❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

❝❝You're perfectly capable of making your own choices.

The real question is why politicos don't want you doing that.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ choice ∙ politicos

Two criticisms of my libertarian ideas is that they are juvenile and too simple.

I'm frequently told by conservatives, “I used to be libertarian but I grew out of it.”

Let's not forget “The world doesn't work like that. We have to live in the real world.”

Is this really how the World works? Or is this how the self-appointed “experts” want you to think how the World works?

Let's take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember that the Constitution limits government, not people.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So is there anything there about barrel length, how big the magazine is, or if it's a scary black color or not?

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every Federal gun law violates the Second Amendment.

Yes, that reading is subject to interpretation. By experts determined to prove that their expertise should trump your common sense.

Don't you believe me? Toss in the Tenth.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Taken together, it's hard to dispute that every Federal gun law is invalid. Nothing about using guns only for hunting. Nothing about gun registries or background checks. Nothing about which guns can be sold to what people.

And that raises some interesting questions. Because if the experts are overcomplicating gun laws and regulations to get around the Constitution, what else might they be doing?

Except for the much abused interstate commerce clause, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power and authority over medications or intoxicants.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over education.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over banking, stock markets, and commodity markets.

Chances are if the Federal government claims authority over speech, elections, commerce, it doesn't have it.

So why do we think it does?

Because that's what the politicos, the technocrats, and the experts have told us.

The people don't benefit from complications. The experts do.

Let's make this basic. You know what a car should do. You know that the more extras you throw in, the more expensive the car is to own and operate. You know that a more expensive car is harder to design and is full of trade-offs. That last boost in performance is the most expensive. So you have to make a choice. Do you want something reliable that you can afford, or do you want to impress people?

Make it legislation instead of a car and that is the choice of the average Congress critter.

Do you want something that can do the job, or do you want to make yourself look important?

Experts complicate things that should be simple.

Tags: libertarian ∙ juvenile ∙ simple ∙ experts ∙ Federal government ∙ Constitution ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ legislation ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ 10th Amendment

What we do know is that there are loud politicos who want to take freedom, power, and money from people "for the greater good."

Tags: climate change ∙ climate models ∙ predictions ∙ climate alarmist ∙ politicos ∙ celebrity ∙ global cooling ∙ global warming ∙ climate science ∙ Intervene ∙ natural process ∙ freedom ∙ power ∙ money

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: facts ∙ narrative ∙ Donald Trump ∙ sociaism ∙ hotels ∙ surveillance culture ∙ sex trafficking ∙ Federal government ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ health care ∙ insurance companies ∙ Medicare ∙ budget ∙ deficit ∙ debt ∙ politicos ∙ Mick Mulvaney ∙ Larry Summers

❝❝Unscientific test.

Two video monitors of equal size. A dozen people, some of who were Democrats. Both videos played side by side with the volume turned down. All but one person thought that Trump came across stronger, more confident, better body language, and more convincingly. One guy said that Pelosi and Schumer looked like high school student council candidates.

Again, I don't like Trump and I don't trust Trump. But compared to the Democrat leadership, well, there's no comparison.

Is anyone else reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate?❞❞

❝❝Kennedy vs. Nixon.

Regardless of what was said, visually Trump came across looking very well. Pelosi and Schumer came across looking like two high schoolers running for student council. That observation isn't mine, but I am caging it anyway. Why in the World were they sharing a lectern?

Trump came across as an executive with pictures of his loved ones in the background. And with only one American flag. Pelosi and Schumer looked like they got kicked out of the cafeteria and they dragged in flags to make the walls look good.

As an aside, the trend of using multiple flags behind you to show your patriotism is stupid.

Kennedy vs. Nixon.

---

If you'll remember, I told you before you need to focus on the things that Trump does that are actually wrong. I specifically mentioned his misuse of eminent domain in the past. Lo and behold, the key part of his emergency plan is eminent domain.

Peepers, you focus on the wrong things when you attack Trump. You have from the very first. And you continually mistake my not agreeing with you as support of Trump.

Trump has been making Democrats look bad since he announced. It doesn't help when Democrats continually underestimate him. Even if they ignore everything that Trump did before, there's not a one of the Democrat Congressional leadership who has ever negotiated anything outside government. Trump is playing this exactly right and the optics reflect that.

You want to take Trump down? I'll tell you what to focus on. Eminent domain. The volatility of the stock market. Not the direction, but how fast and how far it changes direction. There's some major instability there. His treatment of the EU, particularly downgrading the ambassador. National security, particularly spying on Americans. Healthcare. War on drugs. Prescription drugs and self medication. The Second Amendment. Social Security and pensions. The national debt. Military spending and accountability. Free speech. Protectionism. Start with those.

You can't treat him as a Republican politico because he isn't one. And don't forget that this man has been dragging his fights and negotiations through the press for forty years. Remember that exchange from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about the worst pirate. Trump doesn't care if the press is good or bad, he just wants the press.

---

This came from an unscientific experiment that some friends and I did. And yes, some of them were Democrats. We ran the videos side by side on two monitors with the sound turned off.

Trump looked like he belonged. Pelosi and Schumer didn't. Their body language showed that they were unhappy, probably because they were sharing a lectern and neither wanted to share the spotlight. Pay attention to their hands specifically. Trump looked friendly, Pelosi and Schumer looked like they wanted to strangle someone.

I never have liked the multiple American flag thing, not even when it started with Bush League. I think it was him, he was the one I noticed using it first. Certainly the Democrats of that time were doing it. I think it is purposely distracting. Come to think of it, that's when I remember multiple Democrats sharing a lectern. Or at least all standing behind one person at the lectern.

As for the Z group, I adjusted my tactics accordingly. They wanted to ignore the political implications when those same implications were central to the argument, whether they wished to acknowledge that or not.

You on the other hand don't like to deal when facts or actions don't fit your script. You think that opposing someone means throwing every insult and accusation possible at them in the hope that something sticks. You're not willing to look the person's history and adjust accordingly. You let the labels control your expectations and then get frustrated when things don't turn out the way you want.

