[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 13:05, said:

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

The butterfly effect exists

People don't base their lives around it, nor is it useful for discussions such as this.

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 07:27, said:

You are right, I believe that all taxation is legalized theft. It is extracting money from non-consenting individuals through the use or threat of us of force. Isn't that theft? The fact that it is authorized by law simply makes it legal. Hence, legalized theft.

I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?

I will take these one at a time.

" all taxation is legalized theft". Technically, this seems like an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it isn't theft. It's not my purpose tom play with words here, but could we just call it taxation? I believe taxation is a good idea, you are opposed to all taxation. We disagree. Most Libertarians are not in fact opposed to all taxation, they acknowledge the need for defense and that has to be paid for. Whatever your views on that, certainly I am far more in favor of taxation than you are. I'll indicate why as I move on to the second statement.

"I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?" Certainly government action advantages certain groups. That is it's purpose. Much of what I will now say I, and probably many others, have said before. I went to public elementary and secondary school, supported by taxes. I then went to the University of Minnesota, where the tuition was something like $72 per quarter, later going up to $84. Taxpayers made this possible. This was a great advantage to me. Now I dd not prove the Riemann Hypothesis, but I led a reasonably productive life. So maybe there was some benefit to society. For that matter, Sergei Brin went to the tax payer supported Eleanor Roosevelt High School, significantly increasing the average wealth of its graduates. Many people went to tax payer supported schools, and often this has worked out well for everyone concerned.

Tax money can be wasted, no doubt about that. And it can lead to corrupt practices, no doubt about that either. For me, this means that we do our best to bring out the good that can be done, and do ourr best to keep the bad features as minimal as possible.

Obama said "You didn't build this", an extremely clumsy formulation. But I sincerely believe that anyone who looks back on his life and cannot find places where help, sometimes from the government and sometimes from others, has been not only useful but often essential needs to look a little harder.

So yes, I support taxation. I have known people who do not. I cannot recall a single instance where something that I have said has changed their mind, but the fact is I do support it. That does not mean that we should not be careful, but I support taxation. This is both in appreciation for what I believe has been beneficial to me and to what I believe has been beneficial to society as a whole. I don't expect to change your mind, but anyway this is my view. Rather broadly shared, I think. I am not all that original.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-July-29, 18:04, said:

I will take these one at a time.

" all taxation is legalized theft". Technically, this seems like an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it isn't theft. It's not my purpose tom play with words here, but could we just call it taxation? I believe taxation is a good idea, you are opposed to all taxation. We disagree. Most Libertarians are not in fact opposed to all taxation, they acknowledge the need for defense and that has to be paid for. Whatever your views on that, certainly I am far more in favor of taxation than you are. I'll indicate why as I move on to the second statement.

"I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?" Certainly government action advantages certain groups. That is it's purpose. Much of what I will now say I, and probably many others, have said before. I went to public elementary and secondary school, supported by taxes. I then went to the University of Minnesota, where the tuition was something like $72 per quarter, later going up to $84. Taxpayers made this possible. This was a great advantage to me. Now I dd not prove the Riemann Hypothesis, but I led a reasonably productive life. So maybe there was some benefit to society. For that matter, Sergei Brin went to the tax payer supported Eleanor Roosevelt High School, significantly increasing the average wealth of its graduates. Many people went to tax payer supported schools, and often this has worked out well for everyone concerned.

Tax money can be wasted, no doubt about that. And it can lead to corrupt practices, no doubt about that either. For me, this means that we do our best to bring out the good that can be done, and do ourr best to keep the bad features as minimal as possible.

Obama said "You didn't build this", an extremely clumsy formulation. But I sincerely believe that anyone who looks back on his life and cannot find places where help, sometimes from the government and sometimes from others, has been not only useful but often essential needs to look a little harder.

So yes, I support taxation. I have known people who do not. I cannot recall a single instance where something that I have said has changed their mind, but the fact is I do support it. That does not mean that we should not be careful, but I support taxation. This is both in appreciation for what I believe has been beneficial to me and to what I believe has been beneficial to society as a whole. I don't expect to change your mind, but anyway this is my view. Rather broadly shared, I think. I am not all that original.

Thank you for a thoughtful replay. You may be surprised to find that I am not that far from your position. As a "limited government libertarian" I concede that some taxation may be needed to fund essential government services. Our difference is probably in the definition of "essential government services". In my view there is a need for some national defense (including border control), a court system to adjudicate disputes and laws, and a police force to enforce the laws and decisions of the courts. How to pay for these essential services is open to debate, but some minimal taxation is probably necessary.

Beyond that I believe that government should butt out. Laws enforceable by the courts/police should be limited to the aforementioned areas. The rest to be handled through voluntary contracts between citizens, also enforceable by the courts.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-29, 17:25, said:

The butterfly effect exists

People don't base their lives around it, nor is it useful for discussions such as this.

Thank you for conceding that government actions always advantage/disadvantage individuals/groups. You may call it the butterfly effect if you wish. But those are some big butterflies!

[Winstonm]

Probably more bad news for Dennison and Dennison lovers - the joint defense agreement between Dennison and Cohen has been severed, according to Rudy G., which may well be the first necessary step for Cohen to make a deal with prosecutors.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 18:56, said:

Thank you for conceding that government actions always advantage/disadvantage individuals/groups. You may call it the butterfly effect if you wish.

