so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200 ><user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies? It
is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies?
It is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:05:29 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies? It
is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
The bible specifically says a number of times that those who reap but
do not sow are a particularly pernicious evil.
You have to give the devil his due, sometimes the bible is right.
On 1/10/2026 7:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:05:29 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies? It
is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
The bible specifically says a number of times that those who reap but
do not sow are a particularly pernicious evil.
Condemned in Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
Why?
Exploiting the poor.
However, the Reformation distinguished between usury and low-interest >lending, which is acceptable.
You have to give the devil his due, sometimes the bible is right.
There's no free lunch. If you didn't pay for it, you're the commodity.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 09:59:00 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2026 7:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:05:29 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>Condemned in Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies? It >>>> is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
The bible specifically says a number of times that those who reap but
do not sow are a particularly pernicious evil.
Why?
Exploiting the poor.
Not exactly. A person who has a million in the stock market and no
job, makes another million. Has he exploited me? I think it has more
to do with the influences of attitudes and the abillity to influence attitudes.
However, the Reformation distinguished between usury and low-interest
lending, which is acceptable.
See, that is what we do, we interpret what it actually says to suit
what we insist on doing anyway.
People who insist that the earth is only 8000 years old and thegarden> of eden story must have a literal interpretation still buy into that
game when it suits them.
Me, I think the garden of eden story is allegory. Something about how learning the difference between g&e allowed humans to choose e. The
actual details of the stories in the bible are not significant, but
hidden in the fig leaves truth peeks out at us.
And there are excellent reasons for not allowing usury. Not that we
will do that at all, ever.
There's no free lunch. If you didn't pay for it, you're the commodity.
You have to give the devil his due, sometimes the bible is right.
Not necessarily. I can testify that homeless people who eat in
community kitchens are not a commodity.
On 1/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 09:59:00 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Wait! What?
On 1/10/2026 7:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:05:29 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>Condemned in Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition: lending money for interest (any
interest)? No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies? It >>>>> is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
The bible specifically says a number of times that those who reap but
do not sow are a particularly pernicious evil.
Why?
Exploiting the poor.
Not exactly. A person who has a million in the stock market and no
job, makes another million. Has he exploited me? I think it has more
to do with the influences of attitudes and the abillity to influence
attitudes.
See, the Reformation changed all that. Before, nobody was allowed toHowever, the Reformation distinguished between usury and low-interest
lending, which is acceptable.
See, that is what we do, we interpret what it actually says to suit
what we insist on doing anyway.
read, or even see, the scriptures, unless maybe you were a monk who
could read Latin.
People who insist that the earth is only 8000 years old and thegarden> of eden story must have a literal interpretation still buy into that >> game when it suits them.
Apparently, there are no Lutherans on this list.
Me, I think the garden of eden story is allegory. Something about howYou should know the truth and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32
learning the difference between g&e allowed humans to choose e. The
actual details of the stories in the bible are not significant, but
hidden in the fig leaves truth peeks out at us.
And there are excellent reasons for not allowing usury. Not that weUsury is illegal in the U.S., and it is regulated by the states. What >happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!
will do that at all, ever.
There's no free lunch. If you didn't pay for it, you're the commodity.
You have to give the devil his due, sometimes the bible is right.
Not necessarily. I can testify that homeless people who eat in
community kitchens are not a commodity.
You just made homeless people who eat in community kitchens a commodity.
Actually Dubya had tried some "ownership society" initiatives that would decrease debt. ie, Islamic finance doesn't use mortgages, but the bank co-owns your house. And muslims give their managers a share of the profits instead of a salary. Greek diners do the same, they start the diner up then let some muslim guy run it in exchange for half the profits. Profit sharing and employe stock ownership is very anti-usury. But options are not.
On 1/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 09:59:00 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Wait! What?
On 1/10/2026 7:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:05:29 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>Condemned in Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:18:25 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Using the biblical definition:-a lending money for interest (any
interest)?-a No doubt.
so like, we are then addicted to usury...
this is just the state of the species?
One wonders how a hunter gatherer species evolved such tendencies?-a It >>>>> is too soon to decide that h/g behaviors have evolved out of us.
The bible specifically says a number of times that those who reap but
do not sow are a particularly pernicious evil.
