http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/04/politics/p091000D64.DTLO'Donnell said China plotting to take over US

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.

O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.

She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.

"That doesn't work," she said. "There's much I want to say. I wish I wasn't privy to some of the classified information that I am privy to."

"A country that forces women to have abortions and mandates that you can only have one child and will not allow you the freedom to read the Bible, you think they can be our friend?" she asked. "We have to look at our history and realize that if they pretend to be our friend it's because they've got something up their sleeve."

O'Donnell was a little-known candidate until she stunned Rep. Mike Castle to win the Republican nomination last month in her third bid for the Senate. The tea party-backed hopeful faces Democrat Chris Coons in the November general election.So a country that promotes responsible breeding and suppresses religious fanaticism can't be our ally.

A country that is kicking ass economically (just recently beat Japan), the way Americans used to.

I guess the tea party would declare war on China.

The fact that these candidates are even taken seriously is frightening.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/04/politics/p184425D09.DTLSenate candidate Christine O'Donnell is trying to assure Delaware voters: "I'm not a witch."

O'Donnell's comments about witchcraft were made during a taping of comedian Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" TV show.

"I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven," she said on the video, a clip of which hit the Internet just days after she stunned longtime congressman Mike Castle in last month's GOP primary in her third bid for Senate.

"One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that," she says. "We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."Tea party. :rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/04/politics/p184425D09.DTLTea party. :rolleyes:
Are you saying she is a nutball because she was a witch?

Or because she is now a Christian?

Christians worship a zombie, and eat his symbolic flesh and blood every week.

In 08, there was a Mormon who was running for President.
The Mormon worship a zombie that not only rose from the dead, but teleported to American to talk to Indians. And their prophet talked to him, the teleporting zombie, in a magic hat he found in the woods. And found out that the Indians are actually Jews.

And even Obama says that he worships the Jewish zombie. His wife does, and he has made his two girls worship the zombie too.

I don't see Obama carpet bombing either Africa or China with condoms, either.

It would be interesting to see if this Tea Party actually does become a political party, though. Well, a viable one.(which is doubtful).

Alternately, it would be interesting if the Chronicle lampooned, say Muslims, as equally as they lampoon this former Wiccan.

It seems to me that the Liberal Left has no problem getting down on it's political correct knees to give big ol fat wet sloppy deep throat blow jobs to the Islam religion. Just because they don't like those who don't like Muslims.

Is it not the goal of every civilization as well as ours, the US, to continue expanding and assimulating various cultures, in direct or indirect methods, in the ongoing attempt to completely homogenize and domesticate through various methods every living thing?

By the way speaking of civilization, is Sid Meir's Civilization 5 any good? I really want to pick up a new computer,(not just for that though, also want to pick up a ps3 and castlevania amongst other things like prince of persia, god of war and stuff, maybe I should visit Best Buy and get some payments setup, haha) and give it a go.

quote"will not allow you the freedom to read the Bible, you think they can be our friend?"

Let us talk about this for a second. Did christianity as well as the bible, permitted in China around the 1600's by one emporer declaring they were generally peaceful law abiding citizens and was approved also by the pope at that time the veneration of the ancestors of chinese people would be observed? I believe it was. Fast Forward about a hundred or so years later when I forget which Pope rescinded via papal bull the observance of the veneration of chinese ancestors declaring in effect that this was a pagan ritual and general rabble rousing to which the Chinese emporer at the time declared this is the most ridiculous thing he ever heard of and then rescinded christianity as a religeon in his country following the hostilities. Sometime in the 1900's Christianity was reinstated for a period of about 20 years until Maoist communism took over.

But, then I sort of read some history books on occasion, because it all happened. Makes a rather interesting case there, they had their chances quite frankly, and really only Saint Patrick(hence the observance of that holiday) was the only bloodless assimulation of culture.

I don't see Obama carpet bombing either Africa or China with condoms, either.He doesn't need to, because the Chinese government already has its priorities straight already with respect to population control.

Africa, on the other hand, needs something a lot more extreme than condoms -- and arguably it already has it.It would be interesting to see if this Tea Party actually does become a political party, though. Well, a viable one.(which is doubtful).It's the extremist fringe of the "Republican" party, designed to appeal to those who buy into the "Republican" fear/hate-mongering but don't want to vote for an established party.

Alternately, it would be interesting if the Chronicle lampooned, say Muslims, as equally as they lampoon this former Wiccan.Maybe because there isn't any American Muslim to lampoon.

These are Associated Press articles, by the way, not San Francisco editorials.

Are you saying she is a nutball because she was a witch?

Or because she is now a Christian?

Christians worship a zombie, and eat his symbolic flesh and blood every week.

In 08, there was a Mormon who was running for President.
The Mormon worship a zombie that not only rose from the dead, but teleported to American to talk to Indians. And their prophet talked to him, the teleporting zombie, in a magic hat he found in the woods. And found out that the Indians are actually Jews.The difference is that virtually all of those people are brainwashed (by family, friends, and society in general) to believe in the zombie.

Witchcraft, on the other hand, is generally something that one must consciously choose to believe.

That's the frightening part.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/05/national/a113014D67.DTLFirefighters let home burn; owner didn't pay fee

(10-05) 12:43 PDT SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. (AP) --

Firefighters in a far western Tennessee city let a mobile home burn to the ground because the owner didn't pay an annual $75 fire protection fee, authorities say.

Jeff Vowell, city manager of South Fulton, told the Union City Daily Messenger that the city fire department let Gene Cranick's trailer home near the Kentucky border burn last week because he didn't pay the subscription common in many rural areas.

Cranick's doublewide home is outside city limits. But South Fulton offers fire protection to nearby residents for a fee and once the fire threatened to spread, the department did protect a neighboring house that had paid.No doubt a tea party fire station. :rolleyes:

I bet they want to sell subscriptions to the military and police, too.

Witchcraft, on the other hand, is generally something that one must consciously choose to believe.

That's the frightening part.

aybe.

But having a belief that Nature, or symbolically embodied Nature, is a creative force seems pretty plausible. Or that plants have medicinal value.

It is empirically evident that some plants and herbs do have real effects on humans. We use some to many of these witchcraft herbs in medicines today.

Atropine is used for symptomatic bradycardia, and is a life saving drug. Easily found in the loco weed, or Jimsom plant.

Opium is used for pain relief of course, and is the prototype of all opioid drugs.

Digoxin comes from the digitalis plant. Used to slow the heart in SVT or RVR.

We use Belladona to relieve bladder spasms status post prostatectomies.

We use sennosides, originally procured from the bark or leaves of a tree, to relieve constipation.

I could go on. Scientific studies have shown that Christian prayer has no medicinal value, even the opposite,,, pointing to the result that those who believe that they are being prayed for by others have worse outcomes than those who don't believe. And no medicine has come from the Bible, their god, or their zombie.

A huge percentage of Wiccans are admittedly Atheists. Just ask them. And there is no history of Wiccans starting Inquisitions or Crusades. No persecutions, no ethnic cleansing, no genocides in the name of their belief system.

