[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-03, 09:15, said:

Thanks, Winston! I believe what you're telling me is that I'm following the wrong conservatives.

And while I am actively seeking the liberal viewpoint on many subjects, the conservative counterarguments frequently do come from the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. who have made their living riling up people. I've seen many responses to this article but yours got me thinking in a different direction and was quite informative, and ultimately probably beneficial for me.

I'm currently examining the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" I'm hoping that we all do that. For while I frequently accuse American universities of imposing their liberal ideas on young people, and robbing them of the very same critical thinking talent that they should be instilling, I have to take a look at my own education (which includes the media I follow and the people I converse with) and wonder if the same thing has happened to me. Indeed, as I have branched out and entered forums populated mainly by liberals (or at least by people that don't think like I do), I have become convinced that at least two of my substantial beliefs were wrong (I now believe in those cases that the "liberal side" is on firmer ground on the issue.) It has taken some research and the reading of material that didn't fit in well with my current thinking but to me, the truth is much more important than stubbornly sticking to an ideology.

There are certain things I will probably never come over to the other side on. For example, I will never buy into the fact that I should be ashamed to be an American or a Christian, and I still strongly urge those people who think I should be to challenge their beliefs, to ask themselves why it is that they believe that and what it is in their education or upbringing that makes them believe in such an absurd idea. Challenging one's beliefs can be quite enlightening. It certainly has been for me.

Kaitlyn, few questions for you

1. Did you read the posting that you contributed in its entirety? If so, what, if any of the content gave you pause for thought?
2. Did you do any secondary research? Did you google Mr Casey? Did you look at any of the people that he is associated with? Did you look at his web site or investigate the way that he makes his money?
3. What do your conservative friends have to say about Doug Casey's post? In particular do they agree with the statement non Western civilizations have never produced anything of value?
4. Why is it that you are always posting such complete crap? As Winston notes, there are plenty of credible conservatives that you might be reading. Why is it that you never regurgitate anything by them? have you ever ready anything by a centrist or, god forbid, an actual liberal?
5. Who is telling you that you should be ashamed to be an American or a "christian". Don't get me wrong, America has done a lot of dreadful things over the years, and yeah, there is a lot that we should be ashamed of as a country. But who is telling you that you should be ashamed to be an American rather than ashamed to of specific acts that America has done. In a similar vein, there's a lot of different school of Christianity. I don't see many people going around critique all "christians"... So, when does this happen?

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2017-December-03, 10:06, said:

I don't disagree. I was not celebrating the end of the mandate. Earlier you said "The Republicans decided to take away health care from 13 million people" and many have phrased it something like this. But more accurately, 13 million will drop their insurance because they are no longer required to purchase it. In the first version, people are having something taken away that they want. In the above formulation, they are relieved of the obligation to purchase it. The phrasing matters.

'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.'

[kenberg]

Oh, and Kaitlyn, in 1952 I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to find Joe McCarthy on television calling Adlai Stevenson a communist. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. If it helps any, I also think people throw around charges of racism, sexism and homophobia far too easily. We could do well with less name calling.

[RedSpawn]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-03, 09:15, said:

Thanks, Winston! I believe what you're telling me is that I'm following the wrong conservatives.

And while I am actively seeking the liberal viewpoint on many subjects, the conservative counterarguments frequently do come from the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. who have made their living riling up people. I've seen many responses to this article but yours got me thinking in a different direction and was quite informative, and ultimately probably beneficial for me.

I'm currently examining the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" I'm hoping that we all do that. For while I frequently accuse American universities of imposing their liberal ideas on young people, and robbing them of the very same critical thinking talent that they should be instilling, I have to take a look at my own education (which includes the media I follow and the people I converse with) and wonder if the same thing has happened to me. Indeed, as I have branched out and entered forums populated mainly by liberals (or at least by people that don't think like I do), I have become convinced that at least two of my substantial beliefs were wrong (I now believe in those cases that the "liberal side" is on firmer ground on the issue.) It has taken some research and the reading of material that didn't fit in well with my current thinking but to me, the truth is much more important than stubbornly sticking to an ideology.

There are certain things I will probably never come over to the other side on. For example, I will never buy into the fact that I should be ashamed to be an American or a Christian, and I still strongly urge those people who think I should be to challenge their beliefs, to ask themselves why it is that they believe that and what it is in their education or upbringing that makes them believe in such an absurd idea. Challenging one's beliefs can be quite enlightening. It certainly has been for me.

When you demonstrate the moral courage to embrace a viewpoint because of its accuracy and veracity rather than blindly submitting to tribal dogma, you make the journey along the yellow brick road more enlightening and entertaining.

I admire your philosophical examination and your glittering ruby shoes.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-03, 09:15, said:

Thanks, Winston! I believe what you're telling me is that I'm following the wrong conservatives.

