Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Lefty Political Framer George Lakoff Presaged Obama/Brown "You Didn't Build That" Theme

Matt Welch | 7.26.2012 9:24 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Over at the Legal Insurrection blog, William A. Jacobson makes a plausible case that the Barack Obama/Elizabeth Warren line of argument valorizing the collective, government-provided goods that individual achievers should be more grateful for, was definitely pre-rehearsed and possibly influenced by that one-man provider of dubious lefty political "framing," George Lakoff. Here's Lakoff in his 2004 book Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives:

Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their due to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traitorous to desert our country and not pay your dues.

Perhaps Bill Gates Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the Internet. They just used it--to make billions. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! They wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers  have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.

Sounds pretty familiar, right? Now consider that that passage was not initially flagged by some lefty-baiting blog, but by the lefty-helping blog, The Daily Kos, where diarist Panacea Paola in March pointed out that "This passage and the argument surrounding it sound extremely similar to something we've been hearing recently and for the first time in a long time." That something? Elizabeth Warren's contention that "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Paola calls this "the winning progressive message," but I suspect that the president's furious backtracking/counterpunching after "You didn't build that" indicates some doubt about that, for one excellent reason: Federal spending has doubled in one decade, and we aren't getting double the quality in services. Spending on that level has ballooned debt service into 6 percent of the federal budget, with trend lines currently predicting that interest payments alone will eclipse the already enormous defense budget before the end of this decade. Meanwhile, all that spending has stubbornly failed to provide the promised-for economic turnaround.

Combining this sorry track record of government spending with an in-your-face accusation of taxpayer ingratitude strikes me as a little less than "winning," but you people go knock yourself out.

Here's Lakoff on video, as flagged by Jacobson:

More Reason on "You didn't build that," from Ira Stoll, J.D. Tuccille, me, Emily Ekins, Tim Cavanaugh, David Harsanyi, me again, Ed Krayewski, Damon W. Root, and Ronald Bailey.

And more Reason on George Lakoff: Jesse Walker (2005), Tim Cavanaugh (2008), and me (2009).

Top link via the Twitter feed of David "Iowahawk" Burge.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: A.M. Links: President Speaks on Gun Violence, Mitt Romney Crosses the Pond, Hollywood Director Blames Violence in Movies

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

PoliticsGovernment SpendingBarack ObamaDemocratic PartyElection 2012
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (237)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

    Gates' billions came mostly from desktops and enterprise servers, not the Internet.

    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      Applications, that is, not hardware.

    2. Kwanzaa Cake   13 years ago

      Yes. And Gates Sr. did not do shit. In fact he wanted Gates Jr. to stay at Harvard, not drop out to build Microsoft into a multi-billion dollar company.

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        He still refers to Bill as "My disappointing son."

    3. HazelMeade   13 years ago

      Yes, and they were even late to the game in developing a web browser. That's why there was such an uproar when they tried to shove Netscape out of the market, by bundling the browser into the Windows 98 operating system.

      Arguably, Microsoft's decline coincides with the rise of the internet. They don't even have a smart phone. That's an Apple/Google fight.

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        Decline is a strong word. They still control the OS market and office applications. Windows 8 will be an interesting test of their ability to leap to devices, though they've failed at that before.

        1. Somalian Road Corporation   13 years ago

          Dedicated "office applications" are becoming increasingly meaningless as almost everything is now done through a browser.

          1. Apatheist ?_??   13 years ago

            Not at my office.

          2. Fatty Bolger   13 years ago

            Not yet. But it's moving in that direction.

            1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

              Yes, there's change in the air, but MS might be able to stay relevant. For instance, in enterprise cloud computing, the big players right now are Google and Microsoft.

              I think they'll retain relevance in the OS space, too, but I wonder what's going to happen to the Office suite. Many companies--let alone private consumers--don't upgrade to newer versions of Office anymore. My kids' computer at home has the free OpenOffice rather than the MS version.

              1. T   13 years ago

                Apparently, we won't upgrade because the upgrade breaks our lovingly crafted macros that check our engineering documents for formatting. I wonder how many other companies are in the same boat.

        2. Killazontherun   13 years ago

          Gabe Newell, who once worked as an exec at Microsoft before starting his on highly successful company, Valve, and one of the smartest guys in the business is not too keen on Windows 8:

          http://allthingsd.com/20120725.....-and-more/

          "The big problem that is holding back Linux is games. People don't realize how critical games are in driving consumer purchasing behavior," says Valve's Gabe Newell as quoted on AllThingsD. "We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2,500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It's a hedging strategy. I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I think we'll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market. I think margins will be destroyed for a bunch of people. If that's true, then it will be good to have alternatives to hedge against that eventuality."

      2. generic Brand   13 years ago

        Isn't the Blackberry kind of a Windows operated phone? Or are you saying because it is manufactured by someone other than Microsoft and just runs on Windows?

        1. squarooticus   13 years ago

          Blackberry does not use Windows.

          1. Tim   13 years ago

            Five minutes from now Blackberry won't be making anything.

      3. Ice Nine   13 years ago

        True, making Microsoft's course a worthy exemplar for the unwitting use here by Comrade Lakoff.

      4. MJGreen   13 years ago

        They do have the Windows phone. But it seems like it's already out of commission.

        And I don't know the history that well, but I'm very, very confused as to what Gates Sr. did in regards to the Internet (or Microsoft in general). Or is it of the same idea as the general sentiment, that Jr. couldn't have done anything without his father?

        1. JW   13 years ago

          They do have the Windows phone. But it seems like it's already out of commission.

          Nope. Going strong for a 3rd player in a 2 player dominated market, but it has already surpassed Blackberry in sales (granted not hard to do today) and Windows Phone 8 will be out in the Fall.

      5. JW   13 years ago

        They don't even have a smart phone. That's an Apple/Google fight.

        Yes, yes they do. It's late to the game and doesn't have the numbers that iOS and Android do, but it's growing, albeit slowly. It's actually a very nicely engineered OS. Even the Great and Powerful Woz ikes it and prefers it over Android.

        Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly that while it doesn't see trends well, at all, it can start late and own the game after a few years.

        1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

          Oh, and I completely forgot the Xbox.

          1. JW   13 years ago

            MS seems to be focusing their branding around the Xbox.

            I keep thinking about getting a Roku for streaming, but then MS adds new streaming channels to the Xbox, so I keep skipping the Roku.

            1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

              They've done a pretty good job in gaming.

      6. Night Elf Mohawk   13 years ago

        Yes, and they were even late to the game in developing a web browser.

        And it didn't support tables when they did. The pulsing N did, though.

    4. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

      I still miss the Commodore computer and their early version of the internet, Quantum Link.

    5. Drake   13 years ago

      While Gates, Wozniak, and Jobs were busy stealing the GUI and mouse from Xerox, they failed to notice that Xerox had them connected to a network.

      1. Cyto   13 years ago

        Huh? Windows for Workgroups shipped with netbios networking in the box, as well as drivers for Novell IPX/SPX. TCP/IP stacks were add-ons, but nobody much was using that now-ubiquitous protocol at the time. Prior to that your network adapter would come with drivers for your lan of choice. Same goes for Apple with the Macintosh. The old IIe was easy enough to connect to the network as well, even TCP/IP. Made a decent terminal.

        Of course, there was nothing much to "internetwork" to unless you were at a university prior to the opening up of the internet in the early/mid nineties. Most people got their connectivity via dialup BBS systems, later via Mega-massive BBS systems like Compuserve and Prodigy. "Internetworking" for the unwashed consisted of Fidonet - shuttling email between BBS systems overnight. You could send an email around the globe in only a couple of days! Ahh... good times.

      2. Killazontherun   13 years ago

        They noticed, and Cyto points out the adaptations they made early on. However, they were limited by legal considerations of the ATT federally backed monopoly in what they could do with that networking technology.

  2. Kaptious Kristen   13 years ago

    I noticed The Obama has come out with a response ad, basically saying "what I reaqlly meant was..." It's kinda desperate.

    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      What he really meant that All Our Base Are Belong to Him.

      1. HazelMeade   13 years ago

        All Your Business Are Belong to Us

        The new Progressive motto.

        1. Mr. Soul   13 years ago

          Somebody set us up the bomb for sure.

          1. HazelMeade   13 years ago

            Obama set us up the bomb.

    2. o3   13 years ago

      did u invent the word "desperate"?

      1. heller   13 years ago

        Did you invent stupidity?

        1. Restoras   13 years ago

          No, he just lives the lifestyle.

        2. Sevo   13 years ago

          Naah, but o3 has developed it to a high standard.
          All on his own!

        3. Kaptious Kristen   13 years ago

          I was just trying to figure out who "u" is. Unabomber? Urkel? Usain Bolt?

  3. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

    ...was definitely pre-rehearsed and possibly influenced by that one-man provider of dubious lefty political "framing," George Lakoff.

    Considering the epic backfire, I don't think too many Democrats will be taking many more cues from Comrade Lakoff.

    1. wareagle   13 years ago

      oh come on, now. Liberals are not deterred by lousy results.

      1. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

        You're right. If I recall correctly Lakoff has tossed out backfiring "framing" strategies before. Yet they keep listening to him because he's usually quite good at making liberals feel morally and intellectually superior.

        1. NeonCat   13 years ago

          And thin, judging from the photos.

        2. juris imprudent   13 years ago

          I love the whole "people miss the message for the framing" reason for why most of America pisses on the feet of progressives.

          Yah, keep telling yourselves that.

  4. BarryD   13 years ago

    Lakoff is a disgusting, fat slob, though. Lots of people rant about stuff, especially guys like him. Nobody takes them too seriously.

    Someone in an actual position of power who listens, e.g. BO, should pay a higher price for repeating the rantings of such an obvious piece of shit, than the guy who said the stuff in the first place.

    1. gaijin   13 years ago

      That huge gut you got there Mr Lakoff? Yeah, you built that!

      1. Anomalous   13 years ago

        Not by himself. He used government infrastructure to get to those restaurants.

        1. Kaptious Kristen   13 years ago

          And the gubmint food pyramid.

          1. Bardas Phocas   13 years ago

            and federally subsidized corn syrup.

            1. RPR2   13 years ago

              the giant dumps he takes don't go away on their own. someone else made that plunger.

              1. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

                They dont' get plunged. They get squished in between blank pages, and sold as "books".

    2. Geoff Nathan   13 years ago

      Some of us do take George's linguistics seriously. Me for example (see papers here). And many linguists, being social scientists, do agree with his political analyses (you know, Republicans think the government is your father, Democrats think it's your mother--actually referred to in an episode of West Wing a few years ago).
      But his achievement in arguing for the importance of metaphor in how we understand language doesn't make him a political scientist. Although he and I have talked politics some, I don't think he really understands what libertarianism is all about, at least in part because it doesn't fit into his mother/father dichotomy.
      Incidentally, I think government is the bad cop down the street.

      1. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

        Personally, I'd view any government that tried to play the role of either of my parents as deeply and unmistakably creepy.

        1. BarryD   13 years ago

          Which is why I tend to view the government as deeply and unmistakably creepy. Jeffrey Dahmer creepy, not Winona Ryder creepy.

      2. BarryD   13 years ago

        "I don't think he really understands what libertarianism is all about, at least in part because it doesn't fit into his mother/father dichotomy."

        That doesn't make him very smart. It makes him a product of his own simplistic prejudices. That, more than his slovenly personal habits, is what makes him a "disgusting slob", in an intellectual sense.

      3. BarryD   13 years ago

        BTW the "mother/father" thing is something a smart high school student could have come up with for a term paper. I'd bet there's someone out there who did.

        1. Greg   13 years ago

          I would have thought that "clever high school student term paper thinking" was a little too smart for network TV, but I suppose that's how you win Emmys.

      4. juris imprudent   13 years ago

        (you know, Republicans think the government is your father, Democrats think it's your mother--actually referred to in an episode of West Wing a few years ago).

        I'd rather mentally picture my parents fucking then either one of them being a symbol of the govt.

