I didn’t say anyone was deluded. I said that belief in an all powerful god has been supplanted by a belief in all powerful government. Witnessing is a poor metaphor to use to describe someone who attempts to undermine the masses’ submission to the current god of choice. In this scenario I would be the atheist.
Democratic government evolved to serve as a check on monarchical power. It didn’t evolve out of some mythical social contract. Eventually the opposition became the wielder of the power. Democratic governments are not created out of whole cloth by willing souls living in complete freedom.
Some are, others respect force (and wisely so in some cases). Still others seek to undermine the force lording over them.
No. This circumstance which you continually ignore.-
It does however hurt many to lower the deficit by cutting programs which help the poor and middle class just to keep the tax rate from going back to the rate it was actually working before the Bush tax cuts.
No, I don’t count the ones who vote to improve the plight of the ones who most struggle. I don’t even count the rich who do that. And yes the poor and middle class who vote for a party which will cut programs which help them and their children (head start) rather than go back to a higher tax on the wealthy which is proven to work are stupid or heartless even to their own. They let rich assholes who only care about more money in their bank accounts talk them into living yet farther in poverty.
Yep. He saw a sledge to the head at the slaughter house. That is more different than I ever want to consider for myself.
Which economists supported your claim that raising taxes during a recovery was “proven to work”. I’m unaware of any school of thought that says doing so will encourage economic growth. Perhaps these heartless voters were thinking about that.
Just to give you a little context. Boxer in Animal Farm was supposed to represent the proletariat. You know, the engine of economic growth? Without his diligence, the animals would have starved.
No economist had to. It worked prior to Bush. Any idiot could see it. That was the last time we had a balanced budget. How is that cutting government jobs helping out the unemployment thing working out for ya?
All the animals worked except the pigs. He was the one who always urged doing what the pigs who kept the majority of the proceeds said. He believed they would not betray them just to keep more for themselves. He was wrong.
Government unemployment is hovering around 3-4% last time I checked. The debt increased every year under Clinton.
Also, are you suggesting that calibrations in government income tax levels is somehow a magic lever that delivers economic growth? Sorry but it’s a little more complex than that.
Wait, you know the pigs were the government, right?
I’m more interested in the use of Head start as an example of a program helping middle class families and their kids.
First, I wasn’t aware Head Start was a middle class program, second, I wasn’t aware of any research showing it actually accomplished anything.
Cite?
Jesus. OVERALL employment is not helped by adding government layoffs to the number. I never mentioned economic growth only debt reduction which can be done by cutting programs to the poor, taxing the wealthy, or growing way more than we are capable of. Head start is proven to help increase grades and it said POOR and middle class in that sentence. The last time there was a balanced budget was under Clinton. The pigs were a BAD goverment serving only to increase the wealth of the wealthy. AND I AM DONE WITH TALKING TO PEOPLE IMPERVIOUS TO LOGIC. Good day crazy people.
No. I’ve posted a link to this fun article before. Agnostics and atheists follow science and reason. It is the religious who tend to put their faith in gobbledy-gook.
Just to point out the obvious — if there is no public land connecting private property, then everybody is at the mercy of their neighbours to get anywhere. Effective monopolies not being a good thing, you’re going to have to have either a legal right-of-way (which would essentially take away part of people’s property rights) or public land connecting pieces of private land. And if you have public land connecting pieces of private land, then any road that goes anywhere will have to go at least in part over public land… meaning it will be, at least in part, a public creation.
Also, charging a toll works fine for a highway. How about a city street? Will there be a tollbooth in front of every house? Doesn’t that seem a little inefficient?
Cite?
Sir: I have known several certified crazy people. (I even lived with one who owed her psychiatrist over $150,000.) Everyone of them had a better grasp of economics and political science than the people you are arguing against here.
If you insist on insulting crazy people by comparing them to hyper-libertarians, please take it to the Pit.
Among the things I don’t know are:
-The name of the person who invented it.
-The sex of the person who invented it.
-The hair color, shoe size, sexual preference, or favorite color of the person who invented it.
-The government who invented it.
I do know that it was invented by government, and it’s remarkable that you’d try to deny that using some theorist’s theory about how it might have arisen in a “free society.”
In the sense that rural areas tend to have more effective police, yes. When they don’t, you get things like meth rings or generational feuds. When inner cities have effective policing, you get things like modern Times Square.
Of course there’s an advantage to a single, disinterested authority with an income not contingent on deciding in favor of specific clients. In any case, you were the one claiming that a monkey with a banana represents property rights, and I was showing you that that doesn’t comprise property rights.
I wish I agreed. Unfortunately, here’s what we see happening in such scenarios when they occur:
-Police enforcement of anti-violence laws diminishes.
-Some assholes who are being held in check by those laws say “Woot!” and start committing violence.
-People who aren’t naturally violent get freaked out and start figuring out what they can do.
-One of the assholes gets the bright idea to become the Protector of the People and rule over the area.
-Some of the people agree to pay protection to this asshole, making this asshole wealthy.
-The people that don’t pay protection to this asshole get slaughtered to make a point.
-More people pay money to this asshole.
-Eventually the Protector’s territory runs into the territory of another Protector.
-Ultraviolence.
-Government.
Once more, you’ve clearly read a lot of theory. I’d recommend you read more history.
Yes, I understand that that is what you believe. You’re trying to link a political position to intelligence, which is foolishness. As stated, people support political positions for reasons other than intelligence; mostly other reasons, in fact: morality, culture, ideology, tradition, the lesser of two evils, and so on.
So, the “stupid south” is whatever portion of the 52-62% who voted for Romney that are poor or middle class, except that portion of them who are heartless instead of stupid?
Sounds like you should vote the way you think best, then, and give others the same privilege.
Still waiting for that cite…
I, for one, am waiting for the sequel threads to carry the concepts in this one forward:
*Kissing is no different than swallowing someone’s head.
Hopscotch is no different than Jetpack Rugby.
Feeding a pigeon bread crumbs is no different than making Foie Gras. *
Heartless and stupid, not just heartless; voting against your own self interest is still stupid even if (or especially if) you are “heartless”. And that’s regardless of geographic location.
That’s a 91% effective tax rate on your (adjusting for inflation) eight- or ten-millionth dollar of taxable income? Sure, why not?
Sure, why not? It’s better–that is, more economically stimulative–to reward economically stimulative behavior than to tax the generous and the miser at the same low rate.