And while I am actively seeking the liberal viewpoint on many subjects, the conservative counterarguments frequently do come from the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. who have made their living riling up people. I've seen many responses to this article but yours got me thinking in a different direction and was quite informative, and ultimately probably beneficial for me.

I'm currently examining the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" I'm hoping that we all do that. For while I frequently accuse American universities of imposing their liberal ideas on young people, and robbing them of the very same critical thinking talent that they should be instilling, I have to take a look at my own education (which includes the media I follow and the people I converse with) and wonder if the same thing has happened to me. Indeed, as I have branched out and entered forums populated mainly by liberals (or at least by people that don't think like I do), I have become convinced that at least two of my substantial beliefs were wrong (I now believe in those cases that the "liberal side" is on firmer ground on the issue.) It has taken some research and the reading of material that didn't fit in well with my current thinking but to me, the truth is much more important than stubbornly sticking to an ideology.

There are certain things I will probably never come over to the other side on. For example, I will never buy into the fact that I should be ashamed to be an American or a Christian, and I still strongly urge those people who think I should be to challenge their beliefs, to ask themselves why it is that they believe that and what it is in their education or upbringing that makes them believe in such an absurd idea. Challenging one's beliefs can be quite enlightening. It certainly has been for me.

Thank you.

Probably why I have an affinity for your position is that I am pretty certain from your bridge posts that you are intelligent, and I have been pretty close in the past to having "been in your shoes". Back in '94 I thought Newt Gingrich and the Republican party were right. It took a few years for me to learn I was completely wrong - and I did it the same way you apparently are, and I commend you for your search.

Along with the article from The Atlantic I suggested, there was a piece of it addressed to me, as well, and that was that non-right wingers (like myself) often misleadingly condemn all on the right by talking about a few crazies - Rush, Hannity, etc. I realized I do this myself. But I do not mean to condemn all conservative ideas or positions as wrong. What I learned for myself was this: I start out with my beliefs with the proviso that I may be wrong. This keeps me open to compelling arguments and changing data. Listening to known propaganda merchants does not mean one has an open mind - there are some far left writers I would not suggest, either, as they have to be taken with a grain of salt to fathom worthwhile from worthless commentary and story lines.

So much of good interpersonal communications has to do with the understanding of the meaning of words - or more to the point - how each of us understands the meaning. I can say "yellow", meaning a near green color, and you hear an "orangish" yellow and neither of us are wrong - but we are mis-communicating.

Few I no of - but some do, to be fair - want you to disavow your nationality or faith. I think Richard (Hrothgar) suggested this in one of his posts by wondering where you are hearing of this persecution of Christians - is it possible that what you hear is only coming from right-wing peseonalities telling you how what "liberals" are like? (To be fair, there are some active atheists who attack Christians - but they also attack Islamists and other faiths). Personally, all I want people to do is keep their religious beliefs away from politics and not allow personal faith to interfere with the secular government that is necessary for our freedoms to endure.

Anyway, I wish you good luck and am impressed you are self-searching your beliefs.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-02, 18:20, said:

By your logic, every tax in the world is extortion. It is true that many might think that way when they open their pay packets but that does not make it the truth.

In a similar vein, if I am aware that someone I know has committed a felony and not only choose not to report it but also actively attempt to derail the investigation, that is going to land me in some very hot water. When the POTUS does it, is it just carrying out the duties of the Executive branch?

You have to consider the source: no need to engage a child's argument.

[Winstonm]

Ebenezer Grassley speaks:

Quote

Sen. Chuck Grassley defended his party's tax plan this weekend saying that plans to reduce or eliminate the estate tax mean that people will use their money more wisely.

"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Des Moines Register, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Translation: Rich people are deserving; poor people would be rich if they weren't such lazy scum.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-03, 08:36, said:

Thanks for the compassion, but I am not an anarchist, but a limited government libertarian.

Even most ardent libertarians admit that there are some appropriate activities of government: police, fire fighting, defense, etc. And if you want the services of this limited government, it needs revenue to pay for it .

Paying taxes for the government we have is no more "extortion" than being forced to pay for the food you eat-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there a bit of a difference, since you can choose what food to buy, and thus control how much you pay for it. We don't provide a way for you to opt out of protection by police, and the Fire Department will put out a fire at your home even if you're willing to let it burn (this shouldn't be a violation of libertarian ideals, since unless it's in an isolated location, there's danger to the neighboring homes). Like it or not, being part of a society means conforming to the social contract, which includes that we're all in this together and have to pay our fair shares of the costs.

That's why advocating against taxes in general is considered anarchist, not merely libertarian.

[cloa513]

 barmar, on 2017-December-04, 00:03, said:

Even most ardent libertarians admit that there are some appropriate activities of government: police, fire fighting, defense, etc. And if you want the services of this limited government, it needs revenue to pay for it .

