Researchers find a 'liberal gene'

Liberals may owe their political outlook partly to their genetic make-up, according to new research from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University. Ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4. The study's authors say this is the first research to identify a specific gene that predisposes people to certain political views.

Appearing in the latest edition of The Journal of Politics published by Cambridge University Press, the research focused on 2,000 subjects from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. By matching genetic information with maps of the subjects' social networks, the researchers were able to show that people with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults, but only if they had an active social life in adolescence.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter affecting that control movement, , and ability to experience pleasure and pain. Previous research has identified a connection between a variant of this gene and novelty-seeking behavior, and this behavior has previously been associated with related to political liberalism.

Lead researcher James H. Fowler of UC San Diego and his colleagues hypothesized that people with the novelty-seeking would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average. They reported that "it is the crucial interaction of two factors – the and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence – that is associated with being more liberal." The research team also showed that this held true independent of ethnicity, culture, sex or age.

Fowler concludes that the social and institutional environment cannot entirely explain a person's political attitudes and beliefs and that the role of must be taken into account. "These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience," said Fowler, professor of political science and medical genetics at UC San Diego.

"It is our hope that more scholars will begin to explore the potential interaction of biology and environment," he said. "The way forward is to look for replication in different populations and age groups."

Provided by University of California -- San Diego
Citation: Researchers find a 'liberal gene' (2010, October 27) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-10-liberal-gene.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 27, 2010
People who party more, stay up later, get drunk more often, take illicit drugs more often, tend to be liberal because of brain damage.

Oct 27, 2010
Guess it's time for me to rethink my position on genetic manipulation of human DNA.

Oct 27, 2010
More research is necessary to understand how this gene causes people to want to steal wealth from those who create it and use it to subjegate the poor, to destroy economies, to use violence and fraud in elections and to give endless support to dictators, tyrants, and theocrats arround the world. But at least we are a bit closer to a cure.

Oct 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2010
More information needed.

First, the article implies a "nurture" factor - to quote, "...but only if they had an active social life in adolescence." The article's title, therefore, is (perhaps unintentionally) misleading.

Secondly, aren't there global variations in the definition of "liberal"? What political context is used here? American? English? German? What is a "liberal," exactly?

Third - to revisit the point above - if we were to assume that the context for "Liberal" here is American politics, does the study account for recent immigrants who happen to adopt that view?

A concluding note: To those who have spent their commenting time on assaulting and insulting the political viewpoints of others, grow up.

Oct 27, 2010
"novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average. "

Whole lot of baloney. If anything the alleged 'liberals' are much less open to anyone else's viewpoint but their own. See bumenot23's comment above. A classic in Leftist fascism masquerading as 'liberalism'. There is a straightforward explanation---those who are more 'social' are likely to be pandering to any fashion that comes along---well, Leftism in the guise of 'liberalism' is the fashion that has grabbed us since sixties. Any wonder these light-headed mush masses of the north-east and the west-coast are more prone to it?

Oct 27, 2010
@Userless_Id,

Out of the first 4 comments, 1 is a "liberal" insulting conservatives, while 3 are "conservatives" insulting liberals. From this, you conclude that liberals are less open-minded than conservatives. Nice math, bozo.

@Ykkan,

Given the context of novelty seeking, I think the authors use the classic delineation between Liberalism vs. Conservatism -- one that gave rise to the actual terms. In other words, Conservatives would strive to conserve the status quo, with powerful preference toward precedent and tradition; Liberals would be the reformists, perpetually trying to improve the status quo, push past traditional boundaries, and challenge precedents.

Oct 27, 2010
Userless_Id, you're a classic case-in-point.

Just listen to yourself bitch.

Oct 27, 2010
Ah, the delights of open(?) forums! In Oztraylia the LIBERAL PARTY is BIG DADDY (rigid conservative), and the LABOR PARTY is BIG MUMMY (over protective). This is very confusing for us kiddies. I just wish they would stop fighting and work as team, for once! Us kiddies don't need this disfunction!

Seriously,(tho I was being serious)It is worth looking at the links revealed between our inner psych and the leadership styles we are drawn towards. Jung provided some tools to understand all this. "We are the sum of our choices" as long as we have choices!


Oct 27, 2010
The 'Journal of Politics'???

I never thought 'Poly-Sci' was anything more than 'applied statistics' .. now i see it's joined physics, chemistry, etc, as bona fide science??
i think not!

Oct 28, 2010
People who party more, stay up later, get drunk more often, take illicit drugs more often, tend to be liberal because of brain damage.
You mean like Rush, Reagan, or perhaps Bush Jr.?

Oct 28, 2010
People's ideologies tend change as they mature, and that has nothing to do with genetics or adolescent social networks. I suspect these researchers found correlation but not causation.

Why didn't they attempt to factor in family environment? Most families stay with one party intergenerationally (see http://ase.tufts....en.pdf). Sure, the kids may temporarily spin off in high school or college but they usually come back to the fold. I suspect this has a larger impact than genetics and social network size as a youth.

Methinks the researchers couldn't see past their own biases as they were thinking about this.

Oct 28, 2010
DozerIAM My parents and my siblings are all liberal. I'm the only conservative. My kids are also conservative including the one that is in university. But then I'm in Engineering, my kid in university is majoring in Chemistry with minors in physics and astronomy, my younger kids want to be an engineer, fire fighter, and astronomer.

My siblings still live at home, studies humanities.

That said, lets have some fun. How can you scare a liberal? Ask them to read (the bill)

Oct 28, 2010
People who party more, stay up later, get drunk more often, take illicit drugs more often, tend to be liberal because of brain damage.
You mean like Rush, Reagan, or perhaps Bush Jr.?


Clinton and Obama both publicly admitted to smoking pot, though clinton didn't inhale. I don't think Bush Jr's problem is drinking, partying or drugs. I think he was just born stupid and then was a spoiled rich slacker kid in school.

Oct 28, 2010
I don't think Bush Jr's problem is drinking, partying or drugs.
So the massive amounts of cocaine he's done or the several drinking and driving infractions don't come into play in FT's definition of brain damage?

Oct 28, 2010
Several eyewitnesses and I believe a few photos attest to the fact that W was a coke fiend in his youth.

Oct 28, 2010
Several eyewitnesses and I believe a few photos attest to the fact that W was a coke fiend in his youth.

But of course FT's next response will be "That was before he got right with Jesus and cleaned up his act. Then the lord cured his liberalism and sent down Karl Rove to save the day."

Oct 28, 2010
More research is necessary to understand how this gene causes people to want to steal wealth from those who create it and use it to subjegate the poor,
Riiight, because the rich never subjugate the poor, never steal money to become rich (cheating on taxes, cheating employees, cheating customers).

Oct 28, 2010
Just more "scientific" speculation and mumbo gumbo!
Racism, Hatred, Liberalism,and most other isms start with the parents, or lack of.

Oct 28, 2010
So the massive amounts of cocaine he's done or the several drinking and driving infractions don't come into play in FT's definition of brain damage?


I don't know about FT's opinion. I was just stating MY opinion that in B Jr's case it may not have made any difference. The early life problems you are talking about prove my point. He obviously had poor judgement BEFORE he started making bad decisions with his life, otherwise he wouldn't have made those bad decisions, right? If you take away the drugs and alchohol, you are still left with the same overpriveledged dolt that got himself into the drugs and alchohol in the first place. Keep in mind that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so liberals who make bad decisions are no better than conservatives who make bad decisions. They equally demonstrate stupidity in that regard.

Oct 28, 2010
In light of this ground-breaking research, I wonder if you can find a genetic difference between cat people and dog people? I'll bet you can. That would have been far less controversial than a difference of political leaning though. This study is much more fun.

Oct 28, 2010
I was just stating MY opinion that in B Jr's case it may not have made any difference.
Correct, but if you follow the quotations I was attacking FT's propensity for undue generalization and exposing the utter irony of his chosen moniker.

Oct 28, 2010
amazing, I get a 1 for giving a reasoned, balanced, and NON-political comment. I even included a link to the backing of my hypothesis.

This is yet more proof that the mere discussion of politics (and religion, but I repeat myself), causes madness.

Oct 28, 2010
@DozerIAm,

I'm not the one who gave you a 1, but I didn't think your comment was very relevant, either. The study in question is not concerned with political affiliation, so much as it is concerned with differences in reward signals that manifest in various degrees of preference for novelty. It discusses liberal vs. conservative in the classic sense of reformist/rebel/empathic vs. traditionalist/loyalist/egotistic: not in terms of any particular party designations of any particular country.

Oct 28, 2010
This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.

Oct 28, 2010
This is great news! Perhaps now we can start working on a cure.


Hardy har har :D Silly ninny, liberals ARE the cure.

Oct 29, 2010
I was raised in foster homes and was a registered Republican for many years. Now, I'm independent and prefer the Democrats in every policy except abortion. I find that I don't fit in with conservatives or liberals because I'm generally conservative on family values issues, moderate on foreign policy and liberal where social welfare issues are concerned. I find that I dislike the philosophical stylings of Ayn Rand as much as I do those of Karl Marx. What genes would cause me to have such atypical views in our generally extremist talking heads oriented culture?

Skeptic Heretic, when I became a Christian, I became more liberal on social justice issues because I trust God and want to see modern versions of His commandments not to oppress the widow and orphan, have honest measures, treat the stranger well and to return a poor man his pledge. Not all Christians are Tea Party radicals.

Oct 29, 2010
Not all Christians are Tea Party radicals.
Nor did I say they were. My issue with Christians are not the type that would identify with your views. Nor do I think all pro-life advocates are crazy, or necessarily christian. The majority of Democrats are Christian, technically, the majority of the country is some form of Christian.

I think the literalist christians are absolutely batshit crazy though and the majority, if not all of them are in the TEA party.

VOR
Oct 29, 2010
as usual, no shortage of stupidity in these posts. Liberals are more empathic to entire community and more interested in well being of all, not just people like them. This is why conservatives are less tolerant. Conservatives are more individualistic and want everyone to 'mind their own business'. They are intrinsically less compassionate and more 'everyman for himself'. Its actually anti-social. The sad thing is that its readily demostratable and factual that liberalism is better for society as a whole, but we keep discussing it like each view is equally valid. Like keeping women from voting was valid, like an anti-gay agenda is valid, like the old healthcare system is valid-NOT. There is little to nothing valid about the conservative agenda. You can have good and bad leadership regardless of leaning, which often stupidly blamed on leaning. We're talking leaning only here. Too bad collectively we are still ignorant to the realities of the leanings that are holding us back.

VOR
Oct 29, 2010
there is one thing that conservatives are better at: making war and being soldiers. It's harder to kill people when you relate to them. So conservatives make better soldiers. This is a sincere compliment. Our soldiers deserve our profound thanks and support for thier huge sacrifices. Sadly, we still need soldiers, though they do get deployed more widely than need be. --and that's because, you guessed it, the paranoid factor in conservative military and civilian leadership. Its is also a scientific fact that conservatives are more paranoid that liberals... look it up.

Oct 29, 2010
DozerIAM My parents and my siblings are all liberal. I'm the only conservative. My kids are also conservative including the one that is in university. But then I'm in Engineering, my kid in university is majoring in Chemistry with minors in physics and astronomy, my younger kids want to be an engineer, fire fighter, and astronomer.

My siblings still live at home, studies humanities.

That said, lets have some fun. How can you scare a liberal? Ask them to read (the bill)


You're drawing definitive conclusions based on anecdotal evidence... again...

It's terrifying to think that you're an Engineer.

Oct 29, 2010
There is little to nothing valid about the conservative agenda.

@VOR

Making your political opponents into The Enemy and dehumanizing them lessens you as an individual and as a member of society. As a philosopher once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

Would you please define "liberal" and "conservative" as you see them? Regarding your statements above, from my definition of those terms I'm finding it hard to fit all liberals onto the pedestal you've described, and likewise all conservatives won't seem to shoehorn into the subhuman shell you've designed either.


Oct 29, 2010
@VOR (continued)

I'll give you my definitions.

Lets start with everyone generally wants to protect our families, our properties, and our livelihoods from threats domestic and foreign.

