Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Becomes an American Citizen
netbuzz writes "Having brought his open-source work and family to the United States from Finland some time ago, Linus Torvalds has marked an important personal milestone by attaining US citizenship. A casual remark on the Linux kernel mailing list about registering to vote led to the community being in on the news. Torvalds has acknowledged being a bit of a procrastinator on this move, writing in a 2008 blog post: 'Yeah, yeah, we should probably have done the citizenship thing a long time ago, since we've been here long enough (and two of the kids are US citizens by virtue of being born here), but anybody who has had dealings with the INS will likely want to avoid any more of them, and maybe things have gotten better with a new name and changes, but nothing has really made me feel like I really need that paperwork headache again.' In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly."
...but does he run Linux?
He took our jerbs!
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
It's his own business.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I'm more interested what his immigration category was? Mine was EB-2 (Person with advanced degree: Master or Ph.D). I suspect his was EB-1 (Person of national interest).
In Liberty, Rene
He has TWO kids here? And he had those while NOT being a full american citizen? He had Anchor babies? Someone call FOX news please. We cannot have this filth just coming here and knocking out brats!
Wait what? He is a constructive member of society? Hes already contributed to the American culture before he was a citizen? The entire idea of making immigration more difficult is crazy bullshit? *mind explodes*
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Is Linus secretly from Kenya? I find his source code to be socialist and anti-colonialist.
How will this allow him to "participate directly" in American politics more so than before? Citizenship doesn't change the way you write checks.
I've thought of it myself (given I've had a green card here for a while), but it seems every second week someone is off for jury duty over here. Back in the UK, the only person I know who was called was my dad, once, in 45 years as an adult.
:)
Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.
Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note
So, whatever floats your boat, Linus, but I don't think it's for me.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly."
...but just don't email the POTUS and call him a p***k!
coding is life
to have his BMI and IQ numbers interchanged.
"Tekemätöntä ei saa tekemättömäksi" -- Matti Nykänen
I can't stand American politics.
Amazing. Just three years ago, people were saying how they couldn't imagine why anyone would want to come to a country rushing headlong into fascism and therefore an impending social collapse, with all the making of a disaster that would dwarf McCarthyism, and that there didn't seem to be much of anyone who wanted to do anything about it.
The only conclusion I can draw is that both sides are wrong, and/or both sides are right. In any case, if we were doing something so terribly wrong Over Here, I can't imagine why we'd still be attracting so many folks from Over There.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
1. Comments like this wish that this was filed under politics.
2. Dude he is from Finnland. I doubt that he feels the US is rushing toward socialism.
Other than that welcome to the list of great Americans that includes Albert Einstein and Alexander Gram Bell.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Right, it's "socialism" that's hurting our county. Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas. Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it. Not the fact that our country is basically being run _by_ corporations _for_ corporations (heavy lobbying).
No, it's the thought that maybe, just maybe, some of the spending government does should actually help _citizens_ that's hurting us.
Seriously?
P.S. Sorry for the OT comment. I just get so tired of hearing this BS Glenn Beck inspired bullshit.
Oh you poor, stupid bastard Linus.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
You're confused because you think socialism is designed to benefit you instead of the oligarchs.
The government uses a variety of methods to redistribute wealth from the population to the corporations and throws the peasants just enough to chain them to the system so that they don't revolt.
My mother did the US citizen thing, because my parents' lawyer advised her to do that. Something about taxing inheritance more on foreigners, or something like that.
Maybe he ran in to a similar situation?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You are trying to make an issue where there isn't one. Torvalds was here legally, he had his green card. You can live in the US permanently and never get citizenship, legally, if you wish to.
Thus far I have yet to encounter someone trying to make an issue of people who are legal permanent residents. You seem to be building a straw man ot pick a fight where there is not one.
When you start shouting and being absurd just to start a fight you are no better than those you are trying to attack.
I don't consider government funding of private/public businesses socialism. That's just a feedback loop due to corporate lobbying, in my mind at least. A "we'll help fill your pockets if you fill ours and also make us CEO's and/or some other high paid employees afterward" sort of deal.
Neither side is fundamentally disinterested, and therefore is given to hyperbole. Whatever the greatest evil they can muster (for the right, socailism/communism, for the left, fascism/trotskyism (neo-cons are basically just disgused trotskyists -- it's all about the perpetual revolution/spreading democracy)), that's the label they slap on their opponents without any hesitation in order to stop and think whether or not its really warranted.
Its not that both sides are right or wrong, its that both sides are pretty much just kind of dumb.
In the last US presidential election only about 60% of the people eligible to vote, actually did. However, I bet a much greater number of people complained about the president/candidates. I remember reading somewhere that even though Hollywood (Puff Daddy etc..) started the whole "Vote of Die" campaign to get young people (age 18-24) to vote, approximately 1 in 10 actually did.
I always tell people, if you didn't vote in in the election, don't complain.
Not the degradation of income for 99% of the population.
Not the constant erosion of citizens rights, nope. Not the constant and gratuitous government spending. Not the off-shoring of nearly all our industry because we'd rather have a cheaper item regardless of the human cost overseas. Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it.
Well, in all fairness, Neither side is willing to do anything about all of that either.
I just get so tired of hearing this BS major party inspired bullshit.
Fixed that for you. It's already pretty easy to see that both sides are pretty much doing the same thing but using different excuses as to why they do it. Why bother acting like this is a right wing vs left wing problem? The powers that be, regardless of their party, have a common goal and, unless you're one of their power elite, you're not included on the winning side of things. Anyone following a major party at this point is fodder to the parties' leadership and a betrayer of the country's citizens.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Well, to be fair, the Soviet Union had constant and gratuitous government spending, an erosion of citizens rights, and a constant war-state mentality. Socialism with the Big S is generally not the same thing as Social Democracy. The "Socialism" of Western Europe was Social Democracy, not the Socialism of the red flags; the Marxist "Scientific Socialism" of the Internationale that most people call Communism today. Except the people who think they're being cleaver and claim that "pure communism" was supposed to be Libertarian Socialism, aka "Anarchism." it wasn't. Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx were arch-rivals in the First Internationale over this issue, and Marxism, slightly refined by Lenin and Trotsky, and established by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was the real McCoy.
Too True.. I voted for the current politician in charge and frankly, I only did so because the other guy scared me more. Even if I was a Republican (not that I consider myself a Democrat) I think I'd hate Glenn Beck just the same. Damn he's a moron, or more to the point, those that eat up everything he says.
Our political system is a joke. Both sides want basically the same things. They are just different flavors of suck.
Citizens Rights -> Drug War
Gov't Spending -> Aforementioned socialism
Offshoring -> Income Tax
Constant War State -> Weak response to acts of terror by Clinton Adminstration
And agree that lobbying should be outlawed.
Or maybe we are going to hell in a hand basket, and Linus is just to lazy to move? It took him this long just to sign up for citizenship.
"Oh look, the four horsemen are outside my window, maybe it's time to go back to Finland."
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Is she also becoming a US citizen? And if so, will she have her Finnish karate title revoked?
But in any event, welcome to the US, Linus, but you've shown you can kick butt anywhere in the world.
I am officially gone from
For some reason this reminded me of one of his quotes, "Democrats are stupid and ugly." No wait, maybe that was "CVS users" Well, no matter, they're probably the same anyways.
Quizzer: what are the three branches of government?
Linus: Why have three branches? I'd do a git merge legislative executive judiciary into a single monolithic government over which I'm benevolent dictator. Screw those crazy microgovernment people!
Much of the constant and gratuitous government spending is socialist. As many who use the term include nanny-statism as part and parcel of socialism, some of that erosion of rights goes there too.
See, your post is why people in the US have a knee-jerk reaction against any and all socialism. The distinction between sensible socialism and whackjob socialism is too difficult to follow without intensive study. I'm a college-educated average Joe, and I can't make heads or tails of your post without resorting to Wikipedia.
Except what you describe is crony capitalism not socialism.
Why, so that he can't participate? Nobody said he had a dislike for participation.
In fact, it's A Good Thing(tm) that he can how participate as that gives him is very small amount of force to help sway/direct the future of the country.
If everyone liked "the American style of politics" this country would exceed terminal velocity on its way down the crapper. Fortunately there are a few people left with a clue to slow the decay ;)
this is what is basically getting american citizenship over finnish citizenship. one is a donkey, the other is an arabian race horse.
Read radical news here
Degradation of income? You bet - its caused by the income taxes in the USA making this one of the least profitable places to build your business. Anyone that wants to make real money closes their factories here and moves them overseas, or cross-border to Mexico or Canada. Jobs go with them, and good-paying jobs are replaced by crappy-paying "service sector" jobs that largely mean "retail" unless maybe you have a degree. Most people don't have degrees, so make poverty level wages, suck up the food stamp money, and lower the quality of life for all of us.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign slogan from 1990, "Its the income taxes, stupid." Pass the Fair Tax, which repeals the income taxes, and watch the economy boom. IOW, there _is_ a silver bullet for this, and it is the Fair Tax.
he retains his finnish citizenship. had you known zit about the life standards and amenities in finland, you would go crying in a corner.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
ignorant people like you are easy to keep in servitude by getting fed the bullshit that is 'greatest nation on earth'. good going !!
Read radical news here
Put whatever label you want on it - it's the forcible redistribution of wealth from the masses to whomever the elites deem worthy (typically themselves). It's an ancient scam that's fundamentally the same no matter what flavor of it is practiced in any particular country.
You're begging the question just by using the term "sensible socialism".
Wrong. The post was funny, you just don't get the joke. It doesn't have anything to do with Finland at all except in the most tangental sense.
despite the fact that united states of america, in the words of the chinese representative to wto, 'is a bankrupt nation', and your wall street scammed ENTIRE earth, and your income distribution is WORSE THAN the medieval times in which feudal lords ruled the land, europe is going to go bankrupt.
yes, the europe which provided bailout money to all the banks in a blink, WITHOUT printing money, DESPITE the fact that it was american wall street that caused the intoxication of world financial assets and hence american's responsibility.
moron.
that is the difference in between the europeans, and you americans. you do not get enough 'socialism' in your supposedly free country, dont have culture, education enough as a result, you do not know what kind of shit you are living in, and then you come up advertising the shit you live in to other people.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
behold, and weep.
its you idiots' brainwashed minds that keep you in corporate servitude, make everything scarcer, ranging from education to jobs, and then ending up poorer and indebted to china. is there ANY other country in the world, which is being financed by china ? huh ? NO.
Read radical news here
Please point out the country in which your statement is not true.
This word, "equivalent"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't forget America's love with Socialism: Privatize profits, socialize losses.
Did you know PG&E is trying to get the PUC to approve rate hikes to cover losses due to fires?
They had millions to spend to install new Smart Meters, MILLIONS to spend trying to enshrine into the California Constitution a protection for them to be the sole energy suppliers, millions in bonuses for executive.. but somehow no money to maintain their existing infrastructure.
I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process. Going from green card to citizen was just as trivial, although it wasn't cheap and got even more expensive shortly after we applied. Often times it comes down to the individual you're dealing with. We have friends who were in a similar situation, but were married longer, and they had to deal with a jerk who gave them a hard time, partly due to them having a baby. But the process was generally the same otherwise. But this is probably one of the easier ways to immigrate.
On the other hand, an uncle of mine wanted to come to the US with his family and had to wait 7 years before he got the papers. There was a ton of paperwork, some expense and having to deal with lotteries to get a place in line. Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally. Illegals aren't only coming from Mexico. It's relatively trivial to get a visitor's visa and just not go back. In certain communities it's not that difficult to get fake paperwork.
