41 Responses to “Following Up On Thoughtful Remarks From wallamaarif”

1. K
   May 14th, 2010 @ 2:55 am

   The idea that America is somehow less free today, when all 100% of adults are enfranchised

   Interesting definition for being “free”. 100 percent of adults voted in the Soviet Union too. Whereas a non land owner (and land was pretty damn cheap then) who couldn’t vote in early America had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now. Let’s see, hundreds of laws then, hundreds of thousands of laws now. Yep, same freedom, what’s the beef?

   . . but taxed at one of the lowest rates in modern world history,

   I take it “modern world history” is a euphemism for socialist welfare states. Since you seem to equate freedom with the democratically expressed will of the people, polls show that a large majority think we’re paying too much tax now. Sweet huh?

   . . than it was at its founding, when being born with the wrong skin color or genitalia consigned you to lifelong second-class status, but there was no income tax, is ludicrous on its face.

   This is tantamount to the argument that medical care in early America was barbaric and crude, so it’s ludicrous to want cheap effective health care now.

   “Progress” is not an ever more custodial state and an ever growing individual constraints. Real progress is the minimization of the state and the ability of the individual to achieve their potential.

2. K
   May 13th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

   The idea that America is somehow less free today, when all 100% of adults are enfranchised

   Interesting definition for being “free”. 100 percent of adults voted in the Soviet Union too. Whereas a non land owner (and land was pretty damn cheap then) who couldn’t vote in early America had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now. Let’s see, hundreds of laws then, hundreds of thousands of laws now. Yep, same freedom, what’s the beef?

   . . but taxed at one of the lowest rates in modern world history,

   I take it “modern world history” is a euphemism for socialist welfare states. Since you seem to equate freedom with the democratically expressed will of the people, polls show that a large majority think we’re paying too much tax now. Sweet huh?

   . . than it was at its founding, when being born with the wrong skin color or genitalia consigned you to lifelong second-class status, but there was no income tax, is ludicrous on its face.

   This is tantamount to the argument that medical care in early America was barbaric and crude, so it’s ludicrous to want cheap effective health care now.

   “Progress” is not an ever more custodial state and an ever growing individual constraints. Real progress is the minimization of the state and the ability of the individual to achieve their potential.

3. Adobe Walls
   May 14th, 2010 @ 3:40 am

   The left love to apply late 20th standards of equality to our 18th century founders. While slavery was becoming morally troublesome to many at that time, it was accepted the world over. The idea that holding Africans as property was morally indefensible did not translate to belief in their equality with white men. As K points out the right to vote doesn’t guarantee Liberty or freedom. It amazes me how the left concludes that more government intrusion financed by more taxes raised by penalizing the successful while enslaving the poor by making them dependent on government handouts meanwhile letting more “citizens” vote for politicians who completely ignore their express wishes makes our society more free.

4. Adobe Walls
   May 13th, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

   The left love to apply late 20th standards of equality to our 18th century founders. While slavery was becoming morally troublesome to many at that time, it was accepted the world over. The idea that holding Africans as property was morally indefensible did not translate to belief in their equality with white men. As K points out the right to vote doesn’t guarantee Liberty or freedom. It amazes me how the left concludes that more government intrusion financed by more taxes raised by penalizing the successful while enslaving the poor by making them dependent on government handouts meanwhile letting more “citizens” vote for politicians who completely ignore their express wishes makes our society more free.

5. nicholas
   May 14th, 2010 @ 4:59 am

   It would appear Wallamaarif is a blogger who has taken upon himself the task of making right the ill thinking of the world. Why does he blog, you ask?

   “Because people are stupid, and they say stupid things, and other people hear those things and repeat them, and they eventually become received wisdom. I realize that this has always gone on and that I should accept it, but I really, really have a hard time doing that.”

   Of course, he will claim that is the reason he called his blog “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills”, but please, we understand. Your point of view is that valuable insights shall gush forth from your intelligence to all the collective.

   It is a tad tiresome when some wordy lefty decides the time has come for him to hold forth on the wisdom of his lifetime of experience. It would seem there is no end to them.

   He does share the following:

   “For the record, I am not taking any pills of any kind on a regular basis, and definitely none that are “crazy,” ever.

   Most… reassuring.

   Wallamaarif has a blog consisting of two posts, with an archive that extends to May of 2010.

   Both posts ridicule people from the South for being …. stupid.

   Why does this website exist?

   ‘Because I need to vent, and my facebook friends don’t want to hear about it every time some dumbass says something that makes me go, “holy shit, you’re stupid.”

   Funny, I was thinking the same thing after a short tour of your blog. Couldn’t you just resume annoying your face book friends and call it a day?

   But if it is a Rule 4 effort he’s after, I have to give him a tip of the hat for that much.

6. nicholas
   May 13th, 2010 @ 11:59 pm

   It would appear Wallamaarif is a blogger who has taken upon himself the task of making right the ill thinking of the world. Why does he blog, you ask?

   “Because people are stupid, and they say stupid things, and other people hear those things and repeat them, and they eventually become received wisdom. I realize that this has always gone on and that I should accept it, but I really, really have a hard time doing that.”

   Of course, he will claim that is the reason he called his blog “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills”, but please, we understand. Your point of view is that valuable insights shall gush forth from your intelligence to all the collective.

   It is a tad tiresome when some wordy lefty decides the time has come for him to hold forth on the wisdom of his lifetime of experience. It would seem there is no end to them.

   He does share the following:

   “For the record, I am not taking any pills of any kind on a regular basis, and definitely none that are “crazy,” ever.

   Most… reassuring.

   Wallamaarif has a blog consisting of two posts, with an archive that extends to May of 2010.

   Both posts ridicule people from the South for being …. stupid.

   Why does this website exist?

   ‘Because I need to vent, and my facebook friends don’t want to hear about it every time some dumbass says something that makes me go, “holy shit, you’re stupid.”

   Funny, I was thinking the same thing after a short tour of your blog. Couldn’t you just resume annoying your face book friends and call it a day?

   But if it is a Rule 4 effort he’s after, I have to give him a tip of the hat for that much.

7. Adobe Walls
   May 14th, 2010 @ 12:27 am

   But who shall we ridicule? Y4E has lost his snap and his meds appear to be working as he no longer get’s as worked up as he used to.

8. Adobe Walls
   May 14th, 2010 @ 5:27 am

   But who shall we ridicule? Y4E has lost his snap and his meds appear to be working as he no longer get’s as worked up as he used to.

9. Estragon
   May 14th, 2010 @ 6:39 am

   Just one bone to pick with the post: “. . . and brought in the Federal Reserve Act, which un-elected, un-accountable cabal of thieves has supported large scale, systemic robbery from the people.”

