Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   RAND PAUL: Yeah....the party is pretty much hosed with this impossible defunding Obamacare thing. Welp, it was both a pleasure and a nightmare knowing you people   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 484
    More: Interesting, humans, obamacare, Betsy McCaughey, Louise Slaughter, deem and pass, dual mandate, Cliff Stearns, RNC Chairman Michael Steele  
•       •       •

5412 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Sep 2013 at 9:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



484 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-23 02:47:51 PM  

somedude210: Phinn: The government is not doing much at all, except taking credit for the economic productivity of others. It's what parasites do.

you have no idea how much work the public sector gives to the private sector, do you?



Everything that the "public sector" "gives," it has first taken from the productive sector, by force, involuntarily.

Therefore, everything that the government pays for is, by definition, things that people would not pay for voluntarily.  It's a perfect map of the things that people do not want to do.  Its activities cannot be legitimately counted as productive economic activity.

Instead, the State's expenditures are a perfect map of the things that people want other people to pay for.  Statists are extremely generous with other people's money, and awfully self-congratulatory whenever they seize control of the spending of other people's money.

The State does, of course, partially duplicate goods that would be produced voluntarily, in the absence of governmental coercion.  But it never replicates those productive functions, or else they would simply be done voluntarily.
 
2013-09-23 02:48:37 PM  
It'd be great if all the other asshole, moron "libertarians" (but I repeat myself) would also move to some other country. I would appreciate that.
 
2013-09-23 02:51:31 PM  

Ned Stark: Weaver95: I have conservative friends who still cannot accept that they've lost this fight. They refuse to accept that Obama won.

In what sense did conservatives lose? Their opponents adopted heritage foundation insanity as their health plan and then ran it across the goal line. Even now with only the house in their hands the most you can say is that conservatives probably wont be able to fark it up even more.

Liberals, uhhhh... didn't look as silly?


They have managed to let Obama claim credit for implementing the policy and appear like hypocrites for opposing it, not to mention the inordinate amount of political capital invested in the "Defund" campaign, which every rational, and even almost every irrational conservative, realizes is a disaster regardless of outcome.  If the government is funded it will be with a Republican house passing the bill, and if it is not it will be Senate Republicans filibustering the House Republican bill.

They are screwed, they know it, and the argument is merely over which Republican will be blamed for it
 
2013-09-23 02:53:11 PM  
Mrbogey: As a non-govt employee who is tired of govt employees doing their best to feather their own nest at the expense of the private sector, who really cares that bad economic decisions are finally impacting you? Did you think these dumb ideas Obama is implementing would keep screwing over only everyone else forever?

What are you on about?
1. What evidence do you have that govt employees are doing their best to feather their own next the expense of the private sector?
2. I really care about economic decisions impacting govt. employees. We need to strike a delicate balance in how we compensate govt. employees. Pay too much and we take too much talent out of the private sector/ pay too little and we get what we pay for, crappy govt. services.
3. Usually when I hear complaints about govt. services it is a few people saying A- govt. employees are too stupid to do their jobs and B- govt. employees are overpaid. Usually those two don't go together.
4. As an American I care about bad economic decisions affecting all Americans. The problem in our society right now is that we are letting bad economic decisions affect every level of society except investors and CEOs. As I get nearer the end of my working days I am soon going to be making more on interest of my investment accounts than my stagnated management salary. I think it is silly that I will soon make more on money I put up when I was 20 than the 50 or so hours I work every week for my employer.
5. What do "Obama's dumb ideas" have to do with a government shut down? I think that A- the supreme court, B- the American People, and C- the combined body that is our National Legislature has determined we will try out this weird compromise called "Obamacare".

It seems odd that you want to punish "govt. employees" because of a decision made (that there is no evidence is harmful to the economy, the deficit, job creation, etc) made 4 years ago by Congress.
It seems that you would cut off your (unrelated) nose to spite your (oddly compromised) face. You, Mrbogey, are either way too emotional about politics or a troll that just baited me into wasting 8 minutes.

/it's the latter isn't it?
 
2013-09-23 02:55:02 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:
It is true that government serves a vital and necessary function in a well regulated free-market economy.
It is true that too much government is toxic to a thriving free market, and to individual liberty.
It is true that too little government is toxic to the protection and preservation of the common good.


/reluctantly, adds Paladin to short list of greenish people
 
2013-09-23 02:55:29 PM  

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: Jairzinho: FTA: "...the presidential prospect said Republicans in Congress could use votes on measures in the House and in the Senate to come up with compromise legislation that could make the law more palatable."

