Advantage for whom?

Let's be fair: there IS an advantage (0.00 / 0)

Yes, if you're not in the top income brackets the tax system hurts you.

But: the wealthy people who benefit, and their out-of-state friends, will pay you to stand on the sidewalk and collect signatures for them. Trickle down prosperity!

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 20:47:25 PM CDT

Not supporting tax on the poor (0.00 / 0)

That would be wonderful if those in lower income brackets weren't taxed at all, but why is upping the tax on the wealthier a good thing?

---

by: Goshy @ Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 22:19:26 PM CDT

It's a "less bad" thing (4.00 / 1)

It would be wonderful if we got roads and bridges, police and schools without anyone paying taxes at all.

Given that doesn't happen, there are fairer and less fair tax systems.

A tax system that increasingly relies on the less wealthy - NOT the poor, as you misrepresent, but the middle class and below - while reducing the share paid by the wealthy is less fair.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:10:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If not paying taxes is wonderful (0.00 / 0)

Than why not advocate that?  Police, roads, bridges and schools get paid for by taxes because the State took those industries over.

It would be best and fairest to have those industries administered on a voluntary basis rather than by monopoly and legitimized robbery.

Before you begin typing, please think critically before shutting down and squawking "nut"!

---

by: Goshy @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:27:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am trying not to squawk "nut"...so help me out... (0.00 / 0)

Please explain the "voluntary" bridge building,road construction and repair, the educating of our future workforce, and the safety services. I truly thought I had "heard it all" but by Goshy this takes the cake, so to speak.

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:34:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you sir (0.00 / 0)

Voluntary bridge building, road construction and repair, and education are those services administered in a voluntary manner as opposed to a coerced, criminal manner.

There are a large variety of ways in which they could be administered voluntarily.  Funds for transportation can be acquired through advertising, memberships, pay as used, charity, paid by businesses looking to direct vehicles their way or benefit from proximity to major roads, paid by contracted residents near a street, or even maintained by users with no money exchanged at all.

Education can be paid by each student/student's family/guardian(s) by year, an all inclusive bundle, per class, etc...  Education can also be funded by charity, not funded at all and just served free, like say on the internet, you can get education through associations of parents and their children whereby they agree to educate each other's children.  Education can be served through schools, out of schools, homes, tv, internet, dvds, cds, etc...

Security and law enforcement can also be administered by each person paying out of pocket for those services individually, a neighborhood or community agreeing to pay communally as part of a network of written contracts, insurance companies securing and enforcing the property rights of their policy holders, communites agreeing to secure each other with out necessarily exchanging money, security and law enforcement companies offering free services to boost reputation and contracts, professional arbiters bundling law enforcement with their services, etc...

When you open industries up from the dead hand of coercion to voluntaryism you make it fair, diverse, competitive, efficient and moral.  And remember, education isn't about making "our" future workforce, it is about making educated, independent adults, not ants for the colony, a mindset cultivated by coerced schooling.

---

by: Goshy @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:12:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

cool (4.00 / 5)

so, volunteers are going to plow I 93 in your Randian fantasy land? What happens if I have to get to Concord and someone hasn't plowed their share of the highway?

If you don't like being part of a community and society at large, I suggest there's a bunker out in Idaho with your name on it.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 20:31:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yikes! (4.00 / 4)

I'm hard pressed to shovel 50' of sidewalk. Maybe someone would donate a snowblower to me?

Would they get a tax credit? D'oh, I forgot. No taxes, right?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 20:45:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

uh (0.00 / 0)

well you could pay the person to do it.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:02:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and of course (0.00 / 0)

everyone who is paid to do a job is totally reliable, always.

How would a slacker be held accountable in Randian Fantasy Land?

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:24:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a toughie. (0.00 / 0)

He'd be fired.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:53:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

great (0.00 / 0)

But how does that help me - I have to get to Concord? If I can't get there, I may lose my job.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:19:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another toughie. (0.00 / 0)

Hire someone else.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

more Randian Fantasy Land (0.00 / 0)

The highway system in our state benefits all of us. Private contractors aren't necessarily concerned with the interests of everyone in the state. State employees are. They take pride in working for everyone in our state.

Without reliable highways, many would lose jobs, lose livelihood, and how is that beneficial to Randian Fantasy Land? After all, the Randians aren't going to band together to help the unemployed. In RFL it's every man for himself.

I can hear the phone  calls, "Well, sorry boss, I can't make it to work today, the Randian Fantasy Land folks didn't plow I 93."

