From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:40:18 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Sorry pal.  No dice.   
      
   >Without liberty you would be bound. The question is, if you are bound,   
   >by what means can you free yourself?   
      
   It does appear that neither of us is bound.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   So have you lost your liberties?  Or is this simply a poetical right   
   of wealthy to do whatever increases their wealth for you?   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)