        1. Drax the Destroyer   13 years ago

          Maybe that is the mark of a true libertarian.

      5. Joe R.   13 years ago

        The government is Boss Hogg.

  5. sarcasmic   13 years ago

    By that argument, taxes should be 100%, and everyone is given a stipend according to their need.

    Let TOP MEN decide what it shall be.

    1. Anomalous   13 years ago

      And productivity will actually increase, because everyone will want to do the best possible job for the good of the state.

    2. o3   13 years ago

      go back to barter sar and stop using govt-printed money. just say no no no...

      1. sarcasmic   13 years ago

        Because if government doesn't print money, no one will.
        Right?

        1. Ed   13 years ago

          It's a great hustle the statists have. Ban private alternatives to government services and then hail government services as the cornerstone of success.

          I wouldn't need government-printed money if there were free banking. I use government-printed money because "legal tender" laws, not because in the absence of government money I'd have to barter my body for what I need.

          1. o3   13 years ago

            states printing their own currency didnt work...and neither did the articles of confederation

            1. wareagle   13 years ago

              nice straw man, because everyone knows that banks could not come up with a uniform currency on their own. States get that there might be trouble with each having its own system.

              1. sarcasmic   13 years ago

                everyone knows that banks could not come up with a uniform currency on their own

                But then how could the federal government debase the currency if they don't have the monopoly on it?

            2. sarcasmic   13 years ago

              Your ignorance of history is unsurprising.

            3. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

              States didn't print their own currency, regional banks did. And it work for far longer then the Federal Reserve has been in existence. You should learn your history before you go around making such bold statements.

            4. Restoras   13 years ago

              "Printing". Seems to be a recurring problem in history.

        2. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

          We certainly wouldn't resort to using silver and gold.

        3. Ska   13 years ago

          I have a pack of cigarettes here that say you'll be proven wrong. 😉

          1. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

            I have a pack of cigarettes here that say you'll be proven wrong. 😉

            Considering the fact that in o3's ideal world we would probably all be locked up for our beliefs, that pack of smokes might make you a rich man one day.

    3. Leonard Rockstein   13 years ago

      This.

      Everyone is so wrapped up in what Barry's comments mean they miss the simple argument that he's making: B/c people use government infrastructure then they're subject to whatever ridiculous tax rate we feel like and they have no right to bitch.

      1. Kant feel Pietzsche   13 years ago

        They REALLY miss the most important argument of all: Failures have the same "access" to infrastructure that successes do.

  6. Trespassers W   13 years ago

    So... Lakoff is arguing that government should follow a fee-for-service model?

    1. MikeP   13 years ago

      That's exactly how I read it.

    2. Greg   13 years ago

      Well no, cuz... squash courts?

    3. juris imprudent   13 years ago

      Let alone that every club I've ever paid dues to, everyone paid the same amount.

      Lakoff wants a flat tax!

      1. Trespassers W   13 years ago

        Worse. If the fee is the same for everyone in absolute terms, it's a regressive tax.

        For a man called "progressive"....

  7. DA   13 years ago

    Whaddya mean "you people?"

  8. John   13 years ago

    Isn't it enough that Lukin has to make himself into a character out of Orwell? Why does he also feel the need to look like an actual pig from Animal Farm?

    1. Drake   13 years ago

      Some are more equal than others at the buffet.

      1. John   13 years ago

        Well he skipped the salad bar so that put him in front.

      2. mad libertarian guy   13 years ago

        BUFFET = Big Ugly Fat Fuckers Eating Together

    2. Drax the Destroyer   13 years ago

      I'm sure it's the evil profit-seeking fast food industry that force fed him into the grotesque fat continent he has become, and I'm sure he didn't enjoy any of it. And by "sure," I mean "sure he would say."

  9. Matrix   13 years ago

    Can't use the country club analogy. You can always quit your country club. People who want to leave our country are labelled traitors by these imbeciles. They want to make it illegal to leave.

    1. Bee Tagger   13 years ago

      Not to mention, sounds like he's proposing a flat tax. But flat as in everyone pays the same exact dollar amount rather than percentage. Lakoff is a regressive!

    2. T o n y   13 years ago

      Or just ex-patriots. If you weren't free to leave, you guys would have a point, but you are.

      1. John   13 years ago

        You mean like all of those liberals who vowed to move to Canada if Bush won?

        1. T o n y   13 years ago

          Have a cup of coffee and get back to me.

          1. John   13 years ago

            Tony when Obama loses, you will be back to claiming the government is illegitimate. Everyone knows that. So shut up with patriotism shit. You care about your team being in charge and nothing else.

            1. T o n y   13 years ago

              Your last sentence is right, but you're no better of course. I don't care about patriotism, I was simply pointing out that anyone is indeed free to leave the country if they don't like the terms of its social contract. But if you stay, you can hardly expect to enjoy the things other people paid for and built without contributing yourself.

              1. John   13 years ago

                Tony I have often defended Obama's drone program much to the ire of this board.

                You have never once defended a program by the other team until after your team decides it is okay. You change your position on things based on who is in charge.

                Stop projecting.

                1. T o n y   13 years ago

                  Who's projecting? Stop imposing a set of standard-issue ultra-left beliefs on me that I've never claimed to have. Even during Bush I was no pacifist, I simply thought his lying and warmongering were rather horrific. I only have one major political belief, that is, Republicans are stupid and corrupt and will destroy this country if they ever get the chance. Or, destroy it more than they already have done. I will worry about little baby victims of drone strikes once the Republicans are comfortably decaying on the ash heap of history. Because no matter what horrors Obama commits, any given Republican will just do them too, only more horrifically and in a more poorly managed way.

                  1. Sevo   13 years ago

                    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:33AM|#
                    "Stop imposing a set of standard-issue ultra-left beliefs on me that I've never claimed to have."

                    Lie, shithead.

                  2. John   13 years ago

                    Even during Bush I was no pacifist, I simply thought his lying and warmongering were rather horrific.

                    Until Obama continued all of those wars and started new ones, then it was okay.

