dan i can't believe youre accusing someone else of being socialist. you are the most socialist person i know on here. youre worse than danny for christs sake.


fail.

I am advocating for an eventual, zero percent income tax on real persons except when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Public sector means of production are one method of ensuring infrastructure and labor are utilized more efficiently.

Subsidizing labor can provide better metrics on full employment of resources: a zero percent official unemployment rate implies full employment of resources in the market for labor. With full employment of resources in the market for labor, there is no economic reason why wages cannot out perform inflation on a longitudinal basis.

You would be more credible if you understood the argument.

Do you have a "danielpalos to English" dictionary?

I really don't think you even know what you're saying.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

What about the morals and ethics of continuing socialized discretionary spending on a drug war and claiming that we need to cut social spending? A more fiscally responsible position would advocate reducing discretionary, national and socialized, spending that does not provide for the general welfare.

I got that too. Whats a real person?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

If we were to draw an imaginary line somewhere, we could do it within the real person artificial person context. Usually, artificial persons can afford to have an entire accounting department help them conform to rational actor theory. However, this is also a hypothetical since there may not be any need to distinguish between the two.

glass houses dan-o

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

What about the morals and ethics of continuing socialized discretionary spending on a drug war and claiming that we need to cut social spending?

A more fiscally responsible position would advocate reducing discretionary, national and socialized, spending that does not provide for the general welfare.

Which argument are you claiming I am not understanding? Can you restate your point of view?

you said

I suggested that you consider the adage about people living in glass houses and the throwing od stones. Albiet in a condensed manner. I figured that was widely enough known that you would get my drift.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I cant tell if youre making fun of us or not.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

This is the argument that solicited my rebuttal: You may also have been "ensnared" into thinking that we cannot cut discretionary spending on socialist warfare-state economics while cutting social spending that can provide for the general welfare through socialist welfare-state economics. Our wars on abstractions are a form of less fiscally responsible, national and socialized, warfare-state public policies which are not enumerated in our Constitution as there is no provision for the common Offense, or the general Warfare.

You are welcome to look up any terms you may be unfamiliar with. Google works pretty well.

Why are you repeating yourself?

Do you have to bring up the drug war in almost every thread? Many people here are against the war on drugs, yet you constantly bring it up in almost every thread you post on. You also bring up paying people not to work and the general warfare in almost every thread. If you want to be taken seriously, it would help immensely if you stopped intentionally writing in obtuse and vague generalizations and actually spoke in clear, concise terms that are easy for anyone to understand.