Socialism/Marxism and balance.

[Seth]

[

What OPM?? Norway has zero debt and a growing economy. I'm surprised you fall for the old fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game.

In Norway's case the OPM consists of abundant natural resources that can be sold on the free market to fund social programs. I have no problem with that because it doesn't presume to involuntarily take from one person in order to give to another.

But the principle remains. When the OPM runs out, socialism fails because there is no way to adequately fund the socialist welfare state and dependent class from the labor of the productive class in any long-term or permanent sense.

Norway is taking an economic hit right now just like every oil-producing state because of the nosedive in the price of crude oil. Since Norway, like Russia, depends on oil and gas exports to fund their welfare state things are going to begin to go down hill pretty quickly if oil prices don't rise soon.

Since the dependent class will rebel when their entitlements are cut (as in Greece) and they will demand that their "needs" be met to the same extent as before, Norway will have to start finding actual OPM to pay the proletariat not to riot in the streets and burn stuff down. And when the state has sucked the productive class dry, which it will do eventually, the whole system collapses, just like Venezuela.

That it might take longer for Norway to collapse than it took Venezuela is utterly irrelevant. The economic facts remain the same in both cases.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Don't mistake ownership and control by the state as being the equivalent of socialism. It's not. The state is perfectly able to own and control things in a Libertarian world. The difference is primarily in how the costs associated with those things are met. In socialism funding government is mandatory and coercive. In Libertarianism, funding government is voluntary and optional.

Well then, you have an utterly different definition of socialism to the rest of the world. The essence of socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the people/state.

Correct. But it's compulsory ownership by the State that positively denies the right to private property by anyone.

Libertarianism merely requires that publicly-owned things come into the public domain through the voluntary actions of those who wish to donate and/or support them.

You have a bee in your bonnet about the nature of government taxation.

Only redistributive taxation.

In a pure socialist state (which certainly does not exist at the moment), the question of "taxation" is moot - the state owns everything anyway. All current societies have systems of taxation which are coercive, and to one degree or another, involve some form of re-distribution of wealth, which I know is your pet hate.

As well it should be because compulsory taxation for redistribution to others is inherently evil.

I can agree that a taxation system which leans too heavily in the form of re-distribution of wealth to eliminate poverty can become a disaster, for 2 clear reasons. Firstly, by excessively punishing private profit, it could cripple innovation, and secondly, it can set a mentality of welfare entitlement in concrete, neither of which is healthy. However, some degree of progressive taxation is adopted by all developed countries - the degree to which it is done is part of the whole process of a society finding an equilibrium that works, and an electorate rewarding or punishing political parties that stray too far from the accepted balance.

What you say is factually true but that doesn't change the philosophical or moral fault in such systems. The essence of all such systems is that the state decides how much of the fruits of one's labor one is required to fork over for the convenience and comfort of the dependent class. It doesn't ask people to support the poor by appealing to their altruistic, charitable, compassionate or rational self-interest instincts, the state say, in essence, "You have more than you need, so you're going to be forced to contribute according to your ability, as determined by the state, while we dole it out according to what the state decides is everyone's need."

The problem with the Marxist dialectic is that it inevitably results in abuse of the productive class by the state, which must do so in order to appease the dependent class, which grows ever larger and larger as people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury (which is stocked by the productive class), lest the dependent class turn against the government elite and put their heads on spikes. Caught in the middle of this conundrum of supply and demand is the productive class, which is inevitably milked dry and destroyed as members of the productive class decide that there is no point in being productive if all their effort is stolen from them to pay idlers and slackers to be idle and slack. So, they join the dependent class and pretty soon there is no productive class and everybody begins to starve, as in the USSR. Then the government must become increasingly totalitarian and fascistic and must force people to work on pain of death merely to try to feed the seething proletarian masses.

And the end of this story is Stalinism and Maoism repeated time and time and time again, endlessly, all because idiot socialists think that they are entitled to have something for nothing.

Libertarianism says that it's up to each individual to work to provide for themselves, and if you choose to be idle, then you get to suffer the consequences of your idleness. But at the same time, rational self interest and other natural human traits mean that Libertarians will assist those who are, through no fault of their own, unable to provide for themselves.

