From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/13/2026 9:49 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:26:21 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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."   
   >   
   > You hear what you want to hear.  Good job.  Watch out that you don't   
   > actually think about anything.   
    >   
   Think about this: What would the US be without the principle of liberty?   
      
   Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual   
   liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)