Researchers find a 'liberal gene'

People who party more, stay up later, get drunk more often, take illicit drugs more often, tend to be liberal because of brain damage.

People who party more, stay up later, get drunk more often, take illicit drugs more often, tend to be liberal because of brain damage.

You mean like Rush, Reagan, or perhaps Bush Jr.?

I don't think Bush Jr's problem is drinking, partying or drugs.

Several eyewitnesses and I believe a few photos attest to the fact that W was a coke fiend in his youth.

More research is necessary to understand how this gene causes people to want to steal wealth from those who create it and use it to subjegate the poor,

So the massive amounts of cocaine he's done or the several drinking and driving infractions don't come into play in FT's definition of brain damage?

I was just stating MY opinion that in B Jr's case it may not have made any difference.

This is great news! Perhaps now we can start working on a cure.

Not all Christians are Tea Party radicals.

DozerIAM My parents and my siblings are all liberal. I'm the only conservative. My kids are also conservative including the one that is in university. But then I'm in Engineering, my kid in university is majoring in Chemistry with minors in physics and astronomy, my younger kids want to be an engineer, fire fighter, and astronomer.

My siblings still live at home, studies humanities.

That said, lets have some fun. How can you scare a liberal? Ask them to read (the bill)

There is little to nothing valid about the conservative agenda.

The reason the economy has not come back with a bang is because republicants mission is to obstruct and say no to every thing that would move this country forward. Any body who votes for a republican in my opinion is unpatriotic. I am always amazed at how the republicants seem to get facts so wrong with so many things. They lie about so many things that they have no idea what reality is any more. When they are depicting liberals with their hateful redirect, they have no idea what they are talking about, period.

They lie about so many things that they have no idea what reality is any more.

Liberals believe in "we the people" they are the ones who truly believe in what the constitution stands for.

We only want to regulate to protect us from scrupulous people who would do us harm,

We want the government to stay out of our personal lives, we truly believe in freedom.

after all they get so much for free?

they care about the middle class,

they do not work as hard as we regular folk do.

I don't want financial control,

How are the dems. destroying the m.c.?

But they don't want to help the pour go figure,

High five to Darwin! We liberals appear to have evolved right past the conservatives. How tedious, though, to have to wait for them to catch up. And to have to live with the consequences of their voting in the meantime.

This is great news! Perhaps now we can start working on a cure.

What are they getting for free?
The top 50% pay nearly ALL federal income tax.

I talk about turning the other cheek and forgiveness and they call me a bleeding heart liberal. I speak of the meek inheriting the earth and they call me a socialist. I try to feed the people with loaves and fishes and they call it redistribution of wealth.
"The way things are going their gonna crucify me."
-John The Beatle

Jesus never advocated using the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

What a crock! They love to tell people how to live their lives and what they can do with their bodies, getting involved with the most personal parts. They also love to give the wealthy huge tax breaks, and tax the middle class and poor to make up for it.

Actually he said "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers" regarding money, in other words, pay your taxes, which is about redistributing wealth.

Marjon, and others who profess marjon-like reasoning, aren't conservatives. They're state capitalists.

Talk about telling people they shouldn't be wealthy, especially if they do it by taking advantage of those that are not wealthy!

This country was founded on liberalism, BTW.

Those who call themselves 'liberal' today, are fascists who support state power to control property. The exact opposite of what the classical liberals advocated.

That is not what Jesus meant.

The only property I've seen the "liberals" control

then what would the point of capitalism be according to Jesus?

This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.

You have a link to a source backing up your 6% assertion? Or did you just make that number up out of thin air?

I don't hear a huge outcry from conservatives against use of eminent domain to kick people out of their houses

Amid the last few dozen posts, I haven't seen a single one that either addressed our real problems, or spoke to any real solutions. You might find these resources enlightening:

http://market-tic...t=170774

stop WASTING our money and future on military spending

I talk about turning the other cheek and forgiveness and they call me a bleeding heart liberal. I speak of the meek inheriting the earth and they call me a socialist. I try to feed the people with loaves and fishes and they call it redistribution of wealth.
"The way things are going their gonna crucify me."
-John The Beatle

Only if you put a gun to my head and force me to 'feed the people'.
Jesus never advocated using the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.

You have a link to a source backing up your 6% assertion? Or did you just make that number up out of thin air?

So the IRS is carrying guns now?

You cannot serve both God and Money.

This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.

What happens if while you are serving God you make money?...You provide a product or service people need and want in trade for a product or service you need and want.

you should be purely altruistic

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

there have been multiple studies on that aspect of liberalism.

Is Bill Gates more altruistic or was Mother Teresa?

in order to be able to provide charity, one must have somehow acquired the wealth.

If everyone is working, there is little need of welfare.

Not necessarily. One could start by giving product away at cost:

How did you acquire the product, theft?

why do you support an economic system, socialism, that has been proven time and again to fail to produce a prosperous society?

commingle their religion and their free-market liberalism

a blend of both free (but strongly POLICED) markets and socialist safety nets.

Material impoverishment undermines the conditions that allow humans to flourish.

One can't be free in a police state.
How do you rationalize that?

There is no order without law. There is no law without enforcement.

socialist safety nets.

It is interesting the great Enlightenment thinkers were men of faith: Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke, etc.

So the ONLY way to keep order is to force people to follow the law?

generous pensions

How do determine the need for welfare and protect privacy?

exploiting the social safety net

This is where 'liberalism' fails.

Amid the last few dozen posts, I haven't seen a single one that either addressed our real problems, or spoke to any real solutions.

Total disclosure of all assets and income is mandatory when applying for benefits; lying about those is fraud (a felony) and theft (another felony) and must be prosecuted accordingly.

it'd basically be a form of arms race.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative would be the best way I guess, but that really doesn't completely fit either.

Of course this requires a huge bureaucracy of state workers to pry into everyone's affairs.

As all bureaucracies, they need to grow so their incentive is to find more people to put on welfare and to keep on welfare.

Why would they have any interest in prosecuting fraud?

The reciptients of welfare have no incentive to obtain gainful employment

to buy votes for the 'liberals'

Some safety net!

Or, a less chaotic and more standardized system of tracking everyone's affairs.

Ditto for private charities.

