Reason Over Emotion

[amicus]

Not true.

http://css.snre.umich.edu/main.php?control=detail_pub&pu_report_id=170

Read the University of Michigan study - it's 70pgs but hey, lets get things right.

Photovoltaics (conventional design) have a primary energy input (PEI) payback of between 3.5 and 8 years and a minimum lifetime of twenty years.

PEI takes into acount everything used to maufacture, assemble and install the PV panels. Current designs seek to eliminate high PEI materials used in manufacture and assembly to reduce the payback time. New PV technologies are literally embeded in window glass, they are cheap, require no additional support infrastructure and will have significantly lower PEI payback periods. This technology is currently available in Portugal though I'm annoyed to discover there is a current three year waiting list for PV glass.

~~~

Neon and perhaps RR, you both miss the essence.

There is, or will be, alternative energy sources that will supply the demand.

But the transferral from 'horse power' to the internal combustion engine, did not and could not have occurred by government edict. It was a matter of market forces and principles, efficiency and economy, and the free choice of a free people.

Let them be free!

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

~~~

Neon and perhaps RR, you both miss the essence.

There is, or will be, alternative energy sources that will supply the demand.

But the transferral from 'horse power' to the internal combustion engine, did not and could not have occurred by government edict. It was a matter of market forces and principles, efficiency and economy, and the free choice of a free people.

Let them be free!

amicus...

No... for once I agree with you entirely. It's market economics that's stopping me getting hold of my PV Glass. Thus far, there is only one small factory producing it, one imagines more production will come 'on stream' in the near future to meet the evident market demand, that is just as it should be. Electricity prices here have increased 40% in the last couple of years and only serve to create an alternative market for the enlightened. And before you say it... I don't see the market as needing government intervention, it can drive itself. The people who have developed these technologies, largely in the face of sceptics, are motivated enough to continue the expansion and development without government interference. Competition in this market place can only serve to drive prices lower.

It pisses me off when I see companies still marketing solar collectors (water based) in the UK and talking about 15 year payback periods. Electricity prices in the UK doubled in two years - even the simple minded can work out that halves the pay back period. They are marketing to the uneducated and giving alternative energies a bad name - market economics will deal with them as and when new technologies hit the main markets.

In my loft, I have a solar panel. It is a research product I acquired from British Petroleum (BP) in the mid 1970's. It looks like a black central heating radiator except it is made from a plastic compound. You've a long memory, this panel was produced around the time of first Middle East oil crisis. It is not very efficient - by normal definitions of efficency - but we used it for years up on my in-laws farm where hot water was a luxury rather than an essential part of everyday living. I'm not suggesting (Roxy) that we should step back to the 'dark ages' and scratch a living. What I am suggesting is that a shift in energy thinking is acceptable. It is possible to produce hot water at a very low cost if you live in the right climate. This plastic panel was estimated to cost about £1.00 to manufacture, but it never went into production. I might have the only remaining example. Maybe I should put it on Ebay

 

[gauchecritic]

I have no grandiose future in mind for humanity. I seek only to maintain and expand those freedoms innate to existence

This is exactly correct and is where you and your market force/bottom line buddies fall down, face in the ground rather than looking up at the stars.

You don't give a damn about the future, about your children or your descendants just so long as you're comfortable now. Your precious individual freedom is exactly that; individual, without thought for anyone else.

Everything is fine, because I'm fed and warm.

You're standing under a tree in the rain MiAmico. When the rain starts dripping off the leaves there are always other trees to stand under. Well, if you care to look, it's actually raining on the forest.


Kyoto.
Irrespective of the Kyoto accord's ultimate aims you and the naysayers scream about the costs of implementation, when if you look at the actual agreement it contains absolutely zero on cutting back anything that is current. It actually refers only to expansion. It asks that you don't spend money on generating extra emissions.
So all these costs that you cry about are moneys spent in the future. It asks that you not spend money, so where in your doom and gloom too costly to implement economic forecasts do these figures appear? Let me tell you. No where.

