America is lost...

There are many viewpoints I disagree on with Elizabeth Warren but she's right on this. Lawmakers should have no more skin in the game than market index funds. They shouldn't have the ability to profit from their position nor the connections.

Warren re-ups bill to ban stock trading by lawmakers

 

Well deficit spending is just a hidden tax. So taxation is theft.

The public just likes to give its money over to men with guns.

But I agree if the government is going to spend money if SHOULD be money they have received from taxes. The public THINKS they are getting something for nothing. The fact is their checking accounts are losing purchasing power every day and even with slight pay raises are losing purchasing power.

If only the public wanted to pay less for housing, education, and healthcare. In that case they would be against deficit spending. Or maybe they are deceived into THINKING they are getting something for nothing.

 

Politicians are elected representatives of the people. Trump was elected President. AOC was not. There is no "working your way up" as president. For AOC is there is a slimy pathway to the top. She might get there quicker if she follows Camel Toe's example.

 

If the president is the elected representative of the people how is it that Trump, who finished second behind the Beast in 2016, squats in the Casa Blanca?

 

Not this yet again.....you know the answer.

 

Mhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-accusations-against-hunter-kind-130452530.htmlore Liberalism

Stephen Colbert enabling the swamp... that is the corruption of this election; the use of "funny" celebrities that attract brain-dead people to their propaganda.

 

The big difference between taxation and theft is that (1) taxation is levied with the collective consent of the public to serve a public purpose (2) taxation is levied in accordance with with duly enacted laws. Theft occurs when money or property is taken without consent and in violation of duly enacted laws to serve only the interest of the thief. Does that make excessive taxation OK? Of course not, but it's not the same as theft.

Deficit spending is more than a hidden tax. It is the current generation of citizens using its collective power to incur debt on the credit of a future generation that will one day have to repay that debt. That future generation never consented to this. Ultimately, it is taxation without representation. It is much closer to being theft than the basic concept of taxation and much harder to morally defend.

The public would like to pay less for all of those things, but they are woefully ignorant of how their money is spent or how much is spent on what. They don't take the time to learn anything about how their money is spent, and when the politicians discuss it, it is always done with a lopsidedly partisan political angle. And of course, the media is a dumpster fire on it. They seldom checked for accuracy and apply their own partisan angle when they do. Context is never provided. The historical record is never looked at, and when it is, it is often just blatantly lied about. We intentionally keep the public stupid.

 

Political correctness
Cultural appropriation
Virtue Signaling
White Privilege
Cancel culture
Moral imperatives

All the above are Liberal constructs and are being used 24/7 online to destroy dissent. These strategic (strategery?) campaigns are in addition to the usual ruthless use of accusations such as racism, misogyny and homophobia.

In short, the Liberal platform, as evidenced by AOC and The Crew and other sanctimonious loudmouths, is nothing more than character assassination that stifles freedom of speech and alternative points of view because those who do not think as Liberals do risk being cancelled.

All the above in effect moots and mutes any discussion of cost-value, the deficit or the national debt. There is no braking mechanism. And because everyone wants "theirs," nobody cares anyway.

 

More Liberalism...

Lizzo's smoothie detox sparked fierce backlash in the body positive community. Experts explain why.

Lizzo has been credited with combating "body shaming" by exhibiting pride and love of self despite the fact that she is very over-weight. Now she has advertised her detox lifestyle and is getting ripped by people who want to feel good about being fat. That's the Liberal angle; ZERO personal responsibility meaning the idea that being fat causes health problems is not to be discussed.

And yeah, it means, get fat, love it, stifle any discussion about health but get free health care paid for by you and me when their love of being overweight kicks in the wrong direction.

 

Those are differences. But I don't agree in collective consent. You don't get to consent for me and 51 don't get to consent for 49. Consent is a legal mirage created by politicians to create apathy. It is like social contract theory and general will. They don't really exist. Laws don't make something just. They legitimize things in our minds some I get it, but that isn't sufficient for me.

I do agree that the main difference is that we receive something back from taxes. They take it, by force if they have to, but we also get some kind of service. Kind of like paying protection money to a gang. If they protect me from all other gangs, then paying their "tax" isn't as bad as it could be. It still isn't great.

I agree with all you say. But I will add that it hurts the current generation too. All of it is bad.

Yes. The government mal-educates us to their benefit. Totally agree.

 

Example from history.