I was never against criticizing Trump. I was against criticizing Trump stupidly foolishly in ways that would make him look stronger and better. Throwing insults at him doesn't work, he just pushes back. Treating him as the typical Republican politico who will back down out of civility or for the greater good doesn't work because that is not what he does.

It's not that I support Trump. I just think you are attacking him in very stupid and amazingly ineffective ways.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Democrats ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Chuck Schumer ∙ Kennedy-Nixion debate ∙ multiple flags ∙ eminent domain ∙ underestimating ∙ negptiate ∙ stock market ∙ volatility ∙ EU ∙ ambassador ∙ national security ∙ spying on Americans ∙ health care ∙ War on Drugs ∙ prescription drugs ∙ self medication ∙ Second Amendment ∙ Social Security ∙ pensions ∙ national debt ∙ military spending ∙ accountability ∙ protectionism ∙ Republican ∙ politicos ∙ press ∙ political opinions ∙ insult ∙ label

❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

---

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

---

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

---

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

---

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

---

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

---

““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””

— H. L. Mencken

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

---

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

---

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

---

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ critics ∙ science ∙ islam ∙ Christianity ∙ heresy ∙ dissent ∙ politicos ∙ Earth ∙ Nature ∙ agenda ∙ computer models ∙ cascade effect ∙ science is settled ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ adaptation ∙ either/or ∙ nanotech ∙ noble sacrifice ∙ capitalism ∙ government power ∙ true believers ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ consensus ∙ process ∙ Brontosaurus

But none of that is a reason to impeach him.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ like ∙ trust ∙ economics ∙ tariffs ∙ exaggerations ∙ spending ∙ threatening reporters ∙ crassness ∙ popularism ∙ stock market ∙ Instability ∙ impeach ∙ 2016 election ∙ none of the above ∙ hexes ∙ publicity ∙ deep state ∙ The Octopus ∙ goverment ∙ disrupt ∙ status quo ∙ institutions ∙ context for change ∙ politicos

The FedGovs.

Tags: murder ∙ theft ∙ vandalism ∙ qualify ∙ labels ∙ bias ∙ complications ∙ lawyers ∙ experts ∙ justice ∙ system ∙ pass-alongs ∙ thoughtcrime ∙ intention ∙ hate ∙ proven ∙ politicos ∙ societal control

““Tax complexity is a breeding ground for government corruption. It's much easier to add new corporate handouts to a tax code that's already overrun with favoritism, and it's simpler for politicians to justify adding narrowly targeted benefits when the practice is already common. Businesses, in turn, have an incentive to spend more time and resources lobbying the government than satisfying customers.””
     — Veronique de Rugy, Extending the Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Undermines Tax Reform

Tags: Veronique de Rugy ∙ taxes ∙ government ∙ corruption ∙ handouts ∙ tax code ∙ politicos

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Ecuador says Assange must sort out own issues with Britain

When Will Politicians Admit Social Security Is on a Collision Course with Math?

FBI: 'Pipe Bomb-Like' Devices Mailed To Prominent Dems Had 'Sulfur Substance,' Digital Clock, 'Harmless' White Powder

What a bunch of idiots

Pentagon sends 800 troops to US-Mexico border as migrant caravan advances

The Feds Just Hit A Notorious Swatter With 46 New Charges. He Intends To Plead Guilty

Extending the Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Undermines Tax Reform

Criticizing a Drag Show Earned This Catholic College Student a Visit From the Title IX Coordinator

Their Ideology Is Envy And Their Policy Is Theft

Los Angeles Owes Billions in Pension Debts. Now It's Asking Citizens for Permission to Run a Bank.

Foxconn’s Predatory Reliance on Eminent Domain

European Court: Woman's Defamation of Muhammad Doesn't Count as Free Expression

CEI Expert Says EU Proposal to Ban Single-Use Consumer Plastic Items "Won't Help the Environment"

Tags: Julian Assange ∙ Ecuador ∙ Britain ∙ politicos ∙ Social Security ∙ hoax ∙ warning ∙ drag show ∙ Catholic ∙ Title IX ∙ ideology ∙ envy ∙ theft ∙ Los Angeles ∙ pensions ∙ bank ∙ Foxconn ∙ eminent domain ∙ European Union ∙ EU ∙ CEI ∙ environment ∙ plastic

People tend to repeat behavior that has been successful or will bring them an emotional high.

Tags: Bosnia ∙ politicos ∙ banks ∙ gunmakers ∙ Presidential Alert ∙ New Zealand ∙ privacy ∙ veteran ∙ Tim Cook ∙ Apple ∙ data ∙ JCPenny ∙ Sears ∙ Brookstone ∙ Maldives ∙ climate change ∙ Christine Blasey Ford ∙ polygraph ∙ Mike Pompeo ∙ North Korea ∙ Kim Jong Un ∙ NATO ∙ missiles

❝❝Did I ever mention how the income tax isn't designed to produce revenue, but to spy as needed on American citizens?

---

Yep.

You can start with how the IRS is the "go to" agency whenever someone does something the Federal government doesn't like.

You can continue with the fact that your employer and any financial institution you do business with are required "under penalty of law" to report any transactions on demand. There's a reporting threshold for "as they happen," but the IRS still has the (questionable) power to demand any and all going back for years.

Speaking of penalty of law, have you read that bit on the 1040? In fact, take a close look at the entire form. It doesn't say you are required to report your income, it just says that it must be accurate reported on the form before you sign.

No one, including the IRS understands the tax code. It can be manipulated and interpreted as needed. And remember, the first few levels of the tax courts are administrative courts run by the IRS with their own rules of evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply. You have to prove the IRS wrong, and then you might get your seized money back.

By definition, a "standard" deduction means taxes are too high.

---

What, you wanted it stated in the authorizing law?

Everything I said was drawn from truth.

From Al Capone on, the IRS has been used against those the Federal government doesn't approve of. Or occasionally found politically inconvenient. Any other uncovered crimes are just a bonus.

Reporting financial transactions have proven so useful in so many cases that it has become literally the reason the IRS exists.

