Safe and Free from Patriot II

Mirror of AD by jdclucidly · 2003-02-25 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Mirror of the AD in PDF is here (patriot2_ad.pdf).

Re:This law applies to everyone by KDan · 2003-02-25 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might want to check the definition of "sarcasm". :-)

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:This law applies to everyone by shaka999 · 2003-02-25 05:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, and people are actually moderating this one up....

--
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-

Trolling for Terrorists at the Library? by cybermage · 2003-02-25 05:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did I miss something on the news? Did the 9/11 hijackers spend a lot of time reading?

I guess since they cannot censor books they dislike out of existence, they'll just persecute people who read them. Nice end-run.

If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?

--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.

Re:Trolling for Terrorists at the Library? by uncoveror · 2003-02-25 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, that could get you profiled as a terrorist. Guilt by association. The Patriot act and Patriot act II are worse than any paranoid delusion conspiracy theorists ever cooked up, and they are real! Welcome to The Fourth Reich.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Trolling for Terrorists at the Library? by archnerd · 2003-02-25 15:45 · Score: 1

If you think you've got problems...

I live a few blocks away from Atta's former apartment; chances are probably pretty good that I met him at some point. I frequently visit the website of Eric S. Raymond, a well-known anarchist. My bookshelf is stocked with titles like "Hacking Linux Exposed", "US Army Survival Manual", and Machiavelli's "The Prince" (dog-eared and highlighted). I know the formula for napalm.

Am I a terrorist? You might be able to find out by snooping my email, but unfortunately a lot of it is encrypted.
Re:Trolling for Terrorists at the Library? by MentLTheo · 2003-02-26 19:15 · Score: 1

guess what though.. using encryption on a device that conveys terrorist activity under the revision of the patriot act earns you 5 extra years in prison... you could be infinitely detained until you handover a key. If you dont, the CIA (or any other deviation of government anti-terrorism branch) has the right to kill you even if you are an american citizen according to the current patriot act. Dont think the world would ever know about it either. under the revision, you can be taken from your house, car, whatever have this all happen to you and its allowed to be done without judicial oversight or public knowledge.. one day you are here, the next you are a memory. "knowledge for some, miniature american flags for others"
Re:Trolling for Terrorists at the Library? by Fat+Casper · 2003-03-02 02:10 · Score: 1

I guess since they cannot censor books they dislike out of existence, they'll just persecute people who read them. Nice end-run.
If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?
Do you shop at a grocery store that has higher prices than most but then gives you "savings" if you use their "rewards card?" That's a great scam. You aren't paying much (if any) less than I am at another store, and you're giving them customer data for free. They track your buying patterns and sell the info. Yes, it's unpopular as hell on /., but you've got to admit it's opt-in as hell.
Of course, not all the data gets sold. A lot of it gets given to Ashcroft. Things that he'd have a damn hard time getting a warrant to sieze are getting handed to him by companies that see your private information as an asset of theirs. Of course, it is- you opted in. Just hope that you don't like (or have company coming that likes) the same food Atta liked. Make sure you don't rent the same movies he saw, either. No, it won't make you a terrorist, but it will make Ashcroft suspect that you are one. We've got people in custody; citizens being held without being charged. Ashcroft hasn't even told us who most of them are. They don't have access to lawyers (I'm still trying to find a downside to that one). If you don't mind all that, then by all means, opt in. If it isn't your idea of what the Constitution says ought to be happening, or even if you're worried that a bad person might smoke the same brand of cigarettes that you do, then try to help.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has a nice page listing ways the companies get (and how they profit from) your data with tips to protect yourself.

--
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.

The harder you push by Otter · 2003-02-25 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey Michael and JJ22:

Here's a little hint. I'd be a lot more likely to take the time to read the link and comment thoughtfully if you gave me some information instead of of subjecting me to your smirky asides about "jackboots" and "dissidents".

Unless your goal is simply to parade your concern for our admiration. Given that the top-rated post right now is from someone who was confused because you weren't heavy-handed enough (!), maybe there's no problem.

Guess what, it's citizens like me who take civil rights seriously but aren't concerned about striking the most ostentatious pose that you need to win over. On this issue, DRM, file sharing, IP law and all the other stuff you're the worst possible advocate for.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Re:The harder you push by JJ22 · 2003-02-25 06:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Otter - Thanks for the insight. Really, there isn't much to the article. Someone in the office pointed out to me the ad from the print copy of the NY Times, and I thought it was great that something that I felt fairly strongly about was getting some press. I was actually disappointed in the other link on the ACLU site (the Safe and Free PDF) as it was more of an ACLU promotional piece than a statement about what needs to be done or even informational about the Patriot Act.
And yes, I was kind of excited to see something I had submitted (after 12 previous tries) actually get accepted.
Sorry - no more humor, no more submissions of puff pieces. But rather than advocacy, this was about publicity - which the issue is in dire need of.
Re:The harder you push by Otter · 2003-02-25 06:47 · Score: 1

Thanks for responding so graciously -- I'll try to restate what I said with similar courtesy:
There's a difference between firing up the troops who are already firmly on your side and addressing people who don't necessarily share your opinion. Speaking to people as though it's a given that your viewpoint is universally accepted, or telling them how they ought to think about something is counterproductive when there's a diversity of thought. As it happens, I'm extremely distrustful of John Ashcroft and concerned about a lot of the Homeland Security laws and practices but still get turned off when I get told what sounds like "Of course, we all know..."
And yes, I was kind of excited to see something I had submitted (after 12 previous tries) actually get accepted.
Maybe try submitting that 8 year old German interview with Bill Gates? The editors seem willing to run that one on a weekly basis. ;-)

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:The harder you push by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny

The ALCU has a press release...

And yes, I was kind of excited to see something I had submitted (after 12 previous tries) actually get accepted.

I think we can make an educated guess why some of your previous 12 attempts didn't get accepted.
Re:The harder you push by umofomia · 2003-02-25 08:47 · Score: 1

The ALCU has a press release...
And yes, I was kind of excited to see something I had submitted (after 12 previous tries) actually get accepted.

I think we can make an educated guess why some of your previous 12 attempts didn't get accepted.
By the looks of things around here, he probably would have been rejected again if he had spelled it correctly. :)

Re:This law applies to everyone by hey! · 2003-02-25 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

This isn't a just post 9/11 thing either. Even before then, the Bush administration was the among most secretive in living memory. This is just a continuation of their effort to free themselves from any kind of public oversight.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Another Provision of Patriot Act II by chriso11 · 2003-02-25 06:07 · Score: 1

Patriot Act II makes it illegal to be a member of that known terrorist-loving group:the ACLU! Remember how Bush I tried to crush that dangerous group, but it has returned like Saddam to menance America!

We are absolutely lucky that we have Bush here to protect the government!

--
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.

Majority by Thalias · 2003-02-25 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

The United States is a Democratic Republic. This means we elect people to speak for us in hopes that they have the same belief as us. However it seems to me that as these people are now in office, they don't listen to us, but rather do what they think is best for us. From democracy to democratic republic. Next we will change to a republic. Then to dictatorship. Keep in mind this is an extreme, but with all these new acts that are being passed, it seems that is what the politicians want.

--
FOML: Rise to Power

Re:Majority by squant0 · 2003-02-25 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

The US has always been a republic. Back in the "day" when the original founders decided to make up many of the rights we like today, they were only thinking of themselves. And still today, most of the people who get "elected" don't care about what their people want, they only care about getting what the rich people want (example: tax cuts for the rich? how bout tax cuts for the poor, and tax the shit out of the rich? sounds fair to me, those who can give, give). Politics has always been about money, and still is.
I don't think a dictatorship will happen, too many greedy politicians sitting in office trying to make money.
Re:Majority by RevAaron · 2003-02-25 06:37 · Score: 1

The US was never a democratic state, always a Democratic Republic. That the US is a Democracy is BS they teach you in grade school.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Majority by zeugma-amp · 2003-02-25 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Close, but no cigar. As others have pointed out, America is supposed to be a republic. It is unfortunate that this condition didn't last. If you bring up a copy of the constitution in your browser (there are countless copies out there) you'll find the word "guarantee" and "republic" used exactly once each. You'll not find any hint of the word 'democracy' or it's several various forms.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep getting together and deciding what is for lunch. The folks who founded this nation were very aware of the dangers and evils of democracy. Look up the phrase "Sparta must be destroyed" sometime for a small example of same. You might also enjoy reading the "federalist papers" and the "letters from a federal farmer" sometime. They talk about this quite a bit.

If I were to pin down the point in time when we ceased being a republic, I'd have to point to the 17th amendment to the constitution, in which the direct election of senators was allowed. Some would go further back and point to the civil war. I can't say that I entirely disagree with that either.

--
This is an ex-parrot!
Re:Majority by j-turkey · 2003-02-25 08:46 · Score: 1

And still today, most of the people who get "elected" don't care about what their people want, they only care about getting what the rich people want (example: tax cuts for the rich? how bout tax cuts for the poor, and tax the shit out of the rich? sounds fair to me, those who can give, give).

OK -- I think that your example is a little full of shit. Here's why.