 

This is where you libertarians go off the deep end. You couldn't operate a government and therefore couldn't have a nation state or even a municipality if everyone's individual consent had to be secured to levy taxes. The "consent of the governed" has to obtained collectively through elections. That was good enough for the founding fathers. It should be good enough for us. Does that make our tax system moral? Hell no. There's a huge amount of room to criticize it both economically and morally. However, it isn't immoral just because it's a tax and because they don't get you to personally agree on it.

If you want to look at the moral angle, remember that Jesus said to render unto Caesar - about taxes that sure as hell weren't individually agreed to by Jews in the first century. Some on the Left interpret that to mean, "shut up and quit bitching about taxes." I don't think it does, but it does mean that there's nothing inherently immoral or larcenous about taxes even if they aren't individually voluntary.

You don't get to vote for the gangster and don't get to vote for people who decide how much the gangster takes or how the gangster spends the money. We do. We just make stupid decisions when we choose our leaders.

It does, but we're choosing this. Nobody's forcing it on us. Furthermore, many of us "win" in this equation, even if most lose due to inflation. The next generation is having it forced on them, and they overwhelmingly lose. It's bad now, but it's an enormous screw job on the future generations who will have to pay it back with either ridiculous taxes or inflation.

To me that's no surprise. The truly derelict party in this is the media. They are astoundingly bad at this. When journalist talk to politicians (especially Democratic politicians) about the budget, it's as if they're talking to flat earthers and just taking their assumptions as correct and contextually fair. It's laughable.

 

The Left seems to be saying "making a taco" is without a doubt "cultural appropriation."
But what about "eating a taco?"
I am unclear on the rules

 

This whole thing is bizarre to me. My whole life I've been told its best to experience cultures from around the world to make me a more rounded person. I assumed that meant to take what I learn and use it. Now they are saying I should just eat potatoes because I'm part Irish? I'm just gonna do what I want and ignore these idiots. My trips to Jamaica, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, etc have taught me a lot and I'm going use everything I learned/stole from them.

 

Egg Zachly!
Just like for my entire life they screamed, "We MUST get off Middle East Oil!"
Well, we finally did that, but now its bad, Very bad! So bad they want to kill the producers now

 

And what about all the tacos I have eaten while actually in Mexico?
We are talking thousands
Was that theft by cultural appropriation?
The taco vendors never seemed offended

Progressivism is the religion of joyless lunatics

 

It isn't the deep end. It is logic strictly applied. I could counter by saying that your viewpoint is governed by mal-education and mythology. Government is a crude tool. That is my point. It doesn't mean that there is actual consent. It just means that government on some level is coercive and doesn't serve the interests of people. Maybe it serves a majority of the people. I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact. Hmm. It is immoral in every other part of life, when someone does something to you without your agreement. But we give government a pass, because... I'm not sure why other than we don't have a better system to turn to. Or we don't have the willingness to turn to a better system.

You are correct. That is why I submit to authority and give my due to Caesar. But that doesn't mean Caesar is righteous or moral. Jesus was crucified by Caesar's government ultimately. I wrote a long form article on interpretation of Romans 13 and submission to the state. As it turns out authority is multi-layered and not all located within the state. There are competing authorities that sometimes contradict each other. So it isn't always applicable to pay the tax and shut up. Even though that is the application sometimes. I follow that. But you are talking about Mark 12. That passage isn't straight forward. I do agree that it is directing us to pay taxes and submit. However, we need to understand the fact that Jesus was being hunted literally by 2 factions of the religious/political powers of His day. He gave the only answer which could placate both sides and allow Him to walk away a free man. Looking at His words He does give direction to go along with the custom of the day. Yet, if you think more about His words, what is actually Caesar's that is not God's? What is the coin involved in the context? It was a coin that no faithful Jew would carry. It was a coin minted by Caesar and required for the payment of a specific tax. So giving Caesar back the coin he made and handed out makes sense. It is his in a sense. But it isn't a coin the Jews would use in normal life. It is at the same time an acceptance of Caesar's rule and a statement that Caesar's rule is unrighteous and surface level.

Your point is a bit irrelevant. We don't get to vote for what government is over us. It isn't like I can vote for a more limited government. We get 2 options which have a good amount of overlap in their policies. There is much about the government we don't get to vote for, most importantly the Executive Branch which continues to grow in number and power over the other 2. By design thousands of them have no connection to the democratic process. I know you don't believe this but the system is designed to give citizens some say, but little say at the same time. Some of that is a good thing honestly. But much of what constitutes our government is set up so that citizens don't have a say.

