or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A Boomer Tries to Rub the Blindspot Away: Michael Kinsley
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Boomer Tries to Rub the Blindspot Away: Michael Kinsley

post #1 of 142
Thread Starter 
LATimes.com

I have to give Michael Kinsley credit. This is the second time in as many years that he has reallys started to question the assumptions that make up what I call the boomer blindspot, aka basically a belief that the U.S. still sits astride the world as it did when they were kids right after WWII. The dollar could never be broken and lastly that the kids and grandkids can pay off all the entitlements no matter the debt level or cost.

He doesn't really come up with answers, but he does sort of think questions into the air. That puts him well ahead of about 98% of his generation. He actually drills down and questions the conventional wisdom of his generation and runs the reasoning out to the impossible conclusions. Good for him and by that I mean bad for us because the outcomes are all terrible for us as a nation.

Quote:
Third and most important, the blitheness with which intelligent people say "Oh, we can always print more money" is horrifying. For one thing, it's not true. Sure, maybe once. But if we develop a reputation for paying our debts with a printing press, no one will want to hold our debt and no one will buy it.

Ask yourself: If the United States can always cover its debts by just printing money, at no cost, what are we waiting for? Why even bother running up these tiresome debts and paying interest on them? Why shouldn't Uncle Sam just make his shopping list, print out as much cash as he will need and head for Costco?

The deeper question Mr. Kinsley, though again you are applauded for questioning the baseline assumption here, is what happens when not only the government does this, but an entire generation does it by borrowing all the equity out of their homes, taking the "excess" they supposedly paid into Social Security and replaces it with bonds while spending it, taps their 401k's out if they ever paid into them in the first place and tell their kids to take out loans to the tune of trillion dollars for college and then expect the kids and the lawn man to somehow pay it all back?

Quote:
Here's the missing explanation: Inflation reduces the value of debt. If poorer people are on balance borrowers and wealthier people are on balance lenders, inflation can help to reduce one of our most serious economic problems, which is the increase in income and wealth inequality. More important, inflation is the only conceivable easy way we can pay down the national debt to a manageable size, or at least slow its growth.

This is how it works: The debt ceiling we're about to crash through is $14.3 trillion. But even as we borrow more (about $1.6 trillion this year), inflation erodes the value of what we already owe. At an inflation rate of 2.7%, $14.3trillion will be worth about $13.9trillion in today's dollars a year from now. That's nearly $400billion wiped away from the national debt without fuss, without debate and seemingly without cost or pain. A quarter of the deficit. And that's with inflation at record lows. If inflation were 5%, it would wipe out $715 billion; at 10%, nearly the entire projected annual increase in the national debt, even at its current record high of $1.6 trillion.

Of course, it would also wipe out people's savings at the same rapid clip. Anyone who lived through the inflation of 1979-81 knows that there are noxious social effects as well. To say that inflation, at 2.7%, has "climbed closer to healthy levels" is insane.

Well you see the crux of the issue here Mr. Kinsley. Your generation doesn't have to worry about wiping out the savers. As a generation it doesn't have any. They call the savers the Japanese and the Chinese. Much like how they have deluded themselves and their children, the boomers think they will delude nations such as these and all will be fine as they wander into the sunset. One last teaser rate refinance and the balloon payment will happen when they are in the ground.

Quote:
"At least one economist" (the same one, he of the "derisive guffaw") and I had an exchange of views on the Web awhile back. He is of the view that the debt doesn't matter, that the fuss over it is a right-wing plot to generate unnecessary panic about government spending and use it as an excuse to cut Medicare and Social Security. (Many Republicans think it's a left-wing plot to raise taxes.)

I asked him a version of the question above. If the national debt doesn't matter, why do we have taxes at all? Why not just borrow the entire federal budget? (The same question can be posed to a Republican tax-cutter.)

Derisive Guffaw answered that we need the deficit for Keynesian reasons: so that we can easily raise or lower it to stimulate or sedate the economy, as needed. Of course, in the real world, we don't seem to be able to raise and lower (or at least to lower) the deficit for any reason, good or bad.

The question remains: If the deficit doesn't matter, why have any taxes at all? And if there is some point at which the deficit does start to matter, and become dangerous, when is that point if $1.6 trillion isn't it?

