Check out this Ocasio-Cortez headline on Market Watch

[Madison320]

This really pissed me off:

"Ocasio-Cortez schools GOP’s Scott Walker on the 70% marginal tax rate"


Scott Walker tweet:

"Explaining tax rates before Reagan to 5th graders: “Imagine if you did chores for your grandma and she gave you $10. When you got home, your parents took $7 from you.” The students said: “That’s not fair!” Even 5th graders get it.


Ocasio-Cortez reply:

Explaining marginal taxes to a far-right former Governor:

"Imagine if you did chores for abuela & she gave you $10. When you got home, you got to keep it, because it’s only $10.

Then we taxed the billionaire in town because he’s making tons of money underpaying the townspeople."


Just look at that last sentence. Let it sink in. Who was that guy who was arguing with me that republicans are just as bad as Cortez???


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ocasio-cortez-schools-gops-scott-walker-on-the-70-marginal-tax-rate-2019-01-15

[Krugminator2]

Democrats: Everyone is equal and there should be no discrimination.*


*Unless you make a lot of money investing which boosts economic growth or you deliver a good or service that a provides so much value that it causes you to make a lot of money. Then screw those people. They should feel lucky to be able to keep anything.

[euphemia]

Maybe we would do better if we told people they had to earn a certain amount of money, even if they have to have two or three jobs to do it. And tax all of it.

That will make people think twice before they take money from people who make more.

[Stratovarious]

Maybe we would do better if we told people they had to earn a certain amount of money, even if they have to have two or three jobs to do it. And tax all of it.

That will make people think twice before they take money from people who make more.
The wealthy already foot the bill for 80% of the tax base.
A flat tax makes more sense than the divide and conquer gig, either way, its a shame that
Trump was unable to fulfill the promise of 'gutting the IRS' .

[Madison320]

The wealthy already foot the bill for 80% of the tax base.
A flat tax makes more sense than the divide and conquer gig, either way, its a shame that
Trump was unable to fulfill the promise of 'gutting the IRS' .

I agree about a flat tax. The progressive income tax is just about the worst law on the books. Are there any other laws that only apply to certain groups? What if we had a 70% tax on asian-americans or muslims or some other group? Laws should apply to everyone.


"Then we taxed the billionaire in town because he’s making tons of money underpaying the townspeople."

Look at that. That is one of the most idiotic, immoral, low IQ statements ever written by a politician. It bothers me a little that other morons agree with her. It bothers me a lot that a writer for a well known financial website agrees with her and that the owners of the website published it.

[Stratovarious]

I agree about a flat tax. The progressive income tax is just about the worst law on the books. Are there any other laws that only apply to certain groups? What if we had a 70% tax on asian-americans or muslims or some other group? Laws should apply to everyone.


"Then we taxed the billionaire in town because he’s making tons of money underpaying the townspeople."

Look at that. That is one of the most idiotic, immoral, low IQ statements ever written by a politician. It bothers me a little that other morons agree with her. It bothers me a lot that a writer for a well known financial website agrees with her and that the owners of the website published it.
Right , I couldn't agree more;
People that have worked their @@@@s off or invented cures for disease , computers, or designed
important gadgets etc , need to be penalized for their gifts and contributions to society....'' we'll beat them for
their accomplishments by stealing their wealth...''

[Schifference]

A local merchant in a small town is the only place to get supplies within 100 miles. This person calculated that no other stores were anywhere around and took his life savings and invested it in purchasing property, erecting a building, and purchasing inventory. All other people that would go to the store or work at the store are poor. If the town decides to tax the merchant what would happen? The merchant would have to raise prices on all his goods. So the poor people would pay more for everything they would purchase.

It is not good enough to just tax the rich more. We have to tax the rich more, cap the income of the wealthy, give raises to everyone else, and the most critical component that has been left out of the picture is freeze the costs the merchant charges for his goods. We need to keep those greedy slimy bastards from just passing along their rich taxes to the people! Especially people of color. People of color deserve more!