On a linear scale of religions, rating a good to evil quotient. Wicca is by far on the furthest most good side of the scale. Even Buddhism is more inherently evil, they have a leader, reincarnated how many times, who wants to get back in power, so that he can re enslave his people, having them worship him as a living god. And you have otherwise sane, and mostly liberal, people over here trying very hard to get that to happen.

Can you actually believe that we had an Elder in LDS and a Baptist minister running for President against Obama in 08? Yet when we watch Maher's tape of this nutball, she is a nutball for trying out Wicca when she was a kid, than she is a nutball for worshiping a zombie that wants his followers to eat his meat and drink his blood.

I admit, that comparing the evil quotient between Islam and Catholicism is going to be a tough one. But you have to admit, that they are at least in a neck and neck horse race for first place, considering total history of evilness. But at least the Catholic church today is not actively trying to kill me, right now. If I went to Rome, and entered the Vatican City, the guards there would not kill me outright or burn me. If I went to Iraq or Iran, I most certainly would be killed immediately by Muslims, following the didacts of their prophet. Who just happened to be a child molester.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/05/national/a113014D67.DTLNo doubt a tea party fire station. :rolleyes:

I bet they want to sell subscriptions to the military and police, too.
He should have paid the fee.

I don't see the connection to the Tea Party movement. It seems that this is the way that they have been doing fire fighting there for a very long time.

Out here in the CV we have volunteer fire departments in rural or suburban areas. Which is the way that most fire departments in American history have been doing it since Ben Franklin set up the first one. I suppose that Ben Franklin belonging to the original Tea Party and starting the very first fire department, was your connection for comparison, for this post.

But I don't get that connection, because the double wide owner was not in a volunteer district, and was not a volunteer. Nor did he pay for the service he wanted rendered. TSOL.

Oh, one other thing. Homes that are in regular and volunteer fire districts still burn to the ground. That is why prudent people buy fire insurance.

But having a belief that Nature, or symbolically embodied Nature, is a creative force seems pretty plausible. Or that plants have medicinal value.A belief in magic spells and incantations backed by deities -- a concept central to witchcraft -- is not.

It is absurd, just as it is absurd to believe that some fictional undead bastard rape child is the son of an all-powerful old man in the sky who made a planet in a week.

The difference here is not the level of the absurdity, but rather whether the belief in that absurdity is voluntary.And there is no history of Wiccans starting Inquisitions or Crusades. No persecutions, no ethnic cleansing, no genocides in the name of their belief system.Because they don't have the power to do so.

They couldn't even get away with crimes that Christians easily get away with, like gay exorcisms. So there's no way they could even think about crusades or ethnic cleansing.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't, if they could.

He should have paid the fee.

I don't see the connection to the Tea Party movement.That is what the tea party and you nutjob anarchist libertarians want, isn't it?

For government to be dismantled and to have everyone fend for themselves, right?

(Except of course when it comes to YOUR benefits.)

A belief in magic spells and incantations backed by deities -- a concept central to witchcraft -- is not. Well, we both know what Wiccan or Pagan deities are not like the fourth generation deities. And like I said, if you converse with modern Wiccans or Pagans, most of them will tell you that they are atheist. Their magic spells and incantations are, of course, completely useless.

Christians attempt to cast a spell or incantation on you every time you sneeze. Bless you.

It is absurd, just as it is absurd to believe that some fictional undead bastard rape child is the son of an all-powerful old man in the sky who made a planet in a week. Being born without a god gene, like both of us have, pretty much invalidates all of the magic woo woo for us both.

But we both also know, that even after eschewing the Christian god, relatively high IQd people will just glom onto some other pseudo religion to replace it. How many otherwise smart Liberals latch on to Buddhism or Scientology or New Age Woo Woo. Instead of the Christian zombie god.

The difference here is not the level of the absurdity, but rather whether the belief in that absurdity is voluntary.Because they don't have the power to do so. They are both equally absurd. On an absurdity scale. I was referencing a good to evil quotient scale. Wiccans are mostly harmless, as Doug Adams might say. Christians have a history of vile evil wickedness.

They couldn't even get away with crimes that Christians easily get away with, like gay exorcisms. So there's no way they could even think about crusades or ethnic cleansing. Wiccans and Pagans have no central organization or leadership. That by itself prevents the kind of wholesale generic problems that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have perpetrated on outsiders.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't, if they could. We have no history, actual or fictional, that portrays Wiccans or Pagans having the type of religious power or fanaticism of the big Three religions.

I think that the closest that we have is the story in the Bible, from Numbers 31. Where a Pagan king sends his daughter over the mountains to propose marriage to Moses. Polygamy at the time was an accepted means of forming alliances, Moses had like 30+ wives at the time. But he became offended at the offer. His god, told him to send 12,000 Jews over the mountain to slaughter the Medianites. And they did. But brought back 32,000 virgin sex slaves. After killing all 5 patriarchs, of 5 nations, and stealing every piece of jewelry, gold, and domestic animal. And burning 32 of the girls on a sacrificial pyre as an offering to their god.

No, Pagans never had the power to perform genocide. They worshiped fertility goddesses and seminal gods. Genocide on the scale of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims for religious reasons would have been antithetical to their belief systems. Those fertility goddesses and seminal gods were demonized by the big Three, and their practices(of having sex to procreate and celebrate fertility in their crops and livestock) were demonized into "Satanic rituals".

What is more essentially and fundamentally more vile?
Having sex with your wife in your field rows, hoping to get a good crop this year. Or eating the symbolic flesh and drinking the symbolic blood of your zombie god on a weekly basis?

That is what the tea party and you nutjob anarchist libertarians want, isn't it?

For government to be dismantled and to have everyone fend for themselves, right?

(Except of course when it comes to YOUR benefits.)
You will believe whatever you want to believe.

I believe that a social contract should go both ways. But that is because I have been a contractor for many years of my life. And having an agreement of, "I will do this for you, if you do this for me", just makes rational sense to me. Seems fair to me.

Commies believe differently. They think, "You do this or else, and you get what you get, like it or not, and if you don't like it, then we will kill you or put you in prison." This does not seem fair to me.

45% of my labor is already taken for the social 'good', without my choosing. I am 45% slave. The costs for military and police right now is a very very small portion of the 45% returned in exchange for my 45% slavery. Commies and socialists want to increase my 45% to a greater number. You brought up fire protection, but like I mentioned, fire protection has been on a volunteer basis for most of this county's history(well since Franklin started the first one), and continues successfully to this day.

I don't want it to increase, and that is rational.

Tea Party member or affiliates already have their 45% taken as well. Mocking them for having some of that returned to them(as promised) makes good fun to a Maher audience. But honestly, they are still getting back much less than they put into the system. Having one side of a contract get the majority of the value, while the other member of the contract gets less, is not a fair contract. It is not a fair social contract. And when contracts are discovered to be unfair, people will object, naturally.


late edit, ok, not carpet bombing China, maybe India. They still breed like rabbits. At least the Africans have AIDs right?

quote"No doubt a tea party fire station.