This stuff can't be explained by determinism.

this allele evovled arond 40,000 years ago

I thought liberals were concerned about privacy?

Charities are mostly operated by volunteers.

Yes, we are.

However, you have no expectation of privacy when it comes to specifically your income and assets

Religious based charities like the Salvation Army and the LDS Church are quite efficient.

How many govt bureaucracies are so efficient?

Such a liar.

a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback

So the IRS is carrying guns now?

Yes, they are.
What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes? The govt takes your money and may put you in jail. If you physically resist, they pull a gun and force you do comply.

You seem to like the Beattles. How well did they live up to their lyrics? Paul and Ringo are multi-millionaires.

Ever hear of tough love?

if the govt runs your health care, they will have every 'right' to know your sexual habits, your dietary habits and your recreational drug habits.

If the govt pays for your health then you should have no expectation of privacy.

Especially after they pass a law forcing you do divulge the information to see a doctor.

. If you were to stop using these services by leaving and renouncing your citizenship, nobody would put a gun to your head to stop you.

Seems like the big bad government actually doesn't care what your sexual habits, dietary habits,

Then why are cities and states passing laws restricting all sorts of things they say are bad for your health?

But they will take your money:

"Under the new law, any individual who has a net worth of $2 million or an average income-tax liability of $127,000 who renounces his or her citizenship and leaves the country is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to some rather unbelievable tax laws."
http://mises.org/daily/3377

The taxes we pay go towards services we use. The military, the police, the roads, the bridges and schools don't pay for themselves. If you were to stop using these services by leaving and renouncing your citizenship, nobody would put a gun to your head to stop you.

MH: libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything.

DF:The act by which one agrees to an implicit contract is an act that the other party has the right to control--in this case, coming into his restaurant and being served dinner. That leaves Mike with two alternatives:

A. It is proper to treat an act that you do not have the right to control as agreement to an implicit contract, without the other party's assent. That implies that you can impose a penalty (the amount you set as due on the contract) on that act, which amounts to controlling it. [/blockquote]

B. The government has the same rights with regard to the territory of the U.S. that the restaurant owner has with regard to his food and restaurant. But that is the conclusion he wants to get from his argument, so starting with it makes his argument circular.

So unless you're going to tell me that my being born in the United States is an act I had control over, then STFU with the "love it or leave it" idiocy, or show me where the United States government got my consent (good luck with that one), or admit (like I do) that the United States Government HAS NO LEGITIMATE contract with those it imposes taxes on, but it's a necessary evil.

Sorry those are your only choices.

The individual then becomes sovereign as he can choose the best jurisdiction (home owners association) that meets his needs.

So Pinkie, if the govt runs your health care, they will have every 'right' to know your sexual habits, your dietary habits and your recreational drug habits.
If the govt pays for your health then you should have no expectation of privacy. Especially after they pass a law forcing you do divulge the information to see a doctor.

So unless you're going to tell me that my being born in the United States is an act I had control over, then STFU with the "love it or leave it" idiocy, or show me where the United States government got my consent (good luck with that one), or admit (like I do) that the United States Government HAS NO LEGITIMATE contract with those it imposes taxes on, but it's a necessary evil.

Sorry those are your only choices.

Do you have a social security card? Are you registered to vote? Have you renounced your citizenship? Those are relevant questions. You are welcome to tear up your SS card, renounce your citizenship, and stop voting, you'll also lose the priviledges of having a job, being able to get loans, etc. Those are the choices and the priviledges that go along with those choices.

You always have a choice, you simply choose not to exercise it.

The government gives the government the power to impose a contract on people in its borders leaving them the "choice" (if they're lucky) to leave as an "option". The real question is why should one have to leave if one has not assented to said contract? There is no legitimate reason in the classical sense of the word legitimate.

can you show me where the government gets the power to impose unilateral contracts without using circular logic?

Like previously said, once you grow up and if you don't like the country, you can always go elsewhere.

If you stay in the US, it is akin to being served in the restaurant. If you don't want to pay the restaurant owner for a meal, don't order off the menu.

can you show me where the government gets the power to impose unilateral contracts without using circular logic?

From the rule of law, of course

If you stay in the US, it is akin to being served in the restaurant. If you don't want to pay the restaurant owner for a meal, don't order off the menu.

This is why I specifically used the Friedman/Hubben example. THIS is the false argument. This assumes I walked into the restaurant under my free will, sat down, and ordered. I didn't. It's apples and oranges.

Seems you shy back from addressing your parents. (Maybe because you have kids yourself.) But it's them who are/were responsible for you being put in that "restaurant". You can't blame the restaurant owner (the people) for your having been placed without your (and his) consent into his restaurant.
And if you stay there although nobody forces you then this is your free decision, not the decision of the restaurant owner.

The law the government made? Again use the proposition to be proved as one of your premises.

There is no contract, and the relationship between the State and the individual is not contractual in nature.

No individual can survive without the society in which they are born and in which they are found.

Seeking to undermine government by denying it the means it requires to perform its socially determined ends is the same as seeking to undermine the very society that supports and sustains you as an individual.

...and because of this, anarchy, and all forms of conservatism that tend toward anarchy, are fundamentally immoral.

The government is equally subject to the law. We're not dealing with an autocracy here.

No individual can survive without the society in which they are born and in which they are found.

Men rescued on desert islands died spontaneously without the machinery of state? Can you cite me a source?

Moreover if the government were equally subject to the law I'd have a civil suit filed against the United States by the end of the day to get back my tax money used for those programs I don't agree with and would opt out of...but I can't because of sovereign immunity (amongst a host of other reasons).

And I'll restate, you can't use the proposition you're trying to use as one of your premises.

How about the Donner Party? Hint: If you're rescued, you didn't survive without society, society rescued you.

Moreover, when I'm 18 all OTHER contracts in this country made for me by my parents expires. Why is this one different?

Moreover, when I'm 18 all OTHER contracts in this country made for me by my parents expires. Why is this one different?

As the US government essentially owns the US, they're the ones who set the rules for living there. You keep referring to a contract you didn't sign. Your citizenship is your contract. You can revoke your citizenship if you want. You won't be allowed to live in the US, but then you don't have to follow their rules and pay their taxes either.

You don't seem to like the people telling you "if you don't like it you can leave", but that's unfortunately the truth of the matter.