   The monetary system has functioned on currency for nigh on to two centuries. There has to be some way to decide how much new currency needs to be printed each year (anyone with a nodding acquaintance with economics understands the alternative is rampant deflation, the surest way to kill an economy known to man; the rest should ignore this comment in its entirety – it will only give them a headache).

   Now, even from early days it was understood that allowing Congress or the Executive to decide this key question opened the entire financial system to direct political manipulation and was unacceptable.

   But for the first several years of its existence, the Federal Reserve didn’t have this power. Before the Fed gained the authority, WHO told the mint how much money to print?

   Why, surely all the learned economic theorists who rail against the Fed, blame it for all or many of our economic problems, and scream to go back to those halcyon days of yore before the Fed know this, don’t they? I mean, how can you want to go “back to the good old days” when you don’t know what the good old days were?

   The Fed assumed that role of setting the currency requirements out of necessity when the “good old days system” lost the one who had been doing it for years. It was J.P. Morgan, who was not only a private citizen, but the most prominent banking magnate in the world. Imagine giving Goldman Sachs the power today – who would support that? But it is the rough equivalent of “the good old days.”

   Morgan, by all accounts, by the way, did an outstanding job of it, never once putting his own financial interests ahead of the country’s economic needs.

   This simple test usually suffices, in a real world discussion, to separate the wheat from the chafe on the subject. But I’ve tipped it here, so every idiot gold bug who reads this now knows the answer to that key question.

   Of course, it doesn’t mean they know another darned thing about economics.

10. Estragon
    May 14th, 2010 @ 1:39 am

    Just one bone to pick with the post: “. . . and brought in the Federal Reserve Act, which un-elected, un-accountable cabal of thieves has supported large scale, systemic robbery from the people.”

    The monetary system has functioned on currency for nigh on to two centuries. There has to be some way to decide how much new currency needs to be printed each year (anyone with a nodding acquaintance with economics understands the alternative is rampant deflation, the surest way to kill an economy known to man; the rest should ignore this comment in its entirety – it will only give them a headache).

    Now, even from early days it was understood that allowing Congress or the Executive to decide this key question opened the entire financial system to direct political manipulation and was unacceptable.

    But for the first several years of its existence, the Federal Reserve didn’t have this power. Before the Fed gained the authority, WHO told the mint how much money to print?

    Why, surely all the learned economic theorists who rail against the Fed, blame it for all or many of our economic problems, and scream to go back to those halcyon days of yore before the Fed know this, don’t they? I mean, how can you want to go “back to the good old days” when you don’t know what the good old days were?

    The Fed assumed that role of setting the currency requirements out of necessity when the “good old days system” lost the one who had been doing it for years. It was J.P. Morgan, who was not only a private citizen, but the most prominent banking magnate in the world. Imagine giving Goldman Sachs the power today – who would support that? But it is the rough equivalent of “the good old days.”

    Morgan, by all accounts, by the way, did an outstanding job of it, never once putting his own financial interests ahead of the country’s economic needs.

    This simple test usually suffices, in a real world discussion, to separate the wheat from the chafe on the subject. But I’ve tipped it here, so every idiot gold bug who reads this now knows the answer to that key question.

    Of course, it doesn’t mean they know another darned thing about economics.

11. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 7:44 am

    Smitty, I appreciate the response. I’ll respond more fully when I’m not about to fall asleep.

    I’d like to clarify one thing to nicholas (#3), who has chosen to read the description of my less-than-a-week-old blog in as uncharitable manner as possible.

    Here’s the thing: I used to blog widely. I don’t anymore for a lot of reasons, all of which are personal.

    But I still find that the bug gets me now and again, like when I see something really, really stupid. When I see that, I occasionally feel the need to send it out to people I know (e.g. Facebook) and get all self-righteous about how idiotic “they” are.

    But I realize this isn’t productive, to the discussion or to my relationships with friends and relatives. So I started up a blog where I could put the dumbest crap I found on the internet and mock it without irritating my real-life friends and family.

    To warrant inclusion in my blog, I have to at least be pretty dumbstruck by what I have read, to the point where simple common sense and basic logic seem to have been abandoned altogether.

    Smitty’s post did not warrant inclusion on my blog, because I didn’t take it to be as fantastically stupid as I do other things other people have written. I merely commented here, and linked (for the very first time, I might add) to my shiny, new, still not sure if I’m interested in keeping what amounts to personal scream therapy, blog of mine.

    So while I may blog for the reason you quoted, I did not comment in that spirit. I can see how you might have misunderstood that, but it’s interesting to note how quickly you went for the personal.

    And yes, I’m on the Left of the American political spectrum, so naturally I’ll be mocking the Right far, far more often than I mock the Left. (Having said that, I wish I had this blog during the HCR debate; Jane Hamsher, Ben Nelson and Harry Reid would have gotten both barrels.)

    Finally:

    “Your point of view is that valuable insights shall gush forth from your intelligence to all the collective.”

    Yep. You got me. Now find me the opinion blogger to whom this criticism doesn’t apply.

12. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:44 am

    Smitty, I appreciate the response. I’ll respond more fully when I’m not about to fall asleep.

    I’d like to clarify one thing to nicholas (#3), who has chosen to read the description of my less-than-a-week-old blog in as uncharitable manner as possible.

    Here’s the thing: I used to blog widely. I don’t anymore for a lot of reasons, all of which are personal.

    But I still find that the bug gets me now and again, like when I see something really, really stupid. When I see that, I occasionally feel the need to send it out to people I know (e.g. Facebook) and get all self-righteous about how idiotic “they” are.

    But I realize this isn’t productive, to the discussion or to my relationships with friends and relatives. So I started up a blog where I could put the dumbest crap I found on the internet and mock it without irritating my real-life friends and family.

    To warrant inclusion in my blog, I have to at least be pretty dumbstruck by what I have read, to the point where simple common sense and basic logic seem to have been abandoned altogether.

    Smitty’s post did not warrant inclusion on my blog, because I didn’t take it to be as fantastically stupid as I do other things other people have written. I merely commented here, and linked (for the very first time, I might add) to my shiny, new, still not sure if I’m interested in keeping what amounts to personal scream therapy, blog of mine.

    So while I may blog for the reason you quoted, I did not comment in that spirit. I can see how you might have misunderstood that, but it’s interesting to note how quickly you went for the personal.

    And yes, I’m on the Left of the American political spectrum, so naturally I’ll be mocking the Right far, far more often than I mock the Left. (Having said that, I wish I had this blog during the HCR debate; Jane Hamsher, Ben Nelson and Harry Reid would have gotten both barrels.)

    Finally:

    “Your point of view is that valuable insights shall gush forth from your intelligence to all the collective.”

    Yep. You got me. Now find me the opinion blogger to whom this criticism doesn’t apply.

13. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 9:31 am

    Damn. Now I’m up.

    OK, yes, of course history is mostly populated with unfree peoples and nations. I am very proud to be a citizen of the nation that drafted what was, at the time, the most liberty-friendly document the world had ever seen. Or pretty damn close to it, at least.

    However, you were criticizing Colmes for his argument that conservatives pine for an age of liberty that did not actually exist, and was in fact much more repressive in many significant ways than today’s America. As such, comparison of freedoms between then and now seems apt.

    “So the fact that things were less than perfect at when the 1787 Constitution was signed renders the document useless?”

    I never said “useless,” you did. I don’t think the Constitution is “useless,” and I have yet to meet a single American of any political persuasion who does. Nor have I ever, once, read that opinion anywhere. So why did you assume it, to the point of basing an entire paragraph on that assumption?

    “When they wrote the 1787 Constitution, the Framers were delegating certain powers to a Federal government.”

    I know. Everyone knows this. It’s not that liberals haven’t noticed that the constitution limits the government much more than it does the people (hint: it’s why the ACLU sues the government on behalf of citizens so often). It’s that liberals don’t think it means what conservatives think it means.

    Liberals look at the system that put a Supreme Court in place to judge the constitutionality of things, and say, “hmmm, I wonder what the constitutionally-mandated review process has come up with regarding what’s constitutional or not?”

    And then we complain if we don’t like the result. But at least we grant the legitimacy of an interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause that has withstood many constitutional challenges over the years. It’s nothing less than the result of the system that the constitution lays out.

    The rant about the Fed: okay, so you’re up on your Murray Rothbard. Me too. I just think he’s wildly off the mark. Since there’s no way we can have this conversation here and now, I’ll just note that this is your opinion and it is debatable. Glad to know where you’re coming from.

    The video: (Actually, no. First the “figleaf” line: it’s pretty rich to have an actual, real-world balanced budget described so diminutively while dismissing the record-setting deficits of the two Presidents most closely associated with the Conservative Movement. Seriously? You can’t give the one fricking President of my lifetime to actually do something about the deficit credit for not screwing that part of the country up as bad as any other President since Truman?)

    Oh yeah, The Video: Did you notice that the buildups were in response to economic crises? It’s called “Keynesian Economics,” and it’s not as “proven wrong” as economic thinkers on the right have been maintaining all these years. It’s not a silver bullet, either: it just speaks to the current economic moment better than, say, Supply-Side Theory does.

    Which is to say: sometimes the only way to get out of a jam is to spend money, on the assumption that you’ll pay it back when times get better. I’ve done it, as most adults have. We couldn’t have won WWII without it. It’s what governments do to “promote the general welfare.” (I note that times actually were better in the 90’s, and Clinton paid it back, just like a good steward of the national treasury. Times were pretty damn good in the 80’s and 00’s too, but there wasn’t so much payback then. All I’m saying is that it gives the lie to the “Party of Fiscal Discipline” line.)

    “The country’s problems, in my opinion, are rooted in the Federal government undertaking non-Federal tasking.”

    Thank you for the clarification. Now I ask you: do you honestly believe that a country with a civil war, slavery, horrible atrocities against the people who were here first (insert list of all the things pretty much everyone agrees America was right to stop doing) in its past is in trouble now mostly because of federal expansion? I mean, I can see the argument from a strictly economic point of view, but not being a strictly economical person, I find that view narrow.

    This gets to a basic beef I have with many conservatives: the blindness to infringements on personal liberty that aren’t economic, or the inability to gauge the relative onerousness of, say, institutional slavery vs. a 39% top income tax bracket. (Count me on the side that says any country with legal slavery is by definition less free than America in 2010.)

    Liberty is about more than economics. Any society that decrees some to be “more equal than others” (as the original constitution indisputably did) is a society in which there is virtually no check on the ability of the privileged to use the force of law to keep the unprivileged that way. Sounds pretty unfree to me, no matter the tax rate on the people lucky enough to be considered full citizens.

    Look, I realize that it was a pretty amazing document for its time. So does Alan Colmes, I guarantee it. What he actually said, though, was that it is odd for conservatives to pine for a time when far less than half the adult population could even vote, much less move freely (restrictions on women’s travel were common around the world at the time). Obviously he’s talking about modern conservatives imagining that the past was more free, when obviously it wasn’t, unless you define freedom down to an income tax rate and not much else.

    By the standards of its day, 1790’s America was super-duper-extra free. By today’s standards, not so much. Count me among the proud Americans who recognize the leading role America played in shifting those goalposts in the direction of freedom, both here and abroad, by occasionally recognizing the ways it has failed to live up to its own ideals, and correcting them.

14. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 4:31 am

    Damn. Now I’m up.

    OK, yes, of course history is mostly populated with unfree peoples and nations. I am very proud to be a citizen of the nation that drafted what was, at the time, the most liberty-friendly document the world had ever seen. Or pretty damn close to it, at least.

    However, you were criticizing Colmes for his argument that conservatives pine for an age of liberty that did not actually exist, and was in fact much more repressive in many significant ways than today’s America. As such, comparison of freedoms between then and now seems apt.

    “So the fact that things were less than perfect at when the 1787 Constitution was signed renders the document useless?”

    I never said “useless,” you did. I don’t think the Constitution is “useless,” and I have yet to meet a single American of any political persuasion who does. Nor have I ever, once, read that opinion anywhere. So why did you assume it, to the point of basing an entire paragraph on that assumption?

    “When they wrote the 1787 Constitution, the Framers were delegating certain powers to a Federal government.”

    I know. Everyone knows this. It’s not that liberals haven’t noticed that the constitution limits the government much more than it does the people (hint: it’s why the ACLU sues the government on behalf of citizens so often). It’s that liberals don’t think it means what conservatives think it means.

    Liberals look at the system that put a Supreme Court in place to judge the constitutionality of things, and say, “hmmm, I wonder what the constitutionally-mandated review process has come up with regarding what’s constitutional or not?”

    And then we complain if we don’t like the result. But at least we grant the legitimacy of an interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause that has withstood many constitutional challenges over the years. It’s nothing less than the result of the system that the constitution lays out.

    The rant about the Fed: okay, so you’re up on your Murray Rothbard. Me too. I just think he’s wildly off the mark. Since there’s no way we can have this conversation here and now, I’ll just note that this is your opinion and it is debatable. Glad to know where you’re coming from.

    The video: (Actually, no. First the “figleaf” line: it’s pretty rich to have an actual, real-world balanced budget described so diminutively while dismissing the record-setting deficits of the two Presidents most closely associated with the Conservative Movement. Seriously? You can’t give the one fricking President of my lifetime to actually do something about the deficit credit for not screwing that part of the country up as bad as any other President since Truman?)

