Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

edward j williamson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by edward j williamson

  1. Hillary Clinton is a socialist. She recently gave a speech where she talked about what she was going to do with the profits of oil companies, and it seemed not to even cross her mind to ask the question if she had the right to. She's also the one who tried to shove socialized medicine down our throats circa 1994. She's also exceedingly dishonest and very close minded, not that that's unusual among democrats, and you know she buys into all of the environmental pabulum, given she's a democrat.

    Regarding Ron Paul, he was my representative when I lived in Texas. He even came to my door campaigning. In terms of making the government smaller, and increasing freedoms generally he has been good, probably the best in Congress. In terms of self-defense, he's been atrocious. IIRC, he may have been "pro-life". I believe he’s honest and a man of conviction, but fundamentally wrong on self-defense, which is a major weakness.

    Weak on personal self-defense? LOL He is ranked highest by groups such as the NRA and GOA on gun ownership and freedom of firearms issues. He is the most vorocious defender of the Second Ammendment in Congress. He consistently calls for the abolition of all gun control laws, and consistently defends a citizen's right to carry and own firearms. He may be anti-war, but he is not anti-self defense - at least not on an individual or domestic societal level.

  2. Well said!

    Religion of "Peace" Burns Neutral, Liberal Nation's Embassy

    "Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building,"

    Yes, apparently Allah the "Merciful" has demanded that the members of his "peaceful" religion commit arson in the name of god. Listen; you want to play with the big boys? You want to be a global power? Don't go to war over cartoons. Children fight over comics and drawings and inane, fanciful beliefs - not adults. Yes, that means I am saying that every Islamic zealot is essentially a child. Not far behind is the Catholic Church, it seems...

    "In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican... said certain forms of criticism represent an 'unacceptable provocation.'

    Obviously wanting to garner some PR with the Islamic world, new Pope Benedict got down on his knees to slobber a good-will hummer on fascist anti-semitic terrorists in the Middle East instead of condemning violent criminal acts against a peaceful nation's embassy; an entity not even remotely responsible for the acts being "protested."

    "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement.

    Get this, Vatican -Yes, it does. The right to freedom of thought and expression explicitly entails the right to offend whoever the hell you wish. You have to be "tolerant" of other beliefs and people - you don't have to like it, let alone respect it. I have to "tolerate" religious extremists - in the same manner and for the same reasons as having to "tolerate" someones belief that their spouse is attractive and their children are smart. I don't have to agree, like it, respect it, or even keep quiet about it. I don't care if Mohammed's golden shit is the cure for cancer, I'll defend to the death the right of any person to draw him in any fashion they wish without fear of death threats.

    If I have to "tolerate" Muslims and Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses proselytizing their archaic snake-oil, they have to "tolerate" having the very cores of their ideology questioned, prodded, poked, analyzed, caricatured and mocked, in the same manner as any other belief, creed or lifestyle is so viewed. Being a religion don't make you right, nor does it give you carte blanche to demand acceptance from anyone. If Islam and Christianity and Judaism won't accept, say, homosexuals for instance, what in the hell makes them think society has to accept them? As I said, we must certainly tolerate their existence and adherents, but in no way must they be accepted, or for that matter, adhered to by anyone else.

    A leader of the Islamic militant Hamas group, which recently swept Palestinian parliamentary elections, told an Italian newspaper on Saturday that the cartoons were an "unforgivable insult" that should be punished by death. "We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Mahmoud Zahar said."

    "We should have killed them," he repeated.