Liberal - generally favorable to government involvement in most aspects of life, generally favorable to taxation as a form of income redistribution and as a way to fund government involvement in all aspects of life, generally favorable to imperfect systems being fixed from central authority.

Conservative - generally favorable to a literal interpretation of the constitution (specifically, any power not specifically granted to the government belongs to the people), generally favorable to smaller, less involved government, generally favorable to taxing everyone equally, generally favorable to individual charity rather than tax funded charity.

Oct 30, 2010
That is just more lies, which is all you hear from the cons.I know for a fact that liberals are not the only people who party. Conservatives party just has hard, do just as many drugs, and love to chug down the brewskies. I have to say this holier than thou attitude from the cons.is really unbecoming.

Oct 30, 2010
The reason the economy has not come back with a bang is because rebublicants mission is to obstruct and say no to every thing that would move this country forward. Any body who votes for a Republicans is in my opinion unpatriotic. I am always amazed at how the reblicants seem to get facts so wrong with so many things. They lie about so many things that they have no idea what reality is any more. When they are depicting liberals with their hateful redirect, they have no idea what they are talking about, period.

Oct 30, 2010
The reason the economy has not come back with a bang is because republicants mission is to obstruct and say no to every thing that would move this country forward. Any body who votes for a republican in my opinion is unpatriotic. I am always amazed at how the republicants seem to get facts so wrong with so many things. They lie about so many things that they have no idea what reality is any more. When they are depicting liberals with their hateful redirect, they have no idea what they are talking about, period.


Oct 30, 2010
Liberals believe in "we the people" they are the ones who truly believe in what the constitution stands for. We are the government, and for things to work for everyone not just a select few, we need to partner private with public. We only want to regulate to protect us from scrupulous people who would do us harm, i.e. financial disasters, cons and lies, terrorists. We want the government to stay out of our personal lives, we truly believe in freedom. Just the opposite of conservatives, they want to be in our personal lives telling us how to live, while the filthy rich in this country gorge them selves and hoard all the cash. I guess they think it will trickle down to them. We tried it their way for the last 30 years and it did not work. Not to smart are they? And now they are being manipulated again. I guess they do not have the evolved liberal gene that makes you think rationally. To bad for our country.

Oct 30, 2010
Yea so he's humane, none of us are perfect, although republicans think they are. My point is this lie about liberals, about gays, Muslims, Mexicans, Europeans, socialists, any one they can make you hate to divide us so they can win. The lie that makes you think they care about your interests to make you vote for them, when there agenda only benefits a few at the top. Bottom line republicans will not invest in this country and democrats will.

Oct 30, 2010
Have you read some of the posts? No I'm not projecting, I'm reacting. Unions might not be perfect, but I can tell you up until the financial collapse my husband was able to work hard and make a decent living with grate benefits to support his family because of a union job. Why do you think liberals hate people who want to make money? That's ridiculous and again a lie that you have chosen to believe. Nobody creates wealth in this country with out the support of this great country and the people in it so give back that's all it's not a free ride. What makes you think liberals don't work hard, or even accumulate wealth them selves? Democrats care about people who do not have health care, they care about the middle class, they saved this country from going over a cliff, thanks to the policies of republicans. Republicans do not want to invest in this country, they want to line the pockets of a few and believe me they do not work as hard as we regular folk do.

Oct 30, 2010
I understand that every thing is not always equal, does that mean we loose our humanity? Or we can't come together to make our lives better in this country, it benefits every one including the rich to have a healthy, educated society. Or maybe it doesn't benefit the rich? I don't want financial control, I want some over sight and regulation from people who would do us harm.I hate to break it to you, but we do have to pay some taxes if we want our country to function."We" are the people of this country. Why is it to much to ask that the wealthiest of us help out more after all they get so much for free?

Oct 30, 2010
High five to Darwin! We liberals appear to have evolved right past the conservatives. How tedious, though, to have to wait for them to catch up. And to have to live with the consequences of their voting in the meantime.

Oct 30, 2010
Money makes money that's not hard work, also it get's you many things in life for free. People love to give rich people things for free. But they don't want to help the pour go figure, or educate it's citizens, or save peoples lives with health care. They get better brakes in life, better interest on loans, or no interest because they pay with cash. I don't believe every thing I read I would do more research before believing in the MS health care article. The fed. plan needs time to be implemented it's different doing it state v the whole country, and things can get fixed as we need to regarding health care reform. We still needed it passed. So what if they pay more they have more to pay with. How are the dems. destroying the m.c.? And I know how hard my husband and I work, and I'm not a lire.

Oct 30, 2010
High five to Darwin! We liberals appear to have evolved right past the conservatives. How tedious, though, to have to wait for them to catch up. And to have to live with the consequences of their voting in the meantime.
I agree!

Oct 30, 2010
This is great news! Perhaps now we can start working on a cure.


Yes, for all the sick souls who don't have it. You know, the morons who would rather destroy this country's future with military spending instead.

We spend 100's of billions on the military to protect 100's of billions of profits. seems like a zero sum game to me (aside from all the people that die, just collateral damage). Here's a crazy idea, give up both and stop being a target of terrorism.
Haven't heard of Alqueda attacking neutral countries. The ironic thing is all this stop bullying stuff going on now, other countries must be getting a big laugh about that, what hypocrites we are, the US is the biggest bully on the block.


Oct 30, 2010
is there a gene for Theabaggers also, or did they become infected with the T-virus in a later stage?

Oct 30, 2010
Actually I am on the centre-right side of the political spectrum in Holland, but European right is considered still way too liberal by Brush Limbaugh et al

Oct 30, 2010
I talk about turning the other cheek and forgiveness and they call me a bleeding heart liberal. I speak of the meek inheriting the earth and they call me a socialist. I try to feed the people with loaves and fishes and they call it redistribution of wealth.
"The way things are going their gonna crucify me."
-John The Beatle

Oct 30, 2010
What are they getting for free?
The top 50% pay nearly ALL federal income tax.
Because the bottom 50% are unemployed, retired, or on some form of welfare.

Oct 30, 2010
Freedom is derived from individual property rights, which are a function of profit motive. Our current concept of 'profit motive' goes all the way back to the first bilateral animals and the advent of seretonin as the regulator of an organism's perception of resource availability.

The foundation of our society is obviously something that predates the appearance of modern humans and was first underpinned genetically in the lower species. For example, animal territorialism is the forerunner of the concept of ownership.

So, I guess my point is that this is a much more complicated issue than just DRD4. I would also argue that since humans are communal animals and our society is a fabric of many different individuals' desires, the resulting social structure we have is the only possible one.


Oct 31, 2010
This is just funny:
"conservatives ... generally favorable to smaller, less involved government, generally favorable to taxing everyone equally, "

What a crock! They love to tell people how to live their lives and what they can do with their bodies, getting involved with the most personal parts. They also love to give the wealthy huge tax breaks, and tax the middle class and poor to make up for it.

Oct 31, 2010

Jesus never advocated using the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

Actually he said "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers" regarding money, in other words, pay your taxes, which is about redistributing wealth.

He went even farther by saying "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." Talk about telling people they shouldn't be wealthy, especially if they do it by taking advantage of those that are not wealthy!

Oct 31, 2010
What a crock! They love to tell people how to live their lives and what they can do with their bodies, getting involved with the most personal parts. They also love to give the wealthy huge tax breaks, and tax the middle class and poor to make up for it.

Actually, conservatives do prefer smaller government and less regulation.

Marjon, and others who profess marjon-like reasoning, aren't conservatives. They're state capitalists.

Oct 31, 2010
Wow, propensities towards and advocation of socio-political eugenics...

You are a bunch of right-wing anti-American FASCISTS!

This country was founded on liberalism, BTW.

Oct 31, 2010
Those who call themselves 'liberal' today, are fascists who support state power to control property. The exact opposite of what the classical liberals advocated.
The only property I've seen the "liberals" control is the property that people have purchased from the banks, that the banks are attempting to take from them by market coersion and force.

What's your overall argument again?
That is not what Jesus meant.
Actually, it is. If you look at the Bible, it is very anti-capitalist. You're not supposed to have envy, you're not supposed to be concerned with the wealth and possessions of others...

Well if you weren't what incentive would you have to compete in the market place? If wealth doesn't help you, and being envious of those who have more than you is a sin, then what would the point of capitalism be according to Jesus?

Oct 31, 2010
WTF is the reasoning behind anyone arguing what Jesus wants on here?!?

Will someone please put forth ONE conservative argument that has some integrity?

I don't hear a huge outcry from conservatives against use of eminent domain to kick people out of their houses to build the next bigbox retail store unless it's YOUR house.

Where are the teabaggers and other anti-immigrant loud-mouths clawing at the front gates of the republican-owned industrial farms where they use illegal mexican labor?

Where are the strict constitutionalists defending the right to free assembly when workers want to organize collective bargaining?

Where is the free-enterprise solution to clean the oil up in the gulf or to rebuild the manufacturing base in this county?

Oct 31, 2010
Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, tea partier, it doesn't matter. This country will get screwed no matter who is in power. If the republicans get power they will continue to mortgage our future with military spending and cut entitlements and social security. If the democrats get power, they will continue military spending and raise taxes. Until we have the sense to stop WASTING our money and future on military spending both parties are taking us down the road to ruin. And while the tea partiers have the right attitude they are COMPLETELY clueless what the right thing to do is.

Oct 31, 2010
Amid the last few dozen posts, I haven't seen a single one that either addressed our real problems, or spoke to any real solutions. You might find these resources enlightening:

http://market-tic...t=170774

http://www.cnn.co...0.31.cnn

Oct 31, 2010
This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.


You have a link to a source backing up your 6% assertion? Or did you just make that number up out of thin air?

Oct 31, 2010
@Parsec,
You have a link to a source backing up your 6% assertion? Or did you just make that number up out of thin air?
It's been one of the dead horses routinely brutalized by "AGW skeptics". For instance:

http://www.overco...ity.html

It's not exactly the "6% assertion", but it's in the same vein...

Oct 31, 2010
I talk about turning the other cheek and forgiveness and they call me a bleeding heart liberal. I speak of the meek inheriting the earth and they call me a socialist. I try to feed the people with loaves and fishes and they call it redistribution of wealth.
"The way things are going their gonna crucify me."
-John The Beatle

Only if you put a gun to my head and force me to 'feed the people'.
Jesus never advocated using the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

So the IRS is carrying guns now?
No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Matthew 6:24
"Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman."
- George the Beatle

Oct 31, 2010
This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.


You have a link to a source backing up your 6% assertion? Or did you just make that number up out of thin air?


http://www.huffin...382.html
Sorry for not including this in the first place. This is a site dedicated to science and fact after all.

Oct 31, 2010
This may explain why only 6% of scientists identify themselves as republican. Lacking the novel gene must make people less inovative. I wonder when this gene first appeared? It could account for a lot of the great achievements of mankind. Fire ,the wheel and farming must have been created by some very novel individuals. Perhaps a study of various DNA from around the globe would offer some clue why some cultures seem to prosper and thrive while others stagnate and die.


It also shows that liberals are more intelligent, there have been multiple studies on that aspect of liberalism. They also are more likely to be atheists and atheists in turn are more likely to be educated and less violent (and many other positive attributes -- the exception is that they have high suicide rates).

Oct 31, 2010
What happens if while you are serving God you make money?...You provide a product or service people need and want in trade for a product or service you need and want.
A self-contradiction within a single paragraph. Bravo marjon, you haven't lost your touch.

For the hard of thinking, I'll point out that when "serving God" you should expect nothing in return for your good deeds. IOW, you should be purely altruistic. When your condition of helping others, is that they must pay your cost + extra for your profit, then you are not "serving God": you're only serving your own self-interest while covering your shame with ripped-out pages from your holy book.

On the other hand, if your "faith" is just a dishonest hedge -- ala Pascal's Wager -- and you aren't truly sincere in professing the feelings you're supposed to be experiencing, then of course you can perfectly well reconcile your "Christianity" with all kinds of greed and selfishness. Hypocrisy comes easy to hypocrites.

Oct 31, 2010
From ekim's link:
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
As for the latter (private industry), only 10% self-identified Republican.

So looks like marjon's "welfare state" ideologues are once again bankrupt on the facts...

