I've been called a lot of things...

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Nak, I participate in many well run bulletin boards.  The digression is kept to a minimum by the posters themselves.  No one blatantly derails threads like is done here.

Skuzzy, post links.

[Skuzzy]

You wouldn't like them.  All tech stuff.

Odd thing....the thread on German toilets has stayed on topic more than any other thread in this forum.

Wonder if I should read anything into that?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Airhead
Skuzzy, post links.

I'm sure that's high on his list of things to do. Right up there next to having all his teeth pulled or an unanesthecized castration.


Reminds of the Far Side cartoon where the car is leaving the driveway and a dog in the back seat leans over the door window and tells the dog outside the car that he is going to the vet to get tutored.  

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
So, you are advocating socialism.  You do not like a majority ruled government.  There is no such thing as a perfect government and your ideas have just as many flaws as any others I have witnessed.

Better check your definition of socialism; Miko's the farthest thing from a socialist.

[Skuzzy]

Typo, should have been a question.  Corrected.

[Tarmac]

Skuzzy, I think you're confusing socialism with autocracy.  Socialism is an economic idea -- that of a central authority redistributing society's capital as it sees fit.  Capitalism, rule of free markets, is the opposite of socialism.  

Autocracy -- rule by one -- or any of its derivatives (plutocracy - rule by the wealthy; absolute monarchies and oligarchies also falling into the category of an autocracy) is a political idea.  Democracy is generally regarded as the opposite of autocracy.  

So, you are advocating socialism? You do not like a majority ruled government.

It is possible to advocate other forms of government besides democracy without advocating socialism -- as I believe Miko is doing, although I don't know what his political alternative is.  But his economic policy is that of the free market -- the farthest thing from socialism.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Better check your definition of socialism; Miko's the farthest thing from a socialist.

Miko is far away from alot of things.

How anyone can defend his arguments as even remotely rational is beyond me.  

In my not so humble opinion (surprise) he has recently joined the ranks of other memorable 'activists' that used to frequent this board.  They used to be mildly entertaining and then made the mistake of assuming they were being taken seriously.

Once the realization and subsequent shock sets in that not only have they erased any credibility they might have had, but others just dont want to listen to them anymore it goes downhill.  Pretty soon the arguments get even more ridiculous and offensive simply to attract attention ::coughweazlecough::

Discussions are fun, arguments are more fun, personal attacks are orgasmic, but attempting to advance your own political opinions in every thread you enter, regardless of its initial topic, gets extremely annoying after awhile.

Usually ignoring would do the trick - but when the post is offensive or crazy enough to invoke a response from 90% of the community the initial topic is pretty much dead.

I say tar and feathers.  Tar and feathers, I say.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Miko is far away from alot of things.

How anyone can defend his arguments as even remotely rational is beyond me.  

Which arguments?  If you're referring to the "the sky is falling" arguments (as others have dubbed them), then I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.  I'd bet a lot of his detractors don't know enough either.  Whether he knows enough or not, well, that's one of the reasons for discussing.  

As for his views on liberty and personal freedom, I think the country would be a better place if the pendulum of popular opinion swung a bit his way.

[Swager]

Why even bring this on the BBS?

A simple e-mail to Skuzzy would of accomplished the same thing, but without airing the laundry.

[Skuzzy]

Thank you Tarmac.  I realize there are other forms of government, but for the life of me I cannot put a finger on what his would be.

I see a lot of complaints, but no solutions.  Maybe I missed it somewhere along the line.  Quite possible.
The only thing I noted was he was against paying taxes without having the immediate ability to dictate how the money was spent.

I think it an unattainable goal due to the amount of bueacracy that would be required.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
The only thing I noted was he was against paying taxes without having the immediate ability to dictate how the money was spent.

Ahh, then you're missing the point.  The only way for us to ensure that our money goes where we want it to, in terms of the communal good or any other social cause, is to spend it ourselves.  As in not get taxed for it in the first place.

There was a time when governments did not tax you so that they could give housing loans, did not give welfare checks, and did not give social security.  The world still spun, people lived just fine.  

Think about it -- I believe the government takes over 50% of our money, by the time all is said and done.  Let's assume that 50% is the number for the sake of argument.  How much of that goes toward "necessary" communal things like national defense, police, etc (note these are things that ensure life and property are protected and that the free market can funtion unhindered by theft, fraud, extortion, etc.)?  We cut all that socialist stuff (by socialist I mean the government taxing people and redistributing it to others as it sees fit) and throw it away, along with all the bureacracy associated with it.  Now how much money do you  have personally?  A lot more.  For the sake of argument, let's say you now take home 85% of your money.  That's a 35% increase -- as in 35 percent that you could donate to cancer research, a space exploration society, a homeless shelter, or any other program that  you see fit.  If one of these nonprofits does something you don't approve of -- misallocate funds, engage in unethical business practices, or give methadone as treatment to drug addics (assuming you don't approve of that), you vote with your dollar.  They either change, or they go on without you.  Or they go out of business and someone else takes their place.  That's something that government bureaucracies rarely do -- go out of business.  As a result, the government just keeps getting larger.    

I don't have all the answers by any means, but that's the direction I'd like to see this country go.  Not the way it's going now -- toward bigger government, higher taxes, and more control over me.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Which arguments?  If you're referring to the "the sky is falling" arguments (as others have dubbed them), then I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.  I'd bet a lot of his detractors don't know enough either.  Whether he knows enough or not, well, that's one of the reasons for discussing.  

You know the problem there, don't you? There are a lot of pretty smart economists in the world who have access to public media, and you don't hear the incessant "We're all doomed!" funeral dirge we frequently hear here. It's almost as if he believes he possess a unique knowledge of economy simply no one else has yet grasped. Maybe he's right, I'm not an economist, but the point has long since been well made. It's turned into a drone by now. I don't have to read it all, and honestly (for the most part) I've stopped because of the unvarying tone and quality. There's nothing new to hear. Couple that with inane comments about slave labor, and how can you take it seriously? Comparing tax dollars to actual bondage? That's a semantic game only- like the old game of saying:

"Motion is impossible, because between two points on a line there are an infinite number of points. Since time is finite, it is impossible to cover an infinite number of points in an finite amount of time. Motion is impossible."

Undoubtedly we need to do things better, but to suggest we've never been in trouble straits before seems uninformed.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Kieran
You know the problem there, don't you? There are a lot of pretty smart economists in the world who have access to public media, and you don't hear the incessant "We're all doomed!" funeral dirge we frequently hear here. It's almost as if he believes he possess a unique knowledge of economy simply no one else has yet grasped. Maybe he's right, I'm not an economist, but the point has long since been well made. It's turned into a drone by now. I don't have to read it all, and honestly (for the most part) I've stopped because of the unvarying tone and quality. There's nothing new to hear. Couple that with inane comments about slave labor, and how can you take it seriously? Comparing tax dollars to actual bondage? That's a semantic game only- like the old game of saying:

"Motion is impossible, because between two points on a line there are an infinite number of points. Since time is finite, it is impossible to cover an infinite number of points in an finite amount of time. Motion is impossible."

Undoubtedly we need to do things better, but to suggest we've never been in trouble straits before seems uninformed.

I agree, I don't buy the "we're doomed" predictions.  And the "we're doomed" predictions are exaggerated by other people blowing them out of proportion and overlooking the fact that governmental change happens in decades, which are incomprehensible to many voters and politicians on 4-6 year timetables.  So the problems may not come to a head in our lifetimes, or at least not until we're too old and our children have to deal with them.  

But I do agree with him that in the long term this country, and much of the world, is headed in the wrong direction and that the current notions of "progress" are leading us astray -- away from personal liberty.  I want to see the country head back in the other direction -- away from socialism and the nanny state and back toward personal liberty and accountability.

So are we doomed?  No, nothing is inevitable.  But to recognize that something is wrong, and getting worse, and remain silent is a disservice to myself and the future of the country.

[B17Skull12]

IN!

[Dowding]

People have been saying we're doomed since our anscestors discovered rubbing sticks together had an interesting effect. I would say we are doomed. That is pretty inevitable. The true question is when.