# 1-20-09: On This Day in History, I Will ...



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

... be getting a colonoscopy.

I make it a point to do something special, something that will commemorate and exemplify this special day in the American state.

(And, if you believe the television (I can't seem to get away from the damned things ... they're everywhere!), then you would believe that, for some reason, this inauguration is more "historic" than others.)

So, every four years, on the 20th day of January, like proverbial clockwork, the revolting display of our imperial coronations reminds me to get the old plumbing checked out. It only seems fitting.

If there's any time left over, I will be taking care of some other unpleasant tasks, like cleaning the gutters, or scooping the filth out the grease trap outside my kitchen window. If any of you gentlemen use septic systems, this might be a good day to get them serviced as well.

The orgy of statism and aggrandizement of brutality, oppression, and indefensible crimes against countless millions, dressed up in vomit-worthy pageantry, will just have to go on without me.

(By the way, I am also reminded of a useful rule of thumb -- the degree of freedom enjoyed by the people is inversely proportional to the amount of security to the head of state.)


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Phinn said:


> (By the way, I am also reminded of a useful rule of thumb -- the degree of freedom enjoyed by the people is inversely proportional to the amount of security to the head of state.)


Once upon a time, my grandmother got upset with the President of the United States of America. She boarded a train in her sleepy little hometown, spend two days travelling to Washington, D.C. and walked right up to the front door of the White House and asked to speak to the president. After giving him an earfull, she took the same train and went home. If I was to attempt the same trip today, I would be arrested before I ever got on the train in that sleepy little town.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

glad your getting the colonoscopy, perhaps the doctor will find you something useful up there. for the rest of us who love the constitution and liberty - you cannot diminish the glory of this day - god bless the president of the united states


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> ... be getting a colonoscopy.
> 
> I make it a point to do something special, something that will commemorate and exemplify this special day in the American state.


What a sad, petty, small man.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,

Are you sure you aren't getting a colonoscopy to commemorate the fact that you are an a**hole?

Regards,

Karl


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

where else but America

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

KARL, I KNOW IT'S THE INTERCHANGE, BUT - - - -

Obviously, this thread needs to be watched. Sigh.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

young guy said:


> for the rest of us who love the constitution and liberty - you cannot diminish the glory of this day - god bless the president of the united states


Either the Constitution permits this horrid state of affairs, or it was powerless to prevent it.



jackmccullough said:


> What a sad, petty, small man.


To appease your finely-tuned sense of justice and high morals, I can assure you that I feel this way about Republicans as well as Democrats.

In any event, the fact that you are a slavish worshiper of State violence (so long as it is conducted with the requisite layer of _leftist_ propaganda smeared over it like so much bullsh*it) tells me all that I need to know about your level of moral corruption.



Karl89 said:


> Are you sure you aren't getting a colonoscopy to commemorate the fact that you are an a**hole?


I think it is important to point out the fetid, stinking nature of the state in general and the U.S. government in particular.

Let's say that you know a woman who has been in 6 abusive, violent relationships in the last 3 years. And every time it is the same story -- she falls head-over-heels in _luuuuuv _with some guy she just met. She goes all moon-eyed over him, quickly giving him access to her bank account, lets him use her car, gives up all kinds of personal favors to him. And, the same pattern emerges -- before long she's in the hospital with a black eye and a chipped tooth, calling the guy all sorts of nasty names. Always the same story.

So, let's say this perpetual victim of abuse comes to you one day and tells you all about this new guy she's met, how he's so _dreamy_, that he's a real keeper, different from all the rest, and as soon as his parole officer lets him leave the county, he and his pit bull are going to move in with her.

What do you do? Lie to her and tell her you are happy? It's not like falling in love and getting all misty over a guy is somehow _bad_. Are you "the a**hole" merely because you see what's coming? Or would it be obvious to you that *the moon-eyed fantasy at the beginning of these abusive relationships is part of the problem -- that it facilitates and enables the pattern of abuse to continue*.

I think it would be cruel to fail to do what you could, as early as you could, to prevent the pattern from repeating, yet again. Clearly, this woman has some psychological deficiency, which moves her to not only tolerate but actively seek out abusive relationships.

It seems particularly cruel to say nothing when the newest guy in question, before he even moved into her house, has made all sorts of incredibly creepy but totally believable promises about how _*she*_ is going to have to make major (but unnamed) "sacrifices," and her children will have to serve in a , as though they were slaves.

I would think that smart people would know that the parade and pageantry of multi-billion dollar inaugurations is an integral part of the overall sickness, and is in fact part of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign to get you to ignore the ugly truth.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

he (Obama) may have been speaking to you Phinn, as all your arguments have been around for some time - the same old whining and complaining...

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.”


he seems intent on at least trying to move ahead (of the past 16 years at least)

“We have chosen hope over fear.”


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Very refreshing platitudes. But that's not much of a change.

A two-trillion-dollar deficit--that's going to be something!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

at least he has good platitudes - it not perfect but its a start - instead of telling us to fight terrorism by going shopping


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> To appease your finely-tuned sense of justice and high morals, I can assure you that I feel this way about Republicans as well as Democrats.
> 
> In any event, the fact that you are a slavish worshiper of State violence (so long as it is conducted with the requisite layer of _leftist_ propaganda smeared over it like so much bullsh*it) tells me all that I need to know about your level of moral corruption.
> 
> I think it is important to point out the fetid, stinking nature of the state in general and the U.S. government in particular.


That's actually my point. Reading your posts, I can't help thinking what a sad existence you must lead, constantly resentful at the imagined usurpations and crimes of government of all forms.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> That's actually my point. Reading your posts, I can't help thinking what a sad existence you must lead, constantly resentful at the imagined usurpations and crimes of government of all forms.


I find that comment very odd, since your own blog is subtitled "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention."

Unlike you, I am not filled with rage, Jack. I lead a life filled with creativity and joy.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

To Phinn, hope everything is in good shape.



young guy said:


> glad your getting the colonoscopy, perhaps the doctor will find you something useful up there. for the rest of us who love the constitution and liberty - you cannot diminish the glory of this day - god bless the president of the united states


This coming from a man who can't capitalize proper nouns, such as: Constitution, God, President of the United States.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Seems our stock market is getting a colonoscopy as well... or worse.

I can't figure out WHY!
We have a savior now.
People should feel safe to invest.

This is so confusing to me.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> glad your getting the colonoscopy, perhaps the doctor will find you something useful up there. for the rest of us who love the constitution and liberty - you cannot diminish the glory of this day - god bless the president of the united states


"Young guy" you speak with wisdom beyond the years indicated by your username. All I can add is a resounding "AMEN" to your post.
God Bless America and God Bless OUR President! (I think he will prove all the naysayers wrong; now if they're only big enough to admit such.)


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I find that comment very odd, since your own blog is subtitled "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention."
> 
> Unlike you, I am not filled with rage, Jack. I lead a life filled with creativity and joy.


However you are apparently are not "far enough from Texas" (or any other of these United States for that matter) like in another country, for instance. Oh but, that may preclude you from living your life of "creativity and joy". You might try being thankful for the freedom that living under this government affords you.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> To Phinn, hope everything is in good shape.
> 
> This coming from a man who can't capitalize proper nouns, such as: Constitution, God, President of the United States.


I doubt young guy thought his post was going to be "graded". The lack of capitalization does not take away from the excellent point he makes.

BTW, Phinn, I am sure everyone joins me in wishing you nothing but favorable results from you procedure.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

.......and on this glorious day a US born Kenyan becomes POTUS. God bless America!


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

If only people could be both gracious in victory as well as in defeat. It would be nice if, at the end of the day, one could be proud to be part of a country where stark differences still can mean grace can prevail when it's all over.

No matter which party or ideals one holds dear, what cannot be ignored is the historical merits of this day.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

DownSouth said:


> You might try being thankful for the freedom that living under this government affords you.


There are a couple of things wrong with this.

First, if a criminal steals $100 from me, I am not going to thank him for not stealing $200.

Second, the idea that the government is somehow responsible for my affording me freedom is beyond frivolous. The mode of behavior (and mass delusion) we call the "State" is, by far, the most egregious violator of rights and destroyer of freedoms yet devised.



jazzy1 said:


> If only people could be both gracious in victory as well as in defeat. It would be nice if, at the end of the day, one could be proud to be part of a country where stark differences still can mean grace can prevail when it's all over. No matter which party or ideals one holds dear, what cannot be ignored is the historical merits of this day.


I see that you are still caught in a false left-right dichotomy, which by the way, was invented by media consultants for the purpose of robbing and enslaving you. There is only ONE political party in America, and it won the election. Go figure.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> If only people could be both gracious in victory as well as in defeat. It would be nice if, at the end of the day, one could be proud to be part of a country where stark differences still can mean grace can prevail when it's all over.
> 
> * No matter which party or ideals one holds dear, what cannot be ignored is the historical merits of this day.*


Forgive me but could someone please explain the historical merit of this day? Is is somehow different from previous inaugurations?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Because, you know, Obama's father that he never knew was black. Not a black American, mind you, or even one from the part of Africa that American blacks are from, but but black nonetheless.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Because, you know, Obama's father that he never knew was black. Not a black American, mind you, or even one from the part of Africa that American blacks are from, but but black nonetheless.


Quick correction, Obama knew his dad.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Forgive me but could someone please explain the historical merit of this day? Is is somehow different from previous inaugurations?


The historical merit of today is that based on the backdrop of the sad history of racial segregation and suffering of Blacks and minorities in America, the son of an African immigrant became the POTUS which also makes him the first Black POTUS.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Obama met his dad...twice, was it?

Edit: nope, according to the internet, just that one time. Good thing they took a picture, huh?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Obama met his dad...twice, was it?
> 
> Edit: nope, according to the internet, just that one time. Good thing they took a picture, huh?


Good thing they did.:icon_smile:

He actually he lived with his father and mother as a family till he was 2 years old when his parents got separated. He then saw his dad once after wards and that is more times than over 40% of kids in many communities here can boast of today.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Asterix said:


> The historical merit of today is that based on the backdrop of the sad history of racial segregation and suffering of Blacks and minorities in America, the son of an African immigrant became the POTUS which also makes him the first Black POTUS.


Oh, I see. So we still haven't moved on beyond race.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Going back a few millenia, Greece, that other imperfect, yet ideal of democracy also held a event every four years called the Olympics.
No greek state dared wage war on another greek nieghbor during this sacred time. Those games were an affirmation of the very ideal of being 'greek.'
We have many markers in american culture; the Oscars, Superbowl, Holidays specific to being american. And there are events that tie generations together, like Woodstock or 
or the assassination of JFK, Pearl Harbour and 9/11. Our lumpy stew, not melting pot of ethnicities have events that recall older identities with an invite to others to join; Chinese new year is upon us, I eat mexican food on Cinco De Mayo and quietly remember the passing of Bobby Sands on the same day, yet another 'old,unhappy, half forgotten thing' of being 'irish' sometimes as difficult as being jew or arab, both semetic and american too in California.
So, what do we, as americans have to equal that ancient assembly of greeks every four years? I submit, that our peacefull transition of power that was so unheralded when President Washington stepped down from office.
I have my opinions, griefs and moments of pessimism for my country.
But today, another torch is passed, americans reaffirm in spectacle that we are something special that transends all other markers of human identity, slowly, sometimes painfully overcome ( like a few liquid CCs of melanin or funny name.)
Phinn, I am sorry you chose to be alone today.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Forgive me but could someone please explain the historical merit of this day? Is is somehow different from previous inaugurations?


Yes. We elected someone who can't provide a birth certificiate, so we're not sure if he is actually a Natural Born Citizen. Also, the Chief Justice botched the oath of office.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Postscript: I also made my usual quota of obvious typos, grammatical shipwrecks and poorly phrased ideas. And, frankly my dear Phinn, I don't give a damn.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Oh, I see. So we still haven't moved on beyond race.


......... and is there anyone around here delusional enough to think America has evolved past race yet?

The point is to give dues to those deserving. I am not a fan of the new POTUS but I wouldn't take away from the significance of today and his accomplishment just because his policies don't mesh with mine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The historical merit of today is that based on the backdrop of the sad history of racial segregation and suffering of Blacks and minorities in America, the son of an African immigrant became the POTUS which also makes him the first Black POTUS.


Do you really consider Obama, Sr. an immigrant?

I understood that he came to the USA as a foreign student attending the Univ. of Hawaii; then Harvard. And returned to Kenya as soon as he received his graduate degree.

AFAIK, he never intended or attempted to make a permanent residence in the United States.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Do you really consider Obama, Sr. an immigrant?
> 
> I understood that he came to the USA as a foreign student attending the Univ. of Hawaii, then Harvard. And returned to Kenya as soon as he received his graduate degree.
> 
> AFAIK, he never intended or attempted to make a permanent residence in the United States.


When I used the word, I didn't think people would dwell on the semantics. What other word would you use to describe Obama Sr. if I may ask?

If we are to get technical about it the right label then for Obama Jr. is the "US born Kenyan" or "Kenyan-American" but that wouldn't work for the many in this country especially for describing the POTUS. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> When I used the word, I didn't think people would dwell on the semantics. What other word would you use to describe Obama Sr. if I may ask?
> 
> If we are to get technical about it the right label then for Obama Jr. is the "US born Kenyan" or "Kenyan-American" but that wouldn't work for the many in this country especially for describing the POTUS. :icon_smile:


I'm sorry. I thought you were making a largely semantic point by the label "son of an immigrant." That's why I asked you for clarification. No offense.

I think his status would have been "foreign student" and that seems like what he was, wasn't he?

I think your point about delusions of the post-racial world are correct. Therefore we should celeberate exactly what he is: the first non-white male to hold the office. That's good for everybody on some level. Well, if certain people will finally shut up (sharpton, jackson, et al.) I think the last people to move beyond race will be those two "gentleman."

I see Obama like I see Tiger. I don't really see him as black and I dislike him for totally separate and legitimate reasons.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I feel like Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles. Surely you can see the new deputy is a CATHOLIC!
I just found out Joe Biden is. Can you believe it? A catholic jut a heartbeat from the POTUS. And don't call me Shirley.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm sorry. I thought you were making a largely semantic point by the label "son of an immigrant." That's why I asked you for clarification. No offense.
> 
> I think his status would have been "foreign student" and that seems like what he was, wasn't he?
> 
> ...


No offense taken. :icon_smile:

As you rightly stated above, Obama Sr. can be called a foreign student but since he also resided and married an American shouldn't he get a better label?

Thanks for understanding and sharing my view that we should celebrate Obama's historic accomplishment and not let it be clouded by our personal grievances or disagreements with his policies or whatever else.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Preu Pummel said:


> Seems our stock market is getting a colonoscopy as well... or worse.
> 
> I can't figure out WHY!
> We have a savior now.
> ...


_"We have a savior now."_ is what bothers me. People who voted that way should be put into a metal instition so they can't vote.

Obama certainly is not the liberal some people thought he was and voted for. No doubt he has more than enough liberal ideas, but, not everything happens as they hope and plan. He seems to be rather flexible.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> No offense taken. :icon_smile:
> 
> As you rightly stated above, Obama Sr. can be called a foreign student but since he also resided and married an American shouldn't he get a better label?
> 
> Thanks for understanding and sharing my view that we should celebrate Obama's historic accomplishment and not let it be clouded by our personal grievances or disagreements with his policies or whatever else.


I have actually felt that way since Colin Powell could have been president if he just wanted it, but I have understood that some people just have to see it to believe the world is what you make of it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A two-trillion-dollar deficit--that's going to be something!


Is it really working? Or, is the bottom at where the price of homes really should be. And when we get there, then the economy will turn around? I think the latter is right and most of the money that the government borrows to turn the economy around is usless.

Personally I think the flexible interest rates for home buying should be outlawed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, The world's predominant power was seen as oppresive to many within it's imperial shadow. A man arose who many proclaimed as the saviour. He had unusual beginnings, an uncertainty of his father and was marked by a charismatic ability to speak to the multitudes.
Don't worry WA, Rome crucified him and fed his crazy followers to the lions .


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Is it really working? Or, is the bottom at where the price of homes really should be. And when we get there, then the economy will turn around? I think the latter is right and most of the money that the government borrows to turn the economy around is usless.
> 
> Personally I think the flexible interest rates for home buying should be outlawed.


Why? What is wrong with a flexible interest rate? If people read their loans (and other legal documents), there wouldn't be problems. Just because there are flexible rate loans doesn't mean people are forced to take them. Thomas Sowell wrote a good article on "affordable housing."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/lured_to_disaster.html


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Preu Pummel said:


> Seems our stock market is getting a colonoscopy as well... or worse.
> 
> I can't figure out WHY!
> We have a savior now.
> ...