Oct 31, 2010
Is Bill Gates more altruistic or was Mother Teresa?
How much wealth did Mother Teresa amass while "serving God"?
in order to be able to provide charity, one must have somehow acquired the wealth.
Not necessarily. One could start by giving product away at cost: without asking for any markup to generate profit for oneself. One could charge more from wealthy customers, in order to provide product for free to poor people. There are viable models and motives other than self-enrichment: look at non-profits.
If everyone is working, there is little need of welfare.
Depends on what you construe as "welfare". Slaves must still be housed and fed -- even though their wages can't pay for such services.

Oct 31, 2010
How did you acquire the product, theft?

You make it.

Basically, profit and self-interest are the exclusive domain of the godless. People who actually have genuine Christian faith, shouldn't need any further motivation. They know they're not long for this life, and that their real goal is an eternity of bliss in the afterlife. Therefore, this life is to be spent in "serving God" while asking for nothing material in return. That's the price of admission to heaven.

So, I always find it particularly offensive when political clowns like marjon commingle their religion and their free-market liberalism without batting an eye. And I find it so very offensive not because I'm a person of faith (quite the opposite: I'm an Atheist). Rather, I find hypocrisy in general to be offensive -- and PARTICULARLY so when it doubles up by attempting to cloak itself in righteousness.

Oct 31, 2010
why do you support an economic system, socialism, that has been proven time and again to fail to produce a prosperous society?
No, that's what you say liberals support. In America, at least, most liberals support a hybrid system with a blend of both free (but strongly POLICED) markets and socialist safety nets.

And intelligent people would not support pure Socialism for precisely the same reason they would reject religion. You're quite right that selfishness and greed are the historically proven best motivators for economic development -- not religion.

Unfortunately, while selfishness and greed are good enough to fuel economic engines, they are not sufficient as a foundation of society and civilization. A society built purely on free-market principles, is nothing more than a society of pirates, brigands, thieves, and scam artists, headed by an elite oligarchy of crime lords presiding over a vast pyramid of crime syndicates.

Oct 31, 2010
Material impoverishment undermines the conditions that allow humans to flourish.
But the objective of religion (or at least, of Christianity) is not to promote material well-being. In fact, by focusing on the material, in the Christian context, you are submitting to Satan.

Indeed, it is extreme poverty and privation that drive people to "God"; by corollary, wealth and comfort drives people in the opposite direction (or at the very least, they are huge distractions.) That's why there's been a long tradition of people renouncing all of their worldly possessions and joining monasteries. They understood the true nature of their religion, and they were/are the only adherents who were/are not guilty of rank hypocrisy.
One can't be free in a police state.
How do you rationalize that?
There is no order without law. There is no law without enforcement.

Oct 31, 2010
Marjon: I'd point out that you've only demonstrated correlation, not causation, with your last post (but one). Sure, one particular religion might have been the cause--but you might just as easily argue that the impressive technological and scientific breakthroughs of Europe were due to it being very northerly with relation to many of the other civilizations, or due to most Europeans being white, or due to the prolonged existence of a collection of powerful, relatively well-matched independent states (which, for what it's worth, is my guess as to what put a lot of the fire behind Europe's drive. The Greek city-states had similar competition--knowledge in general blossomed. The Chinese Warring States had similar competition--again, a flowering of knowledge).

Oct 31, 2010
If you want to make a good case for your argument, I'd suggest looking to other cultures with religions or philosophies that shared things in common with Christianity (not necessarily in the fine details, but in the psychological effects of those details) and see how you did. You do, at least, get one point on your side; Islam is very similar to Christianity (for obvious reasons), and it has the Islamic Golden Age to its credit. Are there any other examples you can think of?

Oct 31, 2010
Marjon: Well, not quite. If correlation is all that mattered, no one would ahve bothered to look at the sun's behavior during the 21st century, the pattern of volcanic eruptions, aerosol emissions, etc., to see if it was possible that something else was driving the temperature rise--which is not the case, because all of those factors have been rather carefully looked into. And for that matter, the chief argument behind CO2 driving temperature increase would start and stop at "they're both going up"--and that's not so, either, as there's a very definite mechanism proposed for how CO2 influences temperature now and in the past. You may argue with the specifics of the causation, or argue that there's some mysterious negative feedback that no-one's found yet--but please, don't try to throw up the straw man that it's all based on correlation, and nothing more.

Oct 31, 2010
As for your other question...well, first of all, the connection to inter-state competition is just what I think may have been responsible; I don't insist on the idea. If asked to defend it, though, I'd note that Europe existed as a set of competing states for far longer than either China or Greece, which both never had a prolonged period of competition between different nation states for more than a few hundred years, at most.

As for WHY such competition would promote a spread of knowledge, well...it'd basically be a form of arms race. Scientia potentia est; there would be an extremely powerful drive, in such times, to out-maneuver, outwit, or out-invent your opponents. For what it's worth, that was even explicitly encouraged during the Chinese warring states period, with wandering...sages, I guess, basically trying to sell their different philosophies and ideas to the various kings of the different states.

Nov 01, 2010
Please Marjon...

"'Liberals' are really smart?
"Yet if one were to read mainstream Democratic analysis, there is almost no acknowledgment that the party has become far too liberal. Indeed, they fault Obama for not being liberal enough, or, in the case of the Paul Krugman school, for not borrowing another trillion dollars for even more stimulus, despite the failure of the earlier borrowing."

WHERE DID THE $5 TRILLION SURPLUS GO? IRAQ? THAT'S WHERE THE WMD's WERE, TOO, HUH?

There should be issued dis-honorary PhD's in Prevarication with minors in Discombobulated Confabulation

Nov 01, 2010
It is interesting the great Enlightenment thinkers were men of faith: Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke, etc.
Interesting, that Newton spent the latter part of his life chasing down and locking up counterfeiters. He was LITERALLY in law enforcement. Of the other 3, how many were anarchist blowhards like yourself?
So the ONLY way to keep order is to force people to follow the law?
YES.
generous pensions
That's not a safety net. It's a contractually negotiated benefit.
How do determine the need for welfare and protect privacy?
Yet another retarded non-sequitur.
exploiting the social safety net
Total disclosure of all assets and income is mandatory when applying for benefits; lying about those is fraud (a felony) and theft (another felony) and must be prosecuted accordingly.
This is where 'liberalism' fails.
No, this is where YOUR brand of 'liberalism' fails. Law and order form the backbone of a society; without a backbone complete collapse is inevitable.

Nov 01, 2010
Listen to yourselves! ALL OF YOU! The hatred (not to mention the complete intollorance) against your fellow man and half the population in which you live on this thread makes me SICK! I litterally feel sick to my stomach reading this thread. You're also abusing the vote system on this site. It's supposed to be for RELEVANCE. It's NOT to say you agree or disagree (or like or dislike) what the poster wrote. It's bad enough to THINK the things many of you are posting, but to actually feel JUSTIFIED in saying them out loud?!?! WOW!

I vote this entire thread a big fat negative one for relevance... at least up to about 2/3 of the way down where I just had to stop reading.

I can literally look at the votes on a reply before I read it and know whether it stresses a left or right leaning view.

Do you people really have that much hatred in yourselves???? You can't look past your own ideology?

Nov 01, 2010
Amid the last few dozen posts, I haven't seen a single one that either addressed our real problems, or spoke to any real solutions.


Hows this?
Stop importing non-essential goods and sub-standard crap that only ends up in our landfills so that local manufacturers can once again make a profit and create jobs.
Stop exporting crap to other countries that they don't want solely for profit (example: McDonalds does not belong in any other country but here)
Stop trying to do social engineering in other countries.
Get our Army out of other countries, they don't belong there. We go in and never leave, we still have troops in many countries from WW2.
Stop thinking we are the worlds police. We rail against the UN for doing it while we try to do it our selves, we are the worlds biggest hypocrites.
Cut back our military spending by at least 50%, it is an INCREDIBLE stupid squandering of MANY resources and we WILL pay dearly for this mistake.

Nov 01, 2010
BUY AMERICAN MADE PRODUCTS

Nov 01, 2010
We need to stop the causes of terrorism, not spend billions fighting it, it's a no-win scenerio exactly like the failed drug war. The causes are many and like it or not, McDonalds is a cause of terrorism, not GM. When you invade a country with product they don't need or want, it is social engineering (McDonalds, Lays for example who both employ predatory business practices supplanting local foods). When you sell a product that they have already and manufacture it there (cars) not so much. By having to spend billions to protect the profits of companies like McDonalds we might as well just hand them the money directly.

Nov 01, 2010
This stuff can't be explained by determinism.

I was as communist as communist could be in High School. No, not even the kinder gentler socialist, I would have been a card carrying communist had I known at 16 where to get the card :-)

Then I slowly drifted to the "right" until I was a conservative republican at 23. Then I slowly drifted away from the conservative part of "Republican" and the Republicans drifted away from fiscal responsibility...so now I have no clue how to label myself. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative would be the best way I guess, but that really doesn't completely fit either.

Like Popeye "I am what I am"...and since I come from a family and an extended family that are dyed in the wool Roosevelt Democrats I'm pretty sure it has very little to do with my genes or my "environment".

Nov 01, 2010
Of course this requires a huge bureaucracy of state workers to pry into everyone's affairs.
Or, a less chaotic and more standardized system of tracking everyone's affairs.
As all bureaucracies, they need to grow so their incentive is to find more people to put on welfare and to keep on welfare.
Ditto for private charities.
Why would they have any interest in prosecuting fraud?
Maybe if they received statutory reward for successful prosecutions?
The reciptients of welfare have no incentive to obtain gainful employment
Horseshit, and a statement that can only be made by someone who's never actually tried to live on welfare. You get a lot more money, and a much higher standard of living, by getting even a minimum-wage job; plus, you don't have to constantly deal with all the aggravating bureaucracy.
to buy votes for the 'liberals'
People on welfare tend not to vote.
Some safety net!
Until you need it yourself; then it's great and needed all of a sudden.

Nov 01, 2010
What interests me is this allele evovled arond 40,000 years ago - when were transitioning from "focus on the family" to "It takes a village" google the book "Origin of Political Species"

Nov 01, 2010
This stuff can't be explained by determinism.
Truncating your individual story, how do you not know that that pattern wasn't already engrained on you? Determinism is easier to establish if you break it down to underlying decisions.

Overall ideologies are a sum of experiences and underlying decisions. It takes millions if not more interactions to formulate an ideology. KNowing all of those individual decisions, and your exact chemistry, would determine a way to recreate the exact same pattern of thought over multiple instances.

Nov 01, 2010
@RHaston,
this allele evovled arond 40,000 years ago
Reference?

@marjon,
I thought liberals were concerned about privacy?
Yes, we are.

However, you have no expectation of privacy when it comes to specifically your income and assets, because by law you must report all of this to the IRS. Failing to do so, or lying while doing so, constitutes a felony of fraud. Making it easier to catch (and punish) such frauds is a viable goal of government reform and modernization.
Charities are mostly operated by volunteers.
Who houses, clothes, and feeds the volunteers? And who provides for all of their other consumption, as well as benefits and retirement plans?

Most "charities" are actually just non-profit corporations, who have their own bureaucracies, their own paid staff, and their own selfish interest in "servicing" as many people as possible.

Nov 01, 2010
Religious based charities like the Salvation Army and the LDS Church are quite efficient.
Who audits them?

And you seriously think that organizations like (Christian) Salvation Army and (Mormon) LDS Church are not interested in perpetually expanding the number of people who depend upon them for provenance. As I see it, the more sheep in the barn, the more wool there is to shear.
How many govt bureaucracies are so efficient?
By all impartial accounts I've seen (including CBO), government-funded medical insurance (Medicare, Medicaid) is far more efficient than private insurance companies. That's one example. More broadly, a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, no matter whether it's public or private. Except private bureaucracies add extra markup to drive profit.
Such a liar.
Sure, let's just abolish the IRS altogether. Every mafia boss' and sweatshop owner's wet dream...

Nov 01, 2010
a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback
I'd say that's quite consistent with America's gradual transformation into yet another banana republic.

Nov 01, 2010
So the IRS is carrying guns now?

Yes, they are.
What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes? The govt takes your money and may put you in jail. If you physically resist, they pull a gun and force you do comply.