The difference between the two systems is that under socialism, everyone suffers "equally", whereas under Libertarianism only those who refuse to work and contribute to the success of the society suffer. Everybody else gets along fine and enjoys a viable permanent and stable form of society.

By constantly referring to socialism and/or marxism, you are attacking a straw man which rotted away many decades ago - the experiment with marxism was tried, found wanting, and abandoned.

I have a one-word refutation of this claim: Venezuela.

You have every right to argue for minimalist government, reduced interference with the private lives of citizens, and a taxation system to one end of the normal curve, but your ideas are not diktats from on high, they are legitimate arguments which you propel into the marketplace of public opinion, where they will compete with other ideas, and reach whatever their natural position of public acceptance will be...

Let the market decide, Seth...

I'm happy to let the market decide, if the market is not being manipulated and controlled by the state in order to achieve socialist goals of "equality" for all.

In sum, march or die. If you don't want to work, then you go hungry and freeze in the dark. The productive class is under no duty or obligation to bail you out of your sloth and poor decision making.

[pErvinalia]

[

What OPM?? Norway has zero debt and a growing economy. I'm surprised you fall for the old fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game.

In Norway's case the OPM consists of abundant natural resources that can be sold on the free market to fund social programs. I have no problem with that

Yes you do, you just said you did in the previous post.

But the principle remains. When the OPM runs out, socialism fails because there is no way to adequately fund the socialist welfare state and dependent class from the labor of the productive class in any long-term or permanent sense.

Once again, you don't understand economics and are strangely falling for the fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund somewhere in the order of 1 trillion if memory serves me correct. As a capitalist, you should know that that money is worth far more wealth than just 1 trillion.

Norway is taking an economic hit right now just like every oil-producing state because of the nosedive in the price of crude oil. Since Norway, like Russia, depends on oil and gas exports to fund their welfare state things are going to begin to go down hill pretty quickly if oil prices don't rise soon.

No they're not. Norway can fund it's welfare state from the interest from it's sovereign wealth fund.

Since the dependent class will rebel when their entitlements are cut (as in Greece) and they will demand that their "needs" be met to the same extent as before, Norway will have to start finding actual OPM to pay the proletariat not to riot in the streets and burn stuff down.

You clearly don't understand that wealth isn't a zero sum game.

[Seth]

But the principle remains. When the OPM runs out, socialism fails because there is no way to adequately fund the socialist welfare state and dependent class from the labor of the productive class in any long-term or permanent sense.

Once again, you don't understand economics and are strangely falling for the fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund somewhere in the order of 1 trillion if memory serves me correct. As a capitalist, you should know that that money is worth far more wealth than just 1 trillion.

Precisely the opposite. It is socialists who believe that wealth is a zero-sum game and that for every dollar held by a "rich bastard" somebody at the bottom must lose a dollar, which is part of the justification for wealth redistribution. This zero-sum redistribution mentality is what inevitably drives every socialist society into the economic toilet sooner or later. Sooner or later the dependent class, upon whom the Marxist elite depend to remain in power, outnumbers the productive class and their economic needs overwhelm the ability of the productive class to produce enough wealth to support them, whereupon the system collapses just like it's collapsing in Venezuela.

How long that takes depends on many other factors, but the end is as inevitable as gravity.

Norway is taking an economic hit right now just like every oil-producing state because of the nosedive in the price of crude oil. Since Norway, like Russia, depends on oil and gas exports to fund their welfare state things are going to begin to go down hill pretty quickly if oil prices don't rise soon.

No they're not. Norway can fund it's welfare state from the interest from it's sovereign wealth fund.

Until that fund is exhausted. What then? A trillion dollars is chicken feed in the long game.

Since the dependent class will rebel when their entitlements are cut (as in Greece) and they will demand that their "needs" be met to the same extent as before, Norway will have to start finding actual OPM to pay the proletariat not to riot in the streets and burn stuff down.

You clearly don't understand that wealth isn't a zero sum game.

Actually I understand it far better than you do.

[pErvinalia]

But the principle remains. When the OPM runs out, socialism fails because there is no way to adequately fund the socialist welfare state and dependent class from the labor of the productive class in any long-term or permanent sense.