I bet they want to sell subscriptions to the military and police, too"

quote"the subscription common in many rural areas"

Fyrr partially answered this question as did the article. Many of the small rural towns in the south can not afford in their city budgets to have a full fledged fire department. Some towns are actually quite spread out in jurisdiction as well being largely farming communities and all. The fire departments they do have are generally strictly voluntary, and therefore is operated by multiple individuals for free. I myself in addition to my National Guard service obligations, drug task force both of those I was paid for when I was needed, however the search and rescue squads of various towns and volunteer fire department, emergency response(think paramedic, go go advanced combat lifesaver course from the army) work I was strictly free in my services I often provided for the community.

Unfortunately, the equipment I used was not free, which is where the subscription fees come in for the cost for things like telephone and electric bills as well as the fire trucks, maintenance costs yada yada you get the picture. That was before the tea party. This was also before the Bush Adminstration, probably dates back before many of the towns were registered as towns. That is just off base.

Now I know you are from San Francisco right? Do you remember the districts that merchants would pay for in fact, still do at times, for privately owned police departments, I forget what they are called. It worked similar.

quote"We have no history, actual or fictional, that portrays Wiccans or Pagans having the type of religious power or fanaticism "

Actually Fyrr, yes they did. Many of the Greco/Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian time periods as well as the religeous leaders of those gods they worshipped would and they were considered pagans. Wiccans developed mainly from the followers of Artermis, Dionynis as well as the druids of ancient Britannia. The Aztecs of Mexico were fairly well documented but, never really suppressed Cortez and his crew effectively.

There has also been a pretty healthy debate whether Lucifer is interred as either Satan, or the king of Babylon and later merged following several scripts and translations later.

Fyrr partially answered this question as did the article. Many of the small rural towns in the south can not afford in their city budgets to have a full fledged fire department. Some towns are actually quite spread out in jurisdiction as well being largely farming communities and all.

Which is why in most european countries at least things like emergency services are essentially paid for at the state level.

I know, I know. Evil dirty curse words and everything to even think that paying things socially (i.e. by the society as a whole) could ever be a good idea.
But at least over here the fire brigade never lets burn down a house unless there really is no way it can be saved. And the police will come when called and not only when you live in the right part of town and have dutifully paid your protection taxes. And levees are not constructed according to the wealth of the people living behind them (and who contribute most in municipal taxes) but to make sure that they will not fail anywhere.

Silly notion that...


Eri

I think that the closest that we have is the story in the Bible, from Numbers 31. Where a Pagan king sends his daughter over the mountains to propose marriage to Moses. Polygamy at the time was an accepted means of forming alliances, Moses had like 30+ wives at the time. But he became offended at the offer. His god, told him to send 12,000 Jews over the mountain to slaughter the Medianites. And they did. But brought back 32,000 virgin sex slaves. After killing all 5 patriarchs, of 5 nations, and stealing every piece of jewelry, gold, and domestic animal. And burning 32 of the girls on a sacrificial pyre as an offering to their god.And assuming you believe that story, it proves that even back then, they were a lot less powerful than the proto-Jews were. Because otherwise the king wouldn't have tried to bribe Moses with women and wouldn't have lost the fight.

They've never had the power to attempt the things Christians have done.

If they had it, they would use it. It's human nature.

You brought up fire protection, but like I mentioned, fire protection has been on a volunteer basis for most of this county's history(well since Franklin started the first one), and continues successfully to this day.Firefighters in San Francisco don't work for free. They get paid quite well, actually.

The manufacturers that build their trucks don't work for free (they cost $500K+ each).

The city workers who install water lines and hydrants don't work for free.

Nothing about firefighting is "voluntary".

It costs a lot of money, not just to hire the people who run into buildings and point the hoses, but also to build the infrastructure and equipment.

Now that said, the question becomes, who should bear that cost. And putting out fires is one of those things that falls within the general public interest, and the people should collectively pay for it.

Firefighting should not be privatized any more than the military, or the education system, or the police force should be.But honestly, they are still getting back much less than they put into the system.Actually, the majority of people get more than they put in, since the very rich fund most of it.

And if the very rich didn't, the rest of the people wouldn't be able to live the extravagant lifestyle they do.

Many of the small rural towns in the south can not afford in their city budgets to have a full fledged fire department.Read the rest of the story. They were there, and they put out the neighbor's fire once it spread.

And the guy's son got so mad that they just let his father's house burn down, that he went down to the station and punched out the fire chief. He was then arrested and charged with aggravated assault.

So now, the guy's house burnt down, the fire chief has a black eye, and the county is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars prosecuting/incarcerating the guy's son.

All over some silly $75 fee that should've been paid by the public in the first place.Now I know you are from San Francisco right? Do you remember the districts that merchants would pay for in fact, still do at times, for privately owned police departments, I forget what they are called. It worked similar.I don't know what you're talking about.

The SFPD does not work for free, and they are paid for by public funds.

Everyone, from a movie star living in a $30 million mansion, to the drunk psychotic drug addict roaming the streets, is entitled to police protection, regardless of their ability to pay.

That's the way it should be.

45% of my labor is already taken for the social 'good', without my choosing. I am 45% slave.Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society.

Humans, in fact, instinctively share resources with one another, unlike other apes.

That's why every society has a system of wealth distribution.

If it weren't for taxes, you'd probably still be in East Africa walking around wielding a stick, defending yourself from large cats.

And you wouldn't have all the resources you now have, which you use to pay that 45%.

So take your pick, paying 45% of your resources while you live a life of luxury and comfort, or paying 0% to live as a lone man in the desert with nothing.

Having one side of a contract get the majority of the value, while the other member of the contract gets less, is not a fair contract. It is not a fair social contract. And when contracts are discovered to be unfair, people will object, naturally.That depends what their alternative is.

Rich people get and stay rich with the help of many people who are not rich.

If the rich people don't pay, then everyone else is going to rise up and replace them, and take their riches by force.

So given the choice between sacrificing some of their riches, and having none at all (or being dead), it's not surprising that they choose the former.

quote"Read the rest of the story. They were there, and they put out the neighbor's fire once it spread"

Yes, I seen they were there, present and watching as it burned, and yes it does seem silly, I think it is myself. I know how they operate, being as how I did this for several years. That yearly fee they charge does exactly that, purchase the equipment necessary to fight the fires. We are talking about a town with an allocated via state, city with a budget of around 60k a year, rough guess, fairly standard for small towns. I am not kidding. Good Luck trying to finance fire trucks as well as paying personel just off that. Also hence the voluntary part that I have been telling you about as well as Fyrr.

quote"I don't know what you're talking about.

The SFPD does not work for free, and they are paid for by public funds"

Called patrol specials San Fran was pretty spread out it was difficult in the early days of that city to police, was they broke it down to districts and allowed citizens to essentially be the police in which they were paid fees by the district they were in for law enforcement. It is still in existence with some interesting notes. More on this later running off to work.

That yearly fee they charge does exactly that, purchase the equipment necessary to fight the fires.I'm not saying they shouldn't get the fee.

