Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You think that his company isn't well respected in the astronomical
community? Then you are very out-of-touch.

You are supposed to answer the questions I asked about your arrogant statement.

I did answer. Roland's company is well respected. For the quality of
design, for the quality of product, for the quality of service.

Ugharoller only understands the concept of his own "achievements" in a narrow area, as do you. You both consider most others' achievements to be inconsequential or to be taken for granted and then ignored.

I have no idea where you are deriving this generalization. I don't
think either of us have denigrated the achievements of others.

You responded to RichA with :

"Your individual achievements are less apparent."

That's denigration.

No. That's a simple statement of fact. We all know what Roland has
accomplished. We know nothing of Rich's accomplishments. He is more
than welcome to let us know. But he has not done so.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:30:09 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:28:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

That's a load of bs.

Well, that's a convincing counter argument.

There is no point in arguing with your bs, peterson. The most expedient thing is just to identify it for what it is!

Says the person who believes that every comment or opinion demands
"evidence" or it is completely invalid.

Then provide evidence and proof for what you wrote, which was:

" One huge advantage of a rich society is the ability to define richer, more complex, and more far reaching rights, that expand the opportunities of everyone. One huge advantage of a democratic society is for those rights to be broadly defined by the people, by majority or by consensus, not by just a few."

" The most successful free and rich societies also have the broadest and most levelly defined and applied rights. And that's no coincidence."

As I said before, that's a load of bs.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:24:12 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:47:04 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

Income (and benefits) should NOT be taxed. It is an inherently unfair tax,
criminal in fact.

The worker who has to work more hours to get the same amount of pay as another
is having his TIME stolen from him, for example.

The whole point of income tax is that all workers pay it, and those who earn
more pay more.

Or maybe you're quarreling with deductions for dependents?

A CEO who works 70+ hours a week is trading his free time for the possibility of financial gain. Who are you to assume that YOU are entitled to what he has earned?

A worker who has to work a similar number of hours at low wage jobs is also trading his free time for financial gain. Again, who are you to assume that YOU are entitled to what he has earned?

A consumption tax would be fair.

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 1:08:47 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
The parasitically corrupt communist party in China. Or the parasitically
corrupt, religious "sponges" in many of the poorest nations on earth like Tibet
and Nepal.

At the present time, it is the Communist Party in China that the people of Tibet have to contend with.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:28:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You think that his company isn't well respected in the astronomical
community? Then you are very out-of-touch.

You are supposed to answer the questions I asked about your arrogant statement.

I did answer. Roland's company is well respected. For the quality of
design, for the quality of product, for the quality of service.

That doesn't change the fact that he is an *******.

And no, you didn't answer my questions about whether other companies are just as respected, which, if you were to answer factually, would make your statement about "respected instruments" seem ridiculous.

Ugharoller only understands the concept of his own "achievements" in a narrow area, as do you. You both consider most others' achievements to be inconsequential or to be taken for granted and then ignored.

I have no idea where you are deriving this generalization. I don't
think either of us have denigrated the achievements of others.

You responded to RichA with :

"Your individual achievements are less apparent."

That's denigration.

No. That's a simple statement of fact. We all know what Roland has
accomplished. We know nothing of Rich's accomplishments. He is more
than welcome to let us know. But he has not done so.

We really don't care what ugha might have accomplished. None of that elevates him to the role of sage or guru outside his narrow area. Rich's opinions are as valid as ugha's, perhaps more so in fact, in that Rich at least tries to tell things as they are, rather than regurgitate socialist propaganda the way both you and ugha do.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:24:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:14:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The solution to that is to NOT TAX INCOME, dumbass!

No, that's _a_ solution. Not a good one, IMO.

It's a great solution! It's fair to those who have to put more effort and sacrifice into their work.

Glad you think so. I don't think so.

That's because you are either

1) An idiot
2) An evil S**
3) Both

Because it is unfair in that it treats people differently depending on
the nature of their employment.

A person who works longer hours for a lower wage is being treated unfairly under YOUR system!

Which system are you talking about?

The system that I speak of is the one that steals time from those who must or choose to work harder and/or longer for a given economic or material gain. The system that I speak of is the one that takes more out of a physical laborer than it does out a receptionist who are paid the same anount.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

The whole point of income tax is that all workers pay it,

That's not true. Some workers pay no income tax.

and those who earn
more pay more.

Not necessarily. There are many deductions. And a big problem is
that the more you earn, the tax *rate* goes up.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:57:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Because it is unfair in that it treats people differently depending on
the nature of their employment.

A person who works longer hours for a lower wage is being treated unfairly under YOUR system!

Which system are you talking about?

The system that I speak of is the one that steals time from those who must or choose to work harder and/or longer for a given economic or material gain. The system that I speak of is the one that takes more out of a physical laborer than it does out a receptionist who are paid the same anount.

I still don't understand what you think MY system is that is somehow
unfair.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:19:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Public health has to do with the health of the public (clever name,
no?)

Public health has little to do with an individual's health most of the time.

Public health in the end is only about individual health.


That includes far more than monitoring; it includes all the methods of
providing for it, as well as the mechanisms of paying for it.

No, it does not, and should not. As was pointed out to you before, public health is about the monitoring of disease.

I get that this is your extremely limited, rather 19th century
definition. It isn't mine, nor that of most of the developed world.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I did answer. Roland's company is well respected. For the quality of
design, for the quality of product, for the quality of service.

That doesn't change the fact that he is an *******.

I read that as "paragon". Or if you mean something different, say it.
Are you twelve years old?

We really don't care what ugha might have accomplished.

Maybe you don't. But you've hijacked a comment I made to Rich, and it
was entirely relevant given that Rich was accusing somebody who
clearly has significant personal accomplishments of not understanding
that concept.