The taxes we pay go towards services we use. The military, the police, the roads, the bridges and schools don't pay for themselves. If you were to stop using these services by leaving and renouncing your citizenship, nobody would put a gun to your head to stop you.
You seem to like the Beattles. How well did they live up to their lyrics? Paul and Ringo are multi-millionaires.

I never quoted either of those men.
Ever hear of tough love?

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"
(Matthew 25.35-40 ESV)
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
(Matthew 7.12 ESV)
Tough love from Paul maybe. Not J

Nov 01, 2010
if the govt runs your health care, they will have every 'right' to know your sexual habits, your dietary habits and your recreational drug habits.
Just like your private insurance company.
If the govt pays for your health then you should have no expectation of privacy.
Depends. Doctor-patient confidentiality still applies. As does the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search.
Especially after they pass a law forcing you do divulge the information to see a doctor.
Again, depends on what "information" you're talking about.

But isn't it interesting that Obama's paradoxically unpopular health care reform actually requires insurers to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions. Seems like the big bad government actually doesn't care what your sexual habits, dietary habits, recreational drug habits, or chronic illnesses might be: they want you to have health care anyway. I know: the horror!

Nov 01, 2010
Then why are cities and states passing laws restricting all sorts of things they say are bad for your health?
Not restricting, just making more expensive. And in case of restaurants, forcing disclosure.

None of which impinges on your privacy, and a lot of which actually aids you in making better/more informed decisions.

Nov 02, 2010
But they will take your money:

"Under the new law, any individual who has a net worth of $2 million or an average income-tax liability of $127,000 who renounces his or her citizenship and leaves the country is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to some rather unbelievable tax laws."
http://mises.org/daily/3377

So we have an exit tax for 10% of the population so they can't steal the wealth of the nation and send it overseas.

One would think a nationalist like yourself would be all for this tax seeing as part of the reason why you're against immigration is the fact they send money out of the country to their families abroad without paying income taxes.

Nov 02, 2010
The taxes we pay go towards services we use. The military, the police, the roads, the bridges and schools don't pay for themselves. If you were to stop using these services by leaving and renouncing your citizenship, nobody would put a gun to your head to stop you.


While I agree we need to pay taxes for some minimal government services, I don't blindly ignore the gaping whole in that philosophy.

Cont.

Nov 02, 2010
The following is an excerpt from a conversation between David D. Friedman and Mike Hubben and it shows quite clearly that ANY government has a problem with logically and ethically taxing people. Many like to use the "love it or leave it" argument this shows how flawed that argument is;

MH: libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything.

DF:The act by which one agrees to an implicit contract is an act that the other party has the right to control--in this case, coming into his restaurant and being served dinner. That leaves Mike with two alternatives:

A. It is proper to treat an act that you do not have the right to control as agreement to an implicit contract, without the other party's assent. That implies that you can impose a penalty (the amount you set as due on the contract) on that act, which amounts to controlling it. [/blockquote]

Nov 02, 2010
Cont. again (this 1000 character limit is idiotic)

DF continues:

B. The government has the same rights with regard to the territory of the U.S. that the restaurant owner has with regard to his food and restaurant. But that is the conclusion he wants to get from his argument, so starting with it makes his argument circular.


Basically the government says it has the right to impose social contracts without consent, because the government gives the government that power. What gave the government that power to begin with?

Is it practical to have everyone sign a social contract? Probably not. Does that make what the government and the IRS is doing moral/legal/ethical/logical? Absolutely not.


Nov 02, 2010
So unless you're going to tell me that my being born in the United States is an act I had control over, then STFU with the "love it or leave it" idiocy, or show me where the United States government got my consent (good luck with that one), or admit (like I do) that the United States Government HAS NO LEGITIMATE contract with those it imposes taxes on, but it's a necessary evil.

Sorry those are your only choices.

Now a possible solution here is to start letting citizens opt out of certain programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, workers comp, Obama care, etc. and then denying them those services. That's at least more legitimate than pretending a gun to your head is a contract.

Just ask a socialist if he'd agree to those terms and see what he says :-)

Bet you hear the phrase "for your own good", or "we're all in this together" a few times. To quote Tonto, "What's this we stuff paleface?".

Nov 02, 2010
So Pinkie, if the govt runs your health care, they will have every 'right' to know your sexual habits, your dietary habits and your recreational drug habits.
If the govt pays for your health then you should have no expectation of privacy. Especially after they pass a law forcing you do divulge the information to see a doctor.


In Canada there is essentially free health care via taxes (ie. the government). Privacy is still protected. I don't know where you're getting your information.

Nov 02, 2010
So unless you're going to tell me that my being born in the United States is an act I had control over, then STFU with the "love it or leave it" idiocy, or show me where the United States government got my consent (good luck with that one), or admit (like I do) that the United States Government HAS NO LEGITIMATE contract with those it imposes taxes on, but it's a necessary evil.

Sorry those are your only choices.
Do you have a social security card? Are you registered to vote? Have you renounced your citizenship? Those are relevant questions. You are welcome to tear up your SS card, renounce your citizenship, and stop voting, you'll also lose the priviledges of having a job, being able to get loans, etc. Those are the choices and the priviledges that go along with those choices.

You always have a choice, you simply choose not to exercise it.

Nov 02, 2010
Do you have a social security card? Are you registered to vote? Have you renounced your citizenship? Those are relevant questions. You are welcome to tear up your SS card, renounce your citizenship, and stop voting, you'll also lose the priviledges of having a job, being able to get loans, etc. Those are the choices and the priviledges that go along with those choices.

You always have a choice, you simply choose not to exercise it.


Will I get back all the money the government took from me for those programs if I choose not to participate? Will I get my taxes reduced if I do? Then there is no legitimate choice. I'm going to get that money taken regardless, I'd be a fool not to use the services in question.

Again you're asserting that one party can unilaterally make a contract with another when one party has no control over entering the arrangement. The mere fact of the geographical location of my birth is insufficient cause to say I have a "choice" to leave. (cont)

Nov 02, 2010
We treat the government differently than we treat any other agency we contract with in this manner. We don't ask where it got this power, partially because to do so is admit there is no legitimate source for this concept.

The government gives the government the power to impose a contract on people in its borders leaving them the "choice" (if they're lucky) to leave as an "option". The real question is why should one have to leave if one has not assented to said contract? There is no legitimate reason in the classical sense of the word legitimate.

I think this is the way it has to be, but I'm not going to whitewash it...it's ugly pragmatism, not some wonderful social compact.

Nov 02, 2010
So, barakn, Ethelred, can you show me where the government gets the power to impose unilateral contracts without using circular logic?

Nov 02, 2010
The government gives the government the power to impose a contract on people in its borders leaving them the "choice" (if they're lucky) to leave as an "option". The real question is why should one have to leave if one has not assented to said contract? There is no legitimate reason in the classical sense of the word legitimate.
Are you trying to build a case against sovereignty or trying to build a case for sovereign anarchy?

The government governs at the behest of the people. If at any time a people no longer desire their form of government, the government is overthrown, which leads us to another point, are you attempting to state that revolution never occurs?

In my analysis of your statements it appears that you believe the majority of people do not want to have a government, and I'd say you're very very incorrect.
can you show me where the government gets the power to impose unilateral contracts without using circular logic?
From the rule of law, of course.

Nov 02, 2010
Basically you've created a false argument MM.

The government gets the power to govern from the people. When the people refuse to grant the right to govern, the government ceases to be.

Let's say everyone in the US disagreed with the governance of the US government. They can move out of the US. If enough people move out of the US, the US government ceases to be as there is no one to govern. I think this is why you're having difficulty. If you stay in the US, it is akin to being served in the restaurant. If you don't want to pay the restaurant owner for a meal, don't order off the menu.

Nov 02, 2010
@Modernmystic,

Your parents entered you into that contract. Consider the case when your parents leave you an estate deep in debt. You are liable for everything you've inherited.

Same thing with citizenship. Your parents gave you the legacy of being a citizen of a given country. That's the contract they imposed on you, by virtue of giving birth to you and raising you in a given country.

Like previously said, once you grow up and if you don't like the country, you can always go elsewhere.

Nov 02, 2010
Where to start?

My parent's never signed a contract with the government either, go fish. If they had no legitimate contract then they can't make a legitimate contract for me.

SH, I'm not "making a case" for anything. I'm just saying if you look at the situation objectively governments do not derive their power in any more legitimate a way than mobsters do, it's a whitewashed protection racket. To be sure some rackets are FAR better than others, and some are downright good deals...but they're still rackets.

The government does not get the power to govern from the people, again I'll restate "what's the we stuff paleface". "The people" doesn't exist, it's a non-entity. Individuals are the only moral agents in any society, they are the base unit of every single society that's ever existed. I don't believe in the concept of "the people" any more than you believe in a God. That concept is a propaganda tool that governments use to produce a sense of legitimacy and consent.

Nov 02, 2010
Like previously said, once you grow up and if you don't like the country, you can always go elsewhere.


Why should I have to go elsewhere? Where did the government get the power to make me go elsewhere, other than stamping it's feet and insisting it does have the power whether or not I ever consented to it having that kind of power?

It doesn't legitimately exist. It exists in practice to be sure, but it's not a legitimate contract.

Nov 02, 2010
If you stay in the US, it is akin to being served in the restaurant. If you don't want to pay the restaurant owner for a meal, don't order off the menu.


This is why I specifically used the Friedman/Hubben example. THIS is the false argument. This assumes I walked into the restaurant under my free will, sat down, and ordered. I didn't. It's apples and oranges.

Nov 02, 2010
can you show me where the government gets the power to impose unilateral contracts without using circular logic?
From the rule of law, of course


The law the government made? Again use the proposition to be proved as one of your premises.

Nov 02, 2010
Seems you shy back from addressing your parents. (Maybe because you have kids yourself.) But it's them who are/were responsible for you being put in that "restaurant". You can't blame the restaurant owner (the people) for your having been placed without your (and his) consent into his restaurant.
And if you stay there although nobody forces you then this is your free decision, not the decision of the restaurant owner.


I did address my parents, they never walked in, sat down, and ordered from the menu via an explicit contract either. If they didn't have one then I don't.

Moreover, when I'm 18 all OTHER contracts in this country made for me by my parents expires. Why is this one different?

Nov 02, 2010
There is no contract, and the relationship between the State and the individual is not contractual in nature. This is the mistake people make when they view government and society as some nefarious "Other" set against themselves and against everybody as individuals. No individual can survive without the society in which they are born and in which they are found. Government is merely the set of institutions a society has formalized to promote the stability and internal coherence of that society. Seeking to undermine government by denying it the means it requires to perform its socially determined ends is the same as seeking to undermine the very society that supports and sustains you as an individual. It is an inherently self-destructive and irrational act, and because of this, anarchy, and all forms of conservatism that tend toward anarchy, are fundamentally immoral.

Nov 02, 2010
FTR: I'm not stating governments are baaaaad. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them. I'm not making a case for any specific political agenda. I'm simply recognizing the fact that governmental power rests on a power we give to no other agency in society, the power to impose unilateral contracts.

I AM saying if we could find a PRACTICAL way to get away from this we should look at doing that. As it stands, I haven't a clue how to...

Nov 02, 2010
The law the government made? Again use the proposition to be proved as one of your premises.
The government is equally subject to the law. We're not dealing with an autocracy here.

Again it is the restaurant analogy. If you don't like the food in a restaurant, don't go to that restaurant. Go to a different restaurant and the one you don't like will eventually go out of business. However, if you don't like a restaurant, but many other people do, that restaurant will continue to produce the food you don't like.

The US government doesn't force you to stay in the US. You choose to stay in the US. There is no unilateral contract enforcement if there is an escape clause.

Nov 02, 2010
There is no contract, and the relationship between the State and the individual is not contractual in nature.


Well that just makes me all warm and tingly inside...

Fell good propaganda, you should be a minister.

No individual can survive without the society in which they are born and in which they are found.


Men rescued on desert islands died spontaneously without the machinery of state? Can you cite me a source?

Seeking to undermine government by denying it the means it requires to perform its socially determined ends is the same as seeking to undermine the very society that supports and sustains you as an individual.