"Well, Johnson, that's the third time this week - I'm going to have to let you go."

"But sir, they fired the private contractor who wasn't doing his job, and they're hiring another one."

"Sorry, Johnson - I'm going to have to find someone who is more reliable."
"It's not me, sir, it's the Randian Fantasy Land snowplow contractors."

"I've had enough of your excuses, Johnson."

That's why you and your ilk will never succeed. Community is a stronger force than a small coterie of angry, antisocial malcontents.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're not listening, Susan. Transmit-only mode. (4.00 / 3)

Although I fail to see the logic in using this space to broadcast, since there is no chance of convincing anyone here, and nothing to be gained except being seen. I guess it's just about trying to get a rise out of someone, and it's not working on me. I'm all done in this thread, time to get back to work.

---

by: GreyMike @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:53:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're absolutely right. (2.00 / 2)

People don't like to be able to travel. They certainly wouldn't care enough to find a way to make roads if they weren't robbed at gunpoint to do so. Just like we rob people to feed them. Oh yeah, we don't do that.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:49:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

excellent (4.00 / 1)

Tell me, bat - did you spring from the womb and build your own little cabin, or did you grow up in a house that had municipal water, fire department, and police? Did you walk hundreds of miles barefoot to get to a one room log schoolhouse where you made your own pens and paper? Or did you take municipal school buses that traveled on PUBLIC roads to the PUBLIC school? Did you read your way through Ayn Rand at the PUBLIC library?

You and your Randian Fantasy Land brothers were happy to take advantage of the communities you lived in, and reap the benefits of a civilized society - but you want to dismantle it now, in favor of an anarchic society where only the strong would survive. Newsflash, bat - you'd wouldn't be one of the survivors. You'd be picked off in short order by someone smarter and stronger than you are.

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 17:34:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I had no choice but to use crappy public services. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I went to public school. I wasted 12 years of my life in that prison. I also drink terrible tasting public water, drive on crappy public roads, and am "protected" by police that seem to be more interested in protecting the government than the people.

All of these services are government enforced monopolies, and they're terrible. I want something better for this world. I want competition to bring some incentive and motivation for improvement.

I also think people should interact on a voluntary basis rather than using the threat of force to fund things.

Is that really so terrible?

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:02:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you aren't interested in being part of society (0.00 / 0)

by all means, take your angry, self pitying self elsewhere.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:13:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Society" (0.00 / 1)

What is society but a group of individuals?

Do you believe that controlling people through force will provide a benefit to people? Which people actually benefit from that, the controlling or the controlled?

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 21:20:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's the Unabomber doing on BH? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 20:32:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Insults. (0.00 / 0)

These are the best responses you guys seem to have. Nice work.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 21:41:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, relax (0.00 / 0)

All in good humor, troll. . . .  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:34:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm very relaxed. (0.00 / 0)

I don't take offense (even though you just called me the Unabomber), it's just that it tends to be an easy out for you guys. I make an argument and you respond with an insult rather than thinking about things and giving a rational response.

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:51:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Goshy, I feel your pain, but I made my peace with the social contract long ago. (0.00 / 0)

Some things must be ceded in order for society to function.  Anarchy can't last.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 23:10:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Such as? (0.00 / 0)

Which things must be ceded? What will you do to me if I choose to not cede these things?

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 21:43:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, for one, we have to pay taxes, (0.00 / 0)

in order to sustain such luxuries as a police force and roads; we have to avoid harming each other, because it violates the rights of others, and I think you can see where I'm going with this.

If you choose not to cede these things, I will not do anything to you, but the government will.

In order for society to function, some common enterprises must be undertaken, and if people are not prevented from infringing upon each others' rights, nothing protects anybody's rights.  Anarchy is impossible to maintain as long as people are able to organize and as long as some people are stronger than others.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 22:01:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting. (0.00 / 0)

How do we protect rights by violating rights? How do you prevent harm by causing harm?

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 22:04:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you think a person has a right to kill another person? (0.00 / 0)

Is it an infringement of a killer's right to kill to save the victim?

Anarchy, like true communism, is impossible to practice.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 23:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uhhh, no. (0.00 / 0)

Nobody has the right to infringe on another's rights. That's called aggression and it's wrong.

Now, in the last post you told me that it's important that we don't harm each other in order to protect rights. Then you told me that the government will harm me if I don't pay taxes. I'm expected to pay for things regardless of whether I want them (I want another option) or agree with them (tax money goes to a lot of evil things, like the Iraq War). The government takes this money from everyone with the threat of force. It's the only organization besides common street gangs that operates this way.

