Pharyngula

Posted by: rob | December 21, 2010 10:28 AM

ahhh...now i see the light! praise the lord!!11!!1

Posted by: dtm | December 21, 2010 10:31 AM

It seems to me that the big lesson from this is to get your employer to pay you a substantial portion of your pay in housing allowance, rather than all in salary.

I'm not sure that electing out of Social Security and Medicare is over all a good deal.

Posted by: S | December 21, 2010 10:36 AM

For the first time I'm wondering how to be a priest. Nah, the hypocrisy would kill me. But seriously, 105k? I'll be lucky to make that at the end of my tedious education and internships and what not.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | December 21, 2010 10:41 AM

I'm an emergency medical technician. My job is to keep you OUT of heaven. Try and guess how many years it would take me to earn $105,000.

I guess some at the top of my field make money in that neighborhood -- firefighter/paramedics in certain high-expense areas, but on my level the average annual take-home is approximately what that swine spends on wine.

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | December 21, 2010 10:49 AM

Describing 105k as "humble" is sickening.

Even the base salary of 40k is anything but humble, especially for what I presume to be a man with no family.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn-KgO3VB4dqaRkSAD3lANmD5U98obs-Zk | December 21, 2010 10:57 AM

@#9, yes, but the kiddie pr0n bills are quite punishing.

Posted by: viridian1 | December 21, 2010 10:59 AM

that's it, I'm going to seminary

Posted by: El Gophero | December 21, 2010 11:04 AM

Sign me up. Is there any way to fast-track the whole ordination process?
Praise Jesus!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | December 21, 2010 11:08 AM

Final tax bill for Mr Holy-Come-to-Jesus: $740, on an income of $105,000. Final bill for a secular citizen of equal financial status: $18,826.

Fuck the clergy. I pay out nearly half that every week!

Posted by: Ygnir | December 21, 2010 11:15 AM

If a regular citizen only pays 19k taxes on an income of 100K+ it's no wonder your country has so many money problems.

You'd pay at least 40-50k in taxes over here, so count your blessings(!)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 11:26 AM

I don't know which I'm more upset about: him not paying that much in taxes or a far-left liberal complaining about someone not paying taxes.

Yes because Liberals are the one for constantly keeping rich people from paying taxes. fucking moron.

Posted by: And-U-Say | December 21, 2010 11:29 AM

Yeah, but he has to pay 10% of that income back to the church as a tithe. So it's all good (charity an all).

Posted by: pt | December 21, 2010 11:34 AM

Just awful.
He probably does everything he can to pay less taxes.
Who needs to sign up for social security anyway? It'll all be gone by the time I could use it.
This guy probably figured the rapture would happen by the time he'd need s.s. or medicare anyway.
*sigh

Posted by: mst3k | December 21, 2010 11:36 AM

Yes You're right. People want taxes just to be mean and take away people's money. That's the entire read. Idiot.

Really? I thought the money went to social programs. I'm even more pissed now!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | December 21, 2010 11:38 AM

#24

I phrased that wrong.

You might well of done, does not change the considered diagnosis though...

you are a fucking moron!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 11:40 AM

@AB3

Meh best not to respond. It's just going to be more snarky bullshit that's just like "Social programs are the worst thing ever!". It looks like he's just trolling since it's all he ever says. Besides, he'll have to leave soon as movie sign comes on.

Posted by: bananacat | December 21, 2010 11:50 AM

You'd pay at least 40-50k in taxes over here, so count your blessings(!)

You have that backward. We don't have any "blessings" because we're unwilling to tax people enough to pay for them. Sure, I keep a little extra in my paycheck, but it all goes to car maintenance because we can't afford to maintain roads. And when our bridges and other infrastructure start collapsing en masse, all that money I've saved will go towards hospital bills.

And of course there are plenty of others ways that I waste money because we just don't have good social programs. I'm sure I'd be better off financially by paying more taxes.

Posted by: Q.E.D | December 21, 2010 11:55 AM

A friend's father is a Catholic priest(1)My mate recounts that the Christmas service offerings by the congregation go *straight into his pocket* with no declaration of income to HMRC (that's UKian for IRS)

(1) yes you read that right: dad was a CofE priest who converted to Catholicism. He got to keep the wife and kids. Astonishing how flexible the Catlik hierarchy can be when it's not about teh gheys or women.

Posted by: ThirdMonkey | December 21, 2010 12:04 PM

*rage*

Where did I put my torches and pitchforks...

Posted by: crocswsocks | December 21, 2010 12:11 PM

I am so moving to Finland or somewhere when I'm done with college.

Posted by: FordPrefect | December 21, 2010 12:17 PM

We have libertarian sign!

Myers has called a big one...

Okay.. that sounds dirtier than intended :)

Posted by: Skippy | December 21, 2010 12:42 PM

If I get the First Church of Trek up and running and anoint myself Praetor (analogous to "Pope," does that mean I can stop paying taxes?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 21, 2010 12:44 PM

I phrased that wrong. It's more like, I should be upset about this, but then I'm reminded that the owner of the blog fucking loves taxes, so reading him say something like "read this and feel your wallet cringe" made me LOL since that's what liberals like Myers love to do anyway, and I suddenly couldn't care.

Are you familiar with the old robot phrase 'Does Not Compute'?

I know he's a troll, I just saw a good excuse to say all that.

Posted by: ButchKitties | December 21, 2010 12:47 PM

One of the better Rally to Restore Sanity signs

I HATE TAXES
But I like: Roads, firemen, some cops, traffic lights, national parks, the Coast Guard, various TLA's, etc.

So I pay them anyway.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 21, 2010 12:48 PM

MST3K,
You are so fricking dim, you don't even understand when someone is being consistent! It's called civilization. It costs money. We enjoy its benefits, so we need to pay for it. If EVERYBODY pays their fair share, then it's not too expensive for anyone. The share you pay should be proportional to the benefits you enjoy--therefore the rich should pay the lions share, since they have it a whole helluva lot better than the poor.

See, not that hard, is it?

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 12:50 PM

Now, who's in charge of the contributions?
(Deacon Jones)
And who attends to the distribution?
(Deacon Jones)
And before any of the dough is spent,
Who is it that takes out his ten percent?
(Lordy, lordy hallelujah, Deacon Jones)
—Louis Jordan

Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2010 12:52 PM

The FFRF has been fighting laws that enable religious tax evasion in court.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkCFn8sk4ldwv2jyP57onVE7mwCEQQOe5U | December 21, 2010 12:52 PM

First, ministers, along with other state workers, are allowed to elect out of social security and Medicare. By electing out, they don't have to pay into the programs and they don't ever get to draw from the programs either.

Am I the only one insulted by the fact that our government trusts the clergy to manage their own retirement and healthcare, but also thinks that I'm to irresponsible to do the same for myself?

So the US subsidizes the rich and the pious. Does anyone else see something wrong here?

I do see something wrong here, and it's the incorrect use of the word 'subsidize'.

It seems to me that rather our government is taxing the churches the correct amount and taxing everyone else too much.

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 12:53 PM

Seems I remember you guys over there had a thing about Representation and Taxation. Does that still apply? Maybe you need to dust it off and wave it around a bit...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 12:57 PM

I do see something wrong here, and it's the incorrect use of the word 'subsidize'.

It seems to me that rather our government is taxing the churches the correct amount and taxing everyone else too much.

how many times are you going to repeat that?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 1:00 PM

I hope you're prepared to never have services of any sort, including roads.

Not "I hope you're willing to pay a private company for them". It's not going to fucking happen without government aid.

but but but

BUT

THE INVISIBLE HAND

and

AL GORE!!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 1:03 PM

About that starting wars, okay no WMD's but they did do 9/11 and deserved to be pounded.

Iraq did 9/11?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 1:07 PM

Rev, don't be a BigDumbChimp You know what I mean.

No obviously I didn't.

What did you mean?

Or are you just referring to "they" as any of those pesky brown people over there.

Please set me straight.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2010 1:10 PM

Rev, you know...
*whispers* the Mooslims

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 1:12 PM

Because we don't roads, bridges, schools, or any other public services!

How about letting me (and you) opt in to these services the same way the government is allowing the clergy to opt into Social Security and Medicare? I would be happy to opt out of many public services (social security, medicare and public schools) if it meant I didn't have to pay for them anymore.

I hope you're prepared to never have services of any sort, including roads.

Why do commenters on this blog always immediately jump to the conclusion that because I think the current level of taxation is far to high, I must therefore be against all federal services? I am happy to pay taxes for some services. But let me opt out of those I don't care for, the same way we are letting this clergyman opt out of social security and medicare. Don't you think responsible adults should be allowed to make these decisions on their own, and for themselves?

It's not going to fucking happen without government aid.

I'll be sure to remember that when I'm driving down the New Hampshire private toll road on the way to my private college with it's private campus security force.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 1:16 PM

I am happy to pay taxes for some services. But let me opt out of those I don't care for,

Yeah that'll work real well.

I'll opt out of paying for the military and for any services that support those damn pesky brown people Balstrom seems to be concerned about. Even the ones in our country. So public schools for me, sure, for them no.

Talk about creating more bureaucracy. Well you've just outlined a good way to increase it exponentially.

Posted by: Nij | December 21, 2010 1:17 PM

Why the crap do I have to do that when the government should be taking care of these problems? If they'd simply charge an honest amount of taxes and stop starting wars every 5 minutes we could have better services and balance the budget.

Oh wait, the USA? Nah, can't do that. Otherwise the Commies/libruls/Mooslims/atheists/Jews would invade the place, and we can't have that.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 1:19 PM

I'll take myopic and blissfully ignorant answers for 1000 Alex

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2010 1:22 PM

I'll be sure to remember that when I'm driving down the New Hampshire private toll road on the way to my private college with it's private campus security force.

I see you've opted out of reality already.

Posted by: CJO | December 21, 2010 1:27 PM

I'll be sure to remember that when I'm driving down the New Hampshire private toll road on the way to my private college with it's private campus security force.

Aaaand the hits just keep on coming. I suppose this private road goes straight from your driveway to the no doubt picturesque gates of your Klown Kollege. No? Oh, then, you mean the utility of this road is due almost entirely to the fact that it is accessible via many, many other roads, paid for with local and state taxes? Huh. And what about KK? Any research go on there? Where does the grant money come from? You don't say. Anybody attending who pays for school with loans or grants? Interesting. I suppose KK has its own hospital, emergency services, power plant and water supply?

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 1:28 PM

So public schools for me, sure, for them no.

I thought it was pretty clear that my position is that if one opts out of paying for the service, one doesn't receive access to the service. If you don't pay for public schools, then you don't get to go to a public school, so the scenario you just outlined becomes unrealistic.

You appear to be in favour of a system of private fiefdoms, rather than a nation.

You can call it whatever you want. What I am in favor of is permitting people to opt out of paying for a social service if they also are willing to forgo it's benefits. I am happy to never receive a dime from social security and medicare if it would mean that I was given the basic decency of the right to decide where I get my retirement and health care from of my own volition.

Again, we clearly trust the clergy with this task. Is it so unrealistic to trust everyone else with it?

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 1:33 PM

Of course it's your fault, or rather your views and wishes for government did not convince enough people to put them in place. And I am will suggest that once the people you voted for got into office, you forgot about them until you started getting hurt by them. Democracy is a duty, and you need to work it, to reap the benefits. Your opposition is doing that.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | December 21, 2010 1:35 PM

I'm so embarassed to have gone through a libertard phase years ago.
What kind of childish maniac can look at the history of the last 30 years and think you can get something for nothing?
You know who never goes in for free-market fantasies? Businessmen. Nobody making over $1M is quite stupid enough to think he got it honestly and without the big gummint. Just as magicians never fall for psychics, serious business executives and Republican bigshots never let ideology get in the way of huge welfare checks.

Wake up libertarian -- you are all-day suckers for cannibals who use you like toilet paper.

Wait I forgot -- you're special. Not like those suckers who've never seen V For Vendetta. No, you're all outliers like John Galt. 30 million special people. 30 million totally independent heroes who are tired of subsidizing parasites with their vast, tremendously productive output.

Of course, you assholes would never, ever fucking dream of putting your spawn in a public school. Or calling 911 when you're unregulated SUV flips and bursts into flame. And every time you're wronged, you pick up a gun and settle things like the tough guy you are -- you'd never use a public court; that would be SOCIALIST!

Retards.


I recently had a talk with my boss over taxes. As befits a millionaire, he thinks he pays too much and wants the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent. His position was that I might not understand tax policy because he pays me so little, I'm in the lowest bracket. Just wait until I'm making real money, he intoned with an air of deep wisdom, and then I'll see.

It almost broke my heart when I pointed out how half his wealth came straight from Medicaid payouts. I walked him through his credits, deductions, and back-door subsidies. I got him thinking about his mortgage deduction as public housing subsidy, and likewise the depreciation on his goddamn boat.

Breaking it down, I realized this asshole doesn't pay more than double my tax load, and gets services that put my (recently cancelled) food stamps to shame. And he was whining! WTF?!?!

