Slashdot Mirror
Bill Calls For Wi-Fi Base Stations In All Federal Buildings
GovTechGuy submits this from Hillicon Valley: "Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced legislation on Friday that would require all public federal buildings to install WiFi base stations in order to free up cell phone networks. The Federal Wi-Net Act would mandate the installation of small WiFi base stations in all publicly accessible federal buildings in order to increase wireless coverage and free up mobile networks. The bill would require all new buildings under construction to comply and all older buildings to be retrofitted by 2014. It also orders $15 million from the Federal Buildings Fund be allocated to fund the installations."
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
LOL.....Poor mobile phone providers....Waste tax payers money building out a completely useless wireless network so they do t need to upgrade their own networks.
If your public servants need a wireless network to do their job, install a wireless network, dont mandate it in legislation!
So nice of our gubernment to take some of the load off of those congested cellular networks. Phew.
The government doesn't need to be wasting money on stuff like this right now... Not only do the wifi base stations cost money, there are also the reoccurring Internet connection costs and general maintenance costs. Or is this supposed to be some sort of telecom bailout? Besides who wants to use an Internet connection directly controlled by the feds?
We're not sniffing every connection and logging every packet, honest!
--- Do you believe in the day?
Don't worry. By 2016 they'll have figured out that having access points everywhere is a security risk of some sort. The current act will still be in force to require them to be installed, of course, but the We're Scared Of Our Shadows act of 2017 will require that they never have power connected. No problem.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Especially when you consider every building will be a government building eventually.
What do you mean "eventually"? Stop paying your property tax and you'll find out who the real owner is ...
Sovereign states own all the land within their confines. You have the right to "buy" some of it, but you will pay "taxes" (rent) for that "ownership privilege".
What you're really buying is the usufruct of the land. You will never own it, even if the mortgage is paid.
Over here where I come from, not only do government buildings have free wifi - but so do public areas such as parks or gardens.
You can just bring a laptop and work there (for as long as your battery lasts at least) or whatever. That way people who don't want/have data plans can still get wireless internet.
Privatize the cafeterias to Starbucks and Caribou. Instant wifi and revenue!
Home of The Suki Series
Free Public Wireless
WiFileaks.org ?
Uh, no.
Your bogus anti-tax argument blows chunks.
You get to own it until you die. Then, depending on the theory of post-death ownership, someone/thing else does.
And gladly, my property taxes pay for public safety, schools, infrastructure, and other things needed in a civilized society.
Your theory doesn't get past the tip of your greedy nose.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I was surprised to see all of the posts thinking that the cellular providers would like this. I figured they would prefer to have as many people using (and paying for) their bandwidth as possible I wouldn't have been surprised to hear that the lobbyists were out in full force against this..
I was going to say something similar, but you put it well. I had never heard the word 'usufruct' before; thanks for expanding my vocabulary!
Since many USGOV buildings and installations have a complete ban on WiFi hotspots since they are insecure.
Lets let anyone attach to the network!
Not only is this a waste and doesn't make sense, but $15m won't be enough. There isn't a govt network admin who will want this traffic on their network and there isn't a govt security group that will allow it. That means each of these will be a new ISP connection. So does GSA get to do this, or the IT group who in the building at the time?
The article mentions Olympia and Mark, but there is no mention of Bill.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
What I read so far says that this bill will require WiFi base stations to be installed in federal buildings. Sounds kinda useless. Does the bill to hook them up to a network come next?
You were going to make the same bullshit antitax rant? When you pay to buy a plot of land from the owner, you own it lock, stock and barrels. The government can't take that property just because it wants it, they have to either pay for it or use eminent domain to seize it. But even then they have to pay you for it.
/sarcasm
The taxes they charge are for the services they provide as a result of your owning that property. The reason why they can seize the property if you fail to pay the taxes is that it's how they collect the debt. They've paid for the property by way of the individual not being taxed on it for a period of time.
But no, the GP's argument is really accurate, there are no protections against the government seizing your land.
While WiFi in these areas would be useful for various reasons (welcome to 2000 guys, seriously), mandating it specifically to "free up cell phone networks" is ridiculous. Where I'm from, when you sell someone a product, it's your responsibility to verify that it works. We have these providers spewing ads all over every channel on TV, all over the internet, and constantly telling us deceptive things like "we cover 97% of all Americans." It is not our govt's job to provide cellular telephone service in federal buildings. It is the job of the cellular providers. If the service is inadequate, throw their lobbyists out on their asses until they fix it themselves, morons. This is borderline disgusting, honestly. I was paying $80 a month for wireless service (AT&T) in the center of a decent sized city and not at work, not at home, nor anywhere except right next to a tower was I able to get more than 2 bars, and don't get me started on dropped calls, LOL, even at 5 bars.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of those good ideas we just can't afford, especially with the country's present financial condition.