Paying taxes for the government we have is no more "extortion" than being forced to pay for the food you eat-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there a bit of a difference, since you can choose what food to buy, and thus control how much you pay for it. We don't provide a way for you to opt out of protection by police, and the Fire Department will put out a fire at your home even if you're willing to let it burn (this shouldn't be a violation of libertarian ideals, since unless it's in an isolated location, there's danger to the neighboring homes). Like it or not, being part of a society means conforming to the social contract, which includes that we're all in this together and have to pay our fair shares of the costs.

That's why advocating against taxes in general is considered anarchist, not merely libertarian.

You ignore that you could structure the payments in such way as to directly cover such services rather general taxes. There are property levies and insurance levies covering some of that.

[Zelandakh]

 cloa513, on 2017-December-04, 01:54, said:

You ignore that you could structure the payments in such way as to directly cover such services rather general taxes. There are property levies and insurance levies covering some of that.

Calling something a levy, provision or payment does not make it any less a tax. If ldrews genuinely believes it is possible to have a society with solid defence, education, health, law & order, etc but without a single tax then I would like to hear his proposal.

If not, I notice he still has not commented on the apparent admission from DT that he knew of Flynn's felony at the time of trying to prevent the investigation. Perhaps he would prefer to take up that theme.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-04, 03:33, said:

If not, I notice he still has not commented on the apparent admission from DT that he knew of Flynn's felony at the time of trying to prevent the investigation. Perhaps he would prefer to take up that theme.

That wasn't Trump, it was Trump's LAWYER

Lawyers frequently compose tweets confessing to crimes and post them from their client's twitter feed.
Its one of the first things that they teach you at law school...

[RedSpawn]

 barmar, on 2017-December-04, 00:03, said:

Even most ardent libertarians admit that there are some appropriate activities of government: police, fire fighting, defense, etc. And if you want the services of this limited government, it needs revenue to pay for it .

Paying taxes for the government we have is no more "extortion" than being forced to pay for the food you eat-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there a bit of a difference, since you can choose what food to buy, and thus control how much you pay for it. We don't provide a way for you to opt out of protection by police, and the Fire Department will put out a fire at your home even if you're willing to let it burn (this shouldn't be a violation of libertarian ideals, since unless it's in an isolated location, there's danger to the neighboring homes). Like it or not, being part of a society means conforming to the social contract, which includes that we're all in this together and have to pay our fair shares of the costs.

That's why advocating against taxes in general is considered anarchist, not merely libertarian.

Agreed. Public goods fall under the direct authority and jurisdiction of government. These type of goods and services benefit the greater society and are part of a social contract that should not fall prey to the whims and follies of private enterprise.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-04, 03:47, said:

That wasn't Trump, it was Trump's LAWYER

Lawyers frequently compose tweets confessing to crimes and post them from their client's twitter feed.
Its one of the first things that they teach you at law school...

LOL. And the whole Mueller thing is really about Clinton anyway, obviously.

Fox is also highlighting the "fake news" angle with this being their #1 hot topic video. Clearly these are the two biggest political stories of the day!

Strangely I could find no mention at all of Kushner's latest omission though.

Back in the real (non-Fox) world, it seems to me that the next question to answer is whether Mueller is going after Kushner or Pence next. Conventional wisdom suggests Kushner but this article from The Inquisitor makes an interesting case for Pence's exposure. What does seem clear is that Mueller's team is making some real progress now. Just how high up the pole they can get is now a very real topic for discussion.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-December-04, 00:03, said:

Even most ardent libertarians admit that there are some appropriate activities of government: police, fire fighting, defense, etc. And if you want the services of this limited government, it needs revenue to pay for it .

Paying taxes for the government we have is no more "extortion" than being forced to pay for the food you eat-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there a bit of a difference, since you can choose what food to buy, and thus control how much you pay for it. We don't provide a way for you to opt out of protection by police, and the Fire Department will put out a fire at your home even if you're willing to let it burn (this shouldn't be a violation of libertarian ideals, since unless it's in an isolated location, there's danger to the neighboring homes). Like it or not, being part of a society means conforming to the social contract, which includes that we're all in this together and have to pay our fair shares of the costs.

That's why advocating against taxes in general is considered anarchist, not merely libertarian.

I agree, there are limited functions of government that need to be paid for. The issue is how to generate the revenue. User fees (you can choose not to use the service), transaction fees (you can choose not to do the transaction), etc. But I will concede that their are probably a few items that will require taxes. To that extent I join in the immorality of using force, so indeed I am not untainted. However, I strongly advocate minimization of such, not expansion.

There are many examples in the United States of common services being provided by private companies on a subscription basis, include fire protection, police protection, etc. But we are lazy and it is so much easier to just use the force of government to collect the revenues. As in the Godfather, the government makes us an offer that we can't refuse. Either our signature goes on the agreement or our brains.

But for me, the bottom line is that the use of threat of force to collect taxes is extortion. You can try to dissemble or put lipstick on it, but it is still extortion. It may be agreed to by a majority of the voters, but it is still extortion. It may be a necessary method to make society work, but it is still extortion.

[sharon j]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-04, 08:33, said:

I agree, there are limited functions of government that need to be paid for. The issue is how to generate the revenue. User fees (you can choose not to use the service), transaction fees (you can choose not to do the transaction), etc. But I will concede that their are probably a few items that will require taxes. To that extent I join in the immorality of using force, so indeed I am not untainted. However, I strongly advocate minimization of such, not expansion.

There are many examples in the United States of common services being provided by private companies on a subscription basis, include fire protection, police protection, etc. But we are lazy and it is so much easier to just use the force of government to collect the revenues. As in the Godfather, the government makes us an offer that we can't refuse. Either our signature goes on the agreement or our brains.

But for me, the bottom line is that the use of threat of force to collect taxes is extortion. You can try to dissemble or put lipstick on it, but it is still extortion. It may be agreed to by a majority of the voters, but it is still extortion. It may be a necessary method to make society work, but it is still extortion.

The fire department in my community of almost 100,000 is a private company. The problem we have is subscribing to the service is optional. That doesn't mean they won't put out a house fire if the owner hasn't paid the fee. It means they can charge the owner by the hour for their service. So naturally many "free loaders" roll the dice and don't subscribe. Those of us who do subscribe, pay higher and higher fees to keep the service available. If we all decided not to pay then there would be no fire department at all.

[barmar]

 sharon j, on 2017-December-04, 10:41, said:

The fire department in my community of almost 100,000 is a private company. The problem we have is subscribing to the service is optional. That doesn't mean they won't put out a house fire if the owner hasn't paid the fee. It means they can charge the owner by the hour for their service. So naturally many "free loaders" roll the dice and don't subscribe. Those of us who do subscribe, pay higher and higher fees to keep the service available. If we all decided not to pay then there would be no fire department at all.

Isn't this kind of like how health care works? You can decide not to have health insurance, but emergency rooms still have to treat you. And if you can't afford to pay, the public foots the bill. Where does that money come from? Higher fees to everyone else.

It's all a zero-sum game, but there are economies of scale that occur when everyone participates (similar to the way insurance works -- lots of people pay affordable premiums, a small number have disasters that require payouts).

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2017-December-04, 00:03, said:

Even most ardent libertarians admit that there are some appropriate activities of government: police, fire fighting, defense, etc. And if you want the services of this limited government, it needs revenue to pay for it .

Paying taxes for the government we have is no more "extortion" than being forced to pay for the food you eat-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there a bit of a difference, since you can choose what food to buy, and thus control how much you pay for it. We don't provide a way for you to opt out of protection by police, and the Fire Department will put out a fire at your home even if you're willing to let it burn (this shouldn't be a violation of libertarian ideals, since unless it's in an isolated location, there's danger to the neighboring homes). Like it or not, being part of a society means conforming to the social contract, which includes that we're all in this together and have to pay our fair shares of the costs.

That's why advocating against taxes in general is considered anarchist, not merely libertarian.

Just about everyone is a limited government libertarian when we are 13 or so - but we outgrow such nonsense.

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-03, 21:52, said:

Ebenezer Grassley speaks:



Translation: Rich people are deserving; poor people would be rich if they weren't such lazy scum.

I wonder how he thinks women would have any money otherwise. Perhaps he believes they shouldn't have any at all.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-04, 11:02, said:

Just about everyone is a limited government libertarian when we are 13 or so - but we outgrow such nonsense.

Probably much like you outgrew your Sunday school morality. It is evident in your advocacy/acceptance of the use of force/threat of force on your fellow citizens to promote your view of the way things should be.

[ldrews]

 sharon j, on 2017-December-04, 10:41, said:

The fire department in my community of almost 100,000 is a private company. The problem we have is subscribing to the service is optional. That doesn't mean they won't put out a house fire if the owner hasn't paid the fee. It means they can charge the owner by the hour for their service. So naturally many "free loaders" roll the dice and don't subscribe. Those of us who do subscribe, pay higher and higher fees to keep the service available. If we all decided not to pay then there would be no fire department at all.

I read of a situation in, I think, Kentucky where a rural area was provided fire protections service on a subscription basis by the nearest city. A homeowner chose not to subscribe, his house caught fire, the fire department responded, checked that no one's life was at risk, and then calmly stood by while the house burned to the ground, protecting the houses of their nearby subscribers.

Sounded appropriate to me.