A. I see this kind of thinking all the time now -- I went to a super-liberal college where this kind of thinking was the norm -- and with these arguments, the logical conclusion is always that the rich are eating our lunch. You don't define rich. A person who makes $50,000 a year is by no-means rich. Especially depending on where they live...a New Yorker or a San Franciscian making $50K a year is very far from rich...but the IRS is blind to this. However, by tax law and by statistical averages, a single person making $50,000 a year is in the top 5-10% range of American incomes. Do that person deserve more or less taxation?

B. OK -- a rich tax cut vs. a poor tax cut. We already have a graduated income tax, which is supposed to make things more equal...giving the so-called rich a tax cut is only serving to flatten out the taxes. They'll still be paying more (percentage-wise, and dollar-wise) than the poor. Again, is tax relief still unfair?

C. Let's examine what the poor are doing for the economy vs. the wealthy. Wealth drives our economy. Buying stuff makes our business work (in fact, if nobody bought stuff -- we wouldn't have an economy)...when our businesses work, it bolsters our economy and creates more jobs. More jobs make the workforce more competitive and increase wages. Higher wages equal more wealth -- poorer people are richer, and the government gets more tax-revenue just by lowering taxes on the rich.

D. Which people are using more of the government services generated by the tax revenue -- the rich, or the poor? Now, who pays more for those services, the rich or the poor? Who deserves a tax cut now?

OK -- you've got some socialist ideals because you mean well...that's fine. I am no economics scholar, but I do know that economics go a little farther than what seems fair at face value. While I find the principle of your post interesting (actually, a republic and representative democracy are totally different...but I tend to agree that businesses and related insterests are over-represented, and the individual's goals tend to be under-represented) your example is indicitative of the typical Slashdotter mentality.

I am not trying to attack you, but your example seems a little short-sighted and makes me believe that you haven't put alot of thought into this. Let me know if you think that this is elitist bullshit...it very well could be, but I think that all in all, it seems pretty fair and realistic.

--Turkey

--

-Turkey
Re:Majority by Parsec · 2003-02-25 18:09 · Score: 1

A... However, by tax law and by statistical averages, a single person making $50,000 a year is in the top 5-10% range of American incomes.

I wonder where you get that data. Doing the math on the tables in this IRS PDF (page 17) strongly suggests that the top 5% earn well over $100,000 a year. The AGI minus deficit of $75,000 and up constituted 15%. Tax returns with an AGI of $50,000 up made it into the top 28.23%.

Did you just walk through a cow pasture?

B... They'll still be paying more (percentage-wise, and dollar-wise) than the poor. Again, is tax relief still unfair?

There are some interesting numbers, on page 29 of the PDF. Again, the math indicates that those earning between $50,000 and $500,000 pay the highest percentage of taxes. While no return category earning over $500,000 paid more than 7.6% on average. I wonder how they managed that? Don't forget all the company perks: company housing, cars, food, business trips (read vacations), etc. that don't get reported as income.

C. Let's examine what the poor are doing for the economy vs. the wealthy.

Interesting logic... in a completely bizarre way. Tax breaks for the rich = more buying stuff = more jobs = more money for the poor. Bogus! Try the opposite: tax breaks for the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money (see social science studies and basic costs of living challenges) = more buying = more jobs = more money for the poor. Those who already have all their needs of life met save a greater percentage of their income (take it out of circulation), they don't spend (circulate) it. How many people earning less than $30,000/yr do you know who have any decent life savings?

D. Which people are using more of the government services generated by the tax revenue -- the rich, or the poor? Now, who pays more for those services, the rich or the poor? Who deserves a tax cut now?

Depends on your definition of government services. If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc.. This is an interesting document. Besides, those filthy poor people can pay for their own damn food and medicine... I'm trying to save up for my third Rolls Royce!

your example is indicitative of the typical Slashdotter mentality.

And yours indicitive of the typical sucker who has bought the right-wing numbers/arguments. How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme.

I smell manure... anyone else?
Re:Majority by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-25 19:40 · Score: 1

I WAS going to give mod points out on this topic, but this shit pisses me off so damn much that I've decided to save them for a rainy day. (To all those who would be recieving mod points for this story, I'm sorry. Blame Parsec.)

Anyway, let's go step-by-step.

I wonder where you get that data. Doing the math on the tables in this IRS PDF [irs.gov] (page 17) strongly suggests that the top 5% earn well over $100,000 a year. The AGI minus deficit of $75,000 and up constituted 15%. Tax returns with an AGI of $50,000 up made it into the top 28.23%.

This one is fun as it's a multi-parter. Like thos really bad Star Trek episodes, only less enjoyable. AGI? ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME? I don't even know why AGI is even being considered by you after the fact that Turkey brought up cost of living. AGI is "Income (including wages, interest, capital gains, income from retirement accounts, alimony paid to you) adjusted downward by specific deductions (including contributions to deductible retirement accounts, alimony paid by you); but not including standard and itemized deductions." There's no adjustment taken for a man who lives in DC in a $600/month Apartment (Living near DC, I can say that $600/month will barely get you a crappy apartment). There's no adjustment for 2 kids and a wife trying to finish up her college education. There's no adjustment for food or transportation costs. There's no adjustments for repairs on anything they have that they own. Even if they have a regular house in the suburbs, the $4100/month (BEFORE Taxes) would chop off AT LEAST $2000 right off the top. Car payments not included. Insurance payments. Hell no. So, what you're saying here is that we should judge a persons living situation on their pre-tax income, but not the location of their living? Sounds great to me.

While no return category earning over $500,000 paid more than 7.6% on average. I wonder how they managed that?

People with money invest it. No, that doesn't mean they shove it in a mattress and sleep on it for 20 years. No, it doesn't necessarily mean it's been all socked away in a airtight bank account. It generally means that the money they have laying around after living expenses and the little frills that make life worth living (for me, it's hardware upgrades and trips to the local DDR machine) goes straight into....THE STOCK MARKET! Yes, that big place with the loud bell that tells most people whether or not they'll have a job.

Invested money doesn't get taxed until it's pulled out, or until dividends are paid (and then they are taxed twice).

Tax breaks for the rich = more buying stuff = more jobs = more money for the poor. Bogus! Try the opposite: tax breaks for the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money (see social science studies and basic costs of living challenges) = more buying = more jobs = more money for the poor. Those who already have all their needs of life met save a greater percentage of their income (take it out of circulation), they don't spend (circulate) it. How many people earning less than $30,000/yr do you know who have any decent life savings?

Here's an economics lesson I learned while in my first few jobs in the real world. Except for one job at a commission joint, I never had a coworker tell me "Goddamn it, my taxes are too high. I'm not getting a return this year". These were all people making less than $30,000 a year, for the most part. Instead, they were saying "Ah, it's so cool to get all my tax money back this year." Why?! Oh, yeah, while money is withheld from the check (a holdover from WW2, it wasn't always this way), for those in the lowest percentage of earners, no taxes are actually paid as the money is returned (excepting Social Security and medicare).

A "tax break" is generally reserved for when you are PAYING money to the government, not getting it returned.

Depends on your definition of government services. If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc.. This [ctj.org] is an interesting document. Besides, those filthy poor people can pay for their own damn food and medicine... I'm trying to save up for my third Rolls Royce!

Here's something funny for you. Most of the oil we get doesn't come from our country drilling it, and we don't directly fund any oil drilling in other countries. We buy oil from other countries. Before I want to hear any criticism from you, I want you to turn off ALL heat, ALL electricity (including computer), and walk EVERYWHERE you go for ONE WEEK. THEN, I want to hear you talk about how life is better without oil.

But wait! There's more! You'll complain about the costs of gas for your car! But then again, you're against letting companies slide if they work their R&D towards something in the national interests. So, the gas prices increase while companies like BP and Honda continue their research into alternate fuel sources.

But wait, you want the alternate fuels NOW and no more oil! And you blame the government...but then again, you're against the government giving grants to researchers who have made your life more easy than it would've been. What the fuck do you think helped make that computer affordable and simple to use? Oh, yeah, it was government grants given to companies like Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and Intel.

My stepfather is a doctor. He works hard for what is very little pay considering the circumstances (10-hour days and 24-hour on call. Imagine if your boss could call you at 2am, tell you to come in...and if you make a mistake because you're tired, you get sued), and he does it for the government to provide healthcare for people with developmental disabilities. Next-to-free care, I might add. (They ask the parents of the people for money, but if the guys have no parents, there's no charge). Of course, you think he's evil, because he is technically "rich" (even though the debts incurred while moving to the new hospital and from a previous marriage (doctors have the highest divorce and suicide rate of any profession, BTW).

Here's what I ask you to consider right now.

If you don't learn one thing from me, I want you to learn this:

IF YOU PUNISH THOSE WHO SUCCEED AND REWARD THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED, YOU CREATE A SOCIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT SUCCEED

It's simple logic. If you make it too expensive to do well, people won't do well. My father came from the backwoods of Kentucky, joined the Army and used all the resources at hand, worked hard, and made something of himself. He's now fairly well paid as the Network Manager of a mid-size hospital in suburban DC. If he were to be offered a Raise of 5% because he saved them $20 million (the savings are most often passed on to the patients who can afford it least, just so you know), he'd have to turn it down, because the raise would put him in a higher tax bracket, and would effectively make his raise turn into a salary cut. Isn't that sad? That a man would have to turn down money that could go towards his retirement after 20 years of service to his country and after saving money for the state and the people who need healthcare, all because you think he's evil?

