Slashdot Mirror

How mandatory is the payment of SSI? According to at least one Congressman, and the Supreme Court has also ruled that Social Security carries no legal obligation or promise. It is a benefits program that can be legally changed or even ended at any point, with no repercussion relating to the taxes collected from you. You have no legal right to your Social Security payments.

I'd say that is a LONG WAY from being mandatory. Sounds more like it's at-will by the Government, since there is no legal obligation to pay anyone any Social Security.

But you can still disprove AGW by showing a low sensitivity.

I'm just asking for a specific definition of "low climate sensitivity" that you would assert falsifies AGW. 2C per doubling? 1.5C per doubling? .8C per doubling?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the change in climate sensitivity would be met with surrender rather than an ad hoc special pleading - but that's the problem here, nobody has actually written out the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that would explain why 1.5C per doubling supports AGW, but 1.49C per doubling doesn't.

The estimated sensitivity hasn't changed much in 100 years.

Please, check your references:
http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

If you had intellectual integrity, you would now admit that CAGW and AGW are both falsifiable theses, since they make predictions, and rely on theories that can be disproven

If you had any intellectual integrity, you'd admit that by any judgment of CAGW and AGW theses, their predictions *have* been falsified, but ad hoc special pleadings to account for "the pause" and other deviations from observation have been put in place to protect the central conceit here. Hell, so much froth has come out of CAGW and AGW, sometimes asserting *the complete opposite result*, that it's almost trivial to take a look at any observation and say, "see, our AGW paper said so" - that kind of shotgun prediction and cherry picking isn't science by any stretch of the imagination :)

So, if one CAGW paper says that warming will cause more cyclonic activity, and another CAGW paper says that warming will cause less cyclonic activity, isn't there a real problem with the CAGW hypothesis? Where is the canonical list of CAGW papers, that don't contradict each other, and if a single one is refuted, the whole palace falls? :)

Relying on theories that can be disproven is one thing - but being a hypothesis that can be disproven by observation is what really counts. Of course astrology could be disproven if it was shown that the north star was actually in a completely different position than previously observed - but just because the position of the north star is *necessary*, doesn't make it *sufficient*.

Regarding the liberal/conservative thing: I am a scientist.

There are many scientists who don't think scientifically, and I'll assert that the test is whether or not they understand the importance of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)

No. That is not what is happening. Almost all the proposed reductions are to fighting troops. Almost no cuts are to the bloated defense bureaucracy that make up the core of the MIC's revolving door. Hagel wants to reduce the muscle while protecting the belly fat. He is going about it all wrong anyway. Rather than trimming a little here, and a little there, it would be much better to completely eliminate a few big misguided programs. Killing the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle would be a great place to start.

You're joking, right? We've been "trimming" from defense for the past 70+ years (now near an all-time low in defense spending):

http://i.cfr.org/content/publi...
http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons.

Any idea where the EPA came up with that figure? I don't see any source citation on their page...

Far be it from me to question the honesty of a government agency, but it's not like they haven't lied to us "for our own good" in the past.

And truth be told, law officers have a far poorer record than concealed carry permit holders.

Statistically speaking, you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist in America. Source: the Cato Institute.

You were doing great until you devolved into "starve the beast", which provably does not work and has resulted in the greatest increases in government size in US history.

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - ("laws are most numerous when the commonwealth is most corrupt.") Tactitus, Book III, 27.

We need to fight corruption, not merely play money games with the utterly corrupt.

... anything else would be "inadvisable"?

Yeah, it's part of what's known as an epidemic of fake judging. This judge is one of the "enemies domestic" that the framers warned we'd have to do something about.

once they are made legal, politicians (even the opposition) will no longer be much interested in attacking or exposing individual schemes, they will be attacking the legislation.

Not just that, but Sen. Ron Wyden believes that if they are able to gain such a foothold, the "Business as Usual Brigade" will use it to justify non-terrorism related surveillance of the people.

The linked keynote above is a must-listen for folks who are following this issue closely.

... so how do your comments square with the following?