    Oh yeah, The Video: Did you notice that the buildups were in response to economic crises? It’s called “Keynesian Economics,” and it’s not as “proven wrong” as economic thinkers on the right have been maintaining all these years. It’s not a silver bullet, either: it just speaks to the current economic moment better than, say, Supply-Side Theory does.

    Which is to say: sometimes the only way to get out of a jam is to spend money, on the assumption that you’ll pay it back when times get better. I’ve done it, as most adults have. We couldn’t have won WWII without it. It’s what governments do to “promote the general welfare.” (I note that times actually were better in the 90’s, and Clinton paid it back, just like a good steward of the national treasury. Times were pretty damn good in the 80’s and 00’s too, but there wasn’t so much payback then. All I’m saying is that it gives the lie to the “Party of Fiscal Discipline” line.)

    “The country’s problems, in my opinion, are rooted in the Federal government undertaking non-Federal tasking.”

    Thank you for the clarification. Now I ask you: do you honestly believe that a country with a civil war, slavery, horrible atrocities against the people who were here first (insert list of all the things pretty much everyone agrees America was right to stop doing) in its past is in trouble now mostly because of federal expansion? I mean, I can see the argument from a strictly economic point of view, but not being a strictly economical person, I find that view narrow.

    This gets to a basic beef I have with many conservatives: the blindness to infringements on personal liberty that aren’t economic, or the inability to gauge the relative onerousness of, say, institutional slavery vs. a 39% top income tax bracket. (Count me on the side that says any country with legal slavery is by definition less free than America in 2010.)

    Liberty is about more than economics. Any society that decrees some to be “more equal than others” (as the original constitution indisputably did) is a society in which there is virtually no check on the ability of the privileged to use the force of law to keep the unprivileged that way. Sounds pretty unfree to me, no matter the tax rate on the people lucky enough to be considered full citizens.

    Look, I realize that it was a pretty amazing document for its time. So does Alan Colmes, I guarantee it. What he actually said, though, was that it is odd for conservatives to pine for a time when far less than half the adult population could even vote, much less move freely (restrictions on women’s travel were common around the world at the time). Obviously he’s talking about modern conservatives imagining that the past was more free, when obviously it wasn’t, unless you define freedom down to an income tax rate and not much else.

    By the standards of its day, 1790’s America was super-duper-extra free. By today’s standards, not so much. Count me among the proud Americans who recognize the leading role America played in shifting those goalposts in the direction of freedom, both here and abroad, by occasionally recognizing the ways it has failed to live up to its own ideals, and correcting them.

15. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 10:10 am

    K:

    Your misreading is so complete, and your ignorance of what you have left out so baffling, it’s hard to know where to start, or why to bother.

    Here are some points:

    I never said that freedom = enfranchisement. I merely thought it was generally accepted that being able to vote (which is to say, participate in the process of holding government in check) was a fundamental component of liberty, at least from a Lockean perspective. Apparently you don’t share my admiration for Locke.

    No one believes Soviet elections were legitimate. Only a complete jackass would imagine that there is anyone left on this planet who ever seriously believed that, and then employ it in an argument.

    “Whereas a non land owner (and land was pretty damn cheap then) who couldn’t vote in early America had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now. Let’s see, hundreds of laws then, hundreds of thousands of laws now. Yep, same freedom, what’s the beef?”

    So now that you’ve described what you saw in a movie once about the 40 Acres and a Mule days, I have one question for you: how does the phrase, “…had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now” make any sense when applied to women then vs. now, blacks then vs. now, Native Americans then vs. now, etc? If you were any of the above, there is no conceivable reason why you would say you would prefer to have been alive then as opposed to now.

    Note that just between the women and slaves, we’re talking about a huge majority of the adult population. And they weren’t “virtually controlled” as your fevered imagination believes we are now, they were ACTUALLY controlled by the law that you so glibly believe to have been so wonderful in those happy days of yore.

    Oh, and here’s a thought experiment for you:

    Imagine a country with tens of thousands of laws, all of which must meet basic guidelines for the preservation of individual liberties, equitable treatment, etc. as set out in a document which is the supreme law of the land.

    Now imagine a country in which there’s only one law, which reads: “You are the property of your owner. You must do what he says at all times, without recourse to authorities for the redress of grievances.”

    Which society would be more free, the one with oodles of laws, or the one with just the one?

    “Modern world history = socialist welfare states”

    Well, not exactly, but I definitely was talking about Europe there. Sorry, I think America could (and has) learn(ed) from the example of Europe on many things, just as they could (and have) from us. The “socialist” smear is standard Right-wing boilerplate, designed to make me look like an enemy of America, rather than illuminate anything. All I was saying is that by current standards (and 50 years of domestic history), we’re taxed at quite a low rate. This is a matter of record, not opinion.

    “This is tantamount to the argument that medical care in early America was barbaric and crude, so it’s ludicrous to want cheap effective health care now.”

    No it’s not. Slavery, for one, is an issue that plagued the founders and was a source of constant debate during the first decades of our republic. Many founders argued for the equality of the “black race.” So the inequality of blacks at the time was not in any way the same as the technological inferiority of medical equipment at the time. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

16. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 5:10 am

    K:

    Your misreading is so complete, and your ignorance of what you have left out so baffling, it’s hard to know where to start, or why to bother.

    Here are some points:

    I never said that freedom = enfranchisement. I merely thought it was generally accepted that being able to vote (which is to say, participate in the process of holding government in check) was a fundamental component of liberty, at least from a Lockean perspective. Apparently you don’t share my admiration for Locke.

    No one believes Soviet elections were legitimate. Only a complete jackass would imagine that there is anyone left on this planet who ever seriously believed that, and then employ it in an argument.

    “Whereas a non land owner (and land was pretty damn cheap then) who couldn’t vote in early America had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now. Let’s see, hundreds of laws then, hundreds of thousands of laws now. Yep, same freedom, what’s the beef?”

    So now that you’ve described what you saw in a movie once about the 40 Acres and a Mule days, I have one question for you: how does the phrase, “…had very few constraints on their existence, unlike being virtually controlled in nearly all directions now” make any sense when applied to women then vs. now, blacks then vs. now, Native Americans then vs. now, etc? If you were any of the above, there is no conceivable reason why you would say you would prefer to have been alive then as opposed to now.

    Note that just between the women and slaves, we’re talking about a huge majority of the adult population. And they weren’t “virtually controlled” as your fevered imagination believes we are now, they were ACTUALLY controlled by the law that you so glibly believe to have been so wonderful in those happy days of yore.

    Oh, and here’s a thought experiment for you:

    Imagine a country with tens of thousands of laws, all of which must meet basic guidelines for the preservation of individual liberties, equitable treatment, etc. as set out in a document which is the supreme law of the land.

    Now imagine a country in which there’s only one law, which reads: “You are the property of your owner. You must do what he says at all times, without recourse to authorities for the redress of grievances.”

    Which society would be more free, the one with oodles of laws, or the one with just the one?

    “Modern world history = socialist welfare states”

    Well, not exactly, but I definitely was talking about Europe there. Sorry, I think America could (and has) learn(ed) from the example of Europe on many things, just as they could (and have) from us. The “socialist” smear is standard Right-wing boilerplate, designed to make me look like an enemy of America, rather than illuminate anything. All I was saying is that by current standards (and 50 years of domestic history), we’re taxed at quite a low rate. This is a matter of record, not opinion.

    “This is tantamount to the argument that medical care in early America was barbaric and crude, so it’s ludicrous to want cheap effective health care now.”

    No it’s not. Slavery, for one, is an issue that plagued the founders and was a source of constant debate during the first decades of our republic. Many founders argued for the equality of the “black race.” So the inequality of blacks at the time was not in any way the same as the technological inferiority of medical equipment at the time. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

17. SDN
    May 14th, 2010 @ 11:43 am

    Actually, the analogy makes good sense when you realize that the Industrial revolution was making slavery obsolete as a means for getting something done. Couple that with a growing moral revulsion and slavery was done in the civilized world. I could say something about the fact that slavery persists in Islamic countries being an indicator of an uncivilized 7th century mindset, but that should be obvious.

18. SDN
    May 14th, 2010 @ 6:43 am

    Actually, the analogy makes good sense when you realize that the Industrial revolution was making slavery obsolete as a means for getting something done. Couple that with a growing moral revulsion and slavery was done in the civilized world. I could say something about the fact that slavery persists in Islamic countries being an indicator of an uncivilized 7th century mindset, but that should be obvious.

19. Daily Buzz 05/14/10 | Daily Buzz Factor
    May 14th, 2010 @ 7:26 am

    […] National debt road trip (The Other McCain) […]

20. Joe
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

    The debt crisis is real and is so big, waiting for it to explode would require ending Medicare and significantly defaulting on social security. The changes needed now require drastic cuts.

    Obama is in complete denial and making things far worse. George Bush was bad too. Both parties are to blame, primarily becuase they keep pandering to voters who want tax cuts and more benefits.

    It is over. Tax cuts are good, but the benefits have to be cut. Now. Push up the age on social security and medicare eligibility. Stop automatic expansions on both. We simply do not pay enough into the system to justify it.

21. Joe
    May 14th, 2010 @ 9:10 am

    The debt crisis is real and is so big, waiting for it to explode would require ending Medicare and significantly defaulting on social security. The changes needed now require drastic cuts.

    Obama is in complete denial and making things far worse. George Bush was bad too. Both parties are to blame, primarily becuase they keep pandering to voters who want tax cuts and more benefits.

    It is over. Tax cuts are good, but the benefits have to be cut. Now. Push up the age on social security and medicare eligibility. Stop automatic expansions on both. We simply do not pay enough into the system to justify it.

22. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:45 pm

    Wall’s thoughts only make sense if one assumes that freedom is a zero-sum game: that it’s acceptable to take freedom from people to give it to someone else.

    In the 18th century, the relationship between the government and the people (regardless of their degree of representation in it) was morally right: the government got its power from the people and exercised it in a limited manner. Now, we’ve up-ended that: the government now has more, not less, control over the lives of a modern woman or non-property-owner. In fact, I would argue that we are much less free than we were in 1870.

    All I was saying is that by current standards (and 50 years of domestic history), we’re taxed at quite a low rate. This is a matter of record, not opinion.

    That’s disingenous. That Europe happens to tax its people into an oblivion does not mean that our system is perfect or that we haven’t a right to complain.

    Let’s talk about Europe. Does the word “Greece” mean anything to you? No one with two brain cells to bang together would ever think that we should follow Europe’s lead. There’s a reason why they are clamouring to follow us – they understand that they are broke, that their entitlement systems are crippling them, and that their only chance at not being impoverished nations is to give up socialism.

23. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 9:45 am

    Wall’s thoughts only make sense if one assumes that freedom is a zero-sum game: that it’s acceptable to take freedom from people to give it to someone else.

    In the 18th century, the relationship between the government and the people (regardless of their degree of representation in it) was morally right: the government got its power from the people and exercised it in a limited manner. Now, we’ve up-ended that: the government now has more, not less, control over the lives of a modern woman or non-property-owner. In fact, I would argue that we are much less free than we were in 1870.

    All I was saying is that by current standards (and 50 years of domestic history), we’re taxed at quite a low rate. This is a matter of record, not opinion.

    That’s disingenous. That Europe happens to tax its people into an oblivion does not mean that our system is perfect or that we haven’t a right to complain.

    Let’s talk about Europe. Does the word “Greece” mean anything to you? No one with two brain cells to bang together would ever think that we should follow Europe’s lead. There’s a reason why they are clamouring to follow us – they understand that they are broke, that their entitlement systems are crippling them, and that their only chance at not being impoverished nations is to give up socialism.

24. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

    Slavery, for one, is an issue that plagued the founders and was a source of constant debate during the first decades of our republic.

    On a side note, you do realise that history will damn our support for abortion and the monstrosity known as Roe v. Wade (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.) will be regarded with the same anger and disdain we now reserve for Dred Scott, right?

25. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 9:48 am

    Slavery, for one, is an issue that plagued the founders and was a source of constant debate during the first decades of our republic.

    On a side note, you do realise that history will damn our support for abortion and the monstrosity known as Roe v. Wade (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.) will be regarded with the same anger and disdain we now reserve for Dred Scott, right?

26. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

    “Wall’s thoughts only make sense if one assumes that freedom is a zero-sum game: that it’s acceptable to take freedom from people to give it to someone else”

    Nonsense. It’s perfectly reasonable to assert that a society that denies basic enfranchisement to the majority of its citizens is on the whole, unfree. You don’t have to “take freedom away” from anyone. When slavery was outlawed, not only was a hell of a lot of new freedom appeared out of this air, without taking any freedom from anyone else. If you give any credence to the idea that justice is essential to liberty, then I don’t see how you can act as if slavery wasn’t such a huge deal, but taxes are. Legal slavery is obviously about as unjust as the law gets, and one cannot be free in a system that does not afford justice.

    That I have to explain this to you makes me weep for the state of our schools.

    Regarding your assertions about the 18th Century and the power of the people: read your Locke. ALL governments exist by consent of the governed. Nothing about that has changed.

    “That Europe happens to tax its people into an oblivion does not mean that our system is perfect or that we haven’t a right to complain.”

    I never said either of those things, so why are you arguing against them? Could it be you’re more interested in duking it out with your personal straw man of me that with the actual me?

    I’ll bite on the Europe thing anyway, though: Europe does some things better than we do, and some things a lot worse. I wish, for instance, that we took to the streets with the gusto of Europeans, but we don’t. Our largest marches against the government don’t hold a candle to what you’ll see in Berlin, Paris or London (or most other capitals, really). Which is to say, they seem much more free to speak their minds without fear of recrimination. (Obviously, the laws change by country; this is a general impression.)

    Greece is an opportunistic example, but it’s FAR too complex to use in a binary “capitalism vs. socialism” way. For one, if our bubble hadn’t brought down Europe with it, Greece would be in much better shape right now. Actually, Greece was more like America in one respect: they were apparently less willing to tax their citizens to pay for things the citizens demanded, just like the US.

    Finally, on abortion: gee, you must be psychic! I never even mentioned abortion! How did you even know I was pro-choice?

    Seriously, I doubt you’ll be proven right on this one. Look at the polling: the younger you are, the more pro-choice you are. I don’t see how that translates into anger and disdain down the line. Rather, it seems to point to abortion becoming more of a non-issue. It’s all speculation, though, so why bother?

27. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

    “Wall’s thoughts only make sense if one assumes that freedom is a zero-sum game: that it’s acceptable to take freedom from people to give it to someone else”

    Nonsense. It’s perfectly reasonable to assert that a society that denies basic enfranchisement to the majority of its citizens is on the whole, unfree. You don’t have to “take freedom away” from anyone. When slavery was outlawed, not only was a hell of a lot of new freedom appeared out of this air, without taking any freedom from anyone else. If you give any credence to the idea that justice is essential to liberty, then I don’t see how you can act as if slavery wasn’t such a huge deal, but taxes are. Legal slavery is obviously about as unjust as the law gets, and one cannot be free in a system that does not afford justice.

    That I have to explain this to you makes me weep for the state of our schools.

    Regarding your assertions about the 18th Century and the power of the people: read your Locke. ALL governments exist by consent of the governed. Nothing about that has changed.

    “That Europe happens to tax its people into an oblivion does not mean that our system is perfect or that we haven’t a right to complain.”

    I never said either of those things, so why are you arguing against them? Could it be you’re more interested in duking it out with your personal straw man of me that with the actual me?

    I’ll bite on the Europe thing anyway, though: Europe does some things better than we do, and some things a lot worse. I wish, for instance, that we took to the streets with the gusto of Europeans, but we don’t. Our largest marches against the government don’t hold a candle to what you’ll see in Berlin, Paris or London (or most other capitals, really). Which is to say, they seem much more free to speak their minds without fear of recrimination. (Obviously, the laws change by country; this is a general impression.)

    Greece is an opportunistic example, but it’s FAR too complex to use in a binary “capitalism vs. socialism” way. For one, if our bubble hadn’t brought down Europe with it, Greece would be in much better shape right now. Actually, Greece was more like America in one respect: they were apparently less willing to tax their citizens to pay for things the citizens demanded, just like the US.

    Finally, on abortion: gee, you must be psychic! I never even mentioned abortion! How did you even know I was pro-choice?

    Seriously, I doubt you’ll be proven right on this one. Look at the polling: the younger you are, the more pro-choice you are. I don’t see how that translates into anger and disdain down the line. Rather, it seems to point to abortion becoming more of a non-issue. It’s all speculation, though, so why bother?

28. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

    If you give any credence to the idea that justice is essential to liberty, then I don’t see how you can act as if slavery wasn’t such a huge deal, but taxes are.

    Now, who is arguing against a straw man? I never said a damn thing about slavery, having limited my discussion to those who were free but disenfranchised.

    Regarding your assertions about the 18th Century and the power of the people: read your Locke. ALL governments exist by consent of the governed. Nothing about that has changed.

    Pray tell, how does “consent of the governed” align with your recriminations against slavery?

    Only people who understand that a government can infringe on the rights of its citizens, without their consent, can see evil in the actions of a government, whether those be slavery, forced labour, religious persecution, murder, or theft. Unfortunately for you, you just painted yourself into a corner with that one, because you just said that ALL governments [capitals yours!] exist only with our consent.

    Let me fix it for you: a JUST government acts with the consent of the governed.

    Now scamper along and find the exact Locke quote, cupcake, because I’m pretty sure that Locke wasn’t an apologist for dictatorships.

    Our largest marches against the government don’t hold a candle to what you’ll see in Berlin, Paris or London (or most other capitals, really). Which is to say, they seem much more free to speak their minds without fear of recrimination. (Obviously, the laws change by country; this is a general impression.)

    ROFLMAO. Okay, when I studied international free expression in law school, I was pretty sure that our First Amendment (in design and in S. Ct. interpretation) actually trumps the rights found in the ECHR and the Canadian Constitution.

    Furthermore, the conservative demonstrations are a sight to behold. Last September, a million people marched in DC – a march that filled the huge avenues for over three hours. Every January, 200,000 pro-lifers protest Roe. One can only imagine what would happen if American conservatives were to have the same six weeks’ vacation that Europeans get!

    Seriously, I doubt you’ll be proven right on this one. Look at the polling: the younger you are, the more pro-choice you are.

    If the polling is so obvious, rather than telling me that I’m a moron who makes you weep for the quality of my top-flight education, try producing one of those polls. Go and google it, then report on your findings. Also, you are assuming that such a discrepancy (which does not, in fact, exist – I work with young pro-lifers all the time, and they are out in force) would not change with age – that former pro-choicers would not realise the error of their ways.

    See, thing is, there are six times as many post-abortive women in National Right to Life as there are in NARAL. As women age and have children, their views on abortion usually shift to the pro-life side: they understand that preventing pregnancy is not some Herculean battle, but a basic responsibility, and that child-rearing is not “wrecking your life”, but is a fundamental part of our humanity.

    And common sense, Wall: a lot of the pro-slavery argument was that it was the only way to feed and sustain a nation. Once technology rendered forced labour obsolete (or almost obsolete), slavery became less popular. The same will come to pass with birth control and abortion.

29. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

    If you give any credence to the idea that justice is essential to liberty, then I don’t see how you can act as if slavery wasn’t such a huge deal, but taxes are.

    Now, who is arguing against a straw man? I never said a damn thing about slavery, having limited my discussion to those who were free but disenfranchised.

    Regarding your assertions about the 18th Century and the power of the people: read your Locke. ALL governments exist by consent of the governed. Nothing about that has changed.

    Pray tell, how does “consent of the governed” align with your recriminations against slavery?