That's actually kind of what the bill says, to my reading: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44617300/Federal-Wi-Net-Act
Yeah, but how much would it cost? (non-rhetorical question)
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
We don't have the cash for this let the cell phone companies pay for it.
By which, you mean, the consumer will pay for it.
ANY costs assigned to the cell carriers will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the consumer. Period. Heck, if you asked them, they would admit as much.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well, they are. Notice how those same people don't generally volunteer their favorite programs to be cut in order to fund the tax cuts?
The main exception being the folks that want the rich to pay their fair share of the taxes as they've generally already given up their stuff to get those low taxes for the rich. Returning that to where it belongs is a tad different than the right wing antitax nuts that seem to think that no poor person should ever expect any help making something of themselves.
These guys are not idiots and they could care less about the cell phone networks. They are trying to shoehorn past a bunch of lobbyist paid shills in congress a law that will force the govt to give free Wi-Fi. If we/they play the cards right we might see more and more of this bypassing all the local and state regulations on internet and cable monopolies. Maybe drop from grid network tech in there as well.... Hmmm
Sample costs: ...
Labor $40/hour. 3-5 hours.
hardware: cat5, mounting brackets, PoE adapters, routers
travel costs: Maybe $800/trip, one way?
Electricity: ?
Management/project oversight: ?
shipping and handling: ?
I'm going to guess (low, I think) that each install would cost about $5,000. So how many wifi installs can $15 million cover? About 3,000 buildings. How many people thing that in all three branches of the federal government, they only have 3000 buildings?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm confused. . . what is the compelling public interest that requires the Federal Government to 'free up cell phone networks'? Why should my taxpayer money be used to offload traffic from the cell phone networks, when people are already paying the cell providers for service? Let the cell providers ensure they have enough coverage and backhaul to fulfill the service they have sold to customers, and if they don't/can't, then haul them into court on breach of contract, false advertising, etc.
If this move would seriously save the government *money* by using its own Wifi APs and Internet connections instead of contracting out to cell providers for data services that the government itself needs, hey, I'd be all for that, but I somehow doubt that wiring *every* Federal building is going to actually *save money*.
this is a great recipe for unauthorized network access and more leakage. i guess they do want more transparency.
...
Actually, the Government will pay for this. The money will come out of the "Federal Buildings Fund". It is collected from "rent" the GSA is paid by Federal Agencies that use federal facilities.
This is actually a piss poor summary of the bill. Having contracted on a number of government sites let me say that through no attempts at such, the buildings act as Faraday cages. Anyone who read the bill would have noticed that they're talking about using femtocells to improve reception of cell phones throughout the buildings. Additionally, considering the widespread use of Blackberry devices, this would allow them to continue to the roll out of of VoIP which has been happening (at least in both Dept of Treasury and Dept of Commerce) which would lower some of the costs associated with the mobile contracts. Considering the high number of employees with these devices and at 15 million dollar price tag, I wouldn't be surprised if this produced a cost savings within 2-5 years.
Exactly. There are very few people who are actually for cutting taxes and spending. Almost all of them are for cutting taxes that they think they are going to pay and cutting spending on programs that benefit other people. The tragic part is that somehow the incredibly rich have convinced large portions of the middle class that the taxes they are going to have to pay equates to taxes on people in the top half of one percent of income brackets in the country because somehow the entire bottom four income quintiles hope they are all going to make it there someday.
Depends on the land law in your particular juristiction. In England, the Queen owns all the land and you are granted a licence to occupy it in perpetuity. In Scotland, you own it. Although in reality it makes no practical difference either way.
I have to pay property tax in England even though I rent the place. My landlord doesn't have to pay property tax on it, because he has rented it out to me. The tax is payable for the benefit I receive from local services provided by the council, not "rent" for "ownership privilege". The government has the right to seize possessions and sell them to collect unpaid tax, and that includes real estate if you own any. That is just a debt enforcement mechanism, not a sign that they "really own it".
Why have anyone pay for it? Why is this something the government is required to supply?