Are you telling me that we need a large organization built on the threat of violence to save us all from violence?

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:10:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Are you telling me that we need a large organization built on the threat of violence to save us all from violence?" (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I am.  The only way to prevent people from attacking other people is to say that if you attack one of us, you attack all of us, and it builds from there.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 15:47:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will protect you or else! (0.00 / 0)

This large organization that's built "to protect us" can only survive by attacking us. It's funded with the threat of violence.

It's also not incentivized to do the best job at all times because the people in this organization know that they will get paid no matter what. This results in corruption, laziness, and waste.

How about people protect themselves, hire others to protect them, or band together voluntarily?

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 15:59:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"How about people protect themselves, hire others to protect them, or band together voluntarily?" (0.00 / 0)

Yes, because that's worked so well for Iraqis in recent years!

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 21:58:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Iraq? (0.00 / 0)

Are you aware that Iraq is under military control?

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 22:57:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most of it is, now. (0.00 / 0)

But what about when Saddam fell and nobody was policing Baghdad?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 22:58:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a little different. (0.00 / 0)

It's a little different when you're under attack.

---

by: thebat @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:58:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Without deterrent, you would always be under attack. (0.00 / 0)

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 16:31:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Goshy and The Bat (4.00 / 2)

are some kind of trolls having a little dialogue on Blue Hampshire. Read their "exchange" below. It sounds like a bad commercial or something.

These people cannot stand a rational discussion on taxes. They're all over any diary on taxes or NHAC.
It's comical, really.

But the joke gets old fast.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:18:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Join in the discussion. (0.00 / 1)

You want a rational discussion on taxes? Let's do it. Or simply call me a troll, as if that means something.

All I am is a person posting on a blog that disagrees with you. I've never even posted anywhere else, so you weren't even right in calling me out. Nice try though.

If you can't stand my presence here, then does that mean that you can't stand a rational discussion on taxes? I think it might.

Go ahead, tell me why theft is moral and explain to me why controlling people with violence and coercion is preferable to letting people have the freedom to control their own lives. Explain it to me like I'm three years old.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:47:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Go to southern Sudan (0.00 / 0)

and figure it out. No roads, no bridges, no government services. Probably some coercion, though.

Or go to some other place without a functional government. Report back.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:43:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somalia (0.00 / 0)

http://www.mises.org/story/2701

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 17:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Twilight Zone (0.00 / 0)

https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...

Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. A two-year peace process, led by the Government of Kenya under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), concluded in October 2004 with the election of Abdullahi YUSUF Ahmed as President of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia and the formation of an interim government, known as the Somalia Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs). The Somalia TFIs include a 275-member parliamentary body, known as the Transitional Federal Assembly (TFA), a transitional Prime Minister, Nur "Adde" Hassan HUSSEIN, and a 90-member cabinet. The TFIs are based on the Transitional Federal Charter, which outlines a five-year mandate leading to the establishment of a new Somali constitution and a transition to a representative government following national elections. While its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and work towards national elections in 2009. In June 2006, a loose coalition of clerics, business leaders, and Islamic court militias known as the Council of Islamic Courts (CIC) defeated powerful Mogadishu warlords and took control of the capital. The Courts continued to expand militarily throughout much of southern Somalia and threatened to overthrow the TFG in Baidoa. Ethiopian and TFG forces, concerned over links between some CIC factions and the al-Qaida East Africa network and the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, intervened in late December 2006, resulting in the collapse of the CIC as an organization. However, the TFG continues to face violent resistance from extremist elements, such as the al-Shabaab militia previously affiliated with the now-defunct CIC.

Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications. Agriculture is the most important sector, with livestock normally accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. Nomads and semi-pastoralists, who are dependent upon livestock for their livelihood, make up a large portion of the population. Livestock, hides, fish, charcoal, and bananas are Somalia's principal exports, while sugar, sorghum, corn, qat, and machined goods are the principal imports. Somalia's small industrial sector, based on the processing of agricultural products, has largely been looted and sold as scrap metal. Somalia's service sector also has grown.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 18:44:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay, I will. (0.00 / 0)

You can't protect yourself.  Nobody can.  Anarchy leads very, very quickly to a society ruled arbitrarily and selfishly by warlords.  Are you more free in that situation?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 23:01:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The tragedy of the commons (0.00 / 0)

Where Utopia meets reality.

The tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good. It states that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately structurally dooms the resource through over-exploitation. The term derives originally from a comparison noticed by William Forster Lloyd with medieval village land holding in his 1833 book on population.[1] It was then popularized and extended by Garrett Hardin in his 1968 Science essay "The Tragedy of the Commons."[2] However, the theory itself is as old as Thucydides[3] and Aristotle.[4]

Such a notion is not merely an abstraction, but its consequences have manifested literally, in such common grounds as Boston Common, where overgrazing required the Common no longer be used as public grazing ground.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Taxes sustain the "commons."


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:43:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't the more standard argument about the tragedy of the commons (0.00 / 0)

that private ownership and well defined property rights are the remedy?

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:46:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is one paradigm, yes? (0.00 / 0)

See Locke.

How do we prevent stratification? Taxes ensure that "public (common) resources" are maintained. We surely have rights. Do we not have reponsibilities?

Will "land owners" hire private fire fighters and police? Will they travel via helicopter? Home school? This way leads us back to feudalism.

The only true argument is "efficiency" of tax dollar use. That comes by civic engagement. Sadly, we are coming off a long period of civic pacifism.

Anyways, I live in Mass. Na-na-nana-na.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:04:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you want to prevent stratification (0.00 / 0)

Let a market mature with out criminal violence plaguing it.  Remember, the State is an institution of privilege garnered through criminal acts, ultra-rich are a product of the system you advocate.

When they are fully responsible for the insuring and protection of their wealth and do not have the benefits of a plethora of state subsidies, http://blog.6thdensity.net/?p=... they will run into the problem of entropy, whereby it is too costly to be rich and a only feasible to be less wealthy but afforded greater protection.

Property owners could hire police and fire fighters themselves, but it would be more economic to have insurance companies insuring property to oversee their protection.

How does it lead to Feudalism?  Liberty can't produce feudalism, a system of criminal privileges.

I don't think efficiency of tax dollar usage is the issue, the issue is the immorality and destructive nature of taxation and the State.

---

by: Goshy @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:27:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh huh (0.00 / 0)

Remember, the State is an institution of privilege garnered through criminal acts

And elections.  Don't forgetting about the whole "democracy" thing, please.  

Property owners could hire police and fire fighters themselves, but it would be more economic to have insurance companies insuring property to oversee their protection.

Anyone out there want to be the police chief for my 1300 square foot condo?  Perhaps if I make Bresler a nice offer. . . .  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:35:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I apologize (0.00 / 0)

States also require a religious veneer that legitimizes their crimes in the eyes of their victims, like democracy.

"Since the main aim of defense service companies would be to protect their customers, their primary focus would be on preventing aggression.  They would furnish guards for factories and stores, and men to "walk the beat" on the privately owned streets.  They would install burglar alarms with a direct connection to their office in both businesses and private homes.  They would maintain telephone switchboards and roving patrols cars and perhaps even helicopters to answer calls for help.  They would probably even offer clients small, personal alarm devices which could signal the defense service's offices upon activation."

Tannehill, The Market for Liberty, p. 83

Due to their competitive nature, they would strive for new innovations in protecting you, your condo and all your possessions.  Enforcing law would be a profitable enterprise for them unlike the crooks that are only looking to maintain their monopoly on legitimized violence.

---

by: Goshy @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you have a CEO of America? (0.00 / 0)

As opposed to a President? You favor a business model, based on profit incentives to manage our civic affairs?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:42:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Almost there. (0.00 / 0)

Why not just get rid of the president and let businesses compete for customer satisfaction?

Or we can keep the monopolistic structure we have today, which is working wonderfully.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who would be answered to? (0.00 / 0)

The shareholders or the customers? Someone has to get the shortend.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:57:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Please explain why someone has to lose.

If you don't like a restaurant, do you keep eating there?

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Simple economics, right? (0.00 / 0)

If the market determines prices, then costs have to be minimized to maximize profit.

A corporate owned business, that has shareholders, has a responsibility to the shareholders first. The consumers are merely the means to collect revenue. The "product" is what gets shortchanged.

Wondering, what "market correction" would prevent price fixing by the private armies, police and fire services that your corporate land owners would hire? Would we have to buy a war to rid ourselves of a bad service provider?

Do I get 40 acres and a mule? Leased?

You realize we are going nowhere? We are both lost causes.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess shareholders get to buy justice (0.00 / 0)

if management doesn't act in their interests!

Woops, you need a legal system, and therefore government, and therefore taxes, to have legal entities that operate under any sort of rule-set.