Why?
Exploiting the poor.
Not exactly.-a A person who has a million in the stock market and no
job, makes another million.-a Has he exploited me?-a I think it has more
to do with the influences of attitudes and the abillity to influence
attitudes.
See, the Reformation changed all that. Before, nobody was allowed toHowever, the Reformation distinguished between usury and low-interest
lending, which is acceptable.
See, that is what we do, we interpret what it actually says to suit
what we insist on doing anyway.
read, or even see, the scriptures, unless maybe you were a monk who
could read Latin.
People who insist that the earth is only 8000 years old and thegarden> of eden story must have a literal interpretation still buy into
that
game when it suits them.Apparently, there are no Lutherans on this list.
Me, I think the garden of eden story is allegory.-a Something about howYou should know the truth and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32
learning the difference between g&e allowed humans to choose e.-a The
actual details of the stories in the bible are not significant, but
hidden in the fig leaves truth peeks out at us.
And there are excellent reasons for not allowing usury.-a Not that weUsury is illegal in the U.S., and it is regulated by the states. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!
will do that at all, ever.
There's no free lunch. If you didn't pay for it, you're the commodity.
You have to give the devil his due, sometimes the bible is right.
Not necessarily.-a I can testify that homeless people who eat in
community kitchens are not a commodity.
You just made homeless people who eat in community kitchens a commodity.
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive, which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive, >> which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want >> the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive, >>> which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh??? >>
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want >>> the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But >>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive, >>>> which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh??? >>>
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want >>>> the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But >>>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
see that things aren't working as well as we think they shouldthose involved in the repair)
design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
solution does not make everything better
some things are even worse
repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to >make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives
with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a
bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no >place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But >>>>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to
make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives
with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a
bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no
place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
Who are you and what have you done with wilson?
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But >>>>>> tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >explained:
--
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to >>> make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives
with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a
bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no
place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
Who are you and what have you done with wilson?
Yeah, my views do evolve over time. If instead of projecting who you
think I am onto me, and you actually listen, you might learn something
about what I think.
Shocking developments! More at 6!
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>> one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of >>>> those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I
explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason
with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to >>>> make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives >>>> with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a >>>> bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no >>>> place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
Who are you and what have you done with wilson?
Yeah, my views do evolve over time. If instead of projecting who you
think I am onto me, and you actually listen, you might learn something
about what I think.
Shocking developments! More at 6!
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce,
eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first.
But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
unrepentant sinners smh
#god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
see that things aren't working as well as we think they shouldthose involved in the repair)
design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
solution does not make everything better
some things are even worse
repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives
with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a
bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>>> one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of >>>>> those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I
explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason
with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.
Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to >>>>> make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives >>>>> with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a >>>>> bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no >>>>> place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
Who are you and what have you done with wilson?
Yeah, my views do evolve over time. If instead of projecting who you
think I am onto me, and you actually listen, you might learn something
about what I think.
Shocking developments! More at 6!
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, >>>> eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. >>>>> But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.a No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.a Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before.a Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
unrepentant sinners smh
#god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
see that things aren't working as well as we think they shouldthose involved in the repair)
design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
solution does not make everything better
some things are even worse
repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks to
make their own decisions based on their own motivations and incentives
with as little oversight interference as possible, you're utopian or a
bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be no
place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much
as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen--
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
COnsumption is the most heavily weighted Keynesian econometric variable, true
But if you want to grow an economy, you want folks to invest (not even save, but invest - ie if you are keeping money aside, you are not building factories)
Consumption is not necessarily productive
In that regard, GDP, which measures constant transactional churning, is also not really productive. If you compare to physics, the Lagrangian Energy is really Wealth in price-quantity phase-space. GDP is like putting an odometer on everything that moves, living or not, and adding it all up.
Add to the fact that since the 1980s money supply is harder to measure (Wenninger 1987 Partland 1992) and now not even velocity is determinate, you can see that all this technology is changing economics. Yes, the quantity theory of money (by COpernicus not Fischer or Friedman) is still true, but we can't really measure it. Economics is also becoming more frictionless. THe old rules will win out, but there are some details we are losing control of.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>>>
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>>>> one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>> > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of >>>>>> those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I
explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason
with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.
Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return
to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was
intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to
produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. >>>>> But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
unrepentant sinners smh
#god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
-a-a> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
-a-a> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
-a-a> solution does not make everything better
-a-a> some things are even worse
-a-a> repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks
to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and
incentives with as little oversight interference as possible, you're
utopian or a bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be
no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much
as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>>>>
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>>>>> one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>>> > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I
explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason
with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.
Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return
to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was
intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear: "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."
On 1/12/2026 5:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to
produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. >>>>>> But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.a No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.a Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before.a Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
unrepentant sinners smh
#god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
see that things aren't working as well as we think they shouldthose involved in the repair)
design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
solution does not make everything better
some things are even worse
repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks
to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and
incentives with as little oversight interference as possible, you're
utopian or a bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be
no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much
as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen
"Excuse greed" is just marxist rhetoric. If you don't want to be
confused with a moron communist don't talk like one.
As long as people believe we can remake humanity (by force or by
incentive) they and their systems are all going to fail.
Rewarding competence isn't excusing greed. It's understanding what >incentivizes people do things. You can have all the high-minded ideals
but in the end people will generally always act in ways that benefit
their own interests.
The neat thing is more and more are starting to
understand that helping other people *is* in their interest and in the
long run provides personal benefits both psychic/spiritual and >physical/monetary. And that understanding comes from seeing how things >REALLY work.
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is >>>>>>>>>> unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income >>>>>>>>>> tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is >>>>>>>>> the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock
guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to >>>>>>>>> produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they >>>>>>>>> were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two
taxes.-a THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment >>>>>>>>>> first.-a But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an
income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that >>>>>>>>> should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a
*limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? >>>>>>>>> where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism >>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of >>>>>>>> a new
one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system
that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, >>>>>>> and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to >>>>>>> those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
-a-a-a > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>>> -a-a-a > design a solution to make things better (and improve the >>>>>>> status of
those involved in the repair)
-a-a-a > solution does not make everything better
-a-a-a > some things are even worse
-a-a-a > repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I
explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.-a As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason
with intention to do things in a better way.-a It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.-a You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems.
Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us.-a Let us return
to:-a libertarianism was abandoned for a reason.-a An improvement was
intended.-a Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear:-a "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:26:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>>>>>
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>>>>>> one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>>>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>>>> > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>> with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return
to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was
intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear: "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."
You hear what you want to hear. Good job. Watch out that you don't
actually think about anything.
On 1/13/2026 9:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there something wrong with Sombrero? It's as if he opposed to almost >every statement that is posted here!
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is >>>>>>>>>>> unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income >>>>>>>>>>> tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is >>>>>>>>>> the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock
guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to >>>>>>>>>> produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they >>>>>>>>>> were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two >>>>>>>>>>> taxes.a THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment >>>>>>>>>>> first.a But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an >>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that >>>>>>>>>> should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a >>>>>>>>>> *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? >>>>>>>>>> where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.a No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.a Perhaps we could think of >>>>>>>>> a new
one that has not been tried before.a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system >>>>>>>>> that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, >>>>>>>> and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to >>>>>>>> those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
aaa > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>>>> aaa > design a solution to make things better (and improve the >>>>>>>> status of
those involved in the repair)
aaa > solution does not make everything better
aaa > some things are even worse
aaa > repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.a As you
mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>> with intention to do things in a better way.a It occurs to me that
perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.a You really
have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us.a Let us return
to:a libertarianism was abandoned for a reason.a An improvement was
intended.a Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear:a "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."
The US government was founded on libertarian principles!
Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual >liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.
We studied this in junior college: US Goverment 101
On 1/13/2026 9:49 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:26:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>>>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should >>>>>>>>> > design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you >>>>>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>>> with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that >>>>>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really >>>>>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return
to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was
intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear: "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot."
You hear what you want to hear. Good job. Watch out that you don't
actually think about anything.
Think about this: What would the US be without the principle of liberty?
Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual >liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:08:01 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/2026 9:49 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:26:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Think about this: What would the US be without the principle of liberty?