Colonoscopy? I thought the economy was on life support!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The things he needs to do in office is to capture Osama Bin Laden,get the troops out of Iraq,strenghten the economy and don't raise the bus fares.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> ... be getting a colonoscopy.
> 
> I make it a point to do something special, something that will commemorate and exemplify this special day in the American state.
> 
> ...


Good Luck with your colonoscopy.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Good thing they did.:icon_smile:
> 
> He actually he lived with his father and mother as a family till he was 2 years old when his parents got separated. He then saw his dad once after wards and that is more times than over 40% of kids in many communities here can boast of today.


I hope you are not saying this is a good thing.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Kav said:


> I feel like Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles. Surely you can see the new deputy is a CATHOLIC!
> I just found out Joe Biden is. Can you believe it? A catholic jut a heartbeat from the POTUS. And don't call me Shirley.


Shirley, you jest!!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Why? What is wrong with a flexible interest rate? If people read their loans (and other legal documents), there wouldn't be problems. Just because there are flexible rate loans doesn't mean people are forced to take them. Thomas Sowell wrote a good article on "affordable housing."
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/lured_to_disaster.html


Most people can't read those documents unless they hire an attorney to do it for them.

I'm no liberal, but there are a lot of problems with credit and credit cards that are just begging for the Democrats to "fix" them. There is a lot of unethical behavior going on here.

Of course, the Democrats will overreact and use this situation to make it impossible to collect anything probably.

What a shame the Republicans could not accept the responsibility that comes with power. Now we'll see if the Democrats can. Given the public behavior of Pelosi and Reid, I'm not optimistic.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope you are not saying this is a good thing.


Do you mean "good thing" that he at least spent the first 2 years of his life with his father or the fact that there are too many deadbeat dads within our communities thereby creating too many single parent households?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The "too many deadbeat dad" thing. I was being flippant. I can see you probably aren't a big fan of the deadbeat dad thing either and knew that before I posted. 

Sometimes I should be more careful.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Phinn said:


> ... be getting a colonoscopy.
> 
> I make it a point to do something special, something that will commemorate and exemplify this special day in the American state...
> 
> So, every four years, on the 20th day of January, like proverbial clockwork, the revolting display of our imperial coronations reminds me to get the old plumbing checked out. It only seems fitting...


 It is my sad duty to inform y'all that subsequent to the recent completion of a colonoscopy on "our man", Phinn, his Proctologist and attending Gastroenterologist both developed sh*tty outlooks on life, to match that of their patient. After completing the procedure, his Proctologist was heard complaining of a harboring a total absence of affection for his mother and it is rumored that Phinn's Gastroenterologist was later seen...kicking a small dog!

Could this mean, Phinn's attitude is contagious? Beware my friends!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Thanks for understanding and sharing my view that we should celebrate Obama's historic accomplishment and not let it be clouded by our personal grievances or disagreements with his policies or whatever else.


I would no more celebrate Obama's new job than I would celebrate the first Afro-Eskimo-Vietnamese lesbian woman becoming newest the head of the Gotti crime family. Neither the office nor the ethnic lineage of the office-holder have any significance to me or meaningful bearing on my life.

The US government is not me. I am not it. I do not subscribe to the idea that it represents me, that it has legitimacy, authority, embodies me, my ideals, or is part of my identity in any way.



eagle2250 said:


> It is my sad duty to inform y'all that subsequent to the recent completion of a colonoscopy on "our man", Phinn, his Proctologist and attending Gastroenterologist both developed sh*tty outlooks on life, to match that of their patient. After completing the procedure, his Proctologist was heard complaining of a harboring a total absence of affection for his mother and it is rumored that Phinn's Gastroenterologist was later seen...kicking a small dog!
> 
> Could this mean, Phinn's attitude is contagious?


Let's hope so!

These are false mythologies and identities -- like one's nationality, or level of patriotism, or party affiliation, or job, or class, or ...

It never ends. The US government is not a true authority. It is simply a corporation that is heavily armed and keeps on claiming, contrary to all reason and evidence, that it owns me, my income, my property, and will graciously deign to let me have some of it, and that I should be loyal and devoted to it because some rival outfit wants to take an even larger share and treat me even worse.

That stance does not exactly inspire my love and devotion. Adult relationships are voluntary. Someone who bullies you, lies to you, and threatens to incarcerate you if you don't comply is not your friend. I don't realize why this is so controversial. In fact, trying to squeeze some measure of heartfelt admiration, adoration and connection to the State strikes me as awful and sad as trying to love a wire monkey-mother. It's like pretending that you have a productive, meaningful and mutually-beneficial relationship with your jailer, or (dare I say?) with a father who abandons you. Seeing that photo of the young Barack Obama and the one and only contact with his father, quite literally, makes me choke up with incredible sadness.

I realize that my position strikes many of you as hostile, black-hearted or mean-spirited, but please believe me when I tell you that it is not. Getting rid of the illusion of devotion to and the authority of the State was one of the more liberating experiences of my life. It's like getting out of a bad relationship -- the net result can only be an overall improvement in your quality of life.

As for my intestinal health, I am informed that all is well. Thank you for the words of concern.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I realize that my position strikes many of you as hostile, black-hearted or mean-spirited.


No, just a tad dyspeptic.

Buzz


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> .... Getting rid of the illusion of devotion to and the authority of the State was one of the more liberating experiences of my life. It's like getting out of a bad relationship -- the net result can only be an overall improvement in your quality of life.


it must be wonderful indeed to enjoy the comforts and benefits of a society and government and feel no responsibility to either improve it or work for it's general betterment but only criticize it

reminds me of friends of mine who while living with their parents and eating from their fridge say how much they hate their parents - yes thats an improved quality of life


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

young guy said:


> it must be wonderful indeed to enjoy the comforts and benefits of a society and government and feel no responsibility to either improve it or work for it's general betterment but only criticize it
> 
> reminds me of friends of mine who while living with their parents and eating from their fridge say how much they hate their parents - yes thats an improved quality of life


You misunderstand me on a fundamental level. There is a clear distinction between a society and a State. It strikes me as odd that you can't see the true nature of the State, just as it seems odd that I was ever so delusional as to believe in it. (And, if you want to keep this conversation civil, please do not ever imply that the State is some kind of parent. That's just awful.)

As for society, I wholeheartedly embrace, applaud and am deeply thankful for the *voluntary* relationships I have. They sustain and inspire me. Each of them is, by definition, reciprocal and, therefore, by definition, improve the lives of both of us.

Unfortunately, there are other aspects of modern society that I find distasteful, i.e., the frequent use of coercion, and the constant lying about how glorious and wonderful the coercion is. The fact that so many otherwise normal and pleasant people tolerate and support the use of institutionalized violence, and turn a blind eye to the grotesque and hideous nature of the State, is patently hostile, not only to me, but to millions of innocent people. It's hard to have a polite conversation with someone who insists on holding a gun to everyone's head.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Most people can't read those documents unless they hire an attorney to do it for them.
> 
> I'm no liberal, but there are a lot of problems with credit and credit cards that are just begging for the Democrats to "fix" them. There is a lot of unethical behavior going on here.
> 
> ...


So we should make adjustable rate loans illegal, because people sign something they don't read? That seems like a stupid thing to do, and shouldn't be made illegal because people are idiots.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> So we should make adjustable rate loans illegal, because people sign something they don't read? That seems like a stupid thing to do, and shouldn't be made illegal because people are idiots.


laws are made exactly because people are idiots, like it's against the law to sell cigarettes to children, its against the law to drive a car when your drunk or stoned, if people werent so stupid there'd be no need for laws


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I did not say this "should" happen. However, it almost certainly will happen. Too many people took advantage of too many people that they should have known did not have the background to understand these instruments. A little ethical behavior would have gone a long way.

Taking advantage of people who could not have possibly understood what they were signing is hardly a noble act.

Will there be an overreaction? Certainly. Will I be in favor of the overreaction? Certainly not. Again, a bit of ethical behavior as opposed to making every commission possible by snowing ignorant people would have gone a long way. 

Too many folks in the financial industry took their money and ran. Are you saying that the number of people who got into mortgages that they certainly could not pay off was a good thing??


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

*There's certainly a lot to comment on in this thread...*

On Phinn's argument:

The nature of the state may be a monopoly on coercion, but it I don't think it is inherently wrongful to use coercion to compel duty, even in contravention of the non-agression principal. Duty means not having a right not to do something, so threatening force to compel fulfillment of a duty does not necessarily violate a right.

Members of a society clearly have a duty to contribute to it. The real questions are (1) what and how much do members owe to society and (2) how much coercion by our appointed enforcers (government) is justified and prudent to collect what is owed. While I am aware of the slippery-slope objection, I think you have to answer those questions using reason within the context of a particular culture.

On Obama's inauguration:

Personally, I found the all of inauguration hype to have grown unbearably tiresome about two weeks ago.

I'm a little skeptical of idea of Obama as an African American, as we normally use the term. I think it means the traditional cultures of Americans whose ancestors were brought over from Africa in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and not those whose parents or grandparents came from Africa or the Carribean. Although someone of the latter group could certainly assimilate into African-American culture, I don't see much indication that Obama has done so. He may share the African American experience insofar as his apperance has affected how others perceive and treat him (as he argued in his "Don't tell me I'm not Black enough" speech) but I suspect he more of a student of African American culture than a member of it. He seems to be more a part of the deracinated non-culture to which many Americans in his social stratum now belong.

I think a lot of the fuss about his inauguration is media driven, and is really based on his class (the professional intellectual and subintellectual segment of what has variously been identified as the "New Elite," "Class X," "BoBos") to which the media also belong, finally getting its own man elected. (Clinton was a member of the class, but wasn't their guy in the sense that someone like Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern or Eugene McCarthy was.)

Anyway, I think that to that too the extent that Obama is the first Black President, he was just the first viable candidate of African descent who ran. America has been ready since at least the early '90s. I agree with KSInc that Powell could have won if he's run in '96.

On the economy:

While there is plenty of blame to go around, the Fed's easy money policies during much of the '00s certainly played an important role in our current difficulties. This went hand-in-hand with the pro-homeownership policies that have been pursued by both Democrats and Republicans over the last 20 years, as mortgages were the one of principal vehicles by which the Fed cash infusions were injected into the economy.

I think one lesson to be learned in all this is that attractive as expanding homeownership is, it's not necessarily beneficial in the long run. It's probably more socially (if not economically) productive to encourage more people own productive assets, like interests in businesses.

Anyway, I don't think the bubble and crash were a matter of too much regulation or too little, but more that the regualtion we had was wrongheaded. The financial industry is one of the most regulated sectors in our economy, but the regs we have aren't the ones we needed. Fannie and Freddi certainly should have been better regualted, especially if the government was implicitly backing them. While I wouldn't want a wholesale re-regulation, (and I hope the recession and bailouts don't become excuse to do so) ABS derivatives should be regulated and consumer lending should probably be better regulated, even if that means less consumer access to credit.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Wyvern1138 said:


> The nature of the state may be a monopoly on coercion, but it I don't think it is inherently wrongful to use coercion to compel duty, even in contravention of the non-agression principal. Duty means not having a right not to do something, so threatening force to compel fulfillment of a duty does not necessarily violate a right.
> 
> Members of a society clearly have a duty to contribute to it. The real questions are (1) what and how much do members owe to society and (2) how much coercion by our appointed enforcers (government) is justified and prudent to collect what is owed. While I am aware of the slippery-slope objection, I think you have to answer those questions using reason within the context of a particular culture.


Let's look at what you mean by the term "duty." If you mean "duty" in the general sense of a moral or ethical obligation, then we are right back where we started -- people should do what is moral and ethical, and not do what is not moral or ethical.

I think we can agree that we all have a moral/ethical obligation to refrain from causing harm to others. This is based on the fact that the other person has as much right to be free from aggression as we do ourselves. This is what it means to be born *free and equal*. This is a _negative _duty, in the sense that it is an obligation _not _to engage in a wide range of behaviors that can be predicted to have harmful effects on others.

I utterly reject your assertion (which you made without any reference to its origin, or any apparent basis in moral, ethical or legal reasoning) that "members of a society clearly have an obligation to contribute to it" simply by virtue of being members. Adult relationships are voluntary. I have "society" with people who voluntarily accept me on terms we find mutually agreeable. That is no one's business but ours.

Frankly, your blanket assertion that "members of a society clearly have an obligation to contribute to it" makes no sense, and is so vague as to be totally useless, and is therefore open to whatever meaning you or anyone else wishes to ascribe to it. It is, in fact, _purposely _vague, and obviously contrived to be vague for the very purpose of serving as a catch-all for whatever obligations you seem intent on imposing on people.

Violence comes in only two flavors -- aggressive and defensive. Defensive is defined as good/virtuous, whereas aggressive is defined as bad/evil/unethcal/etc.

We all have the negative duties I mentioned earlier -- not to cause harm to others -- but because we are all born _*free and equal*_, affirmative duties must come from somewhere. And, as I said, since we are born free and equal, the only possible source of legitimate affirmative obligations, beyond the negative obligations we all have, is for a person to voluntarily agree to be bound by them (e.g., entering into a contract, where you take on obligations you otherwise would not have).

Placing affirmative duties on others, without their consent, is slavery. Forcing someone to do things against his will, without his consent, for the economic benefit of others, when he is simply minding his own business and not aggressing on anyone's person or property, is the definition of enslavement.

Various philosophers have acknowledged this basic conclusion, which is why they have, in preposterous, offensively stupid and ludicrous ways, frequently tried to dress the State up in the clothes of legitimate voluntary obligations by using such silly ideas as a "social contract." There is no social contract. Show me where I signed.

I would very much like it if what most people call "government" were set up like a contract -- something that I could freely choose to sign or not sign, something that I could read and negotiate and look around for a better bargain, and if I rejected it, the other party would not then use my rejection of his proposal as a reason to attack me.

States don't work that way. They set themselves up as monopolists on the permissive use of aggressive violence, in some arbitrary territory, and they further set themselves up as being immune to any attempts at self-defense by its victims (variously called _citizens_, _subjects_, or _taxpayers_). I agreed to no such thing. And attacking me because I did not (and will not) agree to such terms renders the voluntary nature of any such contract immediately null and void. It is not a contract if you put a gun to someone's head and tell him to sign, giving him an "offer he can't refuse."

Furthermore, it should be perfectly obvious that your "appointed enforcers" have no power to act that you, as an individual, do not first have. If you do not have the right to use force against someone, then you cannot delegate (or "appoint") someone to use force on your behalf. If 1,000,000 people, each individually, do not have the right to attack one person, then they do not have the right to do so collectively, or through an agent, or any other way. You cannot give a power you do not have.

If you would like to clarify, change, or explain what you mean by the assertion that "members of a society clearly have a duty to contribute to it." Please explain WHERE this supposed duty comes from, if not by consent.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Why? What is wrong with a flexible interest rate? If people read their loans (and other legal documents), there wouldn't be problems. Just because there are flexible rate loans doesn't mean people are forced to take them. Thomas Sowell wrote a good article on "affordable housing."
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/lured_to_disaster.html


That artical is interesting. The heart and soul of the Democrat party- feelings with no responciblity. Certainly not the way Reagan thought, cutting this and that as he went along.

Flexible interest rate is a lot of why the Amercian economy is where it is at now. Your right. Lots of suckers took the bait. That kind of fishing should be illegal. Too much of our economy came from the building industry (proportionately to much), which depended on Flexible interest rates and other sleazy deals. If Bush had spent eight years building up a broader base to our economy, by other industries, we would not be in this economic situtation. To me it was obviously, by the time Clinton left the Capital, that we had outsourced enough for a while. We all look at economics different don't we?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, The world's predominant power was seen as oppresive to many within it's imperial shadow. A man arose who many proclaimed as the saviour. He had unusual beginnings, an uncertainty of his father and was marked by a charismatic ability to speak to the multitudes.
> Don't worry WA, Rome crucified him and fed his crazy followers to the lions .


So many Democrats are in a dreamworld of Obama riding a uicorn with rainbows and butterflies- nothing can go wrong now. Everything will get better. They are so lost in there dreamworld they haven't noticed he has done some Republican ideas. They seem to think that even the lion and lamb are dancing together.

If Obama does some of the same things Bush does, that they hated when Bush did it, then those dreamworld liberals shouldn't feel any better. But, if they do, then they are more than dorky. Depending on emotions or feelings is not sound thnking. Dreams are good, but they depend on sound thinking to bring to pass.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> What is wrong with a flexible interest rate?


While I am certainly a proponent of government staying out of every aspect of our lives, I have problems with flexible (I assume that you mean adjustible) interest rates. First of all they were being heavily pushed at a time when mortgage interest rates were at the lowest they had been in decades. As Dave Ramsey warned for several years on his radio show, "exactly which direction do you think the rate is going to adjust?" Bottom line, if you can't afford the house at the prevailing rate, you can't afford the house.

Second, many of the people taking out these loans didn't understand interest rates. It's sad to say that, but they didn't and they still don't. And anyone who has ever gone through a closing on a home purchase probably came away with a headache, or at least writer's cramp from signing and initialing all those papers. I've got two college degrees and much of it was greek to me.

And finally, it's almost a government sanctioned type of gambling. I know that government sanctions gambling with lotteries and freely allows people to go to casinos, but someone buying lottery tickets and playing a slot machine won't help bring down the economy like massive foreclosures will. And when the economy goes South it affects all of us. If it has that kind effect on the innocent, then government has some role to play in the process.

Cruiser


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

young guy said:


> it must be wonderful indeed to enjoy the comforts and benefits of a society and government and feel no responsibility to either improve it or work for it's general betterment but only criticize it
> 
> reminds me of friends of mine who while living with their parents and eating from their fridge say how much they hate their parents - yes thats an improved quality of life


I agree with you. If Phinn hates government so much, he could always move to Somalia which is basking in the advantages and warm glow of no functioning government. (Of course some of the warm glow could be from the burning of anything and everything).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> I agree with you. If Phinn hates government so much, he could always move to Somalia which is basking in the advantages and warm glow of no functioning government. (Of course some of the warm glow could be from the burning of anything and everything).


First, many of the problems with warlords in Somalia (who are slightly coarser than our warlords) are as traceable to actions recently taken by the US military (under Clinton, for example), which one could also do with regard to Haiti (also under Clinton, for example).

Second, designating some arbitrary territory as yours doesn't make it yours. I own both myself as well as a plot of land. I realize my self-ownership scares you, but you will have to learn to deal with it.

Third, telling me I have to abandon my property simply because I withhold my consent to the violence of the corporate state you worship, is the act of a territorial bully, not a keen debater of moral principles.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I dated a girl who believed in a 'flexible interest rate.' Her interest in ME was flexible and depended on the rate I spent money on her. So, wanting a voluntary anarchist association like Phinn that flies in the face of human behaviour since the first hunter scavenger groups determined protein shares at the point of an aechulian hand axe ( on some ancient african plain where we ALL came from): I promised her butterflys and rainbows. 
I lied, but by the time she found out, I had moved on to this stunning greek girl named Anastacia who drank Ouzo and and insisted I clip my toenails and shave before coming to bed.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Kav said:


> I promised her butterflys and rainbows.


In some parts of the world, that's enough to become President.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Phinn said:


> First, many of the problems with warlords in Somalia (who are slightly coarser than our warlords) are as traceable to actions recently taken by the US military (under Clinton, for example), which one could also do with regard to Haiti (also under Clinton, for example).
> 
> Second, designating some arbitrary territory as yours doesn't make it yours. I own both myself as well as a plot of land. I realize my self-ownership scares you, but you will have to learn to deal with it.
> 
> Third, telling me I have to abandon my property simply because I withhold my consent to the violence of the corporate state you worship, is the act of a territorial bully, not a keen debater of moral principles.


You get stranger by the day as you sink deeper in to your fantasy world. Please make sure your tin foil anti-thought control hat isn't on too tight, it seems to be affecting your thought processes.

By the way, Somalia's problems started a long time before Clinton. Places without government generally descend into madness or are taken over by a government from somewhere else.

You remind me of the people who refuse to vaccinate their children and then claim that vaccinations are not necessary because their children are still healthy. They refuse to see that their children are protected by the lack of contagions due to the vaccinated children around them. They would change their tune very quickly if forced to move somewhere without vaccinations.

You are able to "withhold my consent" to what you call "the violence of the corporate state" because the state around you protects you and allows you the freedoms to say what you want. In other places, you would not be able to say what you say now. You could always move to the mid-west and join the separatists who live there.

I am not saying you have to abandon your property. I am just wondering why if you really hate it so much, why you don't live according to your advertised principals instead of just complaining.
.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Let's look at what you mean by the term "duty." If you mean "duty" in the general sense of a moral or ethical obligation, then we are right back where we started -- people should do what is moral and ethical, and not do what is not moral or ethical.
> 
> I think we can agree that we all have a moral/ethical obligation to refrain from causing harm to others. This is based on the fact that the other person has as much right to be free from aggression as we do ourselves. This is what it means to be born *free and equal*. This is a _negative _duty, in the sense that it is an obligation _not _to engage in a wide range of behaviors that can be predicted to have harmful effects on others.
> 
> ...


Not to be a smartass or anything, but people are clearly not born free or equal. Newborn humans are entirely dependent and subordinate. As adults they might become equal in a moral sense (and in some cultures, in legal and political senses as well) but not in the sense of actual abilities, economic position or social station. A far as becoming free goes, that depends on what you think freedom means.

Anyway, people have various duties to society because they accept the benefits of society. What those duties are depends on the way they're understood in a given culture, and in most cases, the specifics, as well as the government's role, are things that may be debated. But, the individual acquiesces to the duties as understood within his culture merely by remaining part of it. That leaving society may not be a viable option is certainly a factor to be considered in where coericion is justified, but it isn't dispositive.

The whole thing about the non-aggression principle (no right to initiate force) is a red herring. If another party owes you a duty, you do have a right to use force to compel it's fulfillment. In a modern society, that is a right we lend to the state and tacitly agree not to excercise for ourselves individually in many instance.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I _*am*_ living according to my principles when I (a) live where I choose to live WHILE I ALSO (b) insist that people stop robbing me and otherwise interfering with my economic liberty.

Those are my principles.

1. Living my own life, peacefully, enjoying the fruits of my labor and my relationships with my family, friends and associates; and

2. Telling bullies, thugs, delusional statists and criminals (but I repeat myself) to leave us alone.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> While I am certainly a proponent of government staying out of every aspect of our lives, I have problems with flexible (I assume that you mean adjustible) interest rates. First of all they were being heavily pushed at a time when mortgage interest rates were at the lowest they had been in decades. As Dave Ramsey warned for several years on his radio show, "exactly which direction do you think the rate is going to adjust?" Bottom line, if you can't afford the house at the prevailing rate, you can't afford the house.
> 
> Second, many of the people taking out these loans didn't understand interest rates. It's sad to say that, but they didn't and they still don't. And anyone who has ever gone through a closing on a home purchase probably came away with a headache, or at least writer's cramp from signing and initialing all those papers. I've got two college degrees and much of it was greek to me.
> 
> ...


I agree, those people who took adjustable rate loans were a bad idea when loan rates were at rock bottom, but what about when they get near the top?

I have to be honest, I don't know a lot about them, but I do plan on getting a fixed rate when the time comes, because I know exactly what I'll be getting.

Personally I don't even like the idea of having to take out a loan. I hope that I can be like my grandparents who took out a loan for their first car, and their first home, and that was it. I guess that is part of the lesson learned by those who survived the Great Depression - don't spend what you don't have.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Wyvern1138 said:


> Not to be a smartass or anything, but people are clearly not born free or equal. Newborn humans are entirely dependent and subordinate. As adults they might become equal in a moral sense (and in some cultures, in legal and political senses as well) but not in the sense of actual abilities, economic position or social station. A far as becoming free goes, that depends on what you think freedom means.
> 
> Anyway, people have various duties to society because they accept the benefits of society. What those duties are depends on the way they're understood in a given culture, and in most cases, the specifics, as well as the government's role, are things that may be debated. But, the individual acquiesces to the duties as understood within his culture merely by remaining part of it. That leaving society may not be a viable option is certainly a factor to be considered in where coericion is justified, but it isn't dispositive.
> 
> The whole thing about the non-aggression principle (no right to initiate force) is a red herring. If another party owes you a duty, you do have a right to use force to compel it's fulfillment. In a modern society, that is a right we lend to the state and tacitly agree not to excercise for ourselves individually in many instance.


Feel free to be as much of a smartass as you like, but we most certainly are born free and equal with regard to our rights and freedoms.

Children are born under a temporary disability of minority, and parents (for having created them, and thus creating the disability) voluntarily assume the duty of care during that period of disability, but children have the same freedoms that we all do.

Freedom means freedom from aggression, by the way.

People do not acquire obligations by passively receiving benefits that are given without his approval, consent or even action. If I live next to a doughnut shop, and I love the smell of doughnuts, and the smell is therefore a benefit to me, the doughnut shop owner cannot ethically force me to pay him for the privilege of smelling his doughnuts.

If I were to have the right to refuse both the benefits and the duty to pay, then we have a contract situation. As I said, this is not how the State works.