My parent's never signed a contract with the government either, go fish.

The US government ASSERTS it owns the geographical area known as the United States. How did it get that right?

Oh yes they did. Everyone in America (with exception of Native Americans) came here as an immigrant at some point.

At the point they were coming into the country, they effectively signed the contract.

From that point, any offspring they had here, came under the same contract.

Same goes for the offspring of the offspring, and so on and so forth until we get to you.

Native Americans immigrated from modern day Russia...

Try to have an "effectively signed" contract stand up in a court and see how quick you're laughed out of it.

would end when they're eighteen years of age

The individual stranded in the wilderness or on a desert isle brings his society with him. It is the training and knowledge of survival that he gained from his society prior to being lost that enables him to survive.

Human beings cannot be raised without social enculturation. The Nazis' tried it with Jewish infants, and they all failed to thrive.

Speaking the truth about something is not undermining it. But applying critiques of autocracies and tyrannies to democracies and republics is not honest.

Of course it's the truth of the matter. Just as if you refuse to pay a mafioso he'll break your legs. I just don't recognize the legitimacy of either claim. The US government ASSERTS it owns the geographical area known as the United States. How did it get that right?

The US has the same "right" to their geographical section of land as any other country has to theirs. The goverment "got that right" when the pilgrims came over and took the land from the Native Americans. Then there were some wars with the British and themselves and there was other land that was bought from other countries and POW you have the United States.

There really is no "right" to land. A border is just an agreement between governments. The land governments have a "right" to is determined by discovery and war.

There was no United States at the time, to immigrate into.

Try to enter the country as an immigrant, while promising not to pay taxes and not to obey the country's laws. See how swiftly you're shown the door. The agreement to comply with the country's legal and tax code is implicit within the act of immigration.

That's right. Like I said before, once you're fully grown, you're free to rescind the contract

Just don't expect to stay here and mooch off the contributions of everyone else, without paying your share.

Which contract? The one no one ever signed? Is that even a contract?

I'd gladly refuse my SSI, etc, etc, etc, as long as you don't expect me to pay taxes for it.

So the government says that the government has the right to decide how my taxes are spent? You can't make the rules of debate either. That's circular reasoning. Where did the power come from?

If the government hadn't imposed a unilateral contract on me to begin with then they would have never had the right to tax me to begin with, much less decide how said money is spent.

I don't have the right to say how my taxes are spent.

You can't pick and choose which laws you will comply with.

The govt does it all the time.

I'm saying I'd like to make the system as voluntary as possible.

Who's talking about mooching. I'd gladly refuse my SSI, etc, etc, etc, as long as you don't expect me to pay taxes for it.

Repulsed? FFS, let's take a breath here SH. I'm saying that ANY unilateral contract is illegitimate.

I'm saying that's how ALL States do business. I'm saying it's a necessary evil. I'm not advocating anarchy...

I'm saying I'd like to make the system as voluntary as possible. I guess that makes me evil...

You can't pick and choose which laws you will comply with.

Why not? The govt does it all the time.
Illegal aliens are allowed to pick and choose what laws to obey.
As Howie Carr says, I don't want special treatment, just treat me like an illegal alien.

As Howie Carr says, I don't want special treatment, just treat me like an illegal alien.

Okay, and don't use public roads, schools, libraries. Don't expect any help from the police if robbed, or anyone to put out your fire for you (unless you pay them yourself). Limiting government taxation to only mean welfare and healthcare is not going to work I'm afraid.

You said you want to make government voluntary, that's what makes it voluntary. Nobody here is assuming implicit contracts except for you. Denying the legitimacy of a democratic government because it uses force to enforce obedience is akin to denying the legitimacy of the use of force in self-defense.

When you refuse to pay your taxes, you are robbing from all the rest of us.

Then why are cities and states passing laws restricting all sorts of things they say are bad for your health?

Not restricting, just making more expensive. And in case of restaurants, forcing disclosure.

None of which impinges on your privacy, and a lot of which actually aids you in making better/more informed decisions.

anarchy, and all forms of conservatism that tend toward anarchy, are fundamentally immoral.

which is definitely not a fair and legitimate system based on the needs of the population as a whole.

In order for socialism to work it requires everyone to pay,

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time."

In order for socialism to work it requires everyone to pay, and that's my basic problem with it.

What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?

How poor is poor and how rich is rich?

The poor of today are better off than the rich of 100 years ago.

What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?

What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?

It neglects the wishes of the majority by favoring the wishes of a minority.

In order for socialism to work it requires everyone to pay, and that's my basic problem with it.

Not only yours - everyone has a basic problem with this requirement. You want a society where nobody has to pay?

I want a society where I don't have to pay for what YOU want me to...for your sick f****** pet social projects.

I want a society where I don't have to pay for what YOU want me to

Libraries, schools, not a problem. I never said police were unnecessary or the Army or a lot of other things. That would be you putting words in my mouth.

"I want a society where I don't have to obey the laws YOU want me to"

Sound reasonable?

What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?

It neglects the wishes of the majority by favoring the wishes of a minority.

And the poor of today are poorer than the poor of 20-30 years ago. And the obscenely rich of today are richer than the same rich of 5 years ago. Do you like that trend?

You have that already in CA. How do you like it?

The Constitution was specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority.

The Constitution is designed to protect the ultimate minority, each and every citizen, from from the mob.

The power of the state, the money all levels of govt extract from citizens has continuously grown during that time. But all the 'solutions' the 'liberals' have proscribed require MORE govt power to regulate and control.

including property rights

Emergent systems don't respond well to deterministic controls.

, and make a profit off both the government programs those loans make possible, and the profit the interest generates.

If government is stealing everybody's money, how is it they're so far in debt?

You have that already in CA. How do you like it?

Such as?

Numerous cities refuse to enforce immigration laws.

@Thrasymachus,

If government is stealing everybody's money, how is it they're so far in debt?

Actually, government debt is indeed a form of theft....

Then, once the money is no longer a factor, perhaps the government would once again be interested in actually doing its job

The only way this will happen is with govt that has defined, limited power.

The concentration of wealth and political power in a minority of the population is the greatest danger to freedom and democracy.

