This was an awesome episode. I watched it twice in a row (because i was too lazy to get the remote)

You know, a law that is incomprehensible cannot be enforced (the tax code). However, in this instance, those who are claiming that the 'government' has no right to run their lives do not understand who they are in relationship to that 'government', and they do not understand who that 'government' is in relationship to them. In short, if you are acting as a type of federal agent, then the 'government' does very much so have authority to tell you exactly what to do.

It all boils down to each individual being fundamentally lazy and ignorant and loving it that way. Salvation does not lie in corporate or communal action. Salvation lies within, through repentance and acceptance of the Law.

Do not believe me. Find the source: www.TeamLaw.org

The thing about this episode that annoyed me the most is that while they trash taxes (which was entertaining), the kept going back to the Tea Party players, and that old fart screaming "No taxation without representation!" It's always nice to see people reenacting history and not understanding the conditions that brought about the events they're portraying.

The colonists had no representation in Parliament, they got no say in any of the laws that Parliament decided for them. That's not the same in the US, we elect the people who end up on the committees that make the laws, so we have "taxation with representation". If you don't like it, convince enough other people to tell their representative to change the law, and if they don't change it don't re-elect them. That's how the system works.

I'm so sick of people pissing and moaning about how government is run, yet they constantly re-elect the same types of people as their representative. The problem arises that the politicians that we have on these committees are all corrupt, they've been in office long enough that they don't fear being losing their job, they listen to the lobbyists that line their pockets more than they do their constituency.

Politicians are like fish in the fridge, as soon as they start to stink they need to be thrown out.

Flat tax is the way to go. It's automatically more actual money payed by people who earn a lot. 20 % of 100,000 is a lot less than 20 % of 1,000,000.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
so we have "taxation with representation".

Except for those who live in DC.

I do taxes for a living, have done 35 years (I started young.) It is, indeed, horrible how complex the system has become during my lifetime.

Being on the "inside" so to speak, I also see WHY it has gotten so complex. A tax law is written, the smart folks figure out how to use it to avoid tax. So that "loophole" is plugged, the smart folks figure out how to work around that, and new laws are generated.

Some of those tax laws that are written were indeed intended to "socially engineer," a complexity that then begats more complexity. I don't think that is a bad thing, necessarily. My uber-conservative brother installed solar panels on his roof because the cost was offset by state and federal tax credits. He is now a net-producer of energy, rather than a consumer of energy (California buys back his unused energy produced.)

Some of the complexity is indeed region specific or industry specific and is a boondoggle of the worst ilk-- you can tell. I can't remember the details, but there was something that was passed a few years back -- some credit for airplanes (or something) built (or sold) for the very specific period of time. It was clearly crap, clearly designed for one company in a Congress member's district.

Can you say line item veto? That would cut down on a huge number of abuses on all levels, and make it clear some of the more egregious backroom deals that are going on.

As far as a flat tax, that is just insane. Example -- a family of four has wage income of $25,000. 10% flat tax is $2,500.

Or you have a family of four with wage income of $250,000 and interest and dividend income of $25,000. Their 10% comes to $27,500. That $2,500 is a much much bigger number to the first family of four than the $27,500 is to the second. How much in savings and stocks do you think $25,000 in interest and dividends represent???

What they don't say in the video is that most tax payers get the lower rates, too. The first chunk you make is taxed at 10%, the next at 15%. So most taxpayers enjoy the lower rates.

What pisses me off right now -- sorry to change the direction of the argument -- is the bowing down to capital at the expense of labor that is embodied in the current code. The last stage of Bush's tax cuts became activated this year.

I ran two scenarios through the tax software at work.

First scenario -- married couple, no children, $80,000 in wages, no itemized deductions (social engineering embodied). Their tax - including payroll taxes -- was $14,000 if memory serves. I know it was 18% of gross -- a tax rate that would be the envy of most other countries.