You sir, are a cad, if you think that working hard and making yourself into a success is evil. You have no morality, if you think that my little sister (Age 2) should grow up in a house of uncertainty because of your communist avarice. And you sir, are an asshole, if you want to take my future from me, as I myself plan on joining the Air Force to make something of myself and hopefully make my way to the top 10%. You sir, are a grassfucker, if you want to pull everyone else down, just because it's too much work to pick yourself up.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Majority by j-turkey · 2003-02-26 03:33 · Score: 1

Aw come on! This is totally a bunch of liberal trash...and my politics are relatively liberal (although unlike some -- I don't take up liberal causes because its the liberal thing to do). Who is it that's eating your lunch? Well fortunately, you've got your cake...the Bush administration is pulling the Democrat tax and spend crap...one of the few things that I really liked about the Republicans is gone. In any case, I'll refrain from re-hashing ColdFusion's reaming...but there are a few points I wanted to make outside of this post.

Don't forget all the company perks: company housing, cars, food, business trips (read vacations), etc. that don't get reported as income.
Who gets that? I don't know anyone (aside from doctors) who get food and business-trips-as-vacations anymore (my business trips are to the deep south, where I don't think of as vacationland). Company cars should never be reported as income...they're leased and the depreciation is written off! Housing is typically temporary, and more often than not, those temporarily living in company housing have their own rents/mortgages to pay...I fit into that category. Are you suggesting that that stuff should be taxed as personal income anyway just because a few business owners use them to their advantage?
If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc
WTF are you talking about? Look at our budget! These things you mention...peanuts compared to social security (23% of the 2001 budget went to social security!). And let's not forget what the government is doing with that (I believe that the bureaucrats are eating that portion of your lunch, not the rich). Do you also buy in to the Democrat ideal that we shouldn't be able to invest some of that ourselves? (If so, maybe you should go frighten some old people into voting for you while you're at it).
the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money
You're talking percentage-wise. Yes, a lower income family will spend a greater portion of their income...but that, in no way, equals more money. If you think that everyone spends the same amount of money on living costs, etc regardless of income, you're just plain wrong. And let's not forget what investing does for the economy (sorry to rehash ColdFusion's point).
How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme.
You're right -- I don't make enough to qualify...but it doesn't blur my judgement enough that I'm out to spite everyone who makes more money than I do. First of all, I appreciate the opporitunity to propser -- it's one of the things that I really like about America. Secondly, I don't care much for socialism -- I don't believe that people should be penalized for financial success...it's bullshit.
Now who is buying whose crap -- and I'm afraid that that stink is not coming from my general direction. Tell you what. When you bust your ass for long enough that you're doing well -- you go pay more taxes. I'll hang on to my income.

--Turkey

--

-Turkey
Re:Majority by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-26 15:11 · Score: 1

If you liked that, check my journal. Feel free to post comments.

http://slashdot.org/~C0LDFusion/journal/25365

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Majority by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-02-26 17:05 · Score: 1

You've directed your fans to this comment, and disabled comments in your journal. I'll post here. Mods, have fun.

Grandparent post made you awful mad. This has lead you to use hyperbole where it doesn't belong. Some of grandparent's post was absolutely accurate.

His numbers were fine, given the context: Many people think they are in a higher income group than they actually are.
A decrease in payroll taxes would help the economy. This is a truism.

Keep in mind that much of corporate welfare is money that never enters the budget. You cannot count its size simply by adding up every subsidy. If corporate taxes are too high, lower them across the board. Corporate welfare is crony capitalism in the worst way. What were you saying about not punishing success?

And then you started in with Randian morality. I don't really want to get into a religious argument right now, so I'll just skip that. It seemed a nonsequitor (as did your stories about your dad), given Parsec's comment. Go after Squant0 with that, if you insist.

I agree that the double taxation on capital gains made no sense. The recent changes will lead to an improvement in the system. We will be better able to identify money lost to corporate welfare. Companies will be more likely to pay out profits and less likely to spend them badly. That said, I do not believe that it will help our economy immediately. Our economy's immediate problem is that of oversupply. If we already have too many widget factories, improving investor ROI doesn't mean we're going to build more factories. We need higher demand.

Parsec's point about payroll taxes makes sense, because higher demand could be achieved by putting cash in the hands of poor people. For the immediate future, trickle up economics might do the most good. He didn't say it was the most ethical, he was simply suggesting that it would be effective. You leap to conclusions about his morality.

Anyway. Yes, capital gains taxation was a bad plan. We need more responsible ways to generate tax revenue. No, I don't think that means a 20% sales tax.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Majority by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-26 21:00 · Score: 1

Sorry about the Journal mix-up. I thought I enabled it, but I suppose I should double-check it in the future.

Parsec's point about payroll taxes makes sense, because higher demand could be achieved by putting cash in the hands of poor people. For the immediate future, trickle up economics might do the most good. He didn't say it was the most ethical, he was simply suggesting that it would be effective. You leap to conclusions about his morality.

Unfortunately, the idea of giving poor people money is that you're rewarding a lack of success. If you tell people through your actions, "As long as you make bad decisions, we'll give you more money", they'll make worse decisions. For me, being in a situation where I struggled to pay bills was a learning experience. I learned that every ethical opportunity to get myself out of that situation should be used. And I'm entering the Air Force in September. The military is an example of an opportunity available to people. It's not for everyone, but for those out there who are willing to be disciplined and work hard in exchange for money and education, it can provide a springboard to a better future. And the great thing is that most positions in the military aren't combat-related. For example, I'm going in to be a weatherman.

Likewise, if you choose to continue down the same path that has given you little success, you shouldn't wish to tax those of us in the world who decided to aim for success.

Anyway. Yes, capital gains taxation was a bad plan. We need more responsible ways to generate tax revenue. No, I don't think that means a 20% sales tax.

Name a way that creates tax revenue without punishing success, that is fair on all levels of society, and doesn't piss off other countries (Tariffs). I challenge you.

I think my Sales Tax idea works best, because it doesn't tax money that would go for people to exist on, but rather money spent on things like 400W Amps, those expensive business perks that Parsec complained about, and expensive after-market car upgrades that annoy everyone (those headlights the create massive glare, annoying ricecar muffler noisemakers, and huge spoilers).

And the 20% wasn't the actual figure, it's just a number near reasonable.

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond, however. That's how GOOD ideas happen, is you take an "okay" idea, and you get people together to figure out how to make it better...rather than simply deciding to jack up taxes on the people who contribute the most to the economy.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Majority by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-02-27 02:51 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but I support a progressive tax plan. I do not feel that heavily taxing rich people discourages success. Your dad's story about getting a raise that amounted to a pay cut due to taxes doesn't make any sense. Perhaps I totally misunderstand the tax system, but the higher tax rate on higher income bracket earners is only paid on the income in that bracket. As far as I understand, your dad would only be paying higher taxes on the 5% raise. If that isn't the system, then the system is braindead. That does not invalidate the general goal of a progressive tax system.

I don't know any rich people saying, "Boy, it sure sucks to be rich." I also don't know any poor people saying, "Boy, I'd be rich, but they pay too much taxes. No money for me, thanks." Decreasing taxes does not amount to a reward. Decreasing payroll taxes will encourage no one to be poor.

Your argument might apply better to a discussion of social welfare. I, as a liberal, will be happy to begin discussing the removal of the social safety net after corporate welfare is long, long gone. Then it might make some sense to me. Right now, it only seems vindictive.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Majority by Parsec · 2003-02-27 05:35 · Score: 1

Blame Parsec.

You're welcome.

This one is fun as it's a multi-parter. [snip] There's no adjustment taken for a man who lives in DC in a $600/month Apartment (Living near DC, I can say that $600/month will barely get you a crappy apartment)

No shit, you got better data?

People with money invest it. [snip] goes straight into....THE STOCK MARKET! [snip] Invested money doesn't get taxed until it's pulled out, or until dividends are paid (and then they are taxed twice).

Yes, capital gains. They have made a profit on their investment, just as if they bought a new car from the factory and sold it at a markup (like a dealer). Anyone see any problem with that? Actually, given the EPS ratio of many stocks, they won't return your investment via dividend within your lifetime. Stock values now seem to be based on what the next sucker will pay for them, essentially a massive pyramid scheme. (See the dot bomb.)

Here's an economics lesson I learned while in my first few jobs in the real world. Except for one job at a commission joint, I never had a coworker tell me "Goddamn it, my taxes are too high. I'm not getting a return this year". These were all people making less than $30,000 a year, for the most part. Instead, they were saying "Ah, it's so cool to get all my tax money back this year." Why?! Oh, yeah, while money is withheld from the check (a holdover from WW2, it wasn't always this way), for those in the lowest percentage of earners, no taxes are actually paid as the money is returned (excepting Social Security and medicare).

A "tax break" is generally reserved for when you are PAYING money to the government, not getting it returned.