You will therefore have to try again to locate a source for these mysterious (and conveniently vague) duties you keep flailing at. Trying to back-door your way into a social contract is not going to get you there.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

How was your colonoscopy test Phinn?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am typing on a DELL. Wehn I flip my keyboard I see MADE IN CHINA. 
I support freedom for Tibet.
This is a nasty hypocrisy I justify by necessity.
Where is your keyboard made,Phinn?
Do you think supporting ethnic cleansing by Biejing has no impact on your Waldon's Cesspool Utopia of 'the Good life?'
I was in a Proctologists' office once. lady also waiting said 'Don't worry dear, it all comes out in the end.' and then she began singing the commercical music
" Call Roto-Rooter, thats the name- And away goes trouble, down the drain. Roto-rooter, roto rooter sewer service."
Then she went back to her crossword puzzle, asking me how to spell misanthrope.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

WA said:


> So many Democrats are in a dreamworld of Obama riding a uicorn with rainbows and butterflies- nothing can go wrong now. Everything will get better. They are so lost in there dreamworld they haven't noticed he has done some Republican ideas....
> 
> If Obama does some of the same things Bush does, that they hated when Bush did it, then those dreamworld liberals shouldn't feel any better. But, if they do, then they are more than dorky.


THAT'S the stuff.
Spot on.

The circulation to "Class-envy, Hate, and Racism" has just hit 52 million. Good stuff if you have your head in the ground and wallet up in the air in your posterior pocket. I pity those who try so hard to succeed and now will be locked down by arbitrary socialist agenda.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, The world's predominant power was seen as oppresive to many within it's imperial shadow. A man arose who many proclaimed as the saviour. He had unusual beginnings, an uncertainty of his father and was marked by a charismatic ability to speak to the multitudes.
> Don't worry WA, Rome crucified him and fed his crazy followers to the lions .


Why you gotta drag Spartacus into everything! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> I agree with you. If Phinn hates government so much, he could always move to Somalia which is basking in the advantages and warm glow of no functioning government. (Of course some of the warm glow could be from the burning of anything and everything).


I heard there were once people that hated their government so much they sailed across an ocean and started a new country of their own ...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I heard there were once people that hated their government so much they sailed across an ocean and started a new country of their own ...


And that country was later known as Liberia?!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I heard there were once people that hated their government so much they sailed across an ocean and started a new country of their own ...


Thanks ksinc, that makes my day.

Generations later their decendents fought off the greedy king.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I agree, those people who took adjustable rate loans were a bad idea when loan rates were at rock bottom, but what about when they get near the top?


Since they will be around and if they are at the top take advantage of them, unless perhaps, you can't pay off the loan knocking out interest payments.

Some loans start out with first payment is one penny goes to the principle and the rest goes to interest and last payment is one penny to interest and the rest to principle. Some of these loans when you pay more than the required amount of a payment, usually monthly, the extra amount goes to the principle and the next payment starts at that minus principle therefore excluding the interest going with it, so you end up paying less interest. Other loans you can make all the extra payments, like double payments, but you still pay all the interest; these are loans to stay away from. Loans with adjustable rate, when the rates are at the top, like with Jimmy Carter and Reagan coming in, can be a very good idea for the consumer, because the interest rates fell a tremedous amount. Jimmy Carters policies drove the rates sky high, and thank God for Reagan. Some people bought bonds when the interest rates were so high and made a fortune with the falling interest rates.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Feel free to be as much of a smartass as you like, but we most certainly are born free and equal with regard to our rights and freedoms.
> 
> Children are born under a temporary disability of minority, and parents (for having created them, and thus creating the disability) voluntarily assume the duty of care during that period of disability, but children have the same freedoms that we all do.
> 
> ...


I'm not advocating social contract per se. Humans are social animals; being part of a society is our natural condition. Society is only analagous to a contract insofar as you can opt out by leaving it, such as by emigration. Anyway, I just don't buy that accepting the benefits of society is passive in most cases. In almost any interaction with other members, you're actively participating in it. Even sitting at home and not interacting, you affirmatively rely on a customary and mutually accepted right to property that is a product of society more than you do on the natural right to property.

I don't buy your analysis of the parent-child relationship. It's not analagous to a contract. Becoming a parent may be "voluntary," but for most people in the history of the world (who haven't had access to effective birth control), it hasn't been a conscious or intentional decision on any given occassion; it was just a natural consequence of men and women doing what comes naturally. And in any event, it's not voluntary on the child's part at all. Regardless of whether or not he under a disability, the fact remains that a minor child is rightfully subject to restraints, and naturally subordinate both to his parents and to such other people as they "deputize."


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Wyvern1138 said:


> I'm not advocating social contract per se. Humans are social animals; being part of a society is our natural condition. Society is only analagous to a contract insofar as you can opt out by leaving it, such as by emigration. Anyway, I just don't buy that accepting the benefits of society is passive in most cases. In almost any interaction with other members, you're actively participating in it. Even sitting at home and not interacting, you affirmatively rely on a customary and mutually accepted right to property that is a product of society more than you do on the natural right to property.
> 
> I don't buy your analysis of the parent-child relationship. It's not analagous to a contract. Becoming a parent may be "voluntary," but for most people in the history of the world (who haven't had access to effective birth control), it hasn't been a conscious or intentional decision on any given occassion; it was just a natural consequence of men and women doing what comes naturally. And in any event, it's not voluntary on the child's part at all. Regardless of whether or not he under a disability, the fact remains that a minor child is rightfully subject to restraints, and naturally subordinate both to his parents and to such other people as they "deputize."


I described a contract because it is a form of healthy, mutually beneficial, voluntary interaction. I do not mean to suggest that it is the only form of moral interaction between persons. Contracts are, however, voluntary and therefore fundamentally moral, respectful of a person's autonomy and human rights, and thus far preferable to involuntary modes of interaction that are, by definition, based on exploitation and aggression, such as theft, fraud and slavery.

You offered the "acceptance of benefits" as the source for these "duties" that you mentioned. In turn, you argue, the existence of these duties justifies the various forms of state violence. However, I think it's pretty clear that the mere receipt of spontaneously-given, unrequested benefits does not give rise to a duty to pay for them.

If that argument is not sufficient for you, then consider this: Who is to determine what is and is not a benefit? The recipient? Or the provider?

Imagine if someone left a giant pile of wet, fresh manure on your doorstep, then sent you a bill for $1,000. Then, despite every effort on your part to get the deliveries to stop, they delivered even more manure every week for 10 years. Not only did you not ask for the manure, not only did you ask for the deliveries to stop, but you sincerely do not consider the manure to be a benefit at all. In fact, it is a detriment. All things considered, this is not something you would ever pay for voluntarily.

But the provider of this manure points out that manure isn't free, that every other person he knows finds manure to be valuable, that it costs him a pretty penny to produce it and bring it all the way to your door, and that he deserves to be paid for it. Whose opinion of whether this manure is a benefit controls the outcome of this controversy? In your view, only the provider gets to decide whether his "goods" are a benefit, and thus whether the recipient has an obligation to pay for it.

Also, who decides the quantum of value of the good, to determine the amount of payment owed? No market price for this transaction was agreed to by contract, so we have to arrive at a price some other way. It's worth less than zero to the guy with a pile of crap on his doorstep, but worth real money to the guy who dropped it off. Again, in your view, the manure-provider not only gets to force the transaction to occur, but also gets to set the price.

So, in your dispute with the manure-provider, who will be the arbiter? The manure provider says, "My cousin Rufus will be the judge. He'll decide." So, you ask, "Who pays Rufus?" And the manure-provider says, "I do. He makes his living off of what we collect in payments from people like you who get involuntarily-supplied manure." You might respond, "Rufus has a conflict of interest! I want a neutral judge!" But again, in your view, the self-interested agent of the manure-provider gets to decide all of the points of law and fact surrounding any dispute between you and this manure-provider, decides whether he gets to keep "giving" you things that you do not want, do not find beneficial, have asked not to get, and would not pay for if you had a choice.

This is the State in action. Only, instead of manure, the involuntarily-mandated "benefits" we are forced to pay for are _*really*_ harmful -- hundreds of military bases around the world maintaining an empire, price-fixing bureaucrats who manipulate the price of everything from cable TV to sugar, licensing schemes that foster corruption and stifle innovation, massive super-highways that destroy towns and pedestrian life, giant housing projects that create neighborhoods filled with despair and crime and poverty and hopelessness, trillion-dollar bailouts for bankers, fiat currency, and endless subsidies for businesses that are economic failures.