    Guess what, Mahmoud my man? We should have killed you. You want recognition and power? Learn to play in the sandbox with the other kids. You don't burn down embassies for cartoons. You don't threaten death to comics for jokes you didn't like. These incidents are not just anti-social behaviors, these are contrary to society period. These are anti-life doctrines, with a magnitude of hate that cannot be fathomed by rational men. If religions cannot recognize the value of life in this earthly plane, if they must devalue and degrade life as they do, they cannot be accepted as guides in morals, ethics or values. If they insist on such anti-life doctrines, they must be condemned wherever they are encountered. Feminists, rise up to the challenge that Islam represents to every right women have - gays, rise up to the challenge of Islams lynch-mob homophobia - free lovers, rise up to the challenge of Islams right-of-Dobson Puritanical dogma - free thinkers, rise to the challenge of Islams suicide-inducing blinders. It's time to think. Are intolerably ignorant, racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, Puritanical chauvinist pigs allowed to burn down buildings, threaten lives and demand sympathy because a comic strip offended them? No. You know it, I know it, the whole rational world knows it. No one else in the world would ever get away with this kind of behavior. You know the last time fascist, racist, ignorant anti-Semites made such egregious violations of human rights? European powers and the Vatican tried to appease those ones too. And the whole world suffered the consequences.

    Just be glad the cartoonists didn't display Mohammed in a more fitting outfit - like a Nazi uniform.


    You thought Pat Robertson was an idiot?



  3. LOL, but they would've ran off into left field obsessed with destroying it, so that would've done you no good.

    Being from Orange County, CA I am an Angel fan. Arte Moreno is one helluva businessman, and entrepreneur who made it big through his own work and creativity. He is assembling a solid organization.

  4. The talk show host Niel Boortz had something interesting to say about this (but it wasn't dealing with Katrina; I heard him talk about this a long time ago).

    He basically said that the people living in that area are aware of the risk of natural disasters when they move there. Therefore, by living in a hurricane susceptible area, you accept the risk of losing your property from a hurricane. "America" as such owes those people nothing.

    I know it sounds cold but I think he's right. The people knew what they were getting in to when they moved there in the first place. Of course, there is nothing wrong with people voluntarily helping out the victims. But as Boortz said, other people don't owe them their help.

    Neal is dead-on correct in his assessment. New Orleans is located in a depression, surrounded by dikes and levies to keep the Gulf out, and is situated near the Gulf Coast in a region historically rife with hurricane activity. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there are definate risks with living there and owning property in that region. Evidently to them, the benifits of living in that area outweighed the inherent risks, and since they made that choice it is incumbant upon them, as it is for all people, to accept the consequences of that choice.

  5. I live less than 80 miles from San Diego, and listen to a lot of Padres broadcasts.  Last year, after Montreal Expos pitcher Scott Downs miraculously escaped from several jams in a game against the Padres, I heard Coleman say:

    "Scott Downs is the luckiest man in America, or at least in Montreal." 

    Apparently he didn't earn a degree in geography, either. . .

    LOL :D Yep, he and Yogi ought to get together and write a book. That would be something to read. lol

  6. //Jerry Coleman is the longtime broadcaster for the Padres. He has been announcing since the 50's, starting with the Yankees when his playing days with them were over, and moving to the Padres, where he has been with them for over 30 years. He also managed the Padres during the 1980 season. He is a knowledgeable baseball man, with a great, classic baseball announcers modulation and cadence. However, he is well known to SD fans for his Colemanisms. LOL

    You'll all love these ones. B) -EW//

    How about these...all from one man

    The immortal (and sometimes confused)

    Jerry Coleman

    "And Kansas is at Chicago tonight or is it Chicago at Kansas City? Well, no matter as Kansas leads in the eighth four-to-four."

    "(Bruce) Benedict may not be hurt as much as he really is."

    "Bob Davis is wearing his hair differently this year, short and with curls like Randy Jones wears, I think you call it a Frisbee."

    "(Joe) DiMaggio seldom showed emotion. One day after striking out, he came into the dugout and kicked the ball bag. We all went 'ooooh'. It really hurt. He sat down and the sweat popped out on his forehead and he clenched his fists without ever saying a word. Everybody wanted to howl, but he was a god. You don't laugh at gods."

    "Enos Cabell started out here with the Astros and before that he was with the Orioles."

    "Eric Show will be oh-for-ten if that pop fly comes down."

    "Gaylord Perry and Willie McCovey should know each other like a book. They've been ex-teammates for years now."

    "George Hendrick simply lost that sun-blown popup."

    //Ah, damn those dasterdly solar winds!-EW//

    "(Johnny) Grubb goes back, back. He's under the warning track."