 

[neonlyte]

Perhaps the point is this: The definition of what makes an issue "political" is that it deals with matters that are intrinsically ambiguous. GW, and more importantly the role of humans in it, is intrinsically ambiguous. There is no "consensus." There is no certainty. There is a mass of conflicting data.

I don't believe there is an ambiguity over rising global temperatures, there is ambiguity over what is causing temperatures to rise.

You say there is no consensus. Between whom and about what? There appears to be consensus that global temperatures are rising and, at last count, a majority of world nations believe the situation warrants serious attention, though I will concede there is no consenus as to the appropriate course of action.

There is no certainty... that global temperatures will continue to rise? Maybe not. It will be a good thing if they level off. Lack of certainty doesn't mean ignore until we are certain, at least not to my way of thinking. Put it on a par with the brakes on your car, you know they wear down, you can't be certain when the discs might fail and prudence dictates you manage the problem rather than court disaster.

There is a mass of conflicting data. No Roxy, there is a mass of data suggesting various events might occur. Different models paint different scenarious, but they are not 'in conflict' over the generality. I'm not aware of any collected and published evidence that suggests GW is 'fiction' or that attempts to prove there is no correlation between rising levels of 'greenhouse gases'. There are plenty of hypothesis that paint a benign position, solar activity. ocean currents, but there is no evidence produced by academics that conflicts with the current GW research. You may not like the GW research, you don't have to accept it, but you should at least acknowledge a potential problem exists which might dictate that corrective proceedures are necessary.

On one side are those who would apply the "precautionary principle" and impose draconian changes on our entire civilization. On the other are those who examine the cost-benefit analysis of such changes and conclude that the former are so monumental that it would be folly to impose them on ourselves in the absence of much less ambiguous data pointing to a threat of Gore-esque proportions.

If you imagine that those costs will be born by "greedy oil and coal execs" or "fat cat capitalists," you're mistaken. It will fall on the desperately poor in the third world, who will suffer and die in greater numbers because development will be retarded and the cost of living increased. The poor in the developed world will find their lot harder. The middle class will have to struggle more to provide for their own economic security, and will enjoy a lower standard of living. These costs are real, and unavoidable if you greatly increase the price and limit the availability of energy, which is where all this is inevitably heading. THAT part is unambiguous.

I really don't understand your point. I don't know who you imagine is suggesting "greedy oil and coal execs" or "fat cat capitalists," bear the brunt of the cost. About all you can say is IF energy costs increase, individuals will have to make choices over the amount of energy they use. There will undoubtably be hardship which is why civilised nations have safety nets to catch the underclass... taxes might rise, maybe that is what scares you.

Making choices about energy usage does not imply hardship of itself. Most households can significantly reduce their energy footprint by applying a little common sense.

Finally, humans cannot survive under the precautionary principle. It is intrinsically contradictory. Life entails risk, and you can't escape it.

Life entails balanced risk. Individuals weigh the odds (usually) before embarking upon a course of action. Risk v's Reward. If the risk is perceived to be too large you can either attempt to change the outcome by adopting a different strategy, walk away and wait to see of the risk changes over time or plow head on and hope for the right outcome. Of the three choices (you might like to think of others) two can be described as Precautionary, it is how we survived thus far.

 

[WRJames]

Some random thoughts

Once again I'm late to a very interesting discussion -- I got so tied up with the "God is not great" thread that I never looked at this one. So -- a few random thoughts.

The Republicans have been masterful in sidetracking "real" issues with emotional ones. For example, Bush won Ohio, and the last election, because he played the "gay marriage" issue to attract blue collar votes. These were people whose jobs and pensions were endangered by Republican economic policies, but they were so swayed but this phony "moral" issue that they voted against their own self interest. Another the example is the way fear of terrorism has been used as an excuse for invasion of privacy, erosion of freedom of expression, etc. It seems all too clear that the conservative agenda is to impose, by force, their crazed version of morality on the rest of us. My own reaction to this is not particularly rational -- it makes me quiver with rage and disgust.

But Gore? Yuck! And Kerry? Both very low hanging fruit for the Republicans.