During WWII, Disney made a film short with Donald and Uncle Scrooge laying it on pretty thick about how paying taxes every quarter was a patriotic act. Maybe we should all watch that. We might get our minds right.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 21, 2010 1:36 PM

Balstrome,
The Republicans have a strategy open to them that is not available to us. It is called "lying". And they have been lying so long that they have managed to convince a significant portion of the population that they can have gov't services without paying for them, that government is the problem not the solution, that climate change is not happening, that the truth doesn't matter, that they define their own truth...

The American kleptocracy has dumbed down the American electorate to the extent that they believe what they hear on Faux News, ferchrissake. I do not see how we beat this unless 1)we take a few decades to improve edcation and wait for the stupid to die off; 2)the whole creaking edifice implodes.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 1:40 PM

Next time some libertarian/WSJ writer wannabe tries to "explain" to me the invisible hand of the market, I'm going to take the damn treatise and slap them upside the head with it.

I think you should reconsider that sentiment. "Invisible Hand" is just a verbal short hand for the laws of supply and demand at work. And to deny the validity of the basic laws of supply and demand would be to deny the most well demonstrated principle in classical economics.

You can rail against the writing style of The Wealth of Nations all you want (and I'll agree with you, it's a horribly dull read). But you won't make a millimeter's worth of progress towards demonstrating the invalidity of the principle of the invisible hand, anymore than you would make any progress against a Christian by complaining about how many times the bible uses the phrase "And the lord said to Moses..."

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 1:42 PM

Cheap shot, I know, but here comes the excuses why your views are not accepted, the other side cheats.

Of course, working from within the system, would never change things, the facts are, as you have mentioned, you have not convinced enough people your way is better. And now you are whining about it. Don't talk to me, talk to your neighbour, get him on your side, your opposition did that. Take him back from them. or not, it's your choice. But don't complain about how evil and unfair things are.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 1:49 PM

You can rail against the writing style of The Wealth of Nations all you want (and I'll agree with you, it's a horribly dull read). But you won't make a millimeter's worth of progress towards demonstrating the invalidity of the principle of the invisible hand, anymore than you would make any progress against a Christian by complaining about how many times the bible uses the phrase "And the lord said to Moses..."

You fucking idiot. The point was that the shit you argue for is not supported by Wealth of nations. The book argues FOR progressive taxation and public education for starters. It doesn't say what you think it says.

There is no direct say at how your taxes are spent. We pool the taxes and then spend the money. A % of your tax money goes to many things, that's the point. It's co-operative. "Oh I might need medicare but will never need Social security, fortunately my neighbor needs Social Security so we cover each other. It's not perfectly balanced because that would be burdensome and pointless. It's societal insurance. Consider it paying for the right to live in a society where riots and peasant revolts and starvation aren't a constant annoyance. We learned in the past that if we don't address such things, then the masses...they get restless. Those who would be damned by the system and can't get any help because no one opts in for their social services are NOT going to go out quietly. They will get pissed, there will be someone atop a turned over car leading them and egging them on about how they need to storm the Bastille.

Also that opting out shit? We TRIED it already and it failed so hard on every possible level we had to start over with a new government

Posted by: btthegeek | December 21, 2010 1:58 PM

The shepard may never get fleeced, but not so for his flock. From my weekly HR update.

No rendering unto Cesar

As part of their ministry training, two Catholic seminarians from Mexico, Cesar Rosas and Jesus Alcazar, worked for St. Mary Catholic Church in Washington State. Their duties included performing maintenance work, such as cleaning sinks. Unhappy with their lack of worldly rewards, the two sued the Church claiming they were entitled to unpaid wages and overtime.

The Court rejected the claim based on the "ministerial exception" and the mandatory separation of church and state. Basically, the Court said the First Amendment prevented it from interfering with job decisions a religious organization makes with regard to its own religious leadership.

"A religious organization can constitutionally require its ministers or minister-in-training to spend a year volunteering in urban areas [or] to take a vow of poverty," wrote the Court, "So too, here, could the Catholic Church require its candidate for the priesthood to spend a year mostly cleaning sinks without overtime pay." [Alcazar v. Catholic Archbishop (9th Cir. 2010) no. 09-35003]

No pay forever

Claire Headley says she performed clerical tasks for the Church of Scientology at below minimum wage for 14 years. Headley was a member of Scientology's Sea Organization, whose members work long hours, live communally, and pledge their "1 billion-year commitment" to the Church.

After Headley sued for unpaid wages, the Court rejected her claim. According to a federal judge, Headley wasn't entitled to pay since she was a member of a religious order, was selected for her job based on religious criteria, and performed religious duties. [Headley v. Church of Scientology (USDC SDCA 2010)]

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 1:59 PM

I suppose this private road goes straight from your driveway to the no doubt picturesque gates of your Klown Kollege. No? Oh, then, you mean the utility of this road is due almost entirely to the fact that it is accessible via many, many other roads, paid for with local and state taxes?

That is correct. And if it was my goal to demonstrate that private industry has provided a complete road system the could compete with the federally funded system, you would have struck a crippling blow to my argument.

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was only to point out that private alternatives EXIST (something a recent commenter seemed to deny) not that they are (at the moment) as widespread or available as the federal alternative. But of course, you wouldn't expect them to be as widespread or available, given that the federal system is tax funded, and competing with it is like trying to compete with a free product. It's virtually impossible.

When everyone's decided to opt out of the bits they personally don't like/want (or just decided they can't afford to pay for it this year), the poor sods at the bottom won't be able to afford the suddenly much higher cost of basic infrastructure, let alone medical services, whether private or public. Ditto for education.

That's speculation. What of the billions of dollars which stand to be made by offering services to these "poor sods" which you (not I) have called inferior? You have provided no evidence that when faced with a lack of, for example, a federally funded education system, private venture capitalists would not rush in to fill the void, as they have with college education, which the government does not offer a per cost competitive product.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 2:05 PM

Maxwell Fagin:

Ah yes, because you know you're going to get good quality service from people whose main concern is the bottom line. Twat.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 2:08 PM

Ah, yes. Balstrome is back to tell us what to do. This time it's not about which posts are worthy of our time, it's about how we should all vote and shit because that totally works and doing anything else--like talking about the problems--is just a waste of time.

Quick, everyone, go vote right now!

What do you mean there isn't a fucking election going on? I want to vote!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 2:11 PM

Ah, yes. The boundless joys of watching a Libertarian express their selfishness as if it were a rational virtue. Why, I just can't get enough!

The laws* of supply and demand favor those in control of the supply.

* They are called "laws," as if they were as foundational as Newton's Laws. However, Newton's Laws had to go through much empirical evidence to become "laws." The laws of supply and demand were asserted as laws, but fail most empirical evidence, as well as a cursory application of logic.

Posted by: Janstince | December 21, 2010 2:11 PM

Maxwell Fagin:
I think you should reconsider that sentiment. "Invisible Hand" is just a verbal short hand for the laws of supply and demand at work. And to deny the validity of the basic laws of supply and demand would be to deny the most well demonstrated principle in classical economics.

My response is the invisible hand of stupidity whacking you upside your head. There were a lot of caveats in The Wealth of Nations. Ones that libertarians like you seem to conveniently "forget" constantly (hence my accusation that most people supporting a laissez-faire system haven't even read the book. Kind of like how many supposed christians haven't read the bible, or at least not critically).

Posted by: jo1storm | December 21, 2010 2:14 PM

Maxwell, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States.

It will help you with your ignorance a bit...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 2:17 PM

And of course, I don't think that poor people should die for the sin of being poor. I don't think our value is based solely on our ability to work and/or elicit sympathy from some specific charity. Programs for elderly and disabled people are already under-funded, and many people would "opt-out" of that if they had the chance. But maybe you just don't care about other people.

Then there are the things that you can't opt in or out of, like the military. There's no way they can protect just the people that paid for their service.

This and my point was, even if you don't care about the poor cause you're a prick, you should be interested in paying you're small part to keep them from going from "miserable and abjectly poor" into "murderously miserable and completely screwed". When the poor get poor enough and start dying from their poverty they tend to realize that a) the wealth have what we need to live and b) there's a lot more of us than them

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 2:20 PM

Ah yes, because you know you're going to get good quality service from people whose main concern is the bottom line.

Why yes actually, I expect exactly that.

I don't expect my school to be in business for my happiness. They're in business to make money. That's a good thing. The best way for them to make money is to offer me the product that I want: A good education.

I don't expect the JetBlue I to be in business for my comfort. I expect them to try to make money. That's a good thing. The best way for them to make money is to offer a service I want: A comfortable flight to where I want to go.

I don't expect Seed Media to be in business for my education. They are in business to make money from advertisers through things like ScienceBlogs. That's also a good thing, because the best way for ScienceBlogs to make money is to offer me the interesting content that I want.

Concern about the bottom line is a way to protect the consumer's satisfaction. Because unless a firm seeks to satisfy it's consumers, it won't have a bottom line (unless of course it gets one from the government, which as I've already pointed out, I oppose just as vehemently).

I assume you won't be using some social services so the people who can't afford to pay for them should be responsible to pay for them?

Why yes, as a matter of fact. That is a very eloquent summary of my position. People should be responsible for buying the things they need, and misfortune is not a token of claim on the property of others.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 2:21 PM

[rhetorical] Why is it that liberturds have to come here and show us the following consistently?
1) They are arrogant
2) They don't know economics
3) They are arrogant
4) They don't know history
5) They are arrogant
6) They don't know nothing but jingoism
7) They are arrogant
8) They have theirs, so fuck the rest of the country
9) They are arrogant.

Maxwell Figan fits the characterization perfectly.

If liberturdism was such a great economic/political theory, they should be about to point to 30 consecutive years worth of historical data from a country showing that they are right. From US history, that would correspond to about 1865-1895. Boom/bust cycles, trusts, monopolies, oligarchies and open political corruption. And entities like trade unions, FDA, and others were due to the failures of the market. Not quit what they have in mind.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 2:27 PM

When the system favors only the Haves the HaveNots will quickly become FuckThatITakeNows

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 2:28 PM

You are correct, mikerattlesnake. I have never been poor.

And on the day that the validity of my arguments is proportional to my financial status, I will credit you with making a valid point.

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 2:28 PM

Can someone please tell me how your opposition won? They got into power because they promised the things people wanted, and who told the people what to want. If your way is better, then show everyone, otherwise you can continue as you normally do and whine about how everything is not going according to your way of doing things.

One thing, democracy means that your way only counters when the majority agrees with it. So this leads to two possible paths, follow the herd or lead the herd. Either way, you will be part of the herd. Those who are not part of the herd, do not get the protection of the herd. It's that simple.

Posted by: jamesyp | December 21, 2010 2:32 PM

Then you're a fucking moron. The capitalists who 'rush to fill the void' and provide services for people who can't afford much (and can't afford decent lawyers) will cut all the corners they can, and provide the least service they can, for the highest possible profit they can. That's how your vaunted 'law' of supply and demand works.

The subprime mortgage nonsense was exactly this. Providing crappy service at high profit to people who don't know what they're getting into.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 2:33 PM

I mean, it's much more likely that corporations will be tripping all over themselves to increase the quality of education rather than trimming it back as far as possible in a race to the lowest price for the top dollar.

I suppose then it is only a coincidence that of the top 10 colleges in the United States, all 10 of them are private "corporations"?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 21, 2010 2:35 PM

Balstrome,
Democracy presupposes that the people are competent to 1)distinguish truth from falsehood; 2)discern their own best interest. This is demonstrably not true in the US at present. The #1 rated news network doesn't even try to hide the fact that it lies.

Posted by: CJO | December 21, 2010 2:36 PM

People should be responsible for buying the things they need, and misfortune is not a token of claim on the property of others.

Self-serving horseshit. Deprivation is a default condition of humanity. Whatever prosperity you are lucky enough to enjoy is a function of your family's good fortune to have been allowed to accumulate wealth in a period of domestic peace and prosperity significantly underwritten by tax dollars. I suppose it appeals to you, the idea that it is your family's virtue and work ethic that distinguishes you from the disabled, the discriminated against, the orphaned, etc, but it's a delusion. When we stop even pretending to try to care about those less fortunate than we are, we have given up on the idea of a functioning society. I guess you're convinced in your own righteousness enough to be sure that you will find yourself in the secure and propertied class lording it over the teeming millions living in the vast slums of North America. Good luck with that.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | December 21, 2010 2:37 PM

"You are correct, mikerattlesnake. I have never been poor.

And on the day that the validity of my arguments is proportional to my financial status, I will credit you with making a valid point."

Oh no, don't worry. You're argument is pretty much crap all around.

As for you, Balstrome, why are you wasting your time discussing democracy with us here when you can just vote to make us understand? Until that happens it seems like there's no sense in talking about it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 2:41 PM

all 10 of them are private "corporations"?

that would be a change.

typically, only 3 or 4 of the private unis make it into the top ten, based on job placement and quality of education measurements.

but I suppose it depends on which measurement you use, and who is doing the measuring.

which one did you use?