We are seeing a start down a solution path.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for only a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Don't expect any help from the police if robbed, or anyone to put out your fire for you (unless you pay them yourself).

Adams is saying "we didn't do a good enough job writing this document". He is not saying "America is Christian, LOL".

My solution is the power to root out corruption and eliminate it.

'Liberals' went ape s**t when a fire department let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his subscription.

...indirect -- e.g. as Thrasymachus mentioned) benefits you derive from those projects.

...then you'd have to pay because you're deriving an implicit benefit.

"I want a society where I don't have to obey the laws YOU want me to"

And since they are, in your mind, necessary, you are entering an implicit contract of paying for them. Through taxes. It is a voluntary contract as well, since if you felt that these things were not necessary, you would be welcome to move to Somalia

No. What Adams meant was NO Constitution that preserved individual liberty could be written for a people who did not have the moral character to be responsible with such liberty.

The people of Dorchester refuse to cooperate with police and the murders continue.

Giuliani understood the broken window philosophy of keeping law and order. Cops can't be everywhere, can't arrest everyone. The citizen must also be responsible. Govt can enable and it can disable such responsibility.

No government cannot disable or enable the responsibility of the citizen, only the citizen can do so.

So, SH while I disagree that the majority of people in a country need to be religious for "self governance" to work I do have to agree with marjon that the majority of the country needs to be MORAL for any government to work.

You disagree?

Example: The government passes a law that states you're no longer ever responsible for your mortgage payments and will not be held financially or legally responsible for such.

I'm pretty sure that disables responsibility, if such a law were enacted and then repealed that would then restore responsibility.

That it does indirectly benefit me puts absolutley ZERO obligation on me

Otherwise you could make me pay for anything you wanted claiming indirect benefit.

If you can't make a distinction between the latest idiotic socialist program and "the law" I can't help you figure it out.

I'm pretty sure that disables responsibility

hat's why it's a SAFETY net: it applies to everyone equally. Not everyone pays equally, nor does everyone profit equally,

No, you don't need to be moral to follow a set of moral laws.

Cops can't be everywhere, can't arrest everyone.

Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ditto for wealth.

If a citizen can defend himself from immoral people who what to commit violence, the immoral person may follow the law as it may cost him his life.

those who are rich and conservative, don't seek power, but promote opportunity for others to achieve.

self-police and self-regulate due to their own inherent morality and integrity,

Or more likely, the immoral person will gang up with a dozen other immoral people, wait for the citizen to be asleep in his bed, break into his house in the dead of night, slit his throat, rape his family, pillage his wealth, and vanish into the darkness.

Free markets operate on self interest.

The govt regulates the financial industry you rail on about.

One reason Chinese sell live fish and serve fish with the head is to satisfy the customer the product is fresh

self-police and self-regulate due to their own inherent morality and integrity,

Free markets operate on self interest.
The govt regulates the financial industry you rail on about. Madoff was regulated and certified by the SEC who failed to act on complaints by competitors.

The govt created a false trust which the political entrepreneurs could exploit.

Food safety is a great example. FDA 'certifies' products as safe. People buy them and get sick. In third world markets, buyers don't trust the vendors, inspect products thoroughly, wash the meat, etc.

Govts fail basic functions because they have usurped too much authority.

Sounds like a typical CA neighborhood.

Well now, it appears YOU ARE.

I can't stretch and warp my thinking severely enough to follow this kind of logic. Sorry.

Do you even understand what "the law" means?

And who are you to judge what's idiotic or not: the Supreme Leader?

One reason Chinese sell live fish and serve fish with the head is to satisfy the customer the product is fresh

Do they guarantee the product isn't laced with cadmium, or mercury?

Most socialists can't think past their own agenda as to how it REALLY effects the world and other people.

Or the "good old" Wild West.

You mean opposed to capitalists who just don't give a shit?

No, because you refuse to tax the rich.

Top 1% $380,354 38.02

Top 5% $159,619 58.72

Top 10% $113,799 69.94

The rich are already taxed. The top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes.

SH, you can certainly donate more if you feel under taxed.

So if I wrote a "contract" with you and said you'd pay 500 dollars to improve the local scenery in a park we both frequent you'd still pay me the 500 bucks even if you never signed the contract? If not you're a mooch too.

Most socialists can't think past their own agenda as to how it REALLY effects the world and other people.

There's a difference between law, regulation, tax, and bureaucracy.

Who are you to judge what isn't? Or are you capable of making a judgment yourself

And a few years later, some grown-up kid decides he doesn't want to pay the $5/year, but insists he wants to still live in the community?

Top tax rate for that 10% is 18% of AGI. 18% Marjon.... That is a joke.

Sod busters like the Ingells moved from KS to MN/SD and had no wild gangs invading their house.

It called a property lien. Home owners associations do this all the time.

imply compared apples to oranges

why do we have different words for all of them?

Besides I'm not talking about making YOU pay for anything I want, YOU want to make me pay for what YOU want.

Besides I'm not talking about making YOU pay for anything I want, YOU want to make me pay for what YOU want.

but for what the majority of the voters wants.

Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.

So 51% want to take all your money? You're OK with majority rules?

The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not mob rule.

That's because your question was about apples (private charity) whereas we are discussing oranges (public institutions.)

Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.

marjon's version of Capitalism at work...

Didn't some 'liberal' say the govt won't force people to eat certain foods or behave in certain ways so to save them from themselves?

governments get to make unilateral contracts and it's considered legitimate

You have to pay for the things that you benefit from, whether you asked for them or not, and whether you would agree with them or not.

Causing someone else to suffer out of proportion with the result of your benefit out of proportion to your payment is immoral, whether you intend the benefit or not. If you think the program that benefits you is immoral,

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time."

You don't need to stress your inclinations. We know by now that violence, suffering, and injustice are fascinating you.

...then "unilateral" should be replaced with "consensual".

How do those who pay no taxes pay for their benefits?

I've never given explicit or implicit consent for the United States government to govern me, either by representation, autocracy, or in ANY other form.

what gives the US government the power to assume a unilateral contract with it's citizens other than itself?

I don't recognize any obligation

If you say the government gives the government the right to do it fine (because actually that's the way it works), but don't pretend I ever agreed to something I didn't

If enough of them agree that this is the way the country should be run,

51% percent force the remaining 49% to subsidize their life.

Or 95%, the majority, can force 5% into slavery or put them in gas chambers?

At least in Somalia, the minority might have an chance.

the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama

Ah, the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh: the head clown in charge.

Ah, the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh: the head clown in charge.

Answer his question.

recall the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Or the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

All apply or none apply.

"The people who earn $250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country's economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages.

So the people who make the most - http://www.statem...r-capita
And pay the most in taxes- http://www.statem...r-capita
Are supporting the unemployed - http://www.statem...ent-rate
And poor - http://www.statem...ty-level

Note the "just compensation" part.

Congress expresses the will of "the people".

When the govt regulates (takes) your property without compensation, how is that just?

No. Congress has defined limits and is representatives of 'the people'. They are NOT the people.

When the govt regulates (takes) your property without compensation, how is that just?

Congress has defined limits and is representatives of 'the people'.

Didn't some 'liberal' say the govt won't force people to eat certain foods or behave in certain ways so to save them from themselves?
Of course the opposite will occur when those deemed not worthy to be saved by society will be killed to save money. We keep getting closer to "Logan's Run".

Of course you don't recognize your obligation. That's why governance appears to you to be non-consensual. But obligations exist whether you recognize them or not.

By continuing to frame the issue as one of contracts and payments, you are working with a set of conceptual tools that are inherently unable to justify any sort of governance.

No they simply do not, no matter how many times you insist they do.

IOW I need to be a "good boy" and concede the argument by accepting your concepts and terms?

Bottom line is, if the United States government never got my consent to be governed by their laws then they have no claim on me at all.

You all are just afraid of people not putting up the cash to pay for all your pet projects

but I fail to see how regulation equates to taking of property.

Didn't some 'liberal' say the govt won't force people to eat certain foods or behave in certain ways so to save them from themselves?
Of course the opposite will occur when those deemed not worthy to be saved by society will be killed to save money. We keep getting closer to "Logan's Run".

You are a ridiculous and silly person.

I'd like to try minimalist government first

The owners of the house claim the baby belongs to them by virtue of where it was born.

the mere place of my birth and current residence is not an "action" on my part, nor does it imply consent.

you HAD TO do what's demanded of you by the tribe.

SH, and Thras are the only two people here even capable of grasping the point I'm making

I never gave the US government the consent to govern me. Therefore my residence in this country has nothing to do with that entity in any legitimate sense

Read Chapt 2 of Mises "Socialism".

It would mean an end to taxes and thus an end to government.

why wouldn't "cutting out the middle man" so to speak be even better? I'm fully capable of representing myself and deciding where I'd like my money to go in government.

I don't think that's his argument. He doesn't mean that because he opposes some use of tax money, he would refuse to pay all taxes altogether. He wants to be able to designate how his tax money is spent.

you either have to raise taxes to cover those who don't want to pay for what you want to pay for, or you're left with insufficient funds to pay for anything

Being able to refuse to pay for things one disagrees with is functionally equivalent with being able to refuse to pay at all

is it that I'm the only one here who freely admits I haven't got it all figured out about the nature of what civil authority is or ought to be?

ideological disagreements about who owns what and who has a right to what.

The only practical method of sorting out property rights is through force.

you must provide incentives to the INDIVIDUALS who engage in that activity

It may seem obvious to many here, but it's worth saying that most of these debates in general are about means, not ends.

Of course statists say that.
Without the state force, people still have the choice whether to play or not. If others steal their property, they won't play in the economic game.

An end which is identical with its means is expressed by the postulate to minimize objective human suffering. Globally.

@marjon,

Most *normal* people out there would give their left testicle to earn even $500 (after tax) for a mere editorial (a couple hours' work: $hundreds/hour in after-tax earnings!) So I don't believe this guy's sincerity for an instant.

Secondly, anyone who engages in entrepreneurship does so by forming an LLC or an S Corp or something equivalent. That way any money they want to reinvest in the business, is sheltered from personal income and entitlement taxes (and is taxed at the typical corporate rates, somewhere around 20% total.) You only get hit with heavy tax when you're taking money out of your business, and transferring it to yourself as salary. So in fact, this kind of tax system encourages business growth and reinvestment of capital.

Anyone who claims to be an entrepreneur and yet pretends not to take advantage of corporate tax structures, is an obvious demagogue and a liar.

Let's see how fast CA's economy recovers with its high taxes.

We're looking for a normative principle here

An end which is identical with its means is expressed by the postulate to minimize objective human suffering. Globally.

In order to do that you will have to regulate reproduction, globally. How do you propose to do that?

Also consider that some make others suffer due to their very existance

I think the complexity of human social structures and interactions is AT LEAST comparable to global climate.

Try to look at it this way SH with respect to residence/geography.

Say you enter someone's house with your pregnant wife. She happens to go into quick labor and has the baby before she can leave the house. The owners of the house claim the baby belongs to them by virtue of where it was born. You never made such an agreement with them, but they have 50 armed men that are willing to back up their assertions. Just because the baby was born in their house, and since they own the house they have a claim on the child as well. They happily tell you that you man leave the house at any time, but the baby stays (love it or leave it)...

You do not have a restricted right to leave.

Yes there are restrictions on leaving the USA if you want to take your wealth with you.

Exit tax legislation (Sec. 877 and now Sec. 877A) first passed in 1966, targeted the very wealthy whose expatriation was clearly tax motivated in a subjective sense.

You are deemed to have sold all your property, yes even personal property, and liquidated in full all retirement plans all on the day before the legal expatriating event.

From your source:

Exit tax legislation (Sec. 877 and now Sec. 877A) first passed in 1966, targeted the very wealthy whose expatriation was clearly tax motivated in a subjective sense.

The point is still, if anyone wants to leave and take their money with them, money they already paid taxes on, they will have to pay MORE to vote with their feet.
Yep, it's a law that goes after people like Charles Rangel who attempt to hide their taxable assets abroad. Thanks for playing Marjon. The 2008 addendums do thusly

You are deemed to have sold all your property, yes even personal property, and liquidated in full all retirement plans all on the day before the legal expatriating event.

Which if you read the terms of your retirement packages, they are considered liquidated at that time.

Understanding financial law is important if you're going to attempt to make statements about financial law.

From your source:

Exit tax legislation (Sec. 877 and now Sec. 877A) first passed in 1966, targeted the very wealthy whose expatriation was clearly tax motivated in a subjective sense.

Yep, it's a law that goes after people like Charles Rangel who attempt to hide their taxable assets abroad. Thanks for playing Marjon. The 2008 addendums do thusly

You are deemed to have sold all your property, yes even personal property, and liquidated in full all retirement plans all on the day before the legal expatriating event.

Which if you read the terms of your retirement packages, they are considered liquidated at that time.

Understanding financial law is important if you're going to attempt to make statements about financial law.

Whoever decides to give birth to and/or raise children is assumed to be well-informed.

Eliminating people for whatever reason is non-consensual and thus raising suffering.

The point is still, if anyone wants to leave and take their money with them, money they already paid taxes on, they will have to pay MORE to vote with their feet.

Yeah, your point is wholly invalid.

The point that one can vote with their feet without cost is not valid.
So in the 'liberal' US pay taxes and if you don't like it and try to leave, we will take MORE.
The incentive to stay is weakening.

@Thrasymachus,

I don't think marjon is himself very rich. Nobody gets rich by spending so much time web-surfing (trust me, I know from personal experience ;-))

What we have here is an ideological demagogue, who speaks from indoctrination rather than experience or wisdom.

MM, you've entirely changed the hypothetical. You're removing the right of the child to leave. You do not have a restricted right to leave. This is not North Korea.

You start off assuming that the area I live in is the "house" of the United States government for ALL those who are here.

People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax.
...
of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes.

Yeah, he can pay,

With that statement you lay claim to his property

the rich will demand more govt privilege.

If you really want real egalitarian society...Then you must support a flat tax rate for all.

And what about the society that enabled him to prosper in the first place?

Except a flat tax rate is not egalitarian.

the rich will end up BEING the government.

The first piece of 'property' every individual owns is themselves.

"A supposedly free but rampant secular and materialistic society still leads to the same ending as Marxism, outside of God, and unable to explain its reason and purpose for life."

(don't worry, I'm expecting you to not reply, as you typically do when confronted with a question that wants a direct statement of your reality perception.)

Then tell us Marjon, what is the meaning and purpose of life as according to your belief system...

It is interesting how a former communist spy said "If God exists then Communism cannot,..." and so many here are atheists and socialists.

If God exists then Communism cannot,...

what is the meaning and purpose of life

What?

Everyone pays the same rate. Why is that not equal?

How many newly elected tea party candidates are rich?

developing countries have become much wealthier and healthier in the last 40 years

which not coincidentally is more or less when many of these countries have opened themselves up to the benefits of free markets

the developed world that has forgotten the lessons of wealth creation and free enterprise

It is interesting how a former communist spy said "If God exists then Communism cannot,..." and so many here are atheists and socialists.

Seeing as communism and socialism aren't really even close to the same thing

Seeing as communism and socialism aren't really even close to the same thing

You would like to believe that.

. I would hardly consider socialism a failed system of government.

It would be intresting to see how many votes socialist parties get

Sort the countries by property rights and compare:

the definition of socialism: state control of private property.

Where do you draw the line at such state coercion?

http://www.heritage.org/index/Explore.aspx
What ever the majority wants it should get? 51% can steal the property of the remaining 49%?

I draw lines at harm to the commons,

You can't impose oversimplification on real-world complexity,[q/]
Yes you can. That best way to understand the real world. When socialists try to impose their complexity, they fail. Just look at all those 'smart' people who think they understand the economy.

In essence, he said, there are only two ways for men to acquire wealth. The first method is by producing a good or a service and voluntarily exchanging that good for the product of somebody else.

If you seriously were concerned about commons you would support private property rights.

That best way to understand the real world.

Just look at all those 'smart' people who think they understand the economy.

. I would hardly consider socialism a failed system of government.

I note you don't challenge the definition of socialism: state control of private property.
Where do you draw the line at such state coercion?
Sort the countries by property rights and compare:
http://www.herita...ore.aspx

They think they understand, because they assume it's simple. It isn't.

It seems that government exchanges services ,such as protection and infrastructure ,to the citizens in exchange for taxes.

. I would hardly consider socialism a failed system of government.

I note you don't challenge the definition of socialism: state control of private property.
Where do you draw the line at such state coercion?
Sort the countries by property rights and compare:
http://www.herita...ore.aspx

Funny how many socialist democracies are topping that list for economic freedom and economic stability.
ie: France, Germany, the UK, Singapore, etc.

No, govt TAKES wealth and citizens HOPE they spend some on defense and infrastructure.

It also means that - wait for it - you agree with the tea party.

The same thing happens at McDonalds when somebody takes my money and I hope they bring me a burger

You GIVE your money in exchange for a product agreed to in advance. It is a mutual exchange.
The govt TAKES your money with no up front agreement. You are FORCED to pay for 'services' the govt decides you need.

I give my taxes to the government rather than have them taken.

I vote for a certain politician based on the promises made during the election.

Just try to NOT pay.

What promises? He will take more money from the rich and give to you?

The economy is simple.

People act in their self interest.

But that does not create wealth.

all 'services' 'provided' by the govt are supplied by independent contractors

socialists can't tolerate individual choice. Too messy

provide 'education stamps' students can spend at public or private schools of their choice

Should I offer a service to somebody ,example helping them move ,and in return they give me goods ,a home cooked meal. I would not be obliged to give the government any of the food off my plate.

Common infrastructure and common law are the foundations of wealth creation.

Only the wealthy can afford private schools.

Worked real well in Iraq... but don't let reality interfere with your ideology.

it does not create wealth.

capricious govt regulations and taxes

he aggressor, on the other hand, is not a producer at all but a predator; he lives parasitically off the labor and product of others.

the industry that has completely infiltrated and corrupted our government,

Most private schools are cheaper per student than public.

Charter schools are 'private' receiving the same per student funding as public schools.

Voucher programs are working quite well in Sweden.

It did work well in Iraq.

Private contractors provide fire and EMS to millions across the USA.

How can this happen?

the State Dept must beleive contractors are effective in Iraq

Pinkie, wrong, again.

Pinkie, wrong, again:

"Privatization Could Rescue Detroit Fire Service"

Daschle has been a paid consultant and advisor to Hindery's InterMedia Partners since 2005, during which time he received from Hindery access to a limousine and chauffeur. Daschle reportedly did not declare this service on his annual tax forms as required by law.

when corporations gain personhood,

limos and chauffeurs are usually paid for in legal tender money

Well, it's true. I don't spend a lot of time in rural areas.

Marjon, you need a better argument than "this stuff is simple, why are you screwing it up" and then following it with incredibly convoluted and frighteningly complex social charts as references. You are not some sort of social genius, and the evidence above shows to the opposite. If you were, you'd be more persuasive.

If one has principles, the economy is quite simple: "a free, private sector increases the general wealth of a nation".

There's a fundamental fallacy embedded in that interpretation. And the part you're missing is that the government is of, by, and for the people.

"I have a gun and will shoot anyone on my property" is not a principle, it's a mental disorder.

every instance in which the private sector has been entirely free of interference

Consent is given individually, not collectively. THAT is what you can't seem to wrap your head around.

How has the private sector been free of interference in Somalia?

Silence is consent,

Consent of the governed is propaganda.

It was never really my assertion that government requires consent, only that it's the only institution we treat differently in this regard.

Wow the LENGTHS you people go to in order to legitimize your BS is astounding. You are STILL assuming the government starts off the the right to govern with or without consent. It doesn't, it FIRST requires consent, THEN and ONLY THEN one can assume silence is consent.

Government, is not God...

People want to "do the right thing" because it makes them look good in the eyes of their peers. That's the origin of a moral code, to hide who you really are from your peers and give them the impression of yourself you want them to have.

This approach fails to explain the motivation of the unknown benefactor.

Then leave or pay your share. Either one, your choice.

But being born in the US, makes you beholden to no one.

The US has done a lot more for you than your God ever has.

what they are for.

1) Are parents an institution?

2) Why do you force your children into existence (inevitably implying death) without their consent?

3) Why do you decry non-consensual actions of a government while you are performing non-consensual actions of the highest severity yourself?

Perhaps you could explain where an individual derives the rights to own land (i.e. private property.) Did the land agree to it?

And if I chose neither, where did the power to deny me that choice come from?

According to you it makes me beholden to your God, the United States Government.

My God, if you INSIST on making this personal

has done more for me than YOU can ever know.

I'd rather live in Somalia with "my God" than be President of THIS country without him.

Can the land agree to it?

That's not the basis of ethical behavior.

From the society that constructed the government.

Can you vote to change your government. Yes, yes you can.

Then prove it.

Then you prefer theocracy to taxes. Which results in a fit society? I think that answer is plain to see.

I fail to see what you're arguing about anymore, mystic, unless you're trying to make the claim that since legitimate government doesn't need the consent of the governed to be legitimate, that it's somehow immoral because it lacks consent, which it doesn't need. There's lots of things that are justified that do not require consent for their justification. logic, math and ethics are among those things.

If an unborn, the land, or a child can't give consent you can't have an honest discussion about contracts.

They might make it easier or harder to follow that principle, but the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of how anybody feels about it.

These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.

The unknown benefactor may feel good at his/her act of generosity,

but it's not the right thing to do unless it's understood to be the right thing, not just felt.

If an unborn, the land, or a child can't give consent you can't have an honest discussion about contracts.

the right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of how anybody feels about it.

I'm trying to make them see that even a democracy, a republic, or other representative form of government still doesn't govern by consent...and that's just the way it is. It doesn't require consent, no more than that it CAN'T govern by consent and still be a "government" in the classical sense of the concept.

Unless SH and pink agree and I'm just not seeing it and we're talking past each other.

That is why the point of consent is coincident with your entry into adulthood. Prior to that, your parents consent on your behalf.

Also, the CONCEPT of "Social Contract" (as articulated by Rousseau) is not idempotent with the definition of contract under common contract law.

Perhaps the topic of the discussion should be changed to "The Meaning of Consent".

I honestly don't give a flying F what Rousseau said or didn't say about social contracts insofar as he's trying to mystify or justify them.

NO government governs by consent, not one.

Why is it important for you to THINK they do?

Nice try. If I didn't agree then it's still a unilateral contract and hence in any other forum illegitimate. It's still not derived from the "consent of the governed". The governed are a collection of individuals, not a moral agent or entity... You still haven't answered the question as to why I should HAVE to vote to change my government. I never consented to any form of government, therefore I've demonstrated the government doesn't derive power from the "consent of the governed"... Did I say that? No I didn't. I simply prefer to have my God than all the power in this country.

Well, if you're going to expound on that concept (never mind deriding it), then it would behoove you to treat it properly within its intended semantics, rather than (deliberately?) confusing it with unrelated legal theory.

They derive their *authority to govern* by consent.

Why is it important for you to THINK they don't?

DO YOU AGREE that when you enter any country (e.g. as a tourist), you implicitly CONSENT to its laws and tax codes?

So why don't you tell us what your actual preferences are, or do you not know.

As so far you appear to be a fan of anarchy with universal morality, both of which are impossible constructs.

No government ever has the consent of all the "governed". Therefore they can't say that's where they derive their authority from. The governed are a collection of individuals, not a single mystical hive mind that gives it's consent to governance.

There is no such thing as collective consciousness, it's an individual proposition and as long as one individual disagrees then you can't use the concept of "governed", or "the people", or "we" anymore. Find another, or admit you're wrong.

Would you argue with someone over what they thought God was?

No I don't. I think they're looking for a better deal. Do I think they consent to EVERY law of the country? Uh no.

I hereby declare, on oath,

* that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

* that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

* that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

* that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

* that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

* that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

* and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

It's unilateral until you leave for the border.

The founders of any govt establish power because they think the governed will simply accept it

THAT'S A MUTUAL CONTRACT,

and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

The founders of the US govt did not think that.
They had to persuade...

No, it is not.
Now if citizenship had to be earned, ...

I recognize that we need government,

Don't tell me I consent to government and I won't try to convert you to Christianity...deal?

I get your point, mystic, but I just don't see why you feel compelled to make it. You're not arguing that people shouldn't pay their taxes, you're not arguing that they shouldn't follow laws, you're not even arguing that government is inherently immoral or unfair. You're just saying that the existence of government is not explained or justified by consent. Yeah, so?

