Why, no, we -- traditional hard-core free market folks, don't deny it exists. It's called the political economy and its particular flavor is called: fascism.
Because to have responsibility you would have to have control. As a shareholder, properly, you have none, except on inconsequential matters that require voting.
Well, not a political fantasy since the US did originate in the traditional fashion, which is homesteading, which in turn owes its pre-eminent exposition to Locke. So in point of fact, the superseding legal principle is controlling and advancing the value of the land in question, whether here or on Mars or the Moon.
Actually, they're wrong because you can prove, and E.T. Jaynes did just that at some point, that if people have OPPOSING ASSUMPTIONS Bayesian operations on the same info lead to opposite conclusions.
In other words, priors matter. So they did NOT in point of fact have the same information. What it does mean, and proves without a shadow of a doubt, is that fundamental assumptions need to be challenged and undermined to change outcomes.
Uh no -- The First Commandment - Thou Shalt Check the Contents of Thy Mind and Thy Reasoning Against Reality. It is precisely those who don't use evidence and reasoning that are the problem. If you use both you realize quite quickly that quantum mechanics, aeronautical engineering and medicine are sciences, whereas astrology, environmentalism and voodoo aren't. The same thing goes for Austrian Economics vs Socialism. Etc Etc Etc ad nauseam ad infinitum.
And that's another thing wrong with the system. Things should be taxed once. No double taxation and no recurring taxation. No f'ing property tax or car tax every year.
But how to pay government employees? Fire them.
Re:irrational or rational response?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, the situation is probably worse, with the most productive being sucked dry. You have to differentiate between the productive rich and the thieving rich and the parasitic poor and the honest poor. The value creators and value producers are presently being vampirized by the rest, and they physically number very close to 60%.
The simple truth is that there is a net transfer from net taxpaxers to those that aren't. You might want to read the excellent article on the topic over at http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/
Personally I vote for a combination of depression and desperation. He could have simply walked away into the nether regions of Wyoming and fallen off the tax rolls like tens of thousands seem to be doing.
(a) Not a civilian target. He hit the IRS, a despised Federal Agency.
(b) He was not a random white guy. He is a member of the class presently most ignored at every level by the Powers That Be.
(c) He identified the nature of the problem correctly and chose to fight back. Good for him. Bad for.gov. And I can't blame him for his choice.
(d) Not a terrorist as he clearly wasn't trying to induce terror in the civilian population for political gain. If anything it was a wakeup call to.gov (and us) that maybe the IRS is as nutso as he says.
Except what you write is categorically false. Suggest strongly working through Reisman's Capitalism at www.capitalism.net to get the truth and not the public school propaganda version.
NO! This happens in a fascist, regulated, national socialist system where the unproductive parasitical rich abuse the system designed originally to service the value production/value creators that used to have a modestly free market.
Sure and the world is flat and 99% believed that once. Only it's not true and as a poster above pointed out, Greenland -- a vast ice sheet -- used to be settled and farmed by Vikings. So much for global warming. Never mind the pre-1940 rise when there was no f'ing way it could be AGW.
For starters the greenhouse effect is used to explain the surface temperature of Venus which IS a function of CO2. The same is not true of Earth's atmosphere because CO2 is a miniscule component.
Lastly, humans hardly put a dent in global CO2 concentrations regardless of the claims of the IPCC et al. You can prove it to yourself simply by comparing to what your average active volcano throws out every year. The checksum mentality would do lots of you AGW fans a world of good, because it would show you how tenuous your grasp of the matter realy is.
Re:like trying to offer proof to a Birther
on
The Limits To Skepticism
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But you do realize there clearly ISN'T proof of the hypothesis? Do you realize that there clearly was malfeasance? Several times in fact. IPCC released it's spreadsheet of the data only to be hosed by the fact that it deliberately tossed out the Medieval Warm period?
Even so, simple historical knowledge should convince you AGW can't be true. Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you? England, during the Roman Empire, was a major exporter of WINE.
Even so, KNOWN data from other fields, like ice cores, shows conclusively that CO2 is rising AFTER the temps.
If like me, you did satellite stuff, you KNOW that CO2 represents a miniscule IR component. It's water vapor (and thus clouds) that are much more important.
And last but not least, just a microscopic percentage change in the output of the sun will warm the Earth, as will precession and nutation of the Earth/Earth orbit will.