[phill4paul]

Maybe we would do better if we told people they had to earn a certain amount of money, even if they have to have two or three jobs to do it. And tax all of it.

That will make people think twice before they take money from people who make more.

Good idea! All American households must make a minimum of $150k a year to support the Federal government. If they make lower then they are not pulling their fair share and should be taxed at a higher rate to make up the difference. If they make less than the current Federal minimum then all wages should be taken.

[oyarde]

Personally . my tax paying days are over . Supporting the fed govt is like supporting your brothers deadbeat estranged wife or something , just no satisfaction .

[EBounding]

Walker was an idiot for tweeting that though. That's not how marginal tax rates work.

[kahless]

I do not agree with anything she proposes but maybe it is time we stop defending billionaires. Just look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been passed backed by the billionaire elites in this country.

There is a war on against individual liberty by these elites. If you want to win that war it will sometimes be necessary to compromise our values against our enemies to thwart them.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Imagine making $10. You keep $9 because all income is taxed.

Now imagine later making $100, but only keeping $30 because applying yourself is penalized.

[kahless]

Imagine making $10. You keep $9 because all income is taxed.

Now imagine later making $100, but only keeping $30 because applying yourself is penalized.

I am totally fine with that if it is for people like this. Every day these billionaires are working against our liberties. In the last 24 hours for example.

Roku CEO, Anthony J. Wood, Net worth: US$1.13 billion
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg/220px-Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg

Roku Removes Alex Jones' InfoWars After Users Protest
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/roku-removes-alex-jones-infowars-users-protest-1176517

Sheldon Adelson, Net worth: US$33.3 billion
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Sheldon_Adelson_crop.jpg/220px-Sheldon_Adelson_crop.jpg

U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-now-says-all-online-gambling-illegal-not-just-sports-bets

A coalition backed by billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson lobbied the Justice Department in 2017 to reconsider its 2011 decision that cleared the way for states to allow online gambling

[Madison320]

I am totally fine with that if it is for people like this. Every day these billionaires are working against our liberties. In the last 24 hours for example.

Roku CEO, Anthony J. Wood, Net worth: US$1.13 billion
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg/220px-Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg

Roku Removes Alex Jones' InfoWars After Users Protest
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/roku-removes-alex-jones-infowars-users-protest-1176517

Sheldon Adelson, Net worth: US$33.3 billion
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Sheldon_Adelson_crop.jpg/220px-Sheldon_Adelson_crop.jpg

U.S. Now Says All Online Gambling Illegal, Not Just Sports Bets
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-now-says-all-online-gambling-illegal-not-just-sports-bets

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a billionaire. There's no difference between a billionaire lobbying the government and a poor person voting for Occasio-Cortez. Either way the fault lies with the government not the individual trying to influence the government.

Take that socialist crap over to democratic underground.

[Madison320]

Walker was an idiot for tweeting that though. That's not how marginal tax rates work.

Why?

[Brian4Liberty]

This really pissed me off:

"Ocasio-Cortez schools GOP’s Scott Walker on the 70% marginal tax rate"


Scott Walker tweet:

"Explaining tax rates before Reagan to 5th graders: “Imagine if you did chores for your grandma and she gave you $10. When you got home, your parents took $7 from you.” The students said: “That’s not fair!” Even 5th graders get it.


Ocasio-Cortez reply:

Explaining marginal taxes to a far-right former Governor:

"Imagine if you did chores for abuela & she gave you $10. When you got home, you got to keep it, because it’s only $10.

Then we taxed the billionaire in town because he’s making tons of money underpaying the townspeople."


“And the billionaire could underpay because of the illegal immigrants who came to town, flooded the labor market, and put the natives out of work.”

[Madison320]

“And the billionaire could underpay because of the illegal immigrants who came to town, flooded the labor market, and put the natives out of work.”

There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them. Cheaper labor means cheaper prices so the billionaire doesn't necessarily increase his profits anyway. Cheap labor benefits everyone who buys the cheaper product.

Think of it this way. If cheap labor is "bad", then "expensive" labor must be "good". Using that logic, minimum wage and laws restricting labor (like you have to be in a union or you have to have a license) would be great for the economy.