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You hear what you want to hear. Good job. Watch out that you don't
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like >>>>>>>>> libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you >>>>>>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>>>> with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that >>>>>>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really >>>>>>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return >>>>> to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was
intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to >>>>> old unworkable ideas.
What I hear: "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot." >>>
actually think about anything.
I don't think that is what it is like right now, but himbo is working
on it.
Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual
liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.
Abandoned for good reason.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:47:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 5:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to
produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. >>>>>>> But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism >>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>> one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
> unrepentant sinners smh
>
> #god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
-a-a> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
-a-a> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of >>>> those involved in the repair)
-a-a> solution does not make everything better
-a-a> some things are even worse
-a-a> repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks
to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and
incentives with as little oversight interference as possible, you're
utopian or a bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be
no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero. >>>>
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much
as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen
"Excuse greed" is just marxist rhetoric. If you don't want to be
confused with a moron communist don't talk like one.
As if excusing greed were not an issue. For the greedy. As if all communists were morons.
As long as people believe we can remake humanity (by force or by
incentive) they and their systems are all going to fail.
You mean like commercialism is in the process of right now?
Rewarding competence isn't excusing greed. It's understanding what
incentivizes people do things. You can have all the high-minded ideals
but in the end people will generally always act in ways that benefit
their own interests.
You mean people like you will. Like most people agree with the things
you say.
The neat thing is more and more are starting to
understand that helping other people *is* in their interest and in the
long run provides personal benefits both psychic/spiritual and
physical/monetary. And that understanding comes from seeing how things
REALLY work.
You mean that is how you work. And is a rationalization for how govt
should not be trying to help people. Because, you know, you have the
above understanding, therefore so do most other people. And most
other people will act on those understandings. Except, we don't find
guys like you running soup kitchens for the homeless, right? But
people who do must be motivated the same way you are, right? No way
they could see things differently, right?
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:04:31 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bimbo Sombrero loves the boot.
On 1/13/2026 9:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there something wrong with Sombrero? It's as if he opposed to almost
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is >>>>>>>>>>>> unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income >>>>>>>>>>>> tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is >>>>>>>>>>> the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock
guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to >>>>>>>>>>> produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they >>>>>>>>>>> were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two >>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.-a THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment >>>>>>>>>>>> first.-a But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an >>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that >>>>>>>>>>> should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a >>>>>>>>>>> *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? >>>>>>>>>>> where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of >>>>>>>>>> a new
one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system >>>>>>>>>> that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, >>>>>>>>> and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to >>>>>>>>> those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
-a-a-a > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
-a-a-a > design a solution to make things better (and improve the >>>>>>>>> status of
those involved in the repair)
-a-a-a > solution does not make everything better
-a-a-a > some things are even worse
-a-a-a > repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like
libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.-a As you >>>>>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>>> with intention to do things in a better way.-a It occurs to me that >>>>>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.-a You really >>>>>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us.-a Let us return
to:-a libertarianism was abandoned for a reason.-a An improvement was
intended.-a Discarding that improvement does not require returning to
old unworkable ideas.
What I hear:-a "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot." >>>
every statement that is posted here!
Yours anyway.
The US government was founded on libertarian principles!
Which were mostly abandoned about 125 years ago for good reason, which
is why wilson thinks he needs to campaign for going back to those
ideas.
On 1/13/2026 10:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:08:01 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That would be Donald Trump, President of the United States of America,
On 1/13/2026 9:49 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:26:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Think about this: What would the US be without the principle of liberty?
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You hear what you want to hear. Good job. Watch out that you don't
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system. No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system. Perhaps we could think of a new
one that has not been tried before. Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of
those involved in the repair)
> solution does not make everything better
> some things are even worse
> repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like >>>>>>>>>> libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid. As you >>>>>>>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>>>>> with intention to do things in a better way. It occurs to me that >>>>>>>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen. You really >>>>>>>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us. Let us return >>>>>> to: libertarianism was abandoned for a reason. An improvement was >>>>>> intended. Discarding that improvement does not require returning to >>>>>> old unworkable ideas.
What I hear: "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot." >>>>
actually think about anything.
I don't think that is what it is like right now, but himbo is working
on it.
to you bimbo.
Without liberty you would be bound. The question is, if you are bound,
by what means can you free yourself?
Libertarian principles in the U.S. government today emphasize individual >>> liberty, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionism.
Abandoned for good reason.
The US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights is still in effect, the
last time I checked.
On 1/13/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:47:13 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 5:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the point >>>>>>> of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of the >>>>>>> economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to
produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited* >>>>>>> power govt, not governing everything power govt
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes. >>>>>>>> THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment first. >>>>>>>> But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>>>
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's the >>>>>>> permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.a No way could consumerism >>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.a Perhaps we could think of a new >>>>>> one that has not been tried before.a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we >>>>>> are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and by >>>>> doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to those >>>>> ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is
ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
> unrepentant sinners smh
>
> #god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>> increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
design a solution to make things better (and improve the status of >>>>> those involved in the repair)
solution does not make everything better
some things are even worse
repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks >>>>> to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and
incentives with as little oversight interference as possible, you're >>>>> utopian or a bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be >>>>> no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero. >>>>>
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much >>>> as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen
"Excuse greed" is just marxist rhetoric. If you don't want to be
confused with a moron communist don't talk like one.
As if excusing greed were not an issue. For the greedy. As if all
communists were morons.
As long as people believe we can remake humanity (by force or by
incentive) they and their systems are all going to fail.
You mean like commercialism is in the process of right now?
Rewarding competence isn't excusing greed. It's understanding what
incentivizes people do things. You can have all the high-minded ideals
but in the end people will generally always act in ways that benefit
their own interests.
You mean people like you will. Like most people agree with the things
you say.
The neat thing is more and more are starting to
understand that helping other people *is* in their interest and in the
long run provides personal benefits both psychic/spiritual and
physical/monetary. And that understanding comes from seeing how things
REALLY work.
You mean that is how you work. And is a rationalization for how govt
should not be trying to help people. Because, you know, you have the
above understanding, therefore so do most other people. And most
other people will act on those understandings. Except, we don't find
guys like you running soup kitchens for the homeless, right? But
people who do must be motivated the same way you are, right? No way
they could see things differently, right?
"Blah, blah, blah, communism is just misunderstood, economies gotta >collectivize."
On 1/13/2026 1:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:04:31 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Bimbo Sombrero loves the boot.
On 1/13/2026 9:26 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 7:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Is there something wrong with Sombrero? It's as if he opposed to almost
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:42:55 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 1/12/2026 1:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:50:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Leaving behind the ideals of liberty is the end of civilization.
On 1/12/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:55:14 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> *+-how would we fund consumerism tho???
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is >>>>>>>>>>>>> unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income >>>>>>>>>>>>> tax.
consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is >>>>>>>>>>>> the point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed?? >>>>>>>>>>>>
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock >>>>>>>>>>>> guidance of the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to >>>>>>>>>>>> produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they >>>>>>>>>>>> were paid
more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur >>>>>>>>>>>> bringing up tax that ain't the question here
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.a THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment >>>>>>>>>>>>> first.a But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an >>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that >>>>>>>>>>>> should be
state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a >>>>>>>>>>>> *limited*
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the >>>>>>>>>>>> planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? >>>>>>>>>>>> where's the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"??? >>>>>>>>>>>>
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.a No way could consumerism >>>>>>>>>>> generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more >>>>>>>>>>> money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.a Perhaps we could think of >>>>>>>>>>> a new
one that has not been tried before.a Because, so far, nothing works >>>>>>>>>>> long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system >>>>>>>>>>> that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, >>>>>>>>>> and by
doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to >>>>>>>>>> those
ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for others is >>>>>>>>>> ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to >>>>>>>>>> improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an >>>>>>>>>> increased chance of survival.
This is how we've been behaving:
aaa > see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
aaa > design a solution to make things better (and improve the >>>>>>>>>> status of
those involved in the repair)
aaa > solution does not make everything better
aaa > some things are even worse
aaa > repeat
So it is time for a new idea, not revert to an old idea like >>>>>>>>> libertarianism.