I'm saying it should be drawn from a general revenue pool instead of an optional head tax on each household, tea party style (with clearly shameful consequences).

Don't tell me the state of Tennessee doesn't get a lot of federal funding (my money), far more so than it contributes.

quote"I'm saying it should be drawn from a general revenue pool instead of an optional head tax on each household, tea party style (with clearly shameful consequences"

Again, where are you getting the revenue from for a general pool. Levies, taxes? In small towns such as this the county usually collects property taxes. The state government allocates xx amount of dollars per town, per person, etc. Services such as garbage disposal run similar as these towns simply can not afford them, that large cities can afford in their budgets simply on population.

Sure, the solution in action is not foolproof obviously, given the article in question. Perhaps if the fireman had put out the fire in the first place rather than small time politics, would people then continue to pay for a service when they would get it for free until the basic maintenance costs of a firetruck and operating expenses dry up and have to shut down?

quote"Don't tell me the state of Tennessee doesn't get a lot of federal funding (my money), far more so than it contributes"

Sure it does. What products and services is Tennessee doing that effects those in California or surrounding areas of the country? That would be the question. Perhaps arms for the miltiary? Centralized location to easily distribute quickly and effectively interstate transit and various distribution centers of government services? How about government services based in Tennessee? Tenn produces alot of corn also which is heavily subsidized, also soybeans.

I believe Memphis has a large Internal Revenue Service center, and generally serves around 15-20 states, that would not be the pricest of operations, but still, things to consider. Remember, Tennessee citizens have built the atom bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki, that was nearly 60 years ago though. Certainly there is some sort of government production that Tenn. is providing. Could some of those services be redistributed elsewhere? yes.

quote"Which is why in most european countries at least things like emergency services are essentially paid for at the state level.

I know, I know. Evil dirty curse words and everything to even think that paying things socially (i.e. by the society as a whole) could ever be a good idea."

I do not make the rules, laws, legislation, governing the budget allocation of taxes and such. This is my main beef with the tea party movement, the complete lack of regard in their emphasis in smaller government, low taxes and so on. These basic services that serve a vital function are overlooked. They would become a line item veto. And wonder what happened when a kid plays with matches and starts a forest fire, that burns uncontrolled because they line item vetoed certain services, then, need a federal bailout for a disaster area. Oh wait, that was a line item veto as well, let it burn, all of a towns production means goes with it, and so on.

Again, where are you getting the revenue from for a general pool. Levies, taxes? In small towns such as this the county usually collects property taxes. The state government allocates xx amount of dollars per town, per person, etc.Obviously they had enough money to put out fires without the fee, since they put out the neighbor's house when it caught fire.

So there is enough money coming from somewhere. And with all the tax dollars we Californians pour into the state you'd think they'd be able to set aside a little bit for something as basic as fire protection.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

That is what the IRS carved into the front of their building.
Just because they say so, you believe it?

Let's just cut to the chase and make it 100% tax.
Then we can be 100% civilized.
I want more than 45% civilization. That's not enough.
I want 100% civilization.
What gives.

Let's just cut to the chase and make it 100% tax.What is it about libertarians that only allows them to see black and white?

They should add a chapter about shades of grey to your libertarian manifestos.

So what percentage is your golden number?

How much, exactly, of my labor are you entitled to take?

Nm exactly, give me a grey 3 number range.

So what percentage is your golden number?

How much, exactly, of my labor are you entitled to take?

Nm exactly, give me a grey 3 number range.That depends on what standard of living you demand.

If you want to live in the lap of luxury in a first world nation, as you currently do, the range is from about 25 to 50% of GDP in taxation, with the United States at the low end of that scale.

If you're willing to live in Bangladesh or Afghanistan, with their standard of living, the relative taxation rate is lower.

Unfortunately for you libertarians, we "commies" have taken over the world, and there's no place you can go where we won't force you to share resources.

However, I would fully advocate the establishment of "libertarian reserves", places set aside for you people where you can live without taxation and without the burden of having all the benefits civilized society grants you. It would be amusing to see how long you might make it before you come crawling back, begging and pleading, for the "commie" lifestyle.

So the Soviet Union was not only the most civilized.
It had the highest standard of living too.
With near 100% taxation.

Standard of living is tied to production.
Not taxes.
Silly goober thinking.

So the Soviet Union was not only the most civilized.
It had the highest standard of living too.
With near 100% taxation.

Standard of living is tied to production.
Not taxes.
Silly goober thinking.

Actually it is both. Not that I expect to convince you.
The total production determines to volume of wealth that is available to the population. How much of that can be realised as standard of living depends in part on the level of services available. Having an annual income of 100 million means nothing if you live alone in the desert with no means to get out or anything you could spend that money on getting in. In other words standard of living is not simply the amount of money you have to spend but also the variety and quality of things you can spend it on.

Further, you are fond of saying that taxes are stealing 'your' money.
But you generally fail to realise that it is not your road you travel on, not your banking system that makes transaction possible, it is not your mint that makes coinage you can trust to pay with, it is not your police force that protects your life and property, not your firefighting brigade that does the same, not your levee system/hurricane center/tornado watch that warns you of impending danger, not your fema that comes to your rescue should a disaster strike your area, not your pension system that garantuees that you will not starve to death when you retire.
I could go on, and am not hopeful you get the point I am trying to make anyway, but all these are public services that have to be paid for in some way. It can be through usage fee, but that will essentially mean that anybody who ever needs those will immediately be bankrupt. It can be paid for through an insurance style system, where everybody pays an annual fee into a common pool which pays out to those who need, but this tends to limit availability to the richest since the poorer are forced to opt out of the system, leaving fewer to cover a payout that is not going down much). Or you can have a system where the fee is weighted by annual income. Which is what a taxation actually is. Now you can argue that it would be better to have private companies doing this rather than central government, but experience with strongly capitalist system in past and present suggests that this is not actually the case despite unshakable faith by the believers that 'greed is good' and 'government is only one step above the devil'.

I am not going into an extensive argument why in many cases relying on privately owned companies is not a good idea. We have had that discussion here many times before and it has not changed your belief one bit. Just rest assured that the tea party, insane as many of its public members are, is ran behind the scenes by a small group of obscenely rich people who think just like you and want the government to just go away so they can do as they please with their money and influence..


Eri

So the Soviet Union was not only the most civilized.
It had the highest standard of living too.
With near 100% taxation.Nice try.

But "if A then B" does not mean "if B then A".

There is no country with a high standard of living for everyone and low taxation.

That does not necessarily mean that countries with higher taxation have a higher standard of living.Standard of living is tied to production.
Not taxes.
Silly goober thinking.Without government to create infrastructure, enforcement systems, and a standard economy, there is no way to translate production to a country-wide standard of living.

And only taxes can make these things happen.

Unless you'd like to point out an example of a human society (of over 1,000 people) that accomplished all this without taxes.