    "He (Graig Nettles) leaped up to make one of those diving stops only he can make."

    //Certainly he didn't earn a degree in physics.-EW// :lol:

    "He slides into second with a stand up double."

    "If (Pete) Rose's streak was still intact, with that single to left, the fans would be throwing babies out of the upper deck."

    "Larry Lintz steals second standing up — he slid, but he didn't have to."


    "(Willie) McCovey swings and misses, and it's fouled back."

    "On the mound is Randy Jones, the left-hander with the Karl Marx hairdo."


    "Pete Rose has three-thousand hits and three-thousand and fourteen overall."

    "Rich Folkers is throwing up in the bullpen."

    "There's a hard shot to (Johnnie) LeMaster and he throws (Bill) Madlock into the dugout."

    //Now that I'd like to see. :lol -EW//

    "There's someone warming up in the bullpen, but he's obscured by his number."

    "They throw (Dave) Winfield out at second — and he's safe."


    "Those amateur umpires are certainly flexing their fangs tonight."

    //Yeah, Jerry, I have muscles in my teeth as well.-EW :rolleyes

    "Whenever you get an inflamed tendon, you've got a problem. OK, here's the next pitch to Gene (Tenace) Tendon."

    "Willie Davis is not as young as he used to be."

    "(Dave) Winfield goes back to the wall, he hits his head on the wall and it rolls off! It's rolling all the way back to second base. This is a terrible thing for the Padres."

    :lol: //Not as terrible as it would have been for Winfield, though.-EW//

    "You never ask why you've been fired because if you do, they're liable to tell you."

    "Young Frank Pastore may have just pitched the biggest victory of 1979, maybe the biggest victory of the year."

    //Here is a real brainy one from Steve Physioc, the Angel's play-by-play man.-EW//

    "The White Sox have been very good in one run games this year. They are 17 and 7 in one-run victories." :D

  7. Why Athletes Can't (Shouldn't) Have Real Jobs

    << I've had this in my files for a few years, someone posted it on a political/news/opinion board that I am an administrator for. A little humor is a nice break for a topic. It is no wonder why very few athletes ever go into coaching, and even those are suspect. Wait until you read some of these gems. LOL Enjoy! - Ed>>

    Why Athletes Can't (Shouldn't) Have Real Jobs

    1. Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a

    role model: "I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to

    look up to me. I wan' all the kids to copulate me."

    2. New Orleans Saint RB George Rogers when asked about

    the upcoming season: "I want to rush for 1,000 or

    1,500 yards, whichever comes first."

    3. And, upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the 'Skins say:

    "I'd run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl,

    "Matt Millen of the Raiders said: "To win,I'd run over

    Joe's Mom, too."

    4. Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his

    coach, John Jenkins: "He treats us like men. He lets

    us wear earrings."

    5. Football commentator and former player Joe

    Theismann, 1996: "Nobody in football should be called

    a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."

    6. Senior basketball player at the University of

    Pittsburgh: "I'm going to graduate on time, no matter

    how long it takes." (now that is beautiful)

    7. Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach: "You

    guys line up alphabetically by height." And, "You guys

    pair up in groups of three, and then line up in a


    8. Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson going to

    prison: "Why would anyone expect him to come out

    smarter? He went to prison for three years, not


    9. Stu Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing,

    explaining why he keeps a color photo of himself above

    his locker: "That's so when I forget how to spell my

    name, I can still find my clothes."

    10. Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan

    training regime of heavyweight Andrew Golota: "He's a

    guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning

    regardless of what time it is."

    11. Chuck Nevitt, North Carolina State basketball

    player, explaining to Coach Jim Valvano why he

    appeared nervous at practice: "My sister's expecting a

    baby, and I don't know if I'm going to be an uncle or

    an aunt." (I wonder if his IQ ever hit room

    temperature in January)

    12. Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former

    player: "I told him, 'Son, what is it with you? Is it

    ignorance or apathy?' He said, 'Coach,I don't know and

    I don't care.'"

    13. Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M,

    recounting what he told a player who received four F's

    and one D: "Son, looks to me like you're spending too

    much time on one subject."