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 2:42 PM

God, but you guys really are a bunch of potty mouths. and worse you, while disagreeing with me, are actually making my point for me.

You do realise of course, if your guy got in, you would be totally happy with the situation, and how would your guy get into power, right exactly as I suggested.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 2:43 PM

I don't expect my school to be in business for my happiness. They're in business to make money. That's a good thing.

The decline in stature of the University of CA system over the last 30 years under the "for profit business model" highly suggests otherwise.

your own ignorance also suggests otherwise.

your school did a poor job.

Posted by: jamesyp | December 21, 2010 2:46 PM

(mine, for example)

Which is this one. Which school do you go to?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 2:49 PM

on the day that the validity of my arguments is proportional to my financial status, I will credit you with making a valid point."

five bucks says you credit your success to the wonderful education you got at your private university.

another fiver says, even though I've spelled it out, you still won't get why the above quoted statement is a lie on your part.

you DO credit the validity of your arguments to your financial status.

fuck, MOST americans do. Not only their own, but others as well. It's why the poor keep voting for rich bastards. It's why most Americans had no issue with supply-side economics, as defined by the Reagan administration.

fucking idiots.

here, this explains why you think (wrongly) as you do:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf

you might notice some parallels to other shared thinking patterns.

yeah.

libertarians, science deniers, they share a lot of similar thinking patterns, and for the same reasons.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 2:50 PM

Unless you made a fortune speculating on the stock market from the womb?

Great Grotty Grue! He's one of the E*Trade babies.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 2:51 PM

The one that supported his assertion: the "pulled it out of my ass" metric.

If by "ass" you mean "Google", then yes. Just google "Top 10 Universities in the US." The first source is from the U.S. News and World report college rankings. Not a single one of them is a state school.

I don't want to get into quips about college metrics or over who went to a better college. My point is to demonstrate that (despite what some commenter here seem to think) for profit ventures can and do lead to quality products (with private college education being one example).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 2:55 PM

"If you disagree with me, I must be right!"

now where have we heard THAT logic before...

Posted by: jamesyp | December 21, 2010 2:57 PM

Ok, University of Pennsylvania is a private school. Not a state school. Misleading name.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 2:58 PM

. My point is to demonstrate that (despite what some commenter here seem to think) for profit ventures can and do lead to quality products (with private college education being one example).

Birds can fly
Penguins are birds
Therefore Penguins fly.

No one denies for profits can make some good shit. They're shitty at other stuff though. A For profit fire department let a house burn down with the guy on the front law watching his house burn down. They drove right to the home with the engine, and didn't put out the fire because the guy hadn't paid his dues for the for Profit fire department.

I also looked through the list and spotted public colleges on it. FAIL.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 2:58 PM

Unless you made a fortune speculating on the stock market from the womb?

Did you consider the fact that wealth and success can come from hard work and effort, rather than from fortune and good luck?

You have stated that my "privileged" status is due to the fact that I've had good fortune and luck, I'm simply asking on what basis you make such an assumption?

Posted by: chasbo | December 21, 2010 2:59 PM

My (fake) Facebook church gets no tax bennies. Keywords "Choose P.E.A.C.E." (Post-Enlightenment Amythic Church of Evolution). Looking for members.

Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2010 3:01 PM

Balstrome | December 21, 2010 2:28 PM:

Those who are not part of the herd, do not get the protection of the herd. It's that simple.

Posted by: jamesyp | December 21, 2010 3:02 PM

I haven't been able to find out what metric US News is using for that list anyway. What are they measuring? The list is meaningless without that.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 3:03 PM

Maxwell Fagin:

My point was that you stated that you'd never been poor. Therefore you grew up in an environment that was at least well-off, if not rich. How did this happen, if it wasn't through your good fortune in having well-off/rich parents?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 3:05 PM

@161

Maybe he believe in reincarnation and was rewarded by Vishnu?

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 3:07 PM

Ing:

Remind me to try that, on my next re-incarnation.

Posted by: CJO | December 21, 2010 3:10 PM

Did you consider the fact that wealth and success can come from hard work and effort, rather than from fortune and good luck?

Did you consider that work and effort count for exactly squat outside of a functioning society? You are privileged not to have had your family's work and effort go into the coffers of the local warlord or oligarch. Did you consider that due to the failings of our (less and less) functioning society there are honest, hardworking people who can barely afford to put food on the table for their children? Or is everyone who is poor in that condition because they're lazy?

I'm seriously going to be sick. The stench of entitlement and exceptionalism is fucking overwhelming.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2010 3:14 PM

pottymouths!

wait, I have to tinkle

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 3:15 PM

God, but you guys really are a bunch of potty mouths.

Well look who thinks he's the shit king of fuck mountain!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 3:15 PM

My parents wealth counts for nothing next to the work ethic they instilled in me through education and love. I own them a debt for that, which I will pay back. But I owe no debt to society for that. Others cannot make a claim on my earnings or property because I had parents who instilled a drive to succeed and to enjoy my life.

Blissful ignorance is blissfully ignorant.

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 3:17 PM

That is of no relevance. Brown is also the default color of my hair. Should I expect you to subsidize my desire to change my hair color?

how did no one comment on how fucking insane this comparison is

My parents wealth counts for nothing

Bullshit.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 3:19 PM

Maxwell Fagin:

But I owe no debt to society for that

Society isn't a fucking ledger-book.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 3:19 PM

Daz, #161:

What're you getting at? You know there's no correlation between the economic conditions into which you were born, and your economic prospects as an adult, right?

None whatsoever. No, Sir.

Drive and hard work are all that's required. Because there are enough good-paying jobs in the US for everyone who wants to work. Yessiree. Unemployment happens because people are lazy. And corporations pay their employees what they are worth, not the minimum amount necessary to meet minimum federal regulations.

Yep. The federal minimum wage is unnecessary, because all jobs pay well above the poverty level. And there are plenty of them.

Oh, and did I mention that the profit motive and personal greed encourages corporations (especially the managers in the corporations) to pay their employees what they are worth, so everyone gets their share of the profits for their labors?

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 3:22 PM

and yes, sometimes laziness.

It's so wonderful that hard work is proportional to how rich you become. I'm glad that celebrities work harder than people with McJobs and never enjoy any luxuries, and that by becoming lazy they'd instantly lose their wealth.

Oh wait, reality just kicked in. Fuck you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 3:23 PM

I though that folk here would have some sort of intelligence, guess I was incorrect, it's just a bunch of whiners, like any other conservative forum.

But we have already established that wealth does not allows one to feel entitlement or exceptionalism.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 3:23 PM

People are poor for many reasons. Bad luck, bad decision, bad parentage, lack of education and yes, sometimes laziness.

But we have already established that wealth does not allow one to feel entitlement or exceptionalism. I am simply pointing out that neither does poverty.

So the poor can become poor despite hard work, but you cannot become not poor by just good luck?

But I owe no debt to society for that.

Not even the fact that society kept the rest of us from killing them, skinning them, and wearing their hides?

Posted by: sqlrob | December 21, 2010 3:24 PM

I think you should reconsider that sentiment. "Invisible Hand" is just a verbal short hand for the laws of supply and demand at work. And to deny the validity of the basic laws of supply and demand would be to deny the most well demonstrated principle in classical economics.

What is the supply of a given song at iTunes? What is the price?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 3:25 PM

Not even the fact that society kept the rest of us from killing them, skinning them, and wearing their hides?

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 3:27 PM

So the poor can become poor despite hard work, but you cannot become not poor by just good luck?

Not at all. Freedom entails responsibility. If I were to become poor by my misfortune, even if I were to work hard, I don't expect the government to come to my aid. My work, my earnings, my well being entails the opposite: My mistakes, my losses, my fault.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 3:30 PM

Maxwell Fagin:

My point is that we don't contribute anything to a society just because it is or isn't a debt. We do so because it's a society not a collection of individuals with no collective empathy.

And when I say 'we', I obviously don't include you in the statement. You obviously want no part in society. Until you need to go to court, maybe, to prosecute a poor who person breathed near your SUV. Then you'll want the tax-funded justice system all ready and waiting.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 3:31 PM

My parents wealth counts for nothing next to the work ethic they instilled in me through education and love. … But I owe no debt to society for that.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, sums up the entitlement attitude of Libertarians everywhere: the privileged circumstances into which they were born count for nothing. They are self-made! They can survive without society! The wealth they have made came from nothing but the sweat of their brow!

Ah, yes. The stability provided by society contributed nothing to their current affluent lifestyle. Their access to superior services (such as education) due to their relatively-affluent births contributed nothing to their current circumstances.

Similarly, those born into poverty or near-poverty suffer no ill-effects from their economic situation. Instead, it's their parents' fault for being poor in the first place.

Anyway, why does it matter? Those who work hard for very little pay deserve the barely-subsistence existence they live. If they were worth more, they'd get paid more. AmIright?

Is it selfishness? Is it obliviousness? It's selbliviousness!

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 3:31 PM

Not even the fact that society kept the rest of us from killing them, skinning them, and wearing their hides?

I don't know about you, but I pay a debt of taxes to the POLICE and the the MILITARY to protect me (and my hide.) A debt which I happily pay, and a service which I happily partake of, and which should be rightly withheld from me if I refuse to pay taxes.

The police and the military aren't society. They are a service the federal government provides to me because I am willing to pay for it. I owe no debt to society for keeping me safe.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 3:32 PM

But we have already established that wealth does not allow one to feel entitlement or exceptionalism.

Good grief you're one myopic ignorant fool.

I grew up in a wealthy family. I went to private schools, was a member at a private country club, never feared for my next meal, or my next 10000 meals for that matter and had immeasurable numbers of benefits than less fortunate people ever had.

My parents also instilled a work ethic in me. That work ethic has helped carry me to where I am now. But I would never have gotten many of the opportunities I had were it not for the financial and social situation I was raised in.

And I'm not so fucking self absorbed and clueless to not recognize that.

I'm also not so clueless to realize that there is good damn reason to believe that at some point in my family's history, and probably not so distant, that some of that wealth and social standing was gained off the misfortune of others and from the benefit of a society built to help "my people" (upper middle class to upper class white folk) get a step up from everyone else.

So yes your parents instilling a work ethic in you sure helped, but you're a gigantically ignorant moron if you think that's it.

You know what else my parents instilled in me? A sense of responsibility to the less fortunate in this world.

Yours obviously did not.

Posted by: Balstrome | December 21, 2010 3:32 PM

Sure, you all have voted to put me to death, but of course, you do understand the consequences of this, which is that, this could also happen to you as well. Now if you understand this and find it acceptable then I really have no say in the matter.

Government is not a simple process, something that it seems you folk do not want to accept. Consensus and cooperation do not seem to be words that you find appealing. Absolutes, either my way or the highway, seems to be what you want. You not going to get that, so the best option as I suggested is to work constantly to get as many people on your side as possible. Of course, I understand this is a concept that you do not grasp, but I believe you can and should if you want to get your policies into the public arena. Which as you say, they are not currently

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 3:34 PM

I don't know about you, but I pay a debt of taxes to the POLICE and the the MILITARY to protect me (and my hide.) A debt which I happily pay, and a service which I happily partake of, and which should be rightly withheld from me if I refuse to pay taxes.

The police and the military aren't society. They are a service the federal government provides to me because I am willing to pay for it. I owe no debt to society for keeping me safe.

Oh I see. When pooled resource and taxes MIGHT benefit you (after all there's a good chance you will never have to call the police) you're for them, even with OTHER people who get no benefit from them pay for it as well. But the other way around....

No you not only see no gratitude to society, you LEECH off of it.

Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2010 3:35 PM

Maxwell Fagin entered the thread with the argument that he deserved the tax status of a minister. It's no surprise that his arguments are of the same quality.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 3:37 PM

It seems to me that a proper libertarian would want to hire their own security forces, rather than relying on government-sponsored armed goons.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 3:39 PM

heeeeere's Maxwell!

Posted by: CJO | December 21, 2010 3:42 PM

Slurp as much as you want, but try to keep the racket of your slurping down. A poor man might hear.
--Kurt Vonnegut, from God Bless You Mr. Rosewater

Posted by: consciousness razor | December 21, 2010 3:44 PM

um, so this might be sort of OT by now, but other than the two libertarian fucktards in the thread, there are all these priests and religious institutions which should be taxed....

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | December 21, 2010 3:47 PM

I don't know about you, but I pay a debt of taxes to the POLICE and the the MILITARY to protect me (and my hide.) A debt which I happily pay, and a service which I happily partake of, and which should be rightly withheld from me if I refuse to pay taxes.