Second scenario -- married couple, no children, $80,000 in dividends from corporations. Same cash inflow, but from millions in stocks rather than going to work every day for 50 weeks out of the year. Their tax for the year? $200. TWO HUNDRED MEASLY BUCKS. I can't hardly stand it.

Bowing down to capital. Poor poor rich people who are taxed twice on dividends -- once at the corporate level and then again on a personal level. Let's spare them that horrifying situation, poor poor rich people.

Flat tax is horribly regressive. Sales tax is horribly regressive. The current code -- horribly complicated.

But remember, you folks who hate taxes so much -- remember where the internet started. It wouldn't be here without having been developed at the government level first. Roads. Schools. The university you went to.

Penn is a self-satisfied douche bag who is an enabler of glenn beck-types in a big way.

but he makes some salient points even if i fundamentally disagree with them.

i agree that we probably need reform, but at the end of the day, this comes down, for me, to an ethical problem. maybe this is simplistic, but I look at the difference between me and the everyday fiscal conservative as one of interiority vs. exteriority. i should expound. i think of myself essentially as not an individual. i am the sum of everything and everyone around me. to this effect, it would follow that everything around me MUST be in part comprised of me, or that which I put out. the roads, schools, and various infrastructure to which BB refers are by their very nature as being infrastructural NOT self-contained, and are the real-world manifestations of the unification of a plurality. lets say that single individuals or institutions were creating these things... they would simply not be applicable to a plurality because they would be created with a minority in mind--what comes to mind is the gross absurdity of the infrastructure of a country like Turkmenistan, where the roads and schools are built with outside money from oil sales, and where the president decides what and where infrastructure is built. its no surprise that you see roads and monuments and schools that are appreciated only by a small and very elite minority.

the same kind of thinking that goes into something like a road, for me, goes into human beings. The absurd paradigm of the man "who has pulled himself up from his boot straps" that appeals to Beck-ites so effectively is a myth of a very elite minority on the highest and most supreme order. when Penn is ranting about the insanity of flowing capital in such a way so "the shittier team can win" is, to me, very revealing of how he looks at himself and the world around him. Its a very interior way of seeing things... which is to say that he plainly does not draw the obvious comparison between the publicly-funded road and the publicly funded individual. It also tells me that he doesn't understand the inherent injustice of our class system in this country, and that he doesn't understand such simple concepts as RACE, MENTAL ILLNESS, EDUCATION, etc. SO to say that he is interior is to say that he is only seeing this issue through his own, highly specific lens of a white, gifted, balanced male. And what about the idea of CHAOS? Can he predict that no catastrophe will ever befall him? To break it down to selfish language, isn't there a way in which paying high taxes (provided the system is effective) is a kind of insurance against personal disaster?

Oh well, just a bunch of personal thoughts. If I sound like I need schooling, please, school away.

>> ^bareboards2:
As far as a flat tax, that is just insane. Example -- a family of four has wage income of $25,000. 10% flat tax is $2,500.
Or you have a family of four with wage income of $250,000 and interest and dividend income of $25,000. Their 10% comes to $27,500. That $2,500 is a much much bigger number to the first family of four than the $27,500 is to the second. How much in savings and stocks do you think $25,000 in interest and dividends represent???
What they don't say in the video is that most tax payers get the lower rates, too. The first chunk you make is taxed at 10%, the next at 15%. So most taxpayers enjoy the lower rates.
What pisses me off right now -- sorry to change the direction of the argument -- is the bowing down to capital at the expense of labor that is embodied in the current code. The last stage of Bush's tax cuts became activated this year.
I ran two scenarios through the tax software at work.
First scenario -- married couple, no children, $80,000 in wages, no itemized deductions (social engineering embodied). Their tax - including payroll taxes -- was $14,000 if memory serves. I know it was 18% of gross -- a tax rate that would be the envy of most other countries.
Second scenario -- married couple, no children, $80,000 in dividends from corporations. Same cash inflow, but from millions in stocks rather than going to work every day for 50 weeks out of the year. Their tax for the year? $200. TWO HUNDRED MEASLY BUCKS. I can't hardly stand it.
Bowing down to capital. Poor poor rich people who are taxed twice on dividends -- once at the corporate level and then again on a personal level. Let's spare them that horrifying situation, poor poor rich people.
Flat tax is horribly regressive. Sales tax is horribly regressive. The current code -- horribly complicated.