Well, I guess it doesn't need to be WiFi. Any Government building probably (in most cases) already has some sort of halfway-decent broadband access. Internal phones could easily be connected to the outside world via wired VOIP. I don't see any requirement for anyone visiting the building (or in the vicinity) to be able to take a free ride on the Government's internet connection.
So like the GP said, stop paying the property taxes and see how long you have the property. You took a longer road to make the same point and claim you disagree, which is a seriously strange way of making an argument.
A better way to phrase it would be that real property is nearly unique in that you are required to pay taxes on it even if you don't use it at all. If I don't put my car out on public roads (e.g., a farm truck), I don't have to pay any licensing fees just to own it.
Ultimately, do you really own something if you have to pay to keep it? He obviously thinks not. You do.
Just to be clear here... "Fair" does not mean more. The rich are already paying a higher percentage of their income (28-35%) than the poor (10-25%.) (Arbitrary line drawn by me) You can see by the first chart:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
that even after adjustments, the rich still pay over 17% (up to 23%) where the "poor" pay under 15% (as low as 2.59%.)
I think what you are referring to as "Fair" is the rich being taxed so much that they can only afford minimally more than the poor. This is only "Fair" if you think that net income (after taxes) should be equal. Or that "Fair" constitutes a specific standard of living and anything above that is "excess." The problem with that is that it's only fair until you cross the line where it's now, "not fair" that they are taking more of your income than your neighbor who doesn't work as many hours or have as much responsibility as you.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on what you are thinking.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
It's called eminent domain.
We should go all the way, make a Federal law requiring counties and municipalities to deploy and operate a unified public WiFi network with complete coverage wherever the public access density exceeds some small number of people (the number in which at least 10 people an hour are statistically likely to be present). The Feds should back that mandate by hosting WiFi and Internet interconnect infrastructure in any Federal building at Federal cost, as designed by the municipality/county. And pay for the entire operation with a Federal tax on private wireless network businesses, like mobile telcos. The telcos should pay for the service to them that offloading to public WiFi delivers, but the public should organize the effort and reduce the cost with existing infrastructure.
--
make install -not war
No, the telcos don't have to pass the cost to the consumer. They can pay for it out of their profits, which are huge. If there's a problem with that, it's in the protections they have in a cartel, where they don't have to compete with each other. Which is probably the most essential reform that Congress should pass, and this kind of development forces that issue into the open.
The idea that all costs to business are simply transferred 100% to the business' customers, ignoring the source of funds in profits, is to be believed only by the same people who believe that tax cuts without service cuts are possible by ignoring the debt that's created instead.
--
make install -not war
No, you own the land. But ownership of property doesn't mean unlimited, unencumbered control of it. You are using "own" to mean something it never means. The typical "libertarian" fantasy that is true only perhaps in Sim City, never in reality.
--
make install -not war
No, there are ways to make you stop owning the property. If you sell it to someone else, or otherwise agree they own it, then you don't own it anymore - but that doesn't mean you never owned it. Another way to stop owning something is if the state takes it from you. There are some obligations property owners have to the state that when violated result in the state taking ownership from the owner. If you use property to damage someone else the state can take ownership. If the owner fails to pay certain taxes the state can take ownership. That doesn't mean that the owner didn't own it, but that their ownership was ended.
The two points are not the same just because you say they are, just as ownership doesn't mean something different just because you say it does.
--
make install -not war
To discourage people from accessing WikiLeaks on their cell phones, since it will obviously be blocked on all these Federal Wi-Fi networks. ;)
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
I couldn't agree more. This is one of those good ideas we just can't afford, especially with the country's present financial condition.
Oh for the love of Pete! You spend over half a trillion dollars a year on your military, as much as the rest of the other militaries on the planet combined. Cut your military spending by a few percent and you could pay for proper schools, the space program, and still have money left over to put wifi in your government offices.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Friggin EXTEND THE TAX CUTS, and STOP SPENDING more money.
Time is limited, and they are wasting it.
Do you house representatives not understand English?
Next up.... the The Federal Back-Orifice Act of 2010.
All federal buildings required to have computers with back orifice installed, plugged into the LAN, not blocked by Firewall, with a published IP address, username, and password, to help reduce load on Internet service provider proxy servers and improve government oversight.
with technologies from HSPA+ to LTE improving available bandwidth per MHz exponentially
Not to get all nitpicky, but I think there is this guy Shannon who would disagree with you. (Also this has a more concise formula.)
