Todd Parr wrote:I hesitate to even post in threads like this because it seems my point of view is generally unpopular, but nearly every time I hear "redistribute", it means "theft". If you have 4 people in a room and 1 of them has 20 dollars and the others have none, people that like to "redistribute wealth" believe it is okay to take 15 dollars from the guy with 20, and give 5 to each of the others. To me, that is morally and legally wrong. It's also self-defeating, because you remove the incentive from the guy that had 20 dollars to go earn another 20 if you are just going to take it anyway. Sharing with others is a virtue and I believe strongly in it, but by definition, sharing means someone giving something to someone else, not someone taking something from me against my will and giving it to someone I did not choose to give it to.
There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors. The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted – that was the truth of it – but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.
Glenn Herbert wrote:And this is the same in different kinds of weather, temperature, etc? No changing "mirage" effects that show more or less of tall buildings? None of the proposed flat earth symptoms?
M. A. Carey wrote:This scenario will have to last until late January/early February, all the while saving from both us and them, and then her usual high income tax refund to pay for replacement furnace.
Winston Greene wrote:
John Wolfram wrote:While others have pointed out technical issues with your plan, I would add that distilling fuel alcohol is legal in the USA so long as you have a permit, and the permits are quite easy to get. I have one. In general, the only difficulty for obtaining a permit is showing that you will be distilling in a non-residential building that can be locked. A shed is one such building. I have found the folks at the ATF, TTB (or whatever it is called now) are quite helpful in assisting with the needed paperwork.
That is new information to me. I was told that the minimum cost for such a bond was like a hundred thousand dollars and that this was a yearly fee that was levied onto the alcohol producer? I am very interested in how much this permit cost you?