You need to open your eyes to the reality of what the State is, what it does, why it exists, what its sole purpose of existence is. The State exists for the sole purpose of providing things that people do *not* want. If people wanted them, they would be bought and sold privately. It exists to force people to pay for things they would _not_ otherwise pay for.

As for children, my point was not that there is a contract between parent and child, but rather a non-contractual duty of care on the parent in favor of the temporarily-disabled person, by virtue of the parent having created the temporarily-disabled person in the first place. This duty lasts as long as the disability of minority lasts. And, to comply with these moral precepts, the parent's power to exercise restraints on the child must serve the child's own long-term interests, such as restraints and controls that parents use for the child's safety and education.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I described a contract because it is a form of healthy, mutually beneficial, voluntary interaction. I do not mean to suggest that it is the only form of moral interaction between persons. Contracts are, however, voluntary and therefore fundamentally moral, respectful of a person's autonomy and human rights, and thus far preferable to involuntary modes of interaction that are, by definition, based on exploitation and aggression, such as theft, fraud and slavery.
> 
> You offered the "acceptance of benefits" as the source for these "duties" that you mentioned. In turn, you argue, the existence of these duties justifies the various forms of state violence. However, I think it's pretty clear that the mere receipt of spontaneously-given, unrequested benefits does not give rise to a duty to pay for them.
> 
> ...


Someone needs to re-read "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Hardin.

https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Why? What is wrong with a flexible interest rate? If people read their loans (and other legal documents), there wouldn't be problems. Just because there are flexible rate loans doesn't mean people are forced to take them. Thomas Sowell wrote a good article on "affordable housing."
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/lured_to_disaster.html


The problem with the ideas in that article is the fact that some people are not in a position to make money. Or the housing even in cheapest form represents most, if not all, of their income.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I described a contract because it is a form of healthy, mutually beneficial, voluntary interaction. I do not mean to suggest that it is the only form of moral interaction between persons. Contracts are, however, voluntary and therefore fundamentally moral, respectful of a person's autonomy and human rights, and thus far preferable to involuntary modes of interaction that are, by definition, based on exploitation and aggression, such as theft, fraud and slavery.
> 
> You offered the "acceptance of benefits" as the source for these "duties" that you mentioned. In turn, you argue, the existence of these duties justifies the various forms of state violence. However, I think it's pretty clear that the mere receipt of spontaneously-given, unrequested benefits does not give rise to a duty to pay for them.
> 
> ...


Well, again, regardless of the reasons for his status, the child still isn't free or equal.

In and of itself "involuntary" doesn't imply any form of violence, fraud or coercion. It simply implies that something is not chosen. Many things in life are neither chosen nor coerced.

On the matter of accepting the benefits of society, you pretty much ignored what I actually argued, which was that you do not, in fact, passively accept them, but affirmatively exploitthem by participating in society, so the applicable analogy would be if the manure was delivered and you used it to fertilize a field or sold it.

The role of the state is a distinct issue. As I said at the outset, that role is something that can be debated, but in large part the parameters of the debate depend on a given cultural context. I think your analogy only applies to government if we assume you're a member of some sort of farm supply co-op.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I have read it, quite a few times, and it misses a key point -- the "tragedy" arises precisely because there is a "commons." In other words, in a world of well-defined private property, there is no such tragedy.

The inefficient, wasteful, destructive depletion of resources he describes is the direct result of a lack of well-defined property rights. People who own property privately, and thus want to maximize its value for the long-term, do not try to get what they can, as quickly as they can get it, _before the other guy gets it_. If, instead, you have secure property rights, then you do not need to consume (destroy) as much of a good as you can, as quickly as you can, before the other guy does, because the other guy is prevented from consuming your property. This allows you to build long-term value.

As Mises explained it (almost 3 decades before Hardin), collectivization of property destroys the ability of individuals to make rational economic calculations. Without private property (and free markets for the exchange of that property), it becomes impossible, *even for well-meaning people*, to allocate resources in a way that preserves capital and increases value in the long term. Prices are signals to production and consumption. When you interfere with these signals, you end up making all the wrong economic decisions, producing too many of some things, producing too little of others, and consuming without knowing the true cost.

You simply can't make sound economic decisions about your economic behavior without a freely operating price system to guide you. And the only way to have a freely functional price system is private property and free markets.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Wyvern1138 said:


> Well, again, regardless of the reasons for his status, the child still isn't free or equal.
> 
> In and of itself "involuntary" doesn't imply any form of violence, fraud or coercion. It simply implies that something is not chosen. Many things in life are neither chosen nor coerced.
> 
> ...


The child is not only free and equal, but due to the particular nature of his temporary disability, is actually entitled to claim quite a bit more from others (i.e., parents) than the ordinary adult is. The ordinary adult doesn't have a valid claim for care and support the way a child does.

As for your peculiar use of the term "involuntary," I will have to ask you what you mean by your hint at a definition. With regard to relationships between people (as opposed to a person's relationship with, say, the weather, or with nature), what things are involuntary that are not coerced?

I did not ignore your post, but you ignored mine. What happens when you do not want to exploit these supposed benefits? Or if you decide you want to do without the "service" provided by the State and obtain it privately? Why does the transaction have to be involuntary? Why can't an individual, a free person, not decide for himself which items he will buy and which he will not? Why won't you let him refuse both the "benefit" and the purported duty to pay?

And, no, you are wrong -- neither property nor ethics nor economics depends on a cultural context. These principles are universal. They arise naturally from the fact that human society is comprised of multiple individuals, each capable of choosing its behavior toward self-selected ends, and each capable of both cooperation and competition.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The child is not only free and equal, but due to the particular nature of his temporary disability, is actually entitled to claim quite a bit more from others (i.e., parents) than the ordinary adult is. The ordinary adult doesn't have a valid claim for care and support the way a child does.
> 
> As for your peculiar use of the term "involuntary," I will have to ask you what you mean by your hint at a definition. With regard to relationships between people (as opposed to a person's relationship with, say, the weather, or with nature), what things are involuntary that are not coerced?
> 
> ...


Well, you're jumping over the society issue and going right for the government one, which is secondary and dependent. There's not much point in tackling the individual vs. government without first finding some common ground on the individual vs. society.

Anyway, I don't disagree that there are universal standards of right and wrong, but the human mind doesn't directly perceive them. What we have to work with is are subjective interpretations of those standards which are strongly colored by culture and and other contextual factors.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Phinn said:


> I have read it, quite a few times, and it misses a key point -- the "tragedy" arises precisely because there is a "commons." In other words, in a world of well-defined private property, there is no such tragedy.
> 
> The inefficient, wasteful, destructive depletion of resources he describes is the direct result of a lack of well-defined property rights. People who own property privately, and thus want to maximize its value for the long-term, do not try to get what they can, as quickly as they can get it, _before the other guy gets it_. If, instead, you have secure property rights, then you do not need to consume (destroy) as much of a good as you can, as quickly as you can, before the other guy does, because the other guy is prevented from consuming your property. This allows you to build long-term value.
> 
> ...


Well thanks for that. The point I was trying to make is in a system of complete private ownership of property and a free market to exchange said property there is no accounting for free riders and holdouts. For example, without some form of government a fire department is impossible to maintain. Why? As was pointed out by Hardin, only suckers would pay for it. I don't pay for the fire department because I know will neighbor will. He doesn't want his house to burn down if my house catches fire so he pays to put my fire out. This is what I assume but of course so does my neighbor and so does his neighbor. Thus, no one pays for the fire department and we lose something we all agree is beneficial.

The only way to have a fire department, police force, roads, etc. is to tax everyone, even those who don't want them, a little bit. And the only entity that can do that is government.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I would no more celebrate Obama's new job than I would celebrate the first Afro-Eskimo-Vietnamese lesbian woman becoming newest the head of the Gotti crime family. Neither the office nor the ethnic lineage of the office-holder have any significance to me or meaningful bearing on my life.
> 
> The US government is not me. I am not it. I do not subscribe to the idea that it represents me, that it has legitimacy, authority, embodies me, my ideals, or is part of my identity in any way.
> 
> ...


Phinn,
I agree with your assessment. The state has, or seeks, a monopoly on violence, which is why I find the ideology of anarchism appealing.

I suspect we might not agree on some of the details. I am something of a softie when it comes to taking care of people. So, on a practical level I support universal health care and other socialist stuff. But I do believe your appraisal of the nature of the state is spot on.

