Damn socialists

[telemakh0s]

The Indy had an article in this weeks edition about "net neutrality". In this article the author, Fiona Morgan, regurgitates all the usual socialist garbage about how Big Bro needs to protect us poor Proles from the evil Barons of capitalism - except she gets a bit creative, and coins the term "Technobaron". Anyways, I wrote a fairly long letter to

Comments

[pirat_ponton]

loses credibility with the "soviet" at the end - come on!

[telemakh0s]

Is that your only critique? See hyperbole.

[pirat_ponton]

that's the point - I thought what you had to say was interesting, even if I didn't necessarily agree with it in its entirety, and that the hyperbole was not only unnecessary, but overshadowed any good points you had previously made

overplayed your hand, in other words

[telemakh0s]

I see what you mean. Thanks for the feed back, maybe next time I write a letter to an editor I'll post it here first for review...

[elitegrunt]

I think a better solution than legislating industry is to gut the stupidly rich with humongous taxes on any personal gains and use all the money for healthcare or some other social welfare.

Of course, if this ever did happen, they would just manage to route the money through their companies but have hardly any personal income on paper and nothing would really change. They probably do that already anyways.

I guess the solution is to just murder them all and feed their corpses to the starving people of third world countries.

[ikillwhatieat]

that's disgusting.
Gut the rich? why? To put it into social welfare?
Sorry man, but if you earn it, you earn it. It's yours, not to be stolen and redistributed to those who cannot or will not provide for themselves. See: I am not my brother's keeper.

[telemakh0s]

Precisely.

[elitegrunt]

Try saying that when you have to pay tuition up the ass along with other bills, working a job and busting your ass in classes (make straight A's or you'll lose scholarships) to the point where you hardly have time to sleep, and not making enough to the point where you can't afford to see a doctor, dentist, etc., if you really need to. Compound that with the fact that the cost of living is steadily increasing. You just can't blame people for not trying.

I don't entirely see why someone making $10 million a year can't settle for $1 million a year for their own personal expenses when the vast majority of the country makes under $100,000 a year. I'm not even asking the upper class to stop being greedy bastards... I'm asking the 'mind-bogglingly rich' 1% or so of the population to help make life less horrible for the rest of us.

[ikillwhatieat]

*chuckle* somehow i doubt it will make it to the "letters to the editor" section, but i wish it would.

[telemakh0s]

It might be too long, or too well informed. Notice that all of the "letters" in the feedback section of the Indy are just mindless ramblings of someone who's passionate about the issue. That gains reads who look at ads, who the fuck reads papers to educate themselves? People would much rather have someone placate their whining with emotional appeals to "those poor sods, we should all empty our pockets for them" or whatever.

[telemakh0s]

bleh, "gains readers" not "reads" :P

[pixie3283]

For someone as relentlessly stubborn and firm in her ideals as I am, you have thus far managed to make clearer this situation, and I'm realizing that I was coming at this issue from the wrong angle.
So, you know, fuck you. Or whatever. :)

That being said, it's shocking how far from the idealistic, socialist, mostly naive mindset most of us are just barely crawling out from under.

[telemakh0s]

heh. *gloats*

Seriously though, I know I can come off as an arrogant prick when it comes to political/philosphical discussion, but I only get so passionate because I feel I have adequately researched all aspects of the subject, not because I have some burning desire to be right. I hope I didn't frustrate you in our previous discussion by being so bullheaded, its just that I can be a bit bull-headed when it comes to trying to dig up the truth, and sometimes the only way to do it is to challenge all sides to be rational instead of idealogical. Anyways, I'm not trying to brag, just explain, and possibly provoke some criticism. Are there any points that you object to, or does it all sound cosher to you?

Also, your last statement is a bit awkward, but if I understand it correctly, then I agree...

P.S. pwnd! :P (j/k)

[pixie3283]

You don't come across as an arrogant prick. You're right, you had adequately researched the subject, but I hadn't like I thought I had. I object to being wrong, mainly, but also the thought that my anger and self-righteousness was misdirected. None of this tastes good.

Oh, and I object to your spelling. It's Kosher, not cosher. :)

[telemakh0s]

None of this tastes good.

Subjugation tastes like icky.

[talythius]

Your letter was beautiful

[telemakh0s]

Thanks for the feed back :)

Also, I do realize that a lot of people who support these kinds of laws have good intentions, which is why I feel it necessary to educate them. Good intentions are nothing unless you educate yourself about the reality of a situation, and so many people will just fall for any sorry line so long as it sounds nice and fluffy or idealistic.

As for "Some people do have ungodly amounts of money and taxes which barely affect" this is bullshit. The top 1% richest people in america pay 50% of the federal income tax, and the top 5% pay 2/3 of the total income tax. It's just silly to say they aren't "paying thier fair share". But this is a moot point, as I feel that taxation is simply theft organized by the institutionalization of conquest over the people and property in a certain territory.

a revolution is sorely needed, if anything is to be done at all.

Amen.

[thales1940]

I just popped over to see who you were after I got deleted on Philosophy. Their mods don't like me I'm a Randian, got my BA in Phil 32 years ago, after reading Rands Intro to Object. Epistemology. She is the perfect balance to Thales, they are resposible for the discovery of reason, through the integration of inductive (ordinal) logic to deductive (cardinal) logic. The posts by Lane and Ambrosia or whatever her name is were excellent.

(sorry... was logged in under friends name...)

[telemakh0s]

I'm not sure I remember the discussion on philosophy which you are refering to, but I do know that I'm not a big fan on Rand. I think she's just an egotist, and a pretty shotty author. Her philosophies aren't extremely consistent either, and she's has a hard time living up to her own standards.

Not to mention the creeky cultishness surrounding her and her books...

Anyways, glad you stopped by, and sorry you got banned.