I should have caveated my original comment with the words' in a meaningful and predictable fashio.

yes, the government naming a post office creates winners and losers.
And yes, a butterfly flappping its wings in china creates winners and losers.
But no one actually cares about any of this.

> But those are some big butterflies!

On occasion yes. A lot of the time, no.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-30, 05:30, said:

I should have caveated my original comment with the words' in a meaningful and predictable fashio.

yes, the government naming a post office creates winners and losers.
And yes, a butterfly flappping its wings in china creates winners and losers.
But no one actually cares about any of this.

> But those are some big butterflies!

On occasion yes. A lot of the time, no.

I would think the winners and losers care!

[Winstonm]

I have often compared libertarians to teenagers, as their emphasis solely on the effects of rules on individuals coupled with their angst at being prevented from doing as they wish reminds me of looking into a mirror when I was 16. At 16, I thought Atlas Shrugged was gospel. Fortunately, I grew up. Libertarians seem unable to grasp that some benefits they are too self-absorbed to notice positively impact their lives in subtle ways - that the "losing" that helps others can create a more stable and prosperous society, resulting in a win-win rather than lose-win, and eventually creating more wealth, thus increasing the wins by decreasing the size of the losses.

Will Rogers understood this "trickle up" economics:

Quote

This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-30, 07:52, said:

I would think the winners and losers care!

Yes, but we all know how "good" you are at thinking...

[Winstonm]

From Rudy, there is now have a new meme directed at the Dennison "base": (emphasis added)

Quote

The goalposts have moved.

President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, appeared on CNN and Fox & Friends on Monday to argue that collusion is not a crime.

We will see how long it takes the parrots to learn how to repeat this phrase.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-July-30, 10:26, said:

We will see how long it takes the parrots to learn how to repeat this phrase.

Criminal conspiracy is a crime however....

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-30, 09:31, said:

Yes, but we all know how "good" you are at thinking...

Ah, good ol' Nazi type behavior. Make it a personal attack.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-30, 10:40, said:

Ah, good ol' Nazi type behavior. Make it a personal attack.

You show up and act like an a$$hole, then act all surprised when people treat you like one...

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-July-30, 11:05, said:

You show up and act like an a$$hole, then act all surprised when people treat you like one...

Yep, you are acting as expected. From now on I will just refer to you as "Nazi hrothgar".

[Winstonm]

Uh, oh, Dennison lovers. It appears that Giuliani has let the cat out of the bag that there may have been a second meeting on June 7, 2 days prior to and concerning the June 9th meeting at Dennison Tower with the Russians, that prior meeting also attended by Kushner, Manafort, Junior, Gates, and possibly DD himself.

That would explain why Giuliani once again trotted out the "collusion isn't a crime" meme today on Fox and Friends.

And here is a helpful guide to explain why collusion and conspiracy are not the same thing.

Quote

The key question, then, will be whether Trump knew about the meeting in advance. If he did, then he almost certainly becomes a co-conspirator. (And Trump Jr., who flatly denied in sworn testimony before Congress that Trump knew in advance, has a perjury problem). Now, simply knowing about a criminal agreement does not necessarily make one a co-conspirator. But if Trump authorized the meeting, or gave a necessary thumbs-up to proceed, then he’s in.

Hence, the huge importance of Michael Cohen and any other witness who might could corroborate Cohen's claims (such as Gates or Manafort).

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-30, 11:25, said:

Yep, you are acting as expected. From now on I will just refer to you as "Nazi hrothgar".

That's fine...

You lie constantly. Not sure why anyone would care what you have to say.

[Elianna]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-29, 18:48, said:

Thank you for a thoughtful replay. You may be surprised to find that I am not that far from your position. As a "limited government libertarian" I concede that some taxation may be needed to fund essential government services. Our difference is probably in the definition of "essential government services". In my view there is a need for some national defense (including border control), a court system to adjudicate disputes and laws, and a police force to enforce the laws and decisions of the courts. How to pay for these essential services is open to debate, but some minimal taxation is probably necessary.

Beyond that I believe that government should butt out. Laws enforceable by the courts/police should be limited to the aforementioned areas. The rest to be handled through voluntary contracts between citizens, also enforceable by the courts.

So no funding for schools, huh?

Education for all is one of the main proven ways to improve society, everyone who wants their to be a better place should start by making our schools the best that they can be.

And perhaps you don't care about the future of the country you live in, but a better education for all in that country would make you physically safer, by giving kids an alternative to robbing or hurting you for money.

[Winstonm]

 Elianna, on 2018-July-30, 14:05, said:

So no funding for schools, huh?

Education for all is one of the main proven ways to improve society, everyone who wants their to be a better place should start by making our schools the best that they can be.

And perhaps you don't care about the future of the country you live in, but a better education for all in that country would make you physically safer, by giving kids an alternative to robbing or hurting you for money.

It also is "minimal taxation" rather than "legal theft" when it is for a purpose that is approved by the child-kings.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-July-30, 15:25, said:

It also is "minimal taxation" rather than "legal theft" when it is for a purpose that is approved by the child-kings.

Wrong. It is still legal theft. The fact that the "child-kings" approve of it does not change the nature of the acts.

[Elianna]

 ldrews, on 2018-July-30, 17:24, said:

Wrong. It is still legal theft. The fact that the "child-kings" approve of it does not change the nature of the acts.

I notice you haven't addressed my post, nor AWM's from a while ago.