Me talking to Rush today

[TimeLady Victorious]

People who don't like anarchy are the ones who gave "anarchists" a bad name. The rest of us noticed that the bomb throwers are generally Socialists.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism, deal with it.

too bad most of them are socialists who like wearing black, and cry whenever some govt program starts making cuts. sure are anti statists all right

I know, people deserve to starve. Then the useless will die, and therefore we'll be rid of the surplus population.

So you see nothing immoral about confiscating money -- with the implied threat of deadly force for non-compliance -- and using a fraction of it to feed people, and the rest disappearing into the bureaucracy? A few years ago, somebody had figured out that out of every dollar confiscated, 28 cents got to the welfare recipients. Aside from the immorality of it all, that's ridiculous.

I see nothing immoral about it in the slightest. I do see something wrong with the immense bureaucracy, though.

[Branlin]

People who don't like anarchy are the ones who gave "anarchists" a bad name. The rest of us noticed that the bomb throwers are generally Socialists.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism, deal with it.

too bad most of them are socialists who like wearing black, and cry whenever some govt program starts making cuts. sure are anti statists all right

I know, people deserve to starve. Then the useless will die, and therefore we'll be rid of the surplus population.

So you see nothing immoral about confiscating money -- with the implied threat of deadly force for non-compliance -- and using a fraction of it to feed people, and the rest disappearing into the bureaucracy? A few years ago, somebody had figured out that out of every dollar confiscated, 28 cents got to the welfare recipients. Aside from the immorality of it all, that's ridiculous.

I see nothing immoral about it in the slightest. I do see something wrong with the immense bureaucracy, though.

Isn't taking money (property) away from people against their will, by definition, theft?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

People who don't like anarchy are the ones who gave "anarchists" a bad name. The rest of us noticed that the bomb throwers are generally Socialists.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism, deal with it.

too bad most of them are socialists who like wearing black, and cry whenever some govt program starts making cuts. sure are anti statists all right

I know, people deserve to starve. Then the useless will die, and therefore we'll be rid of the surplus population.

So you see nothing immoral about confiscating money -- with the implied threat of deadly force for non-compliance -- and using a fraction of it to feed people, and the rest disappearing into the bureaucracy? A few years ago, somebody had figured out that out of every dollar confiscated, 28 cents got to the welfare recipients. Aside from the immorality of it all, that's ridiculous.

I see nothing immoral about it in the slightest. I do see something wrong with the immense bureaucracy, though.

Isn't taking money (property) away from people against their will, by definition, theft?

Most people don't object to it as theft.

[Branlin]

People who don't like anarchy are the ones who gave "anarchists" a bad name. The rest of us noticed that the bomb throwers are generally Socialists.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism, deal with it.

too bad most of them are socialists who like wearing black, and cry whenever some govt program starts making cuts. sure are anti statists all right

I know, people deserve to starve. Then the useless will die, and therefore we'll be rid of the surplus population.

So you see nothing immoral about confiscating money -- with the implied threat of deadly force for non-compliance -- and using a fraction of it to feed people, and the rest disappearing into the bureaucracy? A few years ago, somebody had figured out that out of every dollar confiscated, 28 cents got to the welfare recipients. Aside from the immorality of it all, that's ridiculous.

I see nothing immoral about it in the slightest. I do see something wrong with the immense bureaucracy, though.

Isn't taking money (property) away from people against their will, by definition, theft?

Most people don't object to it as theft.

I know, many people willingly pay, thinking that if they didn't pay taxes, there would be no roads, garbage collection, economic freedom (capitalism) would destroy us without the benevolent hand of government controlling it, etc. We've all been conditioned from birth to believe this.

But none of that changes the point that taking people's property against their will is theft. If the Mafia does it, it's theft. If the gov't does it, it's theft. Who signs your paycheck is irrelevant.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Isn't taking money (property) away from people against their will, by definition, theft?

Here in this place called real life, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I know, many people willingly pay, thinking that if they didn't pay taxes, there would be no roads, garbage collection, economic freedom (capitalism) would destroy us without the benevolent hand of government controlling it, etc. We've all been conditioned from birth to believe this.

But none of that changes the point that taking people's property against their will is theft. If the Mafia does it, it's theft. If the gov't does it, it's theft. Who signs your paycheck is irrelevant.

Capitalism has given us such things as Coca Cola taking over the water supply of small third-world countries and jacking up the prices to unspeakable levels. And there are those who respect the Mafia as a better government than the US government. Governments are just collections of people, after all, and if enough people leave or rise up in armed rebellion the government stops working.

You can bitch about government contracts not being "free market" all you want, but the directors and managers of the company had a choice not to do something like that.

[Branlin]

Capitalism has given us such things as Coca Cola taking over the water supply of small third-world countries and jacking up the prices to unspeakable levels.

Jacking up the prices of what?

And there are those who respect the Mafia as a better government than the US government. Governments are just collections of people, after all, and if enough people leave or rise up in armed rebellion the government stops working.

Oh I agree, the Mafia is at least as good as government. They both use extortion, and they both use violence -- or the threat of it -- for those who rebel.

Morally, the two entities are indistinguishable.

Legally, they are quite different. Government owns the legislature and the courts. So they get to make the rules, and they have a monopoly on the interpretation of those rules under which it, and everyone else, must operate. The Mafia has none of those luxuries.

And you are quite right about rebellion. Even brutal dictatorships only survive with the consent of the ruled. There is always a huge multiple of people being ruled vs. those ruling. Any government can be overthrown if enough people get pissed. Check the history of Romania around 1989 and what happened to its leader, Ceaucescu and his wife.

You can bitch about government contracts not being "free market" all you want, but the directors and managers of the company had a choice not to do something like that.

After reading that three times, I have no idea what your point is.

[TimeLady Victorious]

After reading that three times, I have no idea what your point is.

Because apparently I'm supposed to think that private corporations are somehow completely moral and don't do everything they can in pursuit of profit, and won't try to form anything like an oligopoly in a completely anarchic society.

[Branlin]

After reading that three times, I have no idea what your point is.

Because apparently I'm supposed to think that private corporations are somehow completely moral and don't do everything they can in pursuit of profit, and won't try to form anything like an oligopoly in a completely anarchic society.

I'm still not clear at what you're driving at, but I'll run with this:

Why do you defenders of government think there is something "wrong" with the pursuit of profit?

Without that incentive, you would likely not have:

Electricity
Cars
Phones
Computers
Running hot and cold water
Indoor toilets
Central heat
Refrigerators
Cheap food
Cable TV
High speed internet

the list is, well, endless, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. It is a parasite, and exists to drain and destroy resources from its host -- the people. And beyond being simply a parasite, it exists to coerce, plunder, destroy, and kill.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Why do you defenders of government think there is something "wrong" with the pursuit of profit?

When you're screwing people out of shitloads of cash then it's wrong. See: companies taking over water supplies of shithole third-world nations. Yes, you can make the argument that they wouldn't have the government monopoly in a "free" market, but they also did what they did in the pursuit of pure profit. And the Internet is an invention largely of the US government.

the list is, well, endless, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. It is a parasite, and exists to drain and destroy resources from its host -- the people. And beyond being simply a parasite, it exists to coerce, plunder, destroy, and kill.

Really, because that's what I think of a good deal of the major multinational corporations.

[Branlin]

Why do you defenders of government think there is something "wrong" with the pursuit of profit?

When you're screwing people out of shitloads of cash then it's wrong. See: companies taking over water supplies of shithole third-world nations.

I have no idea what or where you're talking about.

Yes, you can make the argument that they wouldn't have the government monopoly in a "free" market, but they also did what they did in the pursuit of pure profit. And the Internet is an invention largely of the US government.

Who the fuck is "they"?

LOL, yes, we all know Al Gore invented the internet. But as it exists today, several decades later and some geometric multiple in size of what it started out as, if gov't was still running it access would cost us probably $200 a month or more, and it would be down 90% of the time.

the list is, well, endless, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. It is a parasite, and exists to drain and destroy resources from its host -- the people. And beyond being simply a parasite, it exists to coerce, plunder, destroy, and kill.

Really, because that's what I think of a good deal of the major multinational corporations.

Heh, ok, in the last century alone, governments killed around 180 million people -- NOT counting wars. How many did your evil corporations kill? And how do corporations drain resources from citizens?

Well this is all quite amusing. On TG day I found out that my extremely liberal 63 year-old sister has, apparently, about reached the end of her rope with government. Mind you, her and her husband are so far to the left that in 1994 they considered moving out of NYS because Pataki -- an evil Republican -- had won the governership.

She said they are not going to fly anymore because of the TSA, and, as I read between the lines, she is disillusioned with Obama. They are (were) still very idealistic (and naive, IMO) and I'm pretty sure they thought Obama was going to "fix" everything.

Also, she is an auditor at a small local bank that is solvent and in good shape, and they are getting buried with more government regulations. She didn't seem to be too happy about that.