                    I only have one major political belief, that is, Republicans are stupid and corrupt and will destroy this country if they ever get the chance.

                    But I am not the partisan hack here you are John.

                    I know it is Thursday and all. But my God Tony you are just astoundingly funny and completely lack self awareness even more than usual today.

                    1. T o n y   13 years ago

                      I have some issues with how Obama handled Afghanistan, but other than that I really have no complaints. He got bin Laden at practically no cost, and he's contributing to the toppling of dictators without any massive land armies.

                      You and I both know this isn't about me not being sufficiently critical of Obama, it's about you needing to feel good about yourself for supporting the corrupt incompetent fool who preceded him.

                2. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                  Notice how he insinuates that we don't "contribute". Like we're all rich politicians with offshore holdings, like Romney and many Democrats.

              2. Sevo   13 years ago

                T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:22AM|#
                "I was simply pointing out that anyone is indeed free to leave the country if they don't like the terms of its social contract."

                No, shithead, it's not "free".

                1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                  And, of course, he only blames Team Red for our problems, and never - as he should - both Teams.

                  Watch. Now he'll make some specious accusation of some kind.

                2. T o n y   13 years ago

                  Just how much do you think the universe owes you, you entitled little whiner?

                  I'm sorry you're not born a full free agent in a nation of your own creation. Take it up with biology.

                  Libertarians are often compared to myopic self-important teenagers bitching that their parents make them do chores while they live rent-free in their house, but I've never actually met a teenager as delusionally entitled as you guys.

                  1. aelhues   13 years ago

                    Lessons learned:

                    Entitled: A person wishing to be free.
                    Government: My parents, who I owe all for raising me and providing me rent free housing.

                  2. Restoras   13 years ago

                    You're the one that's delusional, shitforbrains. You're the one that thinks government is the progenitor of prosperity and freedom. You're the one that disingenously thinks people here aren't for limited government services - services that could easily be provided with a smal fraction of the money currently taxed, and spent.

                    Shitheads eat and sleep in shit.

                    1. T o n y   13 years ago

                      Having a government is by all evidence necessary, if not sufficient, for people having widespread freedom.

                      If all we disagree about is how much to tax and spend, then stop pretending like I believe something evil. I happen to believe Medicare contributes more to freedom than the tax savings in the absence of Medicare would. You are free to disagree. But I come from a standard of individual liberty every bit as much as you do. I just think it takes a little more collective effort to secure maximum individual liberty than you do.

                    2. Restoras   13 years ago

                      I just think it takes a little more collective effort to secure maximum individual liberty than you do

                      Define "little", because your definition of "little" is going to bankrupt the country and place both our definitions of liberty at risk.

                      Government provided medical care has absolutley nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with equality of outcomes, which is what collectivist, statist douchebags like you are really interested in.

                    3. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                      "If all we disagree about is how much to tax and spend"

                      No, that's not "all". Your Team - and theirs - just can't resist trying to regulate and micromanage our lives. That takes more and more government, and it was big and powerful enough a hundred years ago.

                      You'll disagree, of course.

                  3. Sevo   13 years ago

                    T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:42AM|#
                    "Just how much do you think the universe owes you, you entitled little whiner?"

                    Nothing, shithead. Your strawmen are showing.

                  4. sarcasmic   13 years ago

                    Libertarians are often compared to myopic self-important teenagers bitching that their parents make them do chores while they live rent-free in their house

                    A better analogy would be libertarian view government as a guy who come to your car while you're stuck at an intersection, does a piss poor job of washing your windshield, then demands a hundred dollars at gunpoint.

                    1. Drax the Destroyer   13 years ago

                      A better analogy would be libertarian view government as a guy who come to your car while you're stuck at an intersection, does a piss poor job of washing your windshield, then demands a hundred dollars at gunpoint.

                      And then that asshole goes the next town over, does the same thing, murders some who stand in his way, and says it was your fault because you "voted" for him by giving him that stolen money. Next thing you know, an insane victim of his from the town over has raped/murdered your wife and turned your children into cannibal shish-kabob. Apparently, its all your fault.

                    2. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                      And Tony says he's not a bigot.

                      Wait, he did - he said he's "working on" not being prejudiced against minorities (no word on progress about his hatred for straight people, though).

                      Now he's off on a rant. I hope he gets so mad, he buys a gun and shoots a bunch of people.

                      Of course, he'd just blame everyone a smidgen to the right-of-center, instead of his lack of self-control.

                  5. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                    I pay my bills, shitheel. I have virtually no welfare footprint - I drew unemployment for a few weeks about twenty years ago. That's it.

                    I don't hold my hand out for "entitlements". Do you?

              3. Night Elf Mohawk   13 years ago

                I was simply pointing out that anyone is indeed free to leave the country if they don't like the terms of its social contract.

                Let's say I leave. If I make money while living in another country, will I potentially owe income tax to support a system I am not using?

              4. mad libertarian guy   13 years ago

                Social Contract = shit that other people decided I, long before I was even born, am obligated to fulfill.

                Fuck you, Tony.

      2. aelhues   13 years ago

        Free to leave to which, more free, first world, country? We kinda want to keep our freedom, not hand it over without a fight to progressive statists like you.

        1. T o n y   13 years ago

          That's kind of the implied point. Find a better society with a more limited government. Can't? Oh, maybe everything you believe is bullshit then.

          1. aelhues   13 years ago

            I don't follow how the relative lack of free societies in human history, due to power grabbing assholes, and their toadies, equals my belief that government should do the minimum necessary, leaving the maximum choice and freedom up to the individual, is bullshit.

            1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

              I'm beginning to think Tony is a paid agent of the Free State Project.

              1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                If so, CN, they're wasting their money. That's like hiring a child molester to talk about internet safety.

      3. Matrix   13 years ago

        That's why the left was screaming bloody murder when several rich people were trying to ex-patriate to avoid taxes.

        1. Drax the Destroyer   13 years ago

          They could take all their money and all their assets and they wouldn't have shit other than microscopically reduced debt and new foreign business owners who will think twice when dealing with the U.S.