From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries. And, the US is far, far less restrictive about what you can do when you're here. In some countries, on a work visa you can't even get a mobile phone. You have to purchase one under a citizen's name. Good luck trying to buy a car and getting it registered, or owning property.
But too many people, Americans ironically, are intent on perpetuating this notion that America is hostile to foreigners. Foreign immigration, unlike anywhere else in the world comprises the backbone of the country. That said, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration. Countless people have made the effort to go through the process legally. And we have this huge group of people who have decided they don't want to deal with those hassles. So instead, they open themselves up to exploitation, both from those helping them across the border and those who ultimately decide to employee them in the States.
Even more offensive is the suggestion by many that we should accept illegal immigration and that we're bigots by not doing so. We can't deport those already here. We have to give them green cards. But, it should have a few conditions. First, they have to have clean records and they have to be able to find work. Secondly, depending on age, they have to learn a reasonable level of English within a few years. I don't think that's unreasonably at all. But also important, and this should happen first, the borders have to be closed. Build a proper wall and put national guard troops along the border. And the Mexican border isn't the sole problem. Employers who hire illegals need to be dealt with harshly. Not just fined, they should be put out of business. Period. We need to deter illegal immigration as much as possible while embracing legal immigration.
Torvalds did it the right way.
wow. just wow.
Someone has issues.
For one, no you don't have to give up your UK citizenship. The US is very easy about other citizenships. Basically, they don't recognize them. Once you become a US citizen, that's all you are in their eyes. Any other citizenships you have are not their business and they don't care, other than that you'll need to use your US passport when you come to the US (though as a practical matter they'll just yell at you if you don't, my sister got scolded for using her Canadian passport but they let her in). They also warn you that the US embassy may not be able to help you if you get in trouble in a nation in which you are a citizen.
Also please remember that citizenship is ALWAYS a matter of the issuing country. Even if another country says you have to give it up they can't make that stick if the issuing country doesn't agree. For example if a country took your US passport and said "You've renounced US citizenship," they would be fooling only themselves. You could contact the US embassy and get a new one. You can only renounce your US citizenship in certain defined ways, more or less by doing it before a US consular officer and doing it knowingly with the intent of renouncing your citizenship.
Then, as to reasons to want to get citizenship. There are more idealistic ones like wanting to vote or serve on a jury, however there is a very concrete one: Once you have US citizenship, they can't keep you out. If you are an immigrant they can decide to toss you out for various reasons. Immigrants stay in a nation because the nation wants them to. However once you are a citizen, you have an absolute right to live here. They might give you shit at the border, but they can't keep you out.
I hold dual citizenships, in the US and Canada, and neither side gives me any grief.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
had you known shit about finnish citizenship and the life in finland, you would eat your words about that 'monolithic single government'
This is why the world is unfair. You have a lower UID than me, yet failed to get an obviously-about-Linux joke. On Slashdot. Please turn in your geek card at the door.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
I'd love to serve on a jury. Unfortunately I get identified as an armchair lawyer and excluded (well so far at least) but I'd serve if asked.
If you are a professional, there's really little reason not to. You company almost certainly gives you paid leave to serve on the jury, so why not?
Also when you look at it, it seems that smart people don't try to get out of jury duty, self important people do. I mean look at the Terry Childs trial, one juror has a CCIE. Most of the smart people I know, that I respect, are quite willing to serve on juries (and some have served). It is the self important types that think it is "a waste of time" and try to find loopholes to get out.
He's so screwed.
Us collects taxes no matter in wich country he makes, stores the money.
Were gonna have 100mbps fiber to our houses, free health care, and awesome cell phones ....wait that doesnt sound so bad :)
Yeah, everyone that sees the truth and calls it for what it really is, is a troll. Not.
High-Five!
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
had you known shit about finnish citizenship and the life in finland
And had you known shit about Linux and source control systems, you might have actually gotten the joke.
I assert with arrogance, certainty and confidence, that any person who dares believe they have influence in politics due to casting a vote is not only a fool but a moron, dumb and gullible. When the stage is set and the show begins, at that point, doesn't matter which actor you prefer. This is the part about democracy that people truly misunderstand; they'll be no person to land on the ballet that doesn't pose a benefit to those already in power. The fact you might have a technical choice between one person or another, makes no difference at all to the direction those people what this country to go in. Obama or McCain, either a controversial black president, or a first time female vice-president... you see, "change" was inevitable as either likely candidate would have presented "controversial change" no matter who you voted for. I always admire the Soviets for their blunt honesty, in the Soviet Union everyone had to vote but there was only one check box on the ballot; you see, that's honesty coming down from their government. Here in America, you're given two check boxes, and those in power laugh at you as you trot about thinking you had a "choice". To see the absurdity here, one has to realize that for any given role, one can find more than a handful of people who comply and agree. So you grab a couple of your "friends" who both agree with how you want to run the country then you offer them to the public, it's a canned operation from the get-go with the benefit of people believing they somehow are able to influence the direction of politics! Aside from the obvious that I have pointed out, there also exists a most arrogant approach to resolving civil dispute and unrest of the masses; and this only ads icing to this cake made of bullshit you call voting. The powerful people, think so highly of my ideas, or yours, that all of our complaints, wishes and visions can be reduced to a single digit representation; no need to explain to me what you want, I don't care for your petty beliefs, I'll tell you what you need and force you to make a choice in the form of a check mark. You think it's sweet and simple, a check mark that can change the world... nothing that can change the world is ever so simple.
The only real way to "vote" or influence politics in democracy, is to donate funds to an organization of your liking; or pay fees either or. Only the combined wealth of a group of people can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to wine and dine the legislators and delegates, politicians and the wealthy elite.
Do I vote? No. I don't participate in bullshit. When I have a complaint, I write letters to congressmen, sheriffs, judges. I'll voice my opinions on public forums in hopes of influencing others. I find organizations that I am in-line with and make financial contributions. All of these combined has far more political impact than any amount of voting. For this, Torvalds could have participated most effectively in American politics without ever having made a single checkbox irregardless of his legal status.
Neither the UK nor the USA require that you renounce your UK citizenship when you take US citizenship. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html and http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/dualnationality.
In fact, until 2002 there was no way to give up British citizenship - now you can get a form from the British embassy, fill it in and send it to the UK government. It doesn't even have to be permanent as you can reacquire your UK citizenship by filling in another form and sending that one in.
There is one good reason to become a US citizen - to protect your social security pension. If you have spent (or expect to spend) a significant number of years in the USA, enough to be eligible for a US pension (40 credits = 10 years, as I recall) then you might want to protect your investment in the social security system i.e. the 6.2% of your income you have paid and continue to pay. However, in my view, that's certainly not the only good reason to be a citizen of the USA if you have permanently moved here.
I've been a US citizen for some years now and have never been called for jury duty.
'Arabic' students? you must have meant Indian students! there aren't that many 'Arabic' students compared to Indians and Chinese in engineering.
Actually, no, it is not caused by income taxes. There is a slide in that presentation that shows some trends in effective tax rates and if anything they are lower than they have been in a long time. And when you consider that federal spending as a percentage of GDP has fluctuated around 18% and 22% for the past 30 or so years yet the debit is increasing it makes sense, flat spending but falling tax rates equals debt.
And on factories moving over seas, absolutely, that is one of the forces affecting median income. But again it is not taxes. As an engineer I've spent my share of time going over factory finances and the largest expense, and easiest to adjust through layoffs and closing factories, is head count and salaries. Companies have done a very good job of working out deals to get tax cuts both federal and state but your average U.S. worker can't do much to compete with crap wages over seas except perhaps live in a cardboard box or move the U.S. back to the old days of the company store where you pay your employer for housing, groceries, even your church.
And I probably should not say degradation of income, its more like flat income, but I'll comment on that in a response to the coward below. :)
"you appear to have misplaced your passport"
Made me chuckle a bit. I seem to get an image of a brit with a bobby hat, and a sly wink, saying the same thing, and following it up with an "old chap", and then saying cheerio and walking off into the sunset.
Then again, I'm mad.
I've just pointed out your logical fallacy. You're also assuming that everybody who does intensively studied the subject will conclude that there is a such thing as "sensible socialism" in the first place.
Due to misinterpretation of the fourteenth amendment, specifically "subject to the jurisdiction", Torvalds' children are NOT United States citizens
Since the family is here legally then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. What part of that argument against the 14th is so hard to understand even if you don't agree with it? Dolt.
May I please have your spot in Finland, since you're no longer using it?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
No, but he could become governor of California, though...
Remember to maintain your supply of
No, I have done some research in the past using real economic numbers and came to the same conclusion before all these articles started hitting the news. Much of the economic data collected by the federal government is readily accessible for anyone to analyze. Well unless of course its all just a big conspiracy. :)
Well, it is definitely not a lie, I have witnessed some of the financial gaming first hand. But I agree that it can make the masses feel wronged and becomes a political bullet point.
Yes, and since you called me on it I will also admit that the title in my comment is inflammatory and not 100% accurate. :)
There have only been a few years here and there when median income has dropped and you are correct that for the most part the standard of living in the U.S. has improved in the long run.
But here is a fact that you can verify by pulling the numbers yourself. From the late 1940s to the mid 1970s the GDP and median individual income increased at an average rate of 4.23% and 2.04% respectively. From the mid 1970s to 2008 GDP and median individual income increased at an average rate of 2.57% and 0.48% respectively.
The past 30 or so years the average worker in the U.S. has not participated in the increases in wealth in this nation but there was a decade in there that wasn't too bad. From 1990 to 2000 GDP grew at an average of 2.80% and median individual income increased at an average of 1.26%.
But the past decade or so from 2000 to 2008 has seen GDP growth average 1.89% while median individual income has actually dropped with an average change of -0.29%.
Yes, I'm throwing out a lot of numbers without specific point and click references, that is because you will not find a nice point an click party politics web site with these numbers. You need to got to bls.gov, census.gov, and other sites that have historical data readily available to collect and analyse yourself. Well, unless it is all an evil socialist/communist conspiracy by islamofascists from planet X. :)
Actually, it is the income taxes. The US corporate income tax is 35%, and is augmented to, on average, 39%+ by state corporate income taxes. This compares unvavorably with the rest of the world, except for Japan, who are folks with a corporate income tax a few tenths of a precent higher. That will change in January when the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
About 22%, on avarege, of the price of American goods goes to pay income taxes incurred by US manufacturers. About 11.5% is recoverable by the companies if the income tax went away. Would a $25,000 Jeep Liberty selling for $22,125 sell better? I think so. It would be competititve with a $25,000 Toyota FC Cruiser that, if it is imported, would NOT have any decrease in price, since its factory overseas would not expereince any tax savings from US income taxes that they were not paying anyway.
So, yeah, we could compete internationally in manufacturing if the income taxes went away. IOW, it _IS_ the income taxes.
Fine, let's make things as simple as possible. "True" socialism is collective ownership of means of production. So long as you can privately own a factory in your country, it's not socialistic.
By your definition "true" socialism has never existed on the national scale, anywhere.
If the State owns the factory yet an oligarch receives the lion's share of the wealth created at it then does it matter if you call the property "private" or not?
You're comparing:
a.) a civil matter to a criminal matter
b.) digital files to people
Other than those bits of silliness, does your post have a point? Cause I'm not seeing nor can I even tell which side you are trying to argue for.
There is a war going on for your mind.
That's because the Republicans are actually a little smarter about their wealth redistribution than the Democrats.
Democrats and traditional socialists want to redistribute wealth from people who are currently alive and producing. Those people tend to complain about having their wealth stolen.
Republicans figured out that you can borrow the money instead, effectively stealing it from the future. Since the future tax-slaves that were expected to pay for all this hadn't been born they weren't around to complain.