There are many problems with this system. The main one, though, is that people are generally lousy at evaluating risk. Classical economics rests, I understand, on the foundation of rational self-interest, and rational self interest requires near-perfect access to information. Problem is, psychological study after study shows that people suck at risk assessment for themselves. They do not imagine that it’s possible that they will lose their job. They don’t anticipate the onset of disease. They assume they’ll never be robbed. War is a distant memory, who among us during the 1980s would have imagined the US being bogged down in TWO ground wars in the Middle East 20 years hence? How many libertarians saw 9/11 coming? So, in a libertarian society like the one Maxwell proposes, folks who for whatever reason have not had access to advanced training in statistics and sociology will not have perfect access to information and end up making bad decisions, like opting out of police protection or health care coverage. Maxwell’s model presupposes a class of people who opted out of certain services, thinking they won’t ever need them. What are the chances they are wrong? Pretty fucking good chances is what.

I for one am not interested in living in a society where the penalty for being a little bit dumb about complicated things like probability and statistical analysis and sociological trends is bankruptcy, injury, and death.

Posted by: undularbore | December 21, 2010 3:50 PM

So I'm guessing the Church of Satan gets the same deal as these other churches? Or do they?

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 3:56 PM

I especially love the whole "opting out of police protection" shit. If I were a thief, my first act would be to find out who in my neighbourhood had opted out and then rob them blind. The police couldn't fucking touch me. Isn't that a wonderful system?

Fire stations? Same thing, only with a bit more of a sociopathic streak - I could just set fire to houses that have opted out from fire department help and the owner's would just have to watch it burn.

Posted by: danielm | December 21, 2010 4:06 PM

oh god (haha) the stupid just keeps rolling in. The point isn't "taxes are bayd, dem dam minsters pays no taxes why me lordy lordy", the point is that taxes are supposed to result in services for everyone, paid for by everyone. There is supposed to be a virtual wall of separation between church and state, yet these services, which the minister undoubtedly uses (roads, parks, libraries and more) aren't being paid for by him or his type in any recognizably fair amount.

It's all well and good he can opt out of healthcare, but since it gets paid for him by a massive organisation which, as we have already established, pays little to no taxes, he can afford the best there is to offer. so could you if you didn't have to pay your fair share.

Taxes are a burden, don't get me wrong, but they are unavoidable in a system which attempts to offer public services, yet requires cash to operate. Healthcare isn't socialism, any more than parks, roads, railways, libraries or schools are socialism (don't be so fucking stupid, okay? I might have to bitchslap you across the 'net if you are).

Why, therefore, is an institution so blatantly able to piss all over that burden to the tune of three quarters of a billion a year?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:11 PM

You're right. Only an idiot would opt out of police and fire protection without purchasing some private alternative. It's idiotic. But since when did "it's idiotic" equate to "it should be illegal"?

Got us there...you're clearly still posting.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 4:12 PM

Yawn, liberturd still being deliberately obtuse. No evidence it works, just his preaching that it does. Opinion =/= fact, especially from known liars and bullshitters. Which includes all liberturds, as they can't prove with historical data that their theology really works.

Posted by: Uncephalized | December 21, 2010 4:15 PM

Sorry, should have said, "...and compare your own socioeconomic philosophy to a broken cooking appliance..." in #224.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:17 PM

People who make the argument that the difficulty of obtaining perfect information necessitates government intervention to protect consumers make the unstated assumption that the government can identify incorrect information and act to correct it. Which is an even worse approximation of reality.

The FDA can test claims. One person cannot.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 4:18 PM

Fire stations? Same thing, only with a bit more of a sociopathic streak - I could just set fire to houses that have opted out from fire department help and the owner's would just have to watch it burn.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 4:20 PM

Shala: I applaud your internet stalking abilities for proving the fact (which I had already stated) that I am a well off individual.

I now challenge you to apply those impressive search engine skills to prove that this fact is anything other than completely irrelevant. The validity of an economic argument is independent of the economic status of those who expound it.

Posted by: consciousness razor | December 21, 2010 4:21 PM

But since when did "it's idiotic" equate to "it should be illegal"?

Brilliant argument. Let's all start legislating your idiocy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 4:23 PM

Still no evidence Maxwell. That really brings both your theology and truthfulness into question. You are well past the put up or shut up time. Those who can't put the right information from legitimate sources outside themselves, like 30 year historical record of liberturdism working, but can't shut up either, become known as liars and bullshitters. Keep talking MF, you prove my point with every post.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 4:28 PM

I now challenge you to apply those impressive search engine skills to prove that this fact is anything other than completely irrelevant.

People are, in fact, addressing major flaws within the system that you propose, and those flaws are not contingent upon your upbringing. Your ability to understand those flaws appears to be, though.

And that's the clue-by-four they're trying to hit you with.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 21, 2010 4:28 PM

Vassar: $53,270/y
Dartmouth: $52,275/y

who's paying for your self-reliant bachelor's degrees, Max?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:33 PM

I brought up the fire department story before.

The point you're missing is that Max thinks they are in the right.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:37 PM

@244

Because the turtle didn't pay it's "Flip me over when I'm in trouble" insurance! The lousy mooch!

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 4:41 PM

Anri:

I owe a debt to the POLICE, MILITARY and US COURTS for ensuring that my parents could raise me in an environment relatively free of violent crime. I pay it every year in the form of taxes.

I owe a debt to my PRIVATE SCHOOL for my and my parent's education (I don't owe anything to anyone for my neighbors education. Their education is theirs, not mine.) I pay that in the form of tuition bills.

I owe a debt to THE FIRMS I BUY FROM for the transport system that brings amazing and wonderful things from the far reaches of the world literally right to my door. I pay that whenever I buy something.

I owe a debt to my local WATER COMPANY for my tap water being free from lead. I pay that when I pay my water bill every month.

I owe a debt to the DOCTORS AND NURSES who cared for me and cured the demises I no longer suffer from. I pay that through my PRIVATE INSURANCE whenever I go to a hospital.

Every example you cited is an example where I have made a lawful purchase of a service from a private firm, or made use of a government service who existence I support through voluntary taxation. Not a single one of these represents a debt to an abstract "society". I derive a direct and personal benefit from every single one of these activities. THAT'S WHY I PAY FOR THEM.

But just as I am under no obligation to buy products that I don't want from a firm I don't like, neither should I be under any obligation to pay for services from the government that I don't want and do not make use of (Like social security, medicare, or public schooling.) That is my argument. If a priest is allowed to opt out of these thing, I don't see why I should be allowed to do so as well.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:41 PM

@Daz and others

People please....Shaming him will not work

He knows and he's ok with it. his stance is that the poor can rot. making him feel bad about it is pointless.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 4:46 PM

He knows and he's ok with it. his stance is that the poor can rot. Attempting to make making him feel bad about it any decent human emotiion is pointless.

FTFY

Posted by: KG | December 21, 2010 4:50 PM

I don't owe anything to anyone for my neighbors education. Their education is theirs, not mine. - Maxwell Fagin

You have undoubtedly benefited from public education, you hypocrite: that of most of those police, military, doctors, nurses, hydraulic engineers, chemists...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 4:52 PM

@252

That would imply an original guilt. that is not the case. People like Maxy, and I want you to know I honestly say this without immediate judgment and with greatest empathy, do not feel that guilt. They cannot imagine themselves in such a position, they are not able to abstract the idea out. It might not even be his fault, he's raised privileged and naturally (or by nurture) lacks an empathic imagination. If something were to happen to someone he knew personally and he cared about them he might change his mind on that subject, but until then he will not be convinced by argumentation, reasoning, or guilt.

I know it means nothing to him and will just sound insulting, but Maxy I am honestly and earnestly sorry. I really am.

Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2010 4:54 PM

Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 4:41 PM:

I owe a debt to THE FIRMS I BUY FROM for the transport system ...

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | December 21, 2010 4:57 PM

My mom was on welfare/WIC/food stamps while she finished her masters degree because my deadbeat dad decided to run off right after I was born. Thanks to the help she recieved she has gone on to be an exceptional teacher for hundreds (thousands?) of students. Probably, though, since she made the decision to fuck the wrong asshole she should have been punished with poverty. The world sure would be better if her and I were struggling to survive, wondering where our next meal would come from.

Fucking idiot libertarians.

What if you pay into services you want, but not enough other people do and you get shitty service or no service because of it? Have you ever experienced an underpaid police force before? It's not pleasant.

Also: no evidence yet. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 4:59 PM

I honestly say this without immediate judgment and with greatest empathy, do not feel that guilt.

I think otherwise.

I think they DO, but they repress it and rationalize it.

I've seen it myself, growing up in SoCal.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:05 PM

Do you require a government stamp of approval to know what movies you want to watch? What about what color clothes to wear? Do you need your fashion be approved to be safe by the US Fashion Committee before you will feel safe wearing it? Do you need your movie to be certified "5 Stars" by the US Film Commission before you watch it? More importantly, do clothing firms and Hollywood need government approval to keep your business? No on all counts.

The threat of loosing your business is a stronger impetus to stay in line than any government red tape.

DRUGS, FOOD AND POLLUTION AND FAULTY MACHINERY KILL PEOPLE YOU MORONIC DOLT. Quality control is not fucking censorship.

I honestly say this without immediate judgment and with greatest empathy, do not feel that guilt.

I think otherwise.

I think they DO, but they repress it and rationalize it.

I've seen it myself, growing up in SoCal

I hope you're right. If I'm right than they are innately this way and it's irrational to even be mad at them since it's their nature. They're just by nature or nurture un-empathetic and it can't be changed. Which would make me feel bad for them. If you're right then they're just assholes, but at least they can reform.

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 5:06 PM

That depends. What desert am I in, what am I doing there, and am I a replicant? :)

I like how you didn't answer the question.

My parents are. Just as their parents paid for their college education, and just as I will pay for my children's college education. It's a mutual exchange of money by people who both want something. My parents love me and want me to succeed, and I love them and want to make them proud. Capitalism at it's worst/best.

Hey Maxie, that's wonderful to hear! Now let me just make a comparison...

Your parents have the ability to fund your $50,000 a year education. My parents had just over $1,000 to give me, once, that they had saved up for 18 years for when I started postsecondary.

And yet your parent's wealth has 'barely mattered'. Right. Fuck you.

Do you require a government stamp of approval to know what movies you want to watch?

Does a movie enhance the living conditions of people who watch it?

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 5:10 PM

Do you require a government stamp of approval to know what movies you want to watch? What about what color clothes to wear? Do you need your fashion be approved to be safe by the US Fashion Committee before you will feel safe wearing it? Do you need your movie to be certified "5 Stars" by the US Film Commission before you watch it? More importantly, do clothing firms and Hollywood need government approval to keep your business? No on all counts.

I'd like to know that when I stick the DVD into the player it isn't going to be a cheap rip-off, and that there's a law in place to deal with such things, and a tax-funded judiciary there to state my claim in front of if it does turn out to be so. I'd like to know, if the label on those clothes says 'fire-retardant', that as long as I take reasonable care they aren't going to burst into flames if I stand too close to a heater. Or that food which says 'does not contain nuts' on the packet isn't going to kill my cousin who has severe nut-allergies. You seem to take a very simplistic view of these things.

The threat of loosing your business is a stronger impetus to stay in line than any government red tape.

Again, I say: What happens if the corporation providing these services turns out to be run by profiteers who care nothing about the quality of their service. This goes double in the case of a society where any legal oversight has been lost because people opted out of paying for it.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 5:12 PM

Nerd of Redhead: If you would like a very clear collection of the statistics pertaining to the position I am advocating, I suggest you read "In Defense of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. By any reasonable metric you care to name (education, life expectancy, healthcare quality, human rights, GDP per capita etc.) You will find there to exist a statistical positively correlation with economic freedom.

If you want specific data from over the last 30 years, I point you towards Hong Kong, whose economic policies of the past 30 years have been much more along the lines I am advocating then has the US. Spend a few minutes or so on WolframAlpha comparing the economic and social indicators of Hong Kong to those of our own, I think you will be surprised.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:19 PM

If you want specific data from over the last 30 years, I point you towards Hong Kong, whose economic policies of the past 30 years have been much more along the lines I am advocating then has the US. Spend a few minutes or so on WolframAlpha comparing the economic and social indicators of Hong Kong to those of our own, I think you will be surprised.

You mean the Hong Kong that is responsible for the massive IP piracy and bootlegging that discourages companies from producing entertainment?

Or the Hong Kong that did so well because it was the only bottle neck into a communist country for decades?

Or the Hong Kong that fucking has its own police and services AND is one of the healthiest places because of its FUCKING GREAT HEALTHCARE!?

The Department of Health, under the Food and Health Bureau, is the health adviser of Hong Kong government and an executive arm in health legislation and policy. Its main role is to safeguard the health of the community through promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services in Hong Kong.[6] The main function of the department includes child assessment service, immunisation programmes, dental service, forensic pathology service, registration of healthcare professionals etc., though boards and councils (i.e. Medical Council of Hong Kong, Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong) are independent statutory bodies established under the relevant ordinances that operate independently to discharge their statutory functions.[7]

Posted by: Anri | December 21, 2010 5:19 PM

Maxwell Fagin:

I owe a debt to the POLICE, MILITARY and US COURTS for ensuring that my parents could raise me in an environment relatively free of violent crime. I pay it every year in the form of taxes.

How would you implement opt-out strategies for these systems, BTW?

I owe a debt to my PRIVATE SCHOOL for my and my parent's education (I don't owe anything to anyone for my neighbors education. Their education is theirs, not mine.) I pay that in the form of tuition bills.

Because in a democracy, a poorly educated general populace does not effect your life, and therefore is of no interest to you. Right?

I owe a debt to THE FIRMS I BUY FROM for the transport system that brings amazing and wonderful things from the far reaches of the world literally right to my door. I pay that whenever I buy something.

Wal-Mart built many highways recently?
Built many railroads?
Powergrid?

I owe a debt to my local WATER COMPANY for my tap water being free from lead. I pay that when I pay my water bill every month.

Because, without EPA regulation, we know water supplies tend to be kept free of contaminants... right?

I owe a debt to the DOCTORS AND NURSES who cared for me and cured the demises I no longer suffer from. I pay that through my PRIVATE INSURANCE whenever I go to a hospital.

Because not a single one of those people - or any of the products or services they use - ever benefited from public service. Not a single state school for any doctor, or nurse, or tech, or janitor, or anyone who makes the sterile needles in your IV drip.
Gotcha.

Every example you cited is an example where I have made a lawful purchase of a service from a private firm, or made use of a government service who existence I support through voluntary taxation. Not a single one of these represents a debt to an abstract "society". I derive a direct and personal benefit from every single one of these activities. THAT'S WHY I PAY FOR THEM.

So if, for example, I was able to demonstrate that there was public involvement in any one - let alone all - of your examples, you'd look fairly silly, wouldn't you.

But just as I am under no obligation to buy products that I don't want from a firm I don't like, neither should I be under any obligation to pay for services from the government that I don't want and do not make use of (Like social security, medicare, or public schooling.) That is my argument. If a priest is allowed to opt out of these thing, I don't see why I should be allowed to do so as well.

Excellent.
Of course, you are using these services, as shown above.
As is the priest. And therefore, both of you should pay for it.
(And, in fact, by sending information over the internet, you are continuing to use services set in motion by, and created largely at the behest of, the government.)

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 21, 2010 5:21 PM

My parents are. Just as their parents paid for their college education, and just as I will pay for my children's college education.

That reminds me of a Bill Hicks quote, talking about bums:

Some of these guys look healthy but they're just bums. The very idea. They want me to just give them the hard earned money my folks send to me every week.

Only when Hicks said it, he meant it as a joke.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:23 PM

This policy has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. However others have argued that the economic strategy was inadequately characterized by the term laissez-faire.[13] They point out that there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy. The government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in public works projects and social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users. By restricting the sale of land leases, the Hong Kong government keeps the price of land at what some would say are artificially high prices and this allows the government to support public spending with a low tax rate

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 5:24 PM

Max:

I quote from the Asia Sentinal

The welfare sector has been hardest-hit by the budget stringency that followed. After 1998, the government stopped preparing regular blueprints for the development of welfare programmes, which identified service needs, set detailed targets and deadlines and gave the public as well as officials the information needed to assess progress. Policy is no longer based on surveying service shortfalls, qualifying the population's needs and allocating resources to fill the gaps, and the long-term consequences have been tragic for Hong Kong's most vulnerable groups. Average waiting times for admission to residential facilities, for example, are alarming, Government statistics indicate:

* "severely mentally handicapped persons", almost seven years (2007 data);
* "severely physically handicapped persons", almost nine years (2008 data);
* the elderly: nursing homes, 42 months; care-and-attention homes, 32 months (2008 data).

Yep, that's working well.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 5:25 PM

All of those things are luxuries, the differences among which are aesthetic, not function- or safety-related.

That is an arbitrary demarcation. Which goods are "luxuries" and which goods are "necessities" is a product of what period of history you are living in.

There are only goods and services. That's it. You can either purchase your goods and services from a firm to obtain them by mutual contract, or you can steel them. Those are the only two options.

Now when people desire to live together in a rights based society, they wish to prevent the stealing of goods and services, and so must give the government a legal monopoly on force; and that means they may only buy the service of protection from the government (Hence taxes for police, courts and military). But beyond that, I see no justification for giving the government power over any other good or service which people wish to buy or not to buy. That goes for education, retirement funds, books, clothing and medicine as well.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:27 PM

Why look at that. Hong Kong owns the land not the people. You cannot privately own the land.

Some would call that...Socialist.

Some might even consider having everyone pay leases on land they use...a tax!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 21, 2010 5:30 PM

Observations: thread about paying tax, large number of comments.
Prediction: yet another thread has turned into a discussion on libertarianism.
Finding: libertarians.
Conclusion: libertarians are annoying douches.

Posted by: And-U-Say | December 21, 2010 5:32 PM

I owe a debt to THE FIRMS I BUY FROM for the transport system that brings amazing and wonderful things from the far reaches of the world literally right to my door. I pay that whenever I buy something.

I owe a debt to my local WATER COMPANY for my tap water being free from lead. I pay that when I pay my water bill every month.

I owe a debt to the DOCTORS AND NURSES who cared for me and cured the demises I no longer suffer from. I pay that through my PRIVATE INSURANCE whenever I go to a hospital.

Do you know where large scale penicillin production was developed? Huh? No? It was developed at the Northern Regional Research Lab in Peoria, Illinois. A government laboratory. Years before it ever would have been developed by private industry.

My children know this stuff better than you do. Apparently, that private education did not do you much good. You may want your money back.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 5:36 PM

I can't wait for creationism to be introduced into schools because governments can't regulate them.

In a free market system, If you don't want your child to learn about creationism, then you send them to a private school which doesn't teach it.

We wouldn't have the problem of creationism in public schools if there wasn't a public school system for them to try and corrupt. Just like we wouldn't have a Christian Leaders for Responsible Television if the government didn't think it was their job to regulate Television.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:38 PM

In a free market system, If you don't want your child to learn about creationism, then you send them to a private school which doesn't teach it.

We wouldn't have the problem of creationism in public schools if there wasn't a public school system for them to try and corrupt. Just like we wouldn't have a Christian Leaders for Responsible Television if the government didn't think it was their job to regulate Television.

Well you wouldn't be bleeding to death if you didn't have a body for me to stab!

WE DO NOT ALL HAVE INFINITE FUNDS TO RELOCATE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO MOVE ON THE DROP OF A HAT TO FIND A FUCKING DECENT SCHOOL WHEN THERE ARE NO STANDARDS. If I live in crazytown and there's no good school in the state I CANNOT AFFORD THEN TO GIVE MY KIDS A GOOD EDUCATION YOU IDIOT.

You might as well have just said "well why don't you just go to your private Island"

JESUS FUCK!

This is why you never being poor is relevant. You don't know what it's like to be MIDDLE class let alone poor.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 5:39 PM

We wouldn't have the problem of creationism in public schools if there wasn't a public school system for them to try and corrupt

wow, that's some headsplitting logic you got there, maxi.

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 5:43 PM

We wouldn't have the problem of creationism in public schools if there wasn't a public school system for them to try and corrupt.

you're fucking shitting me. You must be just fucking with us at this point.

How would you even ensure that schools would not have to worry about creationism? There's no regulations except those performed by the school faculty themselves. No regulations on textbooks, standards, or anything. Education in society would fucking collapse except for the extremely wealthy.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 5:44 PM

he's not in a position where ITS NEEDED TO FUCKING STAY ALIVE, so he sees it as just another product.

Wrong, and right. Healthcare is just another product. And it is one that I need to stay alive. But it's also something which I can't make or create on my own. I'm not a Doctor. I can't create healthcare anymore than a Doctor can create food.

Now I could do as you do, and claim that my need somehow represents a claim to the doctor's service. But so could anyone else. In fact, every person in the world could claim that they need this doctors service, and there would be no way to refute them.

On the other hand, I could offer the doctor something which he needs in exchange. Money.

You are right, I do need healthcare to stay alive. And thanks to living in a mostly free economic system, I am free to deal as I wish with the doctor, leaving us both better off.

Posted by: PeteJohn | December 21, 2010 5:45 PM

Do you require a government stamp of approval to know what movies you want to watch? What about what color clothes to wear? Do you need your fashion be approved to be safe by the US Fashion Committee before you will feel safe wearing it? Do you need your movie to be certified "5 Stars" by the US Film Commission before you watch it? More importantly, do clothing firms and Hollywood need government approval to keep your business? No on all counts.

The threat of loosing your business is a stronger impetus to stay in line than any government red tape.

Did you seriously just argue that? Holy fucking shit. You're comparing day to day business and entertainment decisions to food and drug regulation? That's not even apples vs. oranges, it's apples and bluegrass music. Please tell me you are not this deluded and are just too wrapped up in this argument to think clearly.

I mean, dude... Safe food, drinking water, and prescription drugs are pretty damn important. Let's say the FDA just up and vanished, would you go out and buy whatever drug you could find and hope it didn't kill you? I suppose in your la-la land all would be great if enough people died and the company just went out of business. The idea of the FDA is to provide some assurance that you at least won't be using a lethal drug when you go buy something from a pharmacy, so fewer die in the first place.

I'm using this particular agency, the FDA, b/c you replied to, and quoted, a commenter who wanted to know how your world would handle oversight in food and drug products. You seem to think is analogous to picking movies to see and what clothes to buy. One is about public health and safety, and if you don't see this distinction than I don't even know what to say to ya.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:47 PM

If I may point out, and then leave because libertarians broke me head, no culture has ever thrived with a huge gap between the poor and rich. The society does not get better if only the rich get richer. The society gets better and gets a better standard of living when the floor is raised up. A rising tide lifts all boats and that. If you make the poorest lives better then life for the richest will be better because society avoids the problems associated with poverty.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 21, 2010 5:48 PM

Also another stupid thing about Max statement is that it will further marginalize children from poor immigrant families. Since they came here with no resources, under his libertarian system, they will remain without resources. Public education has been very essential to progressing immigrant education.

Posted by: H.H. | December 21, 2010 5:51 PM

That is an arbitrary demarcation. Which goods are "luxuries" and which goods are "necessities" is a product of what period of history you are living in. There are only goods and services. That's it.

That goes for education, retirement funds, books, clothing and medicine as well.

Fucking idiot.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 21, 2010 5:52 PM

I second the suggestion Maxi should abandon the US and spend time testing his ideas in Somalia.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | December 21, 2010 5:53 PM

I presume people like Max are the reason NPD was removed from the DSM. It's just too common.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 5:55 PM

You don't need the rest of us, want the rest of us, or care about the rest of us. I hear that.

On that point, you are incorrect. I need "you" very much (In the royal sense). And you need "me" (again, in the royal sense). I can't live without "your" products and efforts any more than you can. I realize that.

I also realize that "I" can obtain the things that "I" need from "you" in only two ways: "I" can steel them, or "we" can trade for them. "I" don't want to steel from you, because I have no interest in living in a society where theft is common place and property is not respected. Therefore "we" have gathered together to pay for a police, military and court system to ensure that "I" never steal from "you" or visa-versa.

The only other way "I" can get what "I" need from "you" is through trade. Voluntary, mutually beneficial, consensual trade. I live my life on the assumption that I have no right to any of your time or money that you don't want to give me by choice. No matter what my fortunes or misfortunes may be, "I" make no demands on "you".

I wish you (in the singular sense) had the decency to extend me (in the singular sense) the same courtesy.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 5:59 PM

On that point, you are incorrect. I need "you" very much (In the royal sense). And you need "me" (again, in the royal sense). I can't live without "your" products and efforts any more than you can. I realize that.

I also realize that "I" can obtain the things that "I" need from "you" in only two ways: "I" can steel them, or "we" can trade for them. "I" don't want to steel from you, because I have no interest in living in a society where theft is common place and property is not respected. Therefore "we" have gathered together to pay for a police, military and court system to ensure that "I" never steal from "you" or visa-versa.

The only other way "I" can get what "I" need from "you" is through trade. Voluntary, mutually beneficial, consensual trade. I live my life on the assumption that I have no right to any of your time or money that you don't want to give me by choice. No matter what my fortunes or misfortunes may be, "I" make no demands on "you".

I wish you (in the singular sense) had the decency to extend me (in the singular sense) the same courtesy.

I will NEVER sell to you. Funny how that works, you're an asshole....and now that I have what you need...I can choose not to give it.

I wish you (in the singular sense) had the decency to extend me (in the singular sense) the same courtesy.

You do not get to use decency. Fuck you. You do not get to say "Hey Ing...Everyone youc are about deserves to DIE!!!!....now how about you be decent and smile while you sell me that soda?"

I am extending you the same courtesy you gave me. "GO EAT SHIT AND DIE!"

