Redistributing Wealth

I've been reading Beyond Democracy.

One point made in the book is that democracy includes the redistribution of wealth to the majority of voters.  Not all voters will agree with this.  (Because they're stupid.)

Some people advocate the outright redistribution of wealth, and healthcare, and so on.  They say that its not fair that the rich have more and better.

This book points out that these people only make this point in the confines of modern western countries, not throughout the world.

The GDP per capita in the United States is around $48,000 (questionable source).  If you make less than $48,000 and live in America, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should raise your annual income to $48,000.  You'd be made better off.

If you're honest about improving the lives of the poor by redistributing wealth, then why stop at our country's borders?  You should advocate redistribution, or universal healthcare, throughout the world.

The world GDP per capita (another questionable source) is around $12,000.  If you make more than $12,000, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should lower your annual income to $12,000.  You'd be made worse off.

If you advocate redistribution of wealth, or for universal healthcare, or similar,  but do not give away all of your annual income over $12,000 to the poor of the world, then you are a hypocrite.

***

Even more oversimplified: Of course Warren Buffet and I should share our wealth equally.  No, I don't want to share my wealth equally with the residents of Tanzania.

***

You hypocrites want the wealth of others for yourselves.  And you're not even willing to steal it yourself.  You'd rather vote for the government to take from those others by force.  If they get thrown in jail or killed while resisting arrest becasue they don't want to pay, then what's it to you?

Robbers, muggers, and thieves are honorable compared to those of you who advocate redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare.  At least they do the dirty work themselves.

Guns & Anti-Self Censoring

The Free Northerner pointed out in a recent link post that he rarely self censors.  That comment reminded me of a subject that I don't recall anyone writing about; no doubt becasue they'd fear the backlash for doing so.

One of the arguments against the private ownership of guns is the supposed anecdote that, "what do you tell the parent of a child who has accidentally injured someone with a gun?"

How indeed do you speak of such a subject without appearing uncaring or mean spirited?

Its not the time to point out the stupidity of the parents for leaving something dangerous where their kids could reach it.  Its not the time to criticize stupid grieving parents when their kid has been injured.

So instead of asking the parents if they leave rat poison next to the Captain Crunch or if its the sharp knife's fault that it was left on the table and then the knife's fault that it cut the kid, let's blame the inanimate object.

It wasn't your fault for being irresponsible, it was the fault of the inanimate, and unthinking, hunk of metal that your kid is injured.

Yes that, it!  Its not your fault at all!  We'll blame something else to make you feel less bad, and to hell with what is right and just!  And to hell with the rights of others!  I'll assume that this is the appropriate and morally responsible thing to say in your time of sadness.

The imbeciles that use arguments like this are absolutely vile.

The Bane of My Existance

In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to remove or disable a catalytic converter for any reason other than its direct and immediate replacement. In the United States, for example, it is a violation of Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act for a vehicle repair shop to remove a converter from a vehicle, or cause a converter to be removed from a vehicle, except in order to replace it with another converter.,^[26] and Section 203(a)(3)(B) makes it illegal for any person to sell or to install any part that would bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any emission control system, device, or design element. Vehicles without functioning catalytic converters generally fail emission inspections. The automotive aftermarket supplies high-flow converters for vehicles with upgraded engines, or whose owners prefer an exhaust system with larger-than-stock capacity.^[27]

Summarized by Wikipedia

Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013 Update

I left a lot of comments yesterday and got a lot of responses today.  I am not interested in responding today.  But here are some comments I received this morning:

PhilipTaylor

 INCREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT LAST 12 YEARS!

█ 5% Obama
██████████████████ 95% G0P-BU’SH-RY’AN

“How my Republican Party DESTR0YED the American Economy.”

 -- DAVlD ST0CKMAN (R), Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President RonaId Rea gan

A MUST READ!

G0P = GAVE $10 TRlLLl0N IN FREE STUFF TO $BILLIONAIRES, RlCH, AND C0RP0RATl0NS IN 8 YEARS CAUSlNG THE CRA'SH OF 2008!

BU’SH-RY’AN-G0P ADDED $9.9 TRlLLl0N to THE NATl0NAL DEBT!

$10 TRlLLl0N ALMOST -- $9.906 TRlLLl0N Added to US DE’BT by RY’AN for 65 DE’BT MAKlNG bills increasing spending or decreased revenues for programs NEVER paid for.