    14. Amarillo High School and Oiler coach Bum Phillips

    when asked by Bob Costas why he takes his wife on all

    the road trips, Phillips responded: "Because she is

    too damn ugly to kiss good-bye."

  8. This is exactly the type of person Ben Franklin was speaking about when he coined that famous quote, "Those who would trade a freedom for security deserve neither freedom or security." Read this entire thread. More proof that religion and rationality are diametrically opposed. I say those folks could use a good amount of commentary on their thread, as well as some discussion over here.-EW


  9. Clinton is a whore who's willing to spread his legs for any majority near him.  Remember when he bad-mouthed his own country in Davos?  What a creature.

    Bubba is a loathsome toad. I didn't vote for Bush, but I never voted for Clinton, Gore, or Kerry either. I do support opening up ANWR, as that is certainly in our best interests to put those resources to good use. Bush was right in declaring that we need, most of all, new refineries. I have been saying this for years. The last refinery built in the US was in 1976. We simply can not keep up with need for refined fuel. We also need to scrap this ridiculous regulation of different mixtures for different seasons, and different regions. Ending our adherence to the whims of radical environmentalists will also do much towards solving energy problems.

  10. Catholics teach that man's nature is concupiscent, by which they mean man has a "tendency toward evil actions."

    AqAd, around here we don't separate a man's identity from his actions. We believe that A is A. You are what you do. If you tend to commit evil, then you are evil. If you tend to do good, then you are good. Each individual human must be judged accordingly, because all humans have the capacity to be good or evil. All humans have free will and have the capacity to choose their own actions.

    Catholics teach that man, as a race, tends to do evil, because of Adam's sin. Thus man, according to Catholicism, is evil.

    Now, some Catholic folk try to squirm their way out of this logic by replacing the word "evil" with "sin." They say that man's nature is inherently sinful. But what they really mean is that we are inherently evil.

    AqAd, you call human nature "flawed." But this tells us nothing. This advances the debate nowhere.

    What is the "flaw?"

    You have just given us an empty, unsupported term to describe human nature. Do you expect us to forget that Catholicism teaches that human nature is inherently sinful and bent toward doing evil? Do you expect us to nod our heads in unthinking agreement with this arbitrary notion that human nature is "flawed?"

    What is so "flawed" about our human nature, AqAd? Could it be our reason and self-interest? Do you really believe that man is "flawed" because, as you said earlier, he "does not always choose rationally?" Wasn't it God who allegedly gave us our mental faculties, which include the ability to choose rationally or irrationally--to make choices, right or wrong? Thus, wouldn't that make God responsible for such a human flaw? Why would God hold us responsible, and send us to hell, for a flaw he himself created in us?

    Mr.Swig, you nailed it perfectly! Listening to the pontifications of Ratzinger as he ranted on about the evil of relativism really demonstates not only supreme temerity and unmitagated gall on the part of the RCC, but just how ingenious the teachings of revealed religion - particularly Catholicism really are. Of course truth is absolute, A is A, good is good - evil is evil. For the Catholic Church to claim that they believe this is intellectually dishonest at best. The human is flawed? They teach that? Flawed is a very subjective word. In other words people are partly good, but sometimes evil. The two traits are diametrically opposed. It all but assissinates the already tenuous credibility of Ratzinger's pronouncements. The overwhelming silence of the RCC leadership on the clerical sex abuse scandals gives evidence of selective morality rather than absolute morality. What nonsense that is - and what a contradiction in terms, absolute morality subjectively applied!

  11. Well, if he agrees with the Bible, then his political ideal is the absolute dictatorial rule of Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings. But I'm sure he would settle for the absolute dictatorial rule of Christ's representatives on Earth. (More on this in my forthcoming paper on Billy Graham and Christian fundamentalism.)

    Hi Mr. Swig,

    Excellent article again! I see that you hail from LA. I live in Tustin near Santa Ana in Orange County. One of these days we should get together and chat over a couple of beers.

