Elizabeth Warren thinks more hot women should be having sex with you.
Yes, with you.
It’s only fair.
Hat tip, Liberty Papers.
Can we go over the options with the Polish and Columbian women again?
No. You only get that option if you are in Congress. Their platinum plan has the “foreign hooker” option.
And you should get a gander of their dental plan; it gives whole new meaning to the term “drilling”.
You should “pay it forward”. You have to give the sex to teenage boys of 16+, because their hormones are raging and they need it. And they could use the skills you would teach them.
I hope the government chooses Micheal Moore for her civic duty.
Ghod – that is crushingly funny, cause it shows how asinine her “thought process” is…
It’s a striking and funny argument, I’ll give it that. But it’s not a coherent counterargument.
First of all, the idea behind taxation and redistribution is the belief in a positive right to life. Even the most hardcore redistributionist is unlikely to argue that there’s a positive right to get laid.
Second of all, the argument about this sort of issue often comes down to philosophical claims about bodily integrity. The anti-redistributionist says that forcing Person A to work for Person B’s benefit is a violation of Person A’s right to bodily integrity. The redistributionist claims that, since Person A doesn’t owe all of your earning potential to your own extraordinary self, it isn’t a violation of bodily integrity in the first place. Thus, subbing in earnings and taxation–where the very debate is over whether it *is* a violation of bodily integrity–with something that is *very clearly* a violation of bodily integrity won’t persuade anyone new.
tl;dr: Great for rallying the troops, but not actually a successful counterargument.
The redistributionist claims that, since Person A doesn’t owe all of your earning potential to your own extraordinary self, it isn’t a violation of bodily integrity in the first place.
But that’s not the redistributionist argument. Their argument is that none of your earning potential is owed to your extraordinary self. Period. So, yes, it is a violation of bodily integrity.
I don’t think that’s true.
First, you assume we’re dealing with extreme-end redistributionists, of which Elizabeth Warren, by her own words, is not.*
Second, even if you accept that all redistributionists believe that, I don’t think the argument is any more convincing to redistributionists. If Person A owes none of his wealth to his own extraordinary self, then it’s no more a violation of his bodily integrity to redistribute heavily. Essentially, I think the standard argument here is on a continuum: if we assume that some percent share x of A’s earning potential is not due to his own extraordinary self, redistributing his wealth up to x isn’t a violation of his bodily integrity. I don’t think that argument is discontinuous at x=100%, even if it’s certainly implausible that x=100% would be true.
*”Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.”
It’s not my job to convince Progressives. It’s my job to convince people who actually know how to think for themselves.
Those two groups are pretty much orthogonal to each other at this point in time.
There are reasonably intelligent left-leaning moderates who aren’t happy with Obama, but aren’t sold on the Republican candidates yet. You are going to have to get them on your side at some point. This kind of amateur reframing isn’t going to do it.
Is this a satire? I can’t find the original quote anywhere.
Darling, please feel free to distribute some of your millions to me.
After all, wwithout people listening and reding your trash, you’d never have made it anyway.
Andmy taxes paid for you to be able to go to school, and get your degree, and my taxes paid for your great position doing nothing with the president
500 per household, @ 85,000,000 households at below average income in the country, should cover it
OK, first let me state that I am happily married to a wonderful woman.
OK, with that out of the way, if Elizabeth Hurley is available, me wants. However, if in the midst of having a good time I thought that the occasion was brought about by the works of that thing pictured above (and I don’t mean you, Mr Green!), I might, even in the presence of the fabulous Ms Hurley, lose my ardor. If you get my drift.
I might have to Frame this one.
Comments are closed.