What recourse would there be outside of organized law? How do you enforce contracts? By might? Anarchocapitalism would quickly descend into tribal violence.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Enforcing contracts (0.00 / 0)

DROs and private arbitration are the answer. Competing arbitration services must do a good job or else people will go to a competitor.

Do you think that the government legal monopoly doesn't act in their own interests? Everyone acts in their own interests. The government, however, has power. It's like throwing gasoline on fire.

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What incentive would (0.00 / 0)

a violator have to go to arbitration when they can just get away with the violation?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reputation. (0.00 / 0)

If I skipped out on arbitration, my reputation would take a hit and I would be a target for ostracization. People wouldn't want to be business with me because I'd appear to be untrustworthy. This might be an even harsher punishment than the arbiter would have decided upon.

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 15:52:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then, why do we have disputes (0.00 / 0)

in the first place, if everyone is willing to do the right thing out of fear of tarnished reputation? Reputation exists with or without the government.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 16:25:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There will always be disputes. (0.00 / 0)

If there were no disputes, then there would be no need for DROs and arbitration.

---

by: thebat @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 17:23:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

High costs don't necessarily mean high quality. (0.00 / 0)

Government can spend a lot of money and do a poor job because they have no incentive not to. What can we do about it? Nothing.

Businesses must keep costs low and provide a good service or their costumers will go elsewhere.

Simple economics.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:55:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really. (4.00 / 3)

One example of a tragedy of the commons is air pollution: industries pollute, because there is no penalty for doing so, and competitors will lower their costs by using that free resource.

But nobody argues that the answer is to make the Earth's atmosphere privately-owned. Not even our libertarian visitors.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:53:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually (0.00 / 0)

there are some really interesting arguments that can be made for air rights, basically ways that corporations could be held responsible for the externalities of their actions without blanket regulation that adversely affects non-polluting companies.

But most of them are only useful in the classroom, not the real world.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 16:11:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's entirely different, and opposite to (0.00 / 0)

what you were talking about.

You spoke of "private ownership" as the solution to the tragedy of the commons.

You are now talking about regulations that recognize that the air is publicly owned.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 17:50:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

nope (0.00 / 0)

not quite, the concept is that if you demarcated owners for airspace (maybe it could be associations of homeowners, or small business people, etc.) then there would be a true victim for air pollution, and that victim would be able to exact punitive revenge on polluters for the pollutants they produce.  This would, maybe, make polluters less likely to put pollutants in the airspace of others because they would actually be hit in the wallet for it.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 20:38:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your ignorance of physics and chemistry (0.00 / 0)

is a good match for your ignorance of political theory.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:34:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say that it was a good idea- (0.00 / 0)

just interesting.  I like reading about different solutions to our problems.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:06:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's complete, unAmerican bullshit. (4.00 / 1)

There was never a time when "police, roads, bridges and schools" were delivered to the public by private instead of public interests.

You may wish for such a world - but when you claim  it "used to be" you are lying.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:49:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

Who said that it used to be that way? We're saying that's the way it should be.

Explain to me why the state shouldn't have a forceful monopoly on grocery stores, then tell me why the current government enforced and operated monopoly on schools is so terrific.

Or if you think the government should sell us food, tell me where the line is and why.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:09:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Learn to read: (0.00 / 0)

Police, roads, bridges and schools get paid for by taxes because the State took those industries over.

The post I replied to.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:47:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Preemptive takeover? (0.00 / 0)

Also, I'm very interested in the answers I can get for the questions I asked before.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:54:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course, I could be wrong. (0.00 / 0)

It's possible that they did exist, and I just don't know my history. I did go to government school, after all.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:55:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's nonsense. (0.00 / 0)

You can't have a "pre-emptive takeover" of public services that have not yet been created. Takeover means something already exists and belongs to someone else.

I am only devoting minimal effort here, pointing out the lies and logical fallacies that you two are promoting. I'm not going to engage in a supposed "dialog" with people who refer to a community-adopted tax as "theft".

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:59:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Community-adoption. (0.00 / 0)

Let's picture a scenario in which there are some poor people in your neighborhood. You feel bad for these people because you care about them. You decide to ask your neighbors for money so you can give it to the poor people. Here's the catch, if they decide not to give you the money, you will drag them down into your basement and lock them into a cell.

Taking another person's property without their full consent is what's known as theft. You would be using violence and coercion to take money from people. This is not moral, regardless of your cause and how nice it may be.

Now imagine another scenario in which all of your neighbors take a vote and decide to loot your house. Let's make it for poor people again. The community came together and took a vote! It's democracy in action!

Extend it out as far as you want to. How many people does it take to make theft ok?

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 16:13:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll play (4.00 / 2)

Imagine Brasil, where the rich have gated communities and hire body guards to keep the rabble from robbing them.

That is how it is when you don't pay to keep the peace.

What you are advocating is unvanished social Darwinism. The law of the jungle gets ugly real fast. It is likely more then you are prepared to bargain for my, subsidized by the social contract, friend.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 16:35:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for playing. (0.00 / 0)

Ok, now imagine governments today and all throughout history. Here's what happens: some people gain power over other people, and power tends to corrupt. These people use their power to plunder the population, filling their pockets and their friends' pockets with stolen riches. Show me a government that has existed at any point in time that hasn't operated that way, please.

What's worse, a rich person who is rich because he offers a product or service that people like enough to pay for, or a rich person who is rich because he holds power over other people?

What you are advocating is tyranny. The law of government is scarier than you know. People don't realize this because it's what we've had all throughout history. We're used to it now. Also, people don't tend to see what happens behind the scenes of government.

People are less oppressed than they were hundreds of years ago, so we are making progress.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 17:39:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're ignorant. (3.00 / 4)

Community action is not about helping poor people - not exclusively and not even primarily.

It's about doing things for the community as a whole, and solving problems that the free market doesn't solve.

Community-adopted taxes are not theft. Whine as much as you want. They are not.

Goodbye.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 18:14:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Community-adopted taxes (0.00 / 0)

Community-adopted theft is still theft no matter what you call it.

Reality isn't created by majority opinion, and neither is morality. It doesn't matter how many people vote to take my property without my consent. It's still theft and it's still wrong.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:11:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You forgot (0.00 / 0)

the apology. I repeat - rape "humor" is not even close to being amusing. It's unacceptable.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:21:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It wasn't a joke. (1.33 / 3)

It's a valid argument that you chose to delete so you didn't have to address it.

If the community votes and decides to rape you, is it acceptable?

If democracy is always right, it should be ok, right?

Just because the community votes to take someone's money with the threat of force doesn't mean it's acceptable. It's still theft and theft is wrong.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you (4.00 / 1)

had ever been physically raped, you wouldn't use the term so blithely. Theft and rape are NOT the same thing, and your interchanging the two is NOT acceptable.

I repeat, find another analogy or apologize.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're not the same? (0.00 / 1)

All I'm saying is that rape and theft are both horrific acts of aggression. I'm making the point that voting does not make them right. They're always wrong.

You say they're not the same. Are you telling me that rape is bad and theft is good?

Now let's both step back and let that sink in. Thank you for finally showing your true position on this matter.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:00:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you have a very limited perspective, dude (0.00 / 0)

Rape and theft are not the same, and one is very much more horrifying than the other. Of course, as a man, you're more likely to  be the rapist than the victim.

Its interesting that in Randian Fantasy Land two crimes can't be bad at the same time - one has to be good and the other has to be bad.

I guess that means if you're raped it's bad, but if it's your mother, that's good?  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 17:26:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're completely missing my point. (0.00 / 1)

Rape and theft are wrong. If a town votes that one of these is ok, it's STILL WRONG.

Voting does not change reality and it does not create morality.

That's all I'm saying.

You say they aren't the same. Therefore, I read that as "rape is very bad, and theft, eh... that's not so bad".

Am I correct in this assumption or not?

If I am, then you've shown your true colors and I just hope you come to realize what that means.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:08:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you've proven that you (0.00 / 0)

have no reading comprehension skills and an advanced case of mendacity.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:15:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once again, you ignore the question. (0.00 / 1)

None of my questions get answered on this blog.

Therefore, I'm just going to say it.

Actually, I'll get George Washington to say it.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-George Washington.

You people advocate violence. You advocate coercion. You advocate tyranny. All for the supposed "greater good".

I'm trying to show it to you, but you don't want to see it. You sidestep each and every one of my arguments.

When the IRS comes to someone's house and collects money, what methods do they use to get it? How does it differ from that of any street criminal or gangster collecting money?

You say we're getting services for this money, so that justifies the violence. Well, what if I don't want the services? What if I wasn't satisfied with my schooling? What if I don't want to fund the Iraq War? My opinion doesn't matter. I'm forced to pay no matter what.

Imagine if there was only one restaurant in town because they have a gang to ensure that no one can compete. This restaurant lets the people in the town vote to decide the owners and employees of this restaurant. Every year, the people of the town must pay their bills or they will get locked up in a cell. What if I don't like their food? What if the cooks spit in my food everytime I eat there and the waiters take forever to serve me? What if I don't want to pay these people and eat somewhere else instead? It doesn't matter.

This is what you advocate.

Let people be free.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:30:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clarification. (0.00 / 1)

I'm not speaking in degrees here. I'm not comparing the two. I'm just saying that they are both unacceptable acts of aggression.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 19:16:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your comment was troll-rated into a hidden comment. (4.00 / 6)

because it violated the standards of the community as judged by the community.

Don't give you own abusive writing a free pass by blaming it on deletion.

The free market here decided the comments were unacceptable, so they acted on it.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whatever. (0.00 / 1)

I just would like someone to address the issue here.

I would like someone to explain why taxes aren't theft. You can't just say something and make it true.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:42:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Abuse? (0.00 / 0)

Also, asking a question is not abuse.

If you disregard a legitimate question because you don't like a word in that question, I think that says a lot about your maturity.

If it's because you don't like people talking about violent acts, then you should probably start opposing violence in the real world.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 13:46:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would hope (0.00 / 0)

that you also recognize that government-sponsored murder, like that happening in Iraq, is still murder.

---

by: d_mike @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:28:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep! (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad somebody gets it around here.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:21:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Budgets are fascist! (4.00 / 1)

And unless someone explains to me why not, I'm right!

You can't just say that budgets aren't fascist and make it true!

****

I think I'm done with the Cloud Cuckoo-Land this thread has become.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 14:45:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fascism. (0.00 / 0)

You're ignoring the question again, but I'll play along anyway.

Fascism is when a large, oppressive government uses nationalism to promote unity and tramples on the rights of the people it controls. It also involves heavy cronyism and a partnership between big government and big business.

A budget is a plan for spending money.

I suppose fascists could have budgets, but so does my grandma. I'm pretty sure she's not a fascist.

Is that an adequate explanation?

I eagerly await yours. :)

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 15:17:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That may be how Republicans use government -- not us (4.00 / 1)

Ok, now imagine governments today and all throughout history. Here's what happens: some people gain power over other people, and power tends to corrupt. These people use their power to plunder the population, filling their pockets and their friends' pockets with stolen riches. Show me a government that has existed at any point in time that hasn't operated that way, please.

Thank you for that cogent description of the Bush/Cheney administration.  To quote Granite Stater P.J. O'Rourke, "Republicans believe government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

Democrats believe that government can work in concert with the private sector to create hope and opportunity where none previously existed.  And we'vew proven it.  FDR's New Deal rebuilt confidence in financial markets and created a social safety net for those in need; LBJ's Great Society stopped Jim Crow in its tracks, started the student loan program, and build programs like Medicare and Medicaid that reduced poverty in the United States by half.

Our ideology works because it invests in people while respecting their fundamental liberties.  And that's why we need another Democratic President next January.    

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 20:34:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fundamental liberties. (0.00 / 0)

What are the fundamental liberties?

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:20:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ever read the Constitution of the United States of America? (0.00 / 0)

Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez haven't, that's for damned sure.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 21:40:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think I'm a Republican. Why is that? (0.00 / 0)

I dislike Democrats and Republicans equally. Uh oh! Now you have to think about things to make a point. You can't just appeal to a sense of team spirit and emotion.

Since you couldn't answer the question, I will.

All rights come from the right of self ownership, the idea that you own yourself. If you own yourself, you should be able to decide what you do with yourself and the products of your efforts. If someone isn't able to make those decisions, that means that their right to self-ownership is being infringed upon. What is that called when someone owns someone else again?

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:02:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is NOT the foundation of American society (0.00 / 0)

In fact it is the OPPOSITE. I suggest you read the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact (BTW, I am a decendent of five of the signers), US Constitution and let's throw in the NH Constitution for good measure. Your anti-social uninformed thought process is not the agreed on society the 99.999% chose for ourselves. But the good news is that you can go pitch a tent in the woods or in the desert (your choice) and live the life you want!

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:36:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who owns you? (0.00 / 0)

Who owns you and why?

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:44:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you knew these documents... (0.00 / 0)

You'd know that the Constitution doesn't create rights. No piece of paper can create rights. The Constitution is an agreement between men that formed the federal government. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights that are supposed to be protected.

You'd also know that the NH Constitution protects the right to revolution.

Also, it's amazing that you know what 99% of the population believes. You're amazing!