I probably shouldn't bring up the Earned Income Tax Credit (so I won't). The term "tax break" works either way. Whether it's income -( taxes -break ) or income -taxes +break, it works out the same (except that you could earn more on an investment over time by having more money up front.)

Here's something funny for you. Most of the oil we get doesn't come from our country drilling it, and we don't directly fund any oil drilling in other countries. We buy oil from other countries.

You little fool. How much military support do you think we give our Arab allies? Were we not right there when Saddam threatened Kuwait oil? We train, equip, or outright send troops to protect our oil supply. I don't see oil companies paying our goverment for the protection.

Before I want to hear any criticism from you, I want you to turn off ALL heat, ALL electricity (including computer), and walk EVERYWHERE you go for ONE WEEK. THEN, I want to hear you talk about how life is better without oil.

Unfortunately, Detroit Edison's plants are primarily fossil fuel based, but my heat is natural gas. I confess I don't know where the gas is collected. But, FYI, I commute by bicycle year round. The temperature, on my ride in to work yesterday, was -12C.

But wait! There's more! You'll complain about the costs of gas for your car!

Wow, you assume a lot. I don't complain about gas prices. European prices are easily twice that. We still have cheap gasoline even at $1.90/gallon. Own an SUV? Feeling the pinch?

But then again, you're against letting companies slide if they work their R&D towards something in the national interests. So, the gas prices increase while companies like BP and Honda continue their research into alternate fuel sources.

There you go assuming again. I think the government should fund R&D towards those thing. Actually, I think our government should be spending 1000 times current levels on alternative/renewable fuel sources, and fuel conservation technologies. But pouring a ton of money into research with no oversight is a good way to fund inefficiency and fraud. We need to work out a good way to convert capitalist spendthrift/oversight practices (ensuring employees don't rip you off) to government programs. This is a huge obstacle to overcome.

But wait, you want the alternate fuels NOW and no more oil! And you blame the government...but then again, you're against the government giving grants to researchers who have made your life more easy than it would've been.

No, I blame idiots like you... see previous.

What the fuck do you think helped make that computer affordable and simple to use? Oh, yeah, it was government grants given to companies like Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and Intel.

I wouldn't include Microsoft and simple in the same breath.

My stepfather is a doctor. He works hard for what is very little pay considering the circumstances (10-hour days and 24-hour on call. Imagine if your boss could call you at 2am, tell you to come in...and if you make a mistake because you're tired, you get sued), and he does it for the government to provide healthcare for people with developmental disabilities. Next-to-free care, I might add. (They ask the parents of the people for money, but if the guys have no parents, there's no charge). Of course, you think he's evil, because he is technically "rich" (even though the debts incurred while moving to the new hospital and from a previous marriage (doctors have the highest divorce and suicide rate of any profession, BTW).

No shit, I know how hard doctors work. Hopefully the continuity of care issue will be relieved with better information technology and doctors and nurses will get a huge cut in their hours. They deserve it. I don't begrudge them their income in the least, but answer me this: how much time does your stepfather have to enjoy his pay? What is his motivation for continuing his profession, it can't be quality of life?

IF YOU PUNISH THOSE WHO SUCCEED AND REWARD THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED, YOU CREATE A SOCIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT SUCCEED

Tired old argument. Reasonable people don't wish to punish success gained from honest, hard work. Reasonable people want to create opportunity for those with few advantages. That includes better education (are you arguing that the poor should pay for their own education), enough money to live and have time to go to school (not working two jobs), etc., etc..

My father [snip] If he were to be offered a Raise of 5% [snip], he'd have to turn it down, because the raise would put him in a higher tax bracket, and would effectively make his raise turn into a salary cut. Isn't that sad? That a man would have to turn down money that could go towards his retirement after 20 years of service to his country and after saving money for the state and the people who need healthcare,

He'd probably be shooting himself in the foot due to that, because the next time raises come around it probably won't put him into the next higher bracket. So, 5% puts you into the next higher bracket and you effectively get a 2% cut due to taxes, then another 5% does not put him in a higher bracket, he'll have lost out in the end. Granted time between raises would have to be taken into consideration, it's really not so simple. He may also be able to offset the increased taxes with various investments. I hate it when people argue black and white on complex issues.

all because you think he's evil?

Another stupid assumption.

You sir, are a cad, if you think that working hard and making yourself into a success is evil. You have no morality, if you think that my little sister (Age 2) should grow up in a house of uncertainty because of your communist avarice. And you sir, are an asshole, if you want to take my future from me, as I myself plan on joining the Air Force to make something of myself and hopefully make my way to the top 10%. You sir, are a grassfucker, if you want to pull everyone else down, just because it's too much work to pick yourself up.

Run out of rational arguments, so you have to resort to insults? My employer gets their money's worth out of me and I feel adequately compensated. My goal at work is always to eliminate my position via increased automation, there is more than enough work to do in other positions (believe me, I get requests). How fair is that to the employer? Does that adequately counter my argument of wanting to pull everyone else down because I'm lazy? You could always disagree with me, but you would also be disagreeing with my employer.

I honestly am not impressed with the intelligence you have failed to show. Please, please, please start asking questions and stop making assumptions. Until you start thinking for yourself, you are someone else's chump.

Apologies to everyone for poor grammar/spelling/incomplete ideas. I'm in an Oracle performance tuning class at the moment and my attention/time is limited.
Re:Majority by Parsec · 2003-02-27 06:02 · Score: 1

although unlike some -- I don't take up liberal causes because its the liberal thing to do

Sounds like an accusation. A very incorrect one, also.

the Bush administration is pulling the Democrat tax and spend crap

This did not come as a surprise to me.

ColdFusion's reaming

"reaming"? More like illogical arguments, assumptions, and blind insults.

those temporarily living in company housing have their own rents/mortgages to pay...I fit into that category. Are you suggesting that that stuff should be taxed as personal income anyway just because a few business owners use them to their advantage?

Wow, you are thinking small. I'm not referring to anyone earning as little as you.

If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc WTF are you talking about? Look at our budget! These things you mention...peanuts compared to social security (23% of the 2001 budget went to social security! [gpo.gov]). And let's not forget what the government is doing with that (I believe that the bureaucrats are eating that portion of your lunch, not the rich). Do you also buy in to the Democrat ideal that we shouldn't be able to invest some of that ourselves? (If so, maybe you should go frighten some old people into voting for you while you're at it).

{sniff} you actually looked it up... I'm so proud. Yeah, it was a flimsy argument by the numbers, but as I pointed out in my rebuttal of "ColdFusion"'s rant, we spend a lot of money supporting our oil addiction. Maybe I didn't make that point all that well. Anyway, think about it.

the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money You're talking percentage-wise.

duh

Yes, a lower income family will spend a greater portion of their income...but that, in no way, equals more money. If you think that everyone spends the same amount of money on living costs, etc regardless of income, you're just plain wrong.

Of couse not everyone spends as much on cost of living. But there is a little difference between barely scaping by and barely making payments on five houses.

And let's not forget what investing does for the economy (sorry to rehash ColdFusion's point).

Investing in what? Does the corporate executive practice of diluting stock value by issuing massive stock options help? Once a company's stock is sold, can it generate any more revenue for the company (unless you dilute value by issuing more shares). Unless investment is made in specific areas, it may not benefit the economy. You're arguing black and white on a complex issue. Making a fool of yourself, imnsho.

How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme. You're right -- I don't make enough to qualify...but it doesn't blur my judgement enough that I'm out to spite everyone who makes more money than I do. First of all, I appreciate the opporitunity to propser -- it's one of the things that I really like about America. Secondly, I don't care much for socialism -- I don't believe that people should be penalized for financial success...it's bullshit.

That wasn't my point. It was that you should weigh the arguments of those with more to gain if you are not in position to gain as well. You wouldn't buy a car because the salesman told you it would pay for his tropical vacation, would you? Of course, in the political realm, they (obviously) aren't quite so honest as that example.

Now who is buying whose crap

See above

When you bust your ass for long enough that you're doing well -- you go pay more taxes.

I'm not afraid to help others. Though I am upset when the government wastes my hard earned money. We all need to pay much more attention to what they're doing with our taxes.

Bah, end of argument, I've wasted enough time on this.
Re:Majority by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-27 08:56 · Score: 1

As far as I understand, your dad would only be paying higher taxes on the 5% raise. If that isn't the system, then the system is braindead. That does not invalidate the general goal of a progressive tax system.

Nope, while that may have been the intent of the people who first implemented it, once you have a raise that bumps you into the next tax bracket up, all of your income becomes taxed at that rate. So a "small" raise effectively becomes a pay cut.

I don't know any rich people saying, "Boy, it sure sucks to be rich." I also don't know any poor people saying, "Boy, I'd be rich, but they pay too much taxes. No money for me, thanks." Decreasing taxes does not amount to a reward. Decreasing payroll taxes will encourage no one to be poor.

Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.

I, as a liberal, will be happy to begin discussing the removal of the social safety net after corporate welfare is long, long gone.

I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.

"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.

I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion. Here's a list of things I support:

1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.
2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.

3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Majority by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-27 09:30 · Score: 1

No shit, you got better data?

Real world apartment hunting is the best data.

Yes, capital gains. They have made a profit on their investment, just as if they bought a new car from the factory and sold it at a markup (like a dealer).

Except their profit through the act of investing helped the economy as a whole. Companies and investors don't exist in a vaccuum. When a company in a certain sector comes out with good news, many companies in that sector do fairly good. People buy on the expectation of plenty.

Actually, given the EPS ratio of many stocks, they won't return your investment via dividend within your lifetime.

SOMEONE is getting dividends out there, because there are so many people out there wanting to keep taxes on them. If noone was getting taxed on their dividends, noone would care if the taxes on them were removed.

I probably shouldn't bring up the Earned Income Tax Credit (so I won't). The term "tax break" works either way. Whether it's income -( taxes -break ) or income -taxes +break, it works out the same (except that you could earn more on an investment over time by having more money up front.)

So if someone is paying no taxes (taxes=0%), and you lower taxes for them, then you're talking about socialism. You're giving people money that is taken from others. Do you feel good from stolen money? I couldn't.

You little fool. How much military support do you think we give our Arab allies? Were we not right there when Saddam threatened Kuwait oil? We train, equip, or outright send troops to protect our oil supply. I don't see oil companies paying our goverment for the protection.

What was it you said at the end about running out of logic and resorting to insults? We also protect our allies in the balkans, our Allies in Germany, Japan, Korea...just to name a few. Just because you're hearing about something right now in the middle east, due to tensions in the region, doesn't mean that our military bases in all those countries just suddenly disappear. They are still there. They haven't been evacuated to protect oil fields. They're still crewed and operating at full capacity.

Unfortunately, Detroit Edison's plants are primarily fossil fuel based, but my heat is natural gas. I confess I don't know where the gas is collected. But, FYI, I commute by bicycle year round. The temperature, on my ride in to work yesterday, was -12C.

The heat itself comes from the natural gas, but the distribution system is powered by electricity from Detroid Ed.

We still have cheap gasoline even at $1.90/gallon. Own an SUV? Feeling the pinch?

If you're at Sam's club and you buy in large amounts, you get a discount as compared to your friend buying at a local grocery store. Likewise, if our country buys in large amounts, we get a bulk discount. That's why we expect lower prices. I actually own a Honda Accord. High mileage, low emissions. What do you drive?

I think the government should fund R&D towards those thing. Actually, I think our government should be spending 1000 times current levels on alternative/renewable fuel sources, and fuel conservation technologies. But pouring a ton of money into research with no oversight is a good way to fund inefficiency and fraud.

And that's why we should put it into the private sector, given the US Government's 200-year-old history of inefficiency and fraud. I mean, the government. The same people who brought you no moon landings since the 70's, the same people who promised we'd have colonies in space. The same people who brought you Challenger and Columbia (These space shuttles were declared obsolete in the late 80's by Richard P. Feynman, who said that the equipment on the shuttles were so obsolete that the companies the government used didn't even make it anymore...that was in the 80's). The same government that sent up a multi-million dollar space probe, that they botched because they didn't convert metrics. Yeah, I want these people developing the technology for my car.

Reasonable people don't wish to punish success gained from honest, hard work. Reasonable people want to create opportunity for those with few advantages.

I'd have to say you are not reasonable, seeing as your original post seemed highly vindictive against people who do well. In addition you begrudge the military, an excellent source of employment, housing, job training, and education ($100 a month for 12 months buys you a damn nice education, and it's not that much when they're feeding, clothing, and housing you with starting pay of over $1000 a month).

I'm in an Oracle performance tuning class at the moment

You must have no concept of how rich you're going to be after you become extremely proficient at Oracle, because your taxation idea will directly be targeting the group that you will most likely join...unless you plan to never take raises or jobs that pay better.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:Majority by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-02-27 10:51 · Score: 1

Boy, this is frustrating. Not because of your comment, but because of the other respondent. I hate having idiots agree with me. Don't let it fool you. My points are not derived from idiocy.

A progressive tax scheme need not discourage higher incomes. Every single time I have heard our current tax plan explained to me, it has been entirely different from what you describe: In an old, lower paying job, when I worked overtime some weeks, it put me in a higher tax bracket for that week. My payroll deductions went up. I get the difference back, because overall I was not in that higher bracket.

However. My overtime paychecks were still higher. If my entire income were taxed at the higher rate, then those overtime paychecks would have been lower than my usual paychecks.

Sure, the reward that I get for working harder/longer is smaller than the reward I get for showing up at all. I am still rewarded. Working harder remains better for me.

I would submit that no liberal (Parsec, Squant0 included) has ever suggested that someone paid more by their company should receive a smaller post-tax income than someone paid less. Given that this is the case, your example for Kobe Bryant makes absolutely no sense.

I feel that a progressive tax scheme is fair. When I was poor, I was able to afford to take care of myself due to low taxes. While I remain rich, I will expect to pay higher taxes, and still be able to afford to take care of myself. In that regard, everyone is treated equally.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Majority by Parsec · 2003-02-27 12:41 · Score: 1

Real world apartment hunting is the best data.

I fail to see how that relates to the use of AGI as a dataset.

SOMEONE is getting dividends out there, because there are so many people out there wanting to keep taxes on them. If noone was getting taxed on their dividends, noone would care if the taxes on them were removed.

I didn't say there weren't good investments based solely on dividends.

What was it you said at the end about running out of logic and resorting to insults?
There is a difference between calling someone a fool and calling someone a "grassfucker".

We also protect our allies in the balkans, our Allies in Germany, Japan, Korea...just to name a few. Just because you're hearing about something right now in the middle east, due to tensions in the region, doesn't mean that our military bases in all those countries just suddenly disappear. They are still there. They haven't been evacuated to protect oil fields. They're still crewed and operating at full capacity.

What we spend in the balkans, etc., does not change what we spend in the mid-east. They can be considered separate. An economy relying on any resource outside its borders will require military force.

The heat itself comes from the natural gas, but the distribution system is powered by electricity from Detroid Ed.

Probably, do you have a reference for that? The natural gas distribution points may also generate their own electricity, simply to eliminate an electrical grid point of failure.

If you're at Sam's club and you buy in large amounts, you get a discount as compared to your friend buying at a local grocery store. Likewise, if our country buys in large amounts, we get a bulk discount. That's why we expect lower prices. I actually own a Honda Accord. High mileage, low emissions. What do you drive?

"In the United Kingdom, the gasoline tax amounts to 76.8 percent of the retail price of gasoline. Gasoline taxes in the U.S. represent only 24.1 percent of the pump price." It's not all the effect of buying in volume.

Depends on the weather, on the few occasions I drive, it's either a Chevy getting about 25mpg (city), or a motorcycle (even grocery shopping) which gets about 40mpg (city). Again, most days I commute by bicycle (drive to work maybe 5 days a year). The commute could be a bit longer, more exercise would be good for me. Oh, and it's a Giant Rincon. (A good bike, < $100 maintenance in 4 years.)

And that's why we should put it into the private sector, given the US Government's 200-year-old history of inefficiency and fraud.

The private sector is no angel as well. Which is why I implied there was much work to be done in government accountability.

Yeah, I want these people developing the technology for my car.

And it was the auto industry who claimed that seatbelts would destroy their profits.

I'd have to say you are not reasonable, seeing as your original post seemed highly vindictive against people who do well.

"seemed" being the key word. I have nothing against those who do well via honest and hard work. On the other hand, executives who erode their company's value for personal profit are not people you can trust.

In addition you begrudge the military, an excellent source of employment, housing, job training, and education ($100 a month for 12 months buys you a damn nice education, and it's not that much when they're feeding, clothing, and housing you with starting pay of over $1000 a month).

Are you going into the Air Force as an officer or grunt? Have you spoken with others in the Air Force (besides the recruiting officer)? (Just curious.)

And, since you accused me of begrudging the military, my hope is that someday we won't need them. I am deeply grateful for those who have died in the name of freedom. Join up knowing that I will do my best to not send you into harms way needlessly or for an unjust purpose.

You must have no concept of how rich you're going to be after you become extremely proficient at Oracle, because your taxation idea will directly be targeting the group that you will most likely join...unless you plan to never take raises or jobs that pay better.

I work for what is sometimes a socially responsible organization. Sometimes our ideas clash over what aspects of their mission should be, but overall it's a good match. So, no, I don't plan to take higher paying jobs in the for-profit sector. As for raises, this probably won't make much difference. I am putting my income where my mouth is, so-to-speak, and by choice. Anyway, a commercial dba position isn't what I would call rich.

{sigh}
Re:Majority by j-turkey · 2003-02-27 14:21 · Score: 1

Bah, end of argument, I've wasted enough time on this.

Then why the hell did you start in on me in the first place? You did start in on me -- remember?