The 1040 form is unusually and carefully worded.

Since at least the 1970s, IRS agents and supervisors have been shown to have a very focused knowledge of the tax code and an appalling ignorance about the rest.

The IRS does have it's own court system with it's own rules of evidence. And you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

More importantly, look at how Presidents have used the tax code against their enemies.

---

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion because they couldn't get anything else to stick.

You tell me, if you were a prosecutor and you knew you had a guilty man and you had the evidence, would you want to charge them with murder or tax evasion?

Prove me wrong instead of labeling it conjecture and innuendo. It's right there, I showed you were to look.

Remember, it took amending the Constitution to make a Federal income tax legal.

---

Going after him for tax evasion wasn't even part of the plan.

Pay attention, because that is a critical point.

Did you know that the IRS was used to enforce Prohibition?

That was a critical point too.

I understand your confusion. Many assume that Government is a Good Thing. It's not commonly acknowledged that taxes can be some of the worst abuses of government authority. Might I suggest Adams' For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization as a starting point?

---

No I am not.

I'm stating that law is not good in and of itself, and that law is more likely to be abused than not.

For example, people are usually taught that the progressive income tax in particular is a way to get the rich to pay "their fair share." That's not true and it never has been. We know that whole histories industries have grown up to help people use tax loopholes. What's more, we know that politicos and technocrats benefit from selectively applying the law.

Which returns to my comment, that the income tax as designed is intended to spy on American citizens. It's not uniformly applied. It's subject to change and political influence. And the majority of the public is locked out of changes. And for what? A mala prohibita law. Not paying taxes is does not harm someone, it's just bad because government has declared it to be bad.

The graduated income tax has done more harm and destroyed more freedom than any other law in American history. "Innocent under proven guilty" stopped because of the income tax and no longer applies in American law.

I should have warned you. Never argue taxes with a libertarian.

---

Yeppers.

That standard deductions line makes people think. And it should.

That's usually when I point out that if they are getting a refund, they just gave the government an interest free loan.

---

Oh my, that's just so adorable!

Look at it this way.

Taxable income = 100 dollars
Standard deduction = 17 dollars
"Taxed" income = 83 dollars

You are still paying taxes. It's only on paper that there is a difference. They messed with the rate, not with the tax.

They lie.

Don't even get me started on itemized deductions.

ETA: I'm the one with the line of "by definition, a standard deduction means taxes are too high." I'm proud of it, so I want credit.

---

Yep, and the claim stands.

The politicos and technocrats are playing word games to convince people that the IRS is looking out for the little guy.

They don't reduce the tax, they tell you that there is a standard deduction.

Speaking of which, let's look at that word standard. As in, everyone gets it. If it were really about "giving something" to someone with lower income, you'd think the deduction would be less for higher incomes. But then it wouldn't be a standard deduction.

Nope, we give everyone a standard deduction.

And that certainly looks like taxes are too high.

---

The fact is that the government hides to actual tax rate to make people think they are getting something for nothing.

The tax rate is too high, so they play word games.

The graduated tax is another issue.

The point is, the mere existence of a standard deduction means that the standard is to deduct. Hence, by definition and the admission of the government, taxes are too high.

---

That's the same form that is worded to hide the fact that they don't care about you paying your taxes as much as they don't want you to lie about it and make sure that it is correct, right?

The whole thing is deceptive from the payroll deduction to the falsity that a progressive tax that impacts higher tax brackets more to which deductions may be allowed this year if you are lucky enough to know about them.

Not to mention the undeclared interest free loan that many make to the government every year without realizing it.

If it were really just about the income, the whole thing could be done on half a postcard.

Including the instructions.

---

But this US doesn't do it simply. The code is created to distract, to obfuscate, to hide what government wants.

It's not about the revenue.

It's about tracking the flow of money. Something which isn't authorized by the Constitution.

The whole business of a "standard deduction" is just another way to confuse citizens and convince them that they are getting something for nothing.

It's three card monte by government regulation. You aren't supposed to look close.

Meanwhile there is a surveillance system that is the envy of tyrants all over the world. And Americans accept it even as they complain about it.

---

Tax income, but not track money.

The 16th was a product of the time, and NO ONE at the time expected it to be used against the poor and the (emerging) middle class. It was sold as a way to make the rich pay "their fair share." I'm pretty sure that if people knew then what the income tax would become, there would have been another revolution.

The graduated income tax was intended to foster class envy. At that point, the upper class did not have the political clout to protect themselves.

Don't you find it interesting that a sales tax doesn't require nearly the administration that an income tax does?

Don't you find it even more interesting that no one understands the tax code and just accepts that is how it is supposed to be?

And then there is the fact that in the name of "protecting" the poor, they still have to declare their income under penalty of law.

---

As I said and have shown, the American income tax system is more about spying on the American people than producing income.

All you are doing is saying that the system is necessary.

---

One of the things I quickly learned as a Corporate Clone is that the budget expands to consume the sales income. It's always easier to spend someone else's money.

Remember I said that taxes are too high.

Still, I stand by my point. The spying on the American public is more important than the revenues.

---

If you state a tax rate and then give everyone a "standard deduction," then taxes are too high.

Taxes are too high for many other reasons, but I agree that distracts from this argument.

---

A standard deduction goes to everyone, not someone on a graduated scale.

Deductions have nothing to do with a graduated tax, especially since most deductions go to the middle and high end income groups.

---

It's not a reduction of tax on graduated income, it's deliberately confusing what the rate is.

Which isn't necessary for the higher ends of the income scale who can afford to have someone do their taxes. On the very high end, that means hiring a professional accountant to minimize tax liability.

Deductions are not intended to help the poor. Even if they are standard.

Of course the easiest thing of all would be actually lowering the tax without deductions.

---

Not true.

The modern version of the income tax started as a class tax. It was not expanded to a mass tax until WWII. Even then (in 1944), the "standard deduction" started as ten percent of taxable income. When the standard deduction was changed to a flat fee, that fee deliberately wasn't linked to the rate of inflation. Which means that over time, people on the lower end of the income scale paid more. But that wasn't the justification in 1964 when the deduction was changed from a percentage to a fee.