And here is the twist: she is more of a capitalist than you are, and you post on a site devoted (I think) to freedom, but with your hatred of capitalism and defense of government you are to the left of my sister.

I am very curious, and of course please don't feel obligated to answer if you choose not to:

1) How old are you?

2) Are you a government employee?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Why do you defenders of government think there is something "wrong" with the pursuit of profit?

When you're screwing people out of shitloads of cash then it's wrong. See: companies taking over water supplies of shithole third-world nations.

I have no idea what or where you're talking about.

Yes, you can make the argument that they wouldn't have the government monopoly in a "free" market, but they also did what they did in the pursuit of pure profit. And the Internet is an invention largely of the US government.

Who the fuck is "they"?

LOL, yes, we all know Al Gore invented the internet. But as it exists today, several decades later and some geometric multiple in size of what it started out as, if gov't was still running it access would cost us probably $200 a month or more, and it would be down 90% of the time.

the list is, well, endless, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. It is a parasite, and exists to drain and destroy resources from its host -- the people. And beyond being simply a parasite, it exists to coerce, plunder, destroy, and kill.

Really, because that's what I think of a good deal of the major multinational corporations.

Heh, ok, in the last century alone, governments killed around 180 million people -- NOT counting wars. How many did your evil corporations kill? And how do corporations drain resources from citizens?

Well this is all quite amusing. On TG day I found out that my extremely liberal 63 year-old sister has, apparently, about reached the end of her rope with government. Mind you, her and her husband are so far to the left that in 1994 they considered moving out of NYS because Pataki -- an evil Republican -- had won the governership.

The Congo Free State killed around 10 million people. At the time, half of the population of the Congo.

Thats strange, because according to you, a corporate government is supposed to be beneficial to the people under it.

[Branlin]

The Congo Free State killed around 10 million people. At the time, half of the population of the Congo.

So some coercive government murders 10 million people. What else is new?

Thats strange, because according to you, a corporate government is supposed to be beneficial to the people under it.

WTF is a "corporate government"?

Corporation: A private or public company that provides a product or service for a profit.

Government:  A group of people assembled for the purpose of extracting wealth and exerting power over others within a geographic area. They demand a monopoly on the making of rules and a monopoly on the use of violence for any purpose.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

The Congo Free State killed around 10 million people. At the time, half of the population of the Congo.

So some coercive government murders 10 million people. What else is new?

Thats strange, because according to you, a corporate government is supposed to be beneficial to the people under it.

WTF is a "corporate government"?

Corporation: A private or public company that provides a product or service for a profit.

Government:  A group of people assembled for the purpose of extracting wealth and exerting power over others within a geographic area. They demand a monopoly on the making of rules and a monopoly on the use of violence for any purpose.

The Congo Free State was a corporation that in many ways acted like a government.

[Branlin]

The Congo Free State killed around 10 million people. At the time, half of the population of the Congo.

So some coercive government murders 10 million people. What else is new?

Thats strange, because according to you, a corporate government is supposed to be beneficial to the people under it.

WTF is a "corporate government"?

Corporation: A private or public company that provides a product or service for a profit.

Government:  A group of people assembled for the purpose of extracting wealth and exerting power over others within a geographic area. They demand a monopoly on the making of rules and a monopoly on the use of violence for any purpose.

The Congo Free State was a corporation that in many ways acted like a government.

If it was "corporate," or had ties to a corporation, then it was a fascist government. As WWII proved, fascism is every bit as dangerous to life, limb, or liberty as any other authoritarian government.

So what are we arguing about?

[Peppermint Pig]

At some point, TimeLady, your notion of a noble cause will be impossible to sustain, no matter how much you try to convince others that your emotional argument is sufficient to produce a solution. The proportion of your discontent will correspond to the lengths by which you ignore individuality to promote the redistribution of resources under abstracted conditions without a consistent ethic.

What I think probably doesn't matter to you, but you should know I don't appreciate the idea of a bureaucrat telling me how and when to help others, or a politician using demonizing rhetoric to charge an illiterate voting public to buy into the idea that you can 'tax the rich' to their own self betterment. You do not earn sympathy by blindly advocating theft and claiming it isn't because it's somehow an equally mandated deprivation.

The idea that the government is somehow untainted by corporate lobbying insomuch that it can accomplish what you imply is incompatible with the reality: Politicians can't cure poverty, and if they could, it would put them out of a job. It's more politically expedient to make promises. Rather than curb lobbying, Obama has expanded its role in taking bailout money. He is catering to his biggest donors, after all.