From Chemical and Engineering news -

Reagan’s economic programs, so controversial then and now, generally supported federal science programs... As Reagan’s term went on, however, the rising federal deficits and lower revenues that were the result of a recession took their toll on R&D budgets. Soon, agencies such as the Energy Department, the National Bureau of Standards, and even the National Institutes of Health were looking at budget cuts.

Further, from "The Revolution that Killed Society", we read...

The Regan Revolution went much further than to just corrupt previously publicly owned companies: they mandated that every service that had begun with ownership by the public needed to be privatized; because only the private corporate-world could make money with things like public services, that up until then had been "a drain" on the public purse. 'Privatization would bring an economic windfall from the drudgery and incompetence of publicly owned services. The justification by the Regan Revolution was that Everything Must Earn a Profit, or it should be terminated: The entire idea of society providing anything for its citizens was heresy to any True-Capitalist.

The result was 'The Revolution That Killed Society'. Everything from the buses and the trains, to electricity, natural gas and heating oil, public hospitals, and public health: indeed everything except possibly firefighters and police have been privatized: and now even those two "services" are experimenting with the idea of privatization as well.

The size of government actually increased under Reagan. This has to stand in stark contrast with his stated goals of downsizing government. From the Reagan Budget, we learn that "People around the country seem to understand what no one in Washington will admit: The budget is out of control. The growth of government is out of control...

Lastly, I take no position on Right vs Left in American politics, except to note that neither party works for We the People. Both parties work hard for the monied class. Hence my belief that America has a one party system. It's called the Business Party and it has two factions that conveniently distract America's citizens by providing great theater as they fight amongst themselves. "Liberals" in the US look better than "Conservatives" only in that they don't say stupid things quite as often as the Rabid Right. Neither faction has any idea how to govern for We the People.

To start, the US de-funded scientific research. It had to, in part, because Ronald Raygun privatized many government functions.

Nice theory, but doesn't agree with reality...

Here, let me Google that for you:

http://ecowatch.com/2013/06/12/coal-companies-receive-taxpayer-subsidies/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/
http://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies
http://illinoistimes.com/article-permalink-12589.html

No, that's beyond the pale.

No, that's exactly what they've evolved into. Today, they are armed and armored paramilitary who destroy innocent lives and maintain a culture of isolation and privilege.

Just for example... and then there is this...

There's your "most." And mind you, these are just the screwups that have come to light. For every one on that map, there are hundreds or thousands more where no one reports anything because to do so puts you on the police radar, the last place any self-aware citizen wants to be. The idealized view of police forces has for some time diverged greatly from the reality. I doubt you could find a single police department in the USA that isn't corrupt, holding the blue line, handing out favors, etc., and let me take care to include legislators, lawyers and judges in this condemnation. The system is just barely functional enough that it doesn't fall apart, and little more. As the previous posted said, if you do enter into this kind of public service with the idea to serve and protect, that attitude will be most thoroughly adjusted within a short span of time.

The real question to me is why corn is used for Ethanol instead of say algae?

The real question is why we have sugar import quotas because Ethanol would be far better made from imported sugar cane sugar than through the energy-inefficient path from corn.

And the answer is, again, Big Corn.

This is only true if you think the statement "The government should promote the general welfare" immediately makes you a socialist.

It might, depending on what you think, the meaning of that phrase is. If "promoting general welfare" means — to you — people need to be subsidized to be "well", then, yes, you are a Socialist, willing to rob the productive Peter to console the idle Paul.

What absolutely doesn't exist is a well-established and well-funded set of organizations with media outlets, think tanks, etc hiring bunches of people making well over $250,000 a year promoting socialism

Not true. The apparatus you are talking about exists and is scary. I'm talking about all the federal and state bureaucrats working on dispensing the taxpayers' monies to the "less fortunate". Their comfortable jobs — which give them the pay, the benefits, and the daily reassurance, they are better than others (their visitors) — would all be at risk, if the number of recipients went down. Obama Administration, for example, goes to great length to sign-up new recipients of Food Stamps, spending millions of dollars per month just on the advertisements for the program — something unthinkable, when it was originated. Why, if you need to be "encouraged to sign-up", then you don't really need the assistance — it is only for the truly desperate. Are you going to pretend, it is done out of sincere concern for the poor? No, it is because feeding those people — at someone else's expense — is a source of comfy jobs.

Sadly, their efforts — in what FDR once called "administering a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of human spirt" — are successful.

If you're thinking that the people receiving welfare are being rewarded for being a socialist

No, not at all — some recipients are decidedly against the existing setup. (So much so, they are being ridiculed for "hypocrisy", when, in fact, it is just the opposite — their willingness to abolish the program that benefits them shows their sincerity.)

They are arguably benefiting from the majority of voters believing that a bit of socialism in the name of preventing people from starving or freezing to death is a good idea

The majority of voters are being tricked into thinking, the programs do good to people in real need. Yet, the stories of people selling their food stamps (including on facebook, which, BTW, reveals their ability to afford a computer and Internet-access) constantly give a lie to the lamentations about "food insecurity".

Simply put, a politician, who is elected on the promise to "fight poverty" has a conflict of interest — what is he going to run on next time, if he succeeds in destroying poverty today? The Military-Industrial Complex, at least, produces something. The Welfare-Industrial Complex is completely parasitic.

I find it funny how you claim a government telling a woman to go home and die is a "somewhat" bad example. What would be a horrendous example of socialistic healthcare, shooting her when she walked in?

As far as "better" health care, using what measure? Do you have any actual objective statistics/sources to back up that claim?

The fact is, what you read is, quite simply, untrue. Any licensed physician in America is required to treat a person in an emergency (you can verify this on the American Medical Association's website). As far as the quality of our care, do you have any explanation why people from other countries so frequently travel to the US to get care? Yes, it costs more, but we get vastly better care than any of the socialistic countries. Our hospitals run 24/7, unlike, say, Japan that closes their hospitals at 5PM. The "America" you talk about does not exist, and I feel sorry for you if that is the propaganda you've been given about this country.

They'll stay silent until America's reputation, and the NSA spying specifically, starts to impact sales. Until then, Silicon Valley's lobbying policy seems to be "pray they don't affect us".

Since TFS doesn't list it, here's Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations With Washington, D.C. from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

Jim Sensenbrenner spoke at the Cato Institute on October 9, 2013. Video and podcast here ...
http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it

I don't know what article it's from but I know it's accurate because I've seen it before.

That's some REALLY faulty logic there.

here is another document which contains virtually the same graph: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf (page 6)

Again, the Cato institute has no credibility, and the graph has no referents and no way to know what its numbers mean. That's probably deliberate on Cato's part, they're as credible in the social and economic "sciences" as a tobacco company report on the health hazards of smoking or an oil company assessment of global warming.

If you want to convince anyone but a hard right winger, you need better data.

I'm not sure why you're referring to the graphic again, I explained in text why cutting the capital gains tax, especially in light of tax law before 1997, was positive for the middle class.

The graph showed nothing at all. It was meaningless, it had no context. This graph looks nothing like yours.

I explained in text why cutting the capital gains tax, especially in light of tax law before 1997, was positive for the middle class.

And I'm telling you I lived through that history and Cato are liars.

Before 1997, if you sold your house and bought a smaller house, you had to pay capital gains tax on the sale. If you sold your house and bought a bigger house, you did not have to pay capital gains tax.

I'd charge both the tax, but if you earn a profit by downsizing, why should you NOT pay income on those earnings? Personally, if I had my way the CGT would be done completely away with and that profit taxed as income.

My point was that capital gains doesn't just affect the rich.

No, it doesn't. I wish I could pay the capital gains tax on my salary instead of the much higher income tax. There is absolutely no rational reason I've ever heard why that corporate job-killing pirate Romney should pay less than half the rate I'm paying, when I earn a fraction of what he does.

There are no referents in that graphic. Link the wikipedia article itself.

I'm not interested in the article, I only wanted to show the graph so I did an image search and found it. I don't know what article it's from but I know it's accurate because I've seen it before. If you don't believe me and need extra context, here is another document which contains virtually the same graph: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf (page 6)

I explained that in my comment. Are you trolling? I'm a bit naive about that sometimes.

I don't understand why you think I was trolling. Maybe I'm naive about that as well.

Again, your graphic is meaningless, it has no context or referents.

I'm not sure why you're referring to the graphic again, I explained in text why cutting the capital gains tax, especially in light of tax law before 1997, was positive for the middle class.

As it should be. Gains taxes were already lower than income taxes, if I make a profit by downsizing my house I should pay taxes on that profit, especially if I'm upsizing.

If you're downsizing your house, you can't also be upsizing, so I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant.

Before 1997, if you sold your house and bought a smaller house, you had to pay capital gains tax on the sale. If you sold your house and bought a bigger house, you did not have to pay capital gains tax.

For middle class retirees, it's pretty common to sell your house and move into a smaller house (downsize). So cutting the capital gains tax helped them.

My point was that capital gains doesn't just affect the rich. The middle class has plenty of capital as well, especially as they near retirement. Did cutting capital gains help the poor? No. The poor aren't everything though.

Which is why we as a society need to come up with a way of offering training and education to those displaced workers, at no cost to the displaced workers.

We do. It's called job retraining and is touted, mainly, by the Republicans who offer it up every time the other side talks about shipping jobs overseas and what about the workers who won't have jobs. Guess what, it doesn't work. And still doesn't.

No, libertarians argue that the problem is conceptually hard not that it doesn't exist. Liberals generally feel the problem is fairly easy conceptually (just regulate it) but hard politically.

The problem is that there is no one simple answer (as the linked video acknowledges - straight from the mouth of libertarians). Some commons problems are amenable to privatization schemes (land and fisheries ownership - Ronald Coase did a lot of work on this idea) while others work more smoothly based on cooperative communities (Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel for her work on this tactic). Both of these tactics are well respected in libertarian circles because they use locality to solve the knowledge problem.

Where it gets truly complicated is in open-access resources that don't lend themselves to either method (air and water being two common examples). In this area, there may be areas where regulation is necessary but it should try to be as locally and market focused as possible. Which is why libertarians have put a lot of thought behind ways to get pricing into those types of markets. Libertarians like Jonathan Adler have been advocating carbon taxes for years and the entire Summer 2013 issue of Cato's Regulations magazine features deeply researched and well argued cases for implementing carbon taxes and how best to price them for maximum gain at reasonable cost.

I think you are arguing against straw man libertarians rather than real ones.

The barrier you are looking for is the Constitution, Congress, and the Federal courts. The USPS will sue you out of business.

The (narrow) monopoly for letters (i.e. non-urgent) is explicit.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
      http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/1999/3/cpr-21n2.html

You are looking at “Express mail” – something that the courts have defined as something different then letter delivery.

Quick question – do couriers, telegrams, and phones compete with USPS? Kind of – they all carry information – yet they are different. You may argue that we are splitting hairs – I am telling you the Federal Courts have already split those hairs.

The Cato Institute (a conservative think tank, for those who don't recognize the name) disagrees with your assessment that the Constitution gives the Federal government a monopoly on postal service. If what you say were as simple as that, wouldn't FedEx have been shut down by the real Feds?

No kidding, maybe the reason why nations haven't insisted on more emissions reductions is because that act wouldn't have any noticeable effect on global temperature change. Maybe some of the brighter individuals involved have understood that reducing carbon emissions is just a nice way of redistributing global income. Maybe they see global socialism in action... Want to play with carbon emission and temperature reduction? Feeling lucky punk? See here: http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator Good luck and thanks for all the fish.

Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.

Ok. Lets assume that this were true. (There's no proof of this, but I'm not even interested in having that argument. Lets just assume, for the sake of argument that the presence of educated and responsible gun owners reduces crime.)

That's fine. Lets have those.

No proof?
 

But what about uneducated irresponsible idiots? What about the clinically depressed? What about convicted violent felons?

Uneducated irresponsible idiots don't get themselves killed in other ways, legal or illegal?
Shouldn't we be treating the depression of the clinically depressed, rather than denying them the full benefits of citizenship in the USA?
Do convicted, violent felons suddenly become concerned about adherence to the law?

Does giving them guns reduce crime? Gun suicides and gun accidents skyrocket with legal ownership.