      4. Joe R.   13 years ago

        Are ex-patriots like pre-Madonnas?

    3. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

      Well even more, I can opt not to join a country club in the first place. Does Lakoff think I should be able to have no government?

      1. T o n y   13 years ago

        You are not free to choose where you're born; that much is true. If you find the fact oppressive that humans are born under the custodianship of parents, because they are incapable of so much as walking or feeding themselves, take it up with nature.

        In theory you are free to have no government. I'm sure there are tracts of Antarctica or the Sahara nobody would be bothered by you claiming as your personal duchy.

        Because after all, among 6 billion people, you are the one this planet was built for. You are that special.

        1. Restoras   13 years ago

          Your arguements have nothing to do with the point made.

          Make a counter arguement, your go away, shit for brains.

        2. Sevo   13 years ago

          T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:28AM|#
          "Because after all, among 6 billion people, you are the one this planet was built for. You are that special."

          You look good in sanctimony, shithead; it's your natural color.

        3. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

          "If you find the fact oppressive that humans are born under the custodianship of parents..."
          Well, I noted previously that the notion of government as parent is deeply and unmistakably creepy and here comes Tony as exhibit A. Am I the only one who finds his call for self-negation ("Because after all...") a little pathetic?
          Aside from that, Tony's argument doesn't really refute much. Whether I want to have no government or not, I have no choice as to whether I consume it or not (rest assured if I opt to reside in Antarctica or the Sahara, I will almost certainly come under regulation if nothing else for environmental concerns). Thus, Tony's little tantrum aside, the country club analogy falls flat on its face.

    4. JD the elder   13 years ago

      I hate the freaking country club analogy because it shows such a willful ignorance of what government is actually about. Apparently to Lakoff, government is just a happy bunch of people who provide you services on a voluntary basis. We should ask Lakoff what he thinks happens if you resign from your country club and start your own. Somehow I doubt Fragrant Pines Golf Course and Driving Range will send armed men onto your back nine to kill you and take your property.

    5. heller   13 years ago

      Not to mention that a country club is owned by people. Does the government own this country? Or do we the people own it?

    6. Greg   13 years ago

      Hell forget about quitting you could have not joined the country club in the first place, also not an option for taxation.

  10. Bee Tagger   13 years ago

    They wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.

    It's astounding that this statement is so close, in proximity, to his country club analogy since it undercuts it. That would mean that you pay higher dues if you use both the swimming pool and the tennis courts and would mean super high dues if you became a professional tennis player.

    1. R C Dean   13 years ago

      They wealthy taxpayers have gotten rich the money to pay their taxes using what they and previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country themselves a great deal and should be paying it back.

      Nope, even translated into Realitish it doesn't make sense.

  11. Trespassers W   13 years ago

    Wait, or is he saying that we should all pay country club dues whether we golf or not? I'm so confused.

    1. Bee Tagger   13 years ago

      Dues go up as your handicap drops. Gives a whole new meaning to sandbagging.

    2. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

      I think Lakoff is the one that's confused. How can anyone be blamed for not understanding him?

    3. Tim   13 years ago

      He's saying that if the country club wants to buy and hand out golf clubs to non members then we should pay for that. Because universal access to Golf is a human right.

  12. MikeP   13 years ago

    He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors.

    What are these taxpayer investments -- 5% of the federal budget?

    So the maximum tax a rich person should pay is 5% of what he pays now, maybe a 2% marginal rate?

    Is that your argument Mr. Lakoff?

  13. Tim   13 years ago

    It's a good argument, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You didn't build that liquor store, Gubmint issued EBT cards that allow poor people to buy lotto tickets, smokes and booze did. The same government that spends other tax dollars trying to stop people from smoking, drinking and gambling.

  14. RPR2   13 years ago

    no one got obese on their own.

  15. BakedPenguin   13 years ago

    A Spoonerism of his name is 'Large Geokoff'

  16. John   13 years ago

    Funny how guys like this clown and Francis Fox Piven are showered with aclaim and tenured track positions right up until someone outside the Prog club reads them and starts taking their views seriously and imputing them onto liberals in public. Then progs go into full "how dare you pick on some unknown college professor" mode.

    1. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

      A total of $840,000 was awarded to 96 victims of Minnesota's now-disbanded multi-jurisdiction Metro Gang Strike Force, which illegally broke into people's homes, stole property and injured innocent people. No officer has yet been charged with a crime

      I thought all fat people were fair game. Or am I running afoul of the anti-bullying movement?

      1. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

        Then progs go into full "how dare you pick on some unknown college professor" mode.

        I thought all fat people were fair game. Or am I running afoul of the anti-bullying movement?

        (Damn Copy Paste Squirrels!)

        1. John   13 years ago

          The beard and the round glasses are his way of saying "I was there in the 60s".

          1. RedDragon6009   13 years ago

            I'm pretty sure the beard is an attempt to hide his multiple chins.

            1. John   13 years ago

              It is a duel purpose beard.

          2. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

            Geeze, and here I was thinking he was going for the "Comic Book Store Guy from the Simpsons" look.

  17. Drake   13 years ago

    So Obama's teleprompter plagiarized this fat lefty?

  18. Drake   13 years ago

    All their stupid arguments break down when we stop talking about the ultra rich and focus on normal people.

    When a farmer or small business owner dies and kids owe half the value of the property - the business, the family, and lives are destroyed.

    1. Restoras   13 years ago

      Omelette, eggs.

    2. MJGreen   13 years ago

      Now now, that's the rare exception. There are far more super billionaires analogous to Bill Gates or the Waltons than there are these "small business owners."

      1. Drake   13 years ago

        Oddly, Gates and Buffet don't seem too anxious to leave half their wealth to Uncle Sam. They bequeathed much of their wealth to charity rather than government.

        I suppose that is more noble than the Kennedy's who simply shipped their wealth offshore and said "fuck you" to the IRS.

      2. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

        Yeah, and its not like guys like Gates or the Waltons or Buffet have access to extremely sophisticated estate planning and tend to have a greater tilt toward liquid assets in their portfolios.

