a high tax state (Maryland) and it's not even close to 50% for everything. I gladly pay my tax bill for roads, parks, SNAP, Medicaid & Medicare. Wish I could prorate it so I didn't have to pay for the military though.

dac · Post by **dac** » 01 Aug 2013, 08:07

flat out do not believe you. you must have huge tax breaks from owning a home or something.

the federal bracket hits 28% starting at 85k. tack on another 9% for state tax and you're already up to 37% just in state and federal income tax. then add on medicare, social security, and whatever other crap they charge you for and you're up damn near 50%. then they put on a sales tax, oh and more than half the cost of gas is taxes. it adds up really fast. the govt is getting about half the GDP annually and they're still broke as fuck. its ridiculous.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 01 Aug 2013, 09:30

Just wow...

punkUser · Post by **punkUser** » 01 Aug 2013, 18:17

Well the awkward truth is that people in the US and north american in general are simply paid too much for the work they do relative to other parts of the world. Since people get bitchy about pay cuts, the government basically props up the unreasonable wages by public spending. Eventually this results in inflation to bring the spending power back down to what it should be.

So yeah, the government should take less, but most people should earn less money too. Ultimately the world economy will force this back into balance once they lose faith in the incredibly indebted and propped-up US government/dollar. Same deal but to a lesser extent for Canada.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 01 Aug 2013, 21:23

Right, from what I understand the middle class is not a natural outgrowth of free market capitalism. In its current form people are granted exclusive ownership rights over water sources and the food supply (indeed even over genes and DNA sequences, but that's for another thread) so the conditions exist which would lead to slavery (albeit in sophisticated form).

One way out, I think, would be the implementation of a UBI (universal basic income). See the other thread. It makes sense to pursue something like this with increasing automation, the decline of the labor market, and a wealth of other factors at work.

dac · Post by **dac** » 02 Aug 2013, 00:36

universal basic income? haha.

okay ln. i'll sit at home and cast games, you do the work that feeds me. okay? okay. thanks for contributing to my income!

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 02 Aug 2013, 00:59

That's the kind of response I'd expect from you dac. Your contribution has been noted.

Here's the pertinent bit from the other thread (it's obvious you either didn't read it or have a comprehension problem):

"Propertarians start from the premise that all land is up for grabs until claimed. I think that's absurd. It seems more ethical to view land as belonging to the commons before being allocated as private property. In other words, private property isn't "owned" -- it's rented. In exchange for exclusive property access, one enters into contract, paying appropriate taxes which are then distributed as basic income. Taxes on land value shouldn't disincentivize economic transactions like taxes on income or capital does. This is just one idea, and it would work through a basic contract."

Keep in mind that this is simply a suggestion, as I think demand for a UBI will pick up traction as realities about the market begin to sink in. This isn't your dad's economy. I personally think a UBI funded this way is ethical and more desirable than forcing people like yourself to abandon basic lifestyle privileges that (I think it's safe to say) we all have come to rely on and expect.

Agree with it or not, I think it's safe to say that people produce more and better work when their basic needs are met.

dac · Post by **dac** » 02 Aug 2013, 03:24

thanks for noting my contribution LN. where is this contribution note so i can make sure that it has been properly noted? for posterity of course.

typical bs, you dont agree with me ==> you lack reading comprehension ==> everything i said is perfect and all is correct including every assumption ==> yawn i win. typical flawed logic.

congrats on your belief system. i'd recommend first you get a job.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 02 Aug 2013, 03:26

dac: It seems your comprehension problem is worse than I had originally thought. I was just being cute, but now I'm a little concerned for you.

For one, that I framed my "belief system" as a tentative solution ("suggestion" was the word I used) seems lost on you completely.

But hey, I'm all for freedom. If constantly trolling people online is what brings you joy and satisfaction, who am I to tell you otherwise?

P.S. If you can, would you please consider pointing out specifically where my logic is flawed? That helps me to refine it in future. Thanks.