But you generally fail to realise that it is not your road you travel on, not your banking system that makes transaction possible, it is not your mint that makes coinage you can trust to pay with, it is not your police force that protects your life and property, not your firefighting brigade that does the same, not your levee system/hurricane center/tornado watch that warns you of impending danger, not your fema that comes to your rescue should a disaster strike your area, not your pension system that garantuees that you will not starve to death when you retire.
I don't fail to realise anything.

All of the roads that need to be built by the public in the US have already been built. They were all built by the 70s, when the total tax burden was much smaller. And it certainly does not take as much money to upkeep a road as it does to initially build it.

The majority of roads built today in California are streets. And developers, private companies, are who build those. Government tells them to do so, in the form of permits. 90% of the asphalt and concrete poured for roads in the last 25 years have been poured by people, not government. And that includes the pipes, tubes, and wires that are under those roads. All laid by contractors. Of course that cost is amortized to the homebuyer of homes that are served by those roads.

Example
Here is a sat image of a brand new city/town Mountain House California. Built over the last 2 dozen years or so to help supply SF with workers, or supply SF workers with affordable housing. All of the roads and infrastructure built within the blue border were built by private people, developers, and the cost passed on in home prices to consumers. The red lines are the existing roads, already built decades prior to Mountain House being built, but widened and improved publically, by taxes. Compare the total mass of public road compared to private road. And remember that the red roads were all built when taxes were much lower than they are now. Almost all new roads are built not buy government, but by people(productive people).

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6030/mountainhouse.jpg


California's sales tax was 6% until the big earthquake that leveled the Embarcadero in SF in 89. It is was raised for earthquake retrofitting of all overpasses in California, even those in low risk areas for earthquakes. The promise was made that the sales tax would be lowered after the work completed. The work has been completed, and because of incrementalism, sales tax is close to 10% now. Of course Tudamorf appreciates high taxes, the rest of California subsidizes his living and lifestyle in SF, a high risk earthquake alley city. They used fear to promote higher taxes, who wants to get squished by an overpass, or drop off a bridge into the bay during an earthquake.

And guess just where the biggest road slash bridge construction is taking place right now, at California taxpayer's expense. San Francisco. It's a beautiful bridge. But even after construction, they are going to charge 10, and then 20 bucks to just cross it. A general tax paid for by everyone, then a use tax for using the bridge.

No new levees have been built in California for over a hundred years. And again, upkeep is not nearly as expensive as initial construction. Yet percentage tax has increased dramatically since they were first built. And besides, even with reinvestment into levees to prevent them from failure, only means that they fail up higher. We have seen this will the last 100 year floods we have had in California in the last 25 years. It just moves the location of the flooding.

Police and fire service are necessary to any reasonable person living in a society. But our total percentage expenditure of taxes going to those services is minute.

I have not once in my life received money from FEMA. I choose to, by wisdom, to live in a place which does not recurrent natural disasters associated. If you live in such a place, ****ing move. It is not my fault you are so stupid to build your expensive home in hurricane or tornado alley, or on the edge of a cliff, or where it floods every 20 years or so. And those that do, should have been buying insurance to cover their losses. I have no sympathy for those who build or live in known disaster alleys. Ya, its nice having a view of the ocean from your stilted home carved out of the side of hill. But you should not have built there in the first place. I should not have to pay for it when a wave comes and knocks it down, unless I choose to(by buying pooled insurance say). Building a home there is stupid, was stupid, and will always be stupid. I should not have to pay for your stupidity.

I have no pension plan. I have had an enormous amount of my moneys taken to pay for the services for old people now(and in the past), it will not be there for me. I don't plan on retiring, actually. I will die long before I ever tap into the public retirement system. I am paying a huge amount of what I labor for for the services rendered to people who themselves paid a fraction of what they are taking out. Retirees believe that because they paid totally 100K or 150K into the system, that they are entitled to a million from the system now, or more. Public retirement is a bankrupt ponzi scheme, just has not collapsed yet.

Nice try.

But "if A then B" does not mean "if B then A". You are the one who is stating that high standard of living is due to high taxes.

I state that high standard of living is due to productivity. Which in turn allows for high taxes because A, people BELIEVE, that their high standard of living is due to high taxes(which is false), and B, people don't object to higher taxes(or can afford them easier), when they already have a high standard of living due to their increased(or superior) productivity.

Bangledesh and Afghanistan are not poor because they don't have high taxes, its because they don't have any resources, nor produce anything besides opium that anyone else wants.

There is no country with a high standard of living for everyone and low taxation. That is not causal, that is behavior.

That does not necessarily mean that countries with higher taxation have a higher standard of living.Without government to create infrastructure, enforcement systems, and a standard economy, there is no way to translate production to a country-wide standard of living. I agree the argument could be made that useless unproductive workers in a state system, in an elaborate job system, prevents poverty. For those unskilled useless unproductive workers.

The hardest working Cal Trans workers are those who are holding up the stop signs. Don't get me started about the fat lazy assed social workers at Cal Works, state workers, or the DMV. It is a huge system of waste, unproductive, and social obesity. But it is very efficient and moving money around, very efficient, from those who earn it, productive, and those who don't, unproductive. It is the most efficient way of doing so.

And only taxes can make these things happen. Yes, taxes are the best way for unproductive lazy people to not be poor. I agree.

Unless you'd like to point out an example of a human society (of over 1,000 people) that accomplished all this without taxes. I did not say without taxes.
I mean with lower taxes.
California, 25 years ago. Had a much lower tax percentage. Highest standard of living compared to most other societies contemporary to it at the time(world wide). We had less state and fed workers(relative to those producing) too.

For example, we now have less state workers now, with less 'work' being done, than in 2005. I have felt no effect of state workers being furloughed on fridays or mondays, my standard of living has not decreased one iota.

Has yours?

All of the roads that need to be built by the public in the US have already been built. They were all built by the 70s, when the total tax burden was much smaller.Not true.

Taxation (as a percentage of GDP) has remained almost constant since World War II, when there was a huge increase to finance the war.

Yeah, sales taxes have gone up a bit, but income taxes have dropped dramatically from the rates of the 1950s-70s. During World War II, the top federal marginal rate was 91%.

Compare your overall taxation rate to that of other countries (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf). You're getting a relative bargain. One financed today heavily by debt, but a bargain nonetheless.

California, 25 years ago. Had a much lower tax percentage. Highest standard of living compared to most other societies contemporary to it at the time(world wide).Again, wrong.

Just because sales taxes were lower doesn't mean total taxes were lower.

You can download detailed data from the Census Bureau summarizing the tax burden, and you'll see in California it has remained fairly constant as % of domestic product.

There is no country with a high standard of living for everyone and low taxation. That is not causal, that is behavior.What is that supposed to mean?

If your libertarian system is so great, explain why no successful society has ever used it.

Not true.
Yes, true. You just disagree.

Taxation (as a percentage of GDP) has remained almost constant since World War II, when there was a huge increase to finance the war.
This was not just the time of WW2, but the greatest growth of the social welfare system. Works programs to build roads, highways, dams, railroads.
We don't have those any more. There has not been a major dam built in my lifetime. No new railroads. The biggest highway project I know of is the expansion of the Bay Bridge(which you Friscoans should be paying for, not the rest of us). If you want to live in earthquake alley, you should be paying for it all, not the rest of us.

Yeah, sales taxes have gone up a bit, but income taxes have dropped dramatically from the rates of the 1950s-70s. During World War II, the top federal marginal rate was 91%.
I am not talking about rates. I am talking about taxes.
Income taxes, which were only instituted in 1913, make up a small sum percentage wise of taxes paid.

When I owned my business, I bought a commercial condo. I put up essentially a painted 4x8 painted piece of plywood on the front of my building. I had to pay the county a tax over 600 bucks a year to place that sign, and keep it on my own building.

Compare your overall taxation rate to that of other countries (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf). You're getting a relative bargain. One financed today heavily by debt, but a bargain nonetheless.
I did just fine when I paid 30% tax.
And I am sure my father did just fine when he paid 20% tax.

I find your total tax revenue chart suspect, as well.
Does it include sale and use taxes?
Does payroll taxes fit in. Welfare taxes. City, county, and state taxes.
Gas taxes. Tolls(I know you know about tolls taxes). Taxes at parks and campgrounds.
Sign taxes. Permit fees. Rent taxes. Death taxes, escrow taxes, estate taxes. Cap gains taxes. Tire taxes. Trash taxes. Taxes on your phone, and cable. Utility taxes. Corporate taxes. License and certification taxes.
Taxes on taxes.
And all of the money paid to pay those taxes. And the taxes paid on those products and services.

I don't know how many 100s of dollars I paid in sales taxes on rented tapes and DVDs over the years, even after the owner of them already paid the sales tax of them.

Buy a new car for 40K, pay 10% at signing. Sell it in 3 years, buyer pays another 10% in tax, sell it again in 3 years, and buyer pays again another 10% tax. Not including DMV registration taxes, which are paid yearly.

Your chart seems very suspect.
ost of the total taxes paid are hidden within other costs. And are essentially, but not in name value added taxes.
I really really suspect your chart is completely inaccurate as to the total tax burden.

Again, wrong.

Just because sales taxes were lower doesn't mean total taxes were lower.


Well, just to be simplistic then. You are wrong.

In 1975 one could write off credit card(personal loan) interest.
When the CA sales tax was 6%.
And CA income tax was lower.

What is that supposed to mean?

If your libertarian system is so great, explain why no successful society has ever used it. Just because you were born with a brain, does not mean you have to use it.

I said it a previous post.
As a society becomes more prosperous, it is easier to convince them to give up more of their labor for charity or common good.

We have thousands museums and libraries all over the country, which were funded by rich people when total taxes were marginal compared today.

Not paid for by government, but by private people, not by taxes. You have dozens of them in your own city, my friend.

But they did that by choice.
I think that Warren Buffet, Melinda and Bill(Carnegie, Crocker, deYoung, Guggenheim, et al) do a much better at doing charity, and public good. Than Tanysha Tangerey(the social worker, the state worker, the DMV worker) would ever do.

Even poor Tanysha has multiple of modern(technological) slaves to do her work for her. Even as poor as she is, she is a comparable queen, compared to her ancestors. But she is stupid, unlike her queen and rich ancestors. And is easy to influence with stupidity.

nm, you don't have the cranial capacity to understand.

Anyway, I don't have a cell phone and cell service that came from any governmental works program(I don't even have a land line). Internet started out as a government service(for government use only), but was completely useless to me until the mid 90s when private companies and people created the usable part of it, and a use out of computer networks. The computers that make up the framework of the parts of the Internet which I use are and were all put in place by non governmental organizations.

Both have increased my standard of living(as I define it), with little to no input from government. And I could argue effectively that government regulation of both have decreased level of service in both of those venues. That is to say, that though they have not built it, or made it, they are taxing it now extensively, and trying to increase the taxes higher currently.

Governments no longer add services or values to society, they take from the productivity of those who are productive, and give to those who are less productive. They do that efficiently.

I have a question?

Just how many successful businesses have you run, Tudamorf?

I always kinda imagine you as some kind of software programmer kind of person.

Do you own your own business?
How many products or services have you brought to market?
Do you make a profit with that business?


But probably not. A very large portion of the software and computer community are Libertarian. Because it is logical, and those people are logical people.

Sometimes you sound more like a state worker, maybe in charge of approving plans or things. Do you work for the city, in some small office without windows, or something?

What do you do?

He might not be, but I am a software developer, as are a number of my friends.
A very large portion of the software and computer community are Libertarian. Because it is logical, and those people are logical people.
That has not been my experience. Larger than for the general population perhaps, but not "large" in any absolute sense, at least for your brand of Libertarianism. They tend to complain about government intrusion when it comes to social policy (government should get out of marriage entirely, there should be fewer prohibitions on drugs, etc.) but I don't think any of my friends would agree with you on economic policy.

Yes, correct.

And thank you for the correction. I said it backwards.

There are a notable amount of Libertarians who have Computer Science backgrounds. At least early Computer Scientists. Not the other way around, like I wrote. And was speaking of Libertarians of the 80s.

Today's programmers have no problem with putting products out which are illogical, full of bloat, unused code, and bugs. They will just have other programmers fix those in the next patch, bug fix, workaround, or revision.

I don't know what the current demographics are for Libertarians are today. It is a null issue today, and I don't really care. Rand said that opinions don't matter, Maher is a flaming liberal now, Miller is a flaming conservative.

In regard to what my brand of Libertarianism is, its rather simple. Keep your Jesus off my penis, and keep your hands out of my pockets. If your fist hits my nose, I'll kill you(and pay someone to kill your family). Simple.

Today's Tom Sawyer will get by on you.

Today's programmers have no problem with putting products out which are illogical, full of bloat, unused code, and bugs. They will just have other programmers fix those in the next patch, bug fix, workaround, or revision.
It's not that programmers have no problem with it (as a rule). Generally programmers don't have a choice in the matter due to market pressures: properly engineered code might take an order of magnitude (or more) longer to produce. When it comes to consumer software, minimizing defects beyond a certain point means pricing and/or delaying yourself right out of the market.

It's not terribly different from how shoddy inexpensive physical products push well-made expensive ones out of the marketplace.

I think I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating:
http://www.fastcompany.com/node/28121/print
That's what it takes to write software of modern complexity that is almost defect-free. That kind of expense is hard to justify unless you have a lot riding on flawless performance of software. (The article claims it's not expensive at the end, but that's only because software development is a tiny part of what NASA and associated teams do. $35 million per year to write and maintain one program with less than half a million lines of code isn't expensive?)

It doesn't help that QA departments are frequently understaffed, underappreciated, and at odds with management. I know someone who effectively lost his job because he refused to sign off on a product, insisting that it wasn't ready. (He was ultimately proven correct as the product is widely viewed as a flop due to numerous flaws, flaws that could have been fixed had additional time been allocated.)

What is that supposed to mean?

If your libertarian system is so great, explain why no successful society has ever used it.