How is stating the truth about something undermining it? I don't want the government to go away, I'm just not going to BS anyone about it.

...and because of this, anarchy, and all forms of conservatism that tend toward anarchy, are fundamentally immoral.


I think it's immoral to whitewash institutions, even if we do need them.

Nov 02, 2010
The government is equally subject to the law. We're not dealing with an autocracy here.


We're talking about government, which can be anything from autocracy to democracy. Moreover if the government were equally subject to the law I'd have a civil suit filed against the United States by the end of the day to get back my tax money used for those programs I don't agree with and would opt out of...but I can't because of sovereign immunity (amongst a host of other reasons).

And I'll restate, you can't use the proposition you're trying to prove as one of your premises. It doesn't matter if the government is subject to it's own rules it's still the one giving itself the power to impose unilateral contracts. In fact that's the definition of a unilateral contract.

Nov 02, 2010
No individual can survive without the society in which they are born and in which they are found.
Men rescued on desert islands died spontaneously without the machinery of state? Can you cite me a source?
How about the Donner Party? Hint: If you're rescued, you didn't survive without society, society rescued you.
Moreover if the government were equally subject to the law I'd have a civil suit filed against the United States by the end of the day to get back my tax money used for those programs I don't agree with and would opt out of...but I can't because of sovereign immunity (amongst a host of other reasons).
The DoTres doesn't have sovereign immunity, nor do you have the right to decide directly how your taxes are spent. ie: the Rule of Law.
And I'll restate, you can't use the proposition you're trying to use as one of your premises.
Unfortunately for you, you don't make the rules of debate. If a point can be made and supported, you must address it.

Nov 02, 2010
How about the Donner Party? Hint: If you're rescued, you didn't survive without society, society rescued you.


1. They didn't spontaneously die the second they were cut off from the government. They still had a society though.

2. They weren't individuals on a desert island.

3. A man in a boat can rescue you on an island 50 miles off shore. It doesn't require the US marines, moreover this attempt at a side track evades the point. Even if he were never rescued he could still survive.

Nov 02, 2010
So the government says that the government has the right to decide how my taxes are spent? You can't make the rules of debate either. That's circular reasoning. Where did the power come from?

If the government hadn't imposed a unilateral contract on me to begin with then they would have never had the right to tax me to begin with, much less decide how said money is spent.

You're assuming the government has the power to impose a unilateral contract in your argument that I don't have the right to say how my taxes are spent....think about that.

Nov 02, 2010
Moreover, when I'm 18 all OTHER contracts in this country made for me by my parents expires. Why is this one different?


As the US government essentially owns the US, they're the ones who set the rules for living there. You keep referring to a contract you didn't sign. Your citizenship is your contract. You can revoke your citizenship if you want. You won't be allowed to live in the US, but then you don't have to follow their rules and pay their taxes either.

You don't seem to like the people telling you "if you don't like it you can leave", but that's unfortunately the truth of the matter.

Nov 02, 2010
Moreover, when I'm 18 all OTHER contracts in this country made for me by my parents expires. Why is this one different?


As the US government essentially owns the US, they're the ones who set the rules for living there. You keep referring to a contract you didn't sign. Your citizenship is your contract. You can revoke your citizenship if you want. You won't be allowed to live in the US, but then you don't have to follow their rules and pay their taxes either.

You don't seem to like the people telling you "if you don't like it you can leave", but that's unfortunately the truth of the matter.


Of course it's the truth of the matter. Just as if you refuse to pay a mafioso he'll break your legs. I just don't recognize the legitimacy of either claim. The US government ASSERTS it owns the geographical area known as the United States. How did it get that right?

Nov 02, 2010
@Modernmystic,
My parent's never signed a contract with the government either, go fish.
Oh yes they did. Everyone in America (with exception of Native Americans) came here as an immigrant at some point. At the point they were coming into the country, they effectively signed the contract. From that point, any offspring they had here, came under the same contract. Same goes for the offspring of the offspring, and so on and so forth until we get to you.

Nov 02, 2010
The individual stranded in the wilderness or on a desert isle brings his society with him. It is the training and knowledge of survival that he gained from his society prior to being lost that enables him to survive. Human beings cannot be raised without social enculturation. The Nazis' tried it with Jewish infants, and they all failed to thrive. Speaking the truth about something is not undermining it. But applying critiques of autocracies and tyrannies to democracies and republics is not honest.

Nov 02, 2010
Oh yes they did. Everyone in America (with exception of Native Americans) came here as an immigrant at some point.


And never signed a contract when they did so. What you assert is patently false. Oh, and uh the Native Americans immigrated from modern day Russia...

At the point they were coming into the country, they effectively signed the contract.


Mmmmm no, sorry, you don't get out of it that easy. There is no "effectively sign" to a contract. Try to have an "effectively signed" contract stand up in a court and see how quick you're laughed out of it.

From that point, any offspring they had here, came under the same contract.


Which, even though there is no contract would end when they're eighteen years of age under the rules of the state we're talking about. Don't they have to play by their own rules?

Same goes for the offspring of the offspring, and so on and so forth until we get to you.


Sounds Biblical...

Nov 02, 2010
Native Americans immigrated from modern day Russia...
There was no United States at the time, to immigrate into.
Try to have an "effectively signed" contract stand up in a court and see how quick you're laughed out of it.
Try to enter the country as an immigrant, while promising not to pay taxes and not to obey the country's laws. See how swiftly you're shown the door. The agreement to comply with the country's legal and tax code is implicit within the act of immigration.
would end when they're eighteen years of age
That's right. Like I said before, once you're fully grown, you're free to rescind the contract and go your own way. Just don't expect to stay here and mooch off the contributions of everyone else, without paying your share.

Nov 02, 2010
The individual stranded in the wilderness or on a desert isle brings his society with him. It is the training and knowledge of survival that he gained from his society prior to being lost that enables him to survive.


Knowledge does not equal government.

And no, he won't die.

Human beings cannot be raised without social enculturation. The Nazis' tried it with Jewish infants, and they all failed to thrive.


Social does not equal government.

Speaking the truth about something is not undermining it. But applying critiques of autocracies and tyrannies to democracies and republics is not honest.


I have compared the three on this thread, and I alluded we have a pretty damn good deal going here. Stating that all three are based on illegitimate unilateral contracts is not an attempt to equivocate all three governments. It's a recognition that all States are founded on naked force. Nothing more or less.

Nov 02, 2010
Of course it's the truth of the matter. Just as if you refuse to pay a mafioso he'll break your legs. I just don't recognize the legitimacy of either claim. The US government ASSERTS it owns the geographical area known as the United States. How did it get that right?


I'm not going to get into the whole rights vs. privileges debate because that's pretty philosophical and derails plenty of threads.

The US has the same "right" to their geographical section of land as any other country has to theirs. The goverment "got that right" when the pilgrims came over and took the land from the Native Americans. Then there were some wars with the British and themselves and there was other land that was bought from other countries and POW you have the United States.

There really is no "right" to land. A border is just an agreement between governments. The land governments have a "right" to is determined by discovery and war.

Nov 02, 2010
The US has the same "right" to their geographical section of land as any other country has to theirs. The goverment "got that right" when the pilgrims came over and took the land from the Native Americans. Then there were some wars with the British and themselves and there was other land that was bought from other countries and POW you have the United States.

There really is no "right" to land. A border is just an agreement between governments. The land governments have a "right" to is determined by discovery and war.


Now I think you're getting it. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to make it all a little less coercive and more truly voluntary? That's all I'm really saying here.

Nov 02, 2010
There was no United States at the time, to immigrate into.


But according to your argument that's irrelevant.

Try to enter the country as an immigrant, while promising not to pay taxes and not to obey the country's laws. See how swiftly you're shown the door. The agreement to comply with the country's legal and tax code is implicit within the act of immigration.


EXACTLY, now I think you're getting it. You're just not applying it universally.

That's right. Like I said before, once you're fully grown, you're free to rescind the contract


Which contract? The one no one ever signed? Is that even a contract?

Just don't expect to stay here and mooch off the contributions of everyone else, without paying your share.


Who's talking about mooching. I'd gladly refuse my SSI, etc, etc, etc, as long as you don't expect me to pay taxes for it.

Nov 02, 2010
Which contract? The one no one ever signed? Is that even a contract?
"The agreement to comply with the country's legal and tax code is implicit within the act of immigration."
I'd gladly refuse my SSI, etc, etc, etc, as long as you don't expect me to pay taxes for it.
Except when you do find yourself in dire need, the society will have no choice but to support you (the alternative is morally unthinkable.)

Nov 02, 2010
When you run a democracy (or what is called a democracy) like the US with 320 million people in one of the most diverse populations on the planet it's impossible to give everyone everything they want.

Given human nature, most people would "opt out" of many taxes that don't apply directly to them. Unfortunately, the only way a lot of things get done is by taxes that people don't want to pay.

I look at my Alma Mater. I paid out of my tuition every year for a brand new gym facility, University Centre, and a library. They were all completed after I graduated. A lot of people in my graduating class complain and moan about this, but the fact of the matter is many of the facilities I was able to use during my education were paid for by those before me who may not have gotten to use them.


Nov 02, 2010
Knowledge comes from society. Societies cannot persist for long without government. And no, most of the people who are stranded on desert isles or lost in the wilderness in fact die. Those that survive do so because they got lucky and were able to apply their socially derived knowledge to their benefit. And you cannot even substantiate your belief that government relies on illegitimate contracts. Your arguments for their illegitimacy only prove that there are no contracts. Everyone has deep obligations to their society for survival and their individual character. Recognition of these obligations motivates voluntary compliance with governance. Institutionalizing these obligations is inevitable and necessary. Critiquing the institutions with an aim for improving them is good. Critiquing the institutions with the aim of undermining the social obligations they serve is evil.

Nov 02, 2010
So the government says that the government has the right to decide how my taxes are spent? You can't make the rules of debate either. That's circular reasoning. Where did the power come from?
Stop ignoring what is said to you. The right to govern is granted by the governed. You grant the US the right to govern you by staying within the US. If you leave, the US no longer governs you.
If the government hadn't imposed a unilateral contract on me to begin with then they would have never had the right to tax me to begin with, much less decide how said money is spent.
You have the right to sue if you are being taxed outside the boundaries of the law, which you are not. You also have the right to leave and renounce your citizenship, at which point in time the laws of the US no longer hold any sway over you.
I don't have the right to say how my taxes are spent.
No, you don't have the right to budget on behalf of the government.

Nov 02, 2010
Thras if you feel obligated in some way to some thing then that's fine, but don't presume to speak for me, thank you.

My arguments for the illegitimacy of governments relies on the fact that they derive their power from unilateral contracts. If you don't believe in contracts then try to run a society without them and let me know how that works out for you. There are legitimate contracts, but those would be the ones that rely on mutual consent of both parties.

I love how socialists and atheists use the word evil and when. It's very instructive as to what their gods are.

Nov 02, 2010
MM, You're really hung up on this idea of a physical contract for citizenship and you seem to be repulsed that there isn't one.

There is the precedent of divine right, which doesn't hold over the US as the government is secular, however, when the divine right to rule was abolished in our forebearer country, the UK, we established the Right to rule through legitimacy. If you think the US government is no longer the legitimate ruler of the country, you can express this. This will also remove all rights and representations within said government and remove the right of that government to tax your income.

This is a dual edged weapon as this also removes the rights you are entitled to as a citizen and subject.

So again, the choice is still yours. Live it or leave it, modified because you don't have to love anything to exist within the system.

Nov 02, 2010
@Modernmystic,

You can't pick and choose which laws you will comply with. This is true, for instance, of laws barring theft, fraud, murder, slavery, pollution, etc. Tax laws are just ordinary laws, within an overall body constituting the law of the land.

Either you agree to be subject to ALL laws, or you are out of here. And this is neither illegitimate nor somehow unjust.

Nov 02, 2010
SH stop ignoring the question that's asked of you, or using circular reasoning to answer it then.

You can't start off assuming the government has the right to impose a unilateral contract because I was born at a certain longitude and latitude on this planet. I think my consent is required. Since I never gave it you don't have your contract, and the government doesn't have the right to ask me to leave or pay taxes or do anything at all.

Nov 02, 2010
Repulsed? FFS, let's take a breath here SH. I'm saying that ANY unilateral contract is illegitimate. I'm saying that's how ALL States do business. I'm saying it's a necessary evil. I'm not advocating anarchy...

I'm saying I'd like to make the system as voluntary as possible. I guess that makes me evil...

So be it ;-)

Nov 02, 2010
The govt does it all the time.
It is the explicit constitutional obligation of the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the law. It is true that the Executive is frequently in breach of its constitutional mandate. I'm no happier about that, than you are. (For that matter, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars remain illegitimate, because there was never an explicit declaration of war by Congress...)

Nov 02, 2010
I'm saying I'd like to make the system as voluntary as possible.
Then go ahead and campaign for a change in the law.

However, until the law is changed, you are obliged to obey it.

Nov 02, 2010

Who's talking about mooching. I'd gladly refuse my SSI, etc, etc, etc, as long as you don't expect me to pay taxes for it.

Okay, and don't use public roads, schools, libraries. Don't expect any help from the police if robbed, or anyone to put out your fire for you (unless you pay them yourself). Limiting government taxation to only mean welfare and healthcare is not going to work I'm afraid.

Nov 02, 2010
You said you want to make government voluntary, that's what makes it voluntary. Nobody here is assuming implicit contracts except for you. Denying the legitimacy of a democratic government because it uses force to enforce obedience is akin to denying the legitimacy of the use of force in self-defense. I don't need to have a contract with the burglar to hit him over the head with a bat when he breaks through my window. When you refuse to pay your taxes, you are robbing from all the rest of us. Willfully shutting your eyes to that fact is what is evil, just as it is evil to willfully ignore the suffering you cause someone else when you steal from them directly.

Nov 02, 2010
Repulsed? FFS, let's take a breath here SH. I'm saying that ANY unilateral contract is illegitimate.
But it isn't a unilateral contract. If it were, basic morality is in essence a unilateral contract, regardless of whether you quantify it as inherent or god given. (just to cover both particular viewpoints, let's skip the religion road this go around.)
I'm saying that's how ALL States do business. I'm saying it's a necessary evil. I'm not advocating anarchy...

I'm saying I'd like to make the system as voluntary as possible. I guess that makes me evil...
Yes but until you can make birth voluntary, existence voluntary, and a whole host of other established concepts volutary, you're unable to change the terms under which governance is derived.

Those who are governed volunteer to be governed. Those who do not, revolt. Such are all social contracts. You do have a choice. You simply do not want to address the rammifications of choosing something other than being governed.

Nov 02, 2010
The government is made from and voted on by the citizens of the US. The government spends taxes on what it believes will get votes to re-elect it. Where do the votes come from? The people. Problem is spending tax money requires collecting tax money. And where do taxes come from? The people. Circular logic often pops up in governmental talks because the government IS the people.

Government spending and taxation supports what the majority of the people want. When it doesn't, the government changes with an election.

Of course the system's not perfect but that's how the system works. Don't like it? Well you have to blame the majority of the citizens residing in your country I'm afraid, because they're the ones who make the votes that put the officials in that determine these taxes are mandatory for all.

Nov 02, 2010
...cont

This kind of thinking is often labelled as naive, but I don't believe so. It's gets a little 1984ish, but the fact remains that the government is made up of elected officials who are elected by the majority.

It seems sometimes that the government may try to tell you what you need so you think you need it (that's where the 1984 bit comes in), but it's the responsibility of the individual to inform themselves and decide what they want and what they don't want when placing their votes. If you don't like how the votes go then blame your fellow citizens, not the government. Not as long as the ability to inform yourself is still available (unlike in 1984 where it has been taken away).

Nov 02, 2010
You can't pick and choose which laws you will comply with.

Why not? The govt does it all the time.
Illegal aliens are allowed to pick and choose what laws to obey.
As Howie Carr says, I don't want special treatment, just treat me like an illegal alien.


There's no way you would want to live as an illegal alien.

Illegal aliens can't vote, can't get legitimate job (that guarantee minimum wage), can't enroll in schooling of any kind, can't legally travel to another country (no passport), can't legally own a home, can't legally drive a vehicle...

Compare this to the comfy way you live your life right now.

Nov 02, 2010
As Howie Carr says, I don't want special treatment, just treat me like an illegal alien.
Howie Carr is a moron. That is all.

Nov 02, 2010

Okay, and don't use public roads, schools, libraries. Don't expect any help from the police if robbed, or anyone to put out your fire for you (unless you pay them yourself). Limiting government taxation to only mean welfare and healthcare is not going to work I'm afraid.


Libraries, schools, not a problem. I never said police were unnecessary or the Army or a lot of other things. That would be you putting words in my mouth.

Nov 02, 2010
You said you want to make government voluntary, that's what makes it voluntary. Nobody here is assuming implicit contracts except for you. Denying the legitimacy of a democratic government because it uses force to enforce obedience is akin to denying the legitimacy of the use of force in self-defense.


That's not why I said it was illegitimate. You're not paying attention.
When you refuse to pay your taxes, you are robbing from all the rest of us.


I'm doing no such thing, I'm saying that the principle used to tax would be considered illegitimate were it any other organization than a government doing it. I'm also saying that I'd be willing to pay for whatever services I'd like and not for others. I know I'm not getting it, but why does it bother you so bad that I'm expressing what I'd LIKE? Is self expression evil too? Or is it only evil when someone else expresses ideas you disagree with?

Nov 02, 2010
Jav, how is changing the system to an allocation system so different from voting? I'm saying what I'd like and what I wouldn't like. I think it's a more fair and legitimate system than having to pay for something just because at least 51% of the population wants it...

Nov 02, 2010
Then why are cities and states passing laws restricting all sorts of things they say are bad for your health?
Not restricting, just making more expensive. And in case of restaurants, forcing disclosure.

None of which impinges on your privacy, and a lot of which actually aids you in making better/more informed decisions.
"Jan 4, 2010 ... California has become the first state to ban the use of trans fat-containing cooking oils, as a law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger..." -Also nyc, others. Also DDT, thalidomide, illicit drugs, ammonium nitrate, smallpox virus, etc

Nov 02, 2010
Because you're thinking as an individual and you're thinking small picture. And if people were given the oppourtunity to select which taxes they wanted to pay they would likely think small picture too.

If people could choose which taxes they paid and which they didn't, the whole money pot that is the treasury would lose tons and tons of money initially (since it's very unlikely anyone would choose to pay MORE taxes).

The entire budget would need to be redone. The gap between the rich and the poor would become huge since the poor don't really have the money needed to support the social programs that are supporting them (hence the need for the social programs in the first place).

Basically it would mean the votes of the rich mean more than the votes of the poor (since they're the ones who will get to decide where the tax money is spent) which is definitely not a fair and legitimate system based on the needs of the population as a whole.

Nov 02, 2010
anarchy, and all forms of conservatism that tend toward anarchy, are fundamentally immoral.
But leftest anarchy is ok?

"Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all." --August Spies, Haymarket anarchist

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time."

Nov 02, 2010
Jav, you hit the nail on the head.

In order for socialism to work it requires everyone to pay, and that's my basic problem with it.

Nov 02, 2010
Actually, in order for socialism, as you put it, to work, it requires everybody to pay for the things that benefit them to the degree in which they are benefited. Name me a social welfare program in the last 80 years, and I can show you statistical proof that the wealthy benefit just as much, if not more, from the existence and operation of that program, even if that benefit is indirect, than those who directly receive the benefit. SSI helps retailers and the medical industry make more money. Same with medicare. The people who benefit the least from a social welfare system are those wealthy enough to not need it, but not wealthy enough to capitalize on its existence, in other words, the middle class. Ironically, perhaps, but not unsurprisingly, this group pays the highest taxes as a ratio to their income and/or wealth.

Nov 02, 2010
What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?


Nothing.

How poor is poor and how rich is rich?

Exactly the question we should be discussing, instead of all of this misdirection_>

The poor of today are better off than the rich of 100 years ago.


And the poor of today are poorer than the poor of 20-30 years ago. And the obscenely rich of today are richer than the same rich of 5 years ago. Do you like that trend?

In summary, it's not the existence of a gap that offends me, its the ridiculous width and speed of expansion of that gap. The richest of the rich are hording with no intention of any "trickle."

Nov 02, 2010
What is wrong with a gap between rich and poor?
It neglects the wishes of the majority by favoring the wishes of a minority.


Wishes...WISHES? Fraj....what the HELL are you talking about? If I wished for a million bucks would I get it?

Nov 02, 2010
In order for socialism to work it requires everyone to pay, and that's my basic problem with it.
Not only yours - everyone has a basic problem with this requirement. You want a society where nobody has to pay?


Did I say that? Are you stupid or being intentionally dishonest? And no that isn't a rhetorical question, I'm seriously curious.

I want a society where I don't have to pay for what YOU want me to...for your sick f****** pet social projects. That's what I want. Clear?


Nov 02, 2010
I want a society where I don't have to pay for what YOU want me to...for your sick f****** pet social projects.
But then you'd have to somehow pay for all the (including indirect -- e.g. as Thrasymachus mentioned) benefits you derive from those projects. In addition to what Thrasymachus mentioned, consider scenarios where for instance if a member of your family is benefiting (whereas otherwise they'd rely on your support), then you'd have to pay because you're deriving an implicit benefit.
I want a society where I don't have to pay for what YOU want me to
Let's substitute a little:

"I want a society where I don't have to obey the laws YOU want me to"

Sound reasonable?

Nov 02, 2010
Libraries, schools, not a problem. I never said police were unnecessary or the Army or a lot of other things. That would be you putting words in my mouth.

And since they are, in your mind, necessary, you are entering an implicit contract of paying for them. Through taxes. It is a voluntary contract as well, since if you felt that these things were not necessary, you would be welcome to move to Somalia, where police is non-existant, and so are taxes.

Nov 02, 2010
You have that already in CA. How do you like it?
Such as?
The Constitution was specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority.
While expressing the will of the majority. In lamenting the poor and oppressed ultra-rich, thou doth protest too much.
The Constitution is designed to protect the ultimate minority, each and every citizen, from from the mob.
But not from the rule of law.
The power of the state, the money all levels of govt extract from citizens has continuously grown during that time. But all the 'solutions' the 'liberals' have proscribed require MORE govt power to regulate and control.
Didn't this growth escalate even more when the liberals were in the minority? (BTW, the word is "prEscribe".)
including property rights
Which of your property rights has the government failed to protect? Do you even own any property?
Emergent systems don't respond well to deterministic controls.
Emergent systems can't emerge from chaos.

Nov 02, 2010
If government is stealing everybody's money, how is it they're so far in debt? Oh that's right, the very wealthy have an interest in government running a deficit, because then they can loan it the money it needs to run, and make a profit off both the government programs those loans make possible, and the profit the interest generates. At the same time, that money is not available to loan to the private sector, or invest in private enterprises. The very wealthy are the enemies of a free market and democracy. They tolerate them to the extent they can exploit them for more profit, they suppress them when they threaten their fortunes.

Nov 02, 2010
@Thrasymachus,
If government is stealing everybody's money, how is it they're so far in debt?
Actually, government debt is indeed a form of theft. In this case, it's stealing directly the future generations (who will have to pay back the debt, with interest.) And by concomitantly devaluing the currency, it's stealing indirectly from the past generations (by destroying their savings.) Only the current generation "benefits" (by "receiving" more than it pays in.) But even that "benefit" is a mirage, because all the extra money in the system causes asset appreciation -- so the current generation can't afford to buy homes that have become horribly overpriced...

Nov 02, 2010
Numerous cities refuse to enforce immigration laws.
Once again, the solution is simple: indictment under Federal statutes, prosecution, and firing of any officials or officers found guilty of breaking or failing to uphold the law.

Naturally, that would take more balls than any federal government has had since Teddy Rosevelt. But all it proves is that America has lost its spine, and its respect for the law.

Although it should be noted that the outcry such enforcement would cause, probably would lead to a rapid change in the relevant federal law. So perhaps, to some extent, it's a strategy of self-preservation through "benign neglect".

Nov 02, 2010
Not to mention, the actual employers hiring the illegals don't want an effective ICE. And since they're major contributors to all political campaigns, then having bought the government, they can ensure lax enforcement of any law that impacts their bottom line.

The solution would be to remove money from politics (recognizing all "political contributions" and electoral "advocacy campaigns" as felonies -- as the BRIBES and BLACKMAIL that they are.) Then, once the money is no longer a factor, perhaps the government would once again be interested in actually doing its job (i.e. legislating for the COMMON good, and DILIGENTLY implementing the law.)

Nov 02, 2010
@Thrasymachus,
If government is stealing everybody's money, how is it they're so far in debt?
Actually, government debt is indeed a form of theft....
I know that Pink. That was what is called a rhetorical question. The reason the rich grab hold of the reins of government power is because they know that a government that nurtures free markets undermines their power. They, like you, marjon, would rather there be no government, which is why government ceases to function or enforces its laws selectively when they gain power. It's why government passes ridiculous tax cuts that really only shift the tax burden to those least able to pay. The solution is not to do away with government, however, but to root out the corruption and influence of the wealthy.

Nov 02, 2010
The only way this will happen is with govt that has defined, limited power.
Exercise of any power, no matter how well defined or limited, can always be subverted by an adequate application of "contributions". Corruption knows no bounds.

Nov 02, 2010
Once governmental power is corrupted, there is no way to limit it. Even a people bred to freedom, and without the social burden of great disparities in individual wealth and power require government. The use of coercive force to enforce behavior is a necessity no society can do without. It is only when you bring in the corrupting influence of individual and private disparities of wealth and power that governmental force becomes a threat to freedom and universal prosperity. The concentration of wealth and political power in a minority of the population is the greatest danger to freedom and democracy.

Nov 02, 2010
My solution is the power to root out corruption and eliminate it. Your solution is to give those who corrupt our government unlimited power by eliminating all obstacles to their control. They corrupt government because uncorrupted, it stands in their way. When water corrupts the integrity of a wall, when rot corrupts the integrity of a beam, the answer is not to tear down the wall or the beam, but to reinforce them, and eliminate the source of their corruption.

Nov 03, 2010
We are seeing a start down a solution path.
Holy crap, are you naive. Were you alive (and/or awake) over the last 15 years? Better yet, over the last 30 years? SSDD is what "we are seeing".

Nov 03, 2010
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
Post the rest of the quote Marjon. You know, where he decries the religious overtones of the document and states that legally we've become undone in including statements of theism while excluding statements of justice.

Nov 03, 2010
Marjon, let's look at a bit more of the statement, the precursor.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for only a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Adams is saying "we didn't do a good enough job writing this document". He is not saying "America is Christian, LOL".

Perhaps you should read something other than Thinkexist.com

Nov 03, 2010
'Liberals' went ape s**t when a fire department let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his subscription.

And? The point is that if MM doesn't believe he is in a contract he agrees with, he should complain not simply about the services he doesn't like, but about all services, including those he thinks are necessary. To him the danger of a fire seems very real, while that of needing welfare isn't. However, that's why it's a SAFETY net: it applies to everyone equally. Not everyone pays equally, nor does everyone profit equally, but it is a system to protect EVERYONE, regardless of input to the system. Somewhat unfair? Perhaps, but the alternative is immoral.

Nov 03, 2010
...indirect -- e.g. as Thrasymachus mentioned) benefits you derive from those projects.


No I wouldn't I shouldn't be allowed to "sign up" for them. As to the indirects, I file those under "not my problem". If YOU want to pay for it and have it benefit me indirectly bully for you. That it does indirectly benefit me puts absolutley ZERO obligation on me, it's incidental not asked for. Otherwise you could make me pay for anything you wanted claiming indirect benefit.

...then you'd have to pay because you're deriving an implicit benefit.


Again, filed under not my problem. You can't set up a program, claim indirect benefit and expect to get paid, that's a unilateral contract. If the indirect benefits bother you, scrap the program.

"I want a society where I don't have to obey the laws YOU want me to"


Not at all, like I said. If you can't make a distinction between the latest idiotic socialist program and "the law" I can't help you figure it out.

Nov 03, 2010
And since they are, in your mind, necessary, you are entering an implicit contract of paying for them. Through taxes. It is a voluntary contract as well, since if you felt that these things were not necessary, you would be welcome to move to Somalia


First you have to show that I voluntarily agreed to pay for all the stuff I don't want to and where the government gets the right to make me move to Somalia when I never agreed to a contract saying I'd have to move there if I didn't like paying for moronic outdated and immoral social engineering projects.

If you say the government gives the government the right to do it fine (because actually that's the way it works), but don't pretend I ever agreed to something I didn't and whitewash it to make yourself feel better somehow. I don't disagree that the government needs to set up unilateral contracts to secure its power, I'm just not going to pretend they don't and that it's all OK.

Nov 03, 2010
No. What Adams meant was NO Constitution that preserved individual liberty could be written for a people who did not have the moral character to be responsible with such liberty.
Entirely false. Read the letters in full, not just excerpts.
The people of Dorchester refuse to cooperate with police and the murders continue.
What murders? Give us some specifics.
Giuliani understood the broken window philosophy of keeping law and order. Cops can't be everywhere, can't arrest everyone. The citizen must also be responsible. Govt can enable and it can disable such responsibility.

No government cannot disable or enable the responsibility of the citizen, only the citizen can do so.

Nov 03, 2010
So, SH while I disagree that the majority of people in a country need to be religious for "self governance" to work I do have to agree with marjon that the majority of the country needs to be MORAL for any government to work.

You disagree?

Nov 03, 2010
No government cannot disable or enable the responsibility of the citizen, only the citizen can do so.


Example: The government passes a law that states you're no longer ever responsible for your mortgage payments and will not be held financially or legally responsible for such.

I'm pretty sure that disables responsibility, if such a law were enacted and then repealed that would then restore responsibility.

Nov 03, 2010
So, SH while I disagree that the majority of people in a country need to be religious for "self governance" to work I do have to agree with marjon that the majority of the country needs to be MORAL for any government to work.

You disagree?
No, you don't need to be moral to follow a set of moral laws. The Constitution doesn't speak of morality at all. Hence why Adams' stance was that of "this is incomplete work".
Example: The government passes a law that states you're no longer ever responsible for your mortgage payments and will not be held financially or legally responsible for such.

I'm pretty sure that disables responsibility, if such a law were enacted and then repealed that would then restore responsibility.
I'm pretty sure the banks would stop giving mortgages to those who default, making the citizen responsible without legal requirement. Isn't that the point of a "free market"?

Nov 03, 2010
@Modernmystic,
That it does indirectly benefit me puts absolutley ZERO obligation on me
So, did you not say this:

"Who's talking about mooching."

Well now, it appears YOU ARE.
Otherwise you could make me pay for anything you wanted claiming indirect benefit.
I can't stretch and warp my thinking severely enough to follow this kind of logic. Sorry.
If you can't make a distinction between the latest idiotic socialist program and "the law" I can't help you figure it out.
Do you even understand what "the law" means? And who are you to judge what's idiotic or not: the Supreme Leader?

Nov 03, 2010
I'm pretty sure that disables responsibility
I find it endlessly fascinating that all the "anti-socialist" types always focus on the mortgage deadbeats. They appear to have no beef with pervasive frauds and breaches of fiduciary responsibility by the lending institutions, the securitizers, the MBS trusts, the Federal Reserve, the accounting industry, the securities rating industry, the foreclosure mills, and basically the whole totality of Wall Street.

You want to talk about moral decay? Look to the ultra-rich... The rot starts at the apex. Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Ditto for wealth.

Nov 03, 2010
@marjon,
Cops can't be everywhere, can't arrest everyone.
Very true.

However, the cops must be SOMEWHERE, and they ought to be arresting SOMEONE. As long as there is a steady background of prosecution and punishment, there would continue to exist a deterrent to crime.

But when nobody is held accountable -- particularly the most egregious transgressors at the top of the financial pyramid -- then there is a general climate of "Laissez Faire" and "every man for himself". Then your "moral society" rapidly transforms into a Disney caricature of a pirate haven.

But if you think you can count on people to self-police and self-regulate due to their own inherent morality and integrity, then you are a true Communist at heart.

Nov 03, 2010
If a citizen can defend himself from immoral people who what to commit violence, the immoral person may follow the law as it may cost him his life.
Or more likely, the immoral person will gang up with a dozen other immoral people, wait for the citizen to be asleep in his bed, break into his house in the dead of night, slit his throat, rape his family, pillage his wealth, and vanish into the darkness.
those who are rich and conservative, don't seek power, but promote opportunity for others to achieve.
ROFLMAO

The clown strikes again...

Thanks for making my day, marjon.

Nov 03, 2010
Free markets operate on self interest.
Free markets can't exist when they are freely manipulated by the major brokers. Free markets can't exist without complete and accurate information as a basis for price discovery. Free markets have no inherent defense against fraud and organized crime.
The govt regulates the financial industry you rail on about.
No, the government fails to regulate. And the more Republicans there are in government, the more frequent and egregious the failures (not that Democrats are blameless either.) It's a well-established historical pattern.
One reason Chinese sell live fish and serve fish with the head is to satisfy the customer the product is fresh
Do they guarantee the product isn't laced with cadmium, or mercury?

Nov 03, 2010
self-police and self-regulate due to their own inherent morality and integrity,

Free markets operate on self interest.
The govt regulates the financial industry you rail on about. Madoff was regulated and certified by the SEC who failed to act on complaints by competitors.
No he wasn't. He was declared hands off by the underfunded SEC by Bush Jr.

The govt created a false trust which the political entrepreneurs could exploit.
No it didn't. The removal of government regulation allowed for a flase trust.
Food safety is a great example. FDA 'certifies' products as safe. People buy them and get sick. In third world markets, buyers don't trust the vendors, inspect products thoroughly, wash the meat, etc.
How about you do a comparison of the number of outbreaks of trichinosis or flatworms to any non-regulated country in terms of food safety.
Govts fail basic functions because they have usurped too much authority.
No, because you refuse to tax the rich.

Nov 03, 2010
Sounds like a typical CA neighborhood.
Or Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance (or Mexico, for that matter.) Or the "good old" Wild West. Where everybody is armed, and everybody can shoot back. Big whoop.

Nov 03, 2010
Well now, it appears YOU ARE.

So if I wrote a "contract" with you and said you'd pay 500 dollars to improve the local scenery in a park we both frequent you'd still pay me the 500 bucks even if you never signed the contract? If not you're a mooch too.
I can't stretch and warp my thinking severely enough to follow this kind of logic. Sorry.

Most socialists can't think past their own agenda as to how it REALLY effects the world and other people. They can only think about how it OUGHT to work. Reality a distant second to their pet projects.

However the above example isn't hard to follow and should clear up the "indirect benefit" issue you seem to be having a problem with.

Do you even understand what "the law" means?

Yes I do. You don't. There's a difference between law, regulation, tax, and bureaucracy.
And who are you to judge what's idiotic or not: the Supreme Leader?

Who are you to judge what isn't? Or are you capable of making a judgment yourself

Nov 03, 2010
One reason Chinese sell live fish and serve fish with the head is to satisfy the customer the product is fresh

Do they guarantee the product isn't laced with cadmium, or mercury?

Actually, if they find that you're selling tainted products, they execute you in public.

How's that for regulation Marjon?
Most socialists can't think past their own agenda as to how it REALLY effects the world and other people.
You mean opposed to capitalists who just don't give a shit?

Nov 03, 2010
Top 1% $380,354 38.02

Top 5% $159,619 58.72

Top 10% $113,799 69.94
I'm inclined to believe that you think these are figures that should be added together as opposed to them being a running sum.
The rich are already taxed. The top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Top tax rate for that 10% is 18% of AGI. 18% Marjon.... That is a joke.
SH, you can certainly donate more if you feel under taxed.
You can migrate to Monaco if you feel overtaxed.

Nov 03, 2010
So if I wrote a "contract" with you and said you'd pay 500 dollars to improve the local scenery in a park we both frequent you'd still pay me the 500 bucks even if you never signed the contract? If not you're a mooch too.
And if our community of 100 individuals gets together to establish that park, and assess each member of community a maintenance fee for it of $5/year. And a few years later, some grown-up kid decides he doesn't want to pay the $5/year, but insists he wants to still live in the community?
Most socialists can't think past their own agenda as to how it REALLY effects the world and other people.
You did say you could get me to pay you for ANYTHING. Let's see how you'll get me to pay you for a night's rent on a hooker.
There's a difference between law, regulation, tax, and bureaucracy.
With exception of bureaucracy, the other 3 are identical. They are, each and every one, collectively referred to as "legislation".

Nov 03, 2010
Who are you to judge what isn't? Or are you capable of making a judgment yourself
I'm just an individual, and no I'm not capable nor should I be. I can have my opinion, of course. But I have neither the capability, nor the right, nor the hubris to presume to make that judgment on behalf of everyone else. That's why I support democratic processes over autocratic tyrannies.

Nov 03, 2010
@clown,
Sod busters like the Ingells moved from KS to MN/SD and had no wild gangs invading their house.
Might have something to do with low population densities, where everybody knew each other, and each others' activities, for miles around. But you favor eternal and exponential population growth anyway. Plus, just on a purely pragmatic basis, there's no chance for a mass return to the wide-open steppes of yore.
It called a property lien. Home owners associations do this all the time.
Exactly. But it's sheer tyranny! Just ask Modernmystic.

Nov 03, 2010
Pink, I noticed you didn't answer my question about the park directly, but simply compared apples to oranges. Can you give a direct answer?

If it's all legislation, why do we have different words for all of them? Hint: because they're different concepts :-)

So you're "just" an individual huh? Incapable of making a decision or a judgment without the rest of the sheep to bleat their approval? Besides I'm not talking about making YOU pay for anything I want, YOU want to make me pay for what YOU want. Who's the Tyrannical autocrat again?

Nov 03, 2010
imply compared apples to oranges
That's because your question was about apples (private charity) whereas we are discussing oranges (public institutions.) So by answering the way I did, I aimed to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, while still fitting within the character limit. Oh well, I tried anyway...
why do we have different words for all of them?
Not familiar with the concept of synonyms, are you? Or perhaps you've never run across such exotic phrases as "tax law", or "regulatory code". Or maybe you're unaware of where and how all of these things originate, where and how they derive their authority, and how they're supposed to be enforced according to our Constitution...
Besides I'm not talking about making YOU pay for anything I want, YOU want to make me pay for what YOU want.
Not for what I want, but for what the majority of the voters wants. There are lots of things (e.g. federal debt) I'd like not to pay for either, but I live in the USA.

Nov 03, 2010
Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.
marjon's version of Capitalism at work...

Nov 03, 2010
So 51% want to take all your money? You're OK with majority rules?
If that were the case, I'd see no good reason to stay here. But I'd have no problem paying 25% of my income, like almost everyone else does, instead of some 18% or lower. I don't think I'm special enough to deserve special treatment. (Of course, this is provisional on the fact that I actually have the disposable income to pay with...)
The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not mob rule.
Quite right.

Nov 03, 2010
That's because your question was about apples (private charity) whereas we are discussing oranges (public institutions.)


And somehow it's escaped you this whole time that was my point? That governments get to make unilateral contracts and it's considered legitimate, whereas it's blatantly obvious that if a private party did the same it would be not only illegitimate, but in most cases illegal?

Besides, I've shown you how illegitimate it is to make a unilateral contract with someone and expect them to pay for whatever the service in question is REGARDLESS of their indirect benefit with respect to the contract.

Nov 03, 2010
Didn't some 'liberal' say the govt won't force people to eat certain foods or behave in certain ways so to save them from themselves?
So you're equating the removal of happy meal toys, with forcing you to eat certain foods?

I have a better idea for you: let's re-legalize marketing of tobacco and alcohol to children. Let them make their own decisions as to what's good for them.

Nov 03, 2010
@Modernmystic,
governments get to make unilateral contracts and it's considered legitimate
If by "governments" you mean "elected representatives" (all laws must originate in the House), then "unilateral" should be replaced with "consensual".

Should popular consensus be withdrawn, then the law can be easily changed by those elected representatives. Until it is changed, the law remains the law.

Nov 03, 2010
You keep harping on about a contract, mystic, but it's not a contract. It's an obligation. In fact, it's almost a Natural Law. You have to pay for the things that you benefit from, whether you asked for them or not, and whether you would agree with them or not. Otherwise, you're putting the cost of what is benefiting you off on someone else, any they have to bear a cost out of proportion to what they benefit. Causing someone else to suffer out of proportion with the result of your benefit out of proportion to your payment is immoral, whether you intend the benefit or not. If you think the program that benefits you is immoral, you can work to undo it legally, but until you do, that doesn't give you the right to shirk your obligation.

Nov 03, 2010
And I will agree with one thing. The Democrat's biggest problem is that the benefits they deliver are almost always indirect. One thing Bush did politically right, when his tax cuts went into effect, he put a check in people's hands. Obama's payroll tax cuts were more significant for more people, but they were virtually invisible. If they had come in the form of checks instead instead of different numbers on a paystub nobody looks at anyway, the Democrats probably wouldn't have lost yesterday.

Nov 03, 2010
"Everything is beautiful in its own Time."
You don't need to stress your inclinations. We know by now that violence, suffering, and injustice are fascinating you.
Only in an intellectual sense, like watching fireflies mate. You can only understand the CAUSE of things if you are not afraid to study them. I am interested in the true Causes of conflict and disparity and I know that the pap you've fallen for is obviously not it. Just more Propaganda, but it FEELS so right doesn't it? What good is the Truth if it doesn't SEEM right?

Bad guys must be vicious lying thieving killers and good guys must be kind, altruistic, peaceful... Meek. 'The meek shall inherit the earth.' -is a Promise and a Goal. For the thoroughly domesticated are meek. Except for attack dogs but who will need those in the future when the Garden is restored?

Nov 03, 2010
...then "unilateral" should be replaced with "consensual".


I've never given explicit or implicit consent for the United States government to govern me, either by representation, autocracy, or in ANY other form.

Again for the hundredth time, what gives the US government the power to assume a unilateral contract with it's citizens other than itself? If you don't have their consent to begin with then representation is irrelevant.

Thras at least appears to understand this "problem" with government and is instead trying (futilely) to convince me this is not a contract it's an obligation. I don't recognize any obligation,neither do I recognize indirect benefit as a legitimate claim against me if I didn't consent to it.

Nov 03, 2010
@clown,
How do those who pay no taxes pay for their benefits?
By working for a pittance, and thus providing hugely discounted services and income streams for those who do pay taxes.

Nov 03, 2010
@Modernmystic,
I've never given explicit or implicit consent for the United States government to govern me, either by representation, autocracy, or in ANY other form.
Are you saying you are not a U.S. citizen? Are you in the country illegally?
what gives the US government the power to assume a unilateral contract with it's citizens other than itself?
The very term "citizen" means you are formally and officially a member of a well-organized society, and subject to that society's form of government.
I don't recognize any obligation
Then stop recognizing yourself as a citizen, and stop claiming you have any legal rights or entitlements under this government and/or within this society. Oh, and bon voyage.

Nov 03, 2010
I'm back. Doesn't look like I missed much though. All this talk about power ,consent ,contracts and government. The way I see it is I have power and you have power. I choose to give my power to somebody else(consent). They now have twice the power they once had. Since might makes right ,you should listen to what they tell you to do. You and a friend give your power to another and I have to listen to them(consent). Now we could be civilized and agree to this or fight about it. Being civilized is called government where fighting about it is called war.

Nov 03, 2010
Of course you don't recognize your obligation. That's why governance appears to you to be non-consensual. But obligations exist whether you recognize them or not. By continuing to frame the issue as one of contracts and payments, you are working with a set of conceptual tools that are inherently unable to justify any sort of governance. But since governance is a practical as well as moral necessity, it is the conceptual tools that you are trying to use that are at fault, not the justice and justification of governance in general. Governments are not justified by reference to some sort of abstract contract theory that barely works for real physical contracts. It is justified by reference to the mutual obligations we all have to each other, with respect to the fact that we live in the same geographical area and are dependent on social institutions that preexist us as individuals.

Nov 03, 2010
If you say the government gives the government the right to do it fine (because actually that's the way it works), but don't pretend I ever agreed to something I didn't

If you were not talking about a democracy, I might be inclined to agree with you more, but unfortunately you are. YOU give the government that right. So does every other person who does not stand up for their own political beliefs. If the government is truly forcing you into a unilateral contract, you can attempt to fight it. If you are too timid to fight, then you can leave it, because the government gets its power, not just from you, but from others like you. If enough of them agree that this is the way the country should be run, well, tough luck for you: Somalia seems to be the only option.

Nov 03, 2010
51% percent force the remaining 49% to subsidize their life.
I tawt I hoyd the clown say the wealthy pay most of the taxes. Now the clown says the wealthy are 49% of the population? Wow, the clown must live in some Chamber of Commerce wholly owned parallel universe...
Or 95%, the majority, can force 5% into slavery or put them in gas chambers?
They could, if there weren't a Bill of Rights. But naturally, clowns from outer space can't be expected to be versed in such issues.
At least in Somalia, the minority might have an chance.
The clown is welcome to personally test that hypothesis.
the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama
Ah, the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh: the head clown in charge.

Nov 03, 2010
Answer his question.
What question? All I saw was a couple of gallons of bile-laced vomit, regurgitated in rapid succession (typical of wingnuts, and iconic of Limbaugh.)
recall the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note the "just compensation" part.
Or the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Note "the people" part. Congress expresses the will of "the people".
All apply or none apply.
Ah, finally the one true and honest utterance. I'll give it to you: you're more "fair and balanced" than Limbaugh. Which is what differentiates ordinary clowns, from the head clown in charge.

Nov 03, 2010
"The people who earn $250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country's economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages.

So the people who make the most - http://www.statem...r-capita
And pay the most in taxes- http://www.statem...r-capita
Are supporting the unemployed - http://www.statem...ent-rate
And poor - http://www.statem...ty-level

Nov 03, 2010
"Liberals may owe their political outlook partly to their genetic makeup..."

Hmmm. So much for free will.

Nov 03, 2010
When the govt regulates (takes) your property without compensation, how is that just?

Are the services you use not compensation? What is "just" about not paying the military or police? Besides I give my taxes to the government rather than wait for them to take them. That reduces the need to pay another person to track down the tax cheats who try to get something for nothing.
No. Congress has defined limits and is representatives of 'the people'. They are NOT the people.

What would your solution be? A referendum on every proposal?

Nov 03, 2010
When the govt regulates (takes) your property without compensation, how is that just?
Sorry, but I fail to see how regulation equates to taking of property. If you mean that the government prevents you from damaging someone else's property, someone else's health, someone else's rights, or the commons, then all of that would indeed be just: even if it has a material impact on you and prevents you from growing your wealth at the cost of others.
Congress has defined limits and is representatives of 'the people'.
And to interpret those limits, we have the Judicial branch. As long as the courts say that Congress has the right to do what it does, then no constitutional objection can be mounted.

Or perhaps you imagine that you know better than the totality of jurisprudence professionals. Wouldn't surprise me at all if you do hold such a lofty opinion of yourself. After all, you apply the same set of weightings to your expertise in climate science, evolution, etc...

Nov 04, 2010
Didn't some 'liberal' say the govt won't force people to eat certain foods or behave in certain ways so to save them from themselves?
Of course the opposite will occur when those deemed not worthy to be saved by society will be killed to save money. We keep getting closer to "Logan's Run".
You are a ridiculous and silly person.

Nov 04, 2010
Of course you don't recognize your obligation. That's why governance appears to you to be non-consensual. But obligations exist whether you recognize them or not.


No they simply do not, no matter how many times you insist they do.

By continuing to frame the issue as one of contracts and payments, you are working with a set of conceptual tools that are inherently unable to justify any sort of governance.


IOW I need to be a "good boy" and concede the argument by accepting your concepts and terms? I've never heard of anything more ridiculous than this "consent by obligation" idiocy you're spewing and it's you that are making up concepts out of the terminus of your GI tract.

The only time I see this kind of blatantly false rationalization is usually with creationists trying to defend their silly notion the Earth was created in 7 days.

Bottom line is, if the United States government never got my consent to be governed by their laws then they have no claim on me at all.