Now that you guys realize that it's not going to happen, now, now you want to COMPROMISE? What would you guys give up that you could still obtain? NOTHING!! so Fark OFF!!!!

Actually, no. If the dems, libs, and Farklibs would simply listen to what the Teabaggers are saying, maybe there wouldn't be so many misconceptions.

The Grand Old Party is working diligently to save America. The biggest job killing piece of legislation since the days of FDR is Obamacare, so it's important to tackle that first. But, BOB and the dems have been stubborn and have only changed Obamacare in ways that benefit their cronies, i.e. BOB and the dems have not been looking out for the American people. As Obamacare is slowly forced down the American people's throats, Republicans are keeping an open mind about ways to prevent the bungled, anti-Freedom legislation from destroying our Great Nation.

A) Stop trying to make BOB "a thing". You are embarrassing yourself.

B) The GOP is working towards nothing but hurting Obama.

C) Farklib isn't "a thing" either and makes no sense w/ regard to "FARK Conservatives"

D) Even Forbes magazine says calling Obamacare a "job killer" is a gross misrepresentation.

E) What is it with you guys and all the "forced down our throats: talk anyway?


The goon lives in a Fox News world, where war is peace, tax cuts increase revenue, and cutting food stamps will make starving babies become motivated enough to crawl out of their rusty cribs to go get a job.
 
2013-09-23 02:57:57 PM  

Phinn: That's the dumbest argument for Statism in the Statist Zombie playbook.  So, the State has taken over the job of planning, building and policing all of the roads, and implements a funding system that forces everyone to pay for it all by taxation, thereby completely destroying the economic viability of any other road system, and then when someone objects to that system as being, oh, inefficient or even insanely deadly, you fault them for using it.


Excerpt of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[...]

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;



Postal mail is transported on nearly all of the public roads in the United States of America (if a location receives postal mail, a postal road is typically used to reach that location). Therefore, nearly all public roads in the United States of America are "post roads".

You are complaining about a Constitutionally established power of government. Either you object to the United States Constitution, you lack any understanding of the United States Constitution or you are entirely dishonest. Please state which is the case.
 
2013-09-23 02:59:17 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: BojanglesPaladin:
It is true that government serves a vital and necessary function in a well regulated free-market economy.
It is true that too much government is toxic to a thriving free market, and to individual liberty.
It is true that too little government is toxic to the protection and preservation of the common good.

/reluctantly, adds Paladin to short list of greenish people


I have BJP favorited and labeled "common sense"
 
2013-09-23 02:59:35 PM  

Phinn: Everything that the "public sector" "gives," it has first taken from the productive sector, by force, involuntarily.

Therefore, everything that the government pays for is, by definition, things that people would not pay for voluntarily. It's a perfect map of the things that people do not want to do. Its activities cannot be legitimately counted as productive economic activity.


you understand that this^ right here is you advocating for anarchy. You're arguing that everything the government spends money on, it's money stolen from hard working people, so we should stop the government pay for anything, thereby rendering the government useless and unnecessary...which, of course, creates anarchy.

Phinn: Instead, the State's expenditures are a perfect map of the things that people want other people to pay for. Statists are extremely generous with other people's money, and awfully self-congratulatory whenever they seize control of the spending of other people's money.

The State does, of course, partially duplicate goods that would be produced voluntarily, in the absence of governmental coercion. But it never replicates those productive functions, or else they would simply be done voluntarily.


Nope, gonna disagree with you there. While *eventually* we may have bothered with producing a vaccine for small pox or polio, the government made it free for distribution in the hopes of actually eradicating the diseases. The government often uses money to pursue areas that the private industry doesn't follow because there's no immediate payout. We could've had CERN. We could've had our own super conducting super collider. We could've been the envy of the scientific community. You know why we aren't? Because the government wouldn't fund it and the private industry saw no need for it because there is no immediate payoff. What the hell do you do with a superconducting super collider? You smash particles. Why? Because fark, why not. Let's see what happens to better understand that.

That's what government spending does right. We spend money on research that may not have an immediate payoff, but could have unbelievable payouts later on, we just don't know it yet.
 
2013-09-23 03:03:39 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: keylock71: I see all the brave, bootstrapping, rugged individuals are out today...

[blogs.miaminewtimes.com image 250x226]
Pree-zent.