As for global warming -- an extremely complex scientific topic that has become very emotional. Anyone who has attempted to control their weight understands, from bitter experience, that it is not simpy a matter of reducing calories. The body adjusts by slowing metabolism -- it wants to be at a certain weight, whether or not that is what style or the medical profession recommend. In the same way, a simple stimulus to the environment -- increased carbon dioxide -- may not lead directly to the "obvious" result. And, there are centuries long up and down cycles in global temperature -- we are returning to temperatures of about a thousand years ago, whether naturally or not.

Lastly -- if we are really serious about reducing carbon emissions, we should be investing heavily in nucelar power (and desalinization plants). I don't think this problem, if it really is a problem, has a "green" solution.

 

[R. Richard]

Not true.

http://css.snre.umich.edu/main.php?control=detail_pub&pu_report_id=170

Read the University of Michigan study - it's 70pgs but hey, lets get things right.

Photovoltaics (conventional design) have a primary energy input (PEI) payback of between 3.5 and 8 years and a minimum lifetime of twenty years.

PEI takes into acount everything used to maufacture, assemble and install the PV panels. Current designs seek to eliminate high PEI materials used in manufacture and assembly to reduce the payback time. New PV technologies are literally embeded in window glass, they are cheap, require no additional support infrastructure and will have significantly lower PEI payback periods. This technology is currently available in Portugal though I'm annoyed to discover there is a current three year waiting list for PV glass.

Just from a quick scan of the abstract there are a number of clever little omissions. First, there is no reference to the cost of installation of the PV systems. The local people who install such systems don't work for free, nor even cheap. There is no reference at all to the repair costs for such a system. Yes, the systems are guaranteed, but very probably not against such things as blown objects during a severe storm. Also, there seems to be an assumption that all of the electricity produced by a PV system will be used. Almost all of the electricity produced by a PV system is produced during the day and electrical useage tends to be highest in the evening. Of course, the electricity produced can be soldback to the electric utility, although I understand that a special connector is required and I see no inclusion of the cost of the connector. Finally, there is the matter of cleaning of the PV systems. PV systems work best when they are cleaned at least daily. Many home systems are roof installed and they do not get cleaned daily.

The local paper had a completre analysis of several systems and they showed a negative payback. One of the key items that the local paper included that is normally not included in such studies is the interest cost of the system. The money that is put into such a system could have earned interest/yield if invested instead.

 

[neonlyte]

Just from a quick scan of the abstract there are a number of clever little omissions. First, there is no reference to the cost of installation of the PV systems. The local people who install such systems don't work for free, nor even cheap. There is no reference at all to the repair costs for such a system. Yes, the systems are guaranteed, but very probably not against such things as blown objects during a severe storm. Also, there seems to be an assumption that all of the electricity produced by a PV system will be used. Almost all of the electricity produced by a PV system is produced during the day and electrical useage tends to be highest in the evening. Of course, the electricity produced can be soldback to the electric utility, although I understand that a special connector is required and I see no inclusion of the cost of the connector. Finally, there is the matter of cleaning of the PV systems. PV systems work best when they are cleaned at least daily. Many home systems are roof installed and they do not get cleaned daily.

The local paper had a completre analysis of several systems and they showed a negative payback. One of the key items that the local paper included that is normally not included in such studies is the interest cost of the system. The money that is put into such a system could have earned interest/yield if invested instead.

Actually, I'd rather go with the University of Michigan than your local newspaper. Read the report and not the extract for answers to your questions.

i don't wish to sound dismissive, but you sound like one of the people who've made up their mind that no matter what information is put before you, you will find a way to dismiss it. That's fine, believe what you will.

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiAmico
I have no grandiose future in mind for humanity. I seek only to maintain and expand those freedoms innate to existence

This is exactly correct and is where you and your market force/bottom line buddies fall down, face in the ground rather than looking up at the stars.

You don't give a damn about the future, about your children or your descendants just so long as you're comfortable now. Your precious individual freedom is exactly that; individual, without thought for anyone else.

Everything is fine, because I'm fed and warm.

