From: punditster@gmail.com
On 1/13/2026 10:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:08:01 -0800, Dude wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> I don't think that is what it is like right now, but himbo is working
> on it.
>
That would be Donald Trump, President of the United States of America,
to you bimbo.
Without liberty you would be bound. The question is, if you are bound,
by what means can you free yourself?
>
>> Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual
>> liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.
>
> Abandoned for good reason.
>
The US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights is still in effect, the
last time I checked.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