The proper line for that screen cap is "Somethin' happened to 'em, man." from the 'no shirt, no shoes, no dice' scene near the very beginning of the movie. I think you are thinking, perhaps, of the scene where spicoli orders a pizza in class (although he doesn't say "present").

/don't judge me
 
2013-09-23 03:13:31 PM  
I have BJP favorited and labeled "common sense"

Really?  Well, I will give him a chance on my list in spite of that.

/"BOB"?
 
2013-09-23 03:14:14 PM  

Phinn: somedude210: Phinn: The government is not doing much at all, except taking credit for the economic productivity of others. It's what parasites do.

you have no idea how much work the public sector gives to the private sector, do you?

Everything that the "public sector" "gives," it has first taken from the productive sector, by force, involuntarily.

Therefore, everything that the government pays for is, by definition, things that people would not pay for voluntarily.  It's a perfect map of the things that people do not want to do.  Its activities cannot be legitimately counted as productive economic activity.

Instead, the State's expenditures are a perfect map of the things that people want other people to pay for.  Statists are extremely generous with other people's money, and awfully self-congratulatory whenever they seize control of the spending of other people's money.

The State does, of course, partially duplicate goods that would be produced voluntarily, in the absence of governmental coercion.  But it never replicates those productive functions, or else they would simply be done voluntarily.


You have no concept of, say, scientific research, do you?

Hint: Most resaearch needs to be government funded, because it *CAN'T* guarantee profitable results. BECAUSE IT'S RESEARCH.

And some things that may be seen as trivialities or mere curiosities today... well.

So was electromagnetic induction. Or General and Special relativity.
 
2013-09-23 03:15:29 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: I have BJP favorited and labeled "common sense"

Really?  Well, I will give him a chance on my list in spite of that.

/"BOB"?


Battery Operated Boyfriend. Poor Aristocles' vibrator has been acting up lately, and he's been really determined to tell us all about it.
 
2013-09-23 03:17:06 PM  

Phinn: The State does, of course, partially duplicate goods that would be produced voluntarily, in the absence of governmental coercion. But it never replicates those productive functions, or else they would simply be done voluntarily.


That is an extremely over-simplified and narrow view. The military and national defense is an obvious exception, where the private sector simply cannot fill that need. NASA and space exploration are another. Labor laws, and the expenses associated with the monitoring and enforcing of them, as well as Environmental laws are not something that the private sector can/will do. Immigration is yet another.

I agree with your position that the Federal government takes more than it gives, and wastes resources, and duplicates many things that would otherwise be handled by the private sector, but it is simply inaccurate (if not naïve) to argue that there is nothing it does that would not be done by the private sector.
 
2013-09-23 03:21:32 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: I have BJP favorited and labeled "common sense"

Really?  Well, I will give him a chance on my list in spite of that.


Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, but I can pretty much guarantee that any number of Farkers will completely disagree with you :)
 
2013-09-23 03:22:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Federal government takes more than it gives


Except it does not. You really need to learn about a concept in Economics called the money multiplier. For the government to take more than it gives it would have to take more than 70% of an individuals income in taxes.
 
2013-09-23 03:27:04 PM  

Dimensio: Postal mail is transported on nearly all of the public roads in the United States of America (if a location receives postal mail, a postal road is typically used to reach that location). Therefore, nearly all public roads in the United States of America are "post roads".



It wasn't always so.  The term "post road" (at the time that clause was written) meant a road that was used by the Post Office to carry mail.  The power over post roads was to designate which (existing) roads were to be used for carrying the mail.  It was only later that it came to mean the power to build any road, anywhere, as government power was decreed to be broadened, by 19th century Statist assholes like Clay and Calhoun, to suit the interests of the people who had bought and paid for men like Clay and Calhoun.

Besides, even your interpretation limits the power over roads to mean projects that are confined to facilitate the mail, and designed accordingly.  The government certainly does not exercise control of roads for such a limited purpose, but rather as a means of controlling the development, location, size and other aspects of all commercial and residential building, everywhere.  And, of course, there's also the government's involvement in the car and oil industries, which is ... extensive.  And not limited to facilitating the mail.

Besides, there's no law of the universe that says that the Constitution is infallible.  It explicitly acknowledged and protected slavery, after all.  The power to regulate the value of money was also a big mistake, and a big plus that was exploited by bought-and-paid-for political whores of the day, like Hamilton and Gallatin.