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Where's the Bill Gates / Borg icon?
ANY costs assigned to the cell carriers will be directly (or even inflatedly) passed onto the consumer. Period.
That's not really how markets work. Cell carriers will charge whatever they think will get them maximum profits. Input costs... the cost of doing business... only have an indirect effect upon output charges.
They charge as much as they think they can get away with. If their price structure is flexible enough to "pass the costs on," then they weren't charging enough to begin with.
And of course cell carriers will tell you that they will pass charges onto the consumer. They want the consumer thinking that anything which lowers their input costs are going to lower the cost to the consumer. That's only indirectly true, and if history has taught us anything it's the net effect is more profitable companies.
Not that there is anything wrong with profitable companies. That's the goal, after all. But we don't need to subsidize them.
The ______ Agenda
cept it is a sinister plan to control and monitor workers data connections. bwwwaaaaaaaa
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
But if we do that, how will those defense contractor executives take home their multi-billion dollar bonuses?
What I find really sad about the whole thing is that for all the money we spend on the defense budget, VA (Veterans Administration) hospitals are generally lame. I mean, seriously? All that and you can't even take care of people? What the fuck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just to be clear here... "Fair" does not mean more. The rich are already paying a higher percentage of their income (28-35%) than the poor
Fair does indeed mean more. The rich use significantly more government resources than the poor.
Their income is dependent on massive federal infrastructure and subsidies like interstate roads, civil courts, "small" business loans (currently totally 84 billion dollars) and enormous indirect oil subsidies, mortgage deductions, state department promotion of international business, etc, etc.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Maybe it's better if they update WiFi to use a TDMA protocol, make it a free standard and then think about using Wifi to help cell networks.
But that is not fair because, why should a rich person that does not use roads, civil courts and other government services, have to pay extra just because other rich people use roads, civil courts and other government services? The point of government services is that one can use them as much as one needs with out having to pay extra. Else they might as well just privatize it.
Unless they are an idiot, being "rich" doesn't mean simply sitting on a pile of depreciating money.
It means generating an income - after all this is about income tax isn't it?
And the income streams of the rich are essentially all dependent on a vast array of government services.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Unless they are an idiot, being "rich" doesn't mean simply sitting on a pile of depreciating money.
It means generating an income - after all this is about income tax isn't it?
And the income streams of the rich are essentially all dependent on a vast array of government services.
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
If anything, it's likely to take less.
Anyway, I guess it will last only for 3 strikes according to their own ACTA law.
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
Because most of those resources aren't even used by the poor.
For example, the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
At the very least there is a step function with a very high step.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What bullshit antitax rant are you talking about? I pay the taxes that I owe, and have no problem with that. Whether or not you actually lose the property, you will be punished for evading property taxes. Yes, these taxes go towards the services that they provide for living in the jurisdiction, but they are directly tied to property ownership, not residency. You still pay property tax on land you own, even if you never live or work there. This is why it seems reasonable to think of it, in one possible perspective, as rent on the property. You can't necessarily be evicted, but you can be fined or imprisoned.
I agree, though, that this doesn't really mean that you don't own the land. I was distracted by a new vocabulary word.
Yeah, cause that is going to be so easy to manage and support, you clearly haven't worked with any thing more then home networks.
Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?
I did a quick search and couldn't find it. Why are they calling for installation of WiFi hotspots to lessen load on cell networks? Did anyone tell them that just because a phone has a WiFi radio doesn't mean it can make calls over WiFi.
Are you telling me everyone who wants wireless internet in federal buildings has to use a Cell phone data network. If that is the case, then they absoulty need to install WiFi (you know like everyone did 10 years ago), though $15 Million does seem to much).
Does anyone hear work in IT for the GSA? Might be able to clear this up.
Is this some sort of Muni-WiFi setup?
You are saying that all rich people deal with international trade and corporate law?
Yes I am and many other areas in which they receive government support.
How? The stock market.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Come ON! A wifi acces point is like...what? 50 bucks?
Think of it for a minute - your government can tax your land "ownership", same as a feudal lord - but a foreign government can't - because they cannot exert sovereignty over it. They have control of it - not you.
Try seceding.
This is silliness! You are trying to make excuses to justify theft of personal property from others, to clear your own conscience. Nice try.
Is that all you've got?
You can't dispute the argument I've layed out, so you go off on some juvenile rant?
Who do you think you will convince with that approach?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Pay for it out of the reduced market-clearing prices for higher-limit data plans and data overage charges that result from more access to WiFi?
Pay more attention to the people that YOU put into office. Once you start giving a crap, things will change.
Now, consider where those poor criminals would be living if there was no police protection at all. :)
You named a bunch of unrelated institutions to justify theft of wealth. Want me to counter your meaningless arguments?
So, in your mind, consumption of government services paid for with tax money are completely unrelated to taxation levels.
What the hell was I thinking?! Thanks for showing me just how wrong I was!!!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Because most of those resources aren't even used by the poor.
For example, the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
There are so many holes in this argument it's pathetic.
First, it seems to be based on the assumption that "the rich" are using corporate law and international trade delegations and interstate highways more than the poor. But is it the rich that are using those services? Or is it corporations?
You see, most large corporations are taxable entities. If you had made the case that corporations should fund these services, you'd be a little closer to having a valid point. But you want to tax someone else - the rich - for some perceived inequity. You are arguing taxing the wrong entity!
And if "the rich" owns a share in a corporation, and the corporation receives some benefit for these services - guess what? The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN. Only in the case of S Corporations and LLC's is the income only taxed once, and I doubt that very many LLC's are disproportionately using government resources for corporate law, international trade delegations, and interstate highways. I don't. My accountant doesn't. My dentist doesn't.
Second, you have a huge assumption that the rich's use of these services outweigh somehow the poor's use of other government-provided services. Unless you can direct me to some stats showing where "the rich's use of GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED corporate law, international trade delegations or interstate highways" is higher per dollar than the poor's use of police protection, the department of health and human services, the department of job and family services, the department of corrections, the department of welfare, court-appointed attorneys, and numerous other government agencies that - without a doubt - provide a disproportionate amount of service to the poor, then you fail.
Finally, to argue that the poor has no use for international trade agreements and interstate highways is on it's face ridiculous. Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country? I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Your argument is a joke, as others have pointed out. Without some sort of references, you are merely pulling arguments out of the air without any basis in fact.
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
No it doesn't. Ownership doesn't mean totally exclusive control and totally independent freedom. You are changing the meaning of the word "ownership" to mean something it doesn't.
The real world is a lot more complex than these libertarian fantasies dream it could be.
--
make install -not war
"Ownership" of land today is really just a form of usufruct. You can use it, but you have many, MANY restrictions on how, and on how you can dispose of it. That's not "ownership" in the same way as ownership of, say, a pizza, which you are free to pass on to a friend of family member w/o government involvement.
Perhaps we need a new term - "Free as in pizza," since there are restrictions on beer (age, licensing, etc).
The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country?
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims. Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Once again, an illogical point. Here's what this paragraph essentially says: "Since GE and Ford were able to show negative taxable income, we should tax someone else a disproportionate amount." If you disagree with corporate tax law, and the totally legal process of running a separate set of "tax" books which allows for classifying income in a tax-favorable lihgt, and deferring tax, try fixing that issue, not penalizing someone who has nothing to do with that.
On the other hand, if you looked at TAXABLE income, you can easily see that those two companies did not make any. But I know that's too much for your feeble brain to comprehend.
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
No, your argument said
the poor have practically no usage for corporate law or international trade delegations or even interstate highways.
Perhaps you forgot that this was YOUR argument, not mine. And I shot that down with the argument that the poor indeed DOES have usage for international trade and interstate highways. They absolutely have use for both. OK, so instead of trying to concede that you were wrong on that point, you try to change it. You made a point, I showed you how you were wrong. Next!
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims.
It's your argument that tax be disproportionate, so the burden of proof is on you.. Trying to say that "it's a coward's argument" to demand facts and that you have some knowledge about the topic is hilarious. Yeah, I'm a coward for wanting to debate someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
No, I don't have the burden of proof there. I never claimed that businesses don't make a profit from those services. Businesses don't have anything to do with the argument of taxing the rich vs. taxing the poor. Once again, you are confusing taxable entities.
Your logic is so poor that it's a waste of time trying to educate you. It's like you are saying "I think we should penalize the Cleveland Browns because the Chicago soccer team had too many players on the field. And no, I don't need to have any facts to show you why, or even have any logic that supports my evidence - you need facts and proof to prove me wrong." You are spouting off nonsense without facts, and then asking me to defend an argument against your nonsense.
No, I don't have the burden of proof there. I never claimed that businesses don't make a profit from those services.
Right. You just claimed that they aren't the primary benefactor of government services.
Coward.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you pass a pizza you own over to your friend or family member with detergent (that you own) in it, the government will not only confiscate whatever they can of it, but they will use it to put you in a government jail.
Property is real, and subject to some control by some people other than its owner. There is no freedom like the one that you can't even think of a word for. That's because you're making up something that doesn't exist, except in the dreams of children and libertarians.
--
make install -not war
You clearly do not understand the difference between business and people, or you cannot read.
Show me where I claimed that businesses aren't the primary benefactor (or even any benefactor) of government services. Quote me. Find it.
You can't.
You are such a pathetic debater. But hey, when you have no logic, and no facts on your side, you can always try the name calling. Good work.
the poor have practically no usage for corporate law
Companies that make and/or sell things to poor people have use for such laws, and such laws interact with the consumer protection laws that (possibly disproportionately) benefit poor people.
Show me where I claimed that businesses aren't the primary benefactor (or even any benefactor) of government services. Quote me. Find it.
So you agree that they are the primary benefactor.
Thanks for clearing that up.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth, you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I can't understand why you would think that generating the 250,000th dollar or the millionth dollar would take a higher percentage of those "vast array of government resources" than the first dollar or the 20,000th dollar.
If anything, it's likely to take less.
Thanks for trying, but I think your futility over a dozen or so messages demonstrates quite well that you have no good answer.
Q.E.D.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence. That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I explained it clearly and reasonably, all you've done is pull the coward's move of saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong" without a shred of supporting evidence. The irony here is everything you accuse me of, you've done worse. That really isn't very convincing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence.
No, I don't have to agree with you or claim that you are wrong. I claimed that you are citing a point that is irrelevant. Whether businesses make a zillion dollars on trade delegations or make no money on it, that has absolutely no bearing on the original discussion of whether a small businessman in mid America should be taxed more for that service he never uses. But I said that already.
You can argue that the moon isn't made of green cheese if you want, and then say "You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence." And I can sit here and laugh at you for that as well.
That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
Ah, so we're back to name calling. Just admit defeat, rather than reverting to habits of a third-grader. It's not very becoming, but quite entertaining. I am enjoying laughing at your every attempt to back-pedal, use irrelevant talking points, and call names.
saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong"
Oh, add in some mis-quoting when logic fails. That's always a good move too.
You lost the debate.
Thanks for continuing to dig your hole though.
No, I don't have to agree with you or claim that you are wrong. I claimed that you are citing a point that is irrelevant.
If you think its irrelevant why did you challenge me to providing supporting evidence? How could proof that it was true make it any more relevant?
Oh, add in some mis-quoting when logic fails. That's always a good move too.
Yes paraphrasing that make the point clear is total failure.
Lol your hypocritical self-righteousness continues to make me chuckle.
It's like you are trolling yourself.
Ah, so we're back to name calling.
You mean like "pathetic?" Get outta the kitchen ya coward.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Once again, point-by-point failure on your part, while not one of my points has been successfully refuted.
If you think its irrelevant why did you challenge me to providing supporting evidence?
It only takes high school level reading comprehension to see that I challenged the relevance of BUSINESSES using government services, while I asked for proof that the rich use more government resources than the poor.
You fail.
Yes paraphrasing that make the point clear is total failure.
Paraphrasing and quoting are two different things. Once again, a high school education would help you understand that. Please spend some time over at dictionary.com to understand this, before even trying to justify your mis-quote.
You fail again.
You mean like "pathetic?"
Calling a person a name, vs. calling an argument pathetic (and showing why it is pathetic, point by point), are two entirely different things. One would hold up in court, while the other would get thrown out, and possibly cause sanctions against an attorney.
Once again you fail.
Get outta the kitchen
I am not in the kitchen.
Once again, you fail.
ya coward.
More name calling.
One again you fail.
At least you are consistent. Failure up and down. Good job.
Care to demonstrate your ignorance further? Go ahead! This is quite entertaining.
One would hold up in court, while the other would get thrown out, and possibly cause sanctions against an attorney.
Lol. You are such a coward. Fancies himself a lawyer does he? Court of yer mom's basement is it?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Yeah, I was just, like, joking, there, with the "too quiet" comment and the, you know, smiley in there and all.
Mmmyep.
(kicks pebble)