So why haven't you signed up for an @reagan.com email address yet?

I certainly won’t be donating my money to the drive to turn America into a corporatocracy and oligarchy. I think George W. Bush was the least effective president perhaps in all US history, but Ronald Reagan did this nation the most lasting harm because he was an effective leader and a great communicator, but he lead in a damaging direction and used his communication skills to create a harmful American meme. Government is always evil. Private enterprise can do no wrong. All regulation is bad and should be ended. Polluters will inherently do the right thing. Enrons won’t ever exist. Wall Street will never take undue risks…

Reagan set us on the course to transfer wealth to the rich and powerful, begin to eliminate the middle class, and pile up massive debt. Before his election, we had been paying down the heavy WWII debt as a percent of GDP administration after administration. Reagan reversed that trend. He and George H. W. Bush quadrupled the national debt. Clinton raided social security and raised taxes and got it coming down again as a percent of GDP, but the “Don’t Tax, Just Spend” ideas of Reagan let George W. Bush blow that fiscal responsibility out of the water and double the National Debt once again.

Now all the debt that Reagan’s Voodoo Economics began building is the Republican pretext to slash social programs, try to balance the budget on the backs of public education, the poor, the elderly, and the sick; and all so millionaires and billionaires can have another huge tax break. No thanks. Gmail is fine for me.

So we won’t be seeing any ETpro@reagan.com in the near future? It’s got a nice ring to it.

Why would someone want an email address with the name of one of the worst presidents ever attached to it? I thought Mike Reagan and Ronnie didn’t get along? Sounds like pure stupidity to me.

johnpowell@aol.com is embarrassing enough.

Because Ronald Reagan was a shitty president and a cancer on the entire world. He fucked up California’s schools and then decided to fuck up the entire nation.

I can never tell when your joking or not @AstroChuck.

$39.95 is $39.95 too much

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies :: This time it is safe to assume that AC isn’t joking.

I wouldn’t have anything to do with something that had Reagan on it (Unless I had to land at an airport with his name on it.) But I do enjoy this joke: When the Reagans made love, why was Nancy always on top? Because Ronnie could only fuck up!

For pity’s sake, nobody tell my grandmother about this. She’s likely to spend that $40 on a worthless email account instead of slipping it into my birthday card.

Hey, common now, if it wasn’t for Reagan, I wouldn’t have been able to recently spend $200,000 to buy my son a new Porsche 911 for his birthday.

I’ll give you some free information without the need of signing up.

Reagan was on the right track, but should’ve taken it further.

See, as long as taxes are mandatory, you will continue to see loopholes and tax avoidances.

The way around this is to eliminate taxation all-together. One should be allowed to make his/her own decisions where to spend/invest his/her money. Any alternative is thievery, and by definition, tyrannical, as it removes one’s right to choose freely.

I do not want to see the government deduct money from my income in order to fund programs that I do not use nor wish to support those that do. If taxation would cease to exist then all programs would be shut down and the government would lose its monopoly. This would allow entrepreneurs to step in and provide a service. The difference here is that you pay for the service when you need it and only for yourself (choice), as oppose to how it’s now, where you’re paying for it constantly and at the same time supporting the freeloading parasites (no choice).

If one wishes to create and support a program, then do it on your own accord, but don’t use the government as a tool to bully those who disagree with your “objective moral absolutes”.

To those who say empathy, I say apathy.

@lawkes Wow..Didn’t Reagan leave us a huge deficit? 2.6 trillion wow. I guess he was on the right track. I say that in my best sarcastic tone. I always wonder about these “new” people who say inflammatory things.
Most of the time I think it is a regular member stirring things up.

@lawkes “This would allow entrepreneurs to step in and provide a service.”

Like Blackwater?

@lawkes “The difference here is that you pay for the service when you need it and only for yourself (choice), as oppose to how it’s now, where you’re paying for it constantly and at the same time supporting the freeloading parasites (no choice).”

Is there any middle ground between “freeloading parasites” and “the filthy rich”? And what do you suggest be done about each?

@lawkes “If one wishes to create and support a program, then do it on your own accord, but don’t use the government as a tool to bully those who disagree with your “objective moral absolutes”.

OK let’s not use the government to bully each other. Agreed.

Now between the rich and poor, which one is more capable/probable of bullying the other by their “own accord”?

Obviously if you lower taxes then there is not enough money coming in to support the amount of programs that exist. It is inevitable that a huge deficit would emerge, however, when you’re stripped of your freedom of choice, one stops caring about the amount of impact one action will cause and sooner focus on liberation.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

Any service. The free market works its self out.

Oh you edited, I didn’t see.

You’re either a freeloader or you’re not. If taxation is eliminated, then the freeloader can no longer make use and be sheltered by these programs which will build an incentive for him/her to work, or move to a more suitable environment where he/she may be sheltered.

I don’t have any justification to answer who’s more capable/probable to bully.

Without taxation, the feudal lords could rise up with their own armies. Call them corporations if you wish. The rich and powerful would promote their private will upon the people that took the jobs to serve their inclinations. National security would be gone completely.

How do the destitute “move to a more suitable environment where he/she may be sheltered.” without the resources to do so. Who determines what is suitable for them?

Maybe they can use a percent of the profit from this venture to begin to pay down the debt he created.

Sounds fair to me!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

One’s problems are not my problems, just like my problems are not your problems. The destitute decide what environment is more suitable for them.

Alright, this is discussion is heading towards a long philosophical premise. The scenario you brought up is answered here Anarcho-Capitalism as well as any other questions you may have. I have nothing further to add.