Glad you have what Orlovsky (Ginsberg's boyfriend) wrote poems about.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

How did your colonoscopy go?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Howard said:


> How did your colonoscopy go?


Just fine. Thank you for asking.



Stringfellow said:


> The point I was trying to make is in a system of complete private ownership of property and a free market to exchange said property there is no accounting for free riders and holdouts. For example, without some form of government a fire department is impossible to maintain. Why? As was pointed out by Hardin, only suckers would pay for it. I don't pay for the fire department because I know will neighbor will. He doesn't want his house to burn down if my house catches fire so he pays to put my fire out. This is what I assume but of course so does my neighbor and so does his neighbor. Thus, no one pays for the fire department and we lose something we all agree is beneficial. The only way to have a fire department, police force, roads, etc. is to tax everyone, even those who don't want them, a little bit. And the only entity that can do that is government.


This free rider argument is entirely false, both as a matter of logic as well as history. Private fire systems existed for many hundreds of years before the advent of the corporate State, and even still exists in reduced form, even though the state-run system crowds out most of the potential market.

Also, the particular dynamic you mention is only really a concern for people living in very specific circumstances -- tightly-packed, urban housing made of combustible materials. That does not describe everyone, not even close. For everyone else in the world, this supposed free rider problem doesn't even come up.

Plus, under modern property principles, it is easy to see how negligently permitting incendiary materials to jump property lines (your burning house launching flaming matter onto your neighbor's house) is an invasion of your neighbor's property rights. The victim would be entitled to be compensated as a matter of restitution. If the offender who neglected to buy fire protection and caused all the property damage had no assets (because they went up in smoke), then there is always the land on which it stood, which could then be seized. It makes little economic sense to risk losing all of one's capital -- not only your own house but the land on which it sits -- to pay your neighbor's damages, if only to save the cost of a fire insurance policy. If that were true, then no one would buy insurance at all for any form of liability, which they obviously do. Forcing everyone to pay regardless of risk obliterates the economic evaluation of risk, which causes costs go up, the quality of service goes down, and inefficiency continues to increase, and will continue to do so until it reaches the level of political embarrassment, like you might find with obscenely expensive fire departments with inflated budgets, gold-plated pensions and work weeks mostly spent playing checkers.

Furthermore, homeowner's associations seem perfectly capable of providing cable and lawn-maintenance services, pooling resources voluntarily when it makes economic sense to do so.

Here's an interesting article on the subject.



Gurdon said:


> I agree with your assessment. The state has, or seeks, a monopoly on violence, which is why I find the ideology of anarchism appealing. I suspect we might not agree on some of the details. I am something of a softie when it comes to taking care of people. So, on a practical level I support universal health care and other socialist stuff. But I do believe your appraisal of the nature of the state is spot on.


Thank you, but I have to ask -- how can you agree with market anarchism but still want to collectivize something as important as health care? Can't you see that you are doing the opposite of helping people?

By destroying the price system for this very valuable and complex good, you make it *impossible* for anyone to know how much of these services to buy, and how much of it to produce and what kind. And producing this good takes years of training! Without an economic measure provided by prices, no one can possibly know how many doctors to train, what to train them in, what equipment to buy, how many hospitals to build, where to build them, what kind of specialized services to offer in those hospitals, how many nurses to hire, what training to give them, how many medical schools and nursing schools to build, how many students to admit, etc.

Ever noticed how hard it is to get into medical school? If there are so many qualified applicants being turned away, why are there not more seats at medical schools being made available? If there were more doctors, the price of their services would go down. But every state in the US keeps a tight grip, via a corporatist monopoly run by the AMA, on the number of annual medical graduates, and has for 100 years. The government-sponsored medical insurance racket is another layer of interference that is absolutely destroying the industry. Nationalizing it would only make these problems that much worse.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

When I was in St. Pete ... *before the blitz  ... we contracted all our own private services because the government services were either non-existant or not reliable. Quite literally, everything from emergency healthcare to police/security to hostage rescue. We somewhat regularly responded to requests for assistance from other governments' consulate workers. It is my experience that competent, capable, independent Americans stand out in such an environment. We regularly received comments like "but, you're an American so you can do that." No kidding! :icon_smile_big: Russians are smart people, but the result of decades of State dependence is a rather pitiful sight. 

Moral of the story: Be in the world; not of the world and you will survive this mess just fine.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Just fine. Thank you for asking.
> 
> This free rider argument is entirely false, both as a matter of logic as well as history. Private fire systems existed for many hundreds of years before the advent of the corporate State, and even still exists in reduced form, even though the state-run system crowds out most of the potential market.
> 
> ...


And who is enforcing these rules? Is the government making my negligent neighbor pay up or am I merely deciding he owes me something and hitting him over his head with a club and then collecting?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

DownSouth said:


> God Bless America and God Bless OUR President! (I think he will prove all the naysayers wrong; now if they're only big enough to admit such.)


My mother-in-law has been saying for the last eight years "he's not MY president!" about Mr. Bush. As a white man, and a Replican, I have no interest in taking this segregationist viewpoint, but it does bother me that if I wanted to, it would be seen as racist and somehow opposing the overwhelming tide of optimism emanating from the supporters of this new administration.

And to relayer, the founders of Liberia had such a positive view of the United States that they named their capital after James Monroe.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Miket61 said:


> And to relayer, the founders of Liberia had such a positive view of the United States that they named their capital after James Monroe.


Thanks, Mike61. Actually, my post was a response made in jest.


----------



## ConservativeFellow (Dec 27, 2008)

I'm confused to what the historical merit is as well... Obama is actually only half-black and grew up in a white house hold. That he had a Kenyan father is interesting. Quite so.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ConservativeFellow said:


> I'm confused to what the historical merit is as well... Obama is actually only half-black and *grew up in a white house hold*. That he had a Kenyan father is interesting. Quite so.


..............and I guess I can safely presume that was why many white households of America who voted for him weren't too scared of this "blackman"? :icon_smile:

Also since you say he is "actually only half black", have you ever heard of the One Drop Rule?

Now talking of the historical merit, how many of the past 43 POTUS have been BLACKMEN prior to Obama?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Just fine. Thank you for asking.
> 
> This free rider argument is entirely false, both as a matter of logic as well as history. Private fire systems existed for many hundreds of years before the advent of the corporate State, and even still exists in reduced form, even though the state-run system crowds out most of the potential market.
> 
> ...


How old does one have to be to get a colonoscopy,Do you have to have a history in your family to get a checkup?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Howard said:


> How old does one have to be to get a colonoscopy,Do you have to have a history in your family to get a checkup?


The last thing I heard was 40 for white men, 30 for black men. If you have a history of colon or prostate cancer in your family, you should get your first checkup ten years before the age at which your relative was diagnosed.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Someone needs to re-read "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Hardin.
> 
> https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243


The problem I've always had with Hardin is that he assumes that absent a central authority, people will descend into chaos. It also assumes that the owners of the animals would be unable to come to an arrangement to maximize the usage of the land. The most sensible solution would be to privatize the land between the owners of livestock. In this sense I agree with Phinn.

The land would have to be kept public by a central authority that would deny ownership. In that sense, each farmer would be compelled to exploit the land as much as possible before the other farmers are able to do so, Therefore the "tragedy". Private ownership is the solution.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Asterix said:


> Now talking of the historical merit, how many of the past 43 POTUS have been BLACKMEN prior to Obama?


Warren G. Harding had a black great-grandmother. So, under the "one drop rule," which you reference, we've already had a black president. And a Republican one at that!

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/...e5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

We've also had two Supreme Court Justices who were black men, and one who was a Blackmun.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Miket61 said:


> Warren G. Harding had a black great-grandmother. So, under the "one drop rule," which you reference, we've already had a black president. And a Republican one at that!
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/...e5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
> 
> We've also had two Supreme Court Justices who were black men, and one who was a Blackmun.


...........and why are you just getting around to enlighten me about this when I should have celebrated Warren Harding ( a Republican at that) even though he looks whiter than a White man? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Miket61 said:


> The last thing I heard was 40 for white men, 30 for black men. If you have a history of colon or prostate cancer in your family, you should get your first checkup ten years before the age at which your relative was diagnosed.


Well I have another 6 years which is good,nothing's wrong with this colon.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Asterix said:


> ...........and why are you just getting around to enlighten me about this when I should have celebrated Warren Harding ( a Republican at that) even though he looks whiter than a White man? :icon_smile_big:


He died in office after just about two years, so you really didn't have much time... and his VP, Calvin Coolidge, was more of a WASP than Petrucchio ever had to deal with.


----------

