Conversations with Socialists 1NOV15


“There seems to be a consensus that giving to the poor is great, but “stealing” others’ money to do so isn’t.”

Me: That should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Him: “So welfare for those in need is corrupt and anti-Christian,”
Me: If it is funded by money taken by force, yes. On the other hand, actual CHARITY–such as that performed by Christian Churches–is voluntary. Christian-run charities do more good than any government program ever has; they do it more efficiently, since assistance is given directly to those actually in need, rather than money being filtered through layers of leeching bureaucrats before finally being handed out to whomever applied for it; and they do it more ethically, since any money (or usually effort) is given voluntarily.

Him: “but somehow corporate subsidies—which total over 110 billion dollars, and are a staple of ring-wing economic policy—are perfectly acceptable?”

Me: It is the left which favors corporations. You should look again at who is handing out those subsidies. The right favors small businesses, which promote innovation and growth. Democratic politicians will try to garner populist appeal by creating new regulations which they say “punish” the corporations–in reality, all they do is ensure that their corporate allies succeed, by being the only ones with a large enough budget to pay for the new regulations. Small businesses always get destroyed, and corporate profits soar.

Him: “Similarly, assuming taxation is “theft” (which if you truly believe, there is a bigger argument to have),”

Me: Taxation is not theft. However, confiscating other peoples’ earnings and savings IS theft, even if you do it by force of government and call it a ‘tax’. Actual taxes are applied to economic activities–that is, purchases. When I buy something, I pay a tax on it. When the value of my own labor is taken from me by a third party… Theft is the nicest possible description of that. It used to be called “indentured servitude”– except that that was under contract, was VOLUNTARY, and was undertaken for a specific term. Compare to the so-called ‘income tax’, which is a compulsory penalty applied for the fault of SUCCEEDING, and which can never be paid off–earning more simply increases the penalty… And earning nothing is rewarded.

Him: “shouldn’t all government programs be anti-Christian?”

Me: It is not government spending which is, by definition, anti-Christian. It is the theft currently used as the primary means for funding such programs (there is a rule against it). However, the argument against SOCIAL spending is not that it is anti-Christian, but that it is un-Constitutional. That means it’s illegal, if you are unaware. The Congress is only given power to lay taxes to provide for the common welfare, not to confiscate some people’s earnings to hand them to other people to buy votes.

Him: “Like, oh I don’t know, the US military: one of the largest socialist programs in the world?”

Me: The U.S. military is not a Socialist program. U.S. military personnel are contracted employees who earn a salary in compensation for their labor, and the danger of labor, under a necessary and Constitutionally-specified function. Now, if you want to talk about all of the “benefits” for military FAMILIES that liberal politicians have dreamed up–again, not to benefit anyone, but to use as blackmail, as we have seen several times from the Obama administration–then the point is arguable. But “DOD spending” is, unfortunately, no longer the same MILITARY spending.

Him: “There also seems to be a consensus against giving welfare to addicts, or those who are lazy.”

Me: Giving them what has been taken illegally by force. YOU are welcome to give them whatever you wish. You are even welcome to start a charity and collect donations for them, if you like. You are not welcome to take other peoples’ earnings and savings under duress (which payroll deductions are), even if you use a politician as your proxy.

Him: ” I plainly disagree. Firstly, even if this were an area of contention, they constitute a vast minority of the welfare population. Welfare (and the other policies Tommy was referring to) focus on systemic poverty, disability, and cyclical unemployment. In other words, welfare most often helps those that cannot be helped by themselves.”

Me: Government handouts don’t help anyone except corrupt politicians. They keep people trapped in a cycle of poverty–if they actually try to work hard and improve themselves, they lose the government’s hand-outs, which destroys their economic base. They become dependent for life, in a way which never happens with actual charity.

Him: “Secondly, the studies simply do no indicate that our society would be better off by keeping any addicts or “lazy people” who get into the system poor. Liberals are for treatment and rehabilitation of these individuals in our society, rather than condemnation and criminalization (the former being a policy backed by all of the psychological and sociological literature).”

Me: Liberal politicians do not care about studies or society, except insofar as they can use those words to help their careers. What they care about is political power, which they get by buying votes with other people’s money–taken without consent, and given to people who will become permantly dependent upon their goodwill. After taking out a large chunk for themselves.

Him: “So Jason and Julie, stop making asinine arguments about taxation “theft,””

Me: I made no such argument. See above.

Him: ” and Aaron, read about who this money is actually going to and why.”

Me: That is good advice. Perhaps you should try it. You should also look at how that money is being taken.

Him:  “Other Jason and William, if you truly believed that, you would advocate for more welfare (like liberals have been doing for the past five decades). Shannon, Republicans contradict themselves by imposing harsher regulations on welfare and then claiming that welfare is a waste of spending because it doesn’t alleviate poverty. “

Me: There should be no regulations on welfare, because welfare should not exist. It is illegal and unethical on a multitude of levels. People get out of poverty by working hard and saving money, and by receiving ACTUAL assistance (charity) when necessary. Welfare is illegal, and locks people into economic strata which were never supposed to exist in the United States. Anyone should be free to rise or fall as far as their hard work, intelligence, and luck will take them.