Well, the USA is on the way to be the first country to do so, if the tea party habit of appointing any nutcase who can shout loud enough that it is all the fault of government keeps scaring saner politicians into burying their heads in the sand... (yes, it seems like the tea party is secretly financed by some libertarian multi billionaires. Which of course they are hiding carefully because the heads of the 'we hate everything' crowd would explode if they find out they should also hate themselves)

Also, you are wrong. Plenty of countries in Africa have essentially embraced a system where central government is almost absent.
Strangely enough they tend to show up a lot on either the UN peace keeping list, or the terrorism watchlist, but I am certain this is pure coincidence...


Eri

LOL! Eri, you crack me up.

It's not that programmers have no problem with it (as a rule). Generally programmers don't have a choice in the matter due to market pressures: properly engineered code might take an order of magnitude (or more) longer to produce. When it comes to consumer software, minimizing defects beyond a certain point means pricing and/or delaying yourself right out of the market.
Totally agree. I've worked in places where the only thing they cared about was getting a product out of the door. If it had security holes the size of whales they didn't give a crap.

I find your total tax revenue chart suspect, as well.
Does it include sale and use taxes?It includes income, payroll, and consumption taxes for select countries. You can consult the OECD's annual publication for more detailed information.

The Census Bureau information on California taxes includes incoming tax, property tax, sales tax, alcohol tax, recreation taxes, public utility taxes, tobacco taxes, license taxes (including licenses for business as well as personal, such as cars), motor fuels taxes, gambling taxes, death taxes, stock transfer taxes, severance taxes, and a catchall category for "other" taxes.

No Fyyr, I don't think it includes bridge tolls. You got me. But then again bridge tolls are arguably a very libertarian concept, as people who use the bridge help pay for it.

Well, just to be simplistic then. You are wrong.

In 1975 one could write off credit card(personal loan) interest.
When the CA sales tax was 6%.
And CA income tax was lower.And today, you can exclude up to $500,000 of your income from taxes every two years by selling your home.

Just to be simplistic.

Just because you were born with a brain, does not mean you have to use it.nm, you don't have the cranial capacity to understand.So when you libertarians run out of black and white arguments and slippery slopes, you resort to the ad hominem attacks.

Yes Fyyr, that must be it, we are all just too damn stupid to understand libertarianism in all its subtle complexity*.

It couldn't be that when Americans dabbled in your brand of laissez-faire capitalism up to about a century ago, it was a catastrophic, dismal failure, which led to all the "commie" reforms.

It couldn't be that when Americans once again recently dabbled in it, it was a less catastrophic but equally dismal failure.

No that can't be it, it must be that we are all too stupid to have embraced the future of libertarianism.

At least back when people were saying communism was the future, it hadn't already been proven to be a failure.

*Which anyone can easily figure out in about 30 secondsWe have thousands museums and libraries all over the country, which were funded by rich people when total taxes were marginal compared today.

Not paid for by government, but by private people, not by taxes. You have dozens of them in your own city, my friend.

But they did that by choice.
I think that Warren Buffet, Melinda and Bill(Carnegie, Crocker, deYoung, Guggenheim, et al) do a much better at doing charity, and public good.With a huge helping hand from the government.

Yes, SOME rich people are philanthropists, but their activities are HEAVILY subsidized by government through deductions/income exclusions for charitable activities.

Every time Bill Gates makes a donation to his foundation, about half is subsidized by federal and state governments.

Without government to strongly encourage those activities, most would disappear.Both have increased my standard of living(as I define it), with little to no input from government.Government creates the atmosphere that allows it to happen in the first place.

Do you think anyone would build a cellular network, if they weren't reasonably sure they could protect their assets and make a profit?

Do you think anyone would buy a cellular phone, if they weren't reasonably sure some thug couldn't walk up to them and get away with stealing it?

How would you, as a consumer, feel, if your cellular provider tomorrow decided to charge you $1,000,000 for service, and demanded payment or else?

Without government, you wouldn't be carrying a cellular phone. You'd be carrying a big stick to defend yourself and sleeping with one eye open.Governments no longer add services or values to society, they take from the productivity of those who are productive, and give to those who are less productive. They do that efficiently.I told you.

I would heartily endorse "libertarian reserves" for you people.

Places where you can go to be free of both taxation and civilization.

Seriously.

If you live to tell about it, it would offer you the best lesson in why libertarianism is a fundamentally unworkable model for society. Far better than any verbal discussion.

Also, you are wrong. Plenty of countries in Africa have essentially embraced a system where central government is almost absent.Perhaps. But that doesn't mean taxes go away, it just shifts the collection activity from the central government to loose bands of thugs and warlords.

Any model for society, like libertarianism or communism, that ignores human instinct, is doomed to failure.Well, the USA is on the way to be the first country to do so, if the tea party habit of appointing any nutcase who can shout loud enough that it is all the fault of government keeps scaring saner politicians into burying their heads in the sand... We've already been there. Read some history about the era of trusts, late 19th century to early 20th. The Jungle. And so on.

We've learned our lesson, it's just that the libertarians forgot it.

In regard to what my brand of Libertarianism is, its rather simple. Keep your Jesus off my penis, and keep your hands out of my pockets. If your fist hits my nose, I'll kill you(and pay someone to kill your family). Simple.Unless I can pay more, in which case I kill you.

Libertarianism at its finest, right?

And that's not getting into the obvious issue of how you'd kill me. If humans had been libertarians from the start, they would never have developed swords, guns, or other advanced weapons. You'd have to kill me with your fists, or a sharp stick, while trying to defend yourself from other guys trying to kill you with sharp sticks.

But at least you wouldn't have to pay taxes.

You know, you libertarians are almost as hypocritical as Christians. And the only reason I put you slightly below them on the hypocrisy scale is that they are hypocrites in obvious, vulgar ways, like preaching celibacy one minute and raping boys the next.

But you libertarians are still fundamental hypocrites, wanting the benefits of a civilized society without having to pay your fair share. And the overwhelming majority of you take more from society than you are forced to give through taxes.

When did you buy your first cell phone Tudamorf.

I bought mine in 1988. For 650 a lame assed nokia car phone.

Second in 89. Another lame ass car phone for 700.
Third was a bag phone for 850 in 1990.
Fourth was a motorola hand held, the walkie talkie style for 1200(originally sold for 2000) 1991.

Back when the industry was more regulated than it is now. The government prevented contracts. And prevented bundling phone price into contracts.

A monthly plan was $25 a month and $.25 a minute. My average bill was 350 a month. My highest monthly bill was 650.

Only when government relaxed it's laws did cell phones and service become affordable. Free phones and $40 a month unlimited are ubiquitous now because of less government, not more. Your analogy fails. Your facts fail.

Only when government relaxed it's laws did cell phones and service become affordable.Oh yeah, advances in technology had absolutely nothing to do with that. :rolleyes:

y desktop PC is also a lot better and cheaper than the old IBM PCs I used in the early 80s were. I can't wait to hear how government deregulation is responsible for that too.

False analogy.

The cost of PCs are not amortized over two year contracts to make them "free".

