WHY would the government trick us?

oh nm
i see it all cancels out.

P and H are proportiional
P = ro g H.
the delta H between the up-down is proportional if you lie flat will have a smaller delta P.

Glad you sorted it out. Yes, they basically cancel out.

Quote

Dimensions of FG:
mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2 × mass2 / distance2
 = mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / distance2 × mass2 / mass2
 = mass × distance / time2

I mentioned how this equation is largely tautological. This is what I mean. All the extra crap is canceled out to leave this "constant" equation... which turns out to mean nothing. You could add Jupiter's alleged mass into the mass 2 and it basically gets swallowed up by the rest of the equation, resulting in a fairly fixed fall rate based on mass, distance, and time. On the other hand, you can rather quickly find out that surface can be adjusted to slow the fall or stop it or reverse it. Almost like buoyancy is a stronger force than gravity... almost like... and before I say it, your defense mechanism sets in.



Almost like gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.

Quote

If you tried to launch the arrow with enough energy (force times distance) to travel 20 feet before its momentum was overcome by drag (a force in the opposite direction of momentum), but it traveled 50 feet instead, you applied more energy than you thought, or the arrow is "slicker" (has less drag) than you thought, or both.

So now you're pretending momentum doesn't exist, even though we have a formula for it, and unlike gravity, it doesn't tear out the meat of itself. It is a clear value. By the way, an arrow from a 65 lb draw weight bow can travel up to 514 yards. What accounts for this distance? The mass of the bow (its draw weight), and the velocity at which it is fired. A modern longbow tends toward 200 yards tho, because most archers don't fire weapons with such a heavy draw weight.

Hmm! Mass and velocity result in a further distance. Why does that sound familiar...?

Now try again, explaining it yourself without linking to a video by your lying cult leader.

The buoyant force acting on an object can be greater than the force directly from gravity. That isn't surprising.
And has already been explained to you.

Yet you have no basis to claim gravity doesn't exist as you are yet to produce a viable alternative.
Instead you keep appealing to the same crap, ignoring the fact that buoyancy relies upon gravity and is DOA without it.

Again, that pressure you keep ignoring is a direct result of gravity and the buoyant force is a direct result of that pressure gradient.
This is something you cannot address at all, which kills your delusional BS.

Again if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work.

As for the bow, the "draw weight" is not actually a mass. It is a weight, the amount of FORCE on a mass due to gravity.
A 65 pound draw weight means you are exerting the same force as lifting up 65 pounds.

What accounts for the distance is that FORCE from the bow accelerating the object, which is based upon the mass of the object being accelerated.
It is then based upon friction from air resistance slowing it down, and the roughly parabolic trajectory it would follow.

Quote

Dimensions of FG:
mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2 × mass2 / distance2
 = mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / distance2 × mass2 / mass2
 = mass × distance / time2

I mentioned how this equation is largely tautological. This is what I mean. All the extra crap is canceled out to leave this "constant" equation... which turns out to mean nothing. You could add Jupiter's alleged mass into the mass 2 and it basically gets swallowed up by the rest of the equation, resulting in a fairly fixed fall rate based on mass, distance, and time.

No, the dimensions mass (unit: kg) and distance (unit: meter) divide out the units used to specify G in your example, leaving force as the result; the magnitudes of m₁, m₂, and r, however, still very much factor into the calculation.

So if you ran the calculation using the mass of Jupiter (~2 × 10²⁷ kg) for m₁ in one case and the mass of a flea for m₁ (~1 mg = ~1 × 10^-6 kg) in another, the calculated F_G would be vastly different if m₂ and r are the same in both calculations, and both are finite and not zero. Try it. But what's 33 orders of magnitude between friends, right?

For instance, if you want to know how much more massive one item is compared to another, it works like this:

m₁ = 36.6 kg
m₂ = 12.2 kg

How does the mass m₁ compare to m₂?

m₁ / m₂ = 36.6 kg / 12.2 kg
 = (36.6 / 12.2) (kg / kg)
 = 3 (kg / kg)
 = 3

m₁ is 3 times as massive as m₂.

Change the value of m₁ to 48.8 kg and the ratio changes to 4.

As you can (or should be able to) see, the resulting ratios are unitless, which is to say, dimensionless, but the actual values for the masses still determine the ratio. You really need to learn how this works before attempting to argue about it.

On the other hand, you can rather quickly find out that surface can be adjusted to slow the fall or stop it or reverse it. Almost like buoyancy is a stronger force than gravity... almost like... and before I say it, your defense mechanism sets in.

Buoyancy is affected by density (mass / volume) of the fluid medium and an object in it not the shape of the surface. Shape of the surface does affect drag, though.

Quote

If you tried to launch the arrow with enough energy (force times distance) to travel 20 feet before its momentum was overcome by drag (a force in the opposite direction of momentum), but it traveled 50 feet instead, you applied more energy than you thought, or the arrow is "slicker" (has less drag) than you thought, or both.

So now you're pretending momentum doesn't exist, even though we have a formula for it, and unlike gravity, it doesn't tear out the meat of itself. It is a clear value.

No, momentum obviously exists, there's just nothing about momentum in the formula we're discussing.

You can plug values into the F_G formula, you calculate a resulting clear value, and the dimensions resolve to force, as they have to. Use a different value for m₁, m₂, or r and you'll get a different resulting force.

By the way, an arrow from a 65 lb draw weight bow can travel up to 514 yards. What accounts for this distance? The mass of the bow (its draw weight), and the velocity at which it is fired. A modern longbow tends toward 200 yards tho, because most archers don't fire weapons with such a heavy draw weight.

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

The actual mass of the bow makes no difference. None. The mass of the arrow does.

Hmm! Mass and velocity result in a further distance. Why does that sound familiar...?

Higher velocity results in further distance before the arrow has time to drop to the ground. That does sound familiar. An arrow with greater mass will leave the bow at a lower velocity than an arrow with less mass because it's accelerated more slowly by the string. The more massive arrow may lose velocity more slowly than a less-massive arrow because of aerodynamic drag, but that is not a simple calculation.

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass. The metal, fibers, or wood, are being pulled in tension toward your body.  This is actual matter being moved. But because you think mass only is pulled down, you just ignore it.  Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

ok so bouyancy still is force by pushing things up.

how does a thing that pushes UP, push down?!

try and push a ball forward, but have it go backwards.
how does that work?

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

So it will never be adequate because it works?

Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass.

No, it isn't.
Just what do you think it is a measure of the mass of?
It certainly isn't the weight of the bow or a part thereof.

But because you think mass only is pulled down

No, I don't.
But because you know your BS doesn't work, you will just come up with whatever pathetic lie you can to pretend your BS is true or reality is wrong.

Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

Yet you have no issue carrying it around, clearly demonstrating the draw weight is NOT a measure of mass of the bow/crossbow.


And still running like a pathetic lying coward from the issues which kill your delusional BS.


Again if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work.

As for the bow, the "draw weight" is not actually a mass. It is a weight, the amount of FORCE on a mass due to gravity.
A 65 pound draw weight means you are exerting the same force as lifting up 65 pounds.

What accounts for the distance is that FORCE from the bow accelerating the object, which is based upon the mass of the object being accelerated.
It is then based upon friction from air resistance slowing it down, and the roughly parabolic trajectory it would follow.

Quote

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

As JB notes above, "it works"; gravity explains everyday phenomena quite well. Besides, what does gravity have to do with how hard you have to pull a bow string?

Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass. The metal, fibers, or wood, are being pulled in tension toward your body.  This is actual matter being moved.

Of course there's matter involved. So what? You're still confusing the force needed to bend the bow (65 pounds) with the mass of the bow. They're unrelated. The energy used to deform the bow (force times distance) is stored as elastic potential energy until it's released.

But because you think mass only is pulled down, you just ignore it. 

Mass is pulled toward the center of the earth ("down") by gravity. You can apply forces in other directions if you want to cause the mass to move in other directions. Who ever said otherwise?

Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

OK. So what? Since you never mentioned how difficult it was to pick the thing up, so it's obvious that it weighs considerably less than 65 pounds. Its weight is equals its mass times the acceleration of gravity, and the latter doesn't change by much anywhere on or near the surface of the earth so the mass must not produce a weight of 65 pounds. How hard you have to pull the string (so-called "draw weight") is dependent on the bow's elastic characteristics, which are independent of its mass.

Quote

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass. The metal, fibers, or wood, are being pulled in tension toward your body.  This is actual matter being moved. But because you think mass only is pulled down, you just ignore it.  Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

Listen Bulma. It is not my intention to insult you at this time.

However, it has become plain that you have no understanding whatsoever of how the world works. Everything you express, perhaps with a few exceptions, about the world around you, is false. You do not have the ability to understand these phenomena, unless you are trolling, which I don't think you are.

So I am wondering,  how you are able to convince yourself that expressing these views of yours serves anyone or anything. What is blinding you to the fact which is apparent to everyone else, that you don't understand science at all? I am seriously asking this question.

Quote

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass. The metal, fibers, or wood, are being pulled in tension toward your body.  This is actual matter being moved. But because you think mass only is pulled down, you just ignore it.  Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

Bulma, take your mini skirt and stockings off for a minute,  because I've got something new for you to wear to the mall.

Dress yourself in any government's budget report that you can find, for "The hiding of the true shape of the earth", or "Earth is not a globe".

That shouldn't be too hard for you to find, should it? There are hundreds of thousands of governments spread throughout the world. Or, if you want a dress in the bag, hit up NASA for their annual budget on suppressing the true shape of the world, and dress yourself in that.

There's no need for you to walk around everywhere in just your frilly knickers. Print out some of these flat earth annual government budget reports, and make yourself a new dress to wear out of them.

Bulma, take your mini skirt and stockings off for a minute

NEVER!!!

I don't need to. There's one entire organization devoted to that sort of thing. You call it the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The budget for it making fake events (it is far easier to make propaganda than it is to douse the flames of truth burning through crap) is rather big to say the least.

Let's crop on something.

$516 trillion in the last 50+ years. Hmmm, where could that trillion go? Feeding the poor? Making the world safer? No, let's invest in CGI crap so we can claim someone is in a space station instead of a green screen room.

There are also what are called counter-intelligence or disinformation agents on everywhere from NSA to FBI to CIA. Do I think these are all devoted to hiding flat Earth? No, they have several things to deny. Such as this.

Quote

Bulma, take your mini skirt and stockings off for a minute

NEVER!!!

I don't need to. There's one entire organization devoted to that sort of thing. You call it the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The budget for it making fake events (it is far easier to make propaganda than it is to douse the flames of truth burning through crap) is rather big to say the least.

Let's crop on something.

$516 trillion in the last 50+ years. Hmmm, where could that trillion go? Feeding the poor? Making the world safer? No, let's invest in CGI crap so we can claim someone is in a space station instead of a green screen room.

There are also what are called counter-intelligence or disinformation agents on everywhere from NSA to FBI to CIA. Do I think these are all devoted to hiding flat Earth? No, they have several things to deny. Such as this.

The whole point of an annual budget report, is to be transparent where the money is going, Bulma. (Even more transparent than your latest nightie).

Resist conjecture and speculation for a single minute of your existence, and cough up specifically, what part of any budget is devoted to "the most evil agenda in the world" - the hiding of the true shape of the Earth.

You literally don't know if you are Arthur or Martha, do you?

I don't need to. There's one entire organization devoted to that sort of thing.

You mean there is one organisation you repeatedly lie about including by pretending it is doing that; while entirely ignoring what it is actually doing.

$516 trillion in the last 50+ years. Hmmm, where could that trillion go?

Launching countless GPS satellites to allow easy navigation, which also helps improve safety including supporting emergency beacons to locate missing vessels.
Other satellites to be more helpful in predicting the weather, especially major storms to give people sufficient warning to evacuate.

$516 trillion in the last 50+ years.

FFS.  Are you telling us that you can't even tell the difference between billions and trillions? 

You should go back to every school that you ever attended and demand a refund because they have failed to teach you much of anything.

Trumps inauguration, with a lineup of billionaires, collectively having more money than the bottom 140 million Americans, are they going to do anything about poverty? No, cut Medicare, cut jobs, federal assistance and grant programs and tax cuts for the rich (by 2027 82.8% of tax cuts going to the top 1%).
BB, you are one of the fools, reeled in on culture war scare tactics, with a bible for a brain, blinkered by propaganda from a system that is designed to foster the growth in inequality.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/

Like a typical leftist, you think that rich people just sit around and count wealth.

It never occurred to you that some of these people employ other people.

Capitalism is how people move out of poverty, even the ones without imagination, who can only work for other people.

Rich people need gardeners, roof repair people, pool guys, doctors and nurses. They help loads of people just by being themselves.

When you tax their earnings, they become more stingy about who they offer to. More so still, when you overregulate their business.

Did you know that Karl Marx never really worked while he theorized about people owning a textile mill exploiting workers? Instead his buddy supported him (from money made through a textile mill!) while he bemoaned how awful such a job must be. Nowadays, with high income taxes, the laborers for such things are actually closer to Karl Marx's vision thanks to the punitive nature of these taxes than in his day! Marx's friend could support him and himself, nowadays a textile worker would have to deal with time off from work due to union strikes. And then there's the dues.

So says the perfect slave.

Capitalism causes poverty, it leans on it, ideally keeping those out of work at about 6%, so there is always a downward pressure on wages.
Most of the money made by a wage slave is collected by the bosses, they get enough to keep them coming back, but not enough so they take time off.

If workers at the bottom were guaranteed 51% of what they made for their firms, there would be a happier work force and we wouldn’t have the vileness that was on show behind Trump at his rally, ultra rich wankers who pay shit wages to most of their workers, hoard their wealth whilst calling for tax breaks for themselves and a reduction in help for those they consign to the bottom.

So says the perfect slave.

Capitalism causes poverty, it leans on it, ideally keeping those out of work at about 6%, so there is always a downward pressure on wages.

Let's do some math here.

Suppose I have $10,000 and suppose those in a town have nothing. I buy (we're not assuming modern inflationary prices) a shop for $5000. This town, as a perfect capitalism has no taxes. Now the person who has that $5000 to spend on sees all these penniless people who have artistic stuff. They buy fine pottery, nice paintings, and so on, spending all but $100, which they keep for food and such. The people they buy from in turn have money to buy from others. But it gets better. The guy in the shop manages to hire four employees, paying them each $1000 that year, and keeping the last $1000 for himself. The shop makes money, and he can afford to do this again. And again. And again.

Now, suppose instead, the government takes my money, claiming they will share it equally.  To demonstrate our point, let us suppose the absolute wokest government that decides people with wealth shouldn't even exist. They therefore take 100% from anyone with more than $9999. Oh look. He loses all his money. Now, if you think that government saves nothing, you are the slave. The government saves around half of that wealth, and redistributes the other $5000 with 500 people. Each of them get $10 because this is fair, supposedly. Only this isn't really enough to buy anything anyone wants, so everyone is just sitting around equally poor, less so than before, but still not well off. But it gets worse. Suppose some fruit stand guy manages to make the $5000. He could in theory set up his business, only there's a hitch. Government regulation changes. "Did we say $9999? We meant $4999. Also, we have a few regulations to this apple cart. You'll need to pay property tax. And you'll need a food seller's license. And if you want employees, we get to decide how much to pay them." So the fruit seller is without money, and the people now have half of $4999. The government, by contrast has $7,500 and wants the whole thing, only giving it to their buddies.

The government is the ultimate robber baron. Most businesses would pay the public is the state were willing to butt out. Particularly if they offered financial incentives.

6% of the population is nothing to frown about. If the above town of 500 people had 30 people out of work, we should be ecstatic. Particularly because they probably receive welfare or charity.

if you don't like to pay taxes which leave the town and go to Washington for the washington projects.

then why do you not get equally upset that the rich waldton family or mcdonalds take the profits from the local store and demand a franchise "tax" which ships the money out of the local economy?

and the only reason they were able to set up a franchise was because
 1.  their supplier buying power is greater than a mompop
 2.  they get a State sized taxbreak power so their operating cost is low
 3.  they use all that saved money to buy off Washington and hold minwage rates at slave rate.

so yes, feel free to get mad at washington, but at the same time recognize the other part of the equation.
the part that you were referenced to as being "the perfect slave".



moronic.

What I get upset about is taxes, not personal wealth.

Or do you not know that "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is trampling the grain"?
A worker not only needs but deserves their wealth.

Government by contrast is not work, but meddling. They have no right to tax others on their earnings. They should earn money through honest effort. Rather than income taxation, every single state official should gather money for the functioning of state by being the expensive whores they are. Yep, fund the government through prostitution. This way, government officials cannot say "I am above the concerns of the people," as they suffer from untold STDs. If not that, then gambling, drug sales, or arms deals.

When you understand the government to be the criminal gang they are, you will stop blaming the rich for their wealth.

Like a typical leftist, you think that rich people just sit around and count wealth.

No, instead they often do what they can to accumulate more.
That includes exploiting workers, paying far less than they are worth, and knowing you can do that because they don't have anywhere better to go.

Capitalism is how people move out of poverty, even the ones without imagination, who can only work for other people.

No, capitalism is how you keep people in poverty. By demanding they have to do a bunch of work to be able to get enough money just to survive; ideally so all their time and energy is focused on just surviving, so they have no time or money to try to better themselves to get out of it.
Even better if you can keep the cycle going between generations, where poor people can't afford decent education for their children, and so those children have to start working as soon as possible to have no time to better themselves either; while the rich kids don't need to work until they are out of college.

Capitalism is a system in which all the power is given to those with the money and the poor people are effectively slaves to the system.

Suppose I have $10,000 and suppose those in a town have nothing. I buy (we're not assuming modern inflationary prices) a shop for $5000. This town, as a perfect capitalism has no taxes. Now the person who has that $5000 to spend on sees all these penniless people who have artistic stuff. They buy fine pottery, nice paintings, and so on, spending all but $100, which they keep for food and such. The people they buy from in turn have money to buy from others. But it gets better. The guy in the shop manages to hire four employees, paying them each $1000 that year, and keeping the last $1000 for himself. The shop makes money, and he can afford to do this again. And again. And again.

Not very good with a basic understanding of the world are you?
Who is paying for everything that taxes pay for here?

To demonstrate our point, let us suppose the absolute wokest government that decides people with wealth shouldn't even exist.

You mean lets set up a complete strawman which in no way represents reality.

How about we try a more realistic situation shall we?

The guy makes $500 000 a month from his store.
For this he employs 100 workers, and pays them each $1000 a month. Just enough for them to get by, with costs of rent, bills, food, tolls for every single road and footpath, school for their children, a subscription to the fire department and police (or risk having all their stuff burn or be stolen without consequence) and so on.
He then pockets the remaining $400 000 for himself, where he uses it for luxury goods from elsewhere, on his private mansion, and private jet and so on, and stockpiles the rest to have a large wealth he can boast about.

Now compare it to a decent tax system. In this system, the tax rate is progressive.
So the workers earn so little, that nothing goes to tax.
Meanwhile, all his money above $100 000 gets taxed at a high rate, lets go along with your strawman for a bit and say 100%.
That money from tax then goes to things which benefit everyone, including the roads and schools and fire department and police.

He can now either decide earning more isn't worth it, continue to pay his workers $1000 a month (or possibly even slightly less), while earning less and paying far more tax than the workers he is exploiting, and the workers end up better off.
Or he could continue as he is, and just lose that extra money he would otherwise just horde which gets given back to everyone, even if not all does.
Or he could actually start paying his workers more. He could quadruple how much he pays them, and be no worse off than just continuing as is.

That is a far better system.

A worker not only needs but deserves their wealth.

Yet the capitalist employer gives them far less than they deserve.

They have no right to tax others on their earnings.

They provide services which everyone uses. That gives them that right.

When you understand the government to be the criminal gang they are, you will stop blaming the rich for their wealth.

When you realise the rich are those mainly controlling the government, including to get as many tax breaks as possible for themselves, and to get money from the government, you would realise those rich people are the problem.

if you got rid of the govt portion, you would have martial law and the rich would be ruling as warlords.

you would lose what little protections are allotted to peasants -
1.  ability to sue if employer fails basic health and safety
2.  min wage would be even lower!
3.  environmental laws for water and land - unless your previous oil-thread faux outrage was all infact faux.




moron.

if you got rid of the govt portion, you would have martial law and the rich would be ruling as warlords.

you would lose what little protections are allotted to peasants -
1.  ability to sue if employer fails basic health and safety
2.  min wage would be even lower!
3.  environmental laws for water and land - unless your previous oil-thread faux outrage was all infact faux.

That's a load of crap.

Instead of appealing to some Mad Max notion of life without government (revolution is far different from anarchy), keep in mind that local government can be a volunteer position. Rather than taxing to fund the federal goverment, make those people have jobs, and do that shit on their weekends.

Lawyers have nothing to do with the government. They can be paid privately.

And we do not need a minimum wage. Simply making a law that workers must be paid in some way is sufficient. Besides which, minimum wage usually does not help workers, and in fact harms them. The higher minimum wage is, the more small business owners are like "Time to pack it in. I could afford to pay workers $10 an hour, but $15 is too much." They either fire workers to pay the remaining more (upping unemployment) or they struggle with their own issues staying open. Or they do screwy tricks with hours. Yeah, I've seen the consequence of minimum wage working at Walmart. They really wanted to pay us about half that, so what they did was make a bunch of part-timers.

As for environmental regulations, yeah they did a fat lot of good there. Not being able to use water to save their own forests because there were trout nearby? Net them, put them in a tank, use the water, put them back. But no, your government at work.

martial law:
what happens to store owners who don't pay protection money to the local gangs that "own" the streets?
the same thing that happens to store owners who don't pay taxes to the gov't - the enforcers come and haul you away.

so now you're an employee of the only big employer of this small town.
who do you think the volunteer sherif is going to listen to?
you the peasant?
or the employer who has the ability to pay the volunteer enforcer?

lawyers are paid privately, but the law holds the employer accountable.
if there is no govt that has laws then what magical means does the employee have to hold up his rights?

simply make a law about min wage.
got it...uh... who's making the law?  who's enforcing the law?  see above...



what forest-water-drought are you talking about?
eitehr way - it's going to be a moronic anecdote i'm sure.


moron.

That's a load of crap.

Instead of appealing to some Mad Max notion of life without government (revolution is far different from anarchy), keep in mind that local government can be a volunteer position. Rather than taxing to fund the federal goverment, make those people have jobs, and do that shit on their weekends.

Lawyers have nothing to do with the government. They can be paid privately.

And we do not need a minimum wage. Simply making a law that workers must be paid in some way is sufficient. Besides which, minimum wage usually does not help workers, and in fact harms them. The higher minimum wage is, the more small business owners are like "Time to pack it in. I could afford to pay workers $10 an hour, but $15 is too much." They either fire workers to pay the remaining more (upping unemployment) or they struggle with their own issues staying open. Or they do screwy tricks with hours. Yeah, I've seen the consequence of minimum wage working at Walmart. They really wanted to pay us about half that, so what they did was make a bunch of part-timers.

As for environmental regulations, yeah they did a fat lot of good there. Not being able to use water to save their own forests because there were trout nearby? Net them, put them in a tank, use the water, put them back. But no, your government at work.

The issue isn't simply the government and law makers. It is how it is enforced.
Governments need money to operate with any effect, unless you are planning on having a very large group of people being volunteers full time and getting nothing.
Do you only want police on the weekends?

Likewise, sure you can get a lawyer, you can even get a fake judge. But how would any judgement be enforced?
What would be stopping the rich from just killing you if you are to inconvenient, or just enslaving you outright?

Given how corrupt and greedy the rich are, we do need a minimum wage. And in the US it is far too low.
The problem for small businesses is not minimum wage. It is the large businesses which are in a far better position to exploit people and offer goods and services for far cheaper than the small stores. And that is in part because they can exploit their workers.
So what is needed is a decent minimum wage and it actually being enforced, rather than the rich owners of the company taking in the vast majority of the money.

You have massive misplaced blame. And an even bigger zero sum mindset.

Having been a business owner, I know that the rich have very little to do with my own wealth. It's the taxes and regulations.

But you seem to think that if Charlie Bronwenstein over here makes $15,000,000,000 dollars somehow that means I can't have it. Nonsense. All I have to do is build something he's willing to pay alot for. If I actually want his money. But I know enough about the psychology of rich people that I don't want their problems.

You have massive misplaced blame. And an even bigger zero sum mindset.

No, that would be you, because you have been conned by the people who see you as useful.

Money in general is a zero sum game. In order for the rich to get their money, someone needs to give them it. It doesn't just magically appear.

Having been a business owner, I know that the rich have very little to do with my own wealth. It's the taxes and regulations.

You say that as if being a business owner magically gives you insight into so many things which no one else could possibly have.

How much did you actually follow the money to see where it went?
How much did you look into every interaction you had to see where money for it came from?
Did you even bother thinking about things like who pays for the roads?

And more importantly, did you even look into how much you were paying in tax as a portion of your earnings vs the rich?
Because that really shows where the problem is.

But you seem to think that if Charlie Bronwenstein over here makes $15,000,000,000 dollars somehow that means I can't have it. Nonsense. All I have to do is build something he's willing to pay alot for. If I actually want his money. But I know enough about the psychology of rich people that I don't want their problems.

Again, the real issue is how he managed to get that?
What was he doing which earned him that much money?
Likely treating people like slaves and exploiting them.

I don't need to follow the money. I know that politicians, like other rich elite, are afraid of the poor.

So. What.

 "Thou shalt not covet."

 If you live your life in coveting of others, it is downright miserable. I already have enough coveting what with my desire to be more like a woman. Do you think I want the added drama of envying pieces of paper?

 "Oh no! The rich might get richer!"

 Yes, and they will, because the politicians favor them. This will not change through more taxes. In fact, politicians use your envy of the rich to get you to tax yourself.

Did you know that the blind have $2000 higher minimum tax than the rest of us? You wanna gouge out your eyes?

Income tax will NEVER hit the rich. Don't even try. It's the poor and middle class that pay it. If you want to tax the rich, demand your politicians do sales taxes. Don't believe their lies about how it punishes the poor. You can draft a tax proposal yourself, excluding certain taxes (like if you know poor people are largely spending on thrift stores and do market research on the foods eaten, or just exclude all groceries that aren't like caviar or escargot). The rich then pay large sales taxes for all their golden toilets, crazy shoe purchases, and billion dollar cars. The people who are immune are the ones who live sensibly.

You are quite literally your own worst enemy.

Spectacular

Money in general is a zero sum game. In order for the rich to get their money, someone needs to give them it. It doesn't just magically appear.

I'm not sure that I would completely agree with that, depending on how you define "money".  After all, the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy is usually tied up in the stock market.  I've always been amazed at how much "money" can magically appear and disappear as stock prices vary.

Work output and time are a zero sum