1) Nobody is talking about "giving" anybody guns, and even phrasing your argument that way is disingenuous.
2) In the absence of gun availability, suicides can and do happen through other means; should we not be more concerned with both the causes for desire to commit suicide and the quality of life for those wishing to commit suicide but unable, for whatever reason?
3) I'd love to see your information linking gun availability rates to rates of suicidein general, and not simply to rates of suicide by gun, with suicide through other means being proportionally smaller.
4) Accidents happen. Absent a governmental surveillance program paired with the apparatus to intervene in accidents of all types, this will never change (and arguably accidents would happen in said intervention apparatus, rendering such a "solution" moot at best). Has the possibility of an automotive accident (a much higher cause of death in the USA) been cited as cause for sweeping reductions in the availability of cars?

Virtually all the proposed gun legislation out there would not take away legal gun ownership anyway, so spasming over that is a red herring.

No, it just redefines "legal gun ownership" to refer to a smaller subset of gun possession. IOW: passively taking away legal gun ownership from some citizens. Disingenuous.

Gun advocates aren't waging a war to be able to own guns. They're figting a war against 'background checks' and paperwork for sales at gun shows and on craigslist. They're fighting so that even the most deranged lunatic or depressed idiot or convicted violent felon can buy a gun legally without so much as any one saying "maybe that guy shouldn't have a gun".

So when you're labeled a "deranged lunatic" or "depressed idiot" or "violent felon" by the dominant political establishment, for reasons you may or may not agree with, you won't mind giving up your constitutional rights based on the illusion (and it is an illusion) of increased security?

The whole mockery of the gun-advocate isn't because they have a legitimate argument about crime, or the 2nd amendment -- because they do have a legitimate argument to make. But there's no reason a confirmed idiot who has a history of getting drunk and shooting at passing cars should be able to get a gun as easily as a box of instant noodles.

And the mockery of the gun-control-advocate is that gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the best wishes and heartfelt concerns aside, gun control has no positive effect on crime rates, murder rates, you name it. Why all of the advocacy for a tactic that has been proven not to work?
The only real answer is that it's an emotional argument, and people want guns removed from the picture because they're "scary". Well, life's scary, grow up.

People are amazingly bad at understanding risks: In the U.S., for example... http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist

Socialized medicine works better when the USA doesn't have it. Most of the new drugs and treatments come out of the USA. The companies inventing them are making a profit, while the government is trillions in debt... if the government takes over all health care, it will not end well. R&D will be slashed to free up some money for treating more people, and R&D progress will slow.

Sure, when you spend millions on every cancer, even when there is only a 1% chance of saving the life of a 60 year old smoker, when the universal care country says "you got plenty old and are still smoking, so we deny your care to use those resources on others who didn't knowingly cause their own problem and have better quality of life after treatment, if successful", it's going to affect the statistics.

It's nice that you have such confidence in the wisdom of the death panels. On the other hand, I would prefer to choose my own benefits and pay for as much care as I want.

What would really fix things would be widespread use of Health Savings Accounts combined with high-deductible insurance plans, and some reforms such as tort reform and requiring hospitals to publish their prices and charge the same amount to everyone. (Not one price for cash customers, and a lower one for insurance company customers.)

We won't get tort reform because lawyers don't want it, and lawyers are a really damn powerful political bloc.

The other good thing about widespread HSAs is that it would solve the pre-existing condition problem: if you buy your own insurance, then you are free to change jobs without worrying about insurance issues. It's a problem that the current system incentivizes a link between a job and insurance.

Universal care works great enough of the time, people don't see the need.

I have read so many horror stories coming out of England's NHS and Canada's system that I don't want to try it myself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/heal-our-hospitals/10178296/13000-died-needlessly-at-14-worst-NHS-trusts.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-lesson-about-socialized-medicine

There is a lot wrong with the system in America. I would love to see some reforms to address it. However, I am convinced that socialized medicine is not the best way to go.

Socialized medicine is great for common problems like a broken arm. However, serious problems like heart disease or cancer have much better prognosis in America.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cancer-government

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/boutique-care-royal-baby-substandard-medicine-everyone-else

There is a lot wrong with the system in America. I would love to see some reforms to address it. However, I am convinced that socialized medicine is not the best way to go.

Socialized medicine is great for common problems like a broken arm. However, serious problems like heart disease or cancer have much better prognosis in America.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cancer-government

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/boutique-care-royal-baby-substandard-medicine-everyone-else

All of you are missing the point.

http://americablog.com/2013/08/if-the-irs-gets-nsa-data-who-doesnt-this-is-a-data-trafficking-story.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-nsas-phone-internet-monitoring-programs-make-sense

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/06/breaking-fbi-nsa-massively-collecting-data-from-9-internet-companies/comment-page-2/

http://www.iowasource.com/health/2012_02_wifi.html

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

You all think ubiquitous wireless is for your convenience?

Corn and sugarcane got nothing on the sugar beet.

Acre for acre, sugar beets get more subsidies than corn, if you include the protective tariffs on sugar imports. There is no way that beets can compete with cane in a free market.

It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.

Good grief, no. It's the result, not the intent, that determines is something is helpful or harmful. Bad regulations are always defended on good intentions, because intentions are not a measure of performance.

regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel, encourage electrical systems to have devices that prevent electrocution

Consumers and courts can do that just fine without regulation.

lower prices by fostering a single standard that is available for everyone

It's like we've learned nothing from the Communications Act of 1934. It's been almost a hundred years since we made these mistakes. We can do better.

That's regulation not totalitarianism

That's a distinction without a difference. What it is, is government telling you what to do in an arbitrary and unreasonable fashion under circumstances where such restriction is often completely inappropriate. There are many totalitarian regulations in this area, from the erection of antennas and flagpoles to restrictions on homebuilding and property management where such actions by the citizen have no effect upon any neighboring property or structure. It's classic government out of control, just writ small, as opposed to the wars for profit, the care and feeding of the oil and military industries at the expense of everything else, the pervasive (and illegal by definition) surveillance, etc.

(re shooting family pets) No idea what you are talking about here.

Oh. Not paying attention again, then. Let me Google that for you.

You need to stop with the overbearing rhetoric like "shooting family".

Oh, do I?

We just don't flex our muscles as much.

You think not? (and remember, those are just the raids known to be "botched")

Nah this is all about trade protectionism pure and simple. I still remember the US tariffs on Japanese NEC SX supercomputers to protect Cray which eventually went bankrupt anyway.

Meanwhile "libertarian" thought is nicely summed up by The Cato institute's web site: "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations"

They forgot motherhood and apple pie. Who doesn't claim to promote those things?

"boring and annoying" sums up Atlas Shrugged very well

I like to point out that it was published in 1957 - so some stuff we take for granted in 2013 was cutting edge at the time. Parts of it aren't bad (Ayn Rand did live through the Bolshevik/Russian revolution - and saw first hand the economic results of central planning and collectivism), parts are terrible (basically the other half of the book not dealing with economics).

I don't think Rand would accept the "libertarian" designation - she was selling "objectivism" which comes across as something Karl Marx intended (a perfect society based on reason).

Meanwhile "libertarian" thought is nicely summed up by The Cato institute's web site: "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations"

Officer safety is priority #1 for the police. Tactically, use of SWAT for raids makes sense. Though from the cato map, it does have its costs http://www.cato.org/raidmap

I'm surprised the (otherwise excellent) article neglected to include the Cato Institute's map of botched paramilitary police raids.

This really is a serious problem. I teach home defense along with my concealed weapon permit classes, and the question always comes up "If someone is breaking into my house, how do I know if it's the police?" The answer, of course, is that you can't know, but if you guess wrong it could cost you your life. Good luck.

In my opinion, raids are simply too risky to be justified unless there's an imminent threat to an innocent's life. The reason for using aggressive entry tactics in the vast majority of cases is to prevent the destruction of evidence. That's simply not a good enough reason the kind of high-risk situation the aggressive tactics produce.

I think there are very rare circumstances in which SWAT really is appropriate, and we should scale SWAT capabilities appropriately. Perhaps each US state should have a single group of state troopers who form such an elite force, and are equipped with transportation that allows them to respond quickly anywhere in the state. A big, populous state like California may need two or three such units. But when every podunk PD has its own SWAT team, their mere existence is going to guaranteed that they get used for all sorts of other things. They're too expensive, and too cool (to the police), to just leave sitting around all the time.

We can only hope. That would be the best possible outcome. Tell me again what the point of insurance companies is?

Are you opposed to auto insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance on expensive paintings, etc? If not, then I think you already understand the point of insurance.

Insurance allows risk to be spread across a large pool. When done correctly, it works. For health care, the more the government jacks with the system, the more messed up the system gets.

If we want to make sure that poor people have access to care, let's extend the benefits of Medicare, not scrap everything and force everyone into a new system.

The problem with single-payer is that one size doesn't fit all. In countries with single-payer, if something common place happens (e.g. you break your arm) you get free care, it all works, and you are pretty happy. But when you get cancer, or something else very out of the ordinary, single payer gives a much worse result (ie more people die) than the US.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cancer-societys-deadly-medicine

I assume that you want the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I want that too! But I believe that single payer isn't as good as a free market. The expense of medicine in the US is better fixed with reforms than by junking everything and going single-payer. You may not agree, but I hope you don't think everyone who disagrees with you is an inhuman monster who just wants poor people to suffer and die.

What world do you live in? Police don't just raid a house because of some tag on Google Earth. What nonsense. You think we have a fleet of detectives monitoring Facebook in case someone posts "committin' a crime right naw!" And we announce ourselves so the homeowner would have no doubt it's the police and not some "intruder breaking down their door at 3am."!

What world do you live in sir? Clearly not the same one the rest of us do.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/cops-kill-dog-handcuff-kids-in-wrong-house-raid/
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55875924-78/lake-salt-landvatter-police.html.csp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.wave3.com/story/1495631/false-tip-leads-police-to-raid-house-of-sleeping-family?clienttype=printable

and just because you are wearing a badge and say you are the police doesn't mean that you are

http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-Police-impersonators-using-fake-raids-to-rob-illegal-game-rooms-135144963.html

And your suggestion that the police do not read online sources or respond to tips that might come from them is also quite absurd

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/25/the-saga-of-travis-corcoran

Yes, we get that Bitcoin is potentially useful for tax evasion. Can you spell out why that is socially desirable?

There are massive arguments in favour of tax havens. Most effect and help people who don't use them more then you would ever think.
The biggest one in my opinion is that it creates competition for governments. You might think this is a bad thing if you are a big and unwieldy government, who isn't providing visible value for the taxation. But if you are a normal person, then it means that there is downward pressure on the government to provide value for the money it is stealing from its citizenry.
Forbes: Why Tax Havens Are A Force For Good
CATO Institute: Why Tax Havens Are a Blessing
Foundation for Economic Education: In Praise of Tax Havens

That's like saying that the 4th doesn't apply if you rent rather than own your home.

Sadly, the courts are kinda leaning that way. There's also been a few cases where cops will patrol the hallways of your apartment building and then use whatever "evidence" they find in the "public space" and then bust down your door.

Go figure. Fan boy of communism thinks his country, the capitalist USA, needs "a swift kick in the balls from the rest of the world," and the citizens need to get it too. News at 11. The revolution starts at midnight, purges at dawn.

Communism has been a bloody failure worldwide. The problem isn't that it has never been implemented properly, the problem is it isn't possible to implement "properly." It is based on a fundamental misreading of human nature, bad economics, and class warfare leading to the extermination of various social classes. (Round up all the bankers and shoot them, then keep moving down the list.) It is a genocidal creed.

The Black Book of Communism
The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney

Reflections on Communism - Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Although this centers on the Soviet Union, some of it sheds light on some common aspects of communist regimes.
The Soviet Story (2008)

4.2% of the population is far from "so few". Heck, I know some personally (they're in my family). It's sad when people will say to your face that you're stupid for working so hard when you could be like them and sit comfortably in their trailer watching TV and let the government take care of you... They've been doing it most of their life (not a "very short time"). Those that do get off welfare are quickly replaced by others who get put on it.

