Quote:

---

Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?" Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ant, do you believe that the military of this country is legitimate? In other words, if you were all-powerful and had the power to instantly eliminate ALL taxes, would you give the Pentagon a budget of zero dollars? If you say no, then you are enforcing your beliefs on others who don't share them, and you are doing so at gunpoint.

You don't want your tax dollars going to support "welfarism"? Let's start with the single biggest spender of your tax dollars, and starve the federal beast of its primary weapon: WEAPONS!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
From the video:

"You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers onto others."


So much for democracy, eh? Ant, do you renounce the idea of democratic elections? After all, if *I* didn't choose the leader YOU sought, then isn't he being IMPOSED upon me?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Anyway, the property rights video, is this Ayn Rand? It makes sense. I'm sort of new to the concept of property rights, I thought it was about land and copyrighted material for corporations. I have been reading up on it. I agree without he concept, but where is this right derived from, legally speaking? I know it's largely derived from John Locke, but that can't be its legal derivation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ant, do you believe that the military of this country is legitimate? In other words, if you were all-powerful and had the power to instantly eliminate ALL taxes, would you give the Pentagon a budget of zero dollars? If you say no, then you are enforcing your beliefs on others who don't share them, and you are doing so at gunpoint.

You don't want your tax dollars going to support "welfarism"? Let's start with the single biggest spender of your tax dollars, and starve the federal beast of its primary weapon: WEAPONS!

---

the goal is to minimize the neccessity for government, and to limit its scope. IMO with the Drug War and Healthcare bill, we've essentially given government ownership of our bodies and authority over our lives. its neccessary for the growth of the soul to learn how to be responsible for your actions and the consequences, failure and risk. this is what builds character in a person, the ability to overcome challenges and become self reliant. in a free society, there would be no limits to ones success, based on your talents and work ethic. in that ideal society, the poor would be so by choice. instead, what we're creating now is a society where individual responsibilies are taken from the individual and placed on the collective, and likewise the burdens of the collective are put on the individual. and yet theres still poverty, crime etc. as it is, the government is expected to regulate away all risk and provide some kind of safety net, as a 'right', so big business and the dependent classes assume the government to bail'em all out if things go south.

now in a very localized society, if we wanted subsidized infrastructure we would consent to that, which we do. we generally agree to voluntarily contribute to the military(if indirectly). i dont believe the military should be privatized(although in some ways it is), but roads and infrastructure could be.

i dont pretend to have all the answeres, but i believe in the principles of liberty so much that im faithful there are answeres out there, that dont resort to 'have the government do it'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The very act of forcing one's beliefs onto others is the exact OPPOSITE of liberty. What YOU'RE trying to promote is the logical, inerrant right of the individual to be owned and controlled by the State or group.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman

True, but this supposes that the services of a society are available at a fair market value that the people can afford.

A year of college is the acquisition of instruction from people who have an added value because of their prior studies. The value of this could be easily calculated.

A course is typically 15 weeks and 2.5 hours per week, so 37.5 hours total.

A year is two semesters of 12 credit hours each of 3 credit hours per course. So 8 courses total.

The total hours of instruction in a college year is 300 hours.

And instructor teaches a class to a collection of 30 students on average. This means that you are responsible for 1/30 of the total labor that goes in to your 300 hours of instruction.

If the instructor makes $20/hour, and the student is responsible for materials, as is true, and their own living expenses and food, which is also true, and the space for the class and all related administrative expenses is paid mutually by the consent of the class, whose total costs is also easy to calculate.

The total obligation for instruction for one year of college is $200 plus the nominal fee associated with administration of the building.

Consider that the classroom is used for the 14 courses simultaneously over a four month period, and as a well maintained room has a market value of roughly $250. This means that 1/14 of $1000 for each course is divided 30 ways. Ergo, $560/30=$18 per student per year in administration and maintenance fees.

So, College education is worth $218 per year.

Now, when I went to college, the cost was actually $675/semester, which seems high. However, now children are being asked for one quarter million dollars for a product which, in since the advent of the internet, has no real discernible added value.

?

Sure, I could do the same thing for healthcare, but you get my point: Kaneman is absolutely correct, or would be, if goods and services were priced in a manner according to the real providers of goods and services as determined by the free market, that being the market of labor, without a middleman trying to create a second market in the demand for services, or provision of education.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

No education for everyone, no roads, no buses, no street lights, traffic lights, mail no all the little things we take for granted, no garbage pickup...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


No education for everyone, no roads, no buses, no street lights, traffic lights, mail no all the little things we take for granted, no garbage pickup...

Can you imagine the insanity of each town having to vote on what taxes they'll pay for what, then trying to hook up with other towns to coordinate with their buses, roads, schools, steet lights, traffic lights, mail, garbage pickup, etc., etc., etc.? That's some of the "little things" maybe you don't think about...?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman

True, but this supposes that the services of a society are available at a fair market value that the people can afford.

A year of college is the acquisition of instruction from people who have an added value because of their prior studies. The value of this could be easily calculated.

