albeit

Atheist Libertarian Bastard Extraordinaire In Training 🗽 🇺🇸 🇮🇪 🇺🇦

[albeit @albeit]

The only thing that works is treating every single person as a unique individual, each responsible for their own actions.

[albeit @albeit]

If people want employee compensation in a country or the world to go up, they’re should be in favor of capital creation, no matter who creates it.

Because more capital means more competition for employees.

If you’re cutting lawns, you want to be one of the landscapers selling services to the customers in the rich neighborhood. Not the one where there is no capital.

If you want high employee compensation, you should be against money getting sucked up by government. Because government DESTROYS capital.

[albeit @albeit]

Corporations pay their taxes.

They pay corporate income tax.

And when they pay dividends, the stockholders pay income tax.

And if stockholders sell and make a profit, they pay capital gains tax.

Other Federal and State Corporate Taxes:
•Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT)
•Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT)
•Stock Repurchase Excise Tax
•Accumulated Earnings Tax
•Personal Holding Company Tax
Other Major Taxes:
•Payroll Taxes (FICA, FUTA)
•State Unemployment Taxes
•Property Taxes
•Sales and Use Taxes
•Excise Taxes
•Gross Receipts Taxes (in some states)

[albeit @albeit]

Machines, automation and even infrastructure have been reducing the amount of labor required to do things for centuries.

It’s why even poor Americans have hot showers, refrigerators and computers in their pockets.

What happened to the servants who carried the water from the well and boiled for someone’s hot bath?

They got other jobs. Better jobs.

Greatly increasing what humans can accomplish has never lead to widespread permanent unemployment.

It is an unproven fantasy that AI is somehow different.

[albeit @albeit]

The idea that one should treat others the way you want to be treated probably contributed to idea of individual rights.

It didn’t just apply to those who belonged to one’s religion.

Politically, rights are reciprocal. Anyone who respects yours deserves to have theirs respected. And we even respect some rights when a person shows no respect at all for the rights of others.

[albeit @albeit]

One is a way of life one chooses.

The other is forced upon you at the point of a gun, which then the politician funnels into his pockets and those of his friends and family.

One is where you are personally responsible for the effects of your charity.

The other is where you’re insulated from consequences.

[albeit @albeit]

Not to mention increasing the funding but not doing it in an infinite fashion that minimizes deaths no matter how irresponsibly a population reproduces.

At some point, an independent country has to function on its own. At some point people have to be responsible for their own choices.

Especially when the taxpayer is forced to fund all this against their will.

[albeit @albeit]

I have one sister who called me up and started yelling about how she KNOWS who I’ll be voting for.

This after she insists I should put up with her sending me photos of all her meals, after I politely asked her to stop.

She can return to normal anytime she likes.

I don’t require political agreement. Never have.

But I don’t have to participate in whatever that relationship has generated into.

[albeit @albeit]

@grok @MajorDisppntmnt @JoshEakle @TheEbonyMaw How do you see what “undocumented” people are doing, with sanctuary cities pretending not to see them?

[albeit @albeit]

@NicholasRi17980 @rushicrypto @grok what is fiscal dominance?

[albeit @albeit]

@LikeSallyw_an_H @JBarge66315 @johnemcintyre Violating other people’s rights is not “free speech”.

[albeit @albeit]

How did his comment misrepresent the story?

Why should anyone go on a guilt trip at any time for taking care of their children?

"I don't think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people's children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally." - Adam Swift, University of Warwick, England, May 2015

[albeit @albeit]

@itsSamantha32 @Glinner A pretend democracy that lets two unelected dictators have veto power.

[albeit @albeit]

@ThomasSowell Oil money.

[albeit @albeit]

@NancyMace @ada_akpala They’re conformists. More like robots than independent thinkers.

But that’s also the only reason women can be made to hide in their clothes to begin with. Those who resist get “weeded out” or beaten into submission.

[albeit @albeit]

@TheAtlantic @GrahamDavidA The serious questions should have started when people who merely walked through a door held open by building security got charged with crimes.

Nobody who actually committed a crime should get away with it.

The Antifa terrorists were convicted of real crimes.

[albeit @albeit]

@GavinNewsom That decision just sent the issue back to states where it belongs.

If you want to change where it belongs, amend the Constitution.

Every person’s sovereignty over their own body should be enshrined in the Constitution.

[albeit @albeit]

@GavinNewsom We’re far better off letting value creators keep all of their capital until they died.

Government just destroys capital. Lets its friends steal it.

Its greed for what others have produced has no limits.

[albeit @albeit]

@HomeI68981 @ConceptualJames Are you suggesting that a poll of someone’s followers and possibly bots is a scientific poll that accurately represents the views of all Americans?

[albeit @albeit]

Fireworks can kill people.

What you seem to want is the most benign language as possible.

Is that what Antifa does? Was it a benign impression these people were trying to create?

If you’re to be highly accurate about what exploded, be accurate about how close the explosions were and how much warning the targets had.

Because “fireworks” doesn’t address those highly relevant factors at all.

Especially since most encounters with fireworks are not extremely close to people who have no warning at all.

[albeit @albeit]

Thinking an alleged example of a thing defines that class of things is a form hasty generalization.

According to grok, it’s “also called the fallacy of insufficient sample, overgeneralization, or anecdotal fallacy.”

‘What it involves

You observe (or are presented with) one specific instance or “alleged example” of something. Instead of treating it as just one data point—or checking it against the established definition, broader evidence, or other cases—you treat that particular example as representative or even definitional of the entire category.
•The reasoning error: Assuming “this is what X looks like/is” based on limited or atypical evidence, then using that narrow view to define, judge, or argue about X in general.

Examples
•A person encounters one rude driver from a certain city/state/country and concludes, “Everyone from there drives like that—it’s just how they are.”
•In debates: “I saw one video of [policy] failing, so that’s proof the whole idea is defined by failure.”

Related or overlapping concepts

•Anecdotal fallacy: Prioritizing a personal story or single vivid example over statistical or systematic evidence.
•Hasty generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion from too small or unrepresentative a sample.
•In some contexts, it ties into persuasive definition (redefining a term in a loaded way to fit one’s example) or simply poor inductive reasoning.

This habit is very common in everyday arguments, media, and social media because single vivid examples feel more compelling than abstract definitions or data. The antidote is usually asking: “Is this one case truly representative, or should we look at the standard definition and a wider range of evidence?’

[albeit @albeit]

And war is not what makes an economy capitalist.

Capitalism requires rule of law. Property rights. Enforcement of contracts. Voluntary trade. A government limited to protecting life, liberty and property.

An economy run by the government is driven by coercion. Not voluntary action.

Coercion is backed up by violence. That’s what socialism is.

Where the individual is not free. And where men with guns do their central planning.