$_2,163,000,000,000 BU’SH Tax Cuts
$_1,468,000,000,000 “FA’KED WARS” - New Defense Spending
$__ 480,000,000,000 New Discretionary Spending - MOSTLY $C0RP0RATE ♜ WELFARE
$__ 262,000,000,000 Medicare Part WELFARE TO BlG PHAR’MA
$__ 196,000,000,000 New Misc. Spending
$__ 189,000,000,000 TARP
$__ 148,000,000,000 BU’SH 2008 - RY’AN’S BlG PU’SH FOR STlMULUS CHECKS
_______________________

$_ 5,000,000,000,000 BU’SH 2001 to 2008 Costs
$_ 4,906,000,000,000 BU’SH CARRYOVER 2009 to 2012 Costs

$_9,906,000,000,000 Total RY’AN Spending  =  ALMOST $10 TRlLLl0N

██████████████████ 10% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2008 UNDER BUSH
████████ 4% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2013 UNDER OBAMA
████ 2% DEFlClT % OF GDP 2015 CBO Projection

G0P = SO VERY SAD THEY L0ST THElR FRAUD SCAM FOR AU'STERlTY!

***
japhya1 

elTim...because NYC police shot three innocent men. That's why NYC paid out over 30 million dollars for wrongful action/doing regarding this case. Now suck on that...

[Another nice guy.  I wonder if he thinks I like cops. lol]

Huffington Post Comments, 6/14/2013

Sorry, Chilis, for the delay.

***

John P Miller

Thanks for your analysis of the "scandals" of the Obama administration pushed by the GOP that seem to have no traction with the American people except possibly the IRS one. I thought it was interesting that last week one official from Ohio who described himself as a conservative Republican said he was the one who decided to target the Republican groups for special scrutiny since these groups were new & he wanted to be sure that they evalulated each carefully since
they were setting a precedent.

Me

If we ignore the opinions of half the country, then everyone agrees with me!

Wait...doesn't that work both ways?

Liberal "logic" sure is funny!

pssdov

We just ignore the ignorant opinions of 47%, the number of people who voted Republican. And they don't really have opinions, just what FOX tells them to think.

Me

Have you any evidence you support your claim that republican voters have no opinions and only repeat what they're told?

How do you reconcile your tagline of "No act of kindness goes unnoticed" with your comment accusing the people who vote republican are ignorant sheep only repeating what they're told?

Is it kindness to imply that people are ignorant sheep just becasue they have a different political opinion than you do?

***
brklynivn

The last thing social conservatives are worried about are the liberties of Americans. 

Me

As opposed to liberals who aren't worried about the phone record keeping, against ownership of guns, against school choice....

(Note, to prevent the standard follow-up comment I revive when I post a comment like this: I am an anarcho-capitalist.) 

[ed note: I correctly predicted that he would call me a name related to my political affiliation.]

 brklynivn

And when did this all come about - hint - Patriot Act?

"Anarcho- capitalist"?  You mean tea-bagger. 

Me

Both parties are awful on civil liberties.

That is one reason I am no longer voting.

If you vote, then you are supporting the scam that is a "choice" between two "different" parties. 

Aren't you a pleasant fellow? I hope you're less rude in person.

By "anarcho-capitalist" I mean that I favor capitalism, becasue of the prosperity that has achieved, and think the government is corrupt and awful at everything that it does.

Should I conclude by calling you an insulting name? 

 brklynivn

Anarchy means one favors disorder above law - that's the definition of anarchy.  Anarcho-capitalism basically means unbridled capitalism outside the bounds of any rules or law - you know - like corporatism. 

Me

Anarchy means no government, not necessarily disorder.

What do you dislike about "corporatism"? Are the worst aspects of it any different from the evils our government does against us now?

 ***

News: Arms to Syria

Me

How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?  

Florin Milea

Poorly.

Me

Voting is for suckers.

Thanks for the honest answer. 

***

Me

How do those of you who opposed intervention Iraq and Afghanistan and then voted for Obama feel now?  

Rafael Tarnawiecki

Pissed 

Me

Thanks for the honest answer.

I apologize for voting for republicans in the past and promise not do do so again.

Will you promise to stop voting for the democrats? 

A Thoughtful, Impressive, Well Reasoned, and Well Sourced Critism of Me...

...can be found as an Anonymous comment on my post: Criticisms of Libertarians...Seem to Be Stupid.

The comment, in full:

AnonymousJune 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM 

you are an idiot

Dear Anonymous,

Well kind sir, I applaud you on your well reasoned criticism.   I submit that I am defeated by your wit, and well punctuated criticism.

I thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

But if I may make a simple request?  You don't need to be so shy, post with a name (any name) so that I may appropriately let you know how well you have destroyed all of my arguments and convinced me to fully change my world view.

Thanks again,

Tim

P.S. wanker 

Make the White House a Gun Free Zone

from John Lott's blog:

The Daily Caller has this word about a petition on the White House’s official petition website to make the WH a gun-free zone (see here).  

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around themGun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.