    Yours in liberty,

    Ed Williamson

  12. Well, if he agrees with the Bible, then his political ideal is the absolute dictatorial rule of Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings. But I'm sure he would settle for the absolute dictatorial rule of Christ's representatives on Earth. (More on this in my forthcoming paper on Billy Graham and Christian fundamentalism.)

    Mr. Swig,

    I just finished reading your outstanding article on Sean Hannity. You really laid the truth out for all to read. You absolutely should publish your articles, or compile them in your own book. What you write needs to be read by everyone, and should become a matter of public discourse. If you don't mind, I'm going to invite alot of people to read both of your articles. Is it ok if I provide them a live link to it? I won't post your articles, but a live link to access them here. Is that ok?


  13. No, but I wish I had because I like Neal Boortz.  He calls himself a Libertarian, but he doesn't seem like one to me.

    He's a registered member of the LP. Believes inherently in the abolition of the War on Drugs. Also, he is minarchist in his views on just how much scope government should have. Other than the Iraq war and his view on what the NAP says, he pretty much is libertarian on all the party planks. BTW, I am also a registered member of the LP, and as such I have taken my share of criticism here, but I am one of the few that doesn't believe that Objectivism and the LP are diametrically opposed. (I thought I'd be honest and upfront with that, but I have no desire to discuss my stances as this is not the thread to do so.)

  14. Yeah, in past years he has been repeatedly pissing me off.  But the fact of the matter is that he is one of the 3 people most responsible for the downfall of Soviet Russia.  To me, this outweighs his other faults.  Henry Ford was an anti-Semite and a Nazi sympathizer, but he is remembered as a great industrialist.  MLK Jr. was a Communist sympathizer but he is remembered as the father of the Civil Rights movement.  Like the Pope, some of their ideas were wrong, but their actions of greatest influence produced positive results.  The Pope's preaching of altruism didn't make anything worse; it just upheld the status quo that has existed within the Catholic church for centuries.  His anti-Sovietism actually had very positive results.


    And the other two? I imagine you had Reagan in mind. I just can't agree with the idea that it was the Pope, as the mass media keeps crowing, who was responsible for the 'fall' of communism. Communism simply collapsed upon itself, the reason being that it was untenable and unsustainable. It is a morally bankrupt system and it finally disintegrated. Pope John Paul II strongly believed in the idea that rich nations were obligated to financially aid poorer ones. He insisted on altruism as a duty. In other words, he was a socialist. I personally see nothing that qualifies him to greatness.

  15. I'll give the the religious fanatic part, but that's not different than any other conservative.  I'm curious as to why you think he's a socialist, though.  Everytime I hear him talk about the economy, he always comes down on the side of the free market.

    And the main reason I like him is because I think he's a good host.

    Actually Bill O'Reilly has the typical Catholic view of Christian socialism on many economic and social issues. I know that he thinks it is a government responsibility to promote social justice and so-called 'fairness' as it relates to public school students and club/off campus/extra-curricular issues. I well remember Neal Boortz showing up on Bill's show and calling him on the 'hubcap' comments. LOL I have never seen anyone do to O' Reilly what Neal did to him. The only thing O'Reilly could come up with as a rejoinder was - "You are a viscious son of a bitch". Anybody remember that one? LOL

  16. Selfish Viking,

    Libertarians and objectivists should not cooperate, aswell as no American Objectivists should vote Libertarian Party.

    They worship Arafat as a freedomfighter, denounce Ayn Rand as a "collectivistic socialist" and claim that the government sholdunt do anything, and even though the whole world goes to hell with the removal of police and military - there not gonna care.

    NO, we don't at all worship Arafat. Most Libertarians denounce that ugly little wart and all he stood for. I am and always have been a strong supporter of Isreal and Isreal's right to defend itself and inhabit their land. In fact, I think Isreal has been too nice to the so-called Palestinians (squatters and murderers)who murder innocent civilians, strap bombs to kids, and kill Isrealis for no other reason than that they are Jews. They should have annilhated the so-called Palestinian nation long ago. Isreal has not done anything wrong, they have made the land productive - which before 1948 was basically a wasteland, they hold free elections which even allow Arab-Isrealis to hold office and to vote, Palestinians and other Arabs living within Isreal proper enjoy a higher standard of life and more liberty than in dictatorial Arab nations - and certainly better than the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

    You will not find one plank of support in the LP for a Palestinian state, and real Libertarians do not honor anything at all about Arafat. I'm not sure what you all in Norway know about Libertarianism or the LP, especially seeing as Norwegians were brought up in one of the most socialist societies in the world. I'm sure students there are as indoctrinated by government schools as our children here are - and that is a real shame.

  17. Each and every person has the right to bear and own whatever arms he deems necessary and appropriate. Not only do we have a right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property - we have a moral obligation to do so. We don't have the right to initiate force against another person, but we may use whatever force necessary to defend ourselves, family, and property - including deadly force. Not only can we use firearms to defend ourselves, hunt, target shoot, etc. an armed populace also protects us against governmental tyranny. An unarmed populace is a captive populace. No guns - we are virtually slaves.

  18. State ownership of universities is very much the issue in the Ward Churchill furor.  If Churchill were employed by a strictly private sector institution, his critics could decry his 9/11 writings but would have no grounds for demanding his firing.  For example, I may not like what Paul Krugman or William Safire say in the New York Times, but I can't demand that the Times fire them based on my disagreement.  Churchill is a different matter.  It is because his employment is financed with state and federal tax money that those who contribute (involuntarily) to his salary have a valid reason for calling for his dismissal.  No citizen should have to finance views that he disagrees with.  No one should have to provide a platform for one's ideological enemy.

    Of course, this principle applies not only to Churchill but to every other tax-funded employee.  I should not be required to fund (via taxation) any professor who believes in the income tax, anti-trust law, the minimum wage, federal housing, the Federal Reserve, farm subsidies, or even government schools.

    So ARI and Onkar Ghate have the correct analysis: "We are right in objecting to being forced to fund their ideas, loathsome or otherwise. The only solution, however, is a free market in education."  Yet, a portion of Ghate's message is wrong-headed:  "But it is no solution for the government to put pressure (or worse) on public universities whenever a professor teaches ideas opposed to the views of a majority of taxpayers. The moment the government becomes arbiter of what can and cannot be taught on campus, the moment speech becomes subject to majority vote, censorship results."

    I find it surprising that Ghate does not understand that government's being an arbiter of what can and cannot be taught on campus is the inevitable result of government financing of schools.  The power to subsidize is the power to control.  To think otherwise is utopian day-dreaming.

    Also in a private university you have various boosters, alumni associations, and various other sponsors who often have a large financial stake in that university - and as such they weild a lot of power and influence. Than there are the parents of kids who with their tuition money have alot of input. Yeah, state universities have boosters and alumni associations as well, but the percentage of monies from these groups tends to be at a lesser percentage as one would find in the private sector.

  19. Yes, I did. But I don't have time now to properly respond to it. You threw a lot of ideas at me, and it will take some time for me to digest and consider the notion that a NST will lower costs and grow the economy. I am not an economist. So, right now I'm not even sure whether what you say is true or not.

    I have some urgent work to get done before I can start thinking about this in more depth. I will try to re-engage within a week.

    I appreciate that.

    Currently I'm not trying to publish it anywhere else. The Limbaugh paper is the first in a series of papers that I am writing on the religious threat to this nation, and I don't plan to focus on publishing/circulating it elsewhere until the whole series is finished. My primary goal now is to complete the series as quickly as possible and put together my full picture of the threat of religious democracy. If I'm going to finish the series this year, which is my plan, I need to do a lot more painful reading of books by popular religious and political figures. That's what I'm devoting my free time to.

    There will be approximately 5-6 papers in the series. I am putting the finishing touches on the 2nd and 3rd papers right now. I hope to publish the 2nd one here within a month. Its working title is Sean Hannity and the Tactics of the Enemy.