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnx5CyRW5h9VUvlDS7qrj52EXetroLAscE | December 21, 2010 6:00 PM

Maybe I'm in a minority, but quite aside from empathetic reasons, I'd consider just being able to walk out in public in the confidence that I wasn't surrounded by a large number of ignorant, illiterate, innumerate, simple-minded morons to be reason enough to fund, via taxation, things like compulsory universal education, public libraries, art galleries, museums, television channels and the like, to at least some minimal standard.

There's a funny thing about culture, intelligence, education, and a generally wider awareness of things; an awful lot of people can't see any reason to make the significant effort and expenditure it takes to get it until after they've done so. In the absence of either a) an advertising campaign of an intensity and endurance the likes of which the world has never seen, or b) a similarly massive cultural renaissance in our society's overall perception and depiction of knowledge and intellect, some degree of coercion in education is, I fear, an unfortunate necessity as a result of this very imperfect supply of information. And a lot of them simply will not be able to pay for it on their own; those who could most benefit from education are, for bloody obvious reasons, very frequently those least able to afford it.

For any die-hard libertarian who really is entirely deficient in empathy or concern for his or her fellow man (and Max's flippant non-answer to my, admittedly sardonic, little test earlier doesn't bode well for him; quite aside from the fact that he didn't respond, that he didn't apparently care to address the point I was making in any pertinent way or see any importance in doing so is itself answer enough), then I hope this might constitute a sufficient satisfaction of your sociopathic yet allegedly rational greed to justify supporting such public goods as these. Because unless you're very rich indeed, and confident of remaining so indefinitely, you're going to have to spend at least part of your waking life interacting with and walking amongst the poor, ignorant, uncouth, stupid and, more often than not, just plain unlucky people whose betterment you won't support. And the other funny thing about culture, intelligence, education and a generally wider awareness of things or, in short, civilisation, is that being surrounded by large numbers of people who don't have it can quickly become very unpleasant indeed for those who do.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 6:02 PM

I still say that we act as a society and each pledge to without whatever we can from Max. Any service or product any of us sells or can provide we specifically make a note that Max is black listed. Never gonna come up probably...but if it does in a year or two that would be hilarious.

One of those services probably includes the privilege of our presence so I'm done talking to him. SHUN.

Ugh I clearly need to take a break. Max has clearly hit my hot buttons.

Posted by: H.H. | December 21, 2010 6:04 PM

Maxwell, taxes aren't coerced, they are the price for partaking in the American economic system. It isn't "stealing" from you, it's due collecting. Refusing to willingly pay your taxes would be stealing, however, since you have broken both your implied social and legal contract after personally benefiting from a system you later refused to support. Now, you are more than free to move to Libertarian paradises like Somalia where you can practice your economic theories unimpeded. Good luck finding an educated, healthy population to trade with. But I guess such ideals as yours come with high costs.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 6:05 PM

I still say that we act as a society and each pledge to without whatever we can from Max. Any service or product any of us sells or can provide we specifically make a note that Max is black listed.

Please say this extends to pissing on him if he's on fire.

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 6:06 PM

It's a conextual ceramic. . . uh, I mean mistake.

Wanna try addressing my actual arguments now, asshole? You STILL owe me an apology for accusing me of stalking, too.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 6:08 PM

@Kel

In their defense, have you seen the profit margins for whoring out 12 year olds?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 21, 2010 6:10 PM

An ivy league student, coming from a well-to-do family, is pushing his ivory-tower socio-economic fantasies at people who live in the real world. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | December 21, 2010 6:11 PM

@ martha - Did someone mention liberterians and psychopathy?

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.

So the question is, who exactly was he?

William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.

You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.

Other than that, he was probably a swell guy.

From Romancing the Stone Cold Killer, by Michael Prescott.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 6:15 PM

Shala: I am sorry I mocked you for internet stalking. I didn't realize you were quoting the link provided by Sven DiMilo (I only just clicked on it. I don't know why he picked that page when he could have picked any of my much less flattering internet presences ;)

I am sorry I jumped to conclusions. Now to which of your arguments are you referring?

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | December 21, 2010 6:19 PM

@maxwell

My parents wealth counts for nothing next to the work ethic they instilled in me through education and love. I own them a debt for that, which I will pay back. But I owe no debt to society for that. Others cannot make a claim on my earnings or property because I had parents who instilled a drive to succeed and to enjoy my life.

Yeah, I mean, its not like your parents' wealth would have been used to provide you with comfort or opportunities that other people weren't fortunate enough to have. Its not like you would have had easier access to good education, or been spared the potential detriments of a childhood of poverty.

And furthermore, what use is society!? I'm sure neither you, nor your parents (whose well being we have already established has nothing to do with yours) have ever benefited from it.

If you had grown up working 60 hours a week in an unregulated textile factory around the turn of the century, I'm sure you would have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps at just the same rate as you did from a cushy (presumably middle class) upbringing.

There is no such thing as privilege! All those lazy poor people made it up as an excuse for being lazy!

/rant

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 6:21 PM

Still evidenceless without honor and integrity MF. Honor and integrity start with the knowledge you might be, and in this case, are wrong, and need to shut the fuck up and think about your idiocy and your privilege in this country. But until you shut up, you continue to lie and bullshit, both to us and to yourself. You can only do your self examination offline.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 6:23 PM

or must I face jail time for refusing to pay into a system I do not wish to support, and do not make use of?

Translation: I have no empathy. I see life as one big ledger-book, and care nothing for those who haven't bee as fortunate as myself. In fact, I'm not actually a human being — I am a socio-economic unit, devoid of all feeling. If it can't be worked out in dollars and cents, pounds and pence, francs and centimes, it has no meaning for me.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 6:26 PM

Translation: I have no empathy. I see life as one big ledger-book, and care nothing for those who haven't bee as fortunate as myself. In fact, I'm not actually a human being — I am a socio-economic unit, devoid of all feeling. If it can't be worked out in dollars and cents, pounds and pence, francs and centimes, it has no meaning for me.

Even if this is the case, it doesn't make my argument WRONG.

I care about the truth. And whether or not my argument is an approximation of truth is not a function of how heartless you may consider me to be.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | December 21, 2010 6:27 PM

Well, Mr. Fagin, since you yourself cannot adequately explain your lack of empathy and your failure at critical thinking, we are reduced to speculating about your past experiences to try to explain it. That's why your schooling, your parents, your school, and your lack of experience with financial hardship is relevant.

Posted by: eigenperson | December 21, 2010 6:30 PM

#334: Your background only has a bearing on your arguments because you keep saying things like "I don't need these services," "I don't feel like paying for these things," and so on.

Furthermore, those claims are really the full extent of your argument.

Since your argument is based on what you do/don't need, want, and so on, it seems like an examination of why you do/don't need or want those things is in order.

Doing this will help us understand whether or not your system is only applicable to societies made entirely of people with your background or generally applicable.

Similarly, if Sam Harris's entire argument against Christianity were "I don't feel the need to believe in God," then it would be quite appropriate to ask why he doesn't feel that need, and whether that's true of people who didn't go to UCLA and then to Stanford for grad school.

Fortunately, that is NOT Harris's entire argument against Christianity. Harris has also based his argument on other things, like, you know, FACTS.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 6:31 PM

Sorry, should be "white collar". But the point still stands: How rich my parents were, and where I go to school is irrelevant to this topic. If I am wrong, then attack my arguments (which, to your credit, many of you are). But my background is irrelevant to this topic.

Because your parents, like most every other family here in the states, didn't gain their wealth and social fortunes in a vacuum.

You're just to fucking dense to realize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Posted by: martha | December 21, 2010 6:32 PM

Fagin, if you are an atheist you should realize that there is no free will. We are just a bundle of causes and effects. Once you realize there is no free will it is far easier to be empathetic and realize that everyone is doing the best they can. And your drive and your success isn't because you are special. It just is. You are lucky. Many, many more are not.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 6:35 PM

You're just to fucking dense to realize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Posted by: Maxwell Fagin | December 21, 2010 6:38 PM

Well, Mr. Fagin, since you yourself cannot adequately explain your lack of empathy and your failure at critical thinking, we are reduced to speculating about your past experiences to try to explain it.

It is a failure of critical thinking to assume that empathic state of your opponent must be explicable before their argument can be rendered valid or invalid.

I'm not a heartless person, but if it helps you to think of me as one, then so be it. I don't care (irony intended) what you think about my empathy or lack thereof.

My argument has been that, just as I have no right to take money from you against your will, neither should you be permitted to do the same to me.

Nor do I find the argument that you are giving something in return to be of any merit. What if I value the money more than the service you are providing to me? I certainly value my money more than the service being provided to me by services like social security and medicare. It's wrong for me to make you pay for something you don't want. Why can "society" not grant me the same thing in return?

I certainly think our nation should be willing to grant us "ordinary" citizens the same courtesy it's willing to grant it's clergy.

Posted by: Daz | December 21, 2010 6:42 PM

I certainly think our nation should be willing to grant us "ordinary" citizens the same courtesy it's willing to grant it's clergy.

So, if the clergy is given an unfair advantage, your solution isn't to lobby to get that remedied, but to demand a place at the same trough. Nice.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | December 21, 2010 6:44 PM

I'm not a heartless person, but if it helps you to think of me as one, then so be it.

"Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 6:46 PM

Is there such a thing as a reverse-Molly? Because Fagin was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple.

perfect

Posted by: Anri | December 21, 2010 6:46 PM

The only other way "I" can get what "I" need from "you" is through trade. Voluntary, mutually beneficial, consensual trade. I live my life on the assumption that I have no right to any of your time or money that you don't want to give me by choice. No matter what my fortunes or misfortunes may be, "I" make no demands on "you".

Ah, good. "I" (that is, my company) wishes to make more money than you have by dumping mercury-tainted waste in your water supply.
Have you thought of a demand you might have for me yet?
(And please don't speak of clubbing together with your neighbors to attempt to raise enough money to interest us - due to their low spending on their education, your neighbors are ignorant of the effects of mercury and are unconcerned.)

Also:

And what of the systems which I have NOT partaken in? Like, for example, Social Security. I would like to abstain from paying Social Security taxes, in exchange to forgoing it's benefits in the future.

What percentage of the education paid for by your parents (and their parents, etc) was made available due to the fact that Social Security would assist your parent's (and grandparents, etc) retirements?
If you do not know the answer to that question, than you do not know how much (or how little) you have already benefited from the program.

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | December 21, 2010 6:49 PM

@Max the rugged individual.

My argument has been that, just as I have no right to take money from you against your will, neither should you be permitted to do the same to me.

Yes, society has a right to take money from you: just think of it as a bill. You have benefited from society, whether you realize it or not, and if you had arisen under poorer circumstances, that benefit might be more evident to you. You owe your tax money in payment for that benefit, and it will go toward your continued benefit, as well as the benefit of those who need it more than you. You are welcome.

Posted by: eigenperson | December 21, 2010 6:52 PM

#351:

It is a failure of critical thinking to assume that empathic state of your opponent must be explicable before their argument can be rendered valid or invalid.

At this point, she is just trying to understand why you have not realized this. It's kind of a study in human psychology.

None of the posts here are being made for your benefit.In fact, we don't generally care to have arguments with idiots who hold incoherent or false positions, advance invalid arguments for them, and then ignore the counterarguments presented by others in favor of reiterating their points of view in their increasing desperation to hold off the rising tide of cognitive dissonance. We don't want to waste our time on people like that, when it's much more fun (and just as productive) to point and laugh.

Now, I am a little more of a glutton for punishment than most people here, so I made a post in which I tried to actually engage one or two of your "arguments." However, you ignored it in favor of whining about how people are pointing and laughing at you and your ridiculous arguments.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | December 21, 2010 6:53 PM

I'm not a heartless person

Not heartless. Just three sizes too small.

That goes for your brain, too.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | December 21, 2010 6:58 PM

I'm sorry if I wasn't able to address your specific comments. Know that it was due to lack of time, not interest.

Now that was an insulting lie.

Posted by: btthegeek | December 21, 2010 6:58 PM

I think your nation should be willing to impose upon its clergy the same obligations that it imposes on ordinary citizens.

John Morales, you said this better than I ever could have. Thank you. QFFT

Posted by: eigenperson | December 21, 2010 7:05 PM

Good night, Mr. Fagin.

Higgledy piggeldy,
Maxwell the rich man's son
never much liked paying
federal tax:

"Feeding the poor is so
unlibertarian,"
sobbed the unfortunate,
privileged Max.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 21, 2010 7:11 PM

Fagin brings up the free market and I write a short essay (post #290) about it. Fagin doesn't respond to any of it. Unfortunately he's disappeared so he can't explain why he didn't respond.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 21, 2010 7:17 PM

Maybe so. But even if I was born on 3rd base, that's not an argument that I should have to choose between walking back to first base, or going to jail for tax evasion.

Good grief you are fucking dense. You already benefited from the society you live in.

Whatever, you're so self assured there's no amount of reason that will enlighten you.

Evil selfish fuck.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | December 21, 2010 7:23 PM

But even if I was born on 3rd base, that's not an argument that I should have to choose between walking back to first base, or going to jail for tax evasion.

Oh stick your retarded false dichotomy up your ass. All we are asking is that you contribute a pittance to allow people to play on the same field. The same kind of contribution that allowed you to get to 3rd base in the first place, you narcissistic moron.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 21, 2010 7:25 PM

What Max and the other libertarians fail to comprehend is that problems we fail to address become bigger problems. Look at homelessness. Back in the '80s when the problem first started to get out of hand, the government could probably have implemented programs for substance abuse, housing and job skills and significantly ameliorated the problem. They did not, and now we simply accept that inner cities will smell like piss and vomit.

Drug abuse--nobody's problem, really. Let them OD, right? Well, except that it fueled crime and created narco-states like Mexico, Colombia, Afganistan...oops, and we know who benefited from the latter.

Somalia, Ivory Coast, Liberia--they all could have been pacified and become prosperous. Now they are failed states.

Max thinks he can just skate through life and make all problems somebody else's problems. "Bartender, one more beer. My friend will pay." Sometimes, Max, it is simply easier to pay a little bit up front to avoid paying much more dearly down the road.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 21, 2010 7:33 PM

My parents wealth counts for nothing next to the work ethic they instilled in me through education and love.

Fuck you, privilaged douchebag. Immigrant families are some of the hardest working families I know (including mine), but because of the inequalities that exists they still can't progress. In a liberatarian society like yours immigrant family wouldn't progress because they've no resources to begin with.

Posted by: attorney | December 21, 2010 7:34 PM

"By electing out [of Social Security and Medicare], they don't have to pay into the programs and they don't ever get to draw from the programs either."

So, as far as Social Security, his position is exactly the same as mine, except he doesn't have to pay in.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | December 21, 2010 7:43 PM

He only wants acknowledge the parts he feels comfortable with and look down on the parts he refuses to accept but are just as real as the police, fire department and roads he's used.

Not to mention the Internet he is currently using to look like an idiot.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 21, 2010 7:48 PM

I think the easiest way to understand libertarianism is this: it is intrinsically unfair that one operates in a system where they work at their expense for the benefit of others.

It's not about economics or facts or history or society, but probably the most fundamental thing to us: perceived unfairness. It doesn't matter whether it is actually unfair or that in its balance leads to greater prosperity, it just intuitively seems unfair that those who don't work are able to 'prosper' on the backs of those who do the work. In effect, all a libertarian hears is: 'you want me to pay for his big TV?'

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 7:56 PM

Dang 'Tis's #388 is Molly worthy. Oops, been there, done that. Sorry. Tentacle cluster? Free grog when Patricia and/or the Pullet Patrol™ aren't looking?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 8:04 PM

I'm not a heartless person, but if it helps you to think of me as one, then so be it.

You do a great impression of it! By alignment you are firm LE.

Face it. If you don't want the baggage of being labeled a heartless, empathyless, evil bastard you shouldn't have been born into a family that was wealthy and would spoil you and raise you to be an anti-social wanker.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 8:08 PM

Better yet, he should test his ideas. Some have mentioned Somalia, but let's have him do a watered-down version in the USA.

He'd collapse into a little puddle of shit if he didn't have someone around to wipe his ass for him and tell him how great it smells.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 8:09 PM

Summation: Maxy is the type of person who when you tell him "My feeling sick' replies "Well *I'M* not!".

Posted by: Zabinatrix | December 21, 2010 8:14 PM

The main problem I see with most libertarian "arguments" is that they seem to be unable to think of anything more than one step removed from them.

Maxwell tells us that he doesn't need publicly funded things to get an education - he paid for it! He just sees one transaction, his (or his parents') money, going to the school in exchange for an education.

What he doesn't see is that the school needs big buildings. Those buildings were built by workers and are maintained by caretakers who were probably not born into privilege. Even while being hard workers many of them would have to rely on public education and healthcare to make it to the point where they could build his school. Even if they were paid for the construction with private funds, that money would have meant nothing if the public hadn't provided skilled and healthy labor.

He ignores the roads that the school needs to be accessible, the power and water lines it needs, the high speed Internet connection that it is probably dependent on today, and so on... And all of those were to no small part paid for by public funds. Even if the school paid, with private funds, for the last few meters of road, pipes and power line, the rest are part of larger grids that would have been difficult to build and maintain without public funds.

He ignores the fact that building a big school would not be a sound business investment if the buildings couldn't be insured. Sure, the school may pay for their insurance with private funds, but the insurance companies wouldn't dare grant an insurance if the publicly funded fire department, police, military and safety regulations were there to keep the buildings reasonably safe.

Bah. The bird on my shoulder says that I'm writing too much again. But my point is, dear Maxwell, that you did not make everything for yourself. Even if your money was your own you only paid for things.

Money is utterly useless if there isn't a throng of working-class people around to do the things you need. You wouldn't have built your own school building, paved your own roads, built your own printing press, farmed your own food and cleaned your classrooms with your own two hands if there weren't people available to do those things.

And the people who did that kind of work for you were generally not born with the kind of money you were born with. If there weren't publicly funded things they might not have been educated enough to do what you have needed your own life - and they might not have been alive at all, if their health care costs were too steep for them. You benefit every. single. fucking. day. from the fact that those people are alive and educated. You do "use" the services that taxes pay for - you are just unable to see anything other than what is directly in front of you.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 8:17 PM

Maxy understands all that. He's just fine with there being a literal or virtual slave caste

Posted by: adamimos | December 21, 2010 8:25 PM

I've linked to this before but Robert Locke's American Conservative article, Marxism of the Right, is a good argument about basic libertarianism:

he seems to use the word libertarianism where in fact he means something much more akin to anarchism (or at least a very anarchist leaning kind of libertariansm). The libertarianism of someone like Jefferson sounds exactly what the passage seems to call for, a pragmatic mix of the individual and collective. This is the (American) Constitutional type of libertarianism which dictates that the government be spread to different levels, with bigger governments having less ability to infringe on the individual while smaller governments have more power to infringe on the individual in order to make a working society. This is the compromise which is the classical American political system (on paper at least).

Posted by: Shala | December 21, 2010 8:31 PM

NOT THAT SCROOGE!

I'm sorry, I had Disney on the mind. :(

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 8:32 PM

Personally, I prefer Darkwing Duck.

Posted by: No One | December 21, 2010 8:36 PM

or must I face jail time for refusing to pay into a system I do not wish to support, and do not make use of?

Yes... Life is hard and sometimes unfair. You don't always get what you want through hard work and effort.

Posted by: Childermass | December 21, 2010 8:40 PM

Wow. This is outrageous. And in my opinion unconstitutional. I don't mind churches being untaxed so long as other non-profits get the same advantage on the theory that whether or not an organization is religious should make no difference. But clearly the priest is getting something the head of a non-profit does not.

Maybe some head of a non-profit should sue to get the same tax advantage.

Not paying FICA taxes is not nearly outrageous (though it is bad policy per se) because the priests won't get the benefits either. And then they must hope that their retirement fund makes good investments.

As for pay for Baptist ministers, I really don't care. The most all Baptist churches, the congregation gets to vote on such things. Basically if you become a member in good standing, you have a vote if you are willing to take the time take part in the decision. If they want to send a hefty part of their donations to the minister, that is their affair. Heck we should with them to up their ministers' pay as it is money that won't be spent on all the stuff we don't want done.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 21, 2010 8:45 PM

What would it take for Maxwell to say that a libertarian society is bad?

Posted by: timgueguen | December 21, 2010 9:02 PM

Ultimately it's quite simple: Taxes are rent. If you wish to live in a home you don't own yourself you have to pay rent. A country is a home, and to live in it you need to pay. Government taking money from you in taxes is no more stealing than a landlord taking money from you when you live in their house is.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 9:12 PM

Maybe some head of a non-profit should sue to get the same tax advantage.

Apparently in California (where they're bringing the suit), it's worded to say that any minister of the gospel gets the allowance, but in practice it applies to all religious leaders.

Interesting, though. They could get a lot more literal if they wanted to.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 21, 2010 9:26 PM

I think the saddest thing about the kind of sociopathic view of the world Max has is that it seems to be becoming more commonplace - and, even more scarily, it's the people who such a system would ultimately harm (the average people) who are helping make it happen.

For Max it makes sense (in a twisted, selfish way) because he will actually benefit from it; the rich get richer after all. But so many people who unwittingly support Libertarian-style policies don't realise they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing so.

That's what saddens me the most about the current state of thing in the USA (as I see them): that politicians and the corporations controlling them appear to have found the means to convince people to vote against their own interests - and do so not only occassionally, but consistently.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 21, 2010 9:48 PM

you may think you'll never need Medicare, until you are diagnosed with cancer and find out you've only been able to save about 1% of the cost of the treatment. Then what? Your private insurance plan is run by a company that will do all it can (legal or not) to minimize their costs.

But, it gets more interesting. They tried multiple treatments on him. Nothing touched it. At all. The man went through 4 separate regimens of treatments, and the cancer still grew (the tumor in his lung grew an average of an inch every 3 weeks--on treatment).

His oncologist took his case before a panel. They decided to run a DNA test on a sample of the tumor. Turns out, it's cancer that typically starts in the pancreas. For Dad, it started in his lung. They were giving him the wrong chemo (honest mistake, really).

Hooray! Maybe this will work! Except that the chemotherapy agents that would be more likely to help were only approved for pancreatic cancer. He had lung cancer. With chemo treatments at anywhere from $3000 to $20,000 an infusion, it didn't look like we'd be able to do much, particularly since he was terminal anyway. Insurance companies won't cover experimental treatments, which is what this would fall under.

Of course, this sad story doesn't end as a tale of how Corporate America failed to help extend and improve my dad's life.

He died a week after they figured it out. There wouldn't have been time, even if there had been money.

But that's not the case for everyone.

And if you aren't fortunate enough to have $100 grand socked away, you're fucked.

Posted by: Asclepias | December 21, 2010 9:51 PM

Hey Max, you do realize that the comment about your education was about your spelling, right? Steel is a material, an alloy, actually. Steal, as in 'to steal' which was the verb you were shooting for, means to take something from someone else.

Oh, and no sympathy here. FSM forbid something were to happen, like maybe your child is in a severe car accident, and you end up paying for hospital rooms, CATScans, MRIs, intensive care, IVs, medicine, surgery...but then, it was all her fault, right? After all, at all of 5 or 6 years old she shouldn't have tried to cross the street. And it's the driver's fault, too, because he wasn't looking, and you can take him to court and sue. Unfortunately, he only makes minimum wage and has nothing with which to settle his debt. In the legal profession we call that judgment-proof. So now you get to pay a bunch of court costs (which are infinitely more than if you had just settled) in addition to the medical costs, and pretty soon your fortune is gone. Think it sounds far-fetched? It happens to a lot of people.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 21, 2010 9:57 PM

Jules, Bride of Death @ 402

Darkwing Duck- Alles klar Herr Kommissar ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkg-gsnVl0

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | December 21, 2010 9:58 PM

If you "opt out of public schools", you should have to:
buy nothing that at some point was worked on by someone educated in public schools.
especially, you can have no medical services provided to you by anyone educated in public schools.
have no access to any public services provided by anyone educated in public schools-- opted into library access because you couldn't buy anything from the public-school educated clerks at Barnes & Noble? Too bad! The librarian had a public school education and will now ignore all your requests for an interlibrary loan because for you, she's too illiterate to do the work.

Because your public schools don't just educate you and your kids, they educate everyone who does work you rely on.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 21, 2010 10:14 PM

One of my players in D&D pointed out that Ilithid/Mindflayer society is basically libertarianism in action. (they only work with eachother for common goals, give nothing to eachother, and have no sympathy or compassion to eachother)

Posted by: druidbros | December 21, 2010 10:42 PM

The trouble with the libertards is the their logical extension of their political philosopy just degrades into anarchy. They cant think far enough ahead to see this fact. Its like they are all petulant teenagers. Grow up you pond scum.

Posted by: Zabinatrix | December 21, 2010 10:55 PM

NASA...NASA...where have I heard that name...it's some kind of private enterprise, isn't it?

Well, I'll grant you that it's not. But if the United States wasn't such an oppressive SOCIALIST hellhole, the invisible hand of the glorious FREE MARKET could have made a much, much better space agency.

Heh. Trying to sound like a libertarian is fun.

Posted by: The Sailor | December 21, 2010 11:27 PM

Yep, saw the Fagin, also noticed the Maxwell.

Also noticed the John Voight-Mein Kampf that Harrison Ford PZ mentioned.

"The only winning move is not to play"

3 moves from Blade Runner to War Games. Kevin Bacon might take a few more degrees.

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | December 22, 2010 12:23 AM

Rev BDC - That is worth copying and pasting here

Sally Strange @329

I hope everybody bookmarks or otherwise saves that Hickman link for the next time a Randroid shows up anywhere.