Don't even look at food stamps. Nearly 20% of Americans now! And the OWS answer? Let's punish the "evil rich"! Maybe I'm unusual, but I've always been hired by either an "evil rich person" or an "evil rich corporation"!

As far as tax loopholes go, maybe we should get rid of the monstrosity that is our current tax code. Something like the Fair Tax would completely eliminate loopholes!

OWS's plan of punishing job creators will do nothing more than destroy opportunities for those who want to succeed... It is time we stop pulling the successful down. We need to pull the poor up and give them the opportunity to succeed!

Despite all your reasoning it is nonetheless true that American citizens are (somehow) able to use firearms to defend themselves on a regular basis.

In some countries this woman would probably have been badly hurt or killed. Do you know how she avoided it?
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

I can see why you might be misled on the subject though: Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

On the other hand, HM seems to (second picture down) know what she likes.

Cheers

Despite all your reasoning it is nonetheless true that American citizens are (somehow) able to use firearms to defend themselves on a regular basis.

In some countries this woman would probably have been badly hurt or killed. Do you know how she avoided it?
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

I can see why you might be misled on the subject though: Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

On the other hand, HM seems to (second picture down) know what she likes.

Cheers

Murder is already very, very illegal. No new laws are needed.
Planning murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.
Soliciting murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.

I believe that level of perfection in the law was reached by 1613. Are you suggesting that in the last 400 years that all subsequent new laws were unneeded? There was no need to ban guns, since killing people was already illegal? No need for any of the anti-terrorism laws, since killing people was already illegal? There was no opportunity to improve matters that are governed by law? No possibilities to improve evidence gathering? No possibilities to improve cooperation between different ministries and agencies? No limits on extremist activity that might inhibit the already far too many people in HM realm that are disposed to commit acts of terror. Also note, by your reasoning there should have been no reason to effectively ban self-defense, since murder is already illegal so no further laws are necessary. I don't think I can agree with that.

Starting from July 7/7/2005, an average of 7 people are killed per year due to terrorist attacks. That's on the same level as eye-wateringly obscure medical diseases.

I am unaware of any obscure medical diseases that might cause one to burst into thousands of pieces of steel shrapnel to kill dozens of people standing nearby. That is a constant threat of terrorism of the sort already seen in Britain. The absence of regular incidents of such is a result of convictions, not luck or magic stones.

Basically, any money put into preventing those is a complete waste: the money would be vastly better spent elsewhere, such as improving road safety.

Those numbers can change rather quickly if just one plot gets through.

No, I'll try and shoot them, just like the police shot at these murderers. And see, no new laws were needed.

That would be use of an offensive weapon. There are severe penalties for violating the Queens peace like that.

c) The US Justice Department estimates 70% of guns recovered from Mexican cartels were legally purchased in the US.

Hmmm... apparently they felt embarrassed about the 90% claim they had been using, but it looks like neither 90% nor 70% are really true.

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
U.S. Gun Laws: Mexico's Favorite Scapegoat for Drug Violence

I wouldn't be shocked to hear cartels are also buying abroad, but why bother when you can get most of what you need immediately to the north?

Because they want military grade weapons, like grenades, rocket launchers, and fully automatic weapons and those aren't available from el Norte? (After all, they are often battling the Mexican army, marine corps, and federales, as well as other cartels.) On the other hand, there are plenty of sources from the Central and South America, and other places, that converge in Mexico.

The US is a convenient scapegoat for the weapons problem in Mexico, but not the genuine source of the problem.

America, land of the obese,

Don't worry, Europe is competitive - especially certain countries.

Obesity in America Compared to Europe

Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta

-------

home of the gun NUT

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

In some countries, the following two people would likely be dead or badly injured. Can you figure out why they aren't?

80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

A rather different picture than what has happened in the UK.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

-------

Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.

It might be too soon to tell.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Cheers

America, land of the obese,

Don't worry, Europe is competitive - especially certain countries.

Obesity in America Compared to Europe

Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta

-------

home of the gun NUT

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

In some countries, the following two people would likely be dead or badly injured. Can you figure out why they aren't?

80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

A rather different picture than what has happened in the UK.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

-------

Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.

It might be too soon to tell.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Cheers