If you disagree with this alternative, then by all means, share your idea’s on how to bring back freedom of choice inside of government system.

@lawkes Is there some reason you don’t move to someplace more suitable for you? Someplace without the ‘tyranny’ of government? Surely such a place must be a utopia. ~

@augustlan,

Did people move before the current social programs were created? No. They stayed, voted, lobbied, and caused change through the courts. Likewise, the same would apply to me and those that share my beliefs. I would rather vote, lobby, and cause change through the courts.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not actually complaining as much as I’m arguing the principle. Personally, thanks to the loopholes and various tax avoidances, I really have nothing to complain about. However, on the principle, I’m offering a resolution to the complaints people have towards Reagan, the rich, and the general taxation situation.

@lawkes it seems that you and the Tea Party people are promoting government by sociopath for sociopaths. I think that you read too many Ayn Rand novels.

I would like to second @ETpro answer (great answer by the way). There is no way that I would pay 40 dollars to be associated with the president that was the author of the current destruction.

I haven’t signed up for it because Ronald Reagan was an idiot, who didn’t follow the philosophy he preached, and instilled an idea in 30 years (and more to come I’m sure) of conservatives that government is evil and can do no good, and should be limited and withdrawn at every turn. We had more economic downturns in his presidency than the 50 years before his presidency, and more in the 20 since than the history of our nation.

That and why would I pay a pretty obvious scam to get money.

I stole @AstroChuck‘s credit card info and signed up! You can now reach me at
cruiser@reagan.com ;)

@lawkes I am not happy about freeloaders either, but I just wonder what percentage of people, what percentage of the federal government is supporting freeloaders? And, I am not talking about everyone on welfare, because many of them have temporarily hit hard times, and I want to help them, and I assume since it is temporary they were paying into the system previously, and are going to again. I like the safety net. And, I am not talking about social security, because they paid in too. Sure, we need to run the programs responsibly, fiscally responsable, but that is another topic.

What about the money spent by government for research? Just get rid of all of that? They fund a lot of private research for medical advancement. Government is helping fund the Gates Foundation, which seems to be making real strides in their goals. Government and private business working together has beena good combination in many istances. It does not have to be either or.

Your suggesstion that capitalism solves everything just isn’t so. I consider myself a capitalist, but when there is no competition the free market can, if there is a lack of integrity in my opinion, behave like theives. Take Memphis Airport. Almost all nonstop flights are offered by Delta, they basically own the airport. We are the 2nd most expensive airport in the nation now, we were number 11 a few years ago. They charge what they can get away with, people have little other choice.

Much of the third world has business owners who do as they will, make large profits, and barely pay workers a decent wage. What made America great was paying people a good wage, and growing our middle class. It seems government and unions had to be around to make that happen. And, I actually am antiunion, but if the business owners are going to treat employees horribly, then they get what they get, they created the backlash. And, the business many times is gouging the consumer as illustrated in my airline example.

And, what about public education (which @AstroChuck touched on, and I think he is dead serious in his comment). Name me a prosperous industrialized country that does not have decent public education? Where is the proof in history that it works to privatize all education?

By the way I have three Porsches in my garage, part of the reason is making a good salary, and also because I keep my own fiscal house in order. I can pay a little more in taxes and still afford my Porsches. I hope no one is spending their last pennies on Porsches.

@Ron_C,

I think you should stop practicing amateur psychology.

@JLeslie,

Apply your points and questions to what is written here Anarcho-Capitalism and you will get your answers. I honestly have nothing further to add to what has already been written. Just see how the principles deal with the issues you brought up, and if you’re still unsatisfied, then by all means, tell me your idea’s on how to reinstate freedom of choice into a government system. What I mean by this, is to allow me to have full control over my money.

@lawkes You can have full control of your money in Somalia (until a warlord robs you), perhaps you should move there and experience your ideal political system in practice.

I don’t need to move there to know that it’s working in practice because the research has been done for me. See here Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

All you need to do is have patience because this transition from government to no government takes time, and since this is a fairly recent change, it requires more time to function efficiently, however, as the data shows, there is a lot of progress, thus showing the theory to be working in practice.

Please don’t manipulate my words, as I’ve never mentioned idealism in anything that I’ve written.

@lawkes that article is half a decade old, and I don’t think Somalia has shown much improvement since. Just some interesting stats:

37.8% of the population above the age of 15 is able to read and write.
Somalia has the 5th highest infant mortality rate in the world.
Has one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the world (213 out of 222).

It’s interesting that you find this country as an example that the USA should aspire to.

@gorillapaws,

2006 is not that “old”, and if the data has been showing an upward trend of progression there is no reason to assume it would stop.

If you claim Somalia has not shown much improvement since, then present the data.

Now, you show me some negative statistics about the country, which you didn’t provide sources to, and even if it’s true, you seemed to have missed the part where I wrote a transition from a government to a non-government system takes time to develop. It’s a given that there will be a lot of problems during this transition and it will take time to resolve them.

@lawkes Source

“you seemed to have missed the part where I wrote a transition from a government to a non-government system takes time to develop.”
No I didn’t, it’s why I mentioned that your article was half a decade old. That’s a significant amount of time. How long do you give a country were people are suffering and dying before you declare it a failed system? 5 years of misery is plenty in my book.

@gorillapaws,

What evidence do you have to say that the progress stopped?

There are plenty of people who’re suffering and dying in our country as well, what’s your point? You should read some American history to know about suffering and dying.

You’re not showing me how a government system is more ideal then a non-government one, nor are you giving me an alternative solution that will protect freedom of choice.

I can’t believe we arguing about Somalia.

Here is what I know from history, true America had it’s own bloody wars, and troubled times, just like other countries. When Somalia finally gets to a point that the majority of the population lives more safely and is better educated, the government will be bigger, have more influence and be less corrupt, and taxes will be higher.

Again, where is an example of a large country with an educated, safe, prosperous population that has a small to no government, and no taxes

A few things to mention.

1. I’m pretty sure most of you here support a womens right to abort, yet hypocritically you don’t support one’s right to choose when it comes to money.

2. Two people asked and mentioned that I should leave this country if I don’t like the policy, yet you wouldn’t say this to homosexuals, or to slaves back in the day?

Historically, a fully free market has never existed. Most “free market” economies are “mixed.”

Hong Kong has the most economic freedom, nearly a perfect 10. This is more proof that the theory works in practice once allowed.

Economy of Hong Kong

“Hong Kong’s effective tax rates are among the lowest in the world. Individuals are taxed either progressively, between 2 percent and 17 percent on income adjusted by deductions and allowances, or at a flat 15 percent of gross income, depending on which liability is lower. The top corporate income tax rate is 16.5 percent. Unincorporated businesses enjoy a lower rate of 15 percent. Excise duties on beer and wine were removed in 2008. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 13 percent.”
Hong Kong 2011

“In the OECD’s international assessment of student performance, Hong Kong has been ranked one of the highest scorers in 2003 and 2006. In 2003, 15-year-olds from Hong Kong came first in mathematics, and third in science, worldwide.”

Those that answer your question? The theory works and it works well.

Yeah, Hong Kong, and Singapore for that matter are supposed to be very government friendly towards business, easy to do business there. I think Hong Kong has a flat income tax, which I generally agree with. I am pretty sure their public schools are ranked very well, they have a mixture of public, private, and I think private subsidies by government funds. Pretty sure the majority of their hospitals are public. Singapore has housing for everyone, not sure about Hong Kong. Singapore feels that not having to worry about basic necessities like shelter can allow a person to focus on being productive, I am pretty sure it works for them, they have little crime, probably due partly to this pholosophy and their strict laws and punishments. Hong Kong is more homogenious than the US. Honk Kong is primarily Buddhist if I remember correctly, maybe that helps people do business with more integrity? I don’t know.

No clue, you’re getting into philosophy now.

The point was to show that it’s nearly ideal as a free market can get and it’s doing really good. One can only imagine how good it would be if there was complete free reign.

@lawkes Didn’t you start out bitching about taxes? Everything counts. You cannot just look at one thing, it is very complex. We are much much bigger than Hong Kong. The bigger the more complex in managing the country and its people.

Actually, I made it clear that I’m arguing the principle rather then personally bitching about it, although I do hate any form of tax. As I said, I personally take advantage of the loopholes and other avoidances to pay little tax. Had I not been able to do this, I would be a lot more upset.

My response here was to present an argument to those that bitch about how bad Reagan and the rich are when those that are bitching, are just as guilty of being bad, aka, supporting theft – tyranny.

I knew you were still going to dismiss the evidence. The theory says nothing about the size of the people nor the management as it proposes no management at all. The market handles everything, not the government.

Now, provide me evidence for your assertions or you’re just talking out of thin air.

The only time free markets go bad is when the government gets involved which is the case in America. If the government would leave the market alone, and that means no bailouts when asked, only then would the market work efficiently over time. This has nothing to do with the amount of people.

The last time the US had a “nearly” totally free market economy, it cannibalized itself and we ended up in the great depression.

The problem with capitalism is that its more or less a game, and left un-regulated, eventually someone wins.

You have to mix capitalism with more socialistic ideas, and find a healthy (but ever-changeable) mix of the two. Capitalism in its purest form will always fail, socialism in its purist form will always fail. Combined though, you end up with the United States…. the most powerful and economically powerful country in the history of the planet.

The way I understand it Hong Kong does not have any loopholes for income taxes. I remember now that it is not a flat tax, the percentage is higher the more you earn. But, lower or no Capital gains? I think no sales tax. I will provide some links when I get back. I need to leave my computer. People who talk like you tend to prefer sales tax over income tax, but I do not want to put words in your mouth.

I like the free market too, I just like some integrity also, and it does not always go hand and hand in America.

I’ll join the Q again later.

@JLeslie,

“between 2 percent and 17 percent on income adjusted by deductions and allowances, or at a flat 15 percent of gross income”

No, I repeat, I believe there should be no taxations. It’s my money and I will do what I want with it.

@JLeslie Another thing to keep in mind is the average quality of life in Hong Kong (or China all together for that matter). Many of those people make in 10 years what I made last year. They’re an emerging world power for sure, but so was the USSR and they had lines for food.

The government regulation and support of things in this country is what makes this country great.

What happened when the government didn’t regulate businesses to treat our environment right? Well an example would be the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland (a tributary of Lake Erie) catching on fire in 1969. Clean water, clean air, the EPA in general, keep our country livable and keeps businesses from destroying it. Though frankly they don’t go far enough.

My grandparents worked very hard their whole lives (they’re in their 70’s today). My grandfather was a dentist, who put himself through school working two jobs and going to school at night, whilst taking care of several children (aunts and uncles). They had a very successful practice for nearly 30 years and retired several years ago. When the economy crashed a few years ago their entire life savings, which had been placed into various stocks over the years, collapsed and went out the window. Without Social Security they would now be completely dependent upon my family. What kind of burden is that to place on a family? How is that a way to treat someone who worked so hard their whole life, contributed greatly to society and our country, and through a few bad investments is now left with nothing? That’s biting off your nose to spite your face.

Without government aid I would’ve never been able to afford college. Sure I could’ve landed myself a job working in some kind of factory or something, but how much more helpful am I today as a college educated Analytical Chemist, directing the flow of materials through a foundry that employs some 300 people? For that matter if it wasn’t for government provided grade schooling, how would I have even made it to college? My mother was a single mother who also worked two jobs, to support myself and my brother. She couldn’t have home schooled us despite her incredible intelligence. And hell even if she could’ve, what about all the other people out there who simply didn’t finish school themselves or aren’t educated enough to teach their children?

What about the roads we drive on? The mail we receive (did you know that UPS and Fedex will charge you a couple dollars to deliver the same letter that USPS delivers for 44 cents?)? The police and fire-fighters that protect us? The regulations that make it so auto manufacturers can’t sell us death machines? Regulations that keep banks from selling clearly bunk mortgages to people? How about the food safety regulators?

I could go on like this for hours…. But sufficive to say, government regulation is not always a bad thing, and taxation is needed in order to keep this country we have so great.

@tedd,

Actually, businessmen were misled by bank credit inflation to invest too much in higher-order capital goods, which could only be prosperously sustained through lower time preferences and greater savings and investment; as soon as the inflation permeates to the mass of the people, the old consumption-investment proportion is reestablished, and business investments in the higher orders are seen to have been wasteful. Businessmen were led to this error by the credit expansion and its tampering with the free-market rate of interest.

This ^ and the fact that Hong Kong is nearly a free market and succeeding immensely disproves what you just wrote.

Also, you leave out the facts about how much destruction still remains even with government “regulations” in play. Nit picking a specific tragedy and then applying as a standard to support a generalized statement is nonsensical.

Here is an example of what you’re doing, but in reverse. Here is why government regulations fail. Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

“Twenty-five were killed and 54 injured in the fire, trapped behind locked fire doors.”

@lawkes

“If you claim Somalia has not shown much improvement since, then present the data.”

Where’s the data that Somalia has improved since then?

@lawkes I didn’t suggest you should move, merely asked why you don’t, since you are much better able to do so than the poor (who you suggest should be the ones to move).

@Brian1946,

The data is updated on the CIA Factbook as of april 2011, plus, the entire point was to show that the data, whether older or not, is showing that the system is working. Science works the same way. The data is good until other data comes along to say otherwise.

@augustlan,

Any person above the poverty line is “much more able to move”, but that doesn’t mean he/she should, especially since I’ve family roots going back a long way here, and the fact that I’ve my job here, my home, my family, relatives, friends, along with the real estate property that I own should be enough of a reason to stay. .

Keep in mind, America is the lesser of evils at the time being and I’m currently not being affected by the system, I’m just arguing the principle.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the poor move, I’m saying that if taxation is eliminated, then naturally, the poor will either have to work like everyone else, find a charity organization to shelter them, or if either option fails, then it’s only natural for the poor to find an environment that will shelter them.

@Ron_C. Thanks.

@lawkes “I personally take advantage of the loopholes and other avoidances to pay little tax. Had I not been able to do this, I would be a lot more upset.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the rich the ones who put these loopholes in place so they can benefit from them in ways the rest of us cannot?

And a specific question. How would you feel about no income tax whatsoever for anyone, but sales tax in the 30% range for everyone, rich and poor alike, with no loopholes possible under any circumstances?

You want a $200,000.00 Porsche for your son? Then be my guest. Is there any reason that your responsibility for 30% sales tax on it is any more or less important to our nation than my 30% sales tax on my tooth paste and dog food?

@lawkes “The destitute decide what environment is more suitable for them.”

Deciding… and having the ability to enforce that decision are two entirely different capacities. My experience reminds me that the rich can enforce their decisions much easier than the poor.

@lawkes “One’s problems are not my problems, just like my problems are not your problems.”

Now hold on here for a sec… What business school teaches that? This is the epitome of a false sense of entitlement. Did you have any problems during the financial crisis? Were you worried about anything… just a little? If so, have you shared your concerns with others… perhaps rich friends? Did they respond, “Your problems are yours and yours alone to deal with”?

You don’t have to answer that, but I would greatly appreciate you answering this important question…

A tornado slices through the southern states. With no taxation, and no government resources to assist in recovery, WHAT INCENTIVE would an entrepreneur have to invest in the recovery? And if your home and entire life were swept away by that tornado, how would you react to them saying that “Your problems are yours and yours alone”?

@lawkes How would you describe a person that thinks and acts on strictly his own self interest with total disregard for anyone else? Here’s a description: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Look the leading neocon supporters of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and majority of their “well known” supporters. Even Ronald Reagen, despite his charm, showed most of those traits. I think all of the Ayn Rand crowd had the same problem. It appears that “free market capitalists” work on the premise that greed is good and greed is the only motivator in a successful economy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

Who create the loopholes? I have no idea. Who creates all the legal concepts?
Where does it say it was the rich who created it?