Except for the fact that AGW isn't happening. Except for the fact Greenland is still covered in ice. Except for the fact that the primary cause of Major and Minor Ice Ages clearly correlates with distance from the sun, tilt of the axis and power output o the Big Yellow Ball.
Never mind the excellent http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
Never mind http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Never mind http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html
NOT. Not when it means giving the goose-stepping morons of Climate Change the power to impose "limits on emissions" which means defacto control of the economy and the destruction of millions if not potentially a billion, jobs worldwide.
What majority? The vast "majority of scientists" that is always quoted are the SOCIAL scientists.
Most couldn't calculate a linear regression to save their lives.
The so-called hard science folks know (as most hard science folks know) that water vapor is the primary determinant of IR absorption reflection and then methane and a distant distant place (1-2% if that) comes from CO2.
CO2 (all you goose-stomping morons out there who want to "limit" my emission -- you and what army?) is PLANT FOOD. Methane is naturally produced all over the planet and the SEA FLOOR. Water vapor -- good luck with that on a planet that is mostly covered with water! NONE of these are bad and have been in our environment since the beginning of life on Earth.
Oh, and it's legion the number of hard scientists that scream from the rooftops that this isn't an issue. Do the google searches.
No -- again ignorance of science and it's method. Newtonian mechanics is so good we use it for most work in launch and orbit calcs. NM is the approximation of relativity's equations where the velocities involved are small compared to the speed of light.
No -- it happened because the Founding Fathers continued Locke's tradition and instituted the first *Republic* based on liberty and individual rights. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting who's for dinner. (Please see Obama's Administration for practical example -- How's that Change working for you?)
The key phrase you should have been taught in civics, the part you were not supposed to miss is " To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted amongst men."
Slashdot Mirror
Why, no, we -- traditional hard-core free market folks, don't deny it exists. It's called the political economy and its particular flavor is called: fascism.
Because to have responsibility you would have to have control. As a shareholder, properly, you have none, except on inconsequential matters that require voting.
Well, not a political fantasy since the US did originate in the traditional fashion, which is homesteading, which in turn owes its pre-eminent exposition to Locke. So in point of fact, the superseding legal principle is controlling and advancing the value of the land in question, whether here or on Mars or the Moon.
Considering that DDT was in point of fact not harmful and had wiped out malaria, I still say Yes!
Actually, they're wrong because you can prove, and E.T. Jaynes did just that at some point, that if people have OPPOSING ASSUMPTIONS Bayesian operations on the same info lead to opposite conclusions.
In other words, priors matter. So they did NOT in point of fact have the same information. What it does mean, and proves without a shadow of a doubt, is that fundamental assumptions need to be challenged and undermined to change outcomes.
Uh no -- The First Commandment - Thou Shalt Check the Contents of Thy Mind and Thy Reasoning Against Reality. It is precisely those who don't use evidence and reasoning that are the problem. If you use both you realize quite quickly that quantum mechanics, aeronautical engineering and medicine are sciences, whereas astrology, environmentalism and voodoo aren't. The same thing goes for Austrian Economics vs Socialism. Etc Etc Etc ad nauseam ad infinitum.
You do realize that tax credits cost you nothing?
A tax cut, in any form, does not increase what you pay for anything. You do realize that right?
And that's another thing wrong with the system. Things should be taxed once. No double taxation and no recurring taxation. No f'ing property tax or car tax every year.
But how to pay government employees? Fire them.
Actually, the situation is probably worse, with the most productive being sucked dry. You have to differentiate between the productive rich and the thieving rich and the parasitic poor and the honest poor. The value creators and value producers are presently being vampirized by the rest, and they physically number very close to 60%.
The simple truth is that there is a net transfer from net taxpaxers to those that aren't. You might want to read the excellent article on the topic over at http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/
Personally I vote for a combination of depression and desperation. He could have simply walked away into the nether regions of Wyoming and fallen off the tax rolls like tens of thousands seem to be doing.
Let me just point out
(a) Not a civilian target. He hit the IRS, a despised Federal Agency.
(b) He was not a random white guy. He is a member of the class presently most ignored at every level by the Powers That Be.
(c) He identified the nature of the problem correctly and chose to fight back. Good for him. Bad for .gov. And I can't blame him for his choice.
(d) Not a terrorist as he clearly wasn't trying to induce terror in the civilian population for political gain. If anything it was a wakeup call to .gov (and us) that maybe the IRS is as nutso as he says.
Except what you write is categorically false. Suggest strongly working through Reisman's Capitalism at www.capitalism.net to get the truth and not the public school propaganda version.
There is a difference between what the law requires and what happens in reality. In reality, they are severely, and routinely, underpaid.
NO! This happens in a fascist, regulated, national socialist system where the unproductive parasitical rich abuse the system designed originally to service the value production/value creators that used to have a modestly free market.
Sure and the world is flat and 99% believed that once. Only it's not true and as a poster above pointed out, Greenland -- a vast ice sheet -- used to be settled and farmed by Vikings. So much for global warming. Never mind the pre-1940 rise when there was no f'ing way it could be AGW.
Not really people..
For starters the greenhouse effect is used to explain the surface temperature of Venus which IS a function of CO2. The same is not true of Earth's atmosphere because CO2 is a miniscule component.
Lastly, humans hardly put a dent in global CO2 concentrations regardless of the claims of the IPCC et al. You can prove it to yourself simply by comparing to what your average active volcano throws out every year. The checksum mentality would do lots of you AGW fans a world of good, because it would show you how tenuous your grasp of the matter realy is.
But you do realize there clearly ISN'T proof of the hypothesis? Do you realize that there clearly was malfeasance? Several times in fact. IPCC released it's spreadsheet of the data only to be hosed by the fact that it deliberately tossed out the Medieval Warm period?
Even so, simple historical knowledge should convince you AGW can't be true. Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you? England, during the Roman Empire, was a major exporter of WINE.
Even so, KNOWN data from other fields, like ice cores, shows conclusively that CO2 is rising AFTER the temps.
If like me, you did satellite stuff, you KNOW that CO2 represents a miniscule IR component. It's water vapor (and thus clouds) that are much more important.
And last but not least, just a microscopic percentage change in the output of the sun will warm the Earth, as will precession and nutation of the Earth/Earth orbit will.
Except for the fact that AGW isn't happening. Except for the fact Greenland is still covered in ice. Except for the fact that the primary cause of Major and Minor Ice Ages clearly correlates with distance from the sun, tilt of the axis and power output o the Big Yellow Ball.
Never mind the excellent http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
Never mind http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Never mind http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html
NOT. Not when it means giving the goose-stepping morons of Climate Change the power to impose "limits on emissions" which means defacto control of the economy and the destruction of millions if not potentially a billion, jobs worldwide.
What evidence?
Is Greenland green yet or is it still covered in ice? If Vikings farmed there then, doesn't that mean the world was much much warmer than today?
Has the hockey-stick effect not been shown, what , 3 times now, to be a deliberate artifact created by throwing data points away?
Get over yourself. Maybe you should take a look at what happened at temps from the Civil War to the 1940s and then ask yourself to think twice.
What majority? The vast "majority of scientists" that is always quoted are the SOCIAL scientists.
Most couldn't calculate a linear regression to save their lives.
The so-called hard science folks know (as most hard science folks know) that water vapor is the primary determinant of IR absorption reflection and then methane and a distant distant place (1-2% if that) comes from CO2.
CO2 (all you goose-stomping morons out there who want to "limit" my emission -- you and what army?) is PLANT FOOD. Methane is naturally produced all over the planet and the SEA FLOOR. Water vapor -- good luck with that on a planet that is mostly covered with water! NONE of these are bad and have been in our environment since the beginning of life on Earth.
Oh, and it's legion the number of hard scientists that scream from the rooftops that this isn't an issue. Do the google searches.
No -- again ignorance of science and it's method. Newtonian mechanics is so good we use it for most work in launch and orbit calcs. NM is the approximation of relativity's equations where the velocities involved are small compared to the speed of light.
Geez, the ignorance.
(1) Greenland used to be green....
(2) Medieval Warm Period
(3) Rome used to import ENGLISH wine
(4) Astronomers have been pointing out *forever* that Major and Minor Ice Ages are dependent on the precession and nutation of the Earth's orbit.
(5) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf where proxy data shows the global warming folks are seriously out to lunch
Neo-Tech Twelve Visions Party -- Can't come soon enough!
A Colossus: The Forbin Project reference -- Excellent!
No -- it happened because the Founding Fathers continued Locke's tradition and instituted the first *Republic* based on liberty and individual rights. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting who's for dinner. (Please see Obama's Administration for practical example -- How's that Change working for you?)
The key phrase you should have been taught in civics, the part you were not supposed to miss is " To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted amongst men."