You're standing under a tree in the rain MiAmico. When the rain starts dripping off the leaves there are always other trees to stand under. Well, if you care to look, it's actually raining on the forest.


Kyoto.
Irrespective of the Kyoto accord's ultimate aims you and the naysayers scream about the costs of implementation, when if you look at the actual agreement it contains absolutely zero on cutting back anything that is current. It actually refers only to expansion. It asks that you don't spend money on generating extra emissions.
So all these costs that you cry about are moneys spent in the future. It asks that you not spend money, so where in your doom and gloom too costly to implement economic forecasts do these figures appear? Let me tell you. No where.

~~~

Awww, golly, gauche, and you were so nice just a short while ago. "...You don't give a damn about the future, about your children or your descendants..."

Eight children have carried my name; the grand and great grandchildren number in the twenties by now and do you really think I don't, 'give a damn', about them?

All my children live a better life than I did and their children are doing even better, thank you.

My 'precious individual freedom' as you snidely refer to it, is a rare commodity among nations and peoples, all throughout history.

There have been many in the past such as you, who think they know better than I, the individual, how I should live my life. It is called a 'command society', wherein the powers that be direct the future along the lines of their vision.

You are dismissive of mine because I wish to control my own future and wish the same for my offspring.

Now just why you, and others like you, are so ready and willing to sacrifice your individual freedom for the false security of socialism, I will never understand for there is ample evidence that these Utopian schemes never, never work.

You seem to want a 'guaranteed' future; guaranteed by whom?

You seem to demand a job, employment, which will give you a 'fair wage'; provided by whom?

You want free medical care; provided by whom?

You want a clean environment and a risk free life; guaranteed by whom?

You want adequate housing and clothing and food; supplied by whom?

You want a smaller work week and a guaranteed pension; made possible and secure, by whom?

You want your own freedoms protected by police and courts and an army, which those like you will never serve in but someone will.

The point is and the 'truth' is, that none of these things can be provided 'for' you, given to you, or guaranteed. Just like living a life, you must earn the way you live and choose how you live your life; and you must have the freedom to choose or you have no life and become a slave, less than human.

But you, GaucheCritic, and the Pures, SheReads, SweetSubsarahs, Liars and et al of this forum seem to yearn to exist in a protected bubble of guaranteed existence for which you offer up your soul.

I will never, in all my days, understand making such a bargain with the devil.

good luck on it.

MiAmico

 

[Pure]

The point is and the 'truth' is, that none of these things can be provided 'for' you, given to you, or guaranteed.

exactly. the taxpayers decide on kinds of insurance they want, e.g., for health expenses, old age pensions, etc. elected representatives vote. in most west european countries, the vote has been for health care, old age pensions, and several other 'safety' nets.

having decided on what's wanted, the same representation --and ultimately the people-- vote for the taxes and other source of governement income.

overall, the protections, "guaranteed" as much as any insurance scheme, and bought by the people for themselves; it's "given" in the way of giving to oneself, as for instance when you purchase an insurance policy against, say fire.

 

[Guest]

. . . But you, GaucheCritic, and the Pures, SheReads, SweetSubsarahs, Liars and et al of this forum seem to yearn to exist in a protected bubble of guaranteed existence for which you offer up your soul.

I am honored to be included in such company, ami.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just where and in what quarter do you get the unmitigated gall to accuse me of cowardice?

You want your own freedoms protected by police and courts and an army, which those like you will never serve in but someone will.

(If you don't want lines read between then don't leave the spaces)

The answer to all your other questions on provision is; society.

I don't give much of a fuck what spin you want to put on my politics, nanny state, slavery to the system call it what you like and call all other mangled attempts at my ideology anything you like too, but at least give me the credence of rational thought and life long enough to have made my own mind up about what I think is best.

The point is and the 'truth' is, that none of these things can be provided 'for' you, given to you, or guaranteed. Just like living a life, you must earn the way you live and choose how you live your life; and you must have the freedom to choose or you have no life and become a slave, less than human.

But the point you always fail to realise, and the truth of the matter is that these things are possible. Simple as that. Perhaps it's your own imminent anarchy that frightens you into these rash words and the creeping belief that just perhaps someone else has the right answer.
I don't want your freedom, because your freedom contains the freedom to starve, the freedom to be without medical care and the utter freedom of homelessness.

Don't call me slave when you are unaware of the chains that bind you MiAmico just as securely as wages, insurance and the printed word bind us all.

Much, much better, the devil I know.

 

[Liar]

It is really quite simple, Liar, although you will not comprehend, but perhaps others will, which is why I invest the time and thought to reply.

Yannow. For once, I did actually comprehend what you wrote. Not agree, though. That's something else. You have as per usual applied an ideologic perspective and a spook dichotomy to a simple pragmatic issue, where there really is none. People should be free to make their own choices. Nothing in my position on this issue contradicts that, no matter how bizarre you try to spin things. But good try.

It's about making as informed choices as possible, about knowing the most probable short and long term effects of those choices. You can call that "hating freedom" or whatever. I think you know how just contrived it sounds.

 

[amicus]

As you well know, I seldom reply to your posts or engage you in debate.

I make an exception, in this case, to 'use' your suave ignorance to illustrate to others the abject lack of understanding in just about everything you post.

You display an almost 'religious' fervor when it comes to the 'vote' of the majority, be in in a general election or in a representative legislative body. As if the will of 51 over the 49 is sacred and the 'majority' must be obeyed.

Wrong.

Although I am not a politician, I have campaigned for public office. I am also not what one might describe as a 'practical' man in the sense of Utilitarianism. Call me what you wish, be it theorist or just a dreamer, it matters not, but for once in your simple outlook, try to include a small amount of ethics, morality and political philosophy in your rants and raves.

An idea percolated up through history and found a home in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That idea, in simple terms, is that each human being is born with the innate right to his own life, his own freedom, his own pursuit of his personal dream.

The founding fathers formed a government to 'protect' those rights and liberties.

They spelled them out, those 'rights', they enumerated them and instituted means to protect them and adjudicate differences.

I realize it stretches your very simple mind, but try, just this once. You do not have a right to tax me for old age pension or to educate your children. You do not have that right, nor does the 51 percent, nor does a total majority have the 'right' to force me to do what you think is best for me and/or the 'greater good'.

Because I and many others have served to protect 'your' freedoms; you are free to make any mutual association among those of like mind to acquire whatever 'protections' you deem fitting to your lifestyle; be it retirement insurance, automobile or home insurance or a college fund for your larvae.

I will not prevent you. Nor will I diminish your ability to purchase such things by demanding a portion of your time and energy to fulfill my dreams, save those to support the police, the courts and the military, the only legitimate use of the power of government, that to protect our innate rights.

I know you don't 'get it', perhaps others will.

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

As you well know, I seldom reply to your posts or engage you in debate.

I make an exception, in this case, to 'use' your suave ignorance to illustrate to others the abject lack of understanding in just about everything you post.

You display an almost 'religious' fervor when it comes to the 'vote' of the majority, be in in a general election or in a representative legislative body. As if the will of 51 over the 49 is sacred and the 'majority' must be obeyed.

Wrong.

Although I am not a politician, I have campaigned for public office. I am also not what one might describe as a 'practical' man in the sense of Utilitarianism. Call me what you wish, be it theorist or just a dreamer, it matters not, but for once in your simple outlook, try to include a small amount of ethics, morality and political philosophy in your rants and raves.

An idea percolated up through history and found a home in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That idea, in simple terms, is that each human being is born with the innate right to his own life, his own freedom, his own pursuit of his personal dream.

The founding fathers formed a government to 'protect' those rights and liberties.

They spelled them out, those 'rights', they enumerated them and instituted means to protect them and adjudicate differences.

I realize it stretches your very simple mind, but try, just this once. You do not have a right to tax me for old age pension or to educate your children. You do not have that right, nor does the 51 percent, nor does a total majority have the 'right' to force me to do what you think is best for me and/or the 'greater good'.

Because I and many others have served to protect 'your' freedoms; you are free to make any mutual association among those of like mind to acquire whatever 'protections' you deem fitting to your lifestyle; be it retirement insurance, automobile or home insurance or a college fund for your larvae.

I will not prevent you. Nor will I diminish your ability to purchase such things by demanding a portion of your time and energy to fulfill my dreams, save those to support the police, the courts and the military, the only legitimate use of the power of government, that to protect our innate rights.

I know you don't 'get it', perhaps others will.

amicus...

Gasp... Ami, you're an outcast.

Doesn't do any good to post this, it only exposes you to ridicule. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't just establish the freedoms and rights of citizens (which by the way you, and any other person can interpret to the limit of definition) they also and most importantly established the society of a nation. Whether you like it or not, you are part of that nation and part of the society. I'm beginning to think the USA needs another state for those who wish to opt out of society.

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
. . . But you, GaucheCritic, and the Pures, SheReads, SweetSubsarahs, Liars and et al of this forum seem to yearn to exist in a protected bubble of guaranteed existence for which you offer up your soul.

I am honored to be included in such company, ami.

Thank you for the rose, Sweets, here is one in return: .

And I should leave it there and, 'move on... move on... move on', (from Blade Runner)

However, I had the thought: y'know, some of the ladies I have admired the most in my life have been my total opposite in just about everything. Whether real women I have known or actresses and performers I admired from afar, be it a Barbra Streissand, or a Jane Fonda, and yes, it irks the hell out of me.

Something inside me responds to the flibbertigibbet, spontaneous, lovely, bouncing airhead of a redhead and even the serious gal in a candle-lit coffee house who plots and plans a revolution.

I guess somewhere along the line I formulated a theory for that phenomenon.

My theory is that the lovely ladies, being the weaker sex, physically, had to cultivate a corresponding psychology that enabled them to succeed my means other than strength and intimidation. The so called feminine mystique.

Thusly and since 'women' must be provided for and protected during vulnerable stages of their lives, e.g., pregnancy and child bearing and raising, they wheedled and coerced the poor male to provide institutional protection for them and thus was born God and religion and the beginnings of socialism, in which all were equal.

And then the God awful mistake of all mankind, we actually gave them the vote!

Ya still love me?

(now where is the damned box of candy?)

the always amicable amicus....

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=neonlyte]Gasp... Ami, you're an outcast.

Doesn't do any good to post this, it only exposes you to ridicule. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't just establish the freedoms and rights of citizens (which by the way you, and any other person can interpret to the limit of definition) they also and most importantly established the society of a nation. Whether you like it or not, you are part of that nation and part of the society. I'm beginning to think the USA needs another state for those who wish to opt out of society.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Sighs...those documents provided the 'framework', for a society, Neon, a framework wherein the people compete with opposing ideas and lifestyles.

Times and trends wax and wane; a free society, unlike many old European societies is not rigid and unchanging. It is what we can make of it. I work for other dreams and goals than you do and that is how it should be.

But my dreams and goals do not require you input or even acceptance, I have no claims on your life. Yet you, and others seem to feel like you can lay claim to mine?

Now why is that?

amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. Nice try, friend.

But freedom is authority, and with authority comes responsibility. Like most ideologues, responsibility is something you don't want. But you love the authority.

The only slave I see here, friend, is you. You're chained by your ideas. Chains you are quite comfortable with.

 

[cloudy]

Sighs...those documents provided the 'framework', for a society, Neon, a framework wherein the people compete with opposing ideas and lifestyles.

Times and trends wax and wane; a free society, unlike many old European societies is not rigid and unchanging. It is what we can make of it. I work for other dreams and goals than you do and that is how it should be.

But my dreams and goals do not require you input or even acceptance, I have no claims on your life. Yet you, and others seem to feel like you can lay claim to mine?

Now why is that?

amicus...

I find it immensely amusing that the democracy you so admire was taken almost without changes from a people you say are inferior to you.

The Iroquois Confederacy did it first. Where do you think that the "founding fathers" got their ideas, ami? Think they dreamed it up all by themselves?

Sorry, no.

 

[Guest]

My theory is that the lovely ladies, being the weaker sex, physically, had to cultivate a corresponding psychology that enabled them to succeed my means other than strength and intimidation. The so called feminine mystique.

Grinning about the weaker sex comment, dear ami, as I could plant the ball of my foot quite easily upside your head.

It's all in perspective, isn't it? The weak part?

Because when I read what you write on these threads I truly feel sorry for you and your obvious shortcomings.

 

[kendo1]

Ami: unlike many old European societies is not rigid and unchanging.

I don't know why he keeps coming out with this. He should get out more.

Better yet, stay where you are, ami.

 

[amicus]

Oh, my, and the "beat goes on" rawdy dawdy doo, was that an old Cher song?

Can't hold your own in a debate or make your points, sighs, nothing changes, plant a foot alongside me head m'dear? In your dreams little girl. Cloudy still beating her drum, nuttin new there, Cherokee prolly pushed Gore aside and invented a drum beat internet first.

Silly twits & twats.


ahem,

ah, I mean, amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Oh, my, and the "beat goes on" rawdy dawdy doo, was that an old Cher song?

Can't hold your own in a debate or make your points, sighs, nothing changes, plant a foot alongside me head m'dear? In your dreams little girl. Cloudy still beating her drum, nuttin new there, Cherokee prolly pushed Gore aside and invented a drum beat internet first.

Silly twits & twats.


ahem,

ah, I mean, amicus...

That's Choctaw, baby. Get your nations right next time, hmmm?

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n124/phyde1987/Choctaw-SPEC.jpg

 

[amicus]

(Pssst!) She wants me! I know it!


ami

 

[Pure]

Ami to liar: I realize it stretches your very simple mind, but try, just this once. You do not have a right to tax me for old age pension or to educate your children. You do not have that right, nor does the 51 percent, nor does a total majority have the 'right' to force me to do what you think is best for me and/or the 'greater good'.

the US congress from the beginning passed taxes; all it takes is 51% in both House and Senate, unless there's a veto. the Congress represents the people, so, in effect the people tax themselves.

the objector--e.g., the one who witholds taxes because they go towards war--has to face the consequences; seizure of bank accounts, auction of one's goods, whatever; as prescribed by the laws voted on by Congress; and passed by 51%

the power to levy income taxes was established by an amendment to the Constitution; that amt was passed in the prescribed way, and ratified by 3/4 votes. not unanimous. so its part of the Constitution.

the only exceptions are in the BR, mainly; Congress may not pass a law, in normal circumstances, abridging free speech. a right not to be taxed towards, say, old age pensions, does not exist in the constitution.

i know you think things went terribly wrong when the slaveholders were deprived of their property, without compensation, in violation of the Constitution, but it happend. as did all the above processes. it's called majority rule with respect for basic human rights (i.e. the Black slaves basic rights, e.g., of liberty, take priority over the slave owners' alleged 'property rights.')

that fact that you and Ayn and some anarchists object to certain taxes is a philosophical thing; it's not based on understanding of US political process.

 

[amicus]

The US Constitution was written by a group of (men only), who struggled and compromised greatly to reach and ratify a formal document.

We began with disagreement over just how powerful the Federal Government should be and what powers the States should have.

The battle has continued since that time in one form or another at many levels and many issues.

If I recall, you have, many times claimed to advocate socialism. That is fine, do so. But I advocate strict constitutional adherence and even a little more than that; I want government limited in its power to those things I consider legitimate in a free society and I have listed those before.

American History was both my undergraduate and graduate major, thus you might accept that I do have some knowledge of the Colonial Period and the formation of this government.

In the give and take of political discussions here and there, it is my opinion that little time is given the fundamental assumptions of a free market economy and a limited National government. I am uneasy with, what seems to me to be, a continuing drift or trend towards a more controlled and less free society.

You and I both know full well that you cannot morally or ethically defend a socialist society or a command economy such as you advocate. Thus you continually attack any advocacy of a free society and I watch you find the niche's or weak spots of those you attack and I watch as you exploit them.

I suppose no other course is left to you.

amicus...