  19. Mike M.   13 years ago

    Paola calls this "the winning progressive message," but I suspect that the president's furious backtracking/counterpunching after "You didn't build that" indicates some doubt about that, for one excellent reason: Federal spending has doubled in one decade, and we aren't getting double the quality in services.

    So much this. I will gladly concede that the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty damn useful. The problem is that Solyndra != the Golden Gate Bridge.

    And most Americans are smart enough to understand this, no matter how stupid the so-called "progressives" think everyone is.

    1. aelhues   13 years ago

      It is frustrating how many times I hear the "roads" response to objections to government spending. I object to federal spending on a wide variety of things, but to some, because I like and use interstate highways, I have to support all of it? Serious stupidity.

      1. Mike M.   13 years ago

        And the fact that they think people would actually buy such an idiotic argument shows how much contempt they really have for us.

      2. Raven Nation   13 years ago

        The entire way the argument is framed makes it sound as if "the rich" contribute no taxes at all. When Warren says "roads the rest of us built" it seems to imply that the business owner didn't contribute to road construction. Since most roads are state or local, and since most local roads are built from property taxes, it seems an odd dichotomy.

    2. PapayaSF   13 years ago

      Note that the federal government did not build the Golden Gate Bridge.

      1. Isaac Bartram   13 years ago

        However, contrary to the article quoted in that link, it was built by union labor, the major one being the ironworkers.

        Google "golden gate bridge union labor" for more if you want it. I'm afraid that everything there is blocked for me at this time.

        1. Isaac Bartram   13 years ago

          Also, of course the Golden Gate Bridge is somewhat analagous to the country club in that every one who wants to drive over it pays his six bucks as his "share" of the upkeep of it and anyone who chooses not to use it doesn't have to pay a dime.

  20. aelhues   13 years ago

    Would people build wealth if there was no government infrastructure? Yes, of course they would.

    Pretty much everything we do is supported or made easier, to some degree, by others. Does that automatically mean that the individual should never be rewarded for their risk, hard work, innovation, etc? Really?

    So even admitting that in a sense, no one succeeds in a vacuum, we all had help, that is no reason at all to say that our success is mostly, due to government, society or others. It certainly isn't valid justification for taking excessive amounts of money from the successful. That is, unless you're an idiot.

    1. T o n y   13 years ago

      Nobody's talking about taking excessive amounts. All anyone's talking about is Clinton-era rates. Was that a time of boots-on-neck oppression for the wealthy? (Because their welfare is most important to look out for...)

      1. Mike M.   13 years ago

        You do know that Bill Clinton is on the record as saying he believes that ALL of the current tax rates should be extended for at least one more year, right?

      2. John   13 years ago

        Because clearly the way to success is ruthlessly punishing anyone who achieves it.

        So the government should never be concerned about rich people Tony? Even though they vote and pay nearly all of the taxes. If you are rich you get no representation? So basically the price of success in Tony world is complete disenfranchisement from the political process.

        1. T o n y   13 years ago

          The rich will always be overrepresented in government John. Wealth is power, and wealth is influence. Furthermore it is logically impossible for the wealthy to be more oppressed than the poor; to be wealthy is to be privileged, and to be privileged by government.

          Taxes are not punishment. They are the user fee for civilization. If the rich don't want to participate in civilization they can go be grass skirt wearing island dwellers and stop making money off of a wealthy, educated, and mobile customer base. But I don't think they want that, do you?

          1. Sevo   13 years ago

            T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:36AM|#
            "The rich will always be overrepresented in government John. Wealth is power, and wealth is influence"

            Which is exactly why the government should have limited powers, shithead.

          2. John   13 years ago

            The price of civilization is a government that eats up 50% of the wealth of the richest civilization in history and is still going bankrupt.

            Stop it Tony. I can't laugh this hard before noon.

          3. Mike M.   13 years ago

            Hey asshole, are you going to address what Clinton said about all the current tax rates?

            1. T o n y   13 years ago

              It's a legitimate opinion, but he only holds it because it's a weak economy. People advocating raising taxes on the rich are doing so because others are claiming that the deficit is the country's biggest problem. That's the most painless way of beginning to address that problem. To the extent that our large deficits have harmful economic effects, it's logically the first step. Clinton seems to think we can afford higher deficits for a time in order to maximize demand. I don't happen to think tax rates on the wealthy have a significant effect on that.

              1. Sevo   13 years ago

                T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:53AM|#
                "I don't happen to think tax rates on the wealthy have a significant effect on that."

                Fuck you, shithead.

      3. aelhues   13 years ago

        It is excessive, unless the wealthy do all kinds of completely legal, tricky shit to lower their tax burden.

        You liberal type's are always referring to their fair share. If you want it fair, why not a flat tax? How are progressive tax rates fair? How is having a convoluted tax code that favors those who can afford to hire an accountant, to do all kinds of tricky shit, to pay less? It's all a bunch of bull shit, and you know it.

        1. SugarFree   13 years ago

          Flat tax isn't fair either. I should pay no more or less taxes in absolute dollars than everyone else.

          Success has nothing to do with it. If pens and paper were all is took to write a novel, everyone would have done so by now.

          1. aelhues   13 years ago

            I agree that the flat tax isn't really fair either. However, I hear so often that the rich don't pay their fair share. I have so far completely failed at figuring out what progressives think is their fair share.

            1. SugarFree   13 years ago

              Tax them until they are no longer "rich." That's the end result of redistributionism. That's why they are so convinced that individual effort has nothing to do with being successful--that is just luck or birth lottery.

              Since the collective and some blind and random force of the universe made you rich, it's OK to steal everything from you.

              Price of government divided by number of citizens is the fair tax. It is still bloated and wrong and completely out of control, but no one should be made to pay more than its putative cost.

              1. T o n y   13 years ago

                Trying to figure out a fair way to tax is a bit of a fool's errand. Everyone wants to minimize his tax burden and maximize his take from society. It's only natural. Better to talk in terms of efficiency.