It doesn't allow you to stay permanently, but it does allow you to change your mind and apply permanently.
This is unlike other temporary visas, that specifically say that you have to return. If you break that promise, they may not let you in again on a temporary visa.
This distinction is a huge deal if you want to get a visa into US. To get temporary visa, you have to have some reason to return. Education, relatives, business, work, property etc. If you are an unemployed young person, you are not getting a visa. If you are in the last year of school, it's a high probability too (YMMV of course).
So... you failed to mention that you can in fact apply for green card just after being on H1-B for 6 years. You don't have to be in a special category. 5 more years to get a citizenship. From entering USA as H1-B worker to becoming a citizen you need a minimum of 11 years.
From the Wikipedia.
"Bell was a British subject throughout his early life in Scotland and later in Canada until 1882, when he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. In 1915, he characterized his status as: "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans who claim allegiance to two countries."
Alexander Gram Bell was an American by choice.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Congratulations, welcome to OUR nightmare.
How do you say "tax audit" in Suomi?
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Between that and military registration are some lame excuses I've heard for avoiding progressing to citizenship. I doubt whether this applied to Linus.
I agree. That is why he probably fled Finland. There is a great depression there and an huge economic collapse.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Mary: Before we get married, I must confess that I once worked in the world's oldest profession :P
John: What, you mean you were a shepherd?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Next stop, Sacramento!
Invenio via vel creo
I guess you really didn't git it, did you?
Invenio via vel creo
He wouldn't want to get pulled over and deported to mexico now would he....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
No, I'm not. Both copyright violations and illegal presence are generally not criminal in and of themselves, though quite often they become criminal in certain circumstances, or when certain means are used to effect them.
No, I'm not comparing digital files with people.
Yes.
My point is, well, exactly what the post says. If you want a short version that captures the main point without the analogies and examples, read just the second and third paragraphs, excluding the parenthetical in the latter.
If this doesn't fit into neatly your preconceived notions of what the "sides" are on this issue and the preconception that every comment must somehow relate to one of those "sides", perhaps you should reconsider your preconceptions.
That is actually based on international law. Taxes are paid to one country always, refunds or reliefs might be available for the taxes paid to other countries. The country that is your main taxing country is decided on various international treaties.
Oh I see, you are nitpicking my choice of the word "can". Very cute & not really worth a response.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Oh sure.
You've got some complicated legal dispute involving Interstate commerce, anti-trust and tax. He just says, "you've got the source, figure it out yourself or hire somebody who can".
Hmmm.... really no change. Yes. Linus for President.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
To attain status as a legal permanent resident, you must enter the country on either an immigrant visa
Not true. You may apply for a US "green" card while in the US on any visa. However you may not enter the US on a non-immigrant visa if you intend to apply for permanent resident status at the time of entry but you are free to change your mind after entry. It's a bizarre rule which can lead to trouble when you re-enter the US after a short drive to Canada, on a J-1, valid for 3 years, and they ask you "what do you intend to do after the visa expires" and you answer honestly "I don't know - I've only been here for 2 months and have not thought that far ahead". After this very unpleasant incident every time I re-entered and was asked the same question I was very careful to answer "leave the US and not return" which, as coincidence happens, was also a very honest answer.
So, Mr. Gingrich, you're not running after all?
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
It seems someone with points to give out lacks a sense of humor. Made me laugh, though.
I did say "needs both".
And yes, I know Linus is more of a Linux project manager than a Linux coder at this point.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yeah, you ought to keep respect for their work and personal celebrity involvement separate. The celebrity BS is especially galling for the talentless hacks, but does it makes any more sense if the person's contributing well to their field?
This doesn't seem to be the case with Linus, but with entertainment celebrities, it seems that people who like the product tend to like
Thus, in those cases, as someone who likes the product, you're looking at a mass of other fans that are also celebrity-worshippers.
* This applies whether it's a Serious Product (TM) or entertainment
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Now if only we could get Stallman to move to Finland...
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Oh come on! He comes from finland, they have free* hospitals and universities, the son of the banker has the same chances in life than the son of the fisherman. For a true socialist, that's centuries ahead of the US.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Hey I'm as anti-corporate (and part Finnish to boot) as anyone, probably moreso, but the GP was a reference to the monolithic kernel vs microkernel debate, in which Linus (obivously) favors the monolithic kernel approach.
Again, no, your use of the word "can" is not the central point of my response.
The central point of my response is that laws don't magically transform behavior, especially where they conflict with widespread ideas about fairness, and laws that outlaw something without actually effectively controlling it not only create lawbreakers in the area they outlaw, but also create opportunities for more general criminal organizations. Besides the examples at issue in GGGP, other prominent and illustrative examples are Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
Does this mean that the copyright regime, the existing immigration regime, the War on Drugs, or Prohibition are categorically wrong? No. I'd say the list there includes somethings that are basically wrong, and some things that are basically right but need reform in (operationally critical, but not necessarily conceptually fundamental) details to work well and best control the unintended adverse consequences and social costs associated with the policy.
Except if you knew anything about history, unregulated capitalism helped cause the Great Depression, and FDR's rather socialist policies helped get the US out of it.
There's something wrong in your kernel. Please reinstall and configure whoooosh.c and try again.
By your definition "true" socialism has never existed on the national scale, anywhere.
Why, of course it did - early in the USSR. Factories were actually run by workers' councils, which were actually elected in a democratic way (mind you, it wasn't a liberal democracy - no respect for minority rights etc - but it was nonetheless a democracy).
If the State owns the factory yet an oligarch receives the lion's share of the wealth created at it then does it matter if you call the property "private" or not?
It depends. If the state owns the factory, and the oligarch owns the state, then it's not really collective property. If, however, the "oligarch" is just a paid (perhaps vastly overpaid) manager who runs the factory but does not own it personally - i.e. cannot sell it, and can be stripped of his authority at any moment - then it's just mismanagement, and has no bearing on the classification of the economic system.
either that or he's the one planning to become fascist dictator..
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
The problem with what you propose
I was not proposing anything - this is what the US currently does. I know it works because I applied and got a green card while in the US on a J-1 simply because it was so unpleasant to re-enter with a non-immigrant visa and then I simply surrendered the green card when I left (and boy was it hard to find out how to do that voluntarily!).
Point of order: constant & gratuitous & ever-increasing government spending is frequently going to fund programs which are best described as 'socialist' in nature - universal health care, drug plan entitlements, and the like.
If you're going to claim that 'socialism' isn't part of what's hurting our country, it's helpful to not cite 'socialist spending' as part of your argument.
I wonder if Finland would take me in trade.
Nah, they could probably get a better deal.
WALSTIB!
Except the people who think they're being cleaver and claim that "pure communism" was supposed to be Libertarian Socialism, aka "Anarchism." it wasn't. Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx were arch-rivals in the First Internationale over this issue, and Marxism, slightly refined by Lenin and Trotsky, and established by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was the real McCoy.
Communism is a "social system based on collective ownership". The word is originally French, existing since the 12th century. Victor d’Hupay was in 1785 the first (afaik) to use the word in its modern meaning. Marxism (19th century) is one form of communism, the form which redefines communism as "social/political system based on state ownership". "Pure communism" is the end goal of Marxism, a free state which they tried to reach by installing a dictatorship... (Sorry - as an anarchistic communist I had to try to be "cleaver".)
I keep hearing about this impending socialism and how it will destroy my country. Can someone explain to me how, exactly, socialism would destroy my country? Also, how, precisely, it is making its inroads. I really want to understand. Especially if you can compare and contrast with capitalism.
Please use specific, documented examples, and refrain from flowery but meaningless loaded phrases. Discussion of the anarchy/totalitarianism axis would be a good addition, too, since we're looking for accuracy in our discussion. The two axes are perhaps somewhat orthogonal, although anarchic socialism would be an interesting situation.
Also, suggestions regarding exactly who should do something about it, and exactly what they should do would be very welcome. "Doing something about it" might also be termed "central planning", which is a basic tenet of socialism. The Capitalist/Anarchist answer is to let the market sort it out, i.e. who cares if there's a depression, I got mine, screw the rest of you. Uh oh, there go those loaded phrases again. See, I need help!
WALSTIB!
Why anyone would choose to live in the US is completely beyond me. The government makes the country suck, and the people won't stand up to the government.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Be careful not to confuse the theory of socialism with the practices employed by governments claiming to be socialist.
There's a yawning gulf between the two.
WALSTIB!
I disagree
It's only bad food and poor healthcare for those unable to pay. Somehow I don't think that Linus is going to find himself in financial troubles anytime soon.
That is why he probably fled Finland. There is a great depression there
Seasonal Affective Disorder. They have beer and saunas though. They're cool.
Specifically, socialism is going to destroy this country by sucking money from the people via increased federal spending, resulting in an absolutely unsustainable national debt. Eventually, the interest on the national debt is going to be another giant expense for the nation, to go along with social security, mdeicare, and defense, which are currently the 3 biggest consumers of federal dollars. And the latest straw that is destined to break the camel's back is Obamacare, which will just add to the spending, and force the tax rates up. Of course, the taxes are already chasing jobs out of the USA, forcing people into less well-paid jobs, resulting in them not paying income tax or most other taxes. That deprives the gov't of tax money, and so it reacts by raising taxes again. Its a vicious circle, that will see the demise of the nation. Eventually no one will loan us money, the ever-increasing tax rates will have chased most of the manufacturing out of the country, and all we'll have to do is burger flipping, stock trading, and suing each other for income.
FDR's socialism prolonged the depression that industy could have gotten us out of, if left alone. But we passed devastating protectionist legislation called the Smoot-Hawley act, that practically shut down trade, and prevented a recovery. What got us out of the depression was the FORCED economic activity of building weaponry for WW2, a tactic that would not work now, because we don't have the industrial base any more to make it work. Its mostly moved out of the country, to Mexico, Canada, or gone overseas, or completely out of business and been replaced by foreign competition.
We're in a worse position now than we were in in the 30's, we just don't know it yet.
The theory is a myth that has never existed on a national scale.
Ah ok, I understood you that time. Well said & you do have a very good point with your 3 examples.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Actually, using your scenario and even real world data, no, income taxes are not an issue for manufacturing in the United States.
I believe you and I will have a very strong agreement on the importance of manufacturing in the United States. It is not only important for the United States economically but also for our national security and future prosperity. But where we will disagree is on income taxes imposed on manufacturing corporations.
First let me state that I think you are on to a very accurate and strong principle that has to do with global competition. Part of the cost in global competition is related to taxes and the cost of running the government of each nation. If the United States is bearing the burden of security costs around the world while other nations skimp on governmental security expenses then the United States will be placed at a significant economic disadvantage. All one has to do is look at French history before and after the American Revolutionary War to see how economic burden can destroy a nation.
That said, corporate taxes are levied on Gross Profits, not Retail Sales Prices. Based on this fact it becomes readily apparent that the amount of tax dollars in the retail price of a manufactured good is completely dependant upon the Gross Profit Margin. So we end up with the following equation:
gross % margin = tax % of retail price / corporate % tax rate
You say on average U.S. manufacturers have a 22% income tax burden attached to the price of retail goods. So we can calculate the average gross margin and verify this with real world numbers. 22% / 35% = 63% Gross Margin.
I am not sure where you acquired that 22% number but to me it looks like BS. From my personal experience with gross margins in electronics manufacturing a 63% gross margin profit is unheard of. In fact, based on recent data the highest gross margin for electronics manufacturers was 58.4%. From my experience the average gross margin is more like 20% to 40%.
And while I understand you are only making a point with the auto analogy I must point out that auto manufacturers have abysmal profit margins and as a result the average cost of corporate income taxes on the retail price of a car is more like 1%.