The scenarios would be a lot better if both just payed 10 % ($8,000), wouldn't it? I don't see the big problem with flat tax. It's about as fair as it can be.

^The scenarios would be a lot better if both just payed 10 % ($8,000), wouldn't it? I don't see the big problem with flat tax. It's about as fair as it can be.
No, it isn't fair. My answer is a simple as your statement.

Look again at the example with much lower income.

It is interesting to me that you ignored that and focused on the higher income example I gave. The only reason that income was so high in the second scenario was I had to go that high up for the second couple to pay any tax at all. And then you chose that couple as a "fair" example for flat tax.

griefer_queafer sums it up nicely. The first line is dead on -- it is an ethical problem.

>> ^bareboards2:
But remember, you folks who hate taxes so much -- remember where the internet started. It wouldn't be here without having been developed at the government level first. Roads. Schools. The university you went to.

Seriously, how can you say the internet wouldn't exist without being developed by government first? That's ludicrous. Roads, schools and universities weren't invented by government either and I'm not the least bit thankful for things that were created at the expense of high taxes that diverted productive resources and applied them unproductively.

>> ^griefer_queafer:
the same kind of thinking that goes into something like a road, for me, goes into human beings. The absurd paradigm of the man "who has pulled himself up from his boot straps" that appeals to Beck-ites so effectively is a myth of a very elite minority on the highest and most supreme order. when Penn is ranting about the insanity of flowing capital in such a way so "the shittier team can win" is, to me, very revealing of how he looks at himself and the world around him. Its a very interior way of seeing things...

I think the myth is what you think of people who understand self-reliance and who they are. It's very convenient to characterize it as short-sighted selfishness of an elite minority. It is actually about a deeper understanding that the collective benefit is better achieved not by being directly pursued at the expense of individuals, but as a logical net result of individuals acting selfishly. Protecting the interest of the individual IS, ultimately, protecting the interests of the collective. Society is just a bunch of people.

that he doesn't understand the inherent injustice of our class system in this country, and that he doesn't understand such simple concepts as RACE, MENTAL ILLNESS, EDUCATION, etc. (...) To break it down to selfish language, isn't there a way in which paying high taxes (provided the system is effective) is a kind of insurance against personal disaster?

I dare you enlighten us on the "inherent injustice of our class system" without alluding to socialist fallacies. What is it about "insurance against personal disaster" that the private sector or charities can't provide, only the government?

Well, 10 % of a much lower income doesn't sound all that bad either. I still think a flat tax is much more ethically defensible. I was just contrasting that example, where a flat tax was BY FAR better.

"As far as a flat tax, that is just insane. Example -- a family of four has wage income of $25,000. 10% flat tax is $2,500.

Or you have a family of four with wage income of $250,000 and interest and dividend income of $25,000. Their 10% comes to $27,500. That $2,500 is a much much bigger number to the first family of four than the $27,500 is to the second. How much in savings and stocks do you think $25,000 in interest and dividends represent???"

Even if the $2500 represents much more to the "poor" family, the "rich" family still pays 10x what the poor family pays. In a progressive tax system, like we have in Denmark, the lowest rate is about 40 % (depending on county) and the highest is about 60 %. You are in fact punished for earning more. This sucks.

I can amend my "purist" flat tax, to include a deduction of a certain minimum amount of income "to live", which should make the very poorest able to live on their own salary and the rich as well could deduct the first $10,000 (or whichever amount would be the right one) of income. All other deductions should be abolished.

This would be a mini-progressive tax that actually makes sense.


In reply to this comment by bareboards2:

^The scenarios would be a lot better if both just payed 10 % ($8,000), wouldn't it? I don't see the big problem with flat tax. It's about as fair as it can be.
---
No, it isn't fair. My answer is a simple as your statement.

Look again at the example with much lower income.

It is interesting to me that you ignored that and focused on the higher income example I gave. The only reason that income was so high in the second scenario was I had to go that high up for the second couple to pay any tax at all. And then you chose that couple as a "fair" example for flat tax.

griefer_queafer sums it up nicely. The first line is dead on -- it is an ethical problem.

Always fun to see people try and defend the indefensible. Please - keep telling us just how 'fair' it is to have trillions of dollars confiscated from the people in order to feed a bloated, uncaring, incompetent bureaucracy.

That really is the main issue you 'Pro Government' people just can't seem to grasp. You keep defending high taxes under the rubrick that these taxes are all going towards funding 'poor people' or 'the sick' or 'to build great infrastructure'. The reality is that this perspective you try and sling us is 100% pure bull. Government taxation has been documented to be the LEAST efficient method possible to benefit the citizenry. For every dollar that goes into the government trough, only about a quarter comes back out in the form of actual good & services. Sometimes its more like a dime or a nickel.

The truth is that the government takes in over ten times as much money as it 'needs', and probably about 75% to 80% of what the government actually DOES isn't a 'need' so much as it is a 'lavish expense'. The government takes in billions not because it actually has billions it 'needs'. It takes in the money because it is feeding itself and trying to constantly increase its scope and size. It managed to do this year after year because there are a lot of well-meaning (but ultimately stupid, gullible, ignoramouses) who buy their propoganda that we 'must' keep giving to government in order to help out Sally Sadsack or Harry Hardluck. But the truth is that the poor and needy can be helped out far more efficiently and directly by private systems.

I'd much rather personally have ALL withholding taxes abolished completely, and have a national sales tax that excluded food, fuel, vehicles, homes, personal savings, medical care, and articles of clothing. Then federal government would be reduced to people only paying when they bought luxuries. Of course, that implies that all government social programs would immediately end, and government would be pared back to it's original Consititutionally mandated roles of defense and intra/inter state regulation. The primary taxation should always be at the state and local level, where the people have more control over both what is taxed, and how it is spent.

Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^bareboards2:
But remember, you folks who hate taxes so much -- remember where the internet started. It wouldn't be here without having been developed at the government level first. Roads. Schools. The university you went to.
Seriously, how can you say the internet wouldn't exist without being developed by government first? That's ludicrous. Roads, schools and universities weren't invented by government either and I'm not the least bit thankful for things that were created at the expense of high taxes that diverted productive resources and applied them unproductively.


Have you looked at the history of the internet before you responded? The government funded a great deal of the research.
Basic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

In addition, it was the government funding and contracts with telephone companies that build the backbone of the internet. Do you think the telephone companies laid all that fiber / copper lines for new customers? No, it was funded by the government. BTW, the US National Science Foundation is a government agency. Not from wiki:

"Thus, the first Internet backbone, called the NSFNET because it was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), linked six supercomputing centers (University of California-San Diego, National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Cornell University, and the John von Neumann Supercomputing Center/Princeton) and their associated regional networks in the United States in order to provide supercomputer access to scientists. Today, a single government-managed Internet backbone has been transformed into a multitude of different backbones, most of which are private commercial enterprises."

You can't have an internet without a backbone. The government is responsible for the first backbone that the private networks "leeched" off of while building theirs. Also, the government has given much money to telephone companies for laying of fiber, etc.

>> ^bareboards2:
lot o' stuff


Thanks for the comment bareboards2.

Do you think that a flat tax would work if it include a deductible? This deductible would be based somewhat on the poverty line and every single person would get it. This way it keeps the simplicity of a flat tax (everything applies to everyone), while also trying to account for low income people and families.

With your experience, does that sound like something that could actually work?

*NSFW

Penn's potty mouth.

Invocations (nsfw) cannot be called by pavel_one because pavel_one is not privileged - sorry.

*nsfw

Video is already flagged NSFW - ignoring nsfw request by gwiz665.

"Second scenario -- married couple, no children, $80,000 in dividends from corporations. Same cash inflow, but from millions in stocks rather than going to work every day for 50 weeks out of the year. Their tax for the year? $200. TWO HUNDRED MEASLY BUCKS."

The couple that receives $80k from dividends pay limited taxes on it now because they've already paid the full tax on it --when they earned the capital which they invested in order to receive those dividends.

>>> ^gtjwkq:
Seriously, how can you say the internet wouldn't exist without being developed by government first? That's ludicrous.

>> ^curiousity:
Have you looked at the history of the internet before you responded? The government funded a great deal of the research.
Basic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

Have you tried understanding my statement before you responded?

Government was not *necessary* for the internet to be created, a form of internet could and most likely would have been created by the private sector even if government hadn't researched or established the first backbone.

Computers were getting smaller, faster and increasingly popular. Don't you think, eventually, someone would think of connecting them altogether somehow?

I wonder why Penn doesn't believe in normal interviews where the person being interviewed can actually hear your comments and respond back. Even when he makes good points, he still comes off as a dick due to the editing and the shouting over clips of interviews he couldn't be bothered to do himself.

Taxes are the power to destroy, confiscated by an entity that can't create anything, only shift things around using force.

Too many people view government as the solution to every problem instead of a necessary evil that should be closely watched.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Have you tried understanding my statement before you responded?
Government was not necessary for the internet to be created, a form of internet could and most likely would have been created by the private sector even if government hadn't researched or established the first backbone.
Computers were getting smaller, faster and increasingly popular. Don't you think, eventually, someone would think of connecting them altogether somehow?


I understood and understand your statement.

I'm sure that the research would have happened eventually although at a much slower pace. However, I think you are so stuck on your idea that the government wasn't needed that you choose to not see reason in your frenzied desire to defend your statement.

The government funding was necessary to build the first internet backbone. The government has essentially funded the phone companies for the laying of their backbones. The government was/is the driving force.

So yes, the government was necessary for creating the internet.


>> ^gtjwkq:
Computers were getting smaller, faster and increasingly popular. Don't you think, eventually, someone would think of connecting them altogether somehow?

This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding for the infrastructure needed for the internet. We are talking about the internet, not a couple of people connecting their computers together.

poor rich guys.

i mean really, how does one struggle along on only $100 million after-tax dollars these days. tsk.

>> ^curiousity:

I understood and understand your statement.
I'm sure that the research would have happened eventually although at a much slower pace. However, I think you are so stuck on your idea that the government wasn't needed that you choose to not see reason in your frenzied desire to defend your statement.
The government funding was necessary to build the first internet backbone. The government has essentially funded the phone companies for the laying of their backbones. The government was/is the driving force.
So yes, the government was necessary for creating the internet.

That's ok, you're just too proud to admit that you didn't understand what I meant at first before your little rant, so now you insist that the first backbone could only have been funded by government, because universities, educational and research institutions and private citizens could never see any benefit in funding that kind of thing for themselves. Ever.

Even if you consider the internet something that has nothing to do with "a couple of people connecting their computers together", you do realize that if this group of people grows and, with the aid of technological advances, commercial interests, etc. this network of computers becomes global... would that ring a bell?

>> ^gtjwkq:
That's ok, you're just too proud to admit that you didn't understand what I meant at first before your little rant, so now you insist that the first backbone could only have been funded by government, because universities, educational and research institutions and private citizens could never see any benefit in funding that kind of thing for themselves. Ever.
Even if you consider the internet something that has nothing to do with "a couple of people connecting their computers together", you do realize that if this group of people grows and, with the aid of technological advances, commercial interests, etc. this network of computers becomes global... would that ring a bell?


I understood exactly what you meant. Your attempt to lessen my statement is childish. Perhaps I started out the conversation wrong, but it really seems that you don't know very much about the history of the internet. I should have changed the initial sentence of my first response to create a more conversational tone; however, I don't think that would have helped.

Point 1: The technology used
The universities, educational institutions, and research institutions received their research money from the government. Would they have continued the research without any money from the government? I'm sure some would have, but the progress would have been much slower. I already conceded that, but I disagree with your idea that they would have done it all on their own.

Point 2: The infrastructure needed for the internet
The physical components of the first internet backbone was paid for by the government and, in fact, many of the "private" backbones were/are also (through various methods.) This is vital to what the internet is. As I said previously, your statements show a fundamental lack of understanding about the infrastructure needed for the internet.

These points are fairly straight-forward.

Why do you insist on holding onto your position when you chose to not do the basic research into the issue? You argue possibilities while I argue historical facts. You want to wave the magical capitalist wand and say "it would have happened because capitalism tells me so." Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible, but is it likely? I don't think so. The government provided the funding and direction. Look at technology today. Do you know how many advances actually came from military research?

It obvious that we can't have a rational discussion about this.

>> ^curiousity:

You argue possibilities while I argue historical facts.

More accurately, I was talking about the nature of government, while you're arguing about what government did. As if that matters, and as if I didn't know. I think that's the root of our disagreement.

Point 1: The technology used

So, progress would have been much slower, but somehow they would never end up creating the first backbone, because an endeavor of that magnitude is just unfeasible, really. No private investor/company can think that far ahead, advancements in technology wouldn't provide any kind of cost reductions that would, eventually, allow a backbone to be established.

Point 2: The infrastructure needed for the internet

Tell me, what essential part of the internet's infrastructure requires legislation to work? You know those lazy routers must be coerced at the point of a gun, right? How about the police that we need to control all that network traffic?

Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible, but is it likely? I don't think so. The government provided the funding and direction. Look at technology today. Do you know how many advances actually came from military research?

I completely agree that technologies that are related to the use of force are only possible because of military research.

The nuclear bomb for instance. Seriously, I have a lot of trouble imagining how the private sector could come up with that. A government would hardly ever allow a corporation to own such destructive technology.

Now, about the internet. It was initially funded by military research for a specific purpose, related to intelligence, not use of force.

Today it serves many other unrelated purposes. So, by its very nature, there's nothing about the internet that would make it impossible for the private sector to develop it on its own.

It obvious that we can't have a rational discussion about this.

Maybe I unintentionally made it too hard for you to agree with me by being so confrontational, so I'll just have to enjoy watching you paint yourself into a corner.

There are SOME things that government can do OK (if not necessarily WELL). Those things are generally limited to actual physical public works - like roads and dams. However, the actual need for federal involvment in these kind of things is limited. Most of the time such needs can be handled just fine at the state or local level. For the few rare exceptions, a SMALL federal amount of funding is all that is necessary.

What the government is NOT good at is pretty much anything else - particularly social programs like retirement, medical care, education, and so forth. There are a few very rare exceptions where government has managed get involved in these kinds of programs without spectacularly failing. However, by and large when the federal government steps into this arena the result is disaster at unprecedented levels. For example - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Departmenet of Education, ad nauseum.

The preponderance of evidence shows that Federal taxation is just plain out and out a bad investment. When a Federal solution is proposed, people should view it with suspicion and caution prima facie - because 9 times out of 10 it will fail. Government has proven that it cannot be trusted to manage social care needs. Therefore government should be rejected as a solution to a social care issue.

Video is already awesome. Ignoring everyone's request to make it awesomer.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The government provided the funding for the research at universities, etc. The government continues to provide a lot of money for research. Your premise is that private individuals and companies would have funded the research. The money "would have appeared." IBM and a few companies did form a nonprofit company for research. It would seem to support your theory; unfortunately, this nonprofit was formed at the request of the government. Have you just recently read Atlas Shrugged and read up on Ayn Rand? Your idea that the money would just show up reminds me of Ayn Rand's "field of dreams"-like theory that there should be should not be any government-sponsored charity, that private investors would fill that void. (Before any admirers of Ayn Rand jump me, great people can be wrong about some things. Just look at Einstein's life. And if you disagree, well, we'll just disagree.) I disagree that the money would have shown up in significant quantities for internet of your hypothesis to be as mature as the internet of today.

Legislation for the backbone? What a complete strawman argument. Sigh... Where did I ever say that legislation or policing of the internet was needed? I didn't. I said that the government provided the funding and direction. It was the government that told telco that if they want funding, they need to hook up lines to the major hubs that the government established. Again, you argue that private investors and organizations would have done this. I strongly doubt that seeing that they all got their money for research and physically laying of the lines and equipment from the government.

The military has had many more advancements than just the nuclear bomb. How can you dismiss the military's intelligence advancements by just saying that private companies could have done it? The simple fact is that private businesses use older military advances because the military got there first. You are ignoring the reality of the situation. It's like saying, "if only other organizations had sat still on their research, private companies would have been able to do the research eventually (once they found the money...)"

You want to argue your point while ignoring how things work in the real world. I am saying that without government funding and direction, we would not the internet we have today or one of relative equivalency.

This is amusing, watching you squirm.

>> ^curiousity:
Where did I ever say that legislation or policing of the internet was needed? I didn't.

You never said it required legislation, neither did I. Don't you get it? If it doesn't require legislation, police, the military, etc., then it doesn't require government (because these services are exclusive to government, get it?).

Are *you* being deliberately obtuse?

Again, you argue that private investors and organizations would have done this. I strongly doubt that seeing that they all got their money for research and physically laying of the lines and equipment from the government.

Just because government provided the money, doesn't mean they couldn't have done it without government. Did you know private citizens and corporations have money too?

You might say, "Oh, but it was A LOT of money, because it was too costly", well, my point is, dumbass , don't you think advancements in technology would lead to reductions in cost that would make this kind of investment feasible someday? You do realize that technology tends to make stuff cheaper, right?

If the idea of the internet is about connecting a lot of people together and it involves many companies and institutions, don't you think the involvement of all these entities could eventually provide enough resources for this endeavour? Or, better yet, the internet could start very small, maybe smaller than the first backbone, and, because it benefits those connected to it, gather up more and more participants, thus... growing, into the first backbone and beyond?

I am saying that without government funding and direction, we would not the internet we have today or one of relative equivalency.

Well hooray! I never said it would be exactly like the one we have today, it would be different, I don't know if it would be better or worse (depends on the economy?), or earlier in its development, but it would have cost a lot less, certainly not a single taxpayer dollar and, guess what, we would have an internet anyway, because, with computers becoming ubiquitous, connecting them is a very reasonable next step.

Assuming humanity, will all those computers everywhere, wouldn't eventually come up with a way of networking all of them in a global network, that's just silly.

FYI, I read Ayn Rand almost 20 years ago, didn't remember anything about field of dreams, lots of stuff in there, but thanks for the heads up.

>> ^gtjwkq:
This is amusing, watching you squirm.

The squirming exists solely in your imagination.

I had no idea that my offhand comment about the internet would spawn such a passionate pas de deux.

It's like watching two magnets repel each other.

I was more hoping that my anger at the "gimmee" that wealthy folks are getting on dividend income would be the thing that would spark a passionate debate.

I'll settle for this. It's been interesting to watch. Facts versus possibilities. Curiousity summed it up nicely, the essence of the disagreement. And still the battle went on....

*dead

Here's a link to the whole episode

http://www.casttv.com/shows/penn-teller-bullshit/taxes/l486nc

It's Season 7 Episode 7 : Taxes

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by fizziks.

>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.


When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided *coughFOXcough* then that would be something to criticize.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, August 9th, 2009 1:31am PDT - promote requested by rottenseed.

>> ^LordOderus:
>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.

When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided coughFOXcough then that would be something to criticize.


hhehehe cause CNN and MSNBC are totally neutral! All network news is dead to true journalism. That is why I just listen to the voices in my head...MUAHAHAHAH

(I might of consumed far to much sugar today)

appears to be *dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by SlipperyPete.