Once again, you don't understand economics and are strangely falling for the fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund somewhere in the order of 1 trillion if memory serves me correct. As a capitalist, you should know that that money is worth far more wealth than just 1 trillion.

Precisely the opposite. It is socialists who believe that wealth is a zero-sum game and that for every dollar held by a "rich bastard" somebody at the bottom must lose a dollar, which is part of the justification for wealth redistribution. This zero-sum redistribution mentality is what inevitably drives every socialist society into the economic toilet sooner or later. Sooner or later the dependent class, upon whom the Marxist elite depend to remain in power, outnumbers the productive class and their economic needs overwhelm the ability of the productive class to produce enough wealth to support them, whereupon the system collapses just like it's collapsing in Venezuela.

How long that takes depends on many other factors, but the end is as inevitable as gravity.

But YOU are the one who is saying that taking OPM is a zero sum game. You are assuming that it's just "taking" but forgetting about the wealth it generates.

Norway is taking an economic hit right now just like every oil-producing state because of the nosedive in the price of crude oil. Since Norway, like Russia, depends on oil and gas exports to fund their welfare state things are going to begin to go down hill pretty quickly if oil prices don't rise soon.

No they're not. Norway can fund it's welfare state from the interest from it's sovereign wealth fund.

Until that fund is exhausted. What then? A trillion dollars is chicken feed in the long game.

It might surprise you to realise that oil isn't the only thing Norway does. The rest of their economic activity supports the rest of the population. You really haven't thought this through very well have you?

Since the dependent class will rebel when their entitlements are cut (as in Greece) and they will demand that their "needs" be met to the same extent as before, Norway will have to start finding actual OPM to pay the proletariat not to riot in the streets and burn stuff down.

You clearly don't understand that wealth isn't a zero sum game.

Actually I understand it far better than you do.

Bullshit. You are only seeing OPM as a set sum of money, that when "taken" or used disappears. That's clearly bollocks and is an example of the zero sum game fallacy. You haven't accounted for the fact that that money is almost all redirected back into the economy to generate more wealth. You don't even have a basic understanding of how economies work.

[Seth]

But YOU are the one who is saying that taking OPM is a zero sum game. You are assuming that it's just "taking" but forgetting about the wealth it generates.

What wealth is generated when the government takes $100 from me and gives it to you? There is no labor input to create wealth. Labor input is the only thing that creates wealth. Shuffling money from one person to another is like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The ship is still going to sink.

Norway is taking an economic hit right now just like every oil-producing state because of the nosedive in the price of crude oil. Since Norway, like Russia, depends on oil and gas exports to fund their welfare state things are going to begin to go down hill pretty quickly if oil prices don't rise soon.

No they're not. Norway can fund it's welfare state from the interest from it's sovereign wealth fund.

Until that fund is exhausted. What then? A trillion dollars is chicken feed in the long game.

It might surprise you to realise that oil isn't the only thing Norway does. The rest of their economic activity supports the rest of the population. You really haven't thought this through very well have you?

It doesn't matter at all what resources Norway or any other country has if those resources are either finite or the market for them disappears for one reason or another. The basic problem is one of mathematics: You can't simply take money from one person and give it to another endlessly. At some point the OPM runs out and the golden eggs stop popping out and then the goose is cooked.

It's the same thing as eating your seed corn or wheat. You may make bread or hoecake for a time, but eventually the seed is all gone and there's nothing to plant, and everybody starves.

Since the dependent class will rebel when their entitlements are cut (as in Greece) and they will demand that their "needs" be met to the same extent as before, Norway will have to start finding actual OPM to pay the proletariat not to riot in the streets and burn stuff down.

You clearly don't understand that wealth isn't a zero sum game.

Actually I understand it far better than you do.

Bullshit. You are only seeing OPM as a set sum of money, that when "taken" or used disappears. That's clearly bollocks and is an example of the zero sum game fallacy. You haven't accounted for the fact that that money is almost all redirected back into the economy to generate more wealth. You don't even have a basic understanding of how economies work.

You're wrong. OPM describes that amount of resources that are available for redistribution from one person to another. Wealth is endless and is not a zero sum game, as socialists would have us believe when they rant and rave about "the rich" denying wealth to the poor. In that particular calculus you are exactly right, it's not a zero-sum game at all, it's merely an unequal distribution of wealth.