Edit: I'll also point out the ironic use of ad hominem in your post (just for fun, no reason to get it notarized). You elect to not address any of my post's actual content, alleging instead that a quip made at your expense absolves you of that burden. You then go on to insinuate that my motivation for recommending a UBI is to get a free handout. However - and here's the rub - even if that were true, it does nothing to discredit my argument or undermine its logic. To claim as much is the definition of ad hominem.

That is, of course, if I were arguing anything at all. Which I have not yet done, at least in this thread. I merely offered some thoughts that I judged novel and you seem to have taken exception to them, though the reasons why are not made clear beyond some vague disdain for me that I can't help but think unsolicited.

Zak · Post by **Zak** » 07 Aug 2013, 22:57

dac wrote:universal basic income? haha.

okay ln. i'll sit at home and cast games, you do the work that feeds me. okay? okay. thanks for contributing to my income!

dac wrote: congrats on your belief system. i'd recommend first you get a job.

Anyone else think its funny that dac has admitted in the past that he sits at work browsing the internet?

Giant Killer General · Post by **Giant Killer General** » 08 Aug 2013, 02:16

dac, aren't you in the highest taxed state in the country?

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 08 Aug 2013, 23:11

NewMutator wrote:Propertarians start from the premise that all land is up for grabs until claimed. I think that's absurd. It seems more ethical to view land as belonging to the commons before being allocated as private property. In other words, private property isn't "owned" -- it's rented.

Both sides are wrong. There is no "public" ownership, unless you own shares. The idea that the land is "up for grabs" isn't right either. The land, or any natural resource, is potentially owned by someone from the beginning, because sooner or later all land is predetermined to be claimed by someone as the population grows and more land is used.

Claiming land you don't need is stealing from those potential future owners.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 01:14

That's essentially what the commons is. "Public" ownership is a misnomer. Unless of course you're saying something I don't understand, which is very possible.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 02:13

NewMutator wrote:That's essentially what the commons is. "Public" ownership is a misnomer. Unless of course you're saying something I don't understand, which is very possible.

What I'm saying is this:
Earlier the state or government was equal to the king - a person - and any ownership claimed by "the crown" was owned by the king himself. When the king was removed and replaced by a parliament of elected individuals, what was previously owned by "the crown" became the property of the state. But the state is an organisation, not an individual, and as such cannot take personal responsibility. Where the king could be held accountable for what he did with the resources, the entity of a democratic government can not. The idea of "public ownership" stems from the concept of the king himself being a public person. So removing the person isn't working.

If the property of the state is really divided among the people, everyone should have a banknote or similar, and if they decided to leave the country they should be able to exchange it for cash. But that is not how "public ownership" is treated. In my view the only way to achieve this would be through some form of corporativism.

Of course this puts restrictions on state institutions and individuals as they are suddenly in charge of exactly the amount of money that they actually own, and wasteful behaviour would punish the individual directly. No public spending and no idiotic programs could be payed for with someone else's money by raising the tax, because there would be no tax. You are responsible, you make the investment.

Now I don't really believe this is a good idea. Some people simply can't make rational decisions and would waste their money and end up on the street, just like now. This is the reason why we have social classes, if the idiots were allowed to have absolute control of their own financial assets they couldn't handle it. They would be poor either way, so from the perspective of the good of society, the money needs to be unequally distributed in favor of those who can make better decisions.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 02:37

Yeah I'm not sure if you've grokked what I proposed. People being on the streets would not be a logical outcome of a UBI as I understand it. The UBI would be paid by a real estate tax, as opposed to other forms of taxation. I already talked about how the notion of property could be reformulated in order to ethically do this.

I don't for a minute buy into the teleology that money flows to those who can make the best decisions with it. It's not that clean. I absolutely cannot get on board with that view. Sorry.

EDIT: (Just to demonstrate what I consider the invalidity of such a position.) Saying money naturally accumulates for those who can do the most good for society evokes Hume's is-ought problem. Just because things are a certain way, does not mean they ought to continue being that way. Setting aside the question of whether or not I agree with you, simply stating that wealth is unequally distributed is not a good enough argument for the unequal distribution of wealth. It does not follow that it is either necessary, nor desirable for the good of society. That is a matter of belief, an unquestioned assumption.

It is also implicitly tautological ("if things ought to be any other way then they would be different"). Hopefully you can appreciate my reasons for rejecting the premise that you begin with. It's not that I think you're wrong, it's that I cannot abide by that logic with a clean conscience.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:00

NewMutator wrote:Yeah I'm not sure if you've grokked what I proposed. People being on the streets would not be a logical outcome of a UBI as I understand it. The UBI would be paid by a real estate tax, as opposed to other forms of taxation. I already talked about how the notion of property could be reformulated in order to ethically do this.

I don't for a minute buy into the teleology that money flows to those who can make the best decisions with it. It's not that clean. I absolutely cannot get on board with that view. Sorry.

Let me just tell you that Sweden does not have real estate tax. None.

We don't have a UBI in the sense that you get it payed every month no matter what. You need to visit an office and show them the proper documents every month to prove that you do not have money in the bank etc. This is not helping, alcoholics are freezing to death in the street because they are too drunk to find their way home. Entire suburbs of 10 000s inhabitants are relying mainly on this income, and they don't care. They get the money and are fine with just hanging around the block smoking all day.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:03

Not sure what the point of your argument is because Sweden has very little to do with what I'm talking about.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:06

NewMutator wrote:Not sure what the point of your argument is because Sweden has very little to do with what I'm talking about.

I don't know how you missed it. What you're proposing has been tried, and it isn't working. You need to read again what I wrote and relate it to the rest of this thread and that other thread where you talked about similar things.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:13

What I'm suggesting has not to my knowledge ever been tried. Be glad to see examples if you have any kicking around, but I can tell you right now that you're probably conflating what I suggested with a position I do not hold. Also, you fail to address something I have already cited in response to StB: the fact that Canada's Mincome program worked better than anybody expected it to. If you are arguing against the efficacy of a UBI, the onus is on you to explain that data. It is not my responsibility to make what you write here intelligible. If I can't understand you, I can't understand you.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:20

NewMutator wrote:Keep in mind that this is simply a suggestion, as I think demand for a UBI will pick up traction as realities about the market begin to sink in. This isn't your dad's economy. I personally think a UBI funded this way is ethical and more desirable than forcing people like yourself to abandon basic lifestyle privileges that (I think it's safe to say) we all have come to rely on and expect.

Agree with it or not, I think it's safe to say that people produce more and better work when their basic needs are met.

My point: when their basic needs are met, people are not interested in producing anything.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:22

That's great that you believe that, but where is the data? From the data I've gathered (see the Dan Pink video I linked in the other thread for a pretty concise breakdown) people produce superior work when the issue of money is taken off the table.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:30

The problem is that people aren't getting jobs doing mechanical labor. If they were, then you'd be correct. Here in the US at least the economy has shifted to non-sales selling: service jobs, education, and the medical industry. This kind of work isn't straightforward; it requires a modicum of cognitive ability. Creativity, if you will. Traditional incentivization just doesn't work as well (generally speaking) and in some cases even leads to poorer performance.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 03:48

NewMutator wrote:That's great that you believe that, but where is the data? From the data I've gathered (see the Dan Pink video I linked in the other thread for a pretty concise breakdown) people produce superior work when the issue of money is taken off the table.

Right...

You clearly have not met the kind of people I'm talking about. Your "data" can't make them produce anything, sorry but I don't see any point in even trying to continue this, you're not going to understand with that academical perspective.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 04:00

I'm not convinced anyone "should" be producing anything, quite frankly. For those that want to, it won't matter either way. I think forcing people to produce (by threatening starvation, or worse) seems to contravene the non-aggression principle, which, I assume, is central to your ideology if you're pro free market.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 04:43

NewMutator wrote:I'm not convinced anyone "should" be producing anything, quite frankly. For those that want to, it won't matter either way. I think forcing people to produce (by threatening starvation, or worse) seems to contravene the non-aggression principle, which, I assume, is central to your ideology if you're pro free market.

Well, do they want anything? Food maybe? Clothes? Housing?

Refusing to give them what they want for free, is that "threatening by starvation"? That's what planet earth has done to people for millions of years. Is that aggression by the earth then? With this way of arguing you're trying to force me into a position where I'm not "pro free market". But I don't know what you mean by "non-aggression principle". I don't see a contradiction, social darwinism and free market is the same.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 05:43

I'm not forcing you into a position. If you're pro free market you're likely to invoke the NAP. If you don't endorse the non-aggression principle, then that's my mistake. If you do, then you think that forcing people to do anything is unethical. That includes forcing people to participate in an economy against their will. All economic transactions should be voluntary, no?

I reject social darwinism, not because it is wrong necessarily but because it can be used to legitimize aggression through self-justification. See the many attempted eugenics programs of the past century. It's an ethical objection. I am skeptical of evolutionary biology for reasons that are not altogether unconnected (it can be teleological, which is odd since teleology is unacceptable to scientists. It can also be used to explain all things regardless of testability -- the definition of pseudoscience. See V.S. Ramachandran's famous "hoax": http://www.scribd.com/doc/121015563/Ramachandran.)

You're not obligated to give anyone anything. Nobody can force you to do that, and I don't intend to argue they can. If, however, we are inclined to live ethically, then (I think) a strong case can be made for a property-tax based UBI. But like I said, it's not something that can be mandated by a central authority since that would violate the NAP. It can only come about through voluntary commitment to what I regard as enlightened self-interest and the ethical. Capitalism is really good at meeting demand.

dac · Post by **dac** » 09 Aug 2013, 07:12

Zak wrote:
dac wrote:universal basic income? haha.

okay ln. i'll sit at home and cast games, you do the work that feeds me. okay? okay. thanks for contributing to my income!

dac wrote: congrats on your belief system. i'd recommend first you get a job.

Anyone else think its funny that dac has admitted in the past that he sits at work browsing the internet?

whats funny about it? i went to school and did my time and i work at a job that allows that perk. be jealous.

Some gay guy wrote:dac, aren't you in the highest taxed state in the country?

one of if not the highest taxed one, sure. i live next to assholes who leech off of something suggested by ln. if i go on a picnic and im told not to feed the animals as it makes them dependent on a false food source, then it's pretty unethical to support life which cannot support itself. ln has mistaken ethics and care for all people for enabling. i'd love to see his response if he had a kid with a drug problem.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 08:03

Implementing UBI would mean doing away with the welfare system. I can understand why you'd think they are similar, but a UBI would do away with means testing altogether and free up resources lost in bureaucracy.

Like it or not we already support life that cannot support itself. What, do you think babies pop out already self-sufficient? The only reason we're not all neanderthals is because we depend on the people who came before (for accumulated knowledge and capital -- inventions, technology, tools, infrastructure) and also each other to perform specialized functions within society (e.g. surgeons, farmers, engineers, architects, mechanics). I'm very doubtful you'd be able to survive without the support of many people around you whose help you rely on daily and probably take for granted. Think the people in your community who are driving the trucks, making deliveries, and keeping the shelves stocked so you can lead a semi-stable existence in your corner of the world, to say nothing of the people who produce all that junk in the first place. All so you can sit at a computer and browse the Internet and occasionally meet a deadline for some bit of work you probably don't really care to do (I'm guessing). Yeah, you're entitled to be entitled, I guess. Paid your dues. Everyone else can suck it. Makes sense.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 09 Aug 2013, 11:25

NewMutator wrote:I'm not forcing you into a position. If you're pro free market you're likely to invoke the NAP. If you don't endorse the non-aggression principle, then that's my mistake. If you do, then you think that forcing people to do anything is unethical. That includes forcing people to participate in an economy against their will. All economic transactions should be voluntary, no?

I reject social darwinism, not because it is wrong necessarily but because it can be used to legitimize aggression through self-justification. See the many attempted eugenics programs of the past century. It's an ethical objection. I am skeptical of evolutionary biology for reasons that are not altogether unconnected (it can be teleological, which is odd since teleology is unacceptable to scientists. It can also be used to explain all things regardless of testability -- the definition of pseudoscience. See V.S. Ramachandran's famous "hoax": http://www.scribd.com/doc/121015563/Ramachandran.)

You're not obligated to give anyone anything. Nobody can force you to do that, and I don't intend to argue they can. If, however, we are inclined to live ethically, then (I think) a strong case can be made for a property-tax based UBI. But like I said, it's not something that can be mandated by a central authority since that would violate the NAP. It can only come about through voluntary commitment to what I regard as enlightened self-interest and the ethical. Capitalism is really good at meeting demand.

Taxing isn't voluntary to begin with, an UBI based on voluntary contribution is just charity.

I'm not going to go into some theoretical discussion on definitions, the NAP could be argued for as a natural right originating in God or it could simply be called "entitlement". I know you're talking about this in the US, it could mean either of those two opposing views, it's not a stance.

As for social darwinism, I'm not at all a darwinist, but I see this is applicable on the large scale of nations, ethnicities or social groups. I'm really creationist. But the principle that all power originates in God is playing out through this way, social darwinism can be used to describe it. Rights theoretically are just words on a paper, in reality you have no right unless you can defend that right with force. This is the actual natural right (the will of God, if you want), and it's obvious animals in the wild also follow this principle.

dac · Post by **dac** » 09 Aug 2013, 15:51

UBI isnt a tax? it's voluntary? LOL! just like working today is voluntary, so you dont necessarily have to pay taxes. and you dont have to pay sales tax if you dont buy anything. i guess that's voluntary too. people dont NEED houses or shelter or property at all really, so payment into the system is voluntary. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!

lets break it down to this - you cannot enforce your morals on other people. look at how we view all religious states (the dark ages, really?) and that is an enforcement of morals and philosophies on a group of people who arent interested in such thing. see the inquisition, fights over jerusalem, modern islamic terrorism, american colonialism, american "democratizing", communism, whatever. it's all the enforcement of a system on people who dont necessarily want it, and it causes problems (er, duh?). Apply this to any political system, economic system (yay ln this one describes you!), social system or religious system and you're going to have friction. The best systems are the ones that are the least intrusive on our lives while still protecting us from each other. dont agree? noooooo waaaaaayyyyY! that must mean you have a reading comprehension fail. you're stupid and ignorant and probably hate your job and your life. and your politics are deplorable to me. but i'm not judgemental. mega fucking lol.

oh and ln, in case you cant figure it out, you are wrong on so many levels, it's quite astounding. they're trying similar experiments in hawaii right now, i know several people involved. you should look into making the experiments work where they are happening instead of arguing with a 50 person community on why your poor assumptions are superior. see how much you like the living in these thought experiments before you proclaim its success on a world-wide scale. in fact, go make more data instead of citing one specific instance nobody knows/cares about. you can actually go change the world, except you're probably too scared and lazy to go try to make a real difference in anything. go show up, hug it out, and ask them to give you your free stuff. see what happens!

regardless, i'm done arguing with myth polititards. feel free to stand on your box and preach your idealisms to 100 people. i cant believe i even wrote this much.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 19:43

One way to fund a UBI is the way I described (essentially a real-estate tax). In my view a real-estate tax is more ethical than an income tax (for reasons already stated). The problem with taxes right now is not so much that people object to paying them but that people object to what they consider immoral uses for them. I think conservatives would be on board with a UBI since it's giving people money directly, rather than redistributing it through poorly managed government services and programs.

Try not to look at this as either (communism) or (airy-fairy idealism). We can voluntarily change our tax code using our current system with very little problem.

I'm not forcing my "morals" on anyone, dac, that is just your highly idiosyncratic hallucinatory interpretation. If anything you're forcing your morals on me through ad hominem, straw man, red herring, and personal attack. If I am wrong on "so many" levels as you say one would think you'd be able to cite even just one without resorting to ad hominem.

Honestly I don't know why you bother replying either since it causes you so much aggravation. The only reason I'm still responding at all is because people like you continue to address me in this thread. If you want me to stop "preaching my idealisms" all you have to do is not post. If anything you are the one insisting on being argumentative.

As much as I enjoy the irony of you making a fool of yourself, I'd advise you to cease and desist since you're really only wasting our time at this point.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 09 Aug 2013, 20:13

vigor wrote:Taxing isn't voluntary to begin with, an UBI based on voluntary contribution is just charity.

I'm not going to go into some theoretical discussion on definitions, the NAP could be argued for as a natural right originating in God or it could simply be called "entitlement". I know you're talking about this in the US, it could mean either of those two opposing views, it's not a stance.

As for social darwinism, I'm not at all a darwinist, but I see this is applicable on the large scale of nations, ethnicities or social groups. I'm really creationist. But the principle that all power originates in God is playing out through this way, social darwinism can be used to describe it. Rights theoretically are just words on a paper, in reality you have no right unless you can defend that right with force. This is the actual natural right (the will of God, if you want), and it's obvious animals in the wild also follow this principle.

Taxation is voluntary in the same sense that participation in determining government policy is voluntary. Unfortunately our current system is not ideal, but there are ways and means of changing it (through voter participation, or, to use another metaphor, through increasing demand). UBI is charity in the same sense that social security is charity. Don't really see what the problem is.

I'm not creationist, but I'm highly skeptical of people using Darwinian metaphors to justify aggression (kind of like how religious teleology drove manifest destiny). Thing is, creationism and evolutionary biological explanations aren't all that qualitatively different. Both posit some teleological force (an intelligent designer, or Nature, maximizing fitness, or complexity, over time). The problem is that such explanations are untestable. They exist in the realm of faith, belief, and unexamined axioms. Really, the only difference much of the time is purely linguistic.

Anyway, sounds like you are an anarchist. I'm actually inclined to agree with you here. We already live in anarchy, it's just that the biggest gangs have already taken over, to paraphrase Alan Moore.

One thing such a view neglects, though, is that there is immense pressure, as society forms, for individuals to adhere to an ethical code (ostensibly to retain status as high-visibility members). One way to envision this is that, while perhaps in the distant past (early social organization) it was acceptable to treat offspring as property -- to dash them against a rock, or leave them to die of exposure if unwanted, or to engage in ritual sacrifice -- over time we have got to this point where it isn't even acceptable to discipline our own child in public. People will call the cops on you and have your kid removed to foster care. It isn't really unreasonable to see the same thing playing out in terms of government organization (monarchy/tyranny moving to participatory forms of democracy) or even to specific policy decisions. Remember, social security is a pretty recent invention.

So, judging from the historical record, it seems pretty unreasonable to just assume things ought to stay as they are today.

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 11 Aug 2013, 00:57

Taxing isn't voluntary that's sort of the whole idea, and taxing property is just stupid because property doesn't produce an income. Doing that means you can't own land without producing anything - this even goes against what you said about people not having to be productive. With estate tax or any such tax you're forcing production. This will lead to a few large owners taking over all land because they're the only ones who can afford to pay taxes, and they'll have to devastate the land to do so. This is completely against my view that the natural world needs to be protected from the hands of greedy humans. Laying waste to the earth to enable for lazy people to do nothing all day is ridiculus.

I guess you never had any religious experiences that made any impression on you since you say it cannot be tested. Of course it can. What it can't be is it can't be popularized because it's a personal experience that connects you yourself personally to something beyond this world. You're on your own and the experience can't be fully communicated, religious people can only understand each other because they have similar experiences, the essense of that experience can't be communicated. You have it and you can tell if someone else has it by interacting with them, but words fail to describe it.

I'm actually a member of the moderate party, so no I couldn't call myself anarchist even if my views may lean in that direction. There was an anarchist party here once but they decided to dissolve because it's not anarchy if you're organized. So the movement died and there aren't any around any more. At least they were true to their principles.

Last part I don't know what you're getting at, a democratization of the economy? I don't see how representative democracy applied to economy could be anything else than a big government system where people have almost no power at all. Because that is what representative democracy is like - it's not better than what we have now, it would be worse.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 11 Aug 2013, 02:49

It's obvious to me you haven't understood anything I've written.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 11 Aug 2013, 04:04

Taxation is voluntary to the extent you can voluntarily participate in determining your local tax policy. If you don't want to pay taxes, you can start a business overseas and funnel money into developing sophisticated evasion techniques (like everyone else. Hi Apple).

"taxing property is just stupid because property doesn't produce an income."

Taxing property as opposed to income just makes more sense from a practical and efficiency standpoint (to say nothing of ethics; income tax can be seen as interfering with one's right to their own labor - see dac). A lot of revenue (perhaps 1/3) is lost due to tax evasion and administrative costs, so there is a clear advantage to simplifying the tax code in such fashion.

"Doing that means you can't own land without producing anything"

No idea what you're talking about. You can absolutely produce value without owning land. Nobody works in manufacturing because it can be automated or outsourced.

"this even goes against what you said about people not having to be productive"

No idea what you're talking about. Retired folks living on social security seem to do just fine?

"With estate tax or any such tax you're forcing production."

Absolutely not. You're not taking the big picture here. You would only even want to own (rent) land if you could utilize it productively. There wouldn't be much incentive to "purchase" land otherwise. Taxes (and the UBI) wouldn't be arbitrary but tied to the value of land. That makes calculating the size of the UBI easy since you wouldn't have to make arbitrary guesses at what constitutes basic entitlement.

"This will lead to a few large owners taking over all land because they're the only ones who can afford to pay taxes, and they'll have to devastate the land to do so."

What you're describing is our current system.

The problem is you're still thinking a UBI is "free". There's no reason to think that since the would-be proprietor is negotiating a contract with the receiving party.

Actually, another problem is you've bought the Puritannical myth that people are basically lazy. If that were true people would just sit on their asses after becoming rich. This is a very pervasive assumption on human nature but there is only anecdotal evidence to back it up. I would actually appreciate if you could provide sources to prove me wrong on this.

"I guess you never had any religious experiences that made any impression on you since you say it cannot be tested."

This doesn't follow. I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. Did you read the paper I provided? It's nonsense (so admitted by the author) but it's as good as any other explanation.

"religious people can only understand each other because they have similar experiences"

You're basically describing a linguistic phenomenon known as a shibboleth. Belonging to a group is more important than knowing the truth, to most people. The rest is merely confirmation bias ergo unprovable. I'm not saying there is no value in the subjective experience. In many ways that's all we have. I'd prefer not to engage any further with this straw man.

"Last part I don't know what you're getting at, a democratization of the economy? I don't see how representative democracy applied to economy could be anything else than a big government system where people have almost no power at all. Because that is what representative democracy is like - it's not better than what we have now, it would be worse."

I'm not talking about economics but a basic dynamic in psychohistory extrapolated to paternalistic governments. Namely that the infanticidal childrearing tendencies of individuals have, over time, become less and less pronounced as the social organizations in which they are embedded develop and that this has correlated with the establishment of more ethical (yet still not ideal) systems of governance. Not sure what else to say. I merely intended it as a counterpoint with which to illuminate your cherished 'survival of the fittest' meme (which, by the way, doesn't refer to physical fitness but reproductive fitness. It's not true that the strongest survive. In fact, we may as well put social darwinism down as another busted myth that's all too often used to justify aggressive and violent behavior).