If the rich really created these loopholes, then as I pointed out earlier, it is with good reason. The reason is that their freedom of choice is being violated and they’re tired of it. Who violates their freedom of choice? Liberals. A liberal supports a system where one has no choice when it comes to monetary issues. This is called legal thievery which pretty much makes it tyranny. How does one fight tyranny? Well, through any means necessary, in this case its loopholes – fighting fire with fire. See, a liberal complains about how republicans attempt to instill their moral values upon everyone, and how these moral values violate rights, but the liberal values are doing the exact same thing. A liberal’s moral value is to help (empathy) which explains all these social programs, but I do not agree with their moral values, and do not wish to support them with my money, so why is it alright to violate my right to choose? There is no middle ground between republicans and liberals. All it’s, is moral values just in opposite directions, however, they equally continue to violate rights.

As to your sale tax question, I say absolutely not. There shouldn’t be any tax period. There is absolutely no reason why one should not be allowed to do as he/she chooses with their money.

I already bought my son the car, but the point was to say that had it not been for Reagan’s idea’s, my $200,000 would have gone to government programs that I do not partake in nor wish to support other people that do, and thus my son would have been out of a Porsche. Or heck, if it wouldn’t be the car, it would something else.

As for decision ability, your experience is subjective which cannot be set as a standard.

I had zero problems during the recession. I’m a business man (wholesaling) and yes, I depend on the customer to buy my product/service, but the type of goods and services that I offer, you cannot live without. I specialize in medicine and food. Was I worried? Not at all.

Now, if the situation went bad for me, or in the case of your tornado scenario, I would go to a charity organization, or I would go around asking whoever I know, or strangers to help me out, but here is the punch-line, they don’t have to do anything. If they want to help, they can, if the answer is “it’s not my problem” then it is their CHOICE. In case of taxation, choice is gone. I’m forced to help someone, and not only that, but there are so many people who’re frauds, that who the hell knows if the tax money actually goes to good use.

Do not pass moral judgments as if you know what the right answer is. Again, you say empathy, I say apathy.

@Ron_C,

A person who acts in self-interest is called selfish, not a sociopath. So tell me, what does selfishness have to do with good or bad?

Now, if you want the science of it, we’re all selfish (self-pleasure) in everything we do. For example, when you jump into a burning building to save someone, you think you did a “selfless” act, right? Wrong. What drive caused you to act? How did it make you feel after you saved the person?

@lawkes of course we are all selfish but to use your example. A sociopath wouldn’t jump into a burning building to save anyone, not even his own mother unless he was assured of a certain gain.

Look at this list and tell me it doesn’t describe the core neocons like Gingrich and the Koch brothers: It also explains why the right will never nominate people like Romney or Huckabee, they mostly believe what they say and they have a modicum of empathy for others.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

I’ve read your link, no need to paste it. I do not agree that the right wingers are sociopath’s. It’s too much of a severe label and it’s simply unjustifiable from a scientific sense.

Look, I can do the same thing. All liberals suffer from Narcissistic personality disorder

Looks like a pretty accurate description of a liberal.

@lawkes at narcissists can empathize with people even if it all comes back to themselves.

Who will pay for the public services in your tax-less world @lawkes?
______________

I don’t want to misinterpret you lawkes, but from what I gather, you seem to believe that humans have no innate accountability to one another, or any animal for that matter. Is this a proper assessment of your views?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies in lawkes and Rand’s world there would be no public services. You would be responsible for your own fuel and water or buy it personally from one of the other sociopaths that managed to enslave the lesser humans.

@Ron_C,

The point is labeling things is petty and unjustifiable. It’s simply uncalled for. You’re attempting to shame me for my moral values because you think yours is superior which is what a right winger does with the bible.

Your value of empathy is no greater then my apathy. You don’t have a right to judge me nor violate my rights.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

There is no public service. There are only entrepreneurs that compete, just like it is now with all business’s. A business provides a service and you pay for it. The difference is that you pay for it when you need it and you pay for it for yourself, rather then paying for it constantly, and paying for freeloaders.

That’s correct. I’ll explain it a little better. Picture a time before government. You had to hunt to survive and you had to defend yourself. If you were unable to catch a meal you went hungry, if you were unable to catch meals for a long enough time, you’re dead, unless of course you beg someone to catch a meal for you, or to share. Similarly, if you encounter a lion, and you’re unable to defend yourself, then you’re dead, unless of course you beg, or yell out for someone to save you. If the person wants to help you, he/she will, if not, you’re dead. You can’t force anyone to do anything, it’s simply tyrannical if you do.

I would just like to repeat, that if you feel this need to help those that are weak, then no one is stopping you. Go ahead and do it. Go and gather people that will support you and open up a charity organization.

The problem is, you don’t do that. Instead you force everyone to contribute to your charity organizations. If I want to help a poor person, I will take him/her home and give him a meal. I won’t force you to help my cause.

If I want to gather up some money to help a person get a procedure done, I go and ask, but I don’t make a law for everyone to donate to me.

@lawkes I am not trying to “shame” you. I am simply pointing out that a strictly Any Rand sort of universe is unworkable over a long period of time. The ability to amass wealth was not the basis on which or for which this country was founded. It was for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter was unique from all previous constitutions or theories on which countries were founded. They also supported the common good.

When you take away happiness, and no longer provide for the common good you end up with a feudal system where the king or lord decides how his people are treated and what they need to keep them from revolting. Personally, I do not want to be controlled by a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. If too much capital is allowed to accumulate with one person or one corporation, democracy soon disappears. We are seeing that today. We have all three branches controlled by people and corporations that care, only, about their interests. There may be democracy among the very rich and the very connected but is is diminishing daily for the rest of us.

Only a sociopath’s thinking could see this as a good thing. By the way, the least democratic principles are supported by the most religious of us. Isn’t it strange that they want all business rules, health, and environmental regulations removed at the same time that they demand the control of our bodies, our minds, and who we love?

I see @lawkes. You think society should devolve, rather than evolve. I’d bet a plucked chicken that you think survival of the fittest is the perfect natural law. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but my comments will proceed with that premise.
______________

I fully recognize that even survival of the fittest natural law can take care of the ailing. Wolves provide for wounded mates and cubs as do most other animal societies. Birds feed their babies before kicking them out-ta’ nest and all that monkey picking beetles off each other makes life grand.

But I have a few problems with that which may tempt your reply.

First (but not foremost), is that humans are not animals. To set our humanity above and beyond animals requires abstract thinking beyond the self or immediate tribe. Humanity is working (evolving) its way beyond the self or the immediate tribe. At this point in our history, we look overseas to contribute assistance, educate, repair, uplift fellow humans that are not part of our immediate tribe. We do this with no expectation of reward. We do this specifically BECAUSE we are no longer in pure survival mode.

A turn towards anarchy would force a return to pure survival mode, thereby diluting the probability and incentive to assist those in need elsewhere. The human condition is defined by separating ourselves away from and above the animal kingdom. Notions of compassion and empathy (even apathy), hope, glory would be lost to the devolution of survival mode.

Not to mention the Arts would suffer tremendously, thereby decreasing further abstract expression, thereby lowering the intellectual heights of the philosophies.

I want a world of smarter people, not a world of hungry angry dumb ones.

Why should we care? I’m glad you asked. This leads to my second point.

You know how fond I am of code… right? I believe that genetics are a perfect model for humanity to base culture and society upon. In this model, the entire body is designed to look out for itself. Humanity, as the Body of Humanity, understands the necessity for there to be an involuntary mechanism which keeps heart beating and air breathing. It does not wait for volunteers to show up at the scene of a severe wound to repair the damage. Adreneline and white blood cells don’t have to worry about feeding themselves before being called to duty repairing damage far away from them.

The body functions this way because what’s good for the whole is good for the individual.

Cells that don’t react to the benefit of the full body are considered cancerous. Yes, it is the cancer cells that are only concerned with themselves. Kind of like a person can have a cancerous character which feeds on the others at the expense of their demise. I’m glad that normal cells are present to fight off these detrimental mutations.

@lawkes

“You don’t have a right to judge me nor violate my rights.”

In the US, he has a first amendment right to judge you, as long as that judgment isn’t slanderous or libelous, and yet you’re claiming that you have the right to violate his freedom of speech.

How free is a society that denies the right of someone to express an opinion about you, or does your concept of “freedom” only apply to you?

@Ron_C,

The only reason you have all this “unfairness” from the rich is because your system was unfair to them. Return our right of choice, and you will end this “unfairness” from the rich. Otherwise, it’s fire with fire, and you will lose because money speaks louder then words.

As for whether on not my alternative offer works or not, it never had a chance to work, but as I’ve provided a few examples of a near ideal state, it is working very well – 40 years and counting. Read the anachro-captialism link that I provided before and apply your concerns to the principles. This alternative is the complete opposite of the scenarios you brought fourth. Again, if you’re unconvinced, then please tell me how do you resolve the right to choose violations?

I’ll simply ask you. Do I owe you anything? Must I pay for your expenses? Do you expect me to pay for your kids education?

If your answer is no, then why do you support a system that makes me pay for all your stuff?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

I’m only arguing choice here. Survival of the fittest was just to illustrate the freedom of choice.

You see, your theory of what would happen under anarchy doesn’t work, because I’ve shown here examples of a nearly free market society, and for the past 40 years it has been climbing into the top rankings of the world. Have you read the link I sent you? It sounds like you didn’t.

Part II of what you wrote is interesting, but does your belief mean that it’s the correct way?

I think you’re over complicating this. I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Ron.

Do I owe you anything? Must I pay for your expenses? Do you expect me pay for your kids education?

If your answer is no, then why do you support a system that makes me pay for all your stuff?

@Brian1946,

I’m speaking philosophically, not politically. On a philosophical level, since morality is subjective, one shouldn’t have a right to judge another when there is no justification. It’s uncalled for.

You also forgot to mention, the second part. He does no have a right to violate my right of choice.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

This is in reply to your part II.

Webster dictionary – Parasite

1. person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery

2. an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

3. something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

“Examples of PARASITE – Many diseases are caused by parasites.”

@lawkes

“On a philosophical level, when morality is subjective, one shouldn’t have a right to judge another when there is no justification.”

When morality is subjective, one has the right to make a subjective statement about you, even if you feel that there isn’t any justification, because the justification is subjectively formed. You aren’t the ultimate authority as to what’s fair and although you might think it does, that doesn’t constitute a free or fair society.

What laws or forces would you use against those who “violated” your “right” not to be judged?

“Read the anachro-captialism link….”

In your anarcho (not anachro as you posted, although that’s more presently appropriate)- capitalist paradise, would there be any laws against “violating” your philosophical “rights”?

“You also forgot to mention, the second part. He does no have a right to violate my right of choice.”

The right of choice isn’t absolute: you don’t have the right to choose to do whatever you want to, without regarding the rights of who might consequentially suffer. E.g., you don’t have a right to choose to drive the wrong way down a one-way street.

“The only reason you have all this “unfairness” from the rich is because your system was unfair to them. Return our right of choice, and you will end this “unfairness” from the rich. Otherwise, it’s fire with fire, and you will lose because money speaks louder then words.”

The coefficient of wealth differential has increased since Reagan. Are you saying that an even greater gap between the rich and those who aren’t would be fair? How would increasing this gap be fairer?

If a situation exists where money speaks louder than words, then that is the opposite of being “unfair” to the rich. What would be fairer- no freedom of speech except for the rich? That wouldn’t be freedom, that would be plutocracy; that would be like pre-1789 France.

I have twice tried to post a long answer and it got zapped by my ipad! Here is my las attempt, which will be much shorter than the previous ones, because I might have a nervous breakdown.

@lawkes You have probably heard of John Stossel. He is a less government free market guy. He had a guest on his show who explained why rule of law and trust in government and government documents is so important for a strong economy and prosperity. The video is here. So, some taxes have to be paid, because a certain amount of government is necessary just or this.

Free market works for the consumer unless a product or service is only offered by one entity, then they can rob the consumer blind. Take Delta airlines. I was just looking for a ticket roundtrip Detroit to Memphis. Memphis, is practically owned by Delta (it is the hub airline in Detroit also) and from what I understand Memphis just went from 11th most expensive airport in the nation to number 2. Right now 2 week in advance non-stop is $978! Fuck them. They are the only non-stop. Three week advance $278, still crazy high for a 2 hour flight. Gouging! They are asking for government intervention in my opinion. Probably mostly businessmen pay that really high fare, and business will overlook unreasonable prices for a long time in my experience if they are making money. Eventually the bubble bursts though.

Somalia does not have a US embassy. It is a country Americans are warned not to go. Violence, kidnapping, lack of education. Why is that country an example at all? When they turn around and have great prosperity, health, economy, they will likely have a better government with more control. My guess is Hong Kong doesn’t tolerate criminals very well, even minor infractions. I would also guess Hong Kong has. Low crime rate, goodness knows Singapore does.

And, yes, you have to pay for other peoples children to go to school, or we become the third world. One of the consistent things I find around the world is the countries that are civilized and have the most stable economies over time have good public education. Now, I am all for educating people not to have children, paying for their birth control, and for abortions, but the latter two take tax money. The, former, education, can be built into the public education if the Christians can handle birth control conversation in our schools.

@lawkes Looks like Hong Kong’s poverty rate is growing and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. I remind you not just to look at mean averages. Might be great to do business in Hong Kong, and to live there if you are rich, but wouldn’t you rather live in a place where everyone can live a decent, clean, prosperous life? Hong Kong seems to be moving in a direction where that will be less possible, just like America has been.

America is still considered to be a good place to do business, stable economy, wealthy and prosperous, yet we have many people struggling right now. What is interesting to me on the table on the link is the trade deficit in America.

@JLeslie @Brian1946 @RealEyesRealizeRealLies @Ron_C

You guys realize you’re just feeding the troll at this point right? The guys deluded and nothing you’re going to say is going to change the narrative he’s got in his head.

@Brian1946,

Yes, we all have a right to make subjective statements and judge one’s morals, hence liberals vs republicans
.
@Brian1946 wrote, “What laws or forces would you use against those who “violated” your “right” not to be judged?”

See this is why I told you to read the link for all your questions. As the link states, ”in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.”

The right of choice was in regards to money, not driving the wrong way on the street. As the constitution states, the power or scope to act as one pleases. Individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences.

I think you just twisted everything I said. I said, if choice is returned, which means taxation becomes a choice rather than an obligation, you will no longer have the rich paying zero taxes while the middle class pays. What you will have is only you and those that wish to support the programs will pay for them, since it’s your idea to have these programs.

I said the unfairness you see right now is deliberate. The rich are fighting back against your mandatory taxation. They fight back by dominating the middle class and the poor. I never said money speaks louder than words, is fair, I said it’s necessary in order to fight back against you, at least until taxation becomes a choice.

@JLeslie,

As for your airline example, this is only happening because of the government. There are also only a few companies that control our food supply as well, the question is how it came this way thanks to government involvement. In a free market system, you would never see a monopoly, hence why I asked you to read the principles in the link. Here, read this,
Fear of Monopoly

As for Somalia, I repeat again, read some American history about the suffering and violence. What person in their right mind would go to a country in midst of a transition? Somalia will not likely have a government with more control, because as the research shows, they’re prospering a lot better without one. They’re transitioning from a government to a non-government, not the other way around. Why would you want to go to a country during a transition? Of course the times will be bad as with any other countries history. America is no different, yet you make it different.

As for Hong Kong and Singapoor, exactly, the data stands. They’re growing in to the top world ranking and they have a nearly free market. This blows holes in all your examples. It works and it works well.

And you still ask why the rich continue to pray on people like you? They’re not going to pay for your bills or anyone else’s, get over yourself. Can’t you see that you’re losing? Your public programs are slowly but surely getting busted up, the rich will continue to pay zero taxes, liberty is getting reinstated. Also, I’ve walked into a public school system, I nearly vomited. Might as well be monkey’s throwing feces at each other.

As for the poor in Hong Kong, read this The Free Market in Hong Kong

I never said America was bad, I said America needs improvement. The market is fairly free here. The taxation needs work.

@tedd,

Interesting, you couldn’t even accurately explain the great depression, and I’m the troll, I’m “deluded”? This is the typical logical fallacy attack. If you don’t have anything clever to say, then learn to say silent. Adults are talking.

@lawkes lol .... troll troll troll your boat…...

