"The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)"

"The Nazi 25-point Programme," Hitler's speech on party's program (February 24, 1920) in Munich, Germany. Nazi Ideology Before 1933: A Documentation, Barbara Miller Lane, ‎Leila J. Rupp, introduction and translation, Manchester University Press (1978) p. 43.

You did do all of that. You enslaved human beings, committed genocide, transferred their wealth to yourself, and used the funds to consolidate your power and spread war.

The claim is that your wages have been negotiated with the expectation that some portion of them will be paid to the government, hence that portion does not belong to you by contractual agreement (it doesn't belong to you ethically, nor legally either, but those are other arguments addressed separately).

The fact that you expect or assume a portion of my wage will (or should) be payed to the government is question-begging. Your expectations, assumptions, and other mental furniture do not factor into any contract unless it is written or stated explicitly and agreed upon. If there are such explicit expectations then maybe you can furnish an example.

While it is true that employment contracts often contain a note that a salary is subject to deductions and taxes, this is to inform the employee of what will happen to a portion of his salary, not to declare any right or property of the government. Employers deduct from an employee’s compensation because they face fine and punishment if they do not, not because that compensation is in fact the government’s property. And the question as to whose compensation they are deducting from is a silly one.

It doesn’t matter what “everyone involved knows you will take home in compensation for your labour” unless it is explicitly stated in the contract or agreement. Again, your assumptions, expectations, and what you think you know is merely question begging. The “gross wage” is what is agreed upon as the compensation. The “net wage” is what’s left over after the government has its way with it. If you and your employer negotiate $100,000 a year, that is the gross salary, the total from which taxes are deducted. It doesn’t mean you tacitly agreed to a less amount.

At any rate, payroll deductions and taxes are calculated after the wage is determined, as the determined wage is required to calculate the cost of deductions in the first place. These deductions are determined by the government, are enforced by coercion, in most cases extorted by fine or other penalties.

So if all parties agree to the wage, the wage is then payed for services rendered, the money will exchange hands from employer to employee, and what was once the employer’s property is now the employee’s property. Finally, the government takes the employee’s property.

Did you fall for all this stuff?

All this talk about misinformation, election meddling, and Kremlin troll farms around the 2016 election was so much humbug. Meanwhile, attorney Michael Sussman, another Clinton crony indicted for lying, was submitting false allegations of secret communication channels between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

The FBI had, in fact, initiated an investigation of these allegations in response to a
meeting that MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant herein- a lawyer at a major international law firm ("Law Firm-I") - requested and held with the FBI General Counsel on or about September 19, 2016 at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia. SUSSMANN provided to the FBI General Counsel three "white papers" along with data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence ofthis purported secret communications channel.

During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations "for any client," which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative. In fact, and as alleged in further detail below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveying these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, (i) a U.S. technology industry executive ("Tech Executive-I") at a U.S. Internet company ("Internet Company-I"), and (ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the "Clinton Campaign").

https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download

People worldwide had to bear 4 years of these lies and propaganda. The damage is already done.

A former prosecutor, a former marine, a former cop… wow, you’ve done it all.

Nah, the US Justice system is utterly corrupt. Anyone who lies to the DOJ gets a pat on the back, in my book.

Another not charged with insurrection? That must sting a bit, given the narrative.

Ouch. It looks like those who spread the disinfo about Russia, duping millions of true believers, are finally getting pinched.

NYT - Authorities Arrest Analyst Who Contributed to Steele Dossier

I'd rather not see the guy arrested, but it's at least a good thrust to the legacy media and their devotees, who it turns out were the useful idiots of grifters and party propagandists. This scandal was spread worldwide, and though its dismantling will sound as a whimper in comparison to the fevered reporting of the big lie, the truth is nonetheless prevailing in the end.

I don’t think in those terms.

I plan to act as I always have. In other words, no plan at all. No suggestions, no advice, no plan, no secret way. Got it now?

I’m sure there are more words you can think of. Look how easy it was to list off the words you’ll affix to others as you murder them.

You did misunderstand. I don’t suggest anything. I don’t have advice. I don’t have words of encouragement. You’re asking the wrong guy.

“The common good” is a phrase collectivists and utilitarians break out now and again to justify their schemes. You pretend to know it is, how to attain it, and then stack bodies to reach it.

I don’t suggest anything when it comes to global warming. Never have, never will. I’ll let you lot stress out about that.

Discussion? More like inquisition. You were unable to provide anything but snarky questions, in a thread about Joe Biden, no less.

Since you asked how I propose it is established which activities hurt the environment, I answered that it is established by tastes, learning and experience. One can develop a conscience and through it direct his actions in a manner that suits it. In English, the pronoun "one" is supposed to serve as indication that I am speaking of no one in particular, including the "polluting neighbor". So I was speaking generally.

I suppose it is established by tastes, learning and experience. One can develop a conscience and through it direct his actions in a manner that suits it.

It’s true. Individuals cooperate quite well. But if individuals in a team sacrifice one of their members for the team, they refute themselves, and go against both the individual and the team.

Your friends, your family, your team, and your community are composed of individuals. No balance is required.

My plan is the same as it always has been: to direct my own activities in a way that will not hurt the environment.

Yes the CCP steals labor and money from its people, like all Communist parties. I don’t. You don’t know where my money goes, where your money goes, simply because you haven’t followed it. You couldn’t know if your tax dollars go to ratheon contracts or into Joe Biden’s hair plugs. Until then you can only imagine things.

Anyways, what’s more interesting is your idea of someone dragging us proles into the future, and Joe Biden is the one to do it. I’d love to hear it.

I’ve never bought anything from the CCP, nor have I sent them any money or lip service. Besides, you wouldn’t know where my money goes in any case, so I think all you can do is imply that if I own something made in China, I must have some specious connection with the CCP bilking wealth from their serfs, all to “bring them into the future”, no doubt. But that sounds like something right up your alley, not mine.

I don’t lecture others how they should live. I don’t seek control over others’ lives. I don’t seek to impose rules on others I myself refuse to follow. I don’t stand in front of the world and preach the end of days while I contribute to it.

I shop local.

I didn’t say Biden drives. I said he flew an 85-car entourage across the ocean and road around Europe in it.

How do I support the Chinese government?

I am a communist and a hypocrite because…why exactly?

Your fantasies do not apply to me, unfortunately. I despise the uniparty and am a registered independent; I find your lot indistinguishable from the other; and the group think and silo mentality do not apply.

How many months has Trump been out of office now?

The problem is you guys are the stupid people. You believe you can see the future and know how to fix it. Your answers to these problems, and the solutions, lie somewhere in the brains of careerists and bureaucrats, and nowhere in your own ideas and actions.

“Politicians will save us!”

The person you choose to bring stupid people into the future is an idiot, a hypocrite, and an inborn liar. You, and others like you, obediently await your dear leaders for change. How has that worked out for you?

Biden flies an 85-car entourage to Europe and you bellyaching scolds hang on his every word looking for climate actions

“…b-b-but Trump”

I don’t see anyone else driving around in an 85-car entourage. To do so is both ineffective and hypocritical. No one else could do it, let alone stop doing it. It’s a stupid argument, James. Find a better angle.

Are you flying an 85-car entourage across the Atlantic, driving around Europe in it before going to a climate change conference, only to lecture whomever is listening before dozing off in a septuagenerian stupor? Couldn’t you lecture others by other means, without the hypocrisy?

Your argument is a stupid one, James, a lesson in sophistry and obsequiousness.

You haven’t taught me anything. My eyes get heavy about two clauses into you self-concerned drivel, so I may have long stopped paying attention by the time you made your argument.

So here is your chance: what is wrong with what I believe?

Uh oh someone all of a sudden doesn’t care about the environment when Biden’s involved.

You haven’t taught me anything. Your first mistake was believing you had wisdom to depart with. If you want to defend Biden’s actions just do it.

Defending a politician’s hypocrisy should be beneath you, but you can’t help it. One of these days the dissonance will overwhelm you.

“Will we act? Will we do what is necessary? Will we seize the enormous opportunity before us? Or will we condemn future generations to suffer?”

Biden cruised around Europe with his 85-car convoy and then lectured the proles about climate change.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-01/napping-at-cop26-and-85-car-convoy-the-optic-challenge-of-bidens-climate-image

The phrase “imperialism” is largely pejorative in delivery, and always confusing. As such it has the character of an imposter-word, used solely on account of the implications of the term. Examining its root, neither thing nor action, renders it mostly meaningless anyways.

Though America’s interventionist ways are obvious and odious, it’s not so easy to call America an empire when it’s aspirations and efforts are shared with others. It’s presence in a country not its own is often due to the obligations of treaty as opposed to annexation and dominion.

A List ofTreaties and Other Agreements

Do you not understand the word “speech”? Is a lie not speech? Your silly analogies about guns, wildfires, and electric jolts cannot alter the fact that speech is speech: it produces none of the effects or damages you claim it does.

Proposing a fine for anyone who speaks contrary to Tim’s truth is in direct opposition to the principle of free speech. If you do not oppose free speech, why do you oppose free speech?

I need only to know your past comments on the subject of “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, which anyone can find. Here is journalist Christopher Hitchens falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. He acted in contrary to the dicta, as anyone can do, and it was permitted and had procured no trouble or punishment. It appears free speech does permit it after all.



My point has already been made. Truth doesn’t need you to censor falsity, and at any rate, your sense of what is true or false is as useful as an asshole on the elbow. Yes free speech permits the distortion of truth, but only because free speech is the only way to straighten it. Censorship permits the distortion of truth and its suppression.

The “falsely yell fire in a crowded theater” dictum is not established law, but a -puerile analogy found in the unanimous opinion of Justice Holmes, who used the phrase to censor and jail a socialist who was passing out flyers urging resistance to the draft. Smarter jurists have long since overturned Holmes’ precedent (the clear and present danger test), and speech can only be prosecuted if it is directed to inciting or producing “imminent lawless action”, but it’s no surprise to find that the analogy still lives in the mouths of those who fear and wish to suppress speech—that is exactly what it was designed to do.

But I would never expect penalty for your misinformation because only speech itself can rectify it. I would be doing a disservice to both truth and myself by censoring falsity, which treats truth as no worthy opponent to lies, and myself a coward, fearful of words. In any case, calling for the censorship of lies out of one side of the mouth and spreading misinformation out of the other is not a good look. And one day your opponents will wield the exact same tools of suppression you created. What then?