On 7 Sep 2009 at 21:40, Nick Arnett wrote:
If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a
decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom,
then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention.
I should have figured
On Sep 7, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government
making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement
on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not
worthy of serious attention. I should
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote:
Given human nature as I have experienced it, John, I do not see how a
civilized society could exist following a total voluntary ethic.
It is interesting how some people claim my posts are repetitive, while
other people seem
John:
Per your request here is a new subject to match my comment. I only
use my imagination to evaluate your comments and I try to make it
clear that it is my evaluation. I never want to put words in your
mouth nor do I wish to label you. I did not say you wished to abolish
all taxes.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote:
No way will that happen unless there is an
international disaster and major die-off of the human species.
I don't have much evidence to evaluate the reliability of your
predictions, but what evidence I have seen makes me
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the
statement I am prepared to make everybody in
America pay their share to keep people from
dying because they can't afford to pay for basic
health care.?
Your comment on not having much evidence to evaluate the reliability
of my predictions is correct, to the best of my knowledge.
Which is the most unlikely beginning condition, that we get serious or
that we can decide what to do?
When you suggested that your preference is for a government
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
I don't get this. You recently wrote:
No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have
written that here before.
So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that some of the
people
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Until this is
resolved, kindly cease to refer to taxation as
taking your money, etc.
Are you serious?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote:
If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread
and ask me again.
*If*.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote:
If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread
and ask me again.
*If*.
Right. I already stated my opinion that I don't think it is worth
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
here's a new thread, as per your request.
I don't really see why a new thread is justified,
since this seems to get at something you've said
repeatedly in the old thread. You claim that
spending taxes on health care is
Hello list--
Dan wrote:
Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any
more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-)
To which I would argue, is low traffic a bad thing? I think the
signal:noise ratio has gone way up, lately. Again, I remember
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
I don't get this. You recently wrote:
No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have
written that here before.
So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
I don't get this. You recently wrote:
No, I do not propose that the US should abolish all taxes, and I have
written that here before.
So some taxes are O.K.? But I imagine that
Here's an interesting article by Luigi Zingales. In case you are
interested in reading more of his writing, he has a book, Saving
Capitalism from the Capitalists, co-authored with Raghuram Rajan.
For those who do not have time to read the entire article, I've quoted
some of the more interesting
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
here's a new thread, as per your request.
I don't really see why a new thread is justified,
since this seems to get at something you've said
repeatedly in the old thread. You claim that
spending taxes
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Until this is
resolved, kindly cease to refer to taxation as
taking your money, etc.
Are you serious?
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Williams wrote:
If you really want to discuss this again, please start a new thread
and ask me again.
*If*.
Right. I already stated my opinion that I don't
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle justified.
Calling a spade a spade is not dishonest. And I did not admit that
taxation is in principle justified. Telling me how to
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
here's a new thread, as per your request.
I don't really see why a new thread is justified,
since this seems to get at something
John Williams wrote:
...
John--
At the moment, it's not clear to me that you HAVE any
coherent views on the legitimacy of taxation. If you
do, feel free to outline them.
It seems that whenever I press you for details on
this kind of thing, you get vague. Can you do better
than taxation is
At 03:43 PM 9/8/2009, you wrote:
snip
Energy is a far more serious problem than climate change because of
the close coupling between energy and food. If we don't solve the
energy crisis, there will be awful problems such as wars and famines.
If we do solve the energy crisis in a way that
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:17 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle justified.
Calling a spade a spade is
Jo Anne wrote:
Hello list--
Dan wrote:
Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any
more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-)
To which I would argue, is low traffic a bad thing? I think the
signal:noise ratio has gone way up, lately.
John Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle justified.
Calling a spade a spade is not dishonest. And I did not admit that
taxation is in principle
John Williams wrote:
...
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Yes. It's a dishonest way to refer to it, since
you admit that taxation is in principle justified.
...
Arguing fairly and honestly is the way to have a discussion
with me.
You're still not
27 matches
Mail list logo
