From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200   
   >>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is   
   unproductive,   
   >>>>>>>>> which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the   
   point   
   >>>>>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of   
   the   
   >>>>>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if   
   >>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce,   
   eh???   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid   
   >>>>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur   
   >>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Discourage consumprion, encourage income.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.    
   THey want   
   >>>>>>>>> the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first.    
   But   
   >>>>>>>>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be   
   >>>>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*   
   >>>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> and fuck tariffs, eh??   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> #god   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the   
   >>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's   
   the   
   >>>>>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> fucking ??   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Usury is an integral part of this system.  No way could consumerism   
   >>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more   
   >>>>>>> money.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> consumerism   
   >>>>>>> tariffs   
   >>>>>>> various tax schemes   
   >>>>>>> politics   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Something is wrong with this system.  Perhaps we could think of a new   
   >>>>>>> one that has not been tried before.  Because, so far, nothing works   
   >>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we   
   >>>>>>> are left with after the others failed.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by   
   >>>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those   
   >>>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is   
   >>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to   
   >>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an   
   >>>>>> increased chance of survival.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This is how we've been behaving:   
   >>>>>>     > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should   
   >>>>>>     > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of   
   >>>>>> those involved in the repair)   
   >>>>>>     > solution does not make everything better   
   >>>>>>     > some things are even worse   
   >>>>>>     > repeat   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like   
   >>>>> libertarianism.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I   
   >>>> explained:   
   >>>   
   >>> Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.  As you   
   >>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason   
   >>> with intention to do things in a better way.  It occurs to me that   
   >>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.  You really   
   >>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.   
   >>   
   >> Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.   
   >   
   > However, your definition of liberty does not rule us.  Let us return   
   > to:  libertarianism was abandoned for a reason.  An improvement was   
   > intended.  Discarding that improvement does not require returning to   
   > old unworkable ideas.   
      
   What I hear:  "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)