RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

What Did You Do Today? - DaveInVA - Jul 28, 2014 - 1:01pm
 
LeftWingNutZ - expertTexpert - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:49am
 
More cuteness - lily34 - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:45am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - gildave1978 - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:44am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - 2cats - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:33am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:29am
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - Proclivities - Jul 28, 2014 - 10:34am
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Jul 28, 2014 - 10:30am
 
Tech & Science - expertTexpert - Jul 28, 2014 - 10:24am
 
Things You Thought Today - lily34 - Jul 28, 2014 - 10:21am
 
Israel - mutepoint - Jul 28, 2014 - 9:47am
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - ColdMiser - Jul 28, 2014 - 9:32am
 
Summer Concerts - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 28, 2014 - 9:13am
 
Gums - sirdroseph - Jul 28, 2014 - 8:47am
 
What Would You Write on Someone else's Tombstone - Proclivities - Jul 28, 2014 - 8:34am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - 2cats - Jul 28, 2014 - 7:59am
 
Favorite Political Cartoons - RichardPrins - Jul 28, 2014 - 6:27am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - RichardPrins - Jul 28, 2014 - 6:03am
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - helenofjoy - Jul 28, 2014 - 5:55am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - helenofjoy - Jul 28, 2014 - 5:36am
 
Climate Chaos - helenofjoy - Jul 28, 2014 - 5:33am
 
The Obituary Page - helenofjoy - Jul 28, 2014 - 5:28am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jul 28, 2014 - 4:59am
 
Today in History - RichardPrins - Jul 28, 2014 - 4:31am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - RichardPrins - Jul 28, 2014 - 4:06am
 
Business as Usual - RichardPrins - Jul 28, 2014 - 12:16am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Rod - Jul 28, 2014 - 12:14am
 
Palestine - RichardPrins - Jul 27, 2014 - 9:10pm
 
Obama's Second Term - kurtster - Jul 27, 2014 - 5:16pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - DaveInVA - Jul 27, 2014 - 4:25pm
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - Red_Dragon - Jul 27, 2014 - 2:50pm
 
OUR CATS!! - DaveInVA - Jul 27, 2014 - 2:47pm
 
Zombies! - miamizsun - Jul 27, 2014 - 11:38am
 
Skeptix - RichardPrins - Jul 27, 2014 - 10:51am
 
Friggen' Cool Websites - kurtster - Jul 27, 2014 - 10:39am
 
Classical Music - RichardPrins - Jul 27, 2014 - 10:17am
 
OBAMACARE - RichardPrins - Jul 27, 2014 - 10:07am
 
Unusual News - expertTexpert - Jul 27, 2014 - 9:50am
 
Drones - ScottN - Jul 27, 2014 - 7:21am
 
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy - miamizsun - Jul 27, 2014 - 7:20am
 
Canada - RichardPrins - Jul 27, 2014 - 12:20am
 
Russia - haresfur - Jul 26, 2014 - 9:16pm
 
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 8:31pm
 
You might be getting old if...... - haresfur - Jul 26, 2014 - 8:03pm
 
~*Funny Cats*~ - kurtster - Jul 26, 2014 - 6:02pm
 
Guns - DaveInVA - Jul 26, 2014 - 4:50pm
 
Best Song Comments. - haresfur - Jul 26, 2014 - 4:31pm
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - buzz - Jul 26, 2014 - 4:16pm
 
Colombia - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 3:14pm
 
Windows 8.1 - katzendogs - Jul 26, 2014 - 2:40pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Manbird - Jul 26, 2014 - 2:22pm
 
Congress - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 1:49pm
 
how do you feel right now? - DaveInVA - Jul 26, 2014 - 12:57pm
 
Ukraine - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 12:36pm
 
RightWingNutZ - kurtster - Jul 26, 2014 - 11:38am
 
Prostitution - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 11:26am
 
Climate Change - miamizsun - Jul 26, 2014 - 8:42am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottN - Jul 26, 2014 - 6:14am
 
Gardeners Corner - ColdMiser - Jul 26, 2014 - 4:50am
 
Evolution! - RichardPrins - Jul 26, 2014 - 12:32am
 
The Global War on Terror - katzendogs - Jul 25, 2014 - 8:27pm
 
Those lovable NSA/GCHQ/CSEC/DGSE/ASD/CIA guys - RichardPrins - Jul 25, 2014 - 7:45pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - DaveInVA - Jul 25, 2014 - 7:19pm
 
Does Ian Anderson donate a lot of $$$$ to Radio Paradise? - n4ku - Jul 25, 2014 - 6:36pm
 
Caretakers Of Our Parents - bokey - Jul 25, 2014 - 5:52pm
 
When Democracy Failed - kurtster - Jul 25, 2014 - 5:49pm
 
Favorite Quotes - RichardPrins - Jul 25, 2014 - 5:15pm
 
How's the weather? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 25, 2014 - 4:45pm
 
Firefly and Serenity - expertTexpert - Jul 25, 2014 - 4:28pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - darkblue - Jul 25, 2014 - 2:23pm
 
*awkward* - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 25, 2014 - 1:19pm
 
Favourite Scriptures - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 25, 2014 - 1:05pm
 
Stuff I Heard Other People Say Out Loud - miamizsun - Jul 25, 2014 - 11:12am
 
Make Jrzy Laugh - miamizsun - Jul 25, 2014 - 10:34am
 
HALF A WORLD - sirdroseph - Jul 25, 2014 - 9:57am
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 133, 134, 135  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 25, 2014 - 6:22am

 miamizsun wrote:

bridges? transitions?

 

see nader and this {#Arrowd}

 

Rand Paul talks with Reason about the future of the GOP, the need to reach the 80-million-strong Millennial Generation, why having a strong national defense doesn't mean constant military interventions, and what Washington, D.C. can learn from the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley.




sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jul 16, 2014 - 4:51am



I know the map is whack (freekin Ruskies{#Mrgreen}). 


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 16, 2014 - 9:08am

nader's take on some stuff...


The longtime consumer activist, recidivist presidential candidate, and several-time host of Saturday Night Live talks with Nick Gillespie about what he sees as a new libertarian-progressive attack on crony capitalism, whether GM cars were ever any damn good, and why the Democrats still wrongly insist that he cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. Oh yeah, and that article of his Reason published in the early 1970s.

It's a wide-ranging, spirited, fun, and at times contentious conversation.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2014 - 7:26am

 RichardPrins wrote: 
obviously i (and maybe you as well) would identify more with chad on these articles

it's easy to observe socoipolitical conditioning desensitizing and/or hyper-sensitizing issues and chad in a sense (and rightly so) is pointing that out

his delivery could be better, but he philosophically nails the war issue very well

i do understand will's position (probably widely held)

imho where most people in general depart philosophically/social sciences when the scientific method is trumped by political conditioning

will may feel that he (or others) are held hostage by the writings of another person who previously brought issues to light or championed a cause (i think this is a huge problem with all political stripes/labels)

my take in this case is that the necessary evolution of social science is held hostage by political dogma backed up by force

a core issue and huge failure of the social sciences is the lack of precise definitions

political rulers love to manipulate language

peace

p.s. i know there are trolls everywhere but the comments, especially on chad's piece are really sad (it's heartbreaking)

RichardPrins
Anti-Procrustean
RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2014 - 1:51pm

Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology - Salon.com
Libertarianism as direct experience: My defense of a misunderstood philosophy - Salon.com
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 5:44am

here's a very "left" libertarian site that embraces a lot of what the recent conversation reflects (noenz i'm talking to you {#Biggrin} and i think i've referred you here before)

Libertarianism and the Poor

 

video capture here

zwolinski makes some good points here

hopefully food for thought

bridges? transitions?




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 5:37am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Do animals have rights?

 
are these tasty animals?

{#Wink}
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 4, 2014 - 1:58am

 rexi wrote:


Lazy thinks his flavour of libertarianism has more merit than that of, say Chomsky, because there are more flashy web sites with information about it. He then bemoans that nobody is sponsoring such a web site for him to voice his opinion. Presumably because he hopes that he could then reach more people and preach to them (ye, I knwo he wasn't being serious). But in any case, even though he denies it, he himself makes a straight connection between money, public exposure and subjective perception of merit.

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. A common point of reference suggests natural rights and equal intelligence is something for rational agents. I don't believe either are representative of the real world, but many libertarians do. In fact, that's precisely what I'm criticizing Lazy for believing.

Further down you wrote: Rights are personal perceptions. And followed it with a, to my mind, sensible description. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Because what you wrote there does not square with natural rights libertarianism at all.

 
I would like to consider myself a libertarian, but it is a very elusive position or ideal.  My thoughts are still evolving, especially at my advanced age.  I agree that there are many flavours.  I am not a governmental anarchist by any means.  I believe in laws and order.  Socially, perhaps.I lean that way.  What one does with their own body and between consenting informed adults that causes no harm to others outside of that agreement should not be subject to governmental review or oversight.  If you want to play Russian Roulette, fine, just make sure that your affairs are in order and that you have made arrangements to have someone clean up the mess after the game.  The government should not have to pay for that expense and your medical expenses should you survive due to faulty aim.  Its a you made your bed, now lie in it situation as far as I am concerned.  Cruel ?  No, just honest.  I also support people like Dr Kevorkian.

On the law and order.  That is where things get fuzzy and concrete at the same time.  I accept the US Constitution as written and amended.  Equal Protection, Due Process, the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise and the Right of Self Defense of life and personal property and the right to have honestly acquired personal property are things I consider inalienable.  Our Bill of Rights also is inalienable in my world.

With all the flavours of libertarianism, I do recognize that it is a micro application and balancing or interfacing it in the macro is where feathers get ruffled and acceptance breaks down.  It can be reconciled through our First Amendment however, if libertarianism is treated as a religion and has protected Free Speech.  The rights of the individual should trump the rights of a group.  I do not believe in eminent domain.  My property is mine.  If you want my property for your use or a public use, make me an offer for it that I cannot refuse and if I do not accept it, accept that, too.

Why cannot I use Peyote if I like ?  Why do I have to be a member of a certain ethnicity in order to partake ?  My individual want should not be interfered with because I do not belong to a sanctioned group.  I must also recognize and respect the needs of others in order to get what I want or need.  If I live in a community, I should turn down the stereo around 11 pm so my neighbors can sleep.  If I live miles from anyone, then there is no restriction or no restriction is justifiable.  I need to recognize that I must live within my means.  If i want to do what I want 24 / 7, then I must live far enough away from others so that I do not trespass on the needs of others, which in the example offered would be sleep. But if I cannot afford to live in a remote area, then I must accept the limits inherent to my location.  Would not that also be likened to Common Sense ?

I can keep going in the Macro and discuss the role and limits of government in my view, but I'll stop here for now for feedback, if any, before proceeding.  If the expressions above do not represent libertarian thoughts, what are they then ?
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 11:58pm

 kurtster wrote:

I just got to scratch my head on that one.  I didn't see that inferred, not even close.  An idea can have merit, regardless of the source.  Trying to combine merit and money into a standard applies to advertising and influence of thought, yes.  But simple repetition (advertising) does not establish merit.  It affects perception.

That one tries to discredit a thought based upon the financial support of a thought is faulty to begin with.  That is the basis of establishing a class divide.  Wealth does not create one particular way of thinking.  The source of the wealth (earned vs inherited for example) may, but wealth alone does not.

I really cannot comprehend your answer to l's question.  Usually its me who wonders all around the place trying to make a case. 

Your Sinclair quote is misused.  That or the intent of the quote is faulty.  You want the salary, you do what is required to earn it, or accept the strings attached, in other words.  That is the basis of employment.  One can imply that through employment, you condone the employer's mission.  But that is not always the case.  That is like saying, you read a book, so you must agree with the point of the book.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the the notion that everyone has equal intelligence and a common or singular point of reference. 
 

Lazy thinks his flavour of libertarianism has more merit than that of, say Chomsky, because there are more flashy web sites with information about it. He then bemoans that nobody is sponsoring such a web site for him to voice his opinion. Presumably because he hopes that he could then reach more people and preach to them (ye, I knwo he wasn't being serious). But in any case, even though he denies it, he himself makes a straight connection between money, public exposure and subjective perception of merit.

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. A common point of reference suggests natural rights and equal intelligence is something for rational agents. I don't believe either are representative of the real world, but many libertarians do. In fact, that's precisely what I'm criticizing Lazy for believing.

Further down you wrote: Rights are personal perceptions. And followed it with a, to my mind, sensible description. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Because what you wrote there does not square with natural rights libertarianism at all.
oldviolin
ab origine
oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:38pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Do animals have rights?

 
define have
Red_Dragon
y ddraig goch ddyry gychwyn
Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Redneck Nation


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:09pm

Do animals have rights?
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:01pm

rexi wrote:
We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be aquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have completey access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.

Imagine for a minute you responded to something I actually wrote. Further, imagine your response actually addressed what I wrote.

Visualize it. It can happen.
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 4:49am

 rexi wrote:
Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.


We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be acquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have complete access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.

 
I just got to scratch my head on that one.  I didn't see that inferred, not even close.  An idea can have merit, regardless of the source.  Trying to combine merit and money into a standard applies to advertising and influence of thought, yes.  But simple repetition (advertising) does not establish merit.  It affects perception.

That one tries to discredit a thought based upon the financial support of a thought is faulty to begin with.  That is the basis of establishing a class divide.  Wealth does not create one particular way of thinking.  The source of the wealth (earned vs inherited for example) may, but wealth alone does not.

I really cannot comprehend your answer to l's question.  Usually its me who wonders all around the place trying to make a case. 

Your Sinclair quote is misused.  That or the intent of the quote is faulty.  You want the salary, you do what is required to earn it, or accept the strings attached, in other words.  That is the basis of employment.  One can imply that through employment, you condone the employer's mission.  But that is not always the case.  That is like saying, you read a book, so you must agree with the point of the book.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the the notion that everyone has equal intelligence and a common or singular point of reference. 


rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 1:02am

 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.

 

We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be aquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have completey access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 2, 2014 - 1:24pm

rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 2, 2014 - 9:03am

 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000), according to recent disclosures.Both finance conservative and libertarian causes.
Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.

Adam Smith


And a budget, as both Mr. Hobbes and Mr Smith would agree, is a budget.

Reason Foundation's budget is over $6 million per year, and the numbers listed above are aggregate totals over the period from 1985 to 2009 according to Sourcewatch.org, a project of the leftish Center for Media and Democracy, which is quoting Media Matters, whose link forwards to the Bridge Project (who is a little murky about who is supporting it, but seems to have a distinct lefty tilt) and which in any case doesn't seem to have any articles on its website pertaining to the Reason Foundation. So there's that.

Not that I'd give a rat's ass—I'm more interested in what gets said than who paid for the web site to say it, but it seems terribly important to you. In that event I can certify that I have received no funding whatsoever from any Koch brother, but am going on record as of now that if a Koch brother (or George Soros, or any of his ex-wives) would like to sponsor me my rates are quite reasonable.

 
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 1, 2014 - 7:04pm

Me too! 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 1, 2014 - 4:49pm

rexi wrote:

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000), according to recent disclosures.Both finance conservative and libertarian causes.
Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.

Adam Smith


And a budget, as both Mr. Hobbes and Mr Smith would agree, is a budget.

Reason Foundation's budget is over $6 million per year, and the numbers listed above are aggregate totals over the period from 1985 to 2009 according to Sourcewatch.org, a project of the leftish Center for Media and Democracy, which is quoting Media Matters, whose link forwards to the Bridge Project (who is a little murky about who is supporting it, but seems to have a distinct lefty tilt) and which in any case doesn't seem to have any articles on its website pertaining to the Reason Foundation. So there's that.

Not that I'd give a rat's ass—I'm more interested in what gets said than who paid for the web site to say it, but it seems terribly important to you. In that event I can certify that I have received no funding whatsoever from any Koch brother, but am going on record as of now that if a Koch brother (or George Soros, or any of his ex-wives) would like to sponsor me my rates are quite reasonable.


rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 1, 2014 - 12:33pm

 miamizsun wrote:

i like you

and i'm sure your a nice guy

we both have similar goals/objectives

helping out the less fortunate, peace, prosperity

we'd like to see an end to poverty and suffering (and/or have it minimized)

am i close?

the difference is in the way we go about it

you want to live your life and do things a certain way (and i support your choice to do so)

and i obviously want to have the same respect and courtesy with regard to how i'd like to live and contribute/help out

i guess i'm asking if i'm allowed to disagree with you on how we might go about social challenges

regards


 
We can disagree all we like. All I'm asking is that you show me how and why your path is likely to lead to better outcomes than any other. Prove to me not why you think your way sounds and feels more groovy but prove with real world facts why it actually works better. And also for whom it works better. So far, I can't see anything beyond populist slogans and fact-free sophistry.
And I also don't understand why you feel you're being kept from acting as you please. I presume you have a job, which means you have some money and time to spare and you know that donations to charity are tax deductible. Full freedom of choice as far as I can tell. The only choice you don't have, is not to pay your fair share. And that is a good thing, in my opinion. 
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 1, 2014 - 12:20pm

 

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000), according to recent disclosures.Both finance conservative and libertarian causes.


Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.

Adam Smith 


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 133, 134, 135  Next