We are very close in our thoughts on this. However, I think you go a little too far. "We're" choosing this. But we are told what is acceptable to think by those in charge and we are told which options we have within a very narrow range. We have had inflation forced on us and we force it on others. Social Security is a huge theft of one generation on the next. But who ever asked for it? No one did. It was thought up by the fascist FDR and sold to people as something "we needed". People accepted because it was free money. But did they really have a way of refusing it? It wasn't put up to vote. It wasn't debated honestly and publicly. It was foisted on the public with a round of propaganda. So while we "choose" it. We weren't responsible for it. Our rulers did it to us good and hard.

I agree with you here as well. But again I would like to go a step further. The media works with the Left of our government and has for at least 100 years. You can trace it back to the Progressive movement and how they dictated what media could be and worked with them to create the system we have. It is probably the worst form of cronyism we have. But cronyism between political, intellectual, and economic power is all over the place.

 

The Left says whatever it takes to put their opponents on the defensive by accusing them of wrongdoing.

If their opponent is too insular then they are accused of not being open to other cultures. If their opponent is enjoying the different "flavors" of the world, then they are offending other cultures in the process.

Just live your life and tell the Left to eff off.

 

It's one thing to be talking about social media
But another thing entirely when they have control of the federal apparatus

 

It's because the two things aren't as similar as you think. I'm ok with my wife's doctor doing a vaginal exam on her in his office, but if the same doctor walked up to us in a bar and ran his hand up her leg to touch her in the exact same place, I'd beat his ***. Why the big difference? It's the same guy touching her in the same place. It's because context, intent, and purpose matter a lot, and that's what you're missing when you analogize taxes with theft.

Ultimately, we give the government a pass to work without our individual consent, because you can't have a government that secures individual consent for everything it does. It wouldn't be practical or effective. And we "tolerate" it morally, because though we don't personally consent to every little thing it does every day, we do consent to the system and get a general say in who runs it and what its priorities will be. Again, the context and purpose matter a lot when judging it morally.

Never said Caesar was righteous or moral just as our government is often unrighteous and immoral. However, the fact that Caesar and our government levied taxes doesn't make them unrighteous or immoral.

Actually you do.

Sure you can. You just don't get to decide all by yourself. You have to convince others to go along.

That isn't true either. You can vote Libertarian. I did 4 years ago.

But we vote for the people who give numbers and power to the Executive Branch. We don't have to do that. We can choose different people, but we'd have to convince our fellow Americans to go along.

It is built with varying degrees of insulation. That is true, but we mostly control who gets insulated and how much.

We don't have to accept what we're told.

It's being forced on us the way high interest payments would be forced on me if I maxed out my credit cards. Inflation is the natural consequence of a government spending far more than it taxes for a very long period of time. In our case, it's 535 people who are directly chosen by us doing it year after year.

The people who voted in the 1932 election and the 1934 midterms asked for it, got it, and we've ratified their decision every chance we've gotten since.

Yes. They could have voted against FDR and his party in the 1930s and could have voted for politicians who opposed those policies or at least supported reforms in the subsequent years.

Actually it was. It was the election and the record votes in Congress.

That's true.

 

I don't like it but realize it is necessary and better r to individuals than money going to companies frauding the gov't

 

Maybe our definition for consent is different. I am using it as "agree with" or "accept as okay". So I never "consent" to abortion and deficit spending. The government does it anyway. I tolerate it, but I don't consent to it. If I didn't tolerate it, then I would be in armed revolt. I suffer under it or tolerate it begrudgingly.

Hmm. That is where I have trouble. The act of taking by force is immoral. If I don't pay tax, I am put in jail and the money is taken by force. It is analogous to handing over protection money to the mob. I hand it over because the situation gets worse if I don't, not because I agree with it.

What I mean is that the US Federal Government is over me no matter what. I don't get to vote for that. I don't get to vote for going back to the Articles of Confederation for example. I get candidate R or D which are 75% the same.

True. Good point. It is a marginalized third choice but it is an option.

I disagree. There is little we can do to change the nature of the bureaucratic state. Wilson started that by design and it has become worse and worse over time. In an absolute sense, someone could come in and remove it all. But that isn't going to happen with an R or D. Maybe a Libertarian would do that, but the chances of them getting elected and following through are slim to none.

No civilian chose to print $3 Trillion this year. No civilian is asking for another $900 billion to be printed. In a loose way people want "the government to do something". But that is because people have been brainwashed by the government.

Yeah. Could have. I just don't think the politicians are that aligned with what people want or need. They tell "us" what we should want, and people vote accordingly. There is little disagreement on the big things like spending because it is in the government's interest. They will do what they want and package it for us so that we don't raise too much of a ruckus.

 

Enjoy.

 

Again, people don't consent on an issue-by-issue basis. You can't run a government or a society that way. They consent to the system and who runs it. When those who run it do so against the consent of the governed, the remedy is to oust them.

That's the point of my touching example. Taking by force isn't always immoral. Who's doing it, why, and by what authority matters a lot. The government can take life, liberty, and property by force, because part of its job is to enforce the rule of law on lawbreakers. The government can do more than take your property. If you commit certain acts, it can seize you from your home and throw you in the slammer for long periods of time. Is it kidnapping for them to do that? In any other context it would be. For them it's not, because they're enforcing the laws enacted by the public's representatives, and it isn't immoral for them to do it. In fact, it would be immoral for them not to do it.

Of course you can go back to the Articles of Confederation. We have an amendment process. You also don't have to live under the American government. There are plenty of countries that would take you.

It's an option, and you're free to choose it. It's also not marginalized. Procedurally, there's no reason why Libertarians can't win.

They can't win, because they don't have a viable constituency. Conservatives agree with them the most, but the areas of disagreement are profound. A good example - back in 2004 (when I could still sorta justify going out with a chick in college), a bosomy brunette girl at UT invited me to attend a lecture by a guy from the Ayn Rand Institute. The audience was overwhelmingly conservative. For about the first 30 minutes, he railed against a government that spent too much, taxed too much, and regulated too much. Everybody thought he was great. Then he spent the next 20 minutes basically saying, "Jesus sucks, let's go smoke a bowl, and let's allow crazy Muslims take control of the world's supply of oil." That turned everybody's stomach. And that's the Libertarian conundrum in one anecdote and illustrative of why they don't have a constituency. They're very good on some key issues, but where they're wrong, they aren't just a little off the mark. They're bat-****-friggin-crazy and borderline offensive. But that doesn't mean they're marginalized. It means they have goofy ideas pitched by non-serious people.

I'm not sure that you fully understand how the administrative state gets its authority. It can't just willy-nilly make up rules. When regulatory agencies are created, Congress passes a law that not only creates them but defines the scope, breadth, and limits of their rulemaking authority (the "enabling statute"). Any regulation that doesn't fit within those powers is invalid and will get struck down in court. The reason why I bring that up is to point out that enabling statutes (and therefore agency existence and power) can be amended or repealed by the people we elect. We don't have to tolerate them and therefore don't have to tolerate a runaway executive branch.

(Side note - I think this entire scheme is unconstitutional. To me, legislative and judicial power lie solely with the legislative and judicial branches. Congress doesn't have the legitimate authority to delegate any of that to the executive.)

That's because that isn't how a republic (even a fairly democratic one) works.

No, they follow our lead. Democrats and Republicans want to win, and they try to form coalitions of different types of people to try to secure control of government. Politicians have run on reforming Social Security. They lost. For example, George W. Bush did it in 2004. The public rejected that by giving Democrats control of Congress is 2006 and putting Obama in the White House two years later.

What if that hadn't happened? Social Security wouldn't be gone, but it would be radically different, infinitely better for the public, and wouldn't be a ticking time bomb.

Well, it's because the pubic has little disagreement. We want a big entitlement state for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare), health insurance for the working poor so McDonald's and Walmart can pay ****** wages and sell us crappy food and cheap **** from China for low prices (Medicaid and EIC), and a big, strong military (defense budget). We also want low taxes. That takes a massive amount of the budget off the table for serious discussion.

But nobody's rigging that. Bush, Paul Ryan, and Newt Gingrich tried to take on the entitlement state. The public rejected it. Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul have run on cutting the defense budget. In fact, before 1994, Bill Clinton was a big Pentagon critic and pushed through pretty substantial cuts (real ones). Then his party got its *** totally kicked in the midterm elections.

So it isn't so much about the government's interest as much as it's about politicians not wanting to lose.

 

It seems gridlock has possibly provided the impetus towards tolerating aggressive executive orders. The "We need to do something" force is like rising water over a dam. The President is reluctant to just say, "Call you Congressman."

 

Partisanship has move the extremes to abhor bi-partisan legislation and compromises. Each sides supporters don't have any problems Executive Orders if they are centered around their pet issues (e.g. DACA, Border Wall). To be sure, the Executive Order is further left/right than any compromise bill.