>> ^rottenseed:
How the fuck did he just rise from the behind the reporter?


Obviously just emerged from his subterranian marijuana grow op.

I thought/hoped he was going to keep going for maximum news-story-killing effectiveness!

"You're on private property... Fuck. Shit. Cock. Bitch. Cunt..." (keeps swearing while waiting patiently for them to turn off the live feed)

Your video, You're On Private Property...The Wonders of Live TV, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

Most of them are not answers. See for youself:http://videosift.com/video/Senator-Jim-Demint-Libertarians-Don-t-Exist?loadcomm=1#comment-1102546

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.
bf: Corporate funding is not a strike against the liberty movement. (corporate money does not taint a supposedly anti corporate movement? O RLY?)
-Your double standards on 'coercion by threat of violence' as it pertains to private property.
bf: You're trying to compare defensive and offensive violence. Fail. (So, you do support coercion by threat of violence under some circumstances. Isn't that hypocritical?)
-An example of a successful modern society that doesn't tax.
bf: irrelevant [NOT AN ANSWER]
-Your use of deceptive slogans and frames in lieu of an actual argument.
bf: No I don't (Yes you do, statist is your most frequent political slogan.) [NOT AN ANSWER]
-Your frequent use of 'begging the question'.
Where have I proposed a premise as truth that requires proof? ("Taxing is theft" is the main one) [NOT AN ANSWER]
-The striking similarities between your own opinion and corporate opinion.
bf:Like your striking similarities to white land owners and their democratic belief in slavery? [NOT AN ANSWER]
-How markets reward violence, labor exploitation and pollution.
bf: this is unfounded [NOT AN ANSWER]

In this thread.
-Do you now believe climate change is real?
-Do you now support more stringent measures on dealing with climate change?
bf: You're the king of inference. [NOT AN ANSWER]

9 questions asked. 2 questions answered.

>> ^lantern53:
50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.


Let's break that one down into the component logical assertions:

1. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax.
   
2. All people have an equal voice in government.
   
3. People only pay no income tax when their incomes are so low that the standard deduction reduces their obligation to zero. (unstated, but common knowledge)
   
4. People with low incomes are more prone to "[take] private property that belongs to another", i.e. "steal" (strongly implied)
   

Once you decompose that argument a bit, you realize that even if I grant you 1-3 for the sake of argument, #4 is unquestionably a prejudicial statement without any real basis in fact.

Were you in favor of TARP, or did you decry that as a bailout? Given that the banksters have a team of lobbyists constantly petitioning the government for favors, and you seem to think of taxation as theft, isn't it rich people trying to steal every time major corporations ask the government for even one dollar of subsidy?

Does that really change if it's a tax credit, like the standard deduction that (supposedly) lets 50% of people pay no income tax?
>> ^lantern53:

It is a valid point.

No, it's really not.

LOL... let me count the talking points:

NPR = nazis
The View = geese
George Sorros = bad
Flat Tax
Skin in the Game

^
These are all Fox talking points.>> ^lantern53:

Fox News is not promoting any talking points here. They are simply discussing the concept behind the idea that people who have no skin in the game should not be directing the game.
It is a valid point. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.

To say that the poor have a voice in government is laughable. The poor have no lobbyists and no money to contribute to campaigns. They are the first to suffer when things go wrong. There are only a handful of politicians who even speak about the poor, let alone do something to help.

Of course this is a talking point. If it isn't, then why are you, GeesussfreeK, Fox news and others all using the same charming 'skin in the game' euphemism for taking away the rights of the poor? You are being manipulated. You are part of the echo chamber.

This is only a valid point to people who believe the wealthy should have more rights than the middle and lower classes.

>> ^lantern53:

Fox News is not promoting any talking points here. They are simply discussing the concept behind the idea that people who have no skin in the game should not be directing the game.
It is a valid point. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.

Fox News is not promoting any talking points here. They are simply discussing the concept behind the idea that people who have no skin in the game should not be directing the game.

It is a valid point. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.