The 22% of th price of American goods is not composed of strictly the corporate tax on profits. It is also composed of the employees individual income taxes, which, while paid by employees, must be paid to them by the manufacturer so that they can pay them. It makes labor more expensive. Also included is the both the 7.65% of employee's gross earning that are paid in social security and medicare taxes, as well as the "employer-matcing" 7.65% of the employee's gross wages that the employer supposedly pays, but really doesn't, because the employer just pays the employee that much less wages to make up for that. IOW, the employee is, effectively, paying 15.3% in social security and medicare taxes.
And of course there are capital gains taxes that cost the businesses a lot of money, that would go away under the Fair Tax.
The 22% is made up of a lot of things, and the employer, the manufacturing concern, can get back about half of that if the income taxes go away. They can't get back the employee's individual income taxes, and they can't get back the employee-paid part of the social security and medicare taxes, but they can get back a lot of the rest of it.
The 22% figure comes from a study conducted by Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at, I belive, Harvard. This is mentioned in the Fair Tax entry in Wikipedia.
I'd rather see cults of personality around entertainers than around politicians (assuming the star has no plans of entering politics; BTW, on that point, Tom Lehrer's "George Murphy" is a fine example of his penchant for political satire via music.)
Sarah Palin worries me; Ke$ha does not. (They're both intelligent females who know how to make a point of appealing on grounds of lesser intelligence. :P)
However, this reminds me - many stars are opinionated about their politics, like us average Joes, but with a bigger platform. Do people have a tendency to choose politics that match their favorite star's, or do people tend to choose stars that match their politics? The celebrity may not be right, as is any pundit.
However, even if they are right and help steer fans their way, that raises the following questions:
* Is the right thing done for the wrong reason still the right thing?
* Are there unintended consequences?
(Celebrities' opinions aren't *less* valid, though)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yeah, that 6 year old study is a goto conservative argument against social programs these days. It is an interesting theory, but just because a couple of economists posit a theory doesn't make it true. For balance, here's a well stated summary of its flaws (that I'm sure the liberal camp likes to quote in response):
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/18/the_new_deal_and_right_wing_revisionism/
I agree that we are in a worse position now, and that not all legislation of the 30's was helpful. But as bad as the Smoot-Hawley act was, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion (and in fact supports my original point), because it was passed under Republican pressure and signed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. FDR wasn't even elected until 1932, and he was completely against it.
While WW2 obviously was the final push that ended the depression, it was clearly not the only thing. By the start of US involvement in WW2 unemployment had dropped from a high of 25% to 9%. Something worked...
Anyway, I think it's impossible to speculate too accurately on what would have happened economically without WW2, and how much the New Deal set up the foundation for recovery. But as I said, I agree that we are not as well positioned for recovery as we were back then. But we are also not NEARLY as bad off as we were back then.
If taxes cause inequality, which is there more equality in countries with higher taxes?
OK, economists argue incessantly about the causes and cures of the Great Depression, and so if they can't agree, I doubt we're going to figure it out, either.
Yes, we're not as bad off as we were in the Great Depression _yet_, but I believe that there is a train wreck ahead in the economy unless the gov't does some extraordinary things, which is drastically cutting spending, and, I believe it is now necesssary, to pass the Fair Tax. I don't think that the nation can continue to survive the income taxes, they are nuking our industries, which are moving and have been moving out of the country since about the 1960's. We had a mighty manufacturing base, but it has mostly dissolved, and continues to do so. The stock market has been flat for the last 10 years, and in fact is quite a bit less than its high near the beginning of this decade. That, I believe, is telling, and I think that it will not be flat in the next decade, it will dramatically decline.
I think the Fair Tax is the cure for it all, and would bring our industries back, and put us in the lead in manufacturing again by a wide margin. But we're probably not going to get it passed until the country has the train wreck, and things are so bad that even the politicians are willing to do anything that is required to get the country moving again. The Fair Tax removes a lot of their power to fiddle with social engineering, and, oh yes, worm in a gratuity or 2 (or 2 million) into the tax code for their campaign contributors. IOW, the current income taxes are an instrument of corruption.
Good one. You made me laugh.
It's true, you were modded improperly. The correct mod was "-1, Flamebait", not "-1, Troll".
Not the constant War-State mentality where we have to fight "Terrorism", "Drugs", "Copyright", etc, etc, and again, pay for it.
Even as a zealous GPL freetard, I for one would love to support the War on Copyright ;-)
Offtopic? Really?
In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics in which he will now be able to participate directly.
What form of participation is more direct than running for office?
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
No most Canada is a fine nation and most of the people I have meet from their are very pleasant.
It is just a few that grasp at any straw they can to try to show that they can to show how great they really are. Which is kind of sad because it really tends to diminish their real achievements and makes them look like a small emotionally insecure nation.
Fortunately those Canadians are in the minority.
BTW Scotland also claims Bell as well as Canada. Bell did keep a family home in Canada and is buried their. Can't say that I blame him since it looks like a beautiful area. But he became an American citizen and died as an American citizen.
But I bet he loved Canada as well as Scotland and America.
Hey I love Ireland where my grandmother was born and where I still have family. I love Victoria Canada where my wife and I spent our Honeymoon.
And I love the US where I was born and I am citizen.
So I can relate to Bell.
And BE NICE TO OUR GOOD FRIENDS UP NORTH!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
From another study on the costs involved in auto manufacturing completed at MIT Vehicle Manufacturing Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs = 6.5% of MSRP
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics the median wage for employees working in auto manufacturing is $58,400.
Assuming an average family household and both adults work in auto manufacturing the gross income will be at least $116, 800. Looking at IRS statistics for the adjusted gross income level of $100,000 to $200,000 the average household income is $132,881 and after deductions paid $17,388 in income tax. The is an effective 13% tax rate on gross income.
So on a $25,000 car with 6.5% going to wages and an effective 13% tax rate on those wages the portion of the retail cost is $211.25 and add to that the corporate gross profit of 6% from the Stanford auto manufacturing study and a 35% tax rate we have another $525 for a total of $736.25 of income tax in the retail price of a $25,000 automobile which is 2.9%.
And yes, I know there are all kinds of other little taxes here and there you want to throw in to where we are no longer talking about income tax but it becomes so convoluted its not clear exactly how everything is associated anymore, but it doesn't matter. Even if the auto manufacturing workers paid 100% of their income in income taxes you still would not be even close to 22%.
But setting all of that data showing the 22% is bogus aside and just assuming this fantasy world is real lets take a quick look at this Fair Tax. With the word "Fair" in its name it sounds great, we all like fair don't we, but reading Boortz he specifically states that "the FairTax plan was revenue neutral". Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting but it appears you want no taxes while the FairTax being revenue neutral is not a no tax plan but instead is just tax reform with the same level of taxation but shifted around so revenue for the government, corporations and employees remains the same.
But even in Boortz' comments he makes some outlandish suggestions such as "When the FairTax is implemented, and when business and personal income and payroll taxes disappear, your employer is going to have to make a decision. He will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call "take home pay" before the FairTax."
HA HA HA!!! Now that is hilarious! Eliminate the payroll tax, which in layman terms means take away the Social Security and Medicare safety net that ensures a minimal level of support for U.S. workers when they reach retirement age, and let the corporations decide if they should keep all that money themselves or maybe if they are nice they will give the U.S. workers some crumbs. Sorry but in the real world history has shown over and over and over that given the opportunity the U.S. worker will get screwed. Scrap that "Fair" Tax plan and try working out something more realistic. :)
This is late, but...
Yes, that guy.
See, I live in Rhode Island itself.
It wasn't *just* about Christian denominations. He is the primary reason why we have religious liberty here in the US. There's a reason why one of RI's nicknames is Rogue's Island. We took all the Quakers, Jews, and really, everyone else who couldn't abide the theocracy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Back when the so-called "righteous" were hanging Quakers, RI took them in.
And when the loons on the "right" start spouting off about "founding fathers" I have to laugh. You can't get much more "founding" than signing a treaty with the Narragansetts in 1636.
Roger Williams was quite a dynamic individual. The deeper you dig, the more you have to respect his reasoning and how far ahead of his time he was. It's a shame what's happening to my country.
--
BMO
The US are illegally intefering with Latinamerica, Latinamericans then have a moral right to come here illegaly. The US have to deal with the consequences of being an empire.
Specifically, socialism is going to destroy this country by sucking money from the people via increased federal spending, resulting in an absolutely unsustainable national debt.
Debt is definitely something which must be considered in the planning of budgets and the financing of government activities. I concur that of late the spending of the US government has far outpaced revenues, and continuing at the same ratio would not be wise. However, I've not heard anyone from any political or bureaucratic organization suggest maintaining the current ratios indefinitely. They are supposed to be emergency measures taken in time of need, to be rectified when economic factors allow. The debt is used to smooth over the bumps, just like a family uses a credit card and then pays it off to bridge over variations in current liquidity. At least, that's the idea. Sometimes politicians get shortsighted and spend now to gain popularity and obtain reelection, consequences not withstanding. That's a problem in a democracy.
I'm not sure that language such as "sucking money from the people" and "absolutely unsustainable" are accurate enough, though. We need some numbers.
Eventually, the interest on the national debt is going to be another giant expense for the nation, to go along with social security, mdeicare, and defense, which are currently the 3 biggest consumers of federal dollars.
Definitely, we don't want debt service to reach levels that prevent the functioning of the economy and the government. Also, it would be good to keep as much of the debt as possible internal, so that the interest payments go to American citizens, rather than flowing into foreign economies.
Social Security, Medicare, and Defense are all important. If you don't think so, try getting elected on a platform of removing one of them. Assuming that the purpose of government is to execute the will of the governed, we are probably going to need to figure out how to finance and operate those programs for the foreseeable future.
And the latest straw that is destined to break the camel's back is Obamacare, which will just add to the spending, and force the tax rates up.
Well, OK, definitely straying into "flowery language" here. The existing US health care system is a disaster which is headed for collapse. We pay double or triple the per-citizen health care cost of many other industrialized nations, while achieving at best equal and frequently worse outcomes. The costs are growing, and the results are lagging far behind. Something has to change. The reform package that congress passed (yes, the congress passes laws, not the president) may not be the best possible set of changes. Unfortunately, people simply cannot agree on exactly what would be better. Those who rally around the cause of "do nothing" seem to generally either be making bank on the existing disaster (a.k.a. sucking money from the people) or simply oppose anything Mr. Obama likes without any thought at all. You may not be one of those, and I welcome your suggestions for how to get at least equal cost-benefit as compared with other countries. If we're going to pay triple, I want triple the results.
Of course, the taxes are already chasing jobs out of the USA, forcing people into less well-paid jobs, resulting in them not paying income tax or most other taxes. That deprives the gov't of tax money, and so it reacts by raising taxes again. Its a vicious circle, that will see the demise of the nation.
Whoa, there, hoss. Americans still pay far lower taxes than folks in comparably advanced countries worldwide. Furthermore, in the last few years our tax rates have been going down, not up. The congress keeps passing (yeah, that congress again, not the president) laws to reduce taxes on middle and lower income people. The current "increase" on the table is not an increase, it's the expiration of a temporary cut, and it only affects
WALSTIB!
The theory is a myth that has never existed on a national scale.
You are absolutely correct. Just like the theory of capitalism.
Everyone who lives in a country with a government lives in a state of compromise between a variety of opposite ideals. The trick lies in finding the right balance. Countries which attempt to go too far to one ideological extreme or another typically fail, often with great suffering.
People who live in countries without a government are even worse off.
WALSTIB!
From the article:
In that post he also expresses dislike for the American style of politics
He wasn't alone in not liking the style of politics in from 2000 to 2008.