    Hi Mr. Swig,

    Any time frame as to when your next article in your series is going to be posted? I just saw Pat Robertson the other day on CSPAN. Listening to him ponticate makes one realize that true liberty, the seperation of religion and government, and individual thought and choice are under assault as we speak. YOu alluded to this in your article, and it is an argument I use all the time against these self-righteous, sanctimonious, and deluded fanatics - US laws and jurisprudence is Biblically based and grounded in the Ten Commandments, and they use this shallow argument as justification for posting these edicts in courthouses and public places. Every civilized society, even those that pre-dated the Bible, had laws against murder, stealing, and making fraudulent accusations against people. These are principles grounded in natural law. Hell, in the Soviet Union it was against the law to murder and steal, as it is against the law in every civilized - or even uncivilized society. It is beyond arrogance and presumption to claim that people would not know any better, or be less moral without a codified set of 'laws' penned by the Hand of God.(nonsense) Keep up the good work, Mr. Swig.

  20. How so? Even if the income tax were unconstitutional, why does this make it more evil than the NST?

    Yes, in one case (income taxes) it is more difficult for the government to steal from people. And in the other case (NST), it is easier.

    In the case of income taxes, the government has to worry about all citizens who earn an income and try to collect from them. That's a lot of people. In the case of a NST, the government only has to worry about citizens who operate businesses or sell goods. That's less people, which means less work for approximately the same pile of loot.

    Yes, I do. But not as evil as a NST.

    Mr Swig,

    Did you read the rest of my post as far as how the NST will lower overall costs? Also, no one is forced to pay a one time sales tax on new items. It is voluntary, just don't buy it. I know, people have to eat and purchase, but short of ending all taxes ( which I'd love, btw), the Fair Tax Initiative is preferable to income taxes. Actually, with a minarchist government we'd be able to exist on excise taxes only, hopefully someday that will happen.

    BTW, I read your article about Rush Limbaugh. Well done! Wow, do you ever have him pegged! That was a good piece of powerful writing, and I think a whole lot of people need to read your article. Have you thought about having it published or circulated around?

  21. Neither fosters economic progress. Both violate your rights and rob from you.

    If you are asking which one would be less evil, then I would say the income tax, because the national sales tax is supposedly going to make evil tax collectors more efficient at their jobs. And I, for one, don't want it to become easier for the government to steal from me.

    I also don't want an evil system to become "fair." A FairTax means that people who before managed to escape governmental evil will now suffer like everyone else. I'm not for equality when it comes to violating people's rights.

    I'd be the first one to agree that taxing is basically evil. I can not agree that the income tax is less evil. The income tax is unconstitutional, and is basically the theft of one's hard earned money and personal property. It is government imposed force, one has no choice in the matter. Along with that, one is required to verify, by official records, one's personal and business finances. It is an invasion of privacy. Your bank account, your retirement savings, and your investments are open to scrutiny by governmental agencies. Certainly you would equate that with evil? A consumption tax does not do this, nor does it require an IRS like agency to collect it. Only new items carry a this sales tax, which is a point of sale tax. Used products ( such cars, resale of homes and property, etc.) carry no sales tax. No one forces you to purchase items. Also consider this, the repeal of the 16th ammendment would also abolish all payroll, dividend, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxation. This will give the average worker in the US almost 30% more net pay on their paychecks. Couple this with lower costs to do business, less regulation, less overhead which in turn would lower the initial cost on manufactured items, lowering the prices so even with new (and only new) items carrying the sales tax, the overall cost would be cheaper than it is today. Without onerous taxation on businesses and corporations and all the regulations that come with all that red tape, companies would find it cheaper and easier to stay in the good ol' USA. In short, the Fair Tax Initiative would be, in effect, a job factory. New businesses would flourish, investment will skyrocket, and productive people will be keeping more of the fruits of their labors than before.

  22. AisA,

    The first idea is that virtue consists of sacrifice for the sake of others, on the unstated (and false) notion that the only alternative is to advocate the sacrifice of others to self. The second idea is that it is acceptable to initiate the use of force to implement the first idea.

    These two ideas, altruism and statism respectively, are rooted in the view of man as a helpless creature whose mind is incapable of grasping an unknowable universe.

    I agree with this 100%.

  • Create New...