3RU7AL

There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven. 

I don't think the mods ever knew how much the site needed him.

Athias – probably our most intelligent poster. Concise, polite, and genius level easiness.

INTP-T

Tell that to the atheist congregation quoting them in support of atheist claims.

When I'm debating, I'm more of an ESTP, and when I'm focused on scientific research pursuits, I'm more of an ISTJ. I'm a very strong ST.

arent communists against it?

Exactly, but they are framed as opposites, one of the reasons its not the most accurate in that way. 

There is no ATHEIST tradition.

Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments  of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.

There is no ATHEIST clergy.

Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?

that you continously called me ENTP or something should only show that it's really not that accurate. I got INTP

Next to INTJ

Though it might be suggested that this is as good a test as any other....If not better.

I got ENTP - A (debater)

I expected a lot of people to get that here. Although sounds like the test is baloney unfortunately

Very low on Conscientiousness

impulsive, disorganized

High on Agreeableness

trusting, helpful

Very high on Neuroticism

anxious, pessimistic

Very high on Openness to Experience

imaginative, spontaneous

Very low on Extraversion

reserved, thoughtful

PUBLIC = NOT OWNED OR OWNABLE

So then who effectively controls public goods?

PUBLIC = FREELY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE

Not true. Case in point: public libraries. You can take a book out which typically necessitates a library card. In the event that one returns a book late, or doesn't return the book at all, one is charged. The manner in one may access a public good may be easier, but not necessarily "free."

STATE = MONOPOLY ON FORCE

True. How does the State's monopoly on force exclude it from being a public entity?

How would you then characterize the State? How are its functions certainly NOT public?

eir perpetuated cooperation regulates the management, acquisition, as well as the alienation of their respective properties, then they either "share" ownership (which undermines th

Worker unions will manifest in order to sustain "employee-ownership."

Your moral opinion does not qualify as "objective", plain and simple

I know. I did not say it did.

However it is defined, "Hinduism" is a "worldview" in exactly the same way ATHEISM is a "worldview".

Nope. You just don't know the bible.

Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?

Can you please share this "objective standard" with the public?

I have before. If you wish to discuss it, make a thread.

Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong?

ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".

Yes, it's written in a book.

I doubt Amoranemix, who that question was for, would have answered that stupidly.

Define "State"; define "public";  define "private."

Employee-Ownership-->Worker Unions-->Wage Regulations-->Price Regulations-->Non/UN-Free market.

The State is a public entity.

The State is a public enemy.

Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.

In which case, they cease to be "Individual" owners.

This is so far out in right field it doesn't deserve comment.  It couldn't be more removed from reality .. just the same as the rest of your dreamy analysis.

Why don't we just borrow enough money to give everyone an extravagant wage, full healthcare and a Tesla in every garage.

 Why is Congress arguing about petty details ?

Our Nation's credit, respectability and influence would be trashed in an instant.

Maybe the Government could confiscate what they want and maybe they can't.  The US does have a Constitution setting ground rules and limits for the Government and Citizens alike.

Does it relieve US taxpayers from having to work, as we always have, for the funds to make these tax payments ?

I don't see how your explanation really changes anything.

In order to understand this, we need to ask ourselves why governments finance their deficits through the issuance of bonds in the first place, rather than just asking the central bank to print money, which would not add to public debt. Ultimately, the answer is the fear of inflation. When it runs a budget deficit, the government injects demand into the economy. By selling bonds to cover the deficit, it absorbs private savings, leaving less to be used to finance private investment. Another way of looking at this is that it raises interest rates by selling the bonds. Furthermore the private sector recognizes that the bonds will one day need to be redeemed, so the expected burden of taxation in the future rises. This reduces private expenditure today. Let us call this combination of factors the “restraining effect” of bond sales. [**]

I am not saying it is acausal. I am saying that acausality is not ruled out.

Unstable nuclei are necessary for radioactive decay to happen but it is not the cause for decaying. As I proved "cause" and "allow" both involve "condition"

We are scientists that have to look at a plane from afar:

• Having wings allows a plane to fly, but they are not the cause of it flying
  
• Having an engine allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
  
• Air allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
  
• etc
  
• The plane suddenly starts flying - and thus the flight is acausal.
  

Radioactive decay cannot be prevented or caused, ergo by your own definition, it is acausal.

"God is playing dice with the universe. But even though it is random, it still has a cause - God"

"God may or may not be playing dice with the universe.  From our perspective it looks exactly the same either way."

"Employee-ownership" is very much the same as "public" ownership,

And China is very much communist.