But OPM is different. OPM is the product of the labor of the productive class and represents true wealth because of the labor input. But no (significant) wealth is created when the government takes the OPM from one person and gives it to another because there is no labor input and therefore no generation of wealth.

Yes, the transfer allows the recipient to spend the money buying goods, but that's not generation of wealth because the original owner of the OPM would have likewise spent his money on goods as well, so in that respect there is no net gain in wealth. Redistribution merely changes the name of the individual spending the money, it doesn't increase the economic yield of that money. The original owner of the OPM however can also put that OPM to use by investing it and causing it to produce more wealth. By "investing" I do not mean only passive interesting-bearing deposits, I mean "investing" in the broad sense of using that money to create or aid conditions in the market that lead to the actual generation of wealth, such as paying salaries to workers to produce goods.

In that way a dollar of OPM put to work wisely can result in many thousands of dollars worth of wealth created, whereas the same dollar taken and given to a welfare recipient does not multiply, at best it serves the need of the recipient and produces a dollar's worth of consumption of goods. Now it is true that the dollar spent represents a generation of wealth for the producer of that item, but once again, there is no inherent gain in net wealth created by the wealth transfer from the original owner of the OPM to the welfare recipient, because the original owner would have, at a minimum, spent that dollar in exactly the same way to the same benefit.

The ONLY one who perceptibly benefits from that involuntary redistribution is the welfare recipient. Everybody else loses, including the overall economy.

The reason for this economic loss is that at some point, as the dependent welfare class grows larger and larger, the productive class will become weary of laboring on their behalf and will simply stop laboring entirely and will become part of the dependent class on the completely rational idea that if everybody else can get something for nothing, why shouldn't they.

The result should be obvious. If nobody's slaving away to produce wealth which can be seized for redistribution to the dependent class, there is no wealth to redistribute and people begin to starve and riot.

That's precisely what destroyed the USSR and is currently destroying Cuba and Venezuela, and every other socialist society on earth.

Some go faster, some go slower, but it's an inevitable downhill slide thanks to human nature, which socialism fails to account for in it's socioeconomic theorizing.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...That's precisely what destroyed the USSR and is currently destroying Cuba and Venezuela, and every other socialist society on earth....

If that's the case (and to a fair extent I agree with you), then why are you so worried about the socialist boogieman? Virtually all gone now...

[mistermack]

Seth wrote:

...That's precisely what destroyed the USSR and is currently destroying Cuba and Venezuela, and every other socialist society on earth....

If that's the case (and to a fair extent I agree with you), then why are you so worried about the socialist boogieman? Virtually all gone now...

Destroyed the USSR?
I believe it's all still there. Russians are alive and well.
And so are Cubans and Venezuelans. And communist China is set to become the worlds biggest economy.
Life expectancy in Cuba ? 79.4
Life expectancy in the USA ? 79.8

Enjoy your five months extra, when you're nearly eighty.
Oh, I forgot. Seth's got no health insurance. Oh dear !

[JimC]

The Soviet Union as an avowed socialist state withered away, and China is communist in name only.

[klr]

The Soviet Union as an avowed socialist state withered away, and China is communist in name only.

Orwell would not have been in the least bit surprised.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, the transfer allows the recipient to spend the money buying goods, but that's not generation of wealth because the original owner of the OPM would have likewise spent his money on goods as well, so in that respect there is no net gain in wealth.

Absolute bullshit. Poor people spend 100% of their money in the local economy (minus what gets spent on overseas online commerce like ebay, these days). Rich people spend more on overseas imported luxuries and squirrelling it away in offshore tax havens. You really have no understanding of how economies work. All that money that gets spent in the economy generates demand and therefore jobs and services. THAT is what generates wealth in a country. Investment without demand is useless. And that's what you get when the people who spend all their money in the economy don't have money.

The reason for this economic loss is that at some point, as the dependent welfare class grows larger and larger, the productive class will become weary of laboring on their behalf and will simply stop laboring entirely and will become part of the dependent class on the completely rational idea that if everybody else can get something for nothing, why shouldn't they.

Except that this doesn't happen and never happens. This is just idiotic conservative moralising.

That's precisely what destroyed the USSR

What destroyed the USSR was an economy that was 100% militarised. It produced nothing for it's people. It's sole function was to outcompete the US and allies militarily.

Some go faster, some go slower, but it's an inevitable downhill slide thanks to human nature, which socialism fails to account for in it's socioeconomic theorizing.

Except taxation for welfare isn't socialism. How many fucking times do you have to be told this? Socialism is the state (or citizen collectives) owning the means of production in absence of a profit motive.

[Seth]

Yes, the transfer allows the recipient to spend the money buying goods, but that's not generation of wealth because the original owner of the OPM would have likewise spent his money on goods as well, so in that respect there is no net gain in wealth.

Absolute bullshit. Poor people spend 100% of their money in the local economy (minus what gets spent on overseas online commerce like ebay, these days). Rich people spend more on overseas imported luxuries and squirrelling it away in offshore tax havens.

Hogwash.

You really have no understanding of how economies work. All that money that gets spent in the economy generates demand and therefore jobs and services. THAT is what generates wealth in a country. Investment without demand is useless. And that's what you get when the people who spend all their money in the economy don't have money.

No, you don't understand. Yes, that money gets spent in the economy, but taking it from the person who earned it and giving it to a welfare leech doesn't improve or increase anything over letting the earner spend it himself on what he wants. The money gets spent either way, but with redistributionism the person who earned it is divested of the right to spend it in favor of giving it to someone else to spend.

I'd like you to rationally, morally and ethically justify that practice. What has the earner done that justifies taking his money by force and giving it to someone else against his will? Normally that's called "armed robbery." What's your argument against it being nothing more than government-assisted robbery?

This is the precise point at which you customarily turn to invective and derail the debate, presumably because you have no valid rational or moral answer to that fundamental question.

Care to give it a go this time?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...That's precisely what destroyed the USSR and is currently destroying Cuba and Venezuela, and every other socialist society on earth....

If that's the case (and to a fair extent I agree with you), then why are you so worried about the socialist boogieman? Virtually all gone now...

Because it's a creeping cancer that keeps coming back and metastasizing again and again and destroying more lives, economies and cultures, as in Venezuela today.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, which makes socialists per se insane.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, the transfer allows the recipient to spend the money buying goods, but that's not generation of wealth because the original owner of the OPM would have likewise spent his money on goods as well, so in that respect there is no net gain in wealth.

Absolute bullshit. Poor people spend 100% of their money in the local economy (minus what gets spent on overseas online commerce like ebay, these days). Rich people spend more on overseas imported luxuries and squirrelling it away in offshore tax havens.

Hogwash.

Lol. Great rebuttal. It's a fact, Seth. Plain and simple.

You really have no understanding of how economies work. All that money that gets spent in the economy generates demand and therefore jobs and services. THAT is what generates wealth in a country. Investment without demand is useless. And that's what you get when the people who spend all their money in the economy don't have money.

No, you don't understand. Yes, that money gets spent in the economy, but taking it from the person who earned it and giving it to a welfare leech doesn't improve or increase anything over letting the earner spend it himself on what he wants.

Yes it does, as I have already explained. Rich people spend more of their money on imported luxuries and useless rent seeking investments. I agree they spend more in the sharemarket and that provides investment funds for some business, but once again, without demand, there is no need for business. You must have demand first.

I'd like you to rationally, morally and ethically justify that practice. What has the earner done that justifies taking his money by force and giving it to someone else against his will? Normally that's called "armed robbery." What's your argument against it being nothing more than government-assisted robbery?

I've had this debate with you probably 50-100 times over the years. What's the point of having it again?? My rationalisation is, as it has always been, that rich people have it easier due to their money and position in society (a lot of it unearned) and therefore need to repay what society has given them in the way of this easier access to markets and services. Surely even you can see that the modern state serves corporations over the individual? Rob a bank and an individual will go to jail. Be a banker and rob the nation through immoral financial practices and you get a government handout and a raise. Rich people disproportionately benefit from society and then they have the fucking temerity to squirrel their money away offshore to avoid paying taxes. THAT is robbery.

This is the precise point at which you customarily turn to invective and derail the debate, presumably because you have no valid rational or moral answer to that fundamental question.

No, this is the point, when you start lying like the lying liar you are, that I turn to tearing you a new arsehole.