I'm not afraid to help others. Though I am upset when the government wastes my hard earned money. We all need to pay much more attention to what they're doing with our taxes
Now here is where we're in total agreement. I feel that we'll split on how to handle this -- I tend to lean towards the Libertarian stance. I feel that the politicians are exactly that, politicians...no matter how wenn intentioned they may seem, they will always fuck us up. They have no business dictating how we live as long as we're not hurting anyone else. Freedom, freedom, freedom, stop wasting my hard-earned dollars on failed social programs and pork -- and leave me the fuck alone!
You wouldn't buy a car because the salesman told you it would pay for his tropical vacation, would you?
Actually, I might actually bite on some honesty for a change. I won't even start in on how car dealerships are a state-maintained monopoly...but it's not like we don't know that they're working on commission -- and when I buy a car from a dealer, it does pay for their tropical vacation. Do you know who buys more yachts than anyone else? Car dealers...but I digress.
Investing in what? Does the corporate executive practice of diluting stock value by issuing massive stock options help? Once a company's stock is sold, can it generate any more revenue for the company (unless you dilute value by issuing more shares).
Well -- first of all, investing decreases reliance on social security, which is a Good Thing, since I don't expect to ever see a dime that I put into that "trust fund". As for stock options -- this gives some equity to the people working at the company, and can greatly increase overall productivity. And as far as diluting value goes, I believe that you're oversimplifing...issuing more shares doesn't necessarily dilute the value if the market perceives a higher value...everybody can win. But you're right -- this is not a black and white issue -- my intention was not to portray that.
In any case, your arguments give me the impression that you were just trolling, and/or just wanted to spew some quasi-socialist ideals at me, so I'll stop here...

--Turkey

--

-Turkey

Re:This law applies to everyone by RevAaron · 2003-02-25 06:20 · Score: 1

While I managed to figure out that the submitter was being sarcastic, it wasn't entirely clear. Considering the people of the US are being told by our 'elected' representitives that these laws are just for terrorists, plenty of folks are reading this submission and missing the poor attempt at sarcasm.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad

Next to be classified as Terrorist Organizations.. by dpilot · 2003-02-25 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

The American Civil Liberties Union
The Free Software Foundation

Yet another scary aspect to this... Imagine that some organization that you've long felt to be a worthy charity suddenly becomes reclassified as a "Terrorist Organization." This may happen two ways, either it really was, and you weren't aware, or it really isn't, but it's politically expedient for it to be reclassified as such. In either case, you can get stripped of your citizenship and put in a dog kennel on Cuba.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:This law applies to everyone by macdaddy357 · 2003-02-25 06:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Here is a list of books you better never buy, or check out of a library. After all, you aren't a terrorist, are you?

--
How ya like dat?

Umm... I'm confused by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 06:24 · Score: 1

If the Americans start taking away people's citizenships right, left and center.

And they only have an American citizenship. Where do they go?

I am guessing Canada is going to see a lot of refugees soon.

--
~ kjrose

Re:Umm... I'm confused by RevAaron · 2003-02-25 06:33 · Score: 1

Including me, perhaps. I'm hoping to go to grad school in Canada to escape this tomfoolery!

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Umm... I'm confused by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, here's some quick tips for the americans who want to go to canada to "escape this tomfoolery". If you are a Canadian and know more, feel free to add/modify this list:

if you want to take
Mathematics or Computer Science:
University of Waterloo

Biology:
University of Alberta
McGill University

Astronomy, Astrophysics:
University of Calgary

Engineering:
University of Toronto

Music:
York University
University of BC

Fine Arts:
University of BC

Law, Political Science, Etc:
Carleton University
McGill University
University de Quebec

French:
Laval University

--
~ kjrose
Re:Umm... I'm confused by LordNimon · 2003-02-25 06:41 · Score: 1

You mean like these people?

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:Umm... I'm confused by Bookwyrm · 2003-02-25 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

The bigger question is, how do you appeal?

Suppose they remove your US citizenship. How do you get a lawyer to represent you? Can you even be represented in a US court? Do they purge your social security number/tax ID? If so, what happens to your bank accounts and property?

Suppose somehow you convince them that it was a mistake -- how do you get your citizenship *back*? What if took months to accomplish and records were purged by various institutions. Do you get your old social security number back, do you get a new one? How would one recover for that?

This is probably the most scary thing here. If they can arbitrarily declare someone a non-citizen and shutdown that person's access to bank accounts (frozen for investigation), work (no longer a US citizen eligible for work), property (siezed for investigation), transportation (no drivers' license -- not a US citizen), and legal representation (good luck finding some without work, money, a car, or a house), what can one do to protest that after the fact? Even if you managed to successfully get your citizenship back, by then, your government confiscated property might have been sold to someone else (nice potential scam for someone there.)
Re:Umm... I'm confused by RevAaron · 2003-02-25 07:23 · Score: 1

Wow, thanks! If you or anyone else know a good school in Canada for ecology (esp computational or mathematical ecology), that's what I'm wanting to do. :)

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Umm... I'm confused by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 07:30 · Score: 1

University of Waterloo just built a new

Center for Environmental and Information Technology building.

Sounds like exactly what you want to do.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/

Not sure about other universities and ecology, a lot of the prarie universities (Univ of Alberta, Univ of Calgary, Univ of Regina) have great agriculture programs, but I am not sure about ecology.

--
~ kjrose
Re:Umm... I'm confused by Tackhead · 2003-02-25 08:43 · Score: 3, Informative

> Suppose they remove your US citizenship. How do you get a lawyer to represent you? Can you even be represented in a US court? Do they purge your social security number/tax ID? If so, what happens to your bank accounts and property?
*blink*
Wow, you mean non-US-citizens in the US can't be represented in US courts of law? That is, US courts have no jurisdiction over them? Non-US-citizens in the US have no SSNs nor tax IDs, and are therefore not subject to US taxation?
Wow, that sounds like more fun than diplomatic immunity! What country treats non-citizens this way, and where can I sign up? :-)
Seriously - take a look at the law before you spout. Noncitizens can be represented in court by lawyers, just as citizens can be. Noncitizens have SSNs and pay taxes, just like citizens do. Noncitizens can open bank accounts and hold property, just like citizens do.
As to how you get citizenship back, well, that would have been up to INS, which has since been reorganized under HomeSec. So no, if you renounce your citizenship (or have it renounced for you), the bad news is that you won't be able to get it back for at least 8-10 years...
...but the good news is that's probably twice as fast as it takes INS to grant citizenship to anyone :-)
Re:Umm... I'm confused by JonMartin · 2003-02-25 10:36 · Score: 1

For Computing Science I am obligated to plug my employer at the University of Alberta. It's actually a pretty good CS program (we are sort of rivals with Waterloo).
As a bonus, the undergraduate student group has been Slashdotted twice in the past three months (modded paper shredder and Valentine's Day form letter). I'm one of the admins for the undergrad labs, and yes our web server coped just fine thank you very much.

--
Serve Gonk.
Re:Umm... I'm confused by AllMightyPaul · 2003-02-25 14:51 · Score: 1

For those of us who picked up an actual print copy of the NY Times, we saw an article on the top fold of the front page about how Canada is turning away "refugees" seeking "political asylum" left and right.
Re:Umm... I'm confused by bofkentucky · 2003-02-25 15:44 · Score: 1

Really. Far better to have no rights and 75% of your wealth confiscated, than to have to avoid terrorists and only have 50% of your wealth confiscated. Fucktard. So much promise and then you had to ruin it with the fucktard, you have potential, tone it down a little and get an account, we'd be glad to have a free thinker join the anti-liberal front here at slashdot.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0

Re:This law applies to everyone by Eivind · 2003-02-25 06:35 · Score: 1

Yeah. You're rigth. But the editor who wrote that knew it. Please go look up the words "irony" and "sarcasm" in a convenient dictionary.

ALCU? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny

"The ALCU has a press release...

or possibly the ACLU. I'll check back in two days when this story is reposted just to be sure.

Re:This law applies to everyone by schmaltz · 2003-02-25 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, everybody, okay!! :-) Too much coffee I guess.

Irony kinda went out the window after 9/11, and sarcasm too. Ashcroft has actually threatened members of Congress and the press with prosecution under USA PATRIOT if they spoke against it. If that's not fascism, I don't know what is.

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?

Re:This law applies to everyone by bofkentucky · 2003-02-25 06:50 · Score: 1

Ummm, I seem to remember the Klintonista regime not being the most forthcoming (or truthful) when they were under investigation (Destruction of evidence, tampering with evidence, perjury), with honest to God subpeonas and warrants. Yes the patriot act and patII are oversteping the constitutional bounds on Executive branch power, but call a spade a spade.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0

Comments by MrWa · 2003-02-25 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I would comment on this but I live in the U.S. so I better not.

Re:This law applies to everyone by schmaltz · 2003-02-25 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is little disagreement Clinton became a slimey toad when he evaded the law over the Lweinsky/Jones affairs. He got impeached for his efforts, and one should hope that would satisfy his opponents, who originally were sniffing around the Whitewater deal.

The substance of Whitewater accusations and conspiracy, however, is virtually void next to what people have been accusing Bush & company of. And not without merit, as the ramifications of Bush's work are (or will be) manifold.

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?

Re:This law applies to everyone by GMontag · 2003-02-25 07:18 · Score: 1

Well, don't forget the Clinton launching of more cruise missiles at Iraq than GHWB used in the first gulf war, beginning on the first day of his trial and ending on the last. But none of this appears to be your real issue.

What exactly are you fishing for on GWB? If you are going to dredge up first reports (or reports on first reports, referring to first reports, etc) related to Enron you might really wish to look at some of the newer, accurate, information.

Oh yes, don't forget, on the Enron business it was Democrats, recently out of office, that were contacted by Enron that attempted to influence the Bush crew and the Bush crew politely told them "no".

Perhaps you are reading democraticunderground.com too much?

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL

Re:This law applies to everyone by bofkentucky · 2003-02-25 07:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I call a State Governor giving shady land deals to people who let his wife cheat at the cattle futures market the beginings of some serious wrong-doing. I could care less who Clinton was/is banging on the side, but I do care about him lying about it under oath while being investigated for more serious offenses.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0

Re:This law applies to everyone by schmaltz · 2003-02-25 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Except the allegations about the land deals were never proven. Do you feel the same way about the plum deals GWB was given? Somehow I don't think so.

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?

Re:This law applies to everyone by user555 · 2003-02-25 07:55 · Score: 1

You scared me for a second.

I guess I should have realized the real whitehouse site was whitehouse.gov

Re:This law applies to everyone by j-turkey · 2003-02-25 08:13 · Score: 1

Ashcroft has actually threatened members of Congress and the press with prosecution under USA PATRIOT if they spoke against it.

Holy smokes! Where did you read that? Please post a link.

--Turkey

--

-Turkey

Re:This law applies to everyone by macdaddy357 · 2003-02-25 08:17 · Score: 1

What to both Bushes, and Clinton have in common? All are members of The Brotherhood of Death, AKA The Skull and Bones Society. An evil secret society obsessed with power. All these Clinton vs. Bush flame wars are pointless. They are two sides of the same coin.

--
How ya like dat?

We should ALL be concerned!!! by mildness · 2003-02-25 08:37 · Score: 1

"Obviously, you should only be concerned about losing your liberties if you're a terrorist (or similar dissident)."

Please God man, tell me you are not that naive!

Me, I'm scared to death of OUR government.

Break open your wallet kids and give to the ACLU. They are our only hope.

Bill

--
bamph

The real threat is not GWB, but the future by rpresser · 2003-02-25 09:08 · Score: 1, Troll

I am not really worried about GWB, Ashcroft & Co. I happen to think that they are honchos with a hardon for Saddam, and I hesitate to think of what might happen with the three of them in a dark room together ... but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.

The danger is setting a precedent. What if the next administration, or even an administration 50 years from now, is led by people as paranoid as Norman Bates? It's right there in the law, they can declare any group that opposes them to be a terrorist group and start the secret arrests.

Think about it, all you Rabid Republicans. Would you want Bill Clinton's administration to have the powers that you are so willing to give GWB? Or worse yet (gasp!) HILLARY CLINTON? She very well might run in 4 or 8 or even 16 years...

Re:The real threat is not GWB, but the future by torndorff · 2003-02-25 09:33 · Score: 1

> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle. How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this... 1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given. 2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government) 3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war. 4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations. By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would. Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should. And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that. At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?

Sorry, I didn't preview... by torndorff · 2003-02-25 09:37 · Score: 1

[ugh... sorry. last post was HTML formatted]

> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.

How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this...

1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given.
2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government)
3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war.
4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations.

By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would.

Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should.

And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that.

At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?

Re:This law applies to everyone by togofspookware · 2003-02-25 09:50 · Score: 1

LOL!

Yeah. Me too :-)

--
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-25 11:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Easier ways by Black+Rabbit · 2003-02-25 12:03 · Score: 1

>> * learn a smattering of some creole half-french language, move to Montreal or Quebec, and claim to be culturally oppressed. This is the hardest because you have to learn at least 3 french words, but it may be the only way to get in and get on the dole if you are a war criminal or genocidist.

>> If you don't speak perfect "Quebecois" french, the Quebeckers will fucking kill you.

Fortunately, Quebecois is so riddled with Americanisms, thanks to commercial TV, that this is no longer difficult. I was posted there for three years, and IMHO, Quebecois society has far more to fear from creeming Americanism than from anything the Rest of Canada can muster up.

Re:This law applies to everyone by baldass_newbie · 2003-02-25 13:31 · Score: 1

Except the allegations about the land deals were never proven.

Are you kidding? How many people went to prison for this? Just because the witness who would implicate the President died before he testified does not mean that the allegations were never proven.

In court, maybe, but not in the real world.

You don't think OJ is innocent, too, do you?

--
The opposite of progress is congress

Re:This law applies to everyone by Dyolf+Knip · 2003-02-25 14:21 · Score: 1

I have absofuckinglutely got to get out of this country as fast as is humanly possible.

--
Dyolf Knip

Why I joined ACLU by Garry+Anderson · 2003-02-25 21:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.

In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.

For those that have not read my previous postings on this matter:

Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.

The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?

Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?

No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?

They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.

Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?

Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.

Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?

Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).

It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.

Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

The government will be watching all you do.

You will be good people now - won't you?

Or else!

I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-26 05:25 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-26 05:28 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What a load of crap... by composer777 · 2003-02-27 09:25 · Score: 1

Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.

You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.

I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.

Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?

"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.

You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?

I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion.

I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support. Smith promoted something called the labor theory of value. Smith believed that people should only be rewarded for their labor, and that profit should represent the increased value of their labor over the raw materials of a product. He never would have approved of people making a million dollars a year to sit in a leather chair and direct a company. Smith viewed businesses and corporations as market imperfections. In fact, any institution containing more than one person was viewed as a market imperfection. The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition. However, he accepted that slight imperfections were ok. He NEVER would have approved of what we have today. Nor would he have approved of the fact that we allowed business to organize in groups, but not labor, thus tilting the balance of competition in favor of businesses. We have progressive taxes to correct these problems.

Here's a list of things I support:

1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.

Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low. The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't. Examples include the dotcom boom, any of the wartime booms we've had, as well as increases in minimum wage.

2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.

This is complete bullshit, and if you're wondering where the title came from, it's to this statement. From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative. The reason that there is so much anti-government propaganda is because the US government has one crucial flaw, it has the potential to become democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies, which is why the mistakes of corporations are only pointed out when they become an absolute disaster, such as what happened with Enron. Those who have the majority of control don't want you to like government. They want you to destroy it, so that they can run the show. They want you to blame your standard of living on taxes, not on the fact that corporations have succeeded in flooding the labor market with NAFTA, and now the balance of competition will allow them to completely dominate labor.

3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.

So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company? How is that going to fix anything? What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable. Is that what you want? It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.

Re:What a load of crap... by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-27 11:06 · Score: 1

You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.

Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.

Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?

Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses. Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on. What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.

You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?

According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.

I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support.

You assume I 100% support a man whose theories have been revised and improved. In addition, I don't 100% support one single persons opinions. I'm a hodgepodge of opinions and I overall support libertarianism.

The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.

And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.

Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.

How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?

The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.

Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.

From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.

Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government. Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe.
Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm...
Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.
Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes.
I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.

such as what happened with Enron.

Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.

So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company?

I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.

What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.

Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.

It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.

You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty? You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?

Drop the newspeak. Or should I say "Jump your cuejuncts for masshappy?"

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:What a load of crap... by composer777 · 2003-02-27 12:12 · Score: 1

Or, you're rewarding intellegent decisions. No matter what you feel about Bill Gates personally, you have to admit that he made good decisions.

There are plenty of people that make intelligent decisions that do not do nearly as well as Bill Gates. You are rewarding someone who was wealthy enough to drop out of Harvard in a cavalier manner and get funding for his own business from his father. That's smart decision making? Hmmm..

Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?

Here's why: Companies who are running low on cash do this thing called a layoff. Micron, for example did a layoff locally because of crushing profit losses.

I see, so we pay the extortion fee to corporations so that they will be kind enough to not less us starve to death? I guess that's "freedom"..

How about just create a working welfare system with a decent safety net? And pay for it by taxing the shit out of corporations.

Lots of engineers and trained chipmakers are now out of a job. Another reason is that when you tax a company, you aren't taxing the company itself. No company just "takes a hit" and goes on.

That's the problem, corporations are self centered and greedy by their very nature. They will take and take, and when they are done, toss people out like refuse. They are tools of the wealthy, who can do this anonymously and move on when they are finished. We don't allow slavery, but buying groups of people apparently is ok.

What you are saying is that states need to appease corporations so that they will be kind enough to keep us employed. Yes, well, you apparently understand the goal of NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be expressing the appropriate indignation.

What happens when you increase taxes on a company, is that they begin passing it on to consumers and begin decreasing pay raises. It's a standard economic concept known as "indirect taxation". The company that the tax is levied to doesn't REALLY pay the tax, it merely acts as an agent for collecting taxes for the government.

The problem you are describing (passing costs onto customers) is due to lack of competition. You fix the problem by increasing competition, not by giving into their demands in a limp-wristed way. Then, the costs get passed on to those who own the corporations, because they won't be able to AFFORD to pass the costs on to the custoerm. Unless you beleive that corporations that pay $400 million to a CEO are so "cut-throat" that they can't afford to pay their taxes.

Yes, they do pass taxes onto people, but it also eats into their profits, which disproportionately go to support the rich. Lowering their taxes is a regressive tax. By not taxing corporations, you are letting the owners, who are more than likely rich, get away with paying less than their fair share of taxes.

You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?

According to your theory, 401k's should be abolished, as a form of economic welfare, because it encourages those lazy retirees from hard work. Once you've worked hard, invested in the right things and done a good job, you should be allowed to sit back and allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labors. According to your theory, people who profit off real estate (whether professionally, or a homeowner who bought a $100,000 house in a neighborhood that grows and sells it at $200,000 when he/she moves out) are deserving of punishment.

I wouldn't say deserving of punishment, just not deserving of profits. And, as we've seen with companies like Enron, 401k's are a horrible way to fund retirement. They require on a strong economy and have no safety net. They also force retirement funds into corporate hands.

The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition.

And that's why Adam Smith got bitched by Game Theory.

How so?

Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low.

How does taking money from your employer help you keep your job?

If one wants to make more money, and other people have it, then you need to keep your business open. If one has all the money they need, and no way of making more, then they close up shop. If one cannot make a product cheep enough for it to be worth selling to an impoverished nation, then he merely closes up shop and hires a few hungry servants to take care of his needs. This is what happens in the third world. It's call economic stagnation.

The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't.

Or in periods of high demand on multiple levels. I mean, if you're pro-communism, that's cool. Just say it from the start.

High demand means that people actually have money to spend, thus proving my point. There is almsot always high, albeit artificial, demand. If you don't believe me, look at all the people that willingly go into credit card debt. You really need to go to the census beaureau's website to get an idea of how lopsided things are. The top 1% owns 40% of the assets. How much more concentrated can things get before eventually things slow to a crawl?

From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative.

Highways? Highways are done by states, not federal government.

Highways are paid for by the Federal Government.

Interstate is federal, but still requires state support to keep people safe.
Telephone networks? So...telephone was invented by government...not Alexander Graham Bell? And AT&T...had nothing...to do with it. Hmm...
Computers, I'll grant you that, but the Government at most, gave grants to companies who helped get them from the lab to your desktop.

Right, they gave grants to corporations, who haven't paid back a dime to the American people.

Internet started as ARPAnet, which conceptually is the original model, but the people who actually built the internet are the people who were on BBSes.
I saved the Space Program for last because just about every promise the Space Program has made in relation to NORMAL people in space has been broken. Did you know that the whole bullshit about only "highly trained pilots" and the "best of the best" going into space is bullshit? The space shuttle is computer controlled mostly from takeoff to landing, except a couple of button presses. For more details, read some books by Richard Feynman, the man credited for figuring out the cause of the Challenger. The only people going up are handpicked pilots and scientists...and those rich people you guys hate so much.

such as what happened with Enron.

Enron was brought to you by a coalition of republicans and democrats who decided that "as long as it all looks good, we're cool with it." Enron is an example of why the status quo isn't working. The status quo is that government regulates those who don't make large donations to republicans and democrats.

Right, the status quo isn't working, and it's corporations that are doing it, not the government. Corporations are greedy by their very nature.

I do, because I've found that I can threaten an insurance company into action alot better than I can threaten the federal government into action. I can sue an insurance company if they refuse to pay me after an accident on their clients property. I can't sue the federal government if they refuse to pay me after an accident on government property.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to sue a corporation? At least with democracy, your vote counts. Or for that matter, have you ever even tried to sue a rich doctor? Good luck. The media makes it sound easy, but is EXTREMELY difficult.

What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable.

Note: I never said anything against anti-trust legislation, nor did I mention any loosening of regulation. You inferred that. I brought up Small Government in the context of ending wasteful government programs.

Exactly how is anti-trust legislation supposed to work with small government? Can you explain that? If a state doesn't like what Microsoft is doing, then Microsoft merely takes them to court and bankrupts them. Remember, Microsoft has tens of billions of dollars, enough to eclipse small countries and easily smash states. That's the other big part of NAFTA, by allowing corporations to move around at will, they can use jobs as a way of extorting preferential treatment out of governments. By getting rid of a strong federal government, which is the ONLY democratic institution powerful enough to challenge these corporations, you are actually moving power AWAY from the American people.

It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.

You mean, being able to decide where your tax dollars go, having a government that listens, and the freedom to be employed and make good financial decisions...is not liberty?

Exactly how is taking power away from people going to give them the freedom to be employed. Once that top 1% gets rich enough, what motive are they going to have to buy your labor? If you want to see what societies with low taxes and small government look like when they allow corporations to take over, just look at South America and how they handle big corporations. The corporations have no obligations and a desperate pool of starving labor. That's what happens when you reduce the size of government and you give people no venue for changing things.

You mean to say that we should have a government that increases our taxes without justification, that doesn't care if we are against it, and makes it impossible to be employed or responsible with our money...is liberty?

I agree that our government is corrupt, but you fix the corruption. You don't get rid of the one institution that has the potential to be democratic and replace it with aristocratic tyrannies which have NO accountability. You are confusing cause and effect. The reason our government is corrupt is due to corporate campaign contributions, which has largeley served to change our government from a democratic government into a capitalist government, where politicians serve those who give them the most money, not the people who vote them into power.

BTW, I am not communist. I am looking into progressive economic models such as parecon, or regulated capitalism, or PROUT, to mention a few. However, I would recommend that you not confuse freedom and rights for wealth and power. When talking about Bill Gate's rights, what most people are talking about is his wealth and power. When you ask,"Who are you to interfere with Bill Gate's right to own his own company?" The question is better phrased as,"Who are you to question Bill Gate's power to have an army of men working under him?". I think the second question fits better. In order to protect freedom, we must make sure that it is distributed in a fair and just manner. So, you could talk about the freedom of Bill Gates to command an army of men under him, or you could talk about my freedom to control my own work and enjoy the fruits of my labor, thus abolishing labor markets completely. These kinds of questions don't make sense out of the context of reality. When thinking about private power and wealth in the context of reality, I see a huge amount of unaccountability, and I see alot of people suffereing due to the fact that they can't compete with a company such as Microsoft. Reducing the size of institutions that can handle microsoft and others, wil not fix this problem.

I have not problem with some differences in wealth. But, when you are talking about differences that are 1,000 to 1, that's too much, and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society.
Re:What a load of crap... by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-27 14:47 · Score: 1

I will now engage my standard question: "Why didn't you tell me from the beginning that you are a [Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Other Anti-Capitalist]?" I would've known to simply ignore you as people of your ideology do not believe in the concept of ownership in the first place, thus making logical arguments within the context of ownership ineffective.

It works out better. Avoids wasting your time and my time. I call it the "Your IQ must be this high to debate ColdFusion" system.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:What a load of crap... by composer777 · 2003-02-27 17:14 · Score: 1

Because, as I said before, I am not a Communist/Marxist/Fascist, etc. I do believe in some of the ideals of socialism as well as capitalism, and if you ever managed to read a book, you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property. It seems to me that it is you who are putting people in arbitrary categories.

Overall, your arguements lack quite a bit of merit, and do not seem that convincing. Your ideals sound like a disaster in the making, and the libertarian philosophy as you describe it seems only useful in a classroom discussion of what is wrong with an idea.

The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others. It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote. I'm sure their constituents would love it, but even they know that if you don't keep at least some balance that eventually people will rebel.

I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious. I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions. We also had something closer to libertarian capitalist philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century, and again, your philosophy was an absolute disaster. That is enough to convince me that what you are promoting will not work.
Re:What a load of crap... by C0LDFusion · 2003-02-27 19:33 · Score: 1

you would know that not all forms of socialism are incompatible with private property

Just the forms that believe it's okay to take from those who achieve and give to those who are not?

The problem with your philosophy is that it allows the rights of the majority of people to be trampled by those who have alot of wealth. It doesn't provide people with any incentive to help out others.

And the problem with socialist philosophies is that it allows EVERYONE to be trampled over the elite who control the pursestrings (i.e.: The Government). When you rely on government for your livelihood, it's highly unlikely you'll speak out against people who can simply take you from getting money to total poverty.

It really is an unworkable idea, which is why not even Republicans are wrong-headed enough to promote.

No, it's because the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that a Republican will tell you You're not allowed to do that", whereas a Democrat will say "You're allowed to do that, but not right now".

I lean more towards libertarian socialism, if you are really curious.

That's alot like saying you're a Pro-Life Abortionist. The concepts are mutually exclusive. How can you be for economic freedom AND for wealth re-distribution?

I believe that we have already seen libertarian philosophy in 3rd world countries that have very little government. They are absolute disasters, where the rich pay little taxes, and the majority either starves or works in sweatshop conditions.

He're the thing though. I simply proposed cutting wasteful programs. I didn't say "let the corporations do what they want". I just said that wealth re-distribution and putting government into where it is naturally inefficient should be stopped. If you're for waste, I'm sorry. But I want government to be accountable for every penny.

Just as much as I want government to ride the asses of corporations, I want them to ride the asses of people who recieve my tax dollars through EIC and Welfare.

You seem to misinterpret my wish for people to stop mischaracterizing all businesses as inherently evil (for every 1 company that heartlessly lays off people, there's at least 10 companies that put employees first) as a wish for all government oversight to end.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how wealth re-distribution helps anyone. Maybe I'm missing something.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.

Slashdot Mirror

Safe and Free from Patriot II

78 of 95 comments (clear)