[kahless]

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a billionaire. There's no difference between a billionaire lobbying the government and a poor person voting for Occasio-Cortez. Either way the fault lies with the government not the individual trying to influence the government.

Take that socialist crap over to democratic underground.

Never said there was and I am not a Socialist. Maybe you should try to read the quotes before replying. These are not simply billionaires and most if not all are enemies of individual liberty of American citizens. They are waging war against you to take your rights and control you. You are ignorant if you think you are going to see this country move further in the direction of limited government if something is not done to oppose the people actually driving this country in the opposite direction.

You really think your activism is going to stop these billionaire elites from eroding your rights through buying legislation and our politicians day after day, year after year?


Just look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been passed backed by the billionaire elites in this country.

There is a war on against individual liberty by these elites. If you want to win that war it will sometimes be necessary to compromise our values against our enemies to thwart them.


Every day these billionaires are working against our liberties. In the last 24 hours for example.

Every day we lose more and more because people fail to recognize who the enemy really is.

[kahless]

There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them. Cheaper labor means cheaper prices so the billionaire doesn't necessarily increase his profits anyway. Cheap labor benefits everyone who buys the cheaper product.

Think of it this way. If cheap labor is "bad", then "expensive" labor must be "good". Using that logic, minimum wage and laws restricting labor (like you have to be in a union or you have to have a license) would be great for the economy.

Remove the immigrant aspect from it then it makes sense. Otherwise that is a common short sighted belief system that will ensure we will never achieve limited government within the borders of the US.

It is the essence of a policy that puts Americans last and creates animosity against immigrants. Eventually this leads to the native population being disadvantaged, discrimination or ethic strife against immigrants and the native population eventually becoming an underclass. At that point the native population will not give a damn about your ideology and demand Socialism or a system far worse.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am totally fine with that if it is for people like this.

Well, okay, but the 70% tax proposal for people over 10 million would affect a lot of NBA players and others like them. For example, the Boston Celtics Al Horford, Gordon Hayward, Kyrie Irving, and Marcus Smart make over 10 million per year. (http://www.espn.cl/basquetbol/nba/equipo/plantel/_/nombre/bos) Are these the kinds of people in the same category as Zionist Sheldon Adelson?

I'm not digging into that. If you give up the principle--you're just haggling over price.

[Brian4Liberty]

There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them. Cheaper labor means cheaper prices so the billionaire doesn't necessarily increase his profits anyway. Cheap labor benefits everyone who buys the cheaper product.

Think of it this way. If cheap labor is "bad", then "expensive" labor must be "good". Using that logic, minimum wage and laws restricting labor (like you have to be in a union or you have to have a license) would be great for the economy.

There is no guarantee that a business will drop prices because labor is cheaper. If I am a shareholder, I don’t want them to drop prices, I want them to increase dividends. And the executives will want to dip their beaks in the increased profits too.

People are not widgets, so how much they are paid is not just an over-simplified cost/profit equation. When people don’t get paid enough, they form unions, and then they demand socialism. The current trend towards socialism is a direct result of unemployment, under-employment and stagnating wages. Ignore that at risk of a communist revolution.

The left is perfectly capability of double-think in this area. They demand higher wages, and at the same time demand a flood of new workers. This is one area where a simple economic equation of supply and demand applies.

[Sonny Tufts]

I am totally fine with that if it is for people like this. Every day these billionaires are working against our liberties. In the last 24 hours for example.

Roku CEO, Anthony J. Wood, Net worth: US$1.13 billion
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg/220px-Anthony_Wood_at_Collision_Conference_2016_%28cropp ed%29.jpg

Roku Removes Alex Jones' InfoWars After Users Protest
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/roku-removes-alex-jones-infowars-users-protest-1176517

When did making a business decision in a private company become anti-liberty?

[Madison320]

There is no guarantee that a business will drop prices because labor is cheaper. If I am a shareholder, I don’t want them to drop prices, I want them to increase dividends. And the executives will want to dip their beaks in the increased profits too.

People are not widgets, so how much they are paid is not just an over-simplified cost/profit equation. When people don’t get paid enough, they form unions, and then they demand socialism. The current trend towards socialism is a direct result of unemployment, under-employment and stagnating wages. Ignore that at risk of a communist revolution.

The left is perfectly capability of double-think in this area. They demand higher wages, and at the same time demand a flood of new workers. This is one area where a simple economic equation of supply and demand applies.

If the cost of labor drops and that business doesn't drop its prices, they'll go bankrupt from competitors who DO drop their price.

Are you seriously arguing in favor of laws that drive up the cost of labor?

[Madison320]

Never said there was and I am not a Socialist. Maybe you should try to read the quotes before replying. These are not simply billionaires and most if not all are enemies of individual liberty of American citizens. They are waging war against you to take your rights and control you. You are ignorant if you think you are going to see this country move further in the direction of limited government if something is not done to oppose the people actually driving this country in the opposite direction.

You really think your activism is going to stop these billionaire elites from eroding your rights through buying legislation and our politicians day after day, year after year?





Every day we lose more and more because people fail to recognize who the enemy really is.


You just said you were totally fine with a 70% tax against certain billionaires. What was I supposed to think?

[Madison320]

Remove the immigrant aspect from it then it makes sense. Otherwise that is a common short sighted belief system that will ensure we will never achieve limited government within the borders of the US.

It is the essence of a policy that puts Americans last and creates animosity against immigrants. Eventually this leads to the native population being disadvantaged, discrimination or ethic strife against immigrants and the native population eventually becoming an underclass. At that point the native population will not give a damn about your ideology and demand Socialism or a system far worse.

That's why I said "There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them."

[kahless]

Well, okay, but the 70% tax proposal for people over 10 million would affect a lot of NBA players and others like them. For example, the Boston Celtics Al Horford, Gordon Hayward, Kyrie Irving, and Marcus Smart make over 10 million per year. (http://www.espn.cl/basquetbol/nba/equipo/plantel/_/nombre/bos) Are these the kinds of people in the same category as Zionist Sheldon Adelson?

I'm not digging into that. If you give up the principle--you're just haggling over price.

Not into that but also realize there is nothing stopping the countries slide further in the direction of statism.

The thing is many her supporters are poor, middle class and socialist, believing she is going to help them when reality her proposal is a transfer of wealth to green energy elites.

[kahless]

You just said you were totally fine with a 70% tax against certain billionaires. What was I supposed to think?

To read the fine print. :)

[EBounding]

Why?

Because marginal tax rates only tax the dollars earned above a certain bracket amount. I'm certain Walker knows this, so it was purposely deceptive. Bad analogies, deception and going to twitter war against a popular twitterperson don't help.

[kahless]

When did making a business decision in a private company become anti-liberty?

When the business decision curtails the individual liberty of everyone else.

[Madison320]

Because marginal tax rates only tax the dollars earned above a certain bracket amount. I'm certain Walker knows this, so it was purposely deceptive. Bad analogies, deception and going to twitter war against a popular twitterperson don't help.

I know what marginal tax rates are but I don't understand how Walker's tweet was wrong. You still get taxed at a higher rate if you make more money and if you make enough money you approach the 70% rate.

Here's his tweet:

"Explaining tax rates before Reagan to 5th graders: “Imagine if you did chores for your grandma and she gave you $10. When you got home, your parents took $7 from you.” The students said: “That’s not fair!” Even 5th graders get it."

What should he have said to fix it? His basic point is correct that if you make enough money you get taxed at almost 70%.

[Madison320]

When the business decision curtails the individual liberty of everyone else.

Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.

[Philhelm]

There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them. Cheaper labor means cheaper prices so the billionaire doesn't necessarily increase his profits anyway. Cheap labor benefits everyone who buys the cheaper product.

Think of it this way. If cheap labor is "bad", then "expensive" labor must be "good". Using that logic, minimum wage and laws restricting labor (like you have to be in a union or you have to have a license) would be great for the economy.

Cheap labor also means low wages, so it's a matter of perspective. I don't think that it's a matter of good vs. bad, so much that illegal immigrant labor throwing a monkey wrench into the mix which artificially disrupts the normal balance.

[Sonny Tufts]

When the business decision curtails the individual liberty of everyone else.

And how does deciding not to carry Jones's program interfere with anyone's liberty?

[kahless]

And how does deciding not to carry Jones's program interfere with anyone's liberty?

Normally it does not since there is competition. We are however in a state of a cold civil war with the elites. They are intent on using their power to stifle competition in their efforts to systematically eradicate speech that is in opposition to their belief system.


Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.

Business decisions effect liberty if the business is effectively buying its way to government legislation to curtail liberty. See the other link I posted about Adelson. This kind of stuff is happening regularly.

[Swordsmyth]

Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.
That is only true in a free market and we don't have a free market.

[Swordsmyth]

I do not agree with anything she proposes but maybe it is time we stop defending billionaires. Just look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been passed backed by the billionaire elites in this country.

There is a war on against individual liberty by these elites. If you want to win that war it will sometimes be necessary to compromise our values against our enemies to thwart them.
When the oligarchs have stolen everything a redistributive revolution will be required but are aren't there yet and hopefully we won't ever be.

[Madison320]

That is only true in a free market and we don't have a free market.

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. They don't have the guns, govt does.

Look at the case where Walmart uses eminent domain to get space for their stores. Is this Walmart's fault? I say no, it's completely govt's fault by ever allowing eminent domain to be used in that way. If Walmart doesn't take advantage of eminent domain their competitors will and they'll put Walmart out of business. So it's 100% the govt's fault. Walmart is only acting in its best interest.

[Madison320]

Business decisions effect liberty if the business is effectively buying its way to government legislation to curtail liberty. See the other link I posted about Adelson. This kind of stuff is happening regularly.

But it's the govt's fault for offering favors in the first place. If the favors are being offered businesses have to accept the favors in order to compete.

I know it seems like a chicken and egg thing but it's not. It's not "both their fault". It's 100% the fault of govt when they provide "favors".

[Swordsmyth]

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. They don't have the guns, govt does.

Look at the case where Walmart uses eminent domain to get space for their stores. Is this Walmart's fault? I say no, it's completely govt's fault by ever allowing eminent domain to be used in that way. If Walmart doesn't take advantage of eminent domain their competitors will and they'll put Walmart out of business. So it's 100% the govt's fault. Walmart is only acting in its best interest.
No, that isn't true when they begin to merge, that's like saying that if my left hand slaps a woman my right hand has nothing to do with it.

We are at an awkward stage where the merger isn't complete but it is well advanced and is getting worse, just as the businesses can't use the guns so they get government to do it for them our government can't censor you or get you fired or limit what you are allowed to purchase etc. so they get the businesses to do it for them.

It's Neofeudalism and when it is complete the difference between government and businesses will disappear almost completely, they will both be the Aristocracy.

[Swordsmyth]

But it's the govt's fault for offering favors in the first place. If the favors are being offered businesses have to accept the favors in order to compete.

I know it seems like a chicken and egg thing but it's not. It's not "both their fault". It's 100% the fault of govt when they provide "favors".
We used to have a government that didn't have the power to offer those favors, someone was responsible for the change and the same someones are responsible for the continued progress of that change, the oligarchs are MORE responsible than the government, the only reason attacking them must be a last resort is that it creates a terrible precedent and the free market would punish them if we can restore it.

[Sonny Tufts]

Normally it does not since there is competition. We are however in a state of a cold civil war with the elites. They are intent on using their power to stifle competition in their efforts to systematically eradicate speech that is in opposition to their belief system.

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

[Swordsmyth]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.
The problem is that government IS involved, the oligarchs have their extreme wealth and power and lack of competition courtesy of the government.

[Madison320]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

I think it's entirely possible that the government DID pressure Roku to drop Jones since there are videos of congress threatening other companies like Facebook in those hearings.

Either way the answer is not to force Roku to broadcast Jones. The answer is for the govt to stop threatening businesses.

[Sonny Tufts]

Either way the answer is not to force Roku to broadcast Jones. The answer is for the govt to stop threatening businesses.

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

[Swordsmyth]

I couldn't agree more, although I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government.

I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like.
They did both.

[Brian4Liberty]

If the cost of labor drops and that business doesn't drop its prices, they'll go bankrupt from competitors who DO drop their price.

Are you seriously arguing in favor of laws that drive up the cost of labor?

I don’t believe that I proposed any solutions (laws), I am just identifying the problems. I have found that in the real world, simple economic hypothesis are not always accurate predictors of outcomes. Competition sometimes exists, and sometimes it doesn’t, for a variety of reasons.

If the lowest labor cost is always the best, are you arguing in favor of slavery?

[Madison320]

I don’t believe that I proposed any solutions (laws), I am just identifying the problems. I have found that in the real world, simple economic hypothesis are not always accurate predictors of outcomes. Competition sometimes exists, and sometimes it doesn’t, for a variety of reasons.

If the lowest labor cost is always the best, are you arguing in favor of slavery?

Sort of. If someone volunteers to work for free it benefits everyone else (except the guy working for free). But since it is voluntary it's not slavery.

So along those lines I have a question for you. When someone volunteers to work for free, does it damage the economy because the volunteer is taking away a paying job from someone else?

[Madison320]

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

Several congressman said something like, "Why is Alex Jones still on your website?". I'll look it up tomorrow.

[Brian4Liberty]

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

A story earlier today said that it was due to complaints from users. This is the exact problem with PC culture, business and the internet. Because of the amplification effect of the media and social media, a few PC complainers are magnified and given far too much weight. They also organize their attacks.

So let’s say 30 people complain to Roku (or some other platform), and they shut someone down. What percentage of the actual user base is that? It is the tyranny of a very small minority of complainers. But the SJW PC culture has given them power to do this.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sort of. If someone volunteers to work for free it benefits everyone else (except the guy working for free). But since it is voluntary it's not slavery.

So along those lines I have a question for you. When someone volunteers to work for free, does it damage the economy because the volunteer is taking away a paying job from someone else?

Most volunteers are doing it out of charity, and that is their “compensation”. Others, such as in the media, Hollywood and politics, intern for free because they believe that there will be a future payoff. It is certainly bad for the economy if any of them depend upon government because they have no income.

Are they volunteering because they have no need for money? Then it would not harm the economy. Supposedly these would be capable people, and thus any time they spend volunteering would be time they are not taking a paid job. It’s a wash.

My main point is that there is more than economics at play. What about morality? Is it moral to pay someone little or nothing at all just because they are desperate? What other ramifications come from that situation? Will they form unions? Will they support socialism? Will they demand heads on spikes?

[Swordsmyth]

Most volunteers are doing it out of charity, and that is their “compensation”. Others, such as in the media, Hollywood and politics, intern for free because they believe that there will be a future payoff. It is certainly bad for the economy if any of them depend upon government because they have no income.

Are they volunteering because they have no need for money? Then it would not harm the economy. Supposedly these would be capable people, and thus any time they spend volunteering would be time they are not taking a paid job. It’s a wash.

My main point is that there is more than economics at play. What about morality? Is it moral to pay someone little or nothing at all just because they are desperate? What other ramifications come from that situation? Will they form unions? Will they support socialism? Will they demand heads on spikes?
Noblesse Oblige is important, it just shouldn't be enforced by the government.

[kahless]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

Normally I would agree with this, however they are not playing by the same rules. This is a political war they have launched against our liberties on all fronts for which we are on the path to losing if we do not play the game to counter their attacks.

I oppose legislation but for a company that is worth a half billion dollars and has a national foot print like Roku, opposing pundits should start advocating for a fairness doctrine. I oppose this 100% but if enough people on the right start scaring the crap out of these leftist elites for their corporate political activism then maybe they would back off. You have to start playing their game against them.

The two links I posted were to demonstrate the greater war on our rights both directly through government invention and indirectly. The first link I posted was as direct action by Sheldon Adelson's with the federal gambling ban. The second was indirect in the cabal of elites de-platforming anyone that opposes their belief system. I picked only the last 24 hours to make a point but there is a wealth of continuing direct domestic and foreign policy history they are responsible for at our expense.

[Sonny Tufts]

Several congressman said something like, "Why is Alex Jones still on your website?". I'll look it up tomorrow.

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.

[Swordsmyth]

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.
Sure.

[kahless]

They are winning though political posturing. The only one on the right it seems that is playing their game against them is Trump. They have a President showing them how it is done, little to no risk following his lead in that way yet they are still a bunch of cowards.

Kevin McCarthy is an embarrassment.

[Sonny Tufts]

A story earlier today said that it was due to complaints from users. This is the exact problem with PC culture, business and the internet. Because of the amplification effect of the media and social media, a few PC complainers are magnified and given far too much weight. They also organize their attacks.

So let’s say 30 people complain to Roku (or some other platform), and they shut someone down. What percentage of the actual user base is that? It is the tyranny of a very small minority of complainers. But the SJW PC culture has given them power to do this.

Don't you think that Roku's management took all of that into account? Suppose 30 or even 3,000 Roku users complain about its carrying reruns of Will and Grace episodes because the show has a gay character. Do you think for one minute that Roku management would seriously consider cutting the reruns just to placate the complainers if its research showed that 300,000 of its 24 million users watched the reruns? I can't stand SJW's or the PC culture, but I also respect the right of a private company to make its own business decisions, even though I might disagree with its determination.

[kahless]

I have not watched that Roku channel in years and have no respect for them. It is not like they are some small to medium size company. They have a growing national foot print with a net worth of over a half billion dollars and earning 500 million yearly.

They still have a ways to go in number of households but they are getting involved in far left political activism now, what are they going to be like a few years from now. Some cable companies your Roku is your main box and would rather not they start dictating what channels I can put on it. Sad since what was great about them is that any company or person could create a channel you could watch.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't you think that Roku's management took all of that into account?

No, not for a second. My opinion of upper management, from experience, is not that they are comprehensive or all-knowing. They are quite proficient at sycophancy.


Suppose 30 or even 3,000 Roku users complain about its carrying reruns of Will and Grace episodes because the show has a gay character. Do you think for one minute that Roku management would seriously consider cutting the reruns just to placate the complainers if its research showed that 300,000 of its 24 million users watched the reruns? I can't stand SJW's or the PC culture, but I also respect the right of a private company to make its own business decisions, even though I might disagree with its determination.

As I said, the current SJW culture drives them more than anything. Yes, they would placate a small special interest group, especially if they put their fingers in the wind and thought that was the way to go. If nothing else, corporate America in the past couple of years has stated through actions that they can give a f*ck about half of their customer base.

[pcosmar]

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. .

Corporate Business is Government Business.

and though corporations should not exist,, they in fact. do.... as a result of government Legalizing what was once illegal and considered immoral.

In a right and proper world your statement would be correct.

[Madison320]

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.

Why? You don't think the government has any power over Facebook?

If you're the owner of Facebook are you going to tell me that you're not at all worried when a congressman tells you to get Jones off your website?

[Sonny Tufts]

Why? You don't think the government has any power over Facebook?

One congressman doesn't have the power to pass legislation.


If you're the owner of Facebook are you going to tell me that you're not at all worried when a congressman tells you to get Jones off your website?

Is that what a congressman actually said? And even if it was said, who said it? If it was some far-left wacko who has no clout, I wouldn't be worried, and I would respond, "Congressman, by what authority do you tell me who I can or can't have on my website? Haven't you read the First Amendment?" I would say the same thing to someone with clout, such as Skeletor (sorry, Pelosi). It wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a campaign like one I saw once in either a movie or TV western -- every day on Facebook anyone signing in would first see a page saying "The government didn't retaliate against Facebook yesterday for its content. Sign in tomorrow and see we still have the First Amendment."

Of course, if I owned Facebook Jones wouldn't be allowed on in the first place.