We don't know who the "derisive guffaw" happens to be but I would be willing to bet a beer and a meal it is Paul Krugman. Mr. Kinsley, you are to be commended for doing better than most of your generation and noting that question. You'll join the rest of us in reality when you realize that it is but the first in a series that reveal massive debt loads not just with a yearly federal deficit but the systematic looting of a country by a generation. The issue isn't just federal entitlements. The boomers own less of their homes, have less in their retirement accounts, are less healthy coming into retirement. They've demanded their kids finance more of their education, spent away the fake Social Security Surplus, added 15 trillion on top of that and then we could actually look into state, county and city pensions, and bonds.

It will be frightening and sad when the bill comes due.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 142
What's the most embarrassing entitlement is the American rich believing that they are entitled to reap the profits of American success without giving some of it back in America's time of need. And that somehow, America's success will continue without empowering the working class to do more than work for them for their (the rich's) continued benefit.
post #3 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What's the most embarrassing entitlement is the American rich believing that they are entitled to reap the profits of American success without giving some of it back in America's time of need.

No one who turns a profit through a voluntary exchange needs to "give something back." This concept is merely a socialist delusion.

Those who "profit" by force however (pretty much anyone who works for the government or receives money from the government falls into this category...as do the corporate welfare recipients)...that's a different story.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No one who turns a profit through a voluntary exchange needs to "give something back." This concept is merely a socialist delusion.

Those who "profit" by force however (pretty much anyone who works for the government or receives money from the government falls into this category...as do the corporate welfare recipients)...that's a different story.

It's just an embarassing knee jerk reaction on the part of him and others with the same worldview. The entire Forbes list of billionaires worldwise was worth $7 trillion this year. That was the entire world, not just the U.S.

The FEDERAL government has a debt of $15 trillion which is actually $18 trillion+ when you add the repayment of those "owed to self" Social Security bonds. Federal obligations the boomers have promised to themselves are estimated to be $50-70 trillion+ dollars. The number of people receiving money is at an all time high and the number of people working for a salary is nearly at a record low.

However the problem is the rich or the fortunate or those damn greedy bastards that work for a living.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 142
Solve the problem of the top 1% owning 40% of Americas wealth whilst the bottom 40% own 0.3% of Americas wealth and the rest will rapidly be fixed too.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #6 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Solve the problem of the top 1% owning 40% of Americas wealth whilst the bottom 40% own 0.3% of Americas wealth and the rest will rapidly be fixed too.

Yes except again, you add up that wealth and it pales in comparison to the Federal Government. Consider that your own blindspot.

Answer for me Hands, presuming you liquidated and confiscated everything they own, what is the top 1% of Americans worth?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes except again, you add up that wealth and it pales in comparison to the Federal Government. Consider that your own blindspot.

Answer for me Hands, presuming you liquidated and confiscated everything they own, what is the top 1% of Americans worth?

The total assests of Americans is about $56 trillion. The top 1% own more than the bottom 90% combined. The bottom 20% own 0.1% of that $56 trillion and the next 20% own 0.2%. If there was ever a better term than "trickle down" I can't think what it is.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #8 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The total assests of Americans is about $56 trillion. The top 1% own more than the bottom 90% combined. The bottom 20% own 0.1% of that $56 trillion and the next 20% own 0.2%. If there was ever a better term than "trickle down" I can't think what it is.

First you realize that wealth is not the same as income right? It isn't as if when someone owns a office building they can chip off a chunk of it and give it to Uncle Sam. Should Apple be assigning an ever increasing percentage of their ownership of say, the iOS to the government each year. It represents tangible wealth.

While the ratios are fun to repeat, devoid of context, they are not helpful. The claim is that the rich haven't done enough or given their fair share. Tell us what that one percent is worth. The top one percent of Americans would have to be 3 million people or so.

Of that 3 million only 413 of them are billionaires and the entire networth of those billionaires if liquidated is equal to 1.5 trillion dollars. You could walk up to every single one of them, put a bullet in their brain and confiscate their wealth and you wouldn't even cover the amount the government is borrowing this year.

We could go and confiscate the entire wealth of all the millionaires. Per that link there are around three million of them aka the top 1%. However only 37,000 of them are multimillionaires worth $30 million or more.

So now we have some hard numbers and they show that the government is the largest entity out there by far. There isn't a corporation or person that can come close to matching it. The federal government spends the APPLE corporation's net-worth every single month. Apple is the second largest corporation in the U.S.

Then you compound the problem of the fact that net-worth is often not a liquid thing. Bill Gates may be worth $50 billion but it isn't cash in a vault. To liquidate it he would have to sell his stocks and someone else would have to have $50 billion to buy them.