Because the fee amount wasn't linked to inflation, inevitably people started falling through the cracks. Meanwhile the income tax provided an unprecedented (and expanding) monitoring of cash flow (not the economy). That monitoring power could not be sacrificed.

And that is where the Earned Income Tax Credit came from. A direct payment from government that did not interfere in the existing tax structure or the government's ability to monitor cash flow. If anything, it expanded the latter.

---

And if you lower taxes, you don't have to lie about deductions to convince people that they are getting something that they are not. The actuality is that it's easier to manipulate a fee than a percentage all while hiding that people are paying more and getting less while being told what a Good Thing it is.

Reagan signed the expansion of the EIC, but it was originally created in 1975. It's also constitutionally questionable.

---

And if you eliminate the standard deduction and lower the tax rate to 8%, they pay less.

Manipulating the process is not the answer.

---

Um,yes.

Because now we are going to talk about the unintentional side effects of a graduated tax system.

Higher taxes aren't just absorbed by businesses and those with more income. The higher costs are passed on. In the case of a business, that means higher prices. In the case of an individual, that means they will buy less, which means few jobs creating or selling.

All this results in lower economic opportunity overall, but especially on the margins. That in turn means that those trying to increase their income will be most affected, especially if they are on the lower end of the income scale.

These are well known second order effects. Look them up.

Simply put, modifications and exceptions to the rules usually benefit those most able to influence the system. Or, as I like to put it, government authority tends to be used against those least likely to resist.

The more complex and convoluted a law is (any law), the bigger negative impact it has on the lower levels of income.

---

Extra rent and utilities due to displaced costs $50 per month or $600 per year.

Extra costs of food $15 per month or $180 per year.

Extra costs of clothing and miscellaneous $60 per year.

Company downsizing and freezing salary, adjusted for inflation $200 per year.

Just for the stuff I've listed, $1040 additional costs per year due progressive and distributed taxes.

---

Taxes are costs. They certainly aren't revenues to the people who are paying them.

The costs I provided were approximately middling. See, it's not just the amount of the tax that is shifted. It's also the cost of collecting and administering the taxes. Not to mention all the other costs of government, from the salary of Congressional pages to the paperclip allowance in the Department of the Interior.

Economies are based on the movement of value, we usually talk cash flow as a shorthand. The movement of value acts a lot like water. You can block it off, you can divert it, you can tap it, and you can channel it. Every change influences the whole system, you can't isolate one bit from the other without removing the cash flow. Think water pressure and you're close to the mark. The more you mess with the pluming, the more unstable the system becomes.

Governments tend to use the myth that the economy can be managed and controlled. But it is a myth. The only reason some governments can get away with it is because the cash flow is usually high enough to compensate for the really stupid things.

But if the goal is more money and not lower taxes, then the people with the lowest cash flow (i.e. water pressure) will be most impacted by any changes.

That's why lower taxes alone is a false and misleading measurement.

---

If you reduce taxes and costs go up, then there is no benefit to a "standard deduction"

Manipulating the system at a higher cost is going to hurt the people the deduction is supposed to help. The government sells a line, "We're going to reduce your taxes." But the politicos never admit the obvious, it's going to cost more.

Revenues are not neutral, that is another lie. There is an increased cost to administer the system. Any changes in process will increase this cost. And government has no incentive to reduce this extra cost.

So in the name of compassion, the system screws the people least likely to resist.❞❞

Tags: spying ∙ taxes ∙ IRS ∙ tax code ∙ tax courts ∙ politicos ∙ Prohibition ∙ income tax ∙ technocrats ∙ goverment ∙ standard deduction ∙ Constitution ∙ Al Capone ∙ economics ∙ movement of value ∙ cash flow

❝❝ahem

Government Is Not Your Friend.

When government acts, there will always Always ALWAYS be less liberty afterwards.

Do we really want politicos and technocrats deciding what is and is not available based on a morality that was defined between the two AM sex party and the prayer breakfast?

==>Obligatory libertarian rant over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.<==❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government is not your friend ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ 2 AM sex party ∙ prayer breakfast

❝❝Ever notice when someone picks a scapegoat, it's because they think the scapegoat can't fight back?

---

I agree with you that politics is a source of great evil in the World.

I disagree that the Trump and the Republicans are the cause. Or even most of the cause.

One annoying thing about politics is that people are willing to overlook the misconduct of "their" side even while slinging wild accusations against the Enemy. The accusations may or may not be accurate. But you can count on the Enemy not being quite the Ultimate Horror Unleashed on Mankind. And you can count that your side is not quite the paragon of virtue and self-sacrifice that they claim.

Politics is about controlling the other. Never you, always the other. When government is involved politics is about control backed by force.

Politicians are never on your side. Even as they stand wrapped in the flag clutching holy writ promising that they will be your bestest friend ever no matter what.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Obama used the IRS and Justice Department against his enemies, among other things. And the Democrats looked the other way.

Rather than get into a long and pointless discussion of who did what worse, I want to point out something that most people overlook.

The politicos NEED you to blame the other party and never question the wisdom of your party's decisions. It's always the other party that is doing things Too Terrible and always your own party that promises to Save The Day. When you buy into that, you perpetuate the system. You're always going to be victimized and you're never ever going to be saved. If you were saved, you'd have no reason to vote the party line.

---

I know I have my political critics on this site, but believe me when I tell you that there are conservatives who are just as threatened by the Democrat leadership as you are by Trump.

Too often today, people make excuses for what their side does by trotting out the disasters from the other side.

I want less government. I think government is a terrible danger to liberty. I think politicos and technocrats complicate things because they don't want you asking questions and they don't want you changing the status quo. They don't want you understanding what they do.

So when I see someone insisting that this flavor of politico is slightly less objectionable, I tell them they are wrong.

---

Accurate, as far as it goes.

*sighs* Look, I know that other pagans think I am simplistic and partisan when it comes to politics. And believe me, I realize how ironic it is for me to denounce mixing paganism with politics while having a political blog called Pagan Vigil.

Politics is one of my darker passions. I'm better at it than any amateur has any right to be. I understand the temptations and lusts because those are my temptations, my lusts, but for a bit of discipline and some promises I made. There's a line from Doctor Who, “Good men don’t need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.” These days I try to use my abilities and urges in a good cause. Mostly I succeed.

I've said that politics is about controlling the other. It's literally "power over." All the processes, all the carefully defined rules to protect democracy, all the blame exists SOLEY to keep people from looking too carefully at "the sausage being made." To keep people from asking how much freedom they are "supposed" to sacrifice for "the Greater Good." To keep them from asking themselves why expecting the other guy to sacrifice and compromise is GOOD but they themselves aren't supposed to sacrifice and compromise. To keep them from accepting that POWER OVER for their principles just might not be as as effective as power with based on things we all share.

Smashing the opposition just makes more pieces that can regrow.❞❞

Tags: scapegoating ∙ World ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ control ∙ politicos ∙ Barack Obama ∙ IRS ∙ Justice Department ∙ party politics ∙ Democrats ∙ government ∙ technocrats ∙ political flavor ∙ pagans ∙ simplistic ∙ partisan ∙ blog ∙ darker passions ∙ temptation ∙ lust ∙ amateur ∙ discipline ∙ promises ∙ Doctor Who ∙ power with vs power over

He speaks for himself.

Tags: AJ+ ∙ video ∙ guest content ∙ Cherán ∙ Mexico ∙ Michoacán ∙ politicos ∙ police ∙ crime

❝❝No, they are not monopolies.

When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.

With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."

For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.

Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?

Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.

---

I agree it's a mess.

To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.

Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.

If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.

ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞

Tags: virtue signaling ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Apple ∙ server space ∙ Google ∙ iOS ∙ domain name ∙ macOSX ∙ competition ∙ government intervention ∙ fake news ∙ politicos ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ Wordpress ∙ MacHighway ∙ lease ∙ offensive

““It is amazing how many of the intelligentsia call it 'greed' to want to keep what you have earned, but not greed to want to take away what somebody else has earned, and let politicians use it to buy votes.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ intelligentsia ∙ greed ∙ earned ∙ take away ∙ buy votes ∙ politicos

Tags: goverment ∙ rule of law ∙ Republican ∙ religious right ∙ progressives ∙ major parties ∙ politicos ∙ rescue ∙ false equivalence ∙ Their Cause Is Just ∙ expand ∙ government power ∙ increases taxes ∙ increased costs ∙ more laws ∙ more regulations

““In short, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose does not die before the next election and no one traces the politicians’ fingerprints on the murder weapon.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ goose ∙ golden egg ∙ strategy ∙ election ∙ politicos ∙ fingerprint ∙ murder weapon

““No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ politicos ∙ problems ∙ elected ∙ re-election

❝❝See, that’s what I mean. No one has all the answers and certainly no group has all the answers.

Let me tell you what I think they see.

First, a nation where some people believe victimhood has become more important than merit. A place where people have been taught that certain groups must be forced to sacrifice so that the unworthy may prosper.

Let me talk about that word unworthy for a bit. In this case it means someone who expects that their desires be fulfilled with minimum effort on their part. It’s one thing to march with fuzzy pink hats. But who shows up to do the work? And no, marching with a hat is not the work. Work means getting your hands dirty. Work isn’t about raising awareness or pointing out injustice. Work is the every day effort to provide for yourself and those you care for. Work is not taking a weekend to show your solidarity.

Because for them, it’s not about skin color. It’s about merit. If it were about skin color, then people like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wouldn’t be celebrated. For them it’s about fixing the problem and getting the job done. It’s not about curing past injustices or preventing any possible future injustices (definition subject to change). A hand up instead of a hand out.

Thomas Sowell said “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” And he was right. Too many privileges today are passed off as rights. Temporary measures become permanent. Privileges are sold as rights, despite only applying to certain victim groups.

And when there is criticism of any of this, it’s called racism.

Second, a government that has lied to them repeatedly. And a bunch of politicos who keep promising that government will fix the problems.

And by the way, this crosses the “skin color” barrier. It’s just that we’ve been lectured that you can’t be a “real …” (black, Hispanic, minority) unless you oppose Republicans and conservatives because “the Man” wants to take it away. See the Sowell quote above.

Third, that Democrats exploit the victimhood.

I disagree with your figures about “the young.” I think the media have their own reasons to skew the news (90% negative stories about Trump).

I also think you are making a major mistake focusing on Trump.

I told you before that it is not Trump. People are losing faith in institutions because our institutions are failing to deliver what was promised. Trump is a symptom not the cause.❞❞

Tags: victimhood ∙ merit ∙ unworthy ∙ work ∙ skin color ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ preferential treatment ∙ equal treatment ∙ discrimination ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ racism ∙ government ∙ lies ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Tags: public schools ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ private alternative ∙ private sector ∙ competition ∙ school year ∙ internet ∙ education ∙ quality of life ∙ Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Clinton administration ∙ Obama administration ∙ affordability ∙ private companies ∙ choice ∙ truth

“Delusions of Justice”

Tags: California ∙ secession ∙ Constitution ∙ American history professors ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ people ∙ state ∙ water rights ∙ Southwest ∙ Arizona ∙ Nevada ∙ Imperial Valley ∙ Mexico ∙ SCOTUS ∙ splitting the state ∙ treason ∙ MacGuffin ∙ Dred Scott decision ∙ Minersville School District v. Gobitis ∙ United States v. Rabinowitz ∙ First Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ commerce clause ∙ individual citizens ∙ Thomas Jefferson ∙ Declaration of Independence

❝❝I don't like seeing others manipulated into carrying water for a "moral" cause that is in fact pure politics. You can't trust politicos, especially when they say "Let's you and him fight."❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: politicos ∙ you and him fight

❝❝…when politicos keep secrets, something is screwy.❞❞
     — from the private journal of NeoWayland, 19Jan2013

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ secrets ∙ 2013

““Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.””
     — P.J. O'Rourke

Tags: P. J. O’Rourke ∙ money ∙ power ∙ politicos ∙ whiskey ∙ car keys ∙ teen age boys

You didn't think they were serious, did you?