Him: “Lastly, Julie, you do understand that Jesus was a socialist, right?”

Me: “Jesus” who? Someone you know from South America? The Christ certainly not only never advocated anything resembling socialism, he advocated exactly the opposite–charitable aid. Which is why Socialists from Marx on forward have always hated Christianity–seeking to destroy its institutions, and murdering its adherents by the millions whenever they have had the power to do so.
Bottom line: if you actually want to HELP people, stop trying to pay off your conscience with stolen money. Get off your ass and go HELP people.

If General Relativity were Written Today


Nature and other peer-review journals would send letters like this:

Dear Dr. Einstein:

Thank you for your submission.  However, as you well know, the scientific consensus maintains that light propagates through the medium of luminiferous aether. These real-world measurements of sunlight are irrelevant; when the data is entered into the computer programs which we wrote, predicated on the existence of luminiferous aether, the resulting simulations clearly support the existence of luminiferous aether.  Please do not send any more articles of such irresponsible pseudo-science.


The lack of publication in peer-reviewed journals would be used to attack relativity theory, instead of questioning the journals.


Instead of championing relativity, Arthur Eddington would have published a handy graphic using statistical obfuscation to “hide the deflection”.


The “luminiferous aether” would be renamed “light movement theory”, and supporters of relativity would be derided as “light movement deniers”.

Meanwhile, the science of optics would be re-named “looky-science” as a gesture of magnanimity from the Benevolent Masters to the Great Unwashed.

Question for Infanticide-Enablers

I understand that this is going to be a bit sciency-technical for people who think that killing a baby is something that “a woman does to her own body”.  So, I’m going to try not to delve too deeply into things like, you know, EMBRYOLOGY.

But quick question: How do you explain chicken eggs being part of their mother’s body, and how does that change when they hatch?

Conversations with Gun-Control Lunatics

Paraphrased for brevity and clarity:


Me: Not that human rights should ever be negotiable, but if gun-control were really effective at saving lives, why is the murder rate so high in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control in the nation?

Her: The crime in Chicago is high because of guns brought in from Indianapolis!

Me: Well, if guns are the problem, and Indianapolis is the SOURCE of the guns, shouldn’t the crime rate be higher in Indianapolis?

Her: *splutter*


Her: Concealed carry is a recipe for disaster!  Can you imagine a hundred guns in a movie theater?

Me: I know for a fact that I can distinguish and hit a man-sized target in less light than a movie screen and floor lighting provide.

Her: You are assuming that you are the only one with a gun, or that everyone else is as good you.

Me: No, I’m just not assuming that tyrants should be given the power to deny other human beings the basic human right of self defense, because those human beings are somehow so staggeringly incompetent that it would be safer to force them sit defenseless in front of a mass-murderer who is already shooting people.

Movie Review: The Delta Force (1986)

First, let me be honest: while I have immense respect for Chuck Norris as a person, I usually find his cinematic enterprises entirely unwatchable.  He simply does not engage me as an actor.

That being said, and given the fact that “The Delta Force” is Golan-Globus production (a group known more for their volume of productions than their quality), this is what modern American cinema should aspire to be.  There are none of the NAZI-sympathizing “sensibilities” of movies like “Munich”, nor the politically-correct bullshit that gutted Tom Clancy’s “Sum of All Fears” of its Arab Mohammedan villains.

For the budget that it had, it actually did a very good job of representing the groups involved.  The terrorists are NOT sympathetic characters; they are irrational murderers motivated by hatred of everyone not Mohammedan.  The U.S. military is not full of spineless, drug-addicted cowards and psychotic mass-murderers.  Regular people can be cowards, but they can also stand up to the bad guys.

Certainly, the action scenes in this move tend to be cinematized (motorcycle-borne missiles, anyone?).  On the other hand, it does a good job of representing military strategy sessions and operational training.  I’m sure Mr. Norris’ military experience was a huge benefit there.  Some of my favorite scenes actually happen in the beginning, with a German stewardess who refuses to pick out the Jews for the Mohammedan terrorists (until they threaten to kill everyone on board), and a Catholic priest (played by George Kennedy) who walks to the front of the plane with the Jews and tells the terrorists that if they are taking the Jews, they will have to take him, too.

Interestingly, the terrorists are also socialists–in the 1980’s, I think this was probably a play on FARC…  But socialism is the second-biggest motivator of terrorism worldwide (after Mohammedanism), and “CommunIslam” is a growing movement.  It may have been a case of cinematic prophecy.

A bit cheese, but highly recommended–especially for Hollywood producers.  There is more need for this sort of cinematic honesty today than there was in 1986, yet it is nowhere to be found.