A course is typically 15 weeks and 2.5 hours per week, so 37.5 hours total.

A year is two semesters of 12 credit hours each of 3 credit hours per course. So 8 courses total.

The total hours of instruction in a college year is 300 hours.

And instructor teaches a class to a collection of 30 students on average. This means that you are responsible for 1/30 of the total labor that goes in to your 300 hours of instruction.

If the instructor makes $20/hour, and the student is responsible for materials, as is true, and their own living expenses and food, which is also true, and the space for the class and all related administrative expenses is paid mutually by the consent of the class, whose total costs is also easy to calculate.

The total obligation for instruction for one year of college is $200 plus the nominal fee associated with administration of the building.

Consider that the classroom is used for the 14 courses simultaneously over a four month period, and as a well maintained room has a market value of roughly $250. This means that 1/14 of $1000 for each course is divided 30 ways. Ergo, $560/30=$18 per student per year in administration and maintenance fees.

So, College education is worth $218 per year.

Now, when I went to college, the cost was actually $675/semester, which seems high. However, now children are being asked for one quarter million dollars for a product which, in since the advent of the internet, has no real discernible added value.

?

Sure, I could do the same thing for healthcare, but you get my point: Kaneman is absolutely correct, or would be, if goods and services were priced in a manner according to the real providers of goods and services as determined by the free market, that being the market of labor, without a middleman trying to create a second market in the demand for services, or provision of education.

---

DT,
I get what you are saying...My point is regardless of the cost of education, If you decide to go to college YOU should pay the cost agreed. Why on earth should the kid not going to college subsidize the loans(Gov. pays interest while in school or grace period)to the kid in school? It is theft plain and simple. Gov. taking the wages of one kid and giving to another.....Unconstitutional in my book. It's the same principle I would use against most Gov. Programs....Tax me for defense. Hell even tax me for Social security(hate it, but it is what it is), however don't tax me just to give someone else a break. CHOOSE to go to school...pay your tab. Simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:


the goal is to minimize the neccessity for government, and to limit its scope. IMO with the Drug War and Healthcare bill, we've essentially given government ownership of our bodies and authority over our lives. its neccessary for the growth of the soul to learn how to be responsible for your actions and the consequences, failure and risk. this is what builds character in a person, the ability to overcome challenges and become self reliant.

---

Quote:

---

in a free society, there would be no limits to ones success, based on your talents and work ethic. in that ideal society, the poor would be so by choice.

---

Quote:

---

instead, what we're creating now is a society where individual responsibilies are taken from the individual and placed on the collective, and likewise the burdens of the collective are put on the individual.

---

Quote:

---

as it is, the government is expected to regulate away all risk and provide some kind of safety net, as a 'right', so big business and the dependent classes assume the government to bail'em all out if things go south.

---

Quote:

---

now in a very localized society, if we wanted subsidized infrastructure we would consent to that, which we do.

---

Quote:

---

we generally agree to voluntarily contribute to the military(if indirectly).

---

Quote:

---

So you're born with a severe disability, mental health and no family to pay, do you just kind of die in the gutter or wander the streets? Not everyone is born equal, no matter how much you want to believe it.

---

Quote:

---

the governmet (sic) has since crowded out the natural order

---

Quote:

---

but I think both will have to move to smaller and smaller forms as a transition, until the giant megacorporation and megastate are gone, or at least have lost their authority.

---

Quote:

---

As to the poor getting poorer, the rich getting richer, Dumbya did more to enhance that than any other administration I know of.

---

Quote:

---

My point is regardless of the cost of education, If you decide to go to college YOU should pay the cost agreed. Why on earth should the kid not going to college subsidize the loans(Gov. pays interest while in school or grace period)to the kid in school? It is theft plain and simple. Gov. taking the wages of one kid and giving to another.....Unconstitutional in my book. It's the same principle I would use against most Gov. Programs....Tax me for defense. Hell even tax me for Social security(hate it, but it is what it is), however don't tax me just to give someone else a break. CHOOSE to go to school...pay your tab. Simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

There were fewer poor people during W's 8 years, as more people moved up the social ladder.

The Rich got richer because that's what they do. Make smart choices, continue to work hard, it pays off.

Those who make poor choices, spend their $$ unwisely, continue down the same path....

It's really no big surprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're lying again. It's really no big surprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

What about the revenue we get from taxing corporations, can we use that to subsidise higher education? After all businesses benefit from a society (and labour pool) where higher education is within reach of every smart individual.

Heads should roll

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I have to say the W years were good to me economically. Obama years also. I'm not sure if there's a logic to this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I wish someone would explain to me exactly how corporations pay taxes. Corporations sell produces that include all of their operating costs in the price. You buy the product, you pay the tax. If you only tax certain corporations like with sin taxes then you are just passing the tax burden to a smaller group of people. Those groups most effected by sin taxes are usually those in society least able to handle the burden. A broad based consumption tax is the only fair way of realistically collecting the revenue needed to get us out of the hole we've dug ourselves.

---