Let's use some nice round numbers. Let's say the top 1% control 40% of the entire net-worth of the United States or $22 trillion. It represents items that are not liquid. It represents factories, shipping boats, railroad lines, entire corporations, intellectual property, server farms and what have you. Suppose you decided not to just tax them on income or stock options or dividends but just flat out take a percentage of it, just confiscate it outright. If you took 10% of it you still couldn't fund the government for a year. You could fund their deficit for one year but the government itself is spending $3.6 trillion dollars this year. Suppose you confiscated a full 20% of again, not their income or money earned in whatever fashion. You took their physical assets and simply confiscated it outright. You've just taken all that wealth and however long it took to created it, as an example Apple's wealth has been generated since 1976 or 35 years and you'll spend it in about 14 months through the federal government. That presumes of course there are parties who can pay you what it is worth dollar for dollar in an environment where $4.4 trillion is being confiscated out of the economy.

That 20% is gone and can't be used to create future wealth. It will have been spent or consumed.

How do we continue on such a course? There aren't enough rich to pay for the empty promises. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for the empty promises.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #9 of 142
Besides... most people don't have what it takes to become a millionaire.

Anyone making, say... 30k per year could be a millionaire by the time they retire (age 62?... assuming they've been earning that since perhaps age 22... in this case I'll call "millionaire" meaning a person with zero debt and 1 million dollars in cash/assets.) But most people refuse to live beneath their means and save and invest... so they spend their entire life living paycheck-to-paycheck. I know several of you "re-distributists" don't like my attitude, but... if you aren't willing to do what it takes to become wealthy, then you don't DESERVE to be wealthy.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #10 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Besides... most people don't have what it takes to become a millionaire.

Anyone making, say... 30k per year could be a millionaire by the time they retire (age 62?... assuming they've been earning that since perhaps age 22.) But most people refuse to live beneath their means and save and invest... so they spend their entire life living paycheck-to-paycheck. I know several of you "re-distribuists" don't like my attitude, but... if you aren't willing to do what it takes to become wealthy, then you don't DESERVE to be wealthy.

This is a key point.

One part of being rich, regardless of the actual dollar amounts, is consuming less than you produce (a.k.a. saving, a.k.a living below your means). So few people actually get this. So few people have the willpower to do so.

Of course this is made harder by US fiscal policy (tax code*), monetary policy (inflation) and trade policies (which keep prices of goods higher than they might be absent trade barriers.)

*The US income tax code could be called the "Make it Harder For Poor and Middle Class People to Actually Get Rich Code."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 142
You could take the property of all the rich people but who are you going to liquidate it to to get the cash out and pay off the debt? How much damage to the economy are you going to do? Then considering the spending problem has not been solved who are you going to knock over next to pay off the next debt?

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of it.
post #12 of 142
Blah blah blah boomers blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah deregulation blah blah blah libruls.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Besides... most people don't have what it takes to become a millionaire.

Anyone making, say... 30k per year could be a millionaire by the time they retire (age 62?... assuming they've been earning that since perhaps age 22... in this case I'll call "millionaire" meaning a person with zero debt and 1 million dollars in cash/assets.) But most people refuse to live beneath their means and save and invest... so they spend their entire life living paycheck-to-paycheck. I know several of you "re-distributists" don't like my attitude, but... if you aren't willing to do what it takes to become wealthy, then you don't DESERVE to be wealthy.

The people who argue for redistribution do not care about such matters. They believe it was all luck in the first place including luck of the genetic draw. They care only about their fellow humans, or of course that is the claim they make while spreading poverty in the name of kindness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You could take the property of all the rich people but who are you going to liquidate it to to get the cash out and pay off the debt? How much damage to the economy are you going to do? Then considering the spending problem has not been solved who are you going to knock over next to pay off the next debt?

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of it.

There you go doing that thinking and reasoning thing again. Such actions are horrible, horrible things to do when there is another suffering soul out there and you still have some money in your pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Blah blah blah boomers blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah deregulation blah blah blah libruls.



See Floorjack, BR has got it down pat. None of that nasty thinking, reasoning and most of all questioning. Just utopian intentions and the proper level of maturity and reaction when utopia isn't here.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 142
Yeah, "reasoning" means taking things to extremes and hyperbolizing. Right.
post #15 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, "reasoning" means taking things to extremes and hyperbolizing. Right.

Yeah, we need the reasoning that states that those who don't agree with certain views believe the earth is flat, or those who want to end then welfare state are racists that want to trample the poor, or the reasoning that states disbelief in global warming is tantamount to global genocide. That is by no means taking things to extremes or hyperbolizing. Trumptman, stop this exchange of information followed by pictures of people crying when people don't engage you. Just use the pictures! It saves so much time!
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #16 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Yeah, we need the reasoning that states that those who don't agree with certain views believe the earth is flat

We don't need that either, but I haven't seen it, especially not here. You do know that saying that people believing that global warming isn't real is analogous to people once believing the Earth was flat isn't the same as saying that people who disbelieve in man made global warming believe the world is flat, don't you? You know the difference, don't you?

How ironic. Answering a criticism of hyperbole with hyperbole.
post #17 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, "reasoning" means taking things to extremes and hyperbolizing. Right.

Please feel free to presenting whatever extreme reasoning and hyperbole you declare to be presented and I'll gladly address it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You could take the property of all the rich people but who are you going to liquidate it to to get the cash out and pay off the debt?

Who the fuck said we want to take the property of all the rich people and liquidate it? Hyperbolize much?
post #19 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

...those who don't agree with certain views believe the earth is flat, or those who want to end then welfare state are racists that want to trample the poor, or the reasoning that states disbelief in global warming is tantamount to global genocide...!

I rest my case.
post #20 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who the fuck said we want to take the property of all the rich people and liquidate it? Hyperbolize much?

It wasn't taken as a claim. It was presented as a means of showing the numbers don't add up. They don't add up for income. They don't add up even if you went to straight confiscation. They don't add up period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I rest my case.

He is noting the propensity of the left to alter arguments into caricatured straw-men and attack their intentions rather than their arguments. It is a spot on analysis. It is also the standard Obama speech if you've ever broken one down.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We don't need that either, but I haven't seen it, especially not here. You do know that saying that people believing that global warming isn't real is analogous to people once believing the Earth was flat isn't the same as saying that people who disbelieve in man made global warming believe the world is flat, don't you? You know the difference, don't you?

How ironic. Answering a criticism of hyperbole with hyperbole.

How good of you to notice the irony. However if you think it was serious and respond as such then you are perhaps the intended audience after all.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #22 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I rest my case.

Two responses for one post. Hit a nerve?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #23 of 142
Thread Starter 
Well a bit of a side conversation but to the main topic at hand, the issue remains the same and will for the forseeable future. Of course when talking about the future it is alway conjecture, but my conjecture will just happen to be the right conjecture.

To reiterate, the government makes the rules and thus can always change it's own rules. The promises it makes are essentually useless because they can (and do and will) redefine all the terms of the contract.

This is absolutely why some parties like myself don't care to trust them but it is clear that a lot of people do trust the government and in fact will rely on them for their sole source of retirement income. This article hits on government measures, how they have changed and how that "silver bullet" is going to let the government attempt a stealth sort of slight default on their debt.

Newsweek.com

Quote:
To this, the Fed has a stock response. It points to the all-urban consumer price index (CPI-U) and notes that it was up only 2.7 percent in March relative to the same month a year earlier. Strip out the costs of food and energy, and core CPIthe Feds preferred measureis just 1.2 percent. When Google unveils its new index of online prices, its likely to tell a similar story.

Per the Fed and the government, there is no cause for concern because inflation hasn't really been happening.

Quote:
Sensing a threat to his hopes of reelection, the president last week called on Congress to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for oil companies and set up a Justice Department task force to investigate price gouging and fraud in the oil markets. Give me a break. The spike in gas prices is the result of Fed policy, which has increased the monetary base threefold in as many years, and a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East that the president and his advisers still havent gotten a handle on.

And the reason the CPI is losing credibility is that, as economist John Williams tirelessly points out, its a bogus index. The way inflation is calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been improved 24 times since 1978. If the old methods were still used, the CPI would actually be 10 percent. Yes, folks, double-digit inflation is back. Pretty soon youll be able to figure out the real inflation rate just by moving the decimal point in the core CPI one place to the right.

When you can keep "improving" the measure, you simply take out whatever is giving you the number you don't want to see. Fuel and food, they aren't in the measure for now. Housing costs were taken out during the bubble there as well. If you have a CPI measure that doesn't include food, transportation and shelter, then what the hell does it still include?

No amount of spin, no appeals to authority, no redefinition of terms will make this go away.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Solve the problem of the top 1% owning 40% of Americas wealth whilst the bottom 40% own 0.3% of Americas wealth and the rest will rapidly be fixed too.