You can buy an iPhone outright for 650+ today. Instead of 199.
If you don't want to commit to a two year contract.

The iPhone would never be as common as they are now if you had to pay full price at onset. Then pay for service anyway.

That only happened with less government. Not more.

And that less government has made Apple and At&t more profitable because of it. And more valuable to you as an owner(if you're a shareholder).

For an analogy to work the two compared things need to be alike.
Hat is to head as glove is to hand.
Cat is to tiger as dog is to wolf.
Personal computer is to AM radio as iPhone is to abacus. Is not a valid analogy.

The cost of PCs are not amortized over two year contracts to make them "free".Back in the 80s we had payment plans for people who didn't want to pay a lump sum for something like a computer or a cellular phone.

Which is all your two year contract is, a payment plan. You're not getting anything for "free". (And if you really think it's free, you're more clueless than I realized.)

Advances in technology and infrastructure, not advances in how contracts are structured, are what made cellular phones ubiquitous and successful.

y phone today is about 1,000 times more powerful than my first IBM PC/XT. Advances in technology, not libertarianism, made that possible.

Back in the 80s we had payment plans for people who didn't want to pay a lump sum for something like a computer or a cellular phone. We have that today as well. It's called credit. If you think that Iphones would be as prevalent as they are now, if people had to pay 650 plus tax to buy them, with CC interest, then pay for the service, that there would be as many of them as there are now, it is you who is clueless.

Which is all your two year contract is, a payment plan. You're not getting anything for "free". (And if you really think it's free, you're more clueless than I realized.) That is why free was in quotes. I know what a contract is. I have bought 4 Iphones. 2 have been stolen, one is my safe unused. And I still have to pay the balance of contract on 3 of them, only one of which is still in use.

Advances in technology and infrastructure, not advances in how contracts are structured, are what made cellular phones ubiquitous and successful. The advances and infrastructure were paid for by first adopters(and investors), like myself. With my productivity. Not by government. Governments did not put up cell towers, private enterprise did with the profits and payments from first adopters, like myself. Government did not build cell infrastructure.

y phone today is about 1,000 times more powerful than my first IBM PC/XT. Advances in technology, not libertarianism, made that possible. I agree, and NOTHING that government did made that happen. Less government made all of the advance happen, or helped them happen sooner.

Now, one could argue that people who started the first cell companies used actual telephones to conduct business, which were subsidized by government. But all those lines and telephone poles were bought and paid for long before the advent of cell phone service and technology. And others can argue that it was with the deregulation of the phone system(less government intrusion), and the break up of ATT in the first place which allowed them to start in the first place. And they most likely sent mail, using the USPS to deliver that mail. I give you those as example of how government allowed the construction of the initial cell networks. And there were police who keep hoodlums from tearing down the first cell towers. And when they caught on fire, there were ostensibly fire fighters who went and put those fires out. Those are givens.

But the towers were built by private companies. Mostly on private land. And when on public land, it was on leased public land.

The first mention I recall about cell phones was an article in Business Week, in 1983(which was essentially an undecided opinion article of whether or not this would be a good business to invest in). Which coincided with the break up of the ATT system into the Bells.

If I remember correctly there was also an article in that same issue of Business Week, about some kid who wrote some software program to collate traffic data. And who started a software business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And was looking for investors.

And today, you can exclude up to $500,000 of your income from taxes every two years by selling your home.

Just to be simplistic.

We're not going to get started on the home mortgage tax deduction thing are we?

Selling a home at a profit because of appreciation is not income.
You know that.

If you think that Iphones would be as prevalent as they are now, if people had to pay 650 plus tax to buy them, with CC interest, then pay for the service, that there would be as many of them as there are now, it is you who is clueless.The difference between the $200 you pay and the $650 list price of the phone is simply added to the price of the service contract.

They could have adopted, just as easily, a model where you put $X down and pay a small added fee each month, which is practically the same for the consumer.

Advances in the industry made cellular phones as popular as they are today, not technical changes in how you can structure contracts.The advances and infrastructure were paid for by first adopters(and investors), like myself. With my productivity. Not by government. Governments did not put up cell towers, private enterprise did with the profits and payments from first adopters, like myself. Government did not build cell infrastructure.But government created the atmosphere that made all that possible in the first place.But the towers were built by private companies. Mostly on private land.What makes land "private"?

Selling a home at a profit because of appreciation is not income.
You know that.Congress and the Internal Revenue Service would beg to differ with you.

Then again, you might like prison. You get free housing, utilities, and food, and depending on your circumstances, free blowjobs.

The difference between the $200 you pay and the $650 list price of the phone is simply added to the price of the service contract. I know that, that is what I said.
What I also said was that doing this was against the law. Government prevented this from happening.

It is not against the law now. Do you really think that Iphones would have 26% market share if the price of the Iphone was not apportioned over 2 years? Do you really think that cell phones would be a ubiquitous as they are today, if people had to buy the phones full price today?

The industry is much larger today, than it would have been, because there is less government now, than prior to the early 90s. Can you not understand that? Is your commie dogma or principles so sanctified in your brain, that you can't understand that?

They could have adopted, just as easily, a model where you put $X down and pay a small added fee each month, which is practically the same for the consumer. That was against the law, Tudamorf.
I told you that.

Advances in the industry made cellular phones as popular as they are today, not technical changes in how you can structure contracts.The allowing of contracts which included phone price, dramatically increased the numbers of users. Which increased revenues to the phone makers, and service providers. That additional revenue paid for the increases in advancement of the products and services used.

But government created the atmosphere that made all that possible in the first place. Government did nothing to help the original cell phone companies establish cell networks. They had to do it on their own, and against government regulation which made the work harder to do.

I suppose you could argue that they doled out the radio frequencies to them, that the cell calls were made upon. But what prevented someone from using those radio frequencies(free to all in the first place), was government.

What makes land "private"? It does not belong to the Federal, State or Local government. Nor was any of it taken under eminent domain.
People put up cell towers on their own land that they bought, or leased from someone else.
I am sure that some small fraction of towers were/are placed on leased public land, that being different than land given to them by the government.

The point is that cell networks were set up differently than the railroads or the first telephone lines strung across the country, with huge help from government. They are different and not alike. Do you or don't you understand that?

Simply put, and irrefutable.
The cell phone industry received little to no help from government.
And when government reduced its involvement and intervention in the cell phone industry, the industry exploded in growth. Because of less government.

Those two facts are undeniable, Tudamorf. Even though I know that you will continue to deny them.


Late edit.
I can only suppose that your meaning was...
What prevents other people from coming over to me and stealing my private land.
That is a fair use of government, Tudamorf. I give that to you.
Governments do have a job to do, to prevent murder, theft, and rape, etc.
But we have had much smaller governments, at a much lower cost, that prevented people from stealing land from one another.

Congress and the Internal Revenue Service would beg to differ with you.

It is Capital Gains, Tudamorf. Not income.
And is taxed differently than income.

Sales or purchases of assets are taxed differently(than wages, labor, goods, products, or services).

You know that.