                The heirs to the Walton fortune have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of the country. Tell me that isn't pure random luck. You can say they are entitled to every cent of that because blind chance should rule our lives, but that opinion has no more moral a basis than any other. Generational privilege (and generational poverty) are not in anyone's definition of fairness--it's the sort of thing this country was founded to push back against.

                1. Sevo   13 years ago

                  T o n y|7.26.12 @ 11:00AM|#
                  "The heirs to the Walton fortune have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of the country. Tell me that isn't pure random luck."

                  It isn't pure, random luck, shithead.

                  1. T o n y   13 years ago

                    Even if Sam Walton was a pure capitalist hero who took nothing from society whatsoever and built his fortune entirely on his own, the sperm he contributed to the production of his offspring were, actually, selected at random, more or less.

                    1. Greg   13 years ago

                      Randomly selected from his own sperm pool though, not randomly selected from some sperm studio audience.

                    2. Sevo   13 years ago

                      T o n y|7.26.12 @ 11:14AM|#
                      "Even if Sam Walton was a pure capitalist hero who took nothing from society whatsoever and built his fortune entirely on his own, the sperm he contributed to the production of his offspring were, actually, selected at random, more or less."

                      Yes, shithead, and those folks had every opportunity to pour that dough down a rat-hole. They didn't; they made the company better.
                      Some 'random', shithead.

                2. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

                  Giving your own children more of your own money -- or affection, attention, whateva' -- is unfair!

                3. Greg   13 years ago

                  Can you explain why the government deserves the money that the Waltons inherited more than they do? I only ever hear the "the heirs didn't EARN it!" part, I never hear why the government is entitled to it instead. Does it have to do with roads?

                  1. T o n y   13 years ago

                    If you don't think we should pay for government then I am more entitled to that fortune as they are, provided I have a bigger arsenal at my disposal.

                    Isn't your premise a sort of work ethic? If not, it's just finders keepers?

                    1. aelhues   13 years ago

                      He didn't say anything about not paying for government, just that government has no justification for having a right to take a large portion of any inheritance.

                    2. Greg   13 years ago

                      Do strawmen have straw jaws Tony? If so you probably only have to punch it once.

                    3. Greg   13 years ago

                      Did I just refer to it by name like it's a real person? Damn I must be really tired.

                4. aelhues   13 years ago

                  If I make a shit ton of money during my life time, and I like my kids, I feel that it is completely fair, and right that I am able to give them that money. I don't think it's fair at all that the government take it from me. Especially considering that I've already paid taxes on all of that money.

                  I especially don't think it's fair at all that an individual would owe potentially $500k on a hand-me-down business, that the IRS values at $1mil. If the individual receiving the business doesn't sell it for that much, how do they pay the taxes without completely ruining their business, for likely years to come?

                5. Bill Dalasio   13 years ago

                  "Trying to figure out a fair way to tax is a bit of a fool's errand.... Better to talk in terms of efficiency."
                  versus
                  "Generational privilege (and generational poverty) are not in anyone's definition of fairness..."

                  Tony contradicts himself in only 4 sentences. Is that some kind of record?

                  1. Kant feel Pietzsche   13 years ago

                    No.

              2. aelhues   13 years ago

                If what the feds provided was protection from invasion, management of trade between states and the rest of the world, and some basic standards for the country for those things that the states want them to manage, that would work great. However, I'd prefer that the feds collected funds from each state, not from individuals.

                Of course considering currently, ignoring debt and state spending, your yearly tax bill would be just about $32k, that might be a bit much....

                1. SugarFree   13 years ago

                  your yearly tax bill would be just about $32k, that might be a bit much....

                  Yes, but think of the cuts in spending that would have to take place from all the people you can't collect that from? (Of course, only if we don't let them borrow.)

                  Here's a figure to beat people down with: The federal government spends about $112,000 per second. The money hole is starving and demands to be fed.

                  It's going to take a revolution to fix taxes at this point, something few people can stomach.

                  1. aelhues   13 years ago

                    If people were given a clear, concise statement how much money they paid in taxes, like is required from businesses, everyone but a few idiot ultra rich progressives, would be clamoring for tax cuts, and spending cuts.

                    1. Sevo   13 years ago

                      aelhues|7.26.12 @ 11:19AM|#
                      "If people were given a clear, concise statement how much money they paid in taxes, like is required from businesses, everyone but a few idiot ultra rich progressives, would be clamoring for tax cuts, and spending cuts."

                      If government were held to the same legal standards as business, the jails wouldn't be big enough to hold the politicians.

            2. Mickey Rat   13 years ago

              "Fair share" is whatever tax increase the progs are trotting out this month. It is not an objective, definabl amount or percentage or anything rational. It is merely a talking point.

      4. Restoras   13 years ago

        How about we get back to Clinton-era spending first, you disingenous shithead?

        1. T o n y   13 years ago

          Once we fix the Bush recession we could do that.

          1. Sevo   13 years ago

            T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:37AM|#
            "Once we fix the Bush recession we could do that."

            Too bad, shithead, we really need to start with FDRs socialism.

          2. John   13 years ago

            What about the obama recession that is coming this fall?

            Don't worry Tony. Come next January your team will be completely out of power and you can go back to blaming all of the world's problems on them.

          3. Restoras   13 years ago

            Why wait, shitforbrains? Afraid of something?

      5. Sevo   13 years ago

        T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:15AM|#
        "Nobody's talking about taking excessive amounts."

        Define "excessive", shithead.

        1. SugarFree   13 years ago

          Why are you feeding the troll, Sevo? What has brought you to this low state?

          1. John   13 years ago

            And this thread proves Tony is one of the regulars trolling us. No one is this stupid.

            1. SugarFree   13 years ago

              No one trolls alone. It is a collective effort. Tony trying to ruin this thread -- he didn't build that.

      6. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

        Taking five more cents on the dollar won't get us out of trillions in debt, Tony.

        It's a symbolic tax hike. Nothing more.

        Of course, you and your ilk will turn your pockets inside-out, with that hang-dog "I spent all my allowance, I need more money" look teenagers used to give their parents.

        Hell, taking 99 cents on the dollar won't cure our ills. We're deep in an abyss dug by your Team and theirs.

        Of course, I'm not qualified to talk about such things, because I'm stoopid and didn't go to college. Dur.

        /sarcasm, if you didn't notice.

        1. T o n y   13 years ago

          To meaningfully reduce the deficit middle class taxes will have to go up too. Everyone's gotten a reduced-price lunch over the past few years.

          1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

            You'd think Lakoff would favor reduced-price lunches.

          2. Sevo   13 years ago

            T o n y|7.26.12 @ 10:47AM|#
            'Everyone's gotten *bloated government* over the past few years.'

            FIFY, shithead.

            1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

              Bullshit. You and your Team have done nothing but bitch about the five-cents-on-the-dollar tax cut "the rich" got. Now you're claiming the middle class is to blame for our debt and deficits.

              Which is it, shitheel?

              1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                Thanks for the FIFY assist, Sevo.

                1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

                  Then again, neither of us did it alone... if it weren't for government, we wouldn't even exist.

          3. R C Dean   13 years ago

            I can "meaningfully reduce" the deficit without anyone's taxes going up.

            Why is it that whenever the topic turns to deficit reduction, lefty progs can see only the revenue side of the income statement, and not the expense side?

  21. RPR2   13 years ago

    Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America.

    says the fat boy whose university pays zero in taxes. are you gonna eat that?

    1. R C Dean   13 years ago

      That's a funny analogy, since we tax you extra if you try to resign your membership in the club.

      1. Sevo   13 years ago

        You know who else charged money to leave the country.

        1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

          So, theoretically, the more taxes you pay... the more patriotic you are?

  22. Restoras   13 years ago

    That fat. You didn't build that. You had help - a leg up along the way. Society made you fat, not you, your fork, and your pie-hole.

    If you are to DIAF, I hope the last thing you hear is the sound of your own fat sizzling, and the laughter of everyone watching.

  23. The Late P Brooks   13 years ago

    "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

    All your ideas are belong to us.

  24. BlockadeRunnerX   13 years ago

    When I first started my business, I relied on companies to provide cheap, quick lunches so I could focus on work.

    I don't recall the executives at Chipotle constantly demanding that I kiss their ass and "give back" more to them because they helped me do so well.

    1. Fatty Bolger   13 years ago

      No. But the Cosa Nostra would have.

      It's what you commonly see from these guys - government as a mafia organization.

  25. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

    He ate Saul Alinsky! Bastard!

    1. Mike M.   13 years ago

      Awesome.

  26. Michael Ejercito   13 years ago

    Does Lakoff mention who gets the blame and pays the bills if the business fails?

  27. Trespassers W   13 years ago

    Are there any country clubs that make you figure out your own dues every year, and then steal your wallet and lock you in the tool shed if you get it wrong?

    I guess I'm still struggling with this analogy.

    1. Gilbert Martin   13 years ago

      Yeah.

      Or let 50% of their members not pay any dues at all and tell the other 50% that they should consider it a "priviledge" to pay for the other half's share as well as their own.

  28. The Late P Brooks   13 years ago

    Everyone wants to minimize his tax burden and maximize his take from society.

    Of course by "everyone" you mean "I".

    1. R C Dean   13 years ago

      Interesting, isn't it, how he sees fortunes built on voluntary exchange as "taking" from "society".

  29. Eduard van Haalen   13 years ago

    I think I saw Lakoff and Michael Moore facing off in a sumo wrestling match once.

    1. fish_remote   13 years ago

      Winner eats the loser!

  30. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

    Let us read from The Book of Barack:

    1 In the beginning Govt created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the economy was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the ATMs, and the Spirit of Govt was hovering over the land.

    3 And Govt said, "Let there be spending," and there was spending. 4 Govt saw that the spending was good, and that it separated the light from the darkness. 5 Govt called the spending Investments, and this he did in the first day.

    More here:

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io.....-that.html

    [apologies if it's been posted before now]

  31. Mickey Rat   13 years ago

    "Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membership fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees."

    Of course, a country club or a community center has to attract members, so their fees cannot be too high with regards to the quality of service. Club cannot say the members are bad or unpatriotic if the members are dissatisfied with the cost and structure of the fees and poor service. At least, not if they want to have any members.

    What Lakoff is describing is more like the scam where a bum washes your windshield while you are stuck at a light with dirty water and a filthy rag and is indignant when you don't want to pay him.

  32. CapitalistRunningDog   13 years ago

    OK, so if success is just because the government built this wonderful system, which we are all part of . . . Why is not everyone rich?

  33. Michael Ejercito   13 years ago

    If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but you still have to pay your dues.

    Pharaoh, Egypt, 1500 B.C., justifying higher taxes on the rich:

    You did not build that forty cubit gold statue of me. You still have to pay dues.

    1. Killazontherun   13 years ago

      He's a linguist who decided to dabble in economics and he got it stunningly wrong. He likely has never heard of the division of labor at least as it means in relation to standard economic theory, so he invents his version out of his ass and gets an important concept wrong. It did not originate from governments but by the necessity of people meeting their own needs.

  34. Sam Grove   13 years ago

    What is it with progressives?
    On the one hand they argue that we owe it to future generations to "invest" in education and infrastructure, on the other hand, when the future generation gets here they owe us for our investment.

    Oh, yeah. They don't grok economics, they grok political power.

  35. Sam Grove   13 years ago

    In markets, you pay what you agree to pay for what you get. With government, we owe what they say we owe for what they decide to give us.

    1. Michael Ejercito   13 years ago

      Did not farmers in ancient Egypt pay taxes to Pharaoh for the privilege of farming in his kingdom? Why does not a similar principle apply here?

  36. Adam330   13 years ago

    I'm not aware of any country club charges a guy who makes a million a years $300,000 and then pays the guy who makes $20,000 a year. If this is the level of thinking for the guy framing the progressive debate side, then progressives better be worried.

  37. dinfeee   13 years ago

    This makes a ll kinds of sense dude.

    http://www.Anon-Rules.tk

  38. Jim Treacher   13 years ago

    Let's not have any more rude comments about Lakoff's body, you guys.

    He didn't build that.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!