[ExI] Nobel laureates tell Greenpeace to stop, opposing GMOs
danust2012 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 16:28:13 UTC 2016
On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the GOP were actually shrinking the federal government, that would be a great thing IMO. They are not. I'd rather them have less power to tax -- not more. Yes, that would give less for your favorite programs here and it's not costless. But the federal government is by no means shrinking even in this area. dan
> What' wrong with just trying to collect the taxes that are already owed? I am certainly not familiar with all the various things the gov does, but I am sure I could find areas that I'd shrink. I could also find areas that need more money. Just shrinking blindly seems like a very bad idea. bill w
Wait! You're a libertarian? Then the taxes aren't owed; they're extorted. No one owes them simply because the state says they are owed.
> Wouldn't another libertarian approach be much more reasonable here: stop stirring the pot for terrorism by getting involved in all kinds of foreign adventures and playing global cop? dan
> I might have agreed to some extent with this, but not after 9-11. They brought the fight to our yard and by golly I'd chase them to the ends of the earth. Now Afghanistan, like Iraq, Viet Nam and maybe others - I could agree with you on those. bill w
It seems clear to me that the 02001 attacks were caused by the US's interventions in the Middle East. You're sounding like one of those folks who believes that the US government was totally isolationist until September 12th of that year.
> Who or what is not limited by money in this? dan
> CR has less money than the feds. Agreed? Bill w
Doesn't really answer my question.
And, for the record, the FDA gets orders of magnitude more money than CR now. I know you want them to have ever more -- on the theory that they do fine work and never stand in the way of health and safety. Consider why some might dissent from your view here.
> You appear to want to just accept some level of local terrorism rather than beef up security, because the incidence is low, or maybe because no level of security can stop it all.
My point was rather that there are more important fish to fry. We could all live isolation cells in a totalitarian state in the interest of stopping terrorism. Don't you agree that that would be a cure worse than the illness? Or is there no price to pay too high for allay these fears?
Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat