MJ:  My intuition guides me well.  Which would you rather have a
government(s) taking 40 plus percent of income, or one taking 10% via
a sales tax (not on food nor medications)?  10% would be associated
with prosperity; 40 percent would be associated with economic
collapse.  — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 5:49 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> So now socialism is no longer socialism? Is THAT how you resolve your own 
> socialistic embrace? Simply REDEFINE terms?
> As noted, socialism interferes with the free use of one's own private 
> property.
> I remain curious why 10% of the GNP is *magically* optimum.
> Regard$,
> --MJEvery citizen who has produced or acquired a product, should have the 
> option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to 
> whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of 
> his desires. To deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the 
> convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to 
> violate the law of justice. -- Frédéric BastiatAt 04:38 PM 5/16/2011, you 
> wrote:MJ:  You prove nothing by arguing that another way of characterizing
> socialism is to claim such interferes with the free use of one's
> property.  I say the same thing: Socialism STEALS from those who
> actually WORK for a living to give to the good-for-nothings who are
> unwilling to lift a finger, other than to vote in the most leftist
> Democrats around.  You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
> simply don't measure up.  — NE —
> On May 16, 2:05 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At 07:36 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ:  When the cost of running our 
> > government(s) starts
> > approaching the optimum 10% of the GNP, there will be such a huge
> > What makes 10% GNP 'optimum'?amount of cash available to purchase desired 
> > goods and services, the
> > many more people should be willing to be charitable.  Socialism is
> > FORCED charity that robs from the rich to give to the lazy and good-
> > Nonsense.
> > Socialism is INTERFERING in the free use of one's private property.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJAll States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the 
> > population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon 
> > the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the 
> > State must purchase the alliance of a group of Court Intellectuals, whose 
> > task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of 
> > its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for 
> > them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and 
> > bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners 
> > in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the 
> > deluded public. -- Murray Rothbard
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to