Care to give it a go this time?

Care to suck my fungal infected ball sack?

[Seth]

No, you don't understand. Yes, that money gets spent in the economy, but taking it from the person who earned it and giving it to a welfare leech doesn't improve or increase anything over letting the earner spend it himself on what he wants.

Yes it does, as I have already explained. Rich people spend more of their money on imported luxuries and useless rent seeking investments. I agree they spend more in the sharemarket and that provides investment funds for some business, but once again, without demand, there is no need for business. You must have demand first.

Well, first of all, if your country isn't a producer of luxuries that's inevitable, and second, your statement "useless rent seeking investments" is right out of the Communist Manifesto and is a classic Marxist ideological statement. Rent-seeking is labor just like any other labor. It involves risk, which justifies the reward, and the profits that accrue therefrom are spent in the economy in a myriad of ways that don't leave the country, so your argument is nonsense.

And what does demand have to do with justifying the taking of property (money) or labor from one person and giving it to another?

I'd like you to rationally, morally and ethically justify that practice. What has the earner done that justifies taking his money by force and giving it to someone else against his will? Normally that's called "armed robbery." What's your argument against it being nothing more than government-assisted robbery?

I've had this debate with you probably 50-100 times over the years. What's the point of having it again??

Perhaps this time you'll make a rational rebuttal.

My rationalisation is, as it has always been, that rich people have it easier due to their money and position in society (a lot of it unearned) and therefore need to repay what society has given them in the way of this easier access to markets and services.

And how has society "given" them anything at all? They pay for their access to the markets just like everybody else does and their profits or losses are exactly the same as someone elses are except perhaps for quantity, which is not something society has given them, it's what the market gives them as a return on their investment risk.

And why do they owe a debt of labor or property to society because their lives are "easier" than someone else's?

Surely even you can see that the modern state serves corporations over the individual?

Non sequitur. If, arguendo, this is the case, what does that have to do with taking money from one person to give to another? What has the payer done to deserve having his money taken and what has the recipient done to deserve to have it?

Rob a bank and an individual will go to jail.

Yup. But in your view, rob a rich person using the proxy force of the state and no crime occurs.

Be a banker and rob the nation through immoral financial practices and you get a government handout and a raise.

That's a political and judicial issue isn't it? Banks and bankers who violate the law should go to jail. If they don't that's a moral wrong. But you're stating another non-sequitur because you're conflating the individual with the corporation. If a bank robs "the nation" through immoral (the definition of which is yet another argument entirely) financial practices, who deserves to be compensated for that? The rich? The poor? Do the poor deserve to be compensated merely because they are poor even if the financial harm hits the rich, and those who invested in the bank in expectation of profits?

Why were the secured bondholders of General Motors defrauded of their first-in-line legal right to the proceeds of the bankruptcy of General Motors by the federal government? This sort of fraud by the government only occurs outside of the rule of law in despotic tyrannies. So why should the union employees of General Motors have benefited from that government fraud which stripped thousands of ordinary people who invested in secured bonds from General Motors? What's the justification for taking from those people in order to give it to union employees of a bankrupt, defunct company?

But all this is non-sequitur surplusage. The original question is how you justify (stated differently) a poor person using the irresistible physical force of the government to seize from a more-wealthy person that person's property (money) in order to serve the poor person's needs and desires?

Rich people disproportionately benefit from society and then they have the fucking temerity to squirrel their money away offshore to avoid paying taxes. THAT is robbery.

Non sequitur. That's not what's at the bar. What's at the bar is the root question of how you justify one person taking money from another person against that person's will in order to serve the interests of the taker?

The reason we keep going over this is because you consistently fail to address the actual subject being examined and you go off into foaming-at-the-mouth rants against the tiniest minority of people who conserve their capital in ways that you don't happen to like, primarily because you can't do the same thing because you don't have enough capital to do so.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if you did have sufficient capital you would be doing exactly the same thing.

This is the precise point at which you customarily turn to invective and derail the debate, presumably because you have no valid rational or moral answer to that fundamental question.

No, this is the point, when you start lying like the lying liar you are, that I turn to tearing you a new arsehole.

Care to give it a go this time?

Care to suck my fungal infected ball sack?

And....derail!

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum.