You are simply simplistic, the only way someone would consume without contributing to society one way or another is having that person print the money he uses and forces everyone else to use it. Because if people don't find a way to "earn" the newly printed money, they won't be able to "give it back" to its original owner, and so that person takes their wealth for not getting him his paper "back"! Now that sounds familiar, does it not?
I was talking about mainstream schools of thought. Most Americans - and probably most people on the planet - fall into one of these two groups. If you include fringe elements such as extreme libertarians and georgists, you'll find all kinds of different philosophies about taxes.
You are flatly wrong. No, such claims are just false and stupid. There are many who consume without contributing: criminals, the insane, mental defectives, young children, etc. And of course, most of all, the privileged rich who take a large fraction of GDP in return for nothing. In that it sounds like some $#!+ you just made up, yes.
Mentail defectives, young children? They do not consume without contributing by themselves, other people pay for them, there is exchange involved. The only situation in which they do not contribute to society is when government forcibly takes the money from other people and give to them. Charity and taking care of children are mutual beneficial exchanges. But you are right about the criminals, they use force to consume without producing, just like government.
Yes, of course they do, and you know it, so stop lying. And so do the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich, except that they consume far more without contributing anything in return. There is no exchange, only an unrequited transfer, stop lying. No, that's just another stupid lie from you, stop lying. They are not contributing, period, and you know it, and so does everyone else reading this. You are just accustomed to getting away with lying about it. No, they are not, stop lying. No, government produces the services and infrastructure that people are willing to pay rich, greedy, parasitic landowners for, which is how the latter are enabled to consume without producing.
It wouldn't surprise me to see you deny your previous comments on the thievery of owner occupation. It would be the sensible thing to do
It wouldn't surprise me to see you makin' $#!+ up about my previous comments on the thievery of owner occupation. It would be the Reiver thing to do. It also wouldn't surprise me to see you rationalizing the thievery of taxing away the earned incomes of working people to provide welfare subsidies to wealthy landowners. That would definitely be the Reiver thing to do.
I'm happy to see you reconfirming the fact that in order to rationalize stealing from working people to provide welfare subsidy giveaways to the landed kleptocracy, you always have to lie about what I have plainly written.
You now have exactly two choices, Reiver: either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I said home owners are thieves, or admit that you are despicable, evil, lying filth. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.
Actually I was wrong. You essentially said they were worse than thieves: " homeowners have life much easier than thieves". Here's another: "[Home ownership is] used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims"
<yawn> Direct, verbatim, and in-context, Reiver. The alternative is admitting that you are, as usual, LYING about what I have plainly written. I'm waiting.
You've been found out dear chap. I've quoted you directly twice. In both cases you made ludicrous statements about owner occupiers. I expect you to stamp your foot now and argue against your own comments.
No, sonny, you have. You lied about what I wrote, and when challenged, you could not produce a direct, verbatim, in-context quote. It's over. You lost, and you admitted that you lied. ROTFL!! But not verbatim or in context, proving that you both know and admit that you lied about what I wrote. How humiliating for you. <yawn> If I did, why couldn't you quote them verbatim and in context, hmmmm? Despicable. You do seem to find a remarkable number of different things to be wrong about.
You've been quoted directly twice, in both cases you made the ridiculous link with owner occupier thieving. You've been caught out I'm afraid. It does amuse me to see you try and argue against your own comments. Shows just how far you'll go!
Thanks for admitting that you lied about what I wrote, and then tried to cover up your lie by quoting me out of context and altering my words. Thanks for admitting that even when this has been pointed out to you, and the specific nature of your dishonesty identified, you have no choice but to try to brazen it out, as you cannot quote me directly, verbatim, and in-context saying that homeowners are thieves -- which I of course never did. Oh, I "made a link," did I? ROTFL!! Thanks for admitting, again, that you lied outright about what I wrote, and cannot provide a quote to support your lie. Your lies have been exposed, and everyone reading this knows it, including you. I haven't argued against my own comments, that's merely another flat-out lie from you. You always have to lie, Reiver, because there is no other way to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil. Which shows just how far you'll go.
As he argues against his own comments (rather desperately too!). Let's just repeat the comments: "Homeowners have life much easier than thieves; "[Home ownership is] used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims" Oops!
So do you agree with your comments or don't you?: "Homeowners have life much easier than thieves; "[Home ownership is] used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims". You do make me laugh
Both are perfectly correct. But they do not say what you claim I said: that homeowners are thieves. So you admit that you lied. Whereas you make me sick.
Sounds like you need some lessons on English! The first suggests you think they are worse than thieves. The second says directly that you think homeowners are thieves. Ridiculous comments of course so I'm pleased to see you attacking your own comments