And how do you propose such a "problem" be solved? If your "solution" involves force and coercion, it is doomed to fail.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #25 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And how do you propose such a "problem" be solved? If your "solution" involves force and coercion, it is doomed to fail.

Anything less than anarchy involves force and coercion. That's the very definition of law.

And... seriously...?

Have you ever done any sort of business that didn't involve "coercion", and sometimes "force"? Business is not the angel to government's devil.
post #26 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Anything less than anarchy involves force and coercion.

I believe he's referring to the initiation of force or aggression as opposed to defensive "force".

Tell us where the initiation of aggression, force or coercion is morally legitimate other than in a defensive situation (i.e., using force to stop someone that has initiated an aggressive, forceful or coercive action)?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I believe he's referring to the initiation of force or aggression as opposed to defensive "force".

Indeed, MJ1970. On the same wavelength, here. BTW, I've been looking into voluntaryism quite a bit, these past several months. I also very much like the concept of agorism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #28 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Anything less than anarchy involves force and coercion. That's the very definition of law.

And... seriously...?

Have you ever done any sort of business that didn't involve "coercion", and sometimes "force"? Business is not the angel to government's devil.

If there is a business out there that does truly does force you with violence or coercion to buy its products or services, it is able to do so BECAUSE of the government, not in spite of it.

And for the record, I am not an anarchist. I am an anti-statist. Libertarians are not necessarily all anarchists. In fact, many of us believe that some laws - such as those protecting property rights and upholding the non-aggression principle - are good and just.

I agree with much of the ideas set forth in this post from the perspective of someone who also considers himself to be an anti-statist, not an anarchist: http://whakahekeheke.tumblr.com/post...t-an-anarchist

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #29 of 142
Please show a practical example of your worldview working in a first-world country. Citation is needed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Please show a practical example of your worldview working in a first-world country. Citation is needed.

You first.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 142
^^^^^^


jazzguru, in case you couldn't tell that's anti-freedom folk's simplistic 'gotcha' retort.

These are the guys who, before we went to the moon would be saying stuff like "show me just once where that's ever been done!" (And then smugly smirk with the confident assurance that they really got you this time.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You first.

That's not how this game works. I see you learned a little something lurking and reading MJ's posts. Congratulations, you can dodge a question. I am not getting baited into those stupid anti-intellectual bullshit games. You want me to answer questions? Answer my own without this elementary school you first nonsense.

Until then, you know what you first means? Saying "you first" means you have absolutely nothing but you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 142
Don't get dragged into it jazzguru. He won't answer your questions no matter what you do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Don't get dragged into it jazzguru. He won't answer your questions no matter what you do.

Look at MJ promoting uncivil discourse. Look at MJ not wanting to hold a conversation. Look at MJ being a hypocritical douchebag.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #35 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Look at MJ promoting uncivil discourse. Look at MJ not wanting to hold a conversation. Look at MJ being a hypocritical douchebag.

Look at BR engaging in name calling and making unsupportable claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 142
I actually hate you. You are what's wrong with this world. It's not enough that you won't answer questions and have a discussion. Now you encourage others not to do so as well?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #37 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That's not how this game works. I see you learned a little something lurking and reading MJ's posts. Congratulations, you can dodge a question. I am not getting baited into those stupid anti-intellectual bullshit games. You want me to answer questions? Answer my own without this elementary school you first nonsense.

Until then, you know what you first means? Saying "you first" means you have absolutely nothing but you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

You assume too much. For example, you assume that because something has never been done before, it cannot be done. At least, that's your implication with your ridiculous question.

Prove you're sincere by answering your own question first. Then perhaps we can have a dialogue. If you're even interested in that sort of thing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #38 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You assume too much. For example, you assume that because something has never been done before, it cannot be done. At least, that's your implication with your ridiculous question.

Prove you're sincere by answering your own question first. Then perhaps we can have a dialogue. If you're even interested in that sort of thing.

I don't need to PROVE any sincerity. You don't step up and PROVE anything yourself. Want to know how a dialog starts? You answer a motherfucking question when asked and not turn it around and say "YOU FIRST, I DON'T TRUST YOU!"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #39 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't need to PROVE any sincerity. You don't step up and PROVE anything yourself.

I think you're just mad that I'm back. It's understandable.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #40 of 142
Nah, I've missed your discourse. But now you've turned into MJ version 2.0. So fuck off.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A Boomer Tries to Rub the Blindspot Away: Michael Kinsley