If you still don't know what I'm talking about, I'm not sure what else I can do to help that.

switch · Post by **switch** » 11 Aug 2013, 06:09

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 11 Aug 2013, 07:21

Yeah, but who's giving what to whom, hmm?

vigor · Post by **vigor** » 11 Aug 2013, 13:43

NewMutator wrote:Taxation is voluntary to the extent you can voluntarily participate in determining your local tax policy. If you don't want to pay taxes, you can start a business overseas and funnel money into developing sophisticated evasion techniques (like everyone else. Hi Apple).

"taxing property is just stupid because property doesn't produce an income."

Taxing property as opposed to income just makes more sense from a practical and efficiency standpoint (to say nothing of ethics; income tax can be seen as interfering with one's right to their own labor - see dac). A lot of revenue (perhaps 1/3) is lost due to tax evasion and administrative costs, so there is a clear advantage to simplifying the tax code in such fashion.

"Doing that means you can't own land without producing anything"

No idea what you're talking about. You can absolutely produce value without owning land. Nobody works in manufacturing because it can be automated or outsourced.

"this even goes against what you said about people not having to be productive"

No idea what you're talking about. Retired folks living on social security seem to do just fine?

"With estate tax or any such tax you're forcing production."

Absolutely not. You're not taking the big picture here. You would only even want to own (rent) land if you could utilize it productively. There wouldn't be much incentive to "purchase" land otherwise. Taxes (and the UBI) wouldn't be arbitrary but tied to the value of land. That makes calculating the size of the UBI easy since you wouldn't have to make arbitrary guesses at what constitutes basic entitlement.

"This will lead to a few large owners taking over all land because they're the only ones who can afford to pay taxes, and they'll have to devastate the land to do so."

What you're describing is our current system.

Example: I own land with some woods on it. With estate tax, I have to pay to own this. Where do I get the money? I'll have to cut down the trees and sell them, or I'll have to sell a piece of land every year, until I have no land. That's the only way the land is going to give me an income. Owning passively isn't possible with this system, hence you are forcing production and devastating the land.

Also, why would you create a system and then encourage tax evasion? Sorry but my view is totalitarian, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

NewMutator wrote: I'm not talking about economics but a basic dynamic in psychohistory extrapolated to paternalistic governments. Namely that the infanticidal childrearing tendencies of individuals have, over time, become less and less pronounced as the social organizations in which they are embedded develop and that this has correlated with the establishment of more ethical (yet still not ideal) systems of governance. Not sure what else to say. I merely intended it as a counterpoint with which to illuminate your cherished 'survival of the fittest' meme (which, by the way, doesn't refer to physical fitness but reproductive fitness. It's not true that the strongest survive. In fact, we may as well put social darwinism down as another busted myth that's all too often used to justify aggressive and violent behavior).

That's not even true. You are completely disregarding the millions slaughtered through abortion.

NewMutator · Post by **NewMutator** » 11 Aug 2013, 15:22

You are assuming that the only way to create capital is through exploiting natural resources, which maybe was true, say, during the industrial revolution, but certainly is not true today. Further, you seem oblivious to the fact that everyone would be a UBI recipient, and so can use that income however they wish, including toward the "purchase" of property. Second, I'm not advocating tax evasion, simply pointing out that our current system (which you think is more logical) encourages it. Consider me baffled how you got to totalitarianism.

Millions slaughtered through abortion? You seem to have an overly simplistic understanding of the issue. See Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature for a convenient summation of some actual data (http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our ... 145&sr=1-1). Given that I've stressed that our current system is far from ideal several times I'm seriously at a loss with your line of argument.

Here's a couple stats on abortion: The abortion rate is in decline. Nearly all (9/10) abortions are performed within the first trimester stage of pregnancy (while well over 10% are due to health concerns or because of rape/incest), meaning you'd have to argue that the fetus during this stage is a fully formed human for this to be analogous to murder. Obviously there isn't a consensus on that. Finally, it's conceivable that education and knowledge (which leads to lower birth rates) could as well lead to lower conception rates. The fact is that many consider birth prevention distinct from infanticide. That you don't isn't surprising but neither does it provide the foundation for any sort of refutation.