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 22:49:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Batty... (4.00 / 1)

1. Those documents are all acknowledge that we have a responsibility to one another.

2. Um, I am certainly aware of that, although it is nice to see you admit to being off the wall.

3. Thanks.

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:13:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting. (0.00 / 1)

How can a document decide what I should do with my life?

Oh right, it was rich white men hundreds of years ago that decide what I should do with my life.

Just admit that you're a tyrant and I'll be on my way.

---

by: thebat @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

100% LP-standard stuff for years and years (yawn). (0.00 / 0)

But, it's interesting that all but oblique mention of the privatization of public infrastructure has been purged from the LP platform this time around. Apparently it was even a bit too far on the tinfoil hat side for some of those folks. You have to go back to 2004 to actually find it in the national party platform (article III.6,to be precise). The change in the plank in 2006 can be see in this PDF from the LP archives, if you have nothing better to do.

Personally, I just can't wait to get back to those private turnpikes of the 19th century (several in NH, BTW). They sure worked well, didn't they?

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:52:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Party determines what is correct. (0.00 / 0)

The LP has been hijacked by statists, who are only out for money and power and the expense of others, like any other group of politicians.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans, however, libertarians don't need a political party to tell them what's correct.

Personally, I can't wait until I'm 90 years old and the highways look more or less the same as they do today, if not much worse.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ummm (0.00 / 0)

to make up for the fact that you would like to stop taxing the poor.

And Elwoods points as well...


Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:44:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We need taxes to pay for the services you must buy. (0.00 / 0)

In this society we have constructed around us, people are expected to pay for services, including roads, police, and schools. We can only have one option available to these people of course, so we must defend these services with force if necessary. If someone doesn't like the option available to them, and they choose to not pay for services they don't want or approve of, then they are bringing direct harm to me. Therefore, I fully support the removal of that person's assets through whatever means necessary. It's the only feasible and moral way to do things.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM CDT

please tell me this is a parody (0.00 / 0)

Yes, we need more people defending the high moral stature that is required to have heavy taxation.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

please tell me this is a parody (0.00 / 0)

Yes, we need more people defending the high moral stature that is required to have heavy taxation.

---

by: d_mike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This reeks of foul play (0.00 / 0)

Do we have a progressive here, using a sockpuppet to discredit the opposition?


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Egg on my face n/t (0.00 / 0)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 16:17:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have decided not to support your favorite grocery store (0.00 / 0)

And in fact advocate a boycott of it.  I've helped to raise their prices on you, hurting you.  I guess the moral way to do things is to now rob me to subsidize your favorite grocer?

---

by: Goshy @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 13:29:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're not thinking of the children. (0.00 / 1)

The children need education. I will do anything it takes to provide them with the education that I think they should have.

Do you actually believe that people would go out and voluntarily educate themselves and their children if we didn't take their money and require them to use the schools we provide? Nonsense!

Actually, you've given me a great idea. People need food. Why doesn't the state set up shop and require that everybody buy their food? How else can we make sure that people aren't buying the fatty foods that I think they shouldn't buy?

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:04:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

batty for sure... (0.00 / 0)

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Try again! (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 14:53:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Back to the topic at hand (4.00 / 1)

do you feel it fairs that the poorest of the poor are taxed at 4x the effective rate of the wealthiest?

Does that accurately describe the "NH Advantage" to you?

Perhaps the first step to your tax free life would be to make sure the most vulnerable are not further harmed by the "Forcible removal of assets by what ever means necessary"?


Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:55:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sounds good to me. (0.00 / 0)

I'm all for lowering taxes on poor people. I'm all for lowering taxes on all people. I don't think we should steal from anyone.

I'm glad we could agree on this.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 18:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do not think (0.00 / 0)

ad hominem means what you think it means when you whip out your wiki.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 19:52:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not to these folks: (0.00 / 0)

www.lp.org

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:07:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Try again! (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

You're avoiding the discussion.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:17:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (0.00 / 0)

I was only trying to defend your right to be a libertarian. If you are offended, I am truly sorry.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:22:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah. I read it wrong. (0.00 / 0)

That's not really defending my right to be a libertarian (I'm a libertarian whether or not I support the LP), but thanks anyway.

---

by: thebat @ Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 15:45:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what cause narrow margins ? (4.00 / 1)

narrow points of view ?

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:15:26 AM CDT

Take the quotes out of context (4.00 / 1)

They will get broader.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:50:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You two crack me up. n.t. (4.00 / 2)

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:22:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]