Thursday, November 08, 2012

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

Conservatism is not only wrong, it's indefensible. It's morally unjust. We're all on this planet together, and we must work together--like it or not, that's just reality. It all came together for me when I read this. You know what? The author's right! F**K the rich! I'm tired of them.
Want to change the direction of the debate? Let’s talk about actually taxing the wealthy. You want to see Dem’s scream and argue about that. Tax people on their assets, not their income. Pelosi’s wealthy on income, nope.

The conversation MUST change. There are dozens of potential revenue sources within the wealthy that would easily triple the income to the US over penalizing hard workers. And then, we’d see the true colors of the Dems, the Streisands, Spielbergs, the Soros.

Hundreds of billions can be generated, by taxing a very small portion of muni bond income. Yes, other items can be looked at, tax breaks, but they are miniscule, to the total WEALTH, (NOT INCOME) that is out there. And it wouldn’t change their desirability since even after a SMALL tax, it beats everything out there. Guess who owns muni’s? Feinstein, Spielberg…

In essence, this is the only way out of the punitive tax brackets we find ourselves in.
The so-called Bush tax cuts must expire.  We need to tax people at higher rates, and we need to start with the rich:
That's right, I'm agreeing with the libertarian Instapundit and now formally calling for the elimination of the Eisenhower tax cuts--the taxes so decried in the video above.  After all, Hollywood studios and their lackey so-called "stars" are rich--and let's be honest, they have more money than they need or could ever possibly spend.  At some point, enough is too much.

I'm also totally on board with Digital Socialism:
If someone invented the ability to copy food, or copy oil, there would be riots in the streets if everyone couldn’t have all the food and oil they wanted...

Property rights, since the Magna Carta, have been the foundation of free market economics, and personal liberty.

We put incredible value on a bar of gold, a dirty old shoe, a new 60” TV, a home PRECISELY because it cannot be duplicated freely and shared.

If we could duplicate and share the atomic we wouldn’t have to worry about property rights… they never would have existed...

A new economics is in order: People have limited means for ATOMIC wants, but they can be fulfilled digitally to their hearts content.
I want free movies.  It costs nothing to reproduce movies for me for free.  Given that, there's absolutely no reason, there can be no objection, to providing me movies for free.  "Intellectual property"?  A concept made up by some capitalist pig-dog in order to keep what rightfully belongs to all of us out of the hands of anyone who won't make him richer.

It doesn't cost you anything to give me free music.  Even you conservative capitalist pigdogs, what reason can you have for denying me what is free?

The same with books.  I want free books, and I am entitled to them.  Who are you to deny me the opportunity to grow and learn? 

WE THE PEOPLE need to band together to fight for what is rightfully ours!  We have been oppressed too long!  There are only a few of THEM, there are MILLIONS of us.  They cannot fight us all.  CAN...YOU...DIG...IT?

Those who do not embrace our new ideals must be reeducated.  It's for their own good, as well as ours.

Update, 11/15/12:  It was all a joke, I didn't really turn liberal :-)


maxutils said...

you didn't mention music, but . . .same ball park. one of my favorite artists, the best guitar player in the world until i'm proved otherwise, eric mcfadden just posted a cut and paste deal pn facebook saying essentially, 'respect the artist -- pay for the music.' i agree wholeheartedly . . and i buy everything i like enough to keep. but this same artist personally gave me permission to record any of his shows, and i have, and i've traded them. that said, i have NEVER sold one. why would he have seemingly contradictory views? because it's advertising. i introduce people who have never heard of him (btw, if you're interested, his website has free downloads)and, hopefully, they buy his cds and go to his shows. back in the days of lps, it was considered fair use to make a copy, or copies of a record you bought. if you wanted to give it to a friend, you could . . . and cassette tape prices included a royalty that was distributed to the record companies built in to the price... as i believe blank cdrs and dvds do today. the problem is people who get music they didn't pay for, then distribute it . . .or people who do buy it, but then leave it up online for millions to copy. but. . .just like with emcf, it's a a problem of contradictions . . .i've downloade music i never would have heard of, liked it, and bought it later. but, that should be prosecutable any way under current law, despite the fact that the artist benefitted . . .

Anonymous said...

When the music and movie industries essentially took away the concept of public domain, they put themselves in an unjust and immoral position. You can't fault people for acting the same way toward those very industries.

maxutils said...

Anonymous . . . what? they didn't take away public domain. that was established early on as being 75 years after release. hence, 'happy birthday' no longer garners royalties. i think you mean, fair use . . . but that was granted at a time before you could make unlimited copies without even having to make the copies yourself. the current rule is unjust, but is also not enforced against people who follow the old guidelines . . .