Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Montana: "Let's make stupidity mandatory!"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 13:07:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <2mhiojpntcooi9kg6iapdc3sqpaabh0com@4ax.com>
References: <vm4i4q$24jb4$1@dont-email.me> <vm6t2c$2kn8p$1@dont-email.me> <7ORhP.796214$DYF8.668936@fx14.iad> <c71gojd4tdvlc125jqm3lvk53a22rs62hk@4ax.com> <vm944i$33bk6$1@dont-email.me> <vm9g32$35ll5$2@dont-email.me> <vm9h7s$35fip$2@dont-email.me> <vm9qro$371vt$6@dont-email.me> <mhqhojhvcvs8b16669qs0g4tqseqv8ai3c@4ax.com> <bpthoj1ttn0sfcgi8nas3m1ecp8k11t7ua@4ax.com> <lusc12Fq2paU1@mid.individual.net> <vr6iojh2c0g0i1n1mkbdb1uqf7qto3l0bq@4ax.com> <vmb94h$3fros$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:07:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d00eea0b02a158238954a41e3235185";
	logging-data="3802786"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tL9LaHeCYJCJ+gXJk3M+Dxdd9NhdPbfk="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8umT3WRRgOMXKXBCACmwers+07M=

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:37:53 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 16.01.2025 um 16:00 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On 16 Jan 2025 12:22:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:25:24 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:28:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/15/2025 6:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/15/2025 5:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/15/2025 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/2025 1:02 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:39 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <about who is responsible for running over cyclists>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is especially common among illegals here in California with these
>>>>>>>>>>> assholes laying on the horn even when yoyu're nowhere near them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      The only solution is to raise taxes the rich pay. Then you
>>>>>>>>>> could fund essential services like the police, and any unlawful
>>>>>>>>>> extraterrestrial will be promptly arrested for driving without a
>>>>>>>>>> license. And shuttled back to Mars or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>      Problem solved. Plus there might even be some money left to
>>>>>>>>>> pay for medical services, education and your welfare checks.
>>>>>>>>>>      []'s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Without regard to this argument per se, isn't your preferred solution
>>>>>>>>> to everything "Tax the rich" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a good one. How much money do Musk, Bezos, etc. really need? For
>>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've written that previously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've noted previously that the top 10% of earners represent over half of
>>>>>>> income tax revenue:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MPowG/5/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In California where policy is closer to your tastes, the problem of
>>>>>>> collecting revenues shows the complex mix of factors:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaving-rich-americans-ditching-
>>>>>>> california-163000441.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note in link, "Ultra-wealthy Californians, the top 1%, typically pay
>>>>>>> between 40-50% of the state?s personal income tax revenue."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say the solution is for the competing states to raise their upper
>>>>>> level tax rates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ask again, how much is enough? What's the limiting principle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much personal wealth is enough? Why is there no limit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm reminded about a parable about a poor widow contributing two tiny
>>>>>> coins, a trivial amount, but ?Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
>>>>>> more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their
>>>>>> wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything?all she had to
>>>>>> live on.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taxing the wealthy and super-wealthy means they may have to put off
>>>>>> buying their hundredth bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild (whose taste
>>>>>> they probably can't reliably distinguish anyway). Taxing the poorer
>>>>>> people means they have to put off buying a can of soup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's emulate the tax structures of prosperous countries with far,
>>>>>> far less income disparity. I believe those policies contribute to much
>>>>>> better social services, much lower crime and unrest, better paved roads,
>>>>>> free medical care, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. Right wingers are psychopaths. by definition. The reason
>>>>> why humans became the most powerful beings on Earrth is because their
>>>>> innate socialism (the willingness to share, to help others even if it
>>>>> meant suffering a bit) was stronger than their egoism.
>>>>> It's impossible to convince a right winger to be "human". His
>>>>> brain is not capable of being one.
>>>>> []'s
>>>>>
>>>>> PS Bezos never produced anything in his life. He just passed
>>>>> on other people's goods and took a very large cut. He also pays the
>>>>> smallest salaries possible. Rather a bad example of someone that
>>>>> should continue evading tax.
>>>>
>>>> What nonsense. Communalism exists among some of the least developed
>>>> forms of life.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> C'est bon
>>>> Soloman
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the countries that are? Russia is essentially a dictatorship see also
>>> North Korea, China is as ever bit more complicated.
>>>
>>> Most of European countries and political systems have a healthy dose of
>>> socialism which is rather different to Communism which frankly is kinda
>>> dead as idea.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>> 
>> I didn't reference communism or countries. What I said was that
>> communalism exists among some of the least developed forms of life.
>> Ants and bees are communalistic and they are not particularly powerful
>> forms of life. More problamatic than powerful.
>> 
>> In my opinion, the reason that humans rose to our place on the food
>> chain is because of our individualistic need to better ourselves and
>> our situation.
>
>In my opinion, this is complete BS.  Tigers, lions and bears rose to 
>their position in the food chain due to individualistic behavior.
>
>Humans reached their position by optimizing the social skills of 
>learning and communication.  One Human cannot kill a bear without being 
>taught how to (make and) use traps or weapons.

Social skills were important, but social skills and other skills were
developed because individual human beings endeavored to improve their
lifestyle. Tigers, lions and bears don't sit around and ponder their
lifestyle.

--
C'est bon
Soloman