Reasons to take away people's civil rights, according to winstonfield_pennypecker

1. lack of private property
2. bad behavior*
3. stupidity*
4. not taken a civics class
5. committed a felony
6. missed a child support payment
7. drunk driving
8. spanked your kid
9. balance on your credit card
10. between jobs
11. screwed up*
12. made a bad choice*
13. failed at life*

This is abhorrent, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bullshit that it is.

*as determined by winstonfield_beauregard_pennypecker III esq.

Double Standards - So it's OK to defend private property, but not public property. That's still a double standard.

@Tymbrwulf, I don't know what prompted your lame and sudden attack against me, but you do understand you're citing a cracked.com comedy page to bolster your argument, right?


@dystopianfuturetoday, glad to see you had to edit your comment above and add a bullet list. Very classy, sir. Allow me to touch on that NEW list.

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.

You keep citing the Kochs as being supporters of CATO as if their contributions are in any way a strike against the liberty movement. Here's a fun fact: how many corporations can we count that donate to your Democratic Party? A whole helluva lot more than donate to any liberty movement. And don't get me started on the Democratic support of the military industrial complex.

-Your double standards on 'coercion by threat of violence' as it pertains to private property.

You're trying to compare defensive and offensive violence. Fail.

-An example of a successful modern society that doesn't tax.

Irrelevant. Also, I noted compulsory tax vs. voluntary tax above. I hope you're actually reading the comments before posting responses.

-Your use of deceptive slogans and frames in lieu of an actual argument.

Not sure what you mean unless you're trying to paint words like "central designer" and "statism" as being deceptive slogans? I've given nothing but cogent and well framed arguments. I understand I may be in the minority on this site and a lot of people vocally disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm not giving you strong arguments. To the contrary, I must be because I've brought on the wrath of several Sifters in here already. That's me tickling that cognitive dissonance.

-Your frequent use of 'begging the question'.

Where have I proposed a premise as truth that requires proof? This, to me, is grasping at straws. I know we love to accuse people of fallacious arguments, but this seems out of left field

-The striking similarities between your own opinion and corporate opinion.

Like your striking similarities to white land owners and their democratic belief in slavery?

-How markets reward violence, labor exploitation and pollution.

This is unfounded. You can post links to isolated incidents all day long, or how corporations (government created entities) are doing bad things under the limited liability protections of the state. And labor exploitation is real, but you're forgetting a part of the market that corrects for these things: the consumers. You like to use Nike as an example, but there's a couple problems with that argument: 1. You can't assume to know the economy of the country with these "sweatshops" (otherwise that would be begging the question, sir). 2. This may be more money than they can make in that part of the world. 3. Nike is a corporation, therefore a government protected entity that enjoys crony capitalism and corporate welfare that keeps competition in the marketplace noncompetitive, so there are less companies able to compete with Nike.

Boom.

Your ideology consists of things you've heard other people say; your arguments are regurgitations. Whenever the conversation strays away from the things you've been taught, you are unable to adapt and think on your feet. Instead, you become angry and resort to insults. If nothing else, this thread is evidence of that.

Here is a list of the things you've been unable to address in this thread.

-Why your anti corporate movement is funded by corporations.
-Your double standards on 'coercion by threat of violence' as it pertains to private property.
-An example of a successful modern society that doesn't tax.
-Your use of deceptive slogans and frames in lieu of an actual argument.
-Your frequent use of 'begging the question'.
-The striking similarities between your own opinion and corporate opinion.
-How markets reward violence, labor exploitation and pollution.

No need tiring out the gray matter on any of these troublesome topics. No need to observe the theme that connects these things that shut you down. No need for critical thought when insults are so quick and easy.

I rest my case.

dghandi is right. Telling people where they can and cannot go is an infringement on individual liberty. Creating a contract that uses the threat of violence keep people from freely moving as they please is coercion. Why do you support the violent tyranny that is private property? Why this double standard?

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.

No biggie.

Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.

As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.

Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.

Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.

As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.

The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.