“
Whether they are corporatists or socialists, what they have in common is not just a distrust of people thinking for themselves, but a fear of it. They are paternalistic as hell, thinking only they know what is good for everybody. Big business and big government just recycle executives. They squabble about the details, but the essence is the same: Big Brother, victimless morality laws, and endless wars.
The solution is individual power. Of course, statists will say that is laissez-faire to the max, but they are wrong; the so-called laissez-faire which is reputed to have existed is nothing more than big business and big government helping each other maintain the status quo.
Instead of the government controlling every step of the justice system, let victims prosecute, of course with penalties for bogus prosecutions, but in particular, let them prosecute companies for sloppy, inconsistent, or arbitrarily enforced policies, and eliminate all victimless crimes which let busybody Little Brothers ape Big Brother. That will keep monopolies in check, and keep the government from choosing what crimes to investigate and what criminals (both people and companies) to prosecute.
Anything of that sort scares the statists half to death. Only they have the wisdom and experience and farsightedness to guide the masses. That is why they prosecute morality, especially victimless crimes, and why they start wars and build empires — it provides a distracting excuse for their heavy hand. The last thing they want is a society of free people.
”
4:20 pm • 16 April 2012
“Confucius says: man made of straw should not bait flame.”
—
(Source: yro.slashdot.org)
5:32 pm • 6 February 2012
“In much of the world, this would be solved by fighting in the streets until one’s sides army faction gained ascendancy. This is being resolved with paperwork not bullets. This is the height of civilized behavior.”
— http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2627690&cid=38745458
3:26 pm • 19 January 2012
“
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
”
— Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
12:33 am • 28 July 2011
“16:36 <Lasers> Homeless folks — They looks creepy — but they’re not in any debt. So technically — They’re wealthier than most people because most people have their mortgages.”
4:39 pm • 17 June 2011
“
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”
Advocates of Socialism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of crab mentality, which are embodied in one maxim: If I can’t have it, neither should you.
Socialists resent other people’s success and they attempt to escape a so-called “unfortunate life” by pulling other people down.
I think you’d have to be a bit of an idiot to believe that Socialism is not an epic fail. What is it about libtards that they cannot think for themselves?
”
— Bertrand Russell (via cosman246)
(via dagseoul)
12:10 pm • 18 April 2011 • 4 notes
“
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that…
”
— http://www.polytickle.com/bm/polytickle-blog-tshirts/epic-fail-socialism-101-polytickle.shtml
5:45 pm • 15 April 2011 • 4 notes
Fringe: The Firefly
| Walter: |
You know the future. Tell me how I can save my son from dying.
|
| The Observer: |
There are things that I know. But there are things that I do not. Various possible futures are happening simultaneously. I can tell you all of them, but I cannot tell you which one of them will come to pass. Because every action cause ripples. Consequences both obvious and unforeseen. For instance, after I pulled you and Peter from the icy lake, later that summer, Peter caught a firefly. I could not have known he would do that. But because he did, a young girl three miles away would not. And so later that night, she would continue looking, trying to find another one. I could not have know that when she did not come home, her father would go looking for her, driving in the rain. So that when the traffic light turned red, his truck skidded through the intersection at Harvard Yard, killing a pedestrian.
|
| Walter: |
Did that happen?
|
| The Observer: |
You and I have interfered in the natural course of events. We have... upset the balance in ways I could not have predicted. |
2:04 pm • 24 February 2011 • 4 notes
“Our Tax System Explained Using the ‘Beer’ Language
When pondering the question of mining super taxes and the structure of our tax system in general please refer to this explanation using the language of Beer!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this;
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using,
and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction..
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”
— David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
(Source: dalesdesigns.net)
11:11 pm • 22 October 2010
“
Soft-Boiled Rice
One time, three men met at a trail crossing. One was a Boholano, another was a Pangasinan, and the last was Pampangueño. Each had only a smattering of the dialects of the others, but they managed to learn from each other that they were all bound for the same destination and to make it understood between them that, because of the distance and the difficulty of the way, it would be a good thing to travel together. They each carried an equal quantity of rice and agreed to put all their food together to make the cooking easier in the camp.
They walked on for several days and their supplies were running low. Finally, while camped near a spring, they noticed they had only very little rice left.
“Mayap no lilotan tapamo para dakal,” said the Pampangueño. (It would be better if we make lilot so it will be more).
“Pare, lugaon lamang ang bugas aron madaghan,” said the Boholano. (Pal, lets make linugao of the rice so that it will be enough for us).
“Andi u-umpay, maong na balbalon tayo piano dakel,” said the Pangasinan. (No my friends, it would be better if we cook binolbal, so it will be more.)
“I tell you, lets make linugao,” said the Boholano.
The Pampangueño got angry: “No lets make lilot out of it.”
“Stop,” shouted the Pangasinan alarmed. “It would be very unwise to quarrel here. Let us re-divide the rice so that each one of us could prepare his share in his own way.” They did so and soon three fires were burning beneath three pots. When the cooking was finished and the three men looked up from their efforts, Their eyes widened in surprise.
“Linugao!” cried the Boholano.
“Lilot!” exclaimed the Pampangueño.
“Binolbal!” shouted the Pangasinan.
They all only cooked the rice a little longer and with more water, making the grains larger and softer than usual. A common understanding might many times have saved both time and temper.
From Boholano Folklore by Maria Caseñas Pajo.
”
— http://www.bohol.ph/article117.html
3:27 pm • 13 August 2010