@lawkes Right, I am not thrilled with the America of the past. Thank God the federal government told the Arkansas governor to go fuck himself and sent down troops to let those nine black students go to school. Federal government has stepped in to uphold the constitution at times when the states stomped all over it. You might be able to argue that it was state government screwing it up, but in most cases it is the people who are closely influencing the local governments. I am sure many plantation owners were mighty fine happy with the southern economy and their lifestyle.

And, why do you say the rich are praying on people like me? I have the three porsches remember? And, the nice big house. Own everything outright, no debt, and money to save. I don’t consider myself wealthy, but I do not struggle.

I know you are not saying America is bad, but you ail to look at the big picture. You are selfish, greedy, and fail the golden rule test. I am not looking to redistribute wealth through taxes. I want a balanced budget, I hate being in debt on a micro or macro level, and I want people paid well, everyone counts. The guy who sweeps the floors every day, and does a good job, should be able to have a roof over his head in a safe neighborhood and eat. What if that were your child? Wouldn’t you want him to have dignity for work ethic, and be able to live a decent life? We don’t do that always as a society. Working has to make sense, not selling drugs, not stealing, not living on the dole.

Back in the seventies the auto manufacturers were making a fortune. Profit was unbelievable. Then the union said, we want a piece too, and wound up getting higher wages and benefits. So many things could have happened that would have shown greater integrity. One, the manufacturers failed to care about making cars as well and as safe as the Japanese, so they eventually began to lose market share. They could have not given outrageous sums of money to their executives, and not made quite so much profit, and allowed wholesale and retail costs to be lower to the consumer to compete better against the Japanese. They also could have paid their employees a little better, and kept the unions at bay. Instead it became a stupid battle, where the unions got out of control too, acting likes its’ own corporation. That was not the government, the private sector in that case did not respond to market pressures, they stuck to their old way of doing things. I guess you could argue that is their own problem in the end, so they lose business, and we should let them fail ( which in some ways I agree) but it is catastrophic for our country economically. But, it just proves business can be selfish, too greedy, and hurt themselves and others in the process. We can do better.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are wealthy, and they can see the unfairness in the tax system, and know higher taxes for them will not hurt their spending, or giving.

I just want to know where do you live? What state? What city?

@tedd yeah, I know. I am just about to give up anyway.

@JLeslie,

Again, you give me no counter evidence to say that Somalia is breaking down. As of April 2011, it’s prospering and the free market is fixing it’s problems over time. The research shows the trend to be growing. You can further see this working in Hong Kong and Singapore. Either you provide me evidence to say otherwise, or you’re simply using fallacious arguments.

“You”, was meant as “you” – the social program supporters, the tax supporters. It is you who’s is selfish and greedy. You take advantage of other people to achieve your own goals. Your system preys on the rich. You’ve failed the golden rule. Where do you come up with this standard of living anyways? What religious doctrine are you quoting?

My wants are not your wants, do you understand this? I don’t owe you anything. The difference is my wants don’t infringe upon anyone, yours do. That’s called selfish and taking advantage.

How hypocritical of you all. A women has a right to abort her child, yet you have no right to your money. You preach how the government should mind their own business among consenting adults, and then you force the government stick its head in businesses and customers. You have no shame.

You keep telling me you want things to be fair, yet you want to take advantage of the rich to achieve this fairness. When I want to help someone, I go and help them. I don’t ask the government to make a law so that everyone is obligated to help my cause by law.

Your idealism is not working practically. The tea party is proof of this. The tax loopholes is proof of this. The busting of unions and the cancellation of programs is proof of this. Unintended consequences, inflation is proof of this.

I’ve given you enough evidence that my alternative system works better then a government one, and is working really well when compared to other systems and history. I’ve asked you for an alternative and instead you give me the same answer, I have to support freeloaders without giving me any data.

See the Webster’s dictionary of a parasite. You’re causing harm, not helping.

I live in Manhattan, New York City – Upper West Side

Looks like we’re done here.

What does buying your son a Porsche say to his ability to provide for himself rather than depending upon others to make life special?

I never said Somalia is breaking down.

Fine if you want to be done, I will oblige you. Bye bye.

@lawkes

“I never said money speaks louder than words, is fair, I said it’s necessary in order to fight back against you, at least until taxation becomes a choice.”

It’s good to see you admit that you can’t fight back without using an unfair tactic or unfair tactics.

“A women has a right to abort her child, yet you have no right to your money.”

Would you criminalize abortion in your anarcho-capitalist paradise?

You’re using a false equivalency with that comparison: an unwanted pregnancy ≠ paying a penny in taxes.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies,

First of all I brought my kids into this world, therefore, I’m responsible for them because it was my actions. Simple biological limitation don’t allow children to take care of themselves until a certain age. However, my oldest son, at age 14 received his working permit and has been working ever since (currently he’s 17), hence the car gift.

So, think of anything that I provide my children with, as gifts, or charity, but I make sure they’re able to provide for themselves at the same time.

@Brian1946,

How does one fight out of slavery with fair tactics?

Asking me if I would criminalize abortion in a free market, shows that you haven’t read anything about anarcho-capitalism. Please don’t ask me any more questions until you read the principles.

How is it false? My money is my money. A women’s body, is her body. Two consenting adults (homosexuals) is two consenting adults, like one businessman and one consumer are two consenting adults, and taxes are not pennies, it’s 30 percent which most liberals think is to little and should be double.

@lawkes Crap. Forgot to hit stop following here is a link for you @lawkes. Stat from 2006 taxes reported by the IRS. Top 400 earners in US pay an average of 17% in federal income tax. I assume you are not including local and state in your 30%.

I never said anything about the rich. I was implying regular folks.