And still further, I was talking about how your ethical reasoning was irretrievably wrong -- that anyone who objects to the intelligence or ethics of the total domination by the government over road-building is somehow at fault for using roads, or anything carried on roads, even though he has no choice in the matter.  I see you have ignored that point, and completely changed the basis of your argument, now that your reasoning error has been pointed out to you.
 
2013-09-23 03:27:56 PM  

Ned Stark: Weigard: People act like taxes are tantamount to Francois Mitterand Kool-Aiding his way into their house, punching them in the head and stealing their wallet.

They understate it then? Because, consequences that enforce taxes are actually far more severe than a hole in your wall and a punch. You'll go to prison or be killed.


Someone was killed for not paying taxes?
 
2013-09-23 03:29:37 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: BojanglesPaladin: Federal government takes more than it gives

Except it does not. You really need to learn about a concept in Economics called the money multiplier. For the government to take more than it gives it would have to take more than 70% of an individuals income in taxes.



You really need to learn about a concept in politics called "bullsh*t."
 
2013-09-23 03:30:38 PM  

monoski: Ned Stark: Weigard: People act like taxes are tantamount to Francois Mitterand Kool-Aiding his way into their house, punching them in the head and stealing their wallet.

They understate it then? Because, consequences that enforce taxes are actually far more severe than a hole in your wall and a punch. You'll go to prison or be killed.

Someone was killed for not paying taxes?



If you resist going to the State's prison, you will be killed, yes.
 
2013-09-23 03:32:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Labor laws, and the expenses associated with the monitoring and enforcing of them, as well as Environmental laws are not something that the private sector can/will do.


Companies fear private lawsuits more than they fear government oversight, because regulatory oversight is often soft and the company can negotiate over its (non)compliance.  So the statement is true only if you consider the plaintiffs' bar not a part of the private sector.  If you write laws that encourage lawyers to bring civil cases on behalf of people who suffer wrongs in the course of employment, or on behalf of environmental protection groups, then the lawyers address the problems by suing the alleged perpetrators.  Legislatures can create those incentive by having provisions that say, for example, that plaintiffs can recover attorney fees if they win.

Farkers might think it is better to have a government agency enforcing labor laws than a plague of lawyers running around suing people.  But these kinds of laws (the ones that encourage Saul) already exist for some kinds of civil claims.  In those areas, companies tend to be proactive about compliance to avoid the potential liability.
 
2013-09-23 03:34:36 PM  
Well, Paul's not up for election in  any capacity until 2016, so he has the freedom to say this now without relative backlash as the slack-jawed goldfish who make up his constituency will have forgotten this slight by late 2015.  If I had to put money on it, I'd say this is a move to keep his ideological detente with McConnell from detonating considering turtle-head is facing a primary challenge from his right flank, which would ruin his 2016 presidential bid as McConnell would assuredly go scorched earth on Paul for not delivering the tea party vote. I could easily see McConnell, if he's primaried in 2014, running for Paul's seat in 2016.

Trying to strengthen his position as a bridge between the tea party and moderate Republicans is a savvy move on his part, for a potential presidential bid. Paul is only 50, which means he has yet a decade or two to build his resume even if a 2016 bid falls through.
 
2013-09-23 03:35:08 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Except it does not. You really need to learn about a concept in Economics called the money multiplier. For the government to take more than it gives it would have to take more than 70% of an individuals income in taxes.


I am familiar with the concept. I am also familiar with the fact of government waste, and that a dollar spent directly has more of a multiplier effect than a dollar sent round trip through DC, as I'm sure you are.

But on a more direct level, I don't know many people who can say that they get a value from the government equal to more than a third of their income, much less when you include ALL local and state taxes. Now you might be able to argue about all the things that government does, and you would be right about a lot of it, but to the average American, they believe they would reap a greater personal reward and benefit from allocating that 30-50% of revenue directly.

And there is a matter of degree. If an American in 1960 was taxed 20% of his income, and an American is taxed 30% today, can you point to the 10% of additional benefit provided to them? If you dropped an American's income tax by 5%, would they benefit 5% less?

The problem is that many of the 'benefits' are not applicable to the person whose salary is being taken from. To pick a random example, If you are a childless citizen, all the money spent on education public schools is of no direct benefit to you, and there is no way of monetizing what the indirect benefits might be. And that is the problem with blindly accepting the money multiplier concept when it comes to the federal government.
 
2013-09-23 03:39:15 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Companies fear private lawsuits more than they fear government oversight, because regulatory oversight is often soft and the company can negotiate over its (non)compliance. So the statement is true only if you consider the plaintiffs' bar not a part of the private sector.


Those lawsuits require that there have been laws and regulations broken. Which requires government. They also require courts. Which requires government. They also require enforceability. Which requires government.

Also, the two systems are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-09-23 03:44:40 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Headso: you'd pretty much have to be an idiot, we can all argue about how much money and how robust the  social services and military  should be done but you really have to be a dumbass to not understand that the money has to come from somewhere.

Import tariffs.
Renting out public property.
Loaning money to banks for interest.
Make all roads and airports have a Federal toll.
And finally, if necessary, printing more money.

Reduce the military to 1/10 of its current size, stop doing anything outside of North & South America.
Eliminate farm and other subsidies.
Eliminate the FDA, EPA, and similar organizations.

Having no Federal taxes is definitely doable.  Well, it was, before the national debt exploded.  Now we'd have to print a bunch of money to cover interest on the debt, which will cause inflation.  Still doable, just more painful.

Gotta have local taxes, but those aren't the same thing.  Most Libertarians don't object to local taxes, because if you don't like 'em, you can move easily enough.  Kind of like HOAs.  States are the tricky ones, since of the five ways I mentioned above, their only option is tolls.

But no, it's not ridiculous.


Libertarians are just as weird and squirrelly about local taxes as they are about federal ones. There's the thing that they immediately try to implement at the state level, which is to eliminate personal income taxes and then claim to be 'more fair' by switching over to a higher sales tax, which is always very regressive. Then they just love harvesting revenue by imposing all sorts of strange fees on different things, which enables them to portray themselves as anti-tax while continuing to stick their hands in the pockets of the citizens (and it's always the less affluent citizens that they target).

I saw an example of the weird mental pathology that allows this behavior. Two years ago a teabagger ran for city council in my city, which is an ultra-liberal place. One of the big issues was building affordable rental housing: the neighborhood of affluent homeowners was infuriated, and fought it tooth and nail, although they perceive themselves as liberal and kind.

So, this teabagger comes along and says that renters are getting a 'free ride' on city services because they don't pay property taxes. Of course, they do pay them, but indirectly. He wants to focus anger on renters, so he says that city property taxes should be eliminated, and the city should fund itself via a ... Get ready ... City personal income tax!!!

Now, you know that this guy's very fiber of his being hates personal income taxes more than anything, but he's willing to advocate an idiotic alternative just to penalize a demonized group. And if he could get his cockeyed system legislated, he'd immediately attack the personal income tax that he'd recently advocated. Because to them it's all about posturing and attacking poor people.
 
2013-09-23 03:46:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 4tehsnowflakes:

lawsuits require that there have been laws and regulations broken. Which requires government.


I thought we established above that anarchy was off the table.

Also, the two systems are not mutually exclusive.

As a policy matter it is possible for a state or federal government, through legislation, to shift the burden of enforcing some laws from governmental agencies to the plaintiffs' bar.  The agency, presumably, could then take a smaller bite from the public treasury.

/IANAE
 
2013-09-23 04:00:15 PM  

Phinn: If you resist going to the State's prison, you will be killed, yes.


Oh wow. The derp's getting much deeper than I expected, and me without my waders today. I'm outta here...
 
2013-09-23 04:10:23 PM  

Aristocles: You don't remember how BOB and the dems "passed" Obamacare, do you?


Who is BOB?
 
2013-09-23 04:12:47 PM  
Phinn, despite myself I took about ten seconds to read a random post (this one about postal roads etc.) and I just wanted to thank you for confirming to me that anyone complaining about "statism" is an ideological nitwit who is stuck living in an agrarian past despite this being an industrial world. Go find yourself some corner of ND without that evil DARPA and liberal elite university-developed internet and get started breeding with your own kin already.
 
2013-09-23 04:15:23 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn, despite myself I took about ten seconds to read a random post (this one about postal roads etc.) and I just wanted to thank you for confirming to me that anyone complaining about "statism" is an ideological nitwit who is stuck living in an agrarian past despite this being an industrial world. Go find yourself some corner of ND without that evil DARPA and liberal elite university-developed internet and get started breeding with your own kin already.


Another random snippet shows that person to be living in Costa Rica currently. So, yeah even more awkward.
 
2013-09-23 04:19:02 PM  

Triple Oak: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn, despite myself I took about ten seconds to read a random post (this one about postal roads etc.) and I just wanted to thank you for confirming to me that anyone complaining about "statism" is an ideological nitwit who is stuck living in an agrarian past despite this being an industrial world. Go find yourself some corner of ND without that evil DARPA and liberal elite university-developed internet and get started breeding with your own kin already.

Another random snippet shows that person to be living in Costa Rica currently. So, yeah even more awkward.


Wrong person. I live in CR. Don't know where phinn is.

Easy enough mistake to make.
 
2013-09-23 04:22:48 PM  

monoski: Ned Stark: Weigard: People act like taxes are tantamount to Francois Mitterand Kool-Aiding his way into their house, punching them in the head and stealing their wallet.

They understate it then? Because, consequences that enforce taxes are actually far more severe than a hole in your wall and a punch. You'll go to prison or be killed.

Someone was killed for not paying taxes?


Many someones, actually.
 
2013-09-23 04:25:25 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: As a policy matter it is possible for a state or federal government, through legislation, to shift the burden of enforcing some laws from governmental agencies to the plaintiffs' bar. The agency, presumably, could then take a smaller bite from the public treasury.


You would have to explain much better how that would actually work.

And the Courts themselves still require government and tax funding.

And I'm not sure how the economy would function BETTER by encouraging even more tort lawsuits against businesses.
 
2013-09-23 04:26:06 PM  

Ned Stark: monoski: Ned Stark: Weigard: People act like taxes are tantamount to Francois Mitterand Kool-Aiding his way into their house, punching them in the head and stealing their wallet.

They understate it then? Because, consequences that enforce taxes are actually far more severe than a hole in your wall and a punch. You'll go to prison or be killed.

Someone was killed for not paying taxes?

Many someones, actually.


... after giving the courts the finger many times and completely disregarding court orders. Of course if you can't misrepresent any and all situations you might have to adopt an ideology that isn't utterly useless.
 
2013-09-23 04:28:23 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Phinn: If you resist going to the State's prison, you will be killed, yes.

 I'm outta here...


When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?

When the law bursts in,
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting in death row?
 
2013-09-23 04:31:01 PM  

Huggermugger: Libertarians are just as weird and squirrelly about local taxes as they are about federal ones.

Huggermugger: Now, you know that this guy's very fiber of his being hates personal income taxes more than anything, but he's willing to advocate an idiotic alternative just to penalize a demonized group.


I think you may be misunderstanding the mindset of many libertarians, which holds that the most local authority is the most legitimate and effective, because it is the most (presumably) controllable by and answerable to the local people over whom it exercises that authority.

It may also be worth noting that not all libertarians are objectivists or randians who believe that "taxation is theft".

So I don't know the guy in your CSB, but even if it is idiotic from a practical standpoint, it "makes sense" from a traditional libertarian perspective that he would favor the most local of solutions for a local problem.
 
2013-09-23 04:40:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 4tehsnowflakes:

And the Courts themselves still require government and tax funding.


True, but the courts are the least dangerous branch of government.  They stand between you and the deprivation of your various rights and privileges.  They command no armies.  Ideally, they are insulated from having to respond to political pressures (as federal judges, for example, have life tenure unless impeached).

And I'm not sure how the economy would function BETTER by encouraging even more tort lawsuits against businesses.

As I said, the threat of getting sued makes companies comply with those laws and regulations for which a violation brings the sharks circling, so the public policy goal (say, that companies not dump toxic sludge in waterways) is achieved without having to set up and fund a government agency to enforce it.  If the policy is sound, creating incentives to sue and at the same time incentives to comply, all without much marginal increase in costs to the government, can be a win-win.  Chambers of commerce and the rest of the business lobby will usually oppose such measures.
 
2013-09-23 04:47:40 PM  

Mrbogey: somedude210: As a government employee who already suffered furloughs this summer, fark you TeaTards. You have done nothing to improve this country and done everything to destroy it. I've got bills to pay and you're not helping matters

As a non-govt employee who is tired of govt employees doing their best to feather their own nest at the expense of the private sector, who really cares that bad economic decisions are finally impacting you? Did you think these dumb ideas Obama is implementing would keep screwing over only everyone else forever?


Talk about 0 to Asshole in 2.5 seconds.

Jesus, what else does GOP propaganda say?
 
2013-09-23 04:49:05 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Aristocles: Jairzinho: FTA: "...the presidential prospect said Republicans in Congress could use votes on measures in the House and in the Senate to come up with compromise legislation that could make the law more palatable."

Now that you guys realize that it's not going to happen, now, now you want to COMPROMISE? What would you guys give up that you could still obtain? NOTHING!! so Fark OFF!!!!

Actually, no. If the dems, libs, and Farklibs would simply listen to what the Teabaggers are saying, maybe there wouldn't be so many misconceptions.

The Grand Old Party is working diligently to save America. The biggest job killing piece of legislation since the days of FDR is Obamacare, so it's important to tackle that first. But, BOB and the dems have been stubborn and have only changed Obamacare in ways that benefit their cronies, i.e. BOB and the dems have not been looking out for the American people. As Obamacare is slowly forced down the American people's throats, Republicans are keeping an open mind about ways to prevent the bungled, anti-Freedom legislation from destroying our Great Nation.

Who's BOB?


Gary PDX in his new trolling guise. I miss the old Gary who wasn't referred to as "Bob".

BobPDX just doesn't roll off the tongue as pretty.
 
2013-09-23 04:49:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 4tehsnowflakes: I have BJP favorited and labeled "common sense"

Really?  Well, I will give him a chance on my list in spite of that.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, but I can pretty much guarantee that any number of Farkers will completely disagree with you :)


Heh. Yeah, about that..

(favorite: fan of slavery)
 
2013-09-23 04:50:58 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: the threat of getting sued makes companies comply with those laws and regulations for which a violation brings the sharks circling


This is outright false. The short term benefits would normally vastly outweigh the long term problems except for the regulatory bodies' ability to directly penalize individuals rather than the corporation. Torts do not normally have that reach, and the disconnect between executive's individual risk and the corporate risk is causative to a lot of irresponsible behavior.
 
2013-09-23 05:00:50 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: True, but the courts are the least dangerous branch of government.


We were discussing tax-funded expenditures that the government can provide that cannot be easily provided by the private sector, not evaluating "danger levels".

(But for the record, courts are FAR more likely to do lasting and serious damage to the lives of American businesses and American citizens than the US military.)

4tehsnowflakes: As I said, the threat of getting sued makes companies comply with those laws and regulations for which a violation brings the sharks circling, so the public policy goal (say, that companies not dump toxic sludge in waterways) is achieved without having to set up and fund a government agency to enforce it. If the policy is sound, creating incentives to sue and at the same time incentives to comply, all without much marginal increase in costs to the government, can be a win-win.


Proving that there has been wrong-doing requires both damages, a preponderance of evidence in the case of a tort, and legal standing to sue for redress. Just because ACME Corp is dumping mercury into the river does not mean that you can go sue them to make them stop until AFTER you have irreparable and permanent neurological damage that you can conclusively prove originated from THEIR dumping (and not the other 14 companies up river doing the same thing. And, of course, you would have to find an attorney willing to even take the case on contingency with the resources gather evidence, and to overcome huge corporate legal teams and resources. It's just not reliable. The advantage will always be with the giant corporations. You NEED an authority that can skip past decades of legal wrangling and just STOP environmental disasters right then and there.

Also, if we bottom line it. We already HAVE that. Companies get sued all the time, and yet companies still break the law.

If you were right, no one would be polluting, and there would be no need for government enforcing anyways. But that's just not the case.
 
2013-09-23 05:01:40 PM  

Evil High Priest: (favorite: fan of slavery)


Yeah. That says more about you than me.
 
2013-09-23 05:01:42 PM  

mainstreet62: jigger: Just because this guy (somedude) feels entitled to a steady, uninterrupted stream of your money (collected by immoral means) doesn't mean that he actually is.

He's trying to work, he's not being lazy.

And what is this nonsense about collecting money immorally? Are you another person who thinks our government employees are supposed to be paid with unicorn farts?

We pay to use the service and infrastructure of our electric & gas companies. Same thing with government. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?


I think in Liberteria, government functions must need to be done by serfs.  Not slaves mind you because there is a cost in feeding them.
 
2013-09-23 05:08:57 PM  

sprawl15: 4tehsnowflakes: the threat of getting sued makes companies comply with those laws and regulations for which a violation brings the sharks circling

This is outright false.


Maybe you would accept that it discourages them, or some of them?

regulatory bodies' ability to directly penalize individuals rather than the corporation

You may be confused.  Whether an officer of a company can be individually liable does not depend on whether enforcement is carried out by a governmental agency or a private plaintiff.  Some laws, like the one that prohibits companies from colluding to fix prices, specifically provide for individual liability if certain criteria are met.  But in general, an agency has no greater legal power to pierce the corporate veil than anyone else.  Of course, the agency may have the additional leverage that comes from being able to threaten criminal charges against officers of the company.  Lawyers are not allowed to use that threat to gain advantage in a civil case.

Torts do not normally have that reach, and the disconnect between executive's individual risk and the corporate risk is causative to a lot of irresponsible behavior.

Sounds like you are arguing for weakening the protection of the corporate form across the board.  I bet you also think corporations shouldn't have free speech rights (campaign $$)
 
2013-09-23 05:09:20 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ned Stark: monoski: Ned Stark: Weigard: People act like taxes are tantamount to Francois Mitterand Kool-Aiding his way into their house, punching them in the head and stealing their wallet.

They understate it then? Because, consequences that enforce taxes are actually far more severe than a hole in your wall and a punch. You'll go to prison or be killed.

Someone was killed for not paying taxes?

Many someones, actually.

... after giving the courts the finger many times and completely disregarding court orders. Of course if you can't misrepresent any and all situations you might have to adopt an ideology that isn't utterly useless.


Yes, these days they do do a lot of paperwork before they open fire. That hasn't always been the case. And even though it is the case now, it doesnt actually mean the government is shooting people over paperwork. The whole point is to extract wealth. None of the paperwork that went unheeded during the escalation of force would have existed without the taxes being levied in the first place.

Also, I fail to see how accepting your assertion would make it nessecary to update my ideology. I'm already in favor of forcible wealth extraction far in excess of what the US already carries out.
 
2013-09-23 05:13:53 PM  
What a thread.  We have a real live example of the "keep the government out of my medicare" guy (Costa Rica's government controlled, regulated and administered mostly single payer healthcare system is great because the government keeps it grubby nose out of it), and people saying that a habitual liar like BJP is reasonable and has common sense.

I'm just really glad I stopped paying for this bullshiat.
 
2013-09-23 05:20:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 4tehsnowflakes: True, but the courts are the least dangerous branch of government.

We were discussing tax-funded expenditures that the government can provide that cannot be easily provided by the private sector, not evaluating "danger levels".

(But for the record, courts are FAR more likely to do lasting and serious damage to the lives of American businesses and American citizens than the US military.)


You disagree with Alexander Hamilton, who predicted that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch.  Civil liberties advocates mostly think Hamilton was right about this.  But as a military man, you have other concerns than civil liberties, it seems.
 
2013-09-23 05:26:17 PM  

Tor_Eckman: people saying that a habitual liar like BJP is reasonable and has common sense


Some other motherfarker said that, not me.  I said BJP had a probationary spot on my favorites based on something he said up-thread that suggested he and I might have some common ground.  If he comes out with lots of herp-de-derp, I'll admit I was wrong.
 
2013-09-23 05:38:40 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Maybe you would accept that it discourages them, or some of them?


Sure, but 'this is one of many factors' is a hugely different statement than 'this is the factor'.

4tehsnowflakes: Whether an officer of a company can be individually liable does not depend on whether enforcement is carried out by a governmental agency or a private plaintiff. Some laws, like the one that prohibits companies from colluding to fix prices, specifically provide for individual liability if certain criteria are met. But in general, an agency has no greater legal power to pierce the corporate veil than anyone else.


The last here is incorrect. As a contemporary example, companies engaging in FAR Part 15 FFP contracting are required to perform due diligence on their subcontractors' cost and pricing data. The subcontractors are free to be as open or closed with their prime as they desire, and are fully capable of claiming internal/secret/etc on whatever data they deem to be such. However, the DCAA is also required to do audits, and the subcontractor is not able to make such claims. There is a significantly greater degree of transparency that is given to the government than given to private entities. That's why the former part is incorrect; a government agency would be able to have far greater visibility within the corporate structure, which gives it significantly greater capability to go after the individual.

4tehsnowflakes: Sounds like you are arguing for weakening the protection of the corporate form across the board.


No, it sounds like I'm pointing out a dissonance in motivation. You seem to agree that there's a dissonance (and are mainly arguing the degree of dissonance and its import), so why do you feel the need to throw in utter nonsense like this and make yourself sound like a partisan shill?
 
Displayed 50 of 484 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report