Inchoate sputtered:
> > > It's clear 'insurance' in the
> > > conventional sense won't work
> > > because the market is too
> > > distresed.
> >
> > Interesting assertion. Anything
> > to back it up?
>
> Yes, arithmetic. If you spend more
> than you make, you go broke (or in
> the case of a business, out of
> business).
I asked if Inchoate had anything to back up his assertion, to wit, "the
market is too distresed [sic]." That was a factual claim about today's
insurance market in light of BSE claims." Instead of quoting published
statistics, he feebly offered a conditional truism (i.e., "*IF* you
spend...." [my emphasis]) Sad, very sad...and cowardly. If you don't have
the facts to back up your statements, admit it like a man.
> > > It's clear that a simple 'voluntary
> > > regulatory body' won't work because there
> > > are ample examples of their abuse for
> > > political and economic gain.
> >
> > Name three.
>
> Only need to name one to disprove a theory
> (namely your theory that self-regulation
> ALWAYS works).
Straw man. Please cite where I made such a claim.
> I sent a couple of URL's to the list
> a few days ago, check 'em out.
No thanks, I don't read Inchoate's throw-away posts. If he's too lazy to
back up his silly opinions, maybe he should just take that sloth to its
logical extreme.
> > > What's interesting is the missed view
> > > that 'government' IS 'insurance' in a
> > > very real sense.
> >
> > And in a very inefficient, violent sense.
>
> Not always, which is again contrary to your assertion.
Straw man. Please cite where I said 'always.'
> Straw man. Anarchy if applied to
> everyone would be a monopoly...
Anarchy = monopoly? Drop the crack pipe and back away slowly. Keep your
hands where we can see them.
> Agreed, and irrelevant. Take Friedman's
> 'anarchy' where the individual 'security
> agencies' and 'courts' are still running
> around using violence.
While neither Inchoate nor I have a problem with violence, per se, we have a
fundamental philosophical difference. Inchoate believes it's okay to
initiate violence (i.e., government) whereas I believe violence is only
justified in response to violence or the threat of violence.
> Nothing, I've been running Excell and
> playing with models.
I'd have some respect for Inchoate if they were super models, but it appears
that he's just playing with himself.
> You should try it sometime.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
> > ...it gives every other "commercial
> > enterprise" in the world an enormous
> > advantage over American "commercial
> > enterprises."
>
> Demonstrate. It actually gives no
> company an advantage over the US firms.
> It lowers the operating cost of the
> domestic firms and the foreign firms
> are not exempt from taxation if they
> play in this market. All other things
> being equal (eg transportation cost)
> then the playing field is fair.
Nonsense. Inchoate's three unsupported assumptions are (a) taxing only
"businesses" (whatever that means) increases efficiency in tax collection
(b) assuming arguendo such an efficiency were to exist, it does not follow
that tax efficiency equals lower taxes and (c) that taxing foreign
businesses for their US activity is somehow equivalent of taxing US
businesses for their US activity. I've done enough international business
to know that it's not that difficult to control where one takes one's profit
and pays one's taxes.
> > Second, it assumes that there is
> > some easily defined difference
> > between "individuals" and "commercial
> > enterprises."
>
> There is.
Please state the algorithm by which such a distinction is made.
> > How about independent CPAs?
>
> That's a business.
When the CPA gives "free" stock tips to his accounting clients?
> > A movie star?
>
> Are they making the movie or simply
> staring in it for a paycheck? If they
> are only getting a paycheck then they
> wouldn't be taxed, that isn't a
> business.
Obviously, Inchoate has very little business experience. I don't want to
spoil anyone's fun, so I leave it as an exercise to the student to figure
out how EVERY independent contractor (CPAs included) can become "employees."
> > A family having a garage sale...etc.
I guess "business" is like "obscenity," Inchoate knows it when he sees it.
I eagerly await his business vs. paycheck algorithm.
> > > Tax the hell out of business on the
> > > Internet. It's actually cheaper for all
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Really? Cheaper than no taxes at all?
>
> Yes, because the 'free market'
> operating costs when compared to
> 'tax costs' are higher.
Interesting assertion. Anything to back it up?
> All systems including C-A-C-L must
> at some point resort to force to
> protect themselves and maintane
> their existance.
Protect yes, what concerns me is shooting people who do not threaten you.
> In fact your observation is tantamount
> to an admissio that C-A-C-L doesn't
> work. In short, you'r a hypocrite.
Huh? (Damn, he picked that crack pipe back up when I wasn't looking.)
S a n d y
P.S. C'punks, am I taking too much pleasure in making fun of the
handicapped? Let me know what you think by private e-mail (or on the list
if you prefer).
_____________________________________________________________
If the law of gravity is fundamental, why can't it be changed
by Constitutional amendment since it's the primary authority?
W W
\*\ /*/
The Road Kill Group |*| |*|
/*////|\\\\*\ |\-
(|||||||||||||\((x)\
-======-------------||---:>
(|||||||||||||/((x)/
\*\\\\|////*/ |/-
|*| |*|
/*/ \*\
M M
verbigeration (vuhr-bij-uh-RAY-shun) noun
Obsessive repetition of meaningless words and phrases.
[From Latin verbigerare, to talk, chat, from verbum word + gerere, to carry
on + -ation.]