Tags: politicos ∙ left-wing ∙ right-wing ∙ children ∙ fighting poverty ∙ family values ∙ fighting drugs ∙ goverment ∙ bigger ∙ Harry Browne

Courtesy goes a long way

Tags: election ∙ automated calling ∙ answering machine ∙ politicos ∙ residential phone line

Killing off 90 percent of humans

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ MPG standards ∙ incandescent bulb ∙ trade-offs ∙ compact florescent bulbs ∙ environmental impact ∙ global warming ∙ politicos ∙ black market

❝❝Politics is about power over people. Once you understand that government is not your friend and the politico only wants to get re-elected, you’re on the path to freedom.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ power ∙ politicos ∙ re-election ∙ freedom

❝❝Do you really want politicos deciding what is moral harm?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: politicos ∙ moral authority ∙ harm ∙ maxims

❝❝Politicos lie. It's what they do. The mistake is believing that one “flavor” is somehow morally better.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ lies

❝❝The question isn't which politico is better. The question is why we're allowing ourselves to be manipulated into believing that government and Our Elected Officials™ know what's best and will serve us.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ goverment ∙ know best ∙ will serve us

❝❝Politics is not about reform.

Politics is about control.

Politics is never about reform, even when the politicos say that it is.

By definition, reform can't come from within. It almost always splits off into a new thing.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ politics ∙ reform ∙ politicos

❝❝Legislation is not morality, and morality certainly isn't legislation. The distinction must be made. Otherwise politicos wrap themselves in the flag AND hide behind the most convenient faith/moral code they can find. Arguing over morality keeps us honest. We're better when we verbally defend our ideas to people who don't necessarily share our beliefs.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: legislation ∙ morality ∙ politicos ∙ flag ∙ faith ∙ moral code ∙ honest ∙ beliefs ∙ maxims

❝❝When a politico wraps himself in the flag, double check your liberty and count on finding brown stains afterwards.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: politicos ∙ flag ∙ maxims

The internet is the last, best hope for freedom.

Tags: speech wars ∙ American freedom ∙ internet ∙ freedom ∙ competition ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ Donald Trump ∙ politicos ∙ election

❝❝Governments make lousy banks. Politicos want re-election and technocrats are unaccountable. Both measure their success by spending taxpayer's money. There's no incentive to contain costs or make a profit.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ bank ∙ politicos ∙ re-election ∙ technocrats ∙ success ∙ incentive ∙ profit

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Wisconsin ∙ taxpayers ∙ Foxconn ∙ government ∙ speech wars ∙ politicos ∙ re-election ∙ technocrats ∙ prostitution ∙ cartel ∙ piece of the action ∙ women ∙ Maggie McNeill ∙ New York Times ∙ climate change ∙ Google memo ∙ Democrat corruption

❝❝Let me point out that tax exempt status is at best a "devil's trade." In exchange for the tax deduction, the organizations (and sometimes the officers) lose their political voice and the IRS gets itemized lists of what was donated and who donated it.

There's also the small bit that if there are tax deductions, then by definition taxes are too high.

However, “Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.”

---

The 1st Amendment doesn't deal with subsets. The incredibly ironic bit is the history of churches in American politics, particularly the abolitionist movement.

I didn't say it was a complete list, I said it was an itemized list. It is enough to find "known associates" though.

Tax deductions are evidence that taxes are too high. It's also evidence of diverting capital, taking it away from unapproved activities and moving it towards approved activities. There's more, but it involves a long examination of progressive tax systems and it won't add anything but noise to our conversation.

---

Abraham Keteltas, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Peter Muhlenberg, and Samuel Cooper were just some of the colonial era ministers. In England for a while, the American Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolution because so many Presbyterian pastors were involved.

But the abolitionist movement and the American Civil War was when things really got going. Look at names like John Todd, Joshua Leavitt, Benjamin Bradford, Luther Lee, and Samuel Salisbury. Without these men and their churches, the abolitionist movement would never have blossomed. Christians aren't perfect and I am certainly a critic. But it took British and American Christians to end the slave trade, they deserve credit for that.

The 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was heavily rooted in churches, especially in the American south.

As I said, the tax exempt status is a "devil's trade" intended in large part to silence churches.

---

I provided examples which at the very least would have violated the propaganda restrictions of the Johnson amendment if it had been in effect then. Yet those are a valued part of American history and important benchmarks in religious freedom.

A little further examination would have shown that American churches and synagogues have traditionally called politicos out on bad ideas and bad behavior.

---

It's not about "prophesy of the pulpit." It's about moral authority. Ideas like liberty, revolution, and slavery were talked about during worship. In those days more than anything else including the press, worship is where those ideas were set out in detail by men who made their living communicating well and clearly. I admit it's a part of history that is often overlooked, but it exists none the less.

Take a closer look. The Johnson amendment covers both endorsement and anti-endorsement, intervening in political campaigns is prohibited. It also limits lobbying, propaganda, and other political activity.

Pagans of all people know what a bad idea it is when a politico wraps themselves in the flag and waves holy writ as justification.

BTW, I have to give you points for that phrase "prophesy of the pulpit." It's poetic if not exactly accurate in this case.

---

You're right, that part of the law is seldom enforced. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

So here is my next question. If the law as it exists is so potentially prone to abuse even as it is not enforced, why does the Johnson amendment exist?

My theory is that it was one of Johnson's infamous deals. In the early 1950s, the modern civil rights movement was just getting started, but the split was already there. It's a little inaccurate, but I call the two sides the MLK side and the Malcolm X side. Later the Malcolm X side was dominated by the Black Panthers, but that part of the story isn't necessary for our discussion here.

The MLK side wanted to work within the system making sure that existing law was enforced. The Malcolm X side relied on direct confrontation to create radical change and separate from the US if necessary. There was rivalry between the two sides, and at the time no one was sure which side would dominate. Johnson saw the potential need for what today we would call the nuclear option. As long as everything proceeded peacefully, the government would never need to use the stick. Meanwhile, everything was nicely registered and reported to the government, "just in case."

It wasn't the first time the IRS was used to monitor Americans and it wouldn't be the last.

---

You're right. I should have said existing Constitutional law, that was my mistake.

That wasn't the only operational difference, but it certainly was one of the most important. Bryan Burrough points out in Days of Rage that some "blacks" were disappointed as more moved north and they didn't instantly get more of what they felt had been denied them.

Existing state and local law in the south supported segregation, most Federal law did not. It varied in other states, not so much in the West but heavy in union states. When Truman reversed Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, the writing was on the wall.

---

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate free speech?

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate religion?

Yet the Johnson amendment does both.

Which tax argument? The fact that deductions mean that taxes are too high? Or that government uses a progressive tax code to encourage some behaviors and discourage others?

Can you show that either argument is BS?

---

Actually it does.

The perception in America is that you are not a "real" church unless you have tax exempt certification. Just like a few years back when conservative groups were having problems getting 503 certification, most people don't want to give money unless they know that the IRS is not going to audit them. The easy path is to do what the government tells you to do. That is not necessarily the right thing. Once a group has the certification, they are bound by the regulations if they wish to keep the majority of their donors. Those regulations are subject to change at any time, and have gotten more restrictive since the Johnson amendment was passed.

Every dollar that the government collects in taxes reduces individual purchasing power. Regardless of what some experts will tell you, the economy is driven by the individual buying goods and services and not by government regulation. More money, more purchases (or savings). Less money, more credit, less purchases and less savings.

Even if you think that only the "rich" pay higher taxes, that means less money for things like jobs, equipment, and expansion. That means less economic growth.

The second order effects of special taxes can be even worse. A few decades ago, Congress put out a luxury tax on high end planes, yachts, high end boats, and cars. All those industries took a major hit. Building and storing yachts and high end boats still haven't recovered.

It gets worse. Thanks to payroll withholding and "standard" deductions, the government effectively gives itself no-interest loans from your money. Multiply that by a hundred million or so and you get into some serious cash.

These are examples from taxes. I haven't discussed currency manipulation (inflation) or spending.

---

"Surely by your argument, there should be no tax exempt organizations at all, because the very existence of them proves taxes are too high."

Yes.

At the very least, no tax exempt organizations would mean fewer bureaucrats to monitor compliance and regulate.

"Government money goes back into the community and absolutely does stimulate economic growth."

It does that by displacing private investment. Private money wants a return on investment, which means maintaining facilities and periodic upgrades. Except for corporatism, companies stay in business by making their products better, cheaper, and more available.

"The rich actually mostly sock money away…"

Um, no they don't. There isn't a money vault or a stuffed mattress, smart people put their money to work. Some buy stocks, some buy bonds, some invest in companies. Unless the money earns a higher yield than the rate of inflation and the tax rate, it's worth less.

"…and pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us…"

According to the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, in 2014 the top ten percent of income earners paid 70.88% of the income tax. The top fifty percent of income earners paid 97.25% of the income tax.

Spending is not the same as taxing. Government at all levels has done a rotten job of maintaining facilities, much less upgrading them. Private ownership does wonders, as things like the Empire State Building show.

Government usually puts money aside for infrastructure and then diverts the money into more "essential" things. It's one of the oldest tricks in government accounting. Then more money is "needed."

What's more, government is a lousy judge of where to spend and what to spend it on. Just as one example, less than a handful of VA hospitals are worth it, but we keep tossing more and more money at the problem.❞❞

Tags: tax exempt ∙ devil's trade ∙ tax deduction ∙ political voice ∙ IRS ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ First Amendment ∙ capital ∙ unapproved activities ∙ approved activities ∙ progressive tax systems ∙ Abraham Keteltas ∙ Samuel West ∙ Jonathan Mayhew ∙ Peter Muhlenberg ∙ Samuel Cooper ∙ American Revolution ∙ Presbyterian Revolution ∙ abolitionist movement ∙ Civil War ∙ John Todd ∙ Joshua Leavitt ∙ Benjamin Bradford ∙ Luther Lee ∙ Samuel Salisbury ∙ churches ∙ Christians ∙ Johnson amendment ∙ synagogues ∙ politicos ∙ prophesy of the pulpit ∙ history ∙ National Taxpayer Union Foundation ∙ liberty ∙ revolution ∙ slavery ∙ worship

❝❝You should beware the politician who wraps himself in faith and the minister who wraps himself with the flag.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, personal journal

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ minister ∙ flag

Somehow I don't believe this.

Tags: socialism ∙ Venezuela ∙ Soviet Union ∙ North Korea ∙ China ∙ capitalists ∙ politicos ∙ rich ∙ powerful ∙ privilege ∙ elites ∙ picture ∙ guest content

❝❝Government is reactive. What individuals choose is much more important than the credit that politicos claim. Lasting change only happens when enough people got angry enough to demand change.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ individual ∙ choose ∙ reactive ∙ change ∙ politicos ∙ claim ∙ angry

Our heroes are defined by what they have done and how they inspire us.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ Robert A. Heinlein ∙ Lawrence W. Reed ∙ certainty ∙ perfection ∙ government ∙ promises ∙ good intentions ∙ price distortions ∙ prudent person ∙ Congress ∙ new regulations ∙ second order consequences ∙ third order consequences ∙ feedback loop ∙ politicos ∙ loan game ∙ free money ∙ something for nothing ∙ Second Amendment ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ Christians ∙ outsourced wages ∙ industrial nations ∙ free to choose ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Constitution ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ one from many ∙ united we stand ∙ codified law ∙ public morality ∙ religious system ∙ The Moral Authority ∙ personal morality, ∙ multiple faiths

❝❝I've seen the arguments in enough other contexts to distrust anyone who claims rationality prevents any opposing view. Even more so when they dismiss any other possibility unheard because they have the Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ humor ∙ Crux Files ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ climate change ∙ global warming ∙ distrust ∙ rationality prevents any opposing view ∙ Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned ∙ government approved line ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ The Science Is Settled ∙ criticism ∙ obedience ∙ dogma ∙ government ∙ science ∙ condemn ∙ Science as a Higher Authority ∙ Must Not Be Questioned ∙ advocate ∙ scientific ∙ human rights ∙ gay ∙ woman ∙ Navajo ∙ disabled ∙ politicos ∙ religious freedom ∙ Jewish ∙ Catholic ∙ Muslim ∙ Protestant ∙ Buddhist ∙ atheist ∙ moral relativity ∙ conservative ∙ liberal ∙ homosexuality ∙ religion ∙ guns ∙ virtues ∙ Pagan ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ Truth Out ∙ criminal corporations ∙ Republican ∙ no virtue or vice in the label ∙ That's the excuse, not the reason. ∙ race ∙ pedophilia ∙ religious oppression ∙ racist ∙ choice ∙ threat ∙ moral morass ∙ Satanists ∙ totalitarianism ∙ purged ∙ moral superiority ∙ Bible ∙ Pharisee ∙ scripture ∙ Divine

Which raises the question why should care be publicly funded?

Tags: healthcare ∙ health insurance ∙ public funding ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ prices ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ free market ∙ libertarian ∙ Obamacare ∙ insurance ∙ private sector ∙ Milton Friedman ∙ direct primary care

Tags: freedom ∙ press ∙ politicos ∙ protect citizens ∙ marriage ∙ approval ∙ medicine ∙ medical devices ∙ government power ∙ Congress ∙ Public Laws ∙ 2016 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ regulations ∙ Federal Register ∙ More Government ∙ personal responsibility? ∙ ☆

❝❝Politicos want problems they can stage manage.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ problems ∙ stage manage ∙ banner

For length reasons, this entry appears on it's own page.

“We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.”

Tags: revolution ∙ generations ∙ Republic ∙ black & white ∙ government ∙ media ∙ passion ∙ reason ∙ biggest guns ∙ Founders ∙ politicos ∙ choice & consequence ∙ mind control ∙ racism ∙ law and order ∙ no knock warrant ∙ unaccountable police ∙ Eric Garner ∙ taxes ∙ Declaration of Independence ∙ rule of law ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ free speech areas

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Crux Files ∙ currency collapse ∙ Constitutional convention ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ national public referendum ∙ election ∙ none of the above ∙ RICO Act ∙ libertarian ∙ religion ∙ faith ∙ public schools ∙ Christians ∙ morality

Another classic that I've used in the sidebar for years.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ reform ∙ politicos ∙ government ∙ other guy ∙ collapse ∙ not our fault ∙ system ∙ Sara Palin ∙ John McCain ∙ Star Parker ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ for your own good ∙ vice law ∙ Tammy Bruce ∙ Chris Matthews ∙ government screw-up ∙ submit ∙ conservative ∙ virtues ∙ libertarianism ∙ Constitution ∙ rights ∙ taxes ∙ Daniel Webster ∙ Frederick Douglass ∙ rulers&masters

r/libertarian vs r/socialism

Tags: war ∙ Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ George Washington ∙ James Madison ∙ Donald Trump ∙ reset ∙ Syria ∙ Iraq ∙ North Korea ∙ China ∙ Russia ∙ mainstream media ∙ intelligence agencies ∙ politicos ∙ freedom ∙ American hegemony ∙ tribute

Tags: prostitution ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ vice law ∙ religion ∙ moral ∙ politicos ∙ schools ∙ libraries ∙ luxury ∙ measurable harm ∙ parity test

‟Ignore the Mob—Long Live the Electoral College”

Tags: skimmed ∙ David Harsanyi ∙ electoral college ∙ President ∙ Vice President ∙ politicos ∙ scaremonger ∙ Senate ∙ Congress ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ clipping

People had their trust stolen and now they are almost ready to smash.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Tea Party ∙ conservative ∙ liberal lies ∙ institutions ∙ technocrats ∙ politicos ∙ elites ∙ election ∙ People. Are. Pissed. Off.

I played this game many times until I tired of it

Tags: voter ∙ establishment ∙ Michael J. Totten ∙ politicos ∙ City Journal

Originally published at Technopagan Yearnings

Tags: cable service ∙ bank ∙ ISP ∙ cusomer service ∙ local ∙ government screw-up ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats

❝❝Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.

---

I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

❝What is the origin of those rules?❞

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?

---

Not just Christianity.

❝In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.❞

---

The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.

---

And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"

---

❝I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.❞

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?

---

I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

❝When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.❞

---

I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.

---

One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?

---

I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?

---

I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.

---

One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.

---

I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.

---

A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.

---

Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?

---

I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.

---

I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice.❞ class="ghoster">❞

❝❝

Tags: Golden Rule ∙ duress ∙ force ∙ ethic of reciprocity ∙ might makes right ∙ commenting ∙ common ground ∙ morality ∙ moral justification ∙ moral ∙ practical ∙ reciprocity ∙ Christianity ∙ the Elect ∙ implied Wisdom™ ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ worth of others ∙ religion ∙ law of the land ∙ politicos ∙ choice & consequence ∙ choice ∙ atheist ∙ cooperation ∙ positive not punishment ∙ person of faith

Comments

Politics is about control

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ law of the land ∙ politicos

❝❝Actually there is very little difference between the "leaders" of either party. They don't object to stuff being done, they object to the other "guy" doing it and getting the cblurbit.❞❞

Tags: Republican ∙ Democrats ∙ statist ∙ numbers game ∙ not your friend ∙ commenting ∙ technocrats ∙ politicos

And it was all based on a lie.

Tags: connections ∙ trade-offs ∙ dropping water tables ∙ Philip Lloyd ∙ waste disposal ∙ technocrats ∙ politicos ∙ pollution ∙ alternate energy ∙ environmental crusade ∙ wildfires ∙ capitalism ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ free market ∙ wildlife management