The interesting thing about firefighting is that it started out as a private service serving only subscribers, but it quickly became apparent that it was a lot more efficient and effective to have a single publicly owned service. After all, what responds faster, 10 competing firehalls, each responding to fires anywhere in the city or 10 firehalls each covering one tenth of the city and covering the adjacent areas when those crews are busy. The "Free Market" does a good job of providing all sorts of consumer goods, but for a lot of services competition just leads to inefficiencies.

What these Adam Smith worshipers don't realize is that he was a utilitarian, not a libertarian. He realized that the "Invisible Hand" wouldn't provide streetlights etc. He was also aware of the problem of collusion by suppliers. Ideologues like libertarians do not realize that even if their pipe dream economy would maximize total wealth (which it wouldn't because the private sector is not always more efficient than the public sector), it would still not maximize utility because an extra dollar has more utility to a poor person than to a rich person. No wonder that Adam Smith advocated a progressive income tax.

I wonder if Mad Max has ever considered what would happen to him in his utopia if he developed a mental illness that fucked with his ability to plan and asses risk. But then, I guess he figures it will never happen to him - just like how he believes Americans who don't carry health insurance think. Of course, there are people who can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions etc, but they don't exist in the bubble world that he lives in.

I wonder, do libertarians advocated eliminating limited liability corporations? After all, they are a way of avoiding the full effects of the discipline of the market by protecting their shareholders' personal assets from the corporation's creditors.

Posted by: Bremsstrahlung | December 22, 2010 12:37 AM

It still astounds me that libertarians are so oblivious that when they are put on third base by the collective efforts of society they still react as though any attempts to get them to pay back the favor to society are the moral equivalent of robbery.

Posted by: Yahzi | December 22, 2010 12:59 AM

I see Fagin has been clobbered, and I was happy to see the "stable currency" argument introduced. Libtards always forget that one; I love saying to them, "Open your wallet. What is that? A stable currency? How much is that worth to you? How much did you pay for that service?"

The other argument I didn't see though, was Newton. When they say they don't owe a debt to society, I ask them, "How much did you pay Newton for the Calculus? Do you have a receipt?" Because pointing out that they have inherited the entire edifice of modern science for free seems to work better than pointing out they inherited the entire edifice of modern culture (like democracy, women's rights, rule of law, etc.).

Posted by: Militant Agnostic | December 22, 2010 1:12 AM

"Open your wallet. What is that? A stable currency? How much is that worth to you? How much did you pay for that service?"

Don't they just fall back on how much better off we would be if we stayed on the gold standard at that point?

I think it is just a case of them being so narcissistic they can not ever admit they got where they are by luck. Interesting too is that for all their talk of how they deserve what they have, they sure defend hereditary privilege.

Posted by: kab761 | December 22, 2010 2:51 AM

I know I'm way late on this, but I can't believe no one's pointed it out:

Private U.S. universities are not for-profit institutions!

As such, they have fucking nothing to do with the lame-ass public vs. private argument that MF is trying to make. They are not a shining example of the stellar heights to which pursuit of profit can take us. That's not their mission, it's not how they work, and it's not the impetus that leads to their prestige. Your reference to the U.S. News & World Report rankings is complete horseshit. Compare that list, or this list of the top U.S. state schools, to this list of private, for-profit universities, then come talk to me about how fucking Stanford and Yale prove the inherent superiority of market-driven enterprises. Jesus, you really haven't thought about any of this very hard, have you?

Posted by: bastion of sass | December 22, 2010 5:34 AM

So Fagin thinks it's just too bad that people get sick. That people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. That many people work in jobs that don't even cover the most minimal basic necessities needed for survival.

Yep, too bad. That's life. Deal with it. No pity. *shrug*

So, Fagin, it's just too bad that you were born in a country that requires its citizens to pay taxes. Too bad. That's life. Deal with it. No pity. *shrug*

Posted by: drbunsen | December 22, 2010 7:32 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp #199:

I grew up in a wealthy family. I went to private schools, was a member at a private country club, never feared for my next meal

Reverend sir, I congratulate you on overcoming the handicap of your birth by dint of your own efforts at self-improvement, viz., not growing up to be a mewling fucktard like Exhibit A up there.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2010 8:08 AM

Reverend sir, I congratulate you on overcoming the handicap of your birth by dint of your own efforts at self-improvement, viz., not growing up to be a mewling fucktard like Exhibit A up there.

Oh I'm still a fucktard in my own way. Just not a myopic ignorant one like Fagins who thinks he's gained his fortune in a vacuum.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 22, 2010 8:28 AM

But Rev, you're my favorite fucktard!

Posted by: drbunsen | December 22, 2010 9:01 AM

I know that he's heartless, but he needs to know that he can't effectively exploit people who are too uneducated, too sick or too dead.

If I may be so bold: QOTMFM

Posted by: bananacat | December 22, 2010 10:21 AM

Don't they just fall back on how much better off we would be if we stayed on the gold standard at that point?

They probably do say that and they're incredibly stupid for saying it. Gold has no inherent value; it's valuable for the same reason paper money is. It doesn't matter how much gold you have if there's nothing you can buy with it.

Posted by: Ostrijj | December 22, 2010 1:09 PM

I have never posted before on here, frankly because the level of intelligence is rather intimidating for me. I'm very much a lay-woman.

But I just want to say that reading such a vast amount of rational and empathetical, (right word?), viewpoints is a very very good boost to morale. I only wish more could see the things you all have to say.

I currently live with limited means in England. My situation is significantly greater than others, however, so I make a point to never complain. I have clean water, internet and a house, for example, not to mention all the other things that come with being white and born in britain. Thanks to jobseekers and the NHS, I also have help looking for work and free healthcare, all of which I can't wait to pay for by paying my taxes!

I love all of you rational guys.
In a strictly platonic sense. :)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 22, 2010 2:08 PM

MF's ideal society isn't Somalia - it's Dubai. I mean, all those "guest" workers entered into their contracts of their own free will, being equal and equally informed free-market agents to their "employers", right?

So what if they can't trade their way out of perpetual slavery and earn their freedom? They should have read the damn contract before they signed!

What's that? Can't read? Huh. Tough shit.

A antagonistic but not quite evil enough to be villainous organization in my D&D game does that. They're the extreme faceless business and when the players encountered them they had turned a mountain village into a mining town since the villagers had signed the contracts without/unable to read them. The contract included a clause that gave the company the right to dispose of the bodies of those killed on the job anyway they see fit...the way they saw fit was zombie laborers.

For reference they were nicer than Max

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 22, 2010 2:13 PM

I plan to join the aerospace industry on whatever path (NASA or otherwise) that gets ME or my stand in to Mars the quickest.

Fixed. Obviously he can't want just humans to get to Mars since he owes nothing to society and doesn't want to contribute to its betterment

Posted by: Corbie, Wicked Auntie of Death | December 22, 2010 2:20 PM

Hm. Ministers neither pay nor collect Social Security?

That would explain a lot about my uncle.

He was a minister in a mainstream church but had to leave when his wife divorced him (in the 70s) and eventually wound up with a position in a small denomination that probably doesn't have a lot in the way of retirement funds for its ministers.

The last I heard on this is that my grandparents (both alive in their 90s) have been helping my now-elderly uncle and his (third) wife out with their rent.

He's certainly of an age to be collecting retirement, but if he doesn't get Social Security, that would explain quite a bit. I doubt he was ever able to put much money away in his lifetime. And he's not the most money-savvy person (or savvy in many other areas, for that matter). Personally, I think he SHOULD have been taxed for Social Security; then he wouldn't be in this fix.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | December 22, 2010 2:50 PM

aw, that's cute. Lil' Max seems to have inherited not only money and an indomitable work ethic, but also his opinions from his parents.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 22, 2010 4:35 PM

You know, I had a snarky comment about the YOU WA SHOCK! about this; OF COURSE his parents are smugertarians. They're rich!

Then I remembered Chimpy and felt bad. Bad, but not unjustified.

Posted by: jo1storm | December 23, 2010 8:41 AM

You know what I propose to remedy this situation? One of these two things:

1) make priest calling the same as lawyer calling, so they pay the same fees (after all, they are talking with highest power in our name:) ) or

2) legalise prostitution with the same tax cuts. We could use more safety in that area, some extra trade tax and so on. At least, when prostitute goes on her knees there is almost certainly heavenly bliss involved :).

/non sequitur

Posted by: scc.syoung | December 29, 2010 9:16 AM

Hey all. Just saw this post. I am an ordained minister who receives a housing allowance. I have been in paid ministry more than a decade. I just thought I'd add that I don't make anywhere near $105k. Within my denomination, I would guess that the average starting salary is less than $30k and someone is doing very well to be anywhere near $50k. Several I know make close to $20k and are serving faithfully. I'm not Catholic or SBC, so maybe I need to switch! Regardless of how you may feel of our field and beliefs, most of us are professionals who have dedicated a lot of time to education and training. To be fairly compensated is not a crime, especially when (at its core) our paycheck is a gift from our congregations.

I will admit that I'm not convinced the current system is fair. I think the roots of the housing allowance makes sense. Most churches used to provide a parsonage to their minister/priest. The salary was very low or non-existent, but housing expenses were covered. Over the years, most churches have stopped maintaining the housing. This allowance was set up with the intent that the church would still be able to provide the funding for the housing. Much like a company car, pension, etc, I suppose.

But it seems that somewhere along the line, salaries have started to increase. So now the housing allowance doesn't seem to be a legitimate need.

And the Social Security thing - of the ministers I know, about 50% opt out and 50% stay in. Since ministers are considered self employed, they do pay their full 15.5% FICA taxes if they elect to stay in.

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in. I'm not defending anything in particular except that maybe not all ministers make the $105k and claim to be of humble means.

Posted by: scc.syoung | December 29, 2010 10:07 AM

Caine, Fleur du mal OM:

The response I expected from this group, to be sure. While I obviously don't believe that I'm "brainwashing" people, I understand your point. However, by your same logic, can't you make the argument that most any profession works on these principles? Doesn't a chef want to cook great food to brainwash his patrons to keep dining at his establishment? Doesn't a doctor have good bedside manner to brainwash his patients into coming back for more treatment? Does a retailer not provide nice products/prices to brainwash shoppers into spending more money?

And here I am getting sucked into an argument... grrr... I can't help myself! My original point was simply that not all ministers make an exorbitant salary and lie about their humble means.

Posted by: KG | January 8, 2011 11:52 AM

While I obviously don't believe that I'm "brainwashing" people

Ah, I see: you've taken the trouble to brainwash yourself first.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | January 8, 2011 12:14 PM

@ scc.syoung- As a doctor, I really don't use my bedside manner to get people to come back. I'd be thrilled if I could cure people with a single visit and never see them again.

I earn a good living, and I pay my (quite heavy- I live in Canada) taxes (if anyone can believe this) gladly, because I want others to have the opportunities I have had.

I agree with the others above that the clergy are largely parasites on a public that they help to brainwash. Many offer counselling, however to date I have found them to be no help for my patients whatsoever. They have a tendency to feed into the patients' delusions and personality problems; they have not discouraged spousal emotional abuse. Some training in psychology and counselling techniques should be required so they have some insight into haw much damage they can do when they do this wrong.

I am with the others- a fair wage for someone who acts as a community development worker, counsellor, and service provider- this is not at question. But admitting when one is well off, and paying one's fair share into society are not things the clergy should be exempted from, nor should they want to be.

Posted by: Iain Walker | January 8, 2011 1:17 PM

Oh, and none of the above is in the business to telling their customers that their continued patronage should be the basis for all meaning and purpose in their lives.

Posted by: Teh Merkin | January 8, 2011 4:29 PM

Oh, I *do* hate to be late for a party, but when I saw a question that I can actually answer, I decided "better late than never." Mainly I just read here and bask in the awesomeness of others, but now I get to contribute.

Max said:

I don't want to get into quips about college metrics or over who went to a better college. My point is to demonstrate that (despite what some commenter here seem to think) for profit ventures can and do lead to quality products (with private college education being one example).

I happen to be one of the people at Harvard who work to provide the data that USNWR uses to make these rankings. Guess what one of the metrics is? It's federal grant money... in other words, private colleges get ranked more highly if they get more money from the government. Yeah. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, Max. The "private" colleges at the top of your list are, to some extent, there due to their ability to "steel" taxes from you.

(I wish I knew to what extent grants factor into the rankings, but USNWR doesn't reveal how they use the data they ask us for.)

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | January 10, 2011 1:32 PM

The proper comparison would be of a less formal practitioner of the Gypsy Curse, say a small-potatoes psychic: Your valuables have been cursed, bring them in and for a small fee I'll un-curse them.

The Church, of course, practises it on a grand scale: "Your family jewels have been cursed by Adam's sin; respect, obey, let us make laws for you, and tithe and for your lifelong loyalty and cash donations, we'll say the magic words that allow you to have sex and lift the curse of original sin."

Should a psychic with a scam be given tax breaks and housing allowances and respect to better facilitate the fleecing of scam victims?