    Only people who understand that a government can infringe on the rights of its citizens, without their consent, can see evil in the actions of a government, whether those be slavery, forced labour, religious persecution, murder, or theft. Unfortunately for you, you just painted yourself into a corner with that one, because you just said that ALL governments [capitals yours!] exist only with our consent.

    Let me fix it for you: a JUST government acts with the consent of the governed.

    Now scamper along and find the exact Locke quote, cupcake, because I’m pretty sure that Locke wasn’t an apologist for dictatorships.

    Our largest marches against the government don’t hold a candle to what you’ll see in Berlin, Paris or London (or most other capitals, really). Which is to say, they seem much more free to speak their minds without fear of recrimination. (Obviously, the laws change by country; this is a general impression.)

    ROFLMAO. Okay, when I studied international free expression in law school, I was pretty sure that our First Amendment (in design and in S. Ct. interpretation) actually trumps the rights found in the ECHR and the Canadian Constitution.

    Furthermore, the conservative demonstrations are a sight to behold. Last September, a million people marched in DC – a march that filled the huge avenues for over three hours. Every January, 200,000 pro-lifers protest Roe. One can only imagine what would happen if American conservatives were to have the same six weeks’ vacation that Europeans get!

    Seriously, I doubt you’ll be proven right on this one. Look at the polling: the younger you are, the more pro-choice you are.

    If the polling is so obvious, rather than telling me that I’m a moron who makes you weep for the quality of my top-flight education, try producing one of those polls. Go and google it, then report on your findings. Also, you are assuming that such a discrepancy (which does not, in fact, exist – I work with young pro-lifers all the time, and they are out in force) would not change with age – that former pro-choicers would not realise the error of their ways.

    See, thing is, there are six times as many post-abortive women in National Right to Life as there are in NARAL. As women age and have children, their views on abortion usually shift to the pro-life side: they understand that preventing pregnancy is not some Herculean battle, but a basic responsibility, and that child-rearing is not “wrecking your life”, but is a fundamental part of our humanity.

    And common sense, Wall: a lot of the pro-slavery argument was that it was the only way to feed and sustain a nation. Once technology rendered forced labour obsolete (or almost obsolete), slavery became less popular. The same will come to pass with birth control and abortion.

30. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

    Actually, Greece was more like America in one respect: they were apparently less willing to tax their citizens to pay for things the citizens demanded, just like the US.

    Proof, please.

    First, the Greek government does not collect about 30% of the taxes that it is owed: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/14/greece-taxes-debt-opinions-contributors-richard-murphy.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

    Now, here is the rate of Greek taxes: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/greece/greece_tax.asp
    Greek employers pay 28.06% of the employee’s salary in social security taxes; the employee pays another 16%. Ergo, on a 50,000 euro-per-year salary, the employer will pay 14,000 euros and the employee, 8,000 euros, for a total of almost HALF of the employee’s salary. The you deduct the 8,000 paid, but tax the remaining income at 35%.

    At this point, our employee, whose employer has paid 64,000 euros out to him (which, when translating for how we tax SS/FICA/Medicare and for the exchange rate, is the equivalent of pulling in 60,000/year), gets to take 32,000 of those euros home.

    Then, for every purchase that the Greek person makes, or service that he bargains for, he must pay an additional 21% in a VAT. Food is taxed at 10% (on top of the corporate income tax rate of 35%). So if our Greek spends 5,000 euros a year on food and 10,000 euros a year on a car, home repair, car repair, clothes, shoes, and a phone, he’s just paid another 2,5000 euros in taxes.

    At this point, the guy’s employer is shelling out 64,000 euros a year to him, and, before he’s so much as bought a discretionary item, he has paid over 35,000 euros in taxes.

    Oh, yeah, that’s exactly like how a middle-class person in America, earning 60 grand a year, is taxed. Just the same. So let’s be MORE like Europe, because, you know, gigantic taxes never ever cause problems.

    Crikey, you’re dense.

31. Roxeanne de Luca
    May 14th, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

    Actually, Greece was more like America in one respect: they were apparently less willing to tax their citizens to pay for things the citizens demanded, just like the US.

    Proof, please.

    First, the Greek government does not collect about 30% of the taxes that it is owed: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/14/greece-taxes-debt-opinions-contributors-richard-murphy.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

    Now, here is the rate of Greek taxes: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/greece/greece_tax.asp
    Greek employers pay 28.06% of the employee’s salary in social security taxes; the employee pays another 16%. Ergo, on a 50,000 euro-per-year salary, the employer will pay 14,000 euros and the employee, 8,000 euros, for a total of almost HALF of the employee’s salary. The you deduct the 8,000 paid, but tax the remaining income at 35%.

    At this point, our employee, whose employer has paid 64,000 euros out to him (which, when translating for how we tax SS/FICA/Medicare and for the exchange rate, is the equivalent of pulling in 60,000/year), gets to take 32,000 of those euros home.

    Then, for every purchase that the Greek person makes, or service that he bargains for, he must pay an additional 21% in a VAT. Food is taxed at 10% (on top of the corporate income tax rate of 35%). So if our Greek spends 5,000 euros a year on food and 10,000 euros a year on a car, home repair, car repair, clothes, shoes, and a phone, he’s just paid another 2,5000 euros in taxes.

    At this point, the guy’s employer is shelling out 64,000 euros a year to him, and, before he’s so much as bought a discretionary item, he has paid over 35,000 euros in taxes.

    Oh, yeah, that’s exactly like how a middle-class person in America, earning 60 grand a year, is taxed. Just the same. So let’s be MORE like Europe, because, you know, gigantic taxes never ever cause problems.

    Crikey, you’re dense.

32. Adobe Walls
    May 14th, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

    @ wallamaarif

    I completely understand your position. If I believed the things that you do I wouldn’t want people who knew me in person to hear or read my thoughts either.

33. Adobe Walls
    May 14th, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

    @ wallamaarif

    I completely understand your position. If I believed the things that you do I wouldn’t want people who knew me in person to hear or read my thoughts either.

34. Bob Belvedere
    May 15th, 2010 @ 12:08 am

    Game, Set, Match to Roxeanne!

    Okay, let me be the first to say it:
    Christie/De Luca 2012!

35. Bob Belvedere
    May 14th, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

    Game, Set, Match to Roxeanne!

    Okay, let me be the first to say it:
    Christie/De Luca 2012!

36. wallamaarif
    May 15th, 2010 @ 1:18 am

    Roxeanne,

    Sorry, I flubbed that one a bit. I knew that Greece wasn’t taking in nearly enough revenue to cover its expenditures, but the root of it is not, apparently, levels of taxation, as I thought I had read somewhere.

    Having said that, my larger point was about the unwillingness of both our governments to raise revenue to pay for things (such as the Iraq War). I never imagined that Greece was just like America in its tax structure, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that I did, based on what you quoted.

    So no, I’m not dense, I simply said something different from what you argued against. (I’m sensing a trend on this thread….)

    Here’s my question: if high taxes inevitably lead to failure, why, say, has Denmark bounced back after only four quarters of negative growth?

37. wallamaarif
    May 14th, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

    Roxeanne,

    Sorry, I flubbed that one a bit. I knew that Greece wasn’t taking in nearly enough revenue to cover its expenditures, but the root of it is not, apparently, levels of taxation, as I thought I had read somewhere.

    Having said that, my larger point was about the unwillingness of both our governments to raise revenue to pay for things (such as the Iraq War). I never imagined that Greece was just like America in its tax structure, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that I did, based on what you quoted.

    So no, I’m not dense, I simply said something different from what you argued against. (I’m sensing a trend on this thread….)

    Here’s my question: if high taxes inevitably lead to failure, why, say, has Denmark bounced back after only four quarters of negative growth?

38. SDN
    May 15th, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

    wallmaarif, the time from your life spent to pay taxes is time that you are forced to give to someone else. Sounds like slavery to me.

    From the plantation to the collective, liberals (like you) are slavery’s best friends!

39. SDN
    May 15th, 2010 @ 8:03 am

    wallmaarif, the time from your life spent to pay taxes is time that you are forced to give to someone else. Sounds like slavery to me.

    From the plantation to the collective, liberals (like you) are slavery’s best friends!

40. wallamaarif
    May 15th, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

    SDN,

    The differences between taxation and slavery could fill a book. I see taxes as the price we pay for the privilege of living in a country that provides us with many benefits, from highways to unemployment insurance. That stuff doesn’t come for free, so it’s reasonable to get those revenues from somewhere. Taxes seem like a pretty good solution to the problem, having been in use for thousands of years.

    Now, to address the more fundamental problem with your comment:

    Are you actually suggesting that being a slave and paying taxes are the same? Oh yes, being subject to random beatings, rape and murder for the crime of looking at your master wrong is EXACTLY THE SAME as paying your fair share for wars, highway construction, etc.

    If it weren’t for liberals (like me), slavery wouldn’t be such a long-forgotten institution that conservatives (like you) could imagine that their plight in any way resembles that of a slave.

41. wallamaarif
    May 15th, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

    SDN,

    The differences between taxation and slavery could fill a book. I see taxes as the price we pay for the privilege of living in a country that provides us with many benefits, from highways to unemployment insurance. That stuff doesn’t come for free, so it’s reasonable to get those revenues from somewhere. Taxes seem like a pretty good solution to the problem, having been in use for thousands of years.

    Now, to address the more fundamental problem with your comment:

    Are you actually suggesting that being a slave and paying taxes are the same? Oh yes, being subject to random beatings, rape and murder for the crime of looking at your master wrong is EXACTLY THE SAME as paying your fair share for wars, highway construction, etc.

    If it weren’t for liberals (like me), slavery wouldn’t be such a long-forgotten institution that conservatives (like you) could imagine that their plight in any way resembles that of a slave.

• Free Agents

  • 357 Magnum
  • A View From The Beach
  • Animal Magnetism
  • Don Surber
  • Evil Blogger Lady
  • Flappr
  • Maggie's Notebook
  • Pirates Cove
  • Proof Positive
  • Rotten To The Core
  • The Camp of the Saints
  • The Daley Gator
  • The First Street Journal
  • The Political Hat
  • Three Beers Later
  • Truth Before Dishonr

• SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

  The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

• Triple-A Franchises

  • All-American Blogger
  • American Power
  • Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • Athens & Jerusalem
  • Barney Quick
  • Bartholomew's Notes On Religion
  • BatesLine
  • Bear Creek Ledger
  • Bearsears Patriots
  • Blog de KingShamus
  • Bride of Rove
  • Cold Fury
  • Daily Pundit
  • Dr. Helen
  • I Own The World
  • Legal Insurrection
  • Moe Lane
  • No Runny Eggs
  • Obi`s Sister
  • Protein Wisdom
  • Rhetorican
  • Small Dead Animals
  • The Conservatory
  • The People's Cube
  • The Sundries Shack
  • VodkaPundit
  • Vox Day
  • Zilla of the Resistance

• Blogroll

  • 90 Miles From Tyranny
  • A Conservative Shemale
  • A Point of View
  • Adrienne's Corner
  • AmSpec Blog
  • Bad Blue
  • Blazing Cat Fur
  • Calvin Freiburger Online
  • Carol's Closet
  • Catholic Bandita
  • Caught Him With A Corndog
  • Cecil Calvert
  • Common Cents
  • Conservative Hideout
  • Conservative Watch News
  • Conservatives for America
  • Conservatives For Palin
  • Crazy For Liberty
  • Dad 29
  • DC Damsel
  • Dr. Flap
  • Dyspepsia Generation
  • Effing Conservatives
  • Election Dissection
  • Eric Reasons, IT Genius
  • Eye of Polyphemus
  • Finding Ponies. . .
  • Free Will
  • Grandpa John's
  • Granite Grok
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • Hoosier Access
  • John William Perry
  • Judicial Watch
  • Jumping in Pools
  • KURU Lounge
  • Laughing Conservative
  • Makes My Brain Itch
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Martin Eisenstadt's Blog
  • Media Fade
  • Michael Leahy
  • Mister Pterodactyl
  • Naked Villainy
  • Nice Deb
  • noot's observatory
  • Not One Red Cent
  • Okrahead
  • Ollieander
  • Pileus
  • Pinup Girl
  • Point of a Gun
  • Political Pit Bull
  • Reaganite Republican Resistance
  • Red Alexandria
  • Red State Eclectic
  • Red, White & Conservative
  • Republican Redefined
  • ResCon1
  • Ric's Rulez
  • Ricochet
  • Right of Course
  • Robipedia
  • Robomonkey
  • Ruby Slippers Blog
  • Saberpoint
  • Scared Monkeys
  • Sentry Journal
  • SI VIS PACEM
  • Skepticrats
  • Smash Mouth Politics
  • Sooper Mexican
  • Taking Hayek Seriously
  • Tel-Chai Nation
  • Tequila & Javalinas
  • The Aged P
  • The Classic Liberal
  • The Izzy Report
  • The Minority Leader
  • The NeoSexist
  • The Nose on Your Face
  • The Republican Mother
  • The Right Sphere
  • The Saint Angilbert Press
  • The Snooper Report
  • The Underground Conservative
  • Thunder Tales
  • Tom McLaughlin
  • Tory Anarchist
  • TrogloPundit
  • Vets On The Watch
  • Watcher of Weasels
  • Western Experience
  • World's Only Rational Man
  • WyBlog
  • Yankee Phil
  • Zingstrom's Blog