Governments allow us to reach pinnacles of human achievement that are not otherwise possible, by stabilizing and making predictable individual interaction thereby making cooperation more expansive and fruitful

one significant human achievement

The following oath must be taken by all immigrants who want to attain U.S. Citizenship:

I hereby declare, on oath,

...

* that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

...

* and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

That's quite inacceptable for a conscientious objector or for a person who is serious about his non-belief.

SH, the cells in my hand aren't conscious. EXTREMELY poor example. To answer your question societies are collections of INDIVIDUALS working for their own ends, sometimes they coincide with other individuals, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they're in opposition.

Anyone who becomes a citizen and actually takes that oath...well then yes you have an EXPLICIT contract with. The other 99% of us you don't. Keep trying though.

You think every immigrant comes here legally?

You think every immigrant comes here legally?

requiring someone to end their oath with "so help me God" pretty much invalidates the whole oath, since that phrase has the effect of holding God as the guarantor of the promise

I was pretty well done with this thread ...

DoE should have no say in their students' nutrition.

It is a solemn and formal affirmation, which if broken, forever marks you as a person without honor,

powered flight was considered a trivial novelty

DoE should have no say in their students' nutrition.

The dept of ed has students? Since when?
Children are not the property of the state....

But I bet Pinkie voted for Boxer

Do you also deliberately misconstrue statements

Are the dots sufficiently connected now?

Quitter.

What did I misconstrue?

Skultch, you thing the DoE SHOULD have a say in THEIR student's nutrition?

You ignore the fact that there doesn't need to be a contract.

Actually, if one were serious in their belief in the non-existence of a deity, requiring someone to end their oath with "so help me God" pretty much invalidates the whole oath, since that phrase has the effect of holding God as the guarantor of the promise.

The students are their responsibility;

No mystic, there is no contract...

No, students are NOT the responsibility of DoEd.

It's the codified set of rules you haven't agreed to live by but which you're bound to. What would you call it?

It's the codified set of rules you haven't agreed to live by but which you're bound to. What would you call it?

You cannot choose to violate Natural Law.

which you are nonetheless obligated to follow.

It's the codified set of rules you haven't agreed to live by but which you're bound to. What would you call it?

This is natural law: "Locke used the claim that men are naturally free...

Locke is wrong?
Statists must believe this or else their socialist state must collapse.

Locke describes the 'state of nature' as a state of insecurity, in that each individual is exposed to possible infringement of his or her natural rights by other individuals. Thus, the purpose of establishing a civil government is to protect the freedom and well-being of all members of society.

SH often self contradicts. He claims to support limited govt but is a statist.

This is what SH, Thras. and many other here promote.

Oh and Thras, I'm still not OBLIGED to follow the law. I do so because it's in my best rational interests in some cases, in others because it's simply the right thing to do, and in others because I fear the consequences of breaking it...like probably 99% of folks.

Actually that'd be about the exact opposite of what we promote.

I guess you don't read well.

You beleive this:
"they begin by supposing that men are devoid
of any principle of action,

and of any means of discernment in themselves;

every one of these politicians {including SH} does not hesitate to assume that he himself is this will and hand, this universal initiative, this creative power, whose sublime mission it is to gather together these scattered materials, that is, men, into society.

social good beyond protection of individual rights

nor do I have any vested interest in forcing someone to change theirs.

You have no rights if you're stupid

Your support of regulations to redistribute wealth says otherwise.

So SH must force others to take care of the stupid?

The 'stupid' can't vote?

the infrastructure that the wealthy benefit from.

Guess which position I've been arguing for here?

Positivism asserts that the law has authority because the law says so

rational obligations individuals have to each other.

Do you benefit from that infrastructure?

If all benefit, all should pay.

rational obligations individuals have to each other.

What are these?

FedEx reaps a far higher reward from the interstate highway system than a retiree who doesn't own a car,

rational obligation every individual has to is always respect the humanity of others and yourself.

In short, the libertarian who makes such assumptions is at least partially buying into the way in which the political spectrum is typically framed in contemporary public discourse, with "the right" standing for less and less government control and "the left" standing for more and more government control, with "the left" standing for collectivism and communism and "the right" standing for individualism and capitalism. One would think that the libertarian should know better

It's very telling that you structure your weak arguments on shifting sands.

And I am the one that argues from principles like inherent individual rights.
And principles like limited govt and free markets.

The only 'principles' I see from SH all support state power over the individual.

It is all about power. I support power to individuals.

SH is afraid of individuals having that power.

I see the principles quite clearly.

SH, corporations aren't the only institutions that abuse the power they have over people...stop acting like they are...

I used to think you could deduce proper politics and ethics from a single set of simple principles too. I don't anymore

You have it backwards.
Simple principles create the emergent system. Deduction is not the correct process.

You have it backwards.
Simple principles create the emergent system. Deduction is not the correct process.

In politics, simple principles create unilateral totalitarianism or theocracy.

Modern corporations are guilty of violating this obligation in an institutionalized and structural way. They treat their shareholders, managers, employees and customers as mere tools to their ends of increasing profits and share prices.

one's talents and resources, but one should always seek to use one's talents and resources for the benefit of humanity, and not create situations and institutions where others are forced to compensate them because they are left with no other option.

A free-market system is absolutely the best system for a universe of perfectly moral beings, acting in accordance with the principle above,

logic of capitalism dictates that inequalities will always grow.

So, barakn, Ethelred, can you show me

Populism is advocation for the people

Still believe Hitchens to be a 'populist'?

A colleague worked in in office for a year. She reported on her time their and Lieberman told her the first job of politician is to be re-elected. How selfish!

If it is 'people' as a collective, it is called socialism...If you said advocation for individual people, then you may be on the right track. Advocation for individual people is quite different. In all your posts you never have advocated for the rights of every individual to their liberty and property.

marjon advocates for the inherent right of tyrants to oppress and usurp.

constraints on the would-be tyrants.

perpetual escalation of wealth inequality.

It is interesting the most of the wealthy are liberals and support the state.

So they can continue to control govt power, Pinkie and others want the govt to have MORE power for people like Soros to control.

Why do you support the uber rich Pinkie?