Because giving people that much freedom doesn't work for you, as I >>>>>>>> explained:
Because reverting to failed past ideas seems kinda stupid.a As you >>>>>>> mentioned once upon a time, those ideas were left behind for a reason >>>>>>> with intention to do things in a better way.a It occurs to me that >>>>>>> perhaps you don't like the better way that was chosen.a You really >>>>>>> have no interest in possible new ways of handling those old problems. >>>>>>
However, your definition of liberty does not rule us.a Let us return >>>>> to:a libertarianism was abandoned for a reason.a An improvement was
intended.a Discarding that improvement does not require returning to >>>>> old unworkable ideas.
What I hear:a "Blah, blah, blah I don't like freedom and want the boot." >>>>
every statement that is posted here!
Yours anyway.
The US government was founded on libertarian principles!
Which were mostly abandoned about 125 years ago for good reason, which
is why wilson thinks he needs to campaign for going back to those
ideas.
On 1/12/2026 5:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:55 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 1/12/2026 8:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:31:52 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/11/26 3:36 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-how would we fund consumerism tho???consumers buying things is unproductive?? what in the fuck is the
All the economists, right and left thik consumer spending is
unproductive,
which is why they would prefer a consumtion tax over an income tax. >>>>>
point
of the economy even?? to make things that aren't consumed??
consumer spending is supposed to be the fucking bedrock guidance of >>>>> the
economic engine, that's the how the market is supposed to work. if
consumers can't spend ... how in the fuck do we know what to
produce, eh???
ofc we wouldn't need usury to fund consumer spending if they were paid >>>>> more fairly regardless of whether we tax them or not. idk why ur
bringing up tax that ain't the question here
i want us to stop using the federal govt, to do things that should be >>>>> state level orchestration. the feds were supposed to be a *limited*
Discourage consumprion, encourage income.
THe problem is the right doesn't trust the left with two taxes.
THey want
the left to admit defeat and repeal the income tax amendment
first. But
tariffs are primarily how the USA was financed before an income tax. >>>>>
power govt, not governing everything power govt
and fuck tariffs, eh??
#god
like bro ... u telling me the richest most powerful country on the
planet can't complete on the open market without tariffs??? where's >>>>> the
permanent state of many tariffs edition of us "capitalism"???
fucking ??
Usury is an integral part of this system.-a No way could consumerism
generate wealth for a few if they couldn't use money to make more
money.
consumerism
tariffs
various tax schemes
politics
Something is wrong with this system.-a Perhaps we could think of a new >>>> one that has not been tried before.-a Because, so far, nothing works
long term, which is why we are here fussing about the system that we
are left with after the others failed.
Human beings want to matter, to feel important and appreciated, and
by doing so improve their place in the world. So they do things to
those ends. Whether or not they actually make things better for
others is ultimately always secondary to those primary goals.
speak for urself broski, just cause u allow urself to excuse greed,
doesn't mean i will
secularists think they've reached escape velocity for morals by
"measuring" the fact we've ignored morals so much thus far ...
unrepentant sinners smh
#god
This is true of people everywhere. We are built by our evolution to
improve our social status. Because having a high status conferred an
increased chance of survival.
u know why bad things keep happening to "good" people???
because our values are by and large kinda shit, so therefore we're
unable to organize around producing a better one.
This is how we've been behaving:
-a-a> see that things aren't working as well as we think they should
-a-a> design a solution to make things better (and improve the status
of those involved in the repair)
-a-a> solution does not make everything better
-a-a> some things are even worse
-a-a> repeat
If you say that the best possible system would be to just allow folks
to make their own decisions based on their own motivations and
incentives with as little oversight interference as possible, you're
utopian or a bigot and a hater. (Don't you even CARE?!)
But mostly the problem with allowing that much freedom is there'd be
no place for them to repair the rupture of perfection and be the hero.
that much freedom can only be had by committing to others just as much
as you commit to yourself.
no other way it will ever happen
"Excuse greed" is just marxist rhetoric. If you don't want to be
confused with a moron communist don't talk like one.
As long as people believe we can remake humanity (by force or by
incentive) they and their systems are all going to fail.
Rewarding competence isn't excusing greed. It's understanding what incentivizes people do things. You can have all the high-minded ideals
but in the end people will generally always act in ways that benefit
their own interests. The neat thing is more and more are starting to understand that helping other people *is* in their interest and in the
long run provides personal benefits both psychic/spiritual and physical/ monetary. And that understanding comes from seeing how things REALLY work.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:06:30 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |