It's unwise to say that to someone who was born in USSR.
Under the former soviet union, that's true. Fortunately we are nothing like that. IS it jsut you are young and the USSR has some wierd place in your mibd abiut how they got their? are you just ignorant? Are you just trying to create a boogey man?
It's amazing. Every one of your statements in this paragraph is wrong. I know exactly what I'm talking about. It is only sad that you are not willing to listen to people who were there and saw it all.
Free healthcare was available. However it never guaranteed a successful treatment. Only several hospitals in the country (those that serviced party bosses) were decently equipped with Western tools. The rest was dismal. Can you imagine going to the dentist and having your teeth drilled without local anesthetic and with a drill that did at best 1,000-1,500 rpm? With the power being delivered to the drill bit via a set of rollers and belts? You never saw such a torture tool in your life. But every dental place in USSR had them - and only them. Same applies, of course, to every other medical aspect. As people joked, "the healthcare is free only if you don't care about the results."
A kindergarten was free, maybe. However have you seen them? They were not exactly attractive or educational places. They were practical, though, because the State required every man and every woman to work, and not to sit at home tending to their children.
A common worker was not very likely to even live long enough to see the pensions. But those who did were not living like kings. The pension was only barely sufficient to keep them alive on the most basic food. In latest years of USSR the pension was enough to go to the grocery store... once.
Free education was probably the smartest thing USSR ever did. Mind you, it was not free to everyone. You had to take exams and to prove that you are smart enough to be admitted. Admissions were not infinite either. If you are in then you will be even paid a little stipend if you are doing good. The country needed engineers and scientists and doctors.
USSR fell because it was destined to fall, and now we know exactly why this is so. Most importantly, USSR never had any objective reasons to be stable. Most of the miracles were achieved on the wave of popular enthusiasm - after the Civil War, then during and after the World War II. The Baikal-Amur railway was the last example of that enthusiasm. That could not last; and once it was gone the society fell into the groove of passivity, indifference, cynicism and decay. This is not that dissimilar from the trends in the modern US society; however in USSR it was illegal to not work if you are able-bodied. In the USA it is just fine.
I have not seen unemployed dying on the streets yet.
One of our Australian friends (elsewhere in this very discussion) is sure that this is a common occurrence because, as you must know, in case of a heart attack the EMT whips up not a defibrillator but a credit card reader:-)
As it happens, I am pretty familiar with the USSR economy.
I don't want to make an example of a fallacy of argument from authority, but I know this issue from the inside, up close and personal. If you were employed by USSR in 1980s-1990s then we can compare our notes. Otherwise - sorry.
It seems that you are incapable of reasonable discussion about economy and taxes without resorting to threats of death and destruction to all who do not follow your anti-tax religion.
I paid my taxes about a month ago, and as result I'm very poor at the moment.
The Wikipedia link that I provided just above tells you far more. The lowest tax bracket applies to 90% of population. But your chart shows only the top tax bracket, for people who don't need to worry about mortgage or a car loan.
It doesn't have to be 100%. I'd settle for the old 80-92%
The tax rate for a common man was never higher than 25%. To get taxed above 80% you had to be a billionaire or something.
But don't forget that not only IRS wants to suck your blood. There are state taxes and city taxes and property taxes, not counting sales/use taxes and other fees. When it's all said and done you are losing 1/3 to 1/2 of your income to bureaucrats - who then cheerfully proceed to waste it.
What kind of fool of a company would Google be if it DIDN'T exploit every tool the government gives it to minimize it's tax burden?
These tools are not given to Google by governments. These tools require a multinational corporation that hides taxes by using incompatible laws of multiple countries.
MS does the same by playing on differences in tax laws of individual states (IIRC, all sales of all DVDs are done through a one-lawyer office in Nevada, and Redmond offices work at loss - hardly a surprise if they never sell anything.)
$74K is something that a family of two hard-working middle managers ($150K/yr each, 25% tax rate) can be paying, not a company like Google.
Does this mean that 100% taxation, like in old USSR, would be the ultimate civilization? USSR confiscated all the labor of workers, and instead paid them subsistence money that had no relation to the contribution of each specific worker.
The USA is doing its best to repeat this experiment by taxing every worker to death, but when the said worker refuses to work on those conditions then he becomes eligible for a small government handout (just so his dead body in the street does not offend anyone's sensibilities.) In the end nobody will be working.
Corporations like MS, Apple and Google don't help, of course. They can afford the technology to do these tricks. As result the US taxpayer is burdened with even more taxes, accelerating the crash.
Why don't we see a lot more 'small businesses' doing this for the tax break?
They are not on the list, and probably they want to use profits to get rich.
There's nothing stopping a non-profit from switching back to for-profit later, right?
I suspect a reorganization would be required to set up a new corporation, with different name, different charter, its own board of directors, etc. It's doable, but it's not something you can do just by calling your Secretary of State.
The idea of a 15-minute fillup rather than a 2-minute fillup must have filling station owners excited as hell.
Only if these stations have 7.5x larger parking area for all these cars to be at while they are charging and the owners are inside. But land is expensive in cities - and usually there is nowhere to expand. This means that instead of serving, say, 100 gasoline customers per hour they will serve 13.333 electric customers per hour. Since electric energy is cheaper, it's a complete loss for those stations - in both the number of visitors and in the value of goods sold.
Gasoline engines of around 100 HP are at efficiency from 25% to 30%. An EV that is 100% efficient would need to transfer energy at the rate of about 2 MW to match the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels (and the fueling time.)
There is another way to calculate it. As we know,
The Volt is propelled by an electric motor with a peak output of 111 kW (149 hp) delivering 273 lb-ft (368 N-m) of torque. (Wikipedia.)
If we presume that this motor is sufficient for all modes of operation (probably true) then we can say that the car takes 110 kW to run at 80 mph. If we want the range to be 300 miles (which is on the lower edge of usual ranges but will certainly do for an EV) then we need to drive for 4 hours. This will consume 440 kWh.
If the charger can transfer 2 MW of power then the charging will take 13.2 minutes. This does not include issues of battery cooling that will certainly arise at that rate of charging.
Considering that 80 mph is not the most efficient speed, the actual energy needs and the charging time will be somewhat smaller - like 10 minutes - but I don't know how much energy it may take to run Volt at different speeds.
Better question is how many KWh can it deliver in 15 mins?
Depends on the power available to the charger. For example, Volt's battery is about 16 kWh. If it is used by 2/3 (10 kWh) then to charge it in 1/4 of an hour you need to apply 40 kW for 15 minutes.
When you fuel your gas car the average [chemical] power of the connection is 8 MW.
he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack
You can see such discussions even in some very public threads on Slashdot. One can discuss plans of a terrorist attack to commit it or to defend against it. The distinction can be undetectable until you actually start acting toward one goal or another.
Troops are deployed in many areas this is true. However, what you're not taking into account is that nearly all of those deployments are part of mutual defense pacts
That's what it says on paper, yes. Diplomats are good with words. You don't really expect the agreement about bases to say "we build a base here because we want to," do you?
Germany for instance does host a few large US bases, but surely you wouldn't call them conquered.
I certainly would. Germany was conquered by May 9, 1945 by allied forces (the USA and USSR.) The US bases remained on the territory of Germany since then. The same was true for USSR's bases until the two halves of Germany reunited.
Who was punished for merely disagreeing?
Cuba had political disagreements with the USA and got punished. So was Nicaragua. Even the war in Afghanistan was started to punish Taliban for their refusal to extradite OBL without any proof of his guilt. (They were willing to do so if a proof is provided.) If that wasn't a punishment, the USA would have captured OBL and departed right away.
Did we bomb Germany and the other countries for not going along with the silliness in Iraq?
Germany always obeyed their master. But Serbia was bombed, and Libya, and Iraq, and many other countries. Coups against Hugo Chavez were being prepared. Fidel Castro was targeted for an assassination, and many people around the world were assassinated - along with whoever happened to be near them. Predators fire missiles on targets on Pakistani territory right now.
Clearly if they're part of the "Empire" as you seem to be saying those counties should be punished for daring to refuse to provide troops and materials, right?
The British Poodle did take some beating, despite their "special relations" with the USA and despite the fact that they provided almost 10,000 units of cannon fodder to the war. Other countries in orbit of that Empire also had to pay in blood. Do you think Australia was in any way threatened by Taliban?
Radar isn't a battery. At best, it would supplement a battery.
Do not underestimate radars. They gather a lot of intelligence, all the time. You can use that intelligence in many ways (by sending a Predator, a spy drone, or a diplomatic message, or by pointing a satellite into the area of interest.) Missile batteries can only fire missiles - and they usually don't.
To put it differently, what is more valuable to a common man - a handgun on the belt or magical glasses who highlight all attackers a mile away?
The location of the proposed station would have been ideal to see into Iran. And the USA was claiming that the BMD is against Iran. By refusing to even look into this offer the USA clearly indicated that Iran is just a cover story.
Additionally, who would have been operating the radar station?
Operators, I'd guess. Since the idea was shot down by the USA, no further talks were conducted on details such as this.
I think Poland is looking back to what the Germans and Russians did to them last century and would like that to not happen again.
For some strange reason the history of Poland is nothing but the history of other nations doing something to Poland, just as if they are a tool. Polish citizens want independence, but the government of Poland is always lightning quick to volunteer Polish land or Polish people or Polish interests for some harebrained cause.
Similarly, if the US proposed establishing their batteries in the Russian Caucasus, Russia would refuse.
Actually, Russia proposed to set up a radar station in Caucasus, and the USA refused.
In this story the USA answers only with "no." This is because the USA does not want anyone's input and does not want to consider anyone else's interests.
This particular deployment may be insignificant in military terms. But once it is legally in place, newer technologies can be installed there invisibly to Russia, until the day comes - perhaps 50 years later - when these sites are 100% capable of intercepting anything that you can throw at them.
"The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain."
When your currency is used as world currency, when your troops are deployed all over the world, when you control many international mechanisms, when you menace and punish those who disagree with you, you are an empire - even if you don't call it this way.
So yeah, Russia has enough missiles that they can trivially overwhelm any missile defense shield if it comes to all-out global war.
If the USA has means to counter the nuclear response by Russia then the USA can dictate terms to Russia without ever firing a single bullet - by just using the ability to do so.
Once the camel's nose is in the tent, soon the rest of the camel will follow.
If I were to play this game on the US side I would do it step by step. First, reduce the number of warheads and missiles by agreements. Then deploy interceptors near Russia's borders. Then work on whatever assets remain. Submarines can be easily countered by following them and destroying them before you press the big red button. All you need to do is to find them, and there are ways to do so (it's just a technical problem.) If a sub is attacked it will not be able to tell anyone; not from under water, and not quickly enough.
Besides, what other bright idea do you have in mind to keep the USA as the top dog of the world? Having better business climate? Having the lowest prices? Offering the most stable currency? Having the highest employment rate? Having the most educated and peaceful population? Being progressive? Being an exporter of oil and rare minerals? Having the smartest leader?
As it stands, the USA had ran out of the temporary boost that it got after the World War II. Decay set in, and young grasshoppers of Asia are outperforming it. The USA can maintain its position only by military force, or by threats of using it. (Even that is not enough, but they are trying.)
It should be trivial to keep the transmitters running but to stop routing calls. All incoming calls are not getting through, all outgoing calls report "busy" or "no answer."
As far as your example of losing your family home, you benefit from local and state services, so you should contribute in some way to the upkeep of your government.
It is lost on me how the square footage of my house, or the number of electrical lights, determine how much I should pay in property taxes. There is only one street, and only one driveway, and only one resident. I'd understand if property taxes were related to number of people who live there. But they are not.
Well, making the people who are broke and unemployed pay anything is pointless, because they can't no matter how much you try to make them.
If you do not work you do not eat. As simple as that. If you don't pay your taxes you will lose your house, completely - there will be a lien against it, and the house will be eventually sold for the exact amount of tax that you owe. That $10M house can be sold for $100. Such things happen now and then.
so the guy with $10M gets to pay nothing, which seems a bit unfair
How come? If I give your wife a diamond ring as a gift, but with your family's promise to never sell it, will you be ready to pay more in taxes? Your own income hasn't changed, and the fact that you are holding a valuable property doesn't mean a thing. You will become poorer - maybe to the extent of becoming bankrupt.
It's not like there's an easy way to do it, but you can't just say "small government, low taxes" and solve the problem.
Small government helps, but that's not all that it takes. Taxes will be still part of life. And those taxes must be fairly distributed. For example, I have zero children - but I pay for schools via my property taxes. This is not fair. If you choose to have children then you should pay for them, not I. I can imagine some taxes being imposed on per-person basis, and on per-car basis, and on per-child basis. They can even count your 911 calls (or averaged per block) and calculate police and fire taxes based on that. If you live in a dump where 911 is called twice per day to attend to some shooting, perhaps you should pay your share, n'est-ce pas?
If the only way you can do so is to move into a smaller home, well, sorry, but that's the way it is
Let me get this straight. Imagine that my family purchased some property and over decades built it up and improved. It's a family home, product of labor of tens of my ancestors. There are no debts. I pay utility bills as a clockwork. And then someone shows up and tells me TO SELL MY PROPERTY just because that man wants a piece of it???
Taxes are traditionally calculated as percentage of your income. This way you are always left with something to live on - and at some point taxes disappear altogether. But this is not the case with property taxes. Your income is not a factor. All that matters is an abstract number (assessment) made by someone based on certain rules that may or may not be relevant. Given that the value of real estate is traditionally high, these taxes can break the back of someone who has no job. With more and more people losing their jobs these days this is not a mere theory. I would understand if instead of property taxes some additional taxes were imposed on income. That would be reasonably fair: the more you EARN the more you pay into the common fund. But it is ridiculous to demand more from people who just happen to live in a certain house, or on a large piece of land. Those people don't necessarily have the money to pay!
You advice, if the homeowner has no cash, to sell the house. In this market a $10M mansion can be realistically sold only for 1/3 of that price, if not lower. So your recommendation is to sell when nobody sane would even think of selling. In this aspect I want to re-quote you:
Well, making the people who are broke and unemployed pay anything is pointless, because they can't no matter how much you try to make them.
If people with more expensive property are expected to sell their homes then pe
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost li[k]e you are setting up a strawman.
It is called Reductio ad absurdum.
The soviet system was completely different.
It's unwise to say that to someone who was born in USSR.
Under the former soviet union, that's true. Fortunately we are nothing like that. IS it jsut you are young and the USSR has some wierd place in your mibd abiut how they got their? are you just ignorant? Are you just trying to create a boogey man?
It's amazing. Every one of your statements in this paragraph is wrong. I know exactly what I'm talking about. It is only sad that you are not willing to listen to people who were there and saw it all.
And how'd all that free shit work out for them?
I can clarify that for everyone's education.
Free healthcare was available. However it never guaranteed a successful treatment. Only several hospitals in the country (those that serviced party bosses) were decently equipped with Western tools. The rest was dismal. Can you imagine going to the dentist and having your teeth drilled without local anesthetic and with a drill that did at best 1,000-1,500 rpm? With the power being delivered to the drill bit via a set of rollers and belts? You never saw such a torture tool in your life. But every dental place in USSR had them - and only them. Same applies, of course, to every other medical aspect. As people joked, "the healthcare is free only if you don't care about the results."
A kindergarten was free, maybe. However have you seen them? They were not exactly attractive or educational places. They were practical, though, because the State required every man and every woman to work, and not to sit at home tending to their children.
A common worker was not very likely to even live long enough to see the pensions. But those who did were not living like kings. The pension was only barely sufficient to keep them alive on the most basic food. In latest years of USSR the pension was enough to go to the grocery store... once.
Free education was probably the smartest thing USSR ever did. Mind you, it was not free to everyone. You had to take exams and to prove that you are smart enough to be admitted. Admissions were not infinite either. If you are in then you will be even paid a little stipend if you are doing good. The country needed engineers and scientists and doctors.
USSR fell because it was destined to fall, and now we know exactly why this is so. Most importantly, USSR never had any objective reasons to be stable. Most of the miracles were achieved on the wave of popular enthusiasm - after the Civil War, then during and after the World War II. The Baikal-Amur railway was the last example of that enthusiasm. That could not last; and once it was gone the society fell into the groove of passivity, indifference, cynicism and decay. This is not that dissimilar from the trends in the modern US society; however in USSR it was illegal to not work if you are able-bodied. In the USA it is just fine.
Has there ever been a 100% tax?
Yes, Sweden had tax rates above 100%. Here are some links for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania
http://everestlancaster.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/pomperipossa-in-monismania/ (You must read this, good writing by a steady hand!)
http://everestlancaster.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/the-pomperipossa-effect/
I have not seen unemployed dying on the streets yet.
One of our Australian friends (elsewhere in this very discussion) is sure that this is a common occurrence because, as you must know, in case of a heart attack the EMT whips up not a defibrillator but a credit card reader :-)
As it happens, I am pretty familiar with the USSR economy.
I don't want to make an example of a fallacy of argument from authority, but I know this issue from the inside, up close and personal. If you were employed by USSR in 1980s-1990s then we can compare our notes. Otherwise - sorry.
It seems that you are incapable of reasonable discussion about economy and taxes without resorting to threats of death and destruction to all who do not follow your anti-tax religion.
I paid my taxes about a month ago, and as result I'm very poor at the moment.
The Wikipedia link that I provided just above tells you far more. The lowest tax bracket applies to 90% of population. But your chart shows only the top tax bracket, for people who don't need to worry about mortgage or a car loan.
It doesn't have to be 100%. I'd settle for the old 80-92%
The tax rate for a common man was never higher than 25%. To get taxed above 80% you had to be a billionaire or something.
But don't forget that not only IRS wants to suck your blood. There are state taxes and city taxes and property taxes, not counting sales/use taxes and other fees. When it's all said and done you are losing 1/3 to 1/2 of your income to bureaucrats - who then cheerfully proceed to waste it.
What kind of fool of a company would Google be if it DIDN'T exploit every tool the government gives it to minimize it's tax burden?
These tools are not given to Google by governments. These tools require a multinational corporation that hides taxes by using incompatible laws of multiple countries.
MS does the same by playing on differences in tax laws of individual states (IIRC, all sales of all DVDs are done through a one-lawyer office in Nevada, and Redmond offices work at loss - hardly a surprise if they never sell anything.)
$74K is something that a family of two hard-working middle managers ($150K/yr each, 25% tax rate) can be paying, not a company like Google.
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
Does this mean that 100% taxation, like in old USSR, would be the ultimate civilization? USSR confiscated all the labor of workers, and instead paid them subsistence money that had no relation to the contribution of each specific worker.
The USA is doing its best to repeat this experiment by taxing every worker to death, but when the said worker refuses to work on those conditions then he becomes eligible for a small government handout (just so his dead body in the street does not offend anyone's sensibilities.) In the end nobody will be working.
Corporations like MS, Apple and Google don't help, of course. They can afford the technology to do these tricks. As result the US taxpayer is burdened with even more taxes, accelerating the crash.
What exactly does "non-profit" mean?
Something like this.
Why don't we see a lot more 'small businesses' doing this for the tax break?
They are not on the list, and probably they want to use profits to get rich.
There's nothing stopping a non-profit from switching back to for-profit later, right?
I suspect a reorganization would be required to set up a new corporation, with different name, different charter, its own board of directors, etc. It's doable, but it's not something you can do just by calling your Secretary of State.
The idea of a 15-minute fillup rather than a 2-minute fillup must have filling station owners excited as hell.
Only if these stations have 7.5x larger parking area for all these cars to be at while they are charging and the owners are inside. But land is expensive in cities - and usually there is nowhere to expand. This means that instead of serving, say, 100 gasoline customers per hour they will serve 13.333 electric customers per hour. Since electric energy is cheaper, it's a complete loss for those stations - in both the number of visitors and in the value of goods sold.
Gasoline engines of around 100 HP are at efficiency from 25% to 30%. An EV that is 100% efficient would need to transfer energy at the rate of about 2 MW to match the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels (and the fueling time.)
There is another way to calculate it. As we know,
The Volt is propelled by an electric motor with a peak output of 111 kW (149 hp) delivering 273 lb-ft (368 N-m) of torque. (Wikipedia.)
If we presume that this motor is sufficient for all modes of operation (probably true) then we can say that the car takes 110 kW to run at 80 mph. If we want the range to be 300 miles (which is on the lower edge of usual ranges but will certainly do for an EV) then we need to drive for 4 hours. This will consume 440 kWh.
If the charger can transfer 2 MW of power then the charging will take 13.2 minutes. This does not include issues of battery cooling that will certainly arise at that rate of charging.
Considering that 80 mph is not the most efficient speed, the actual energy needs and the charging time will be somewhat smaller - like 10 minutes - but I don't know how much energy it may take to run Volt at different speeds.
Better question is how many KWh can it deliver in 15 mins?
Depends on the power available to the charger. For example, Volt's battery is about 16 kWh. If it is used by 2/3 (10 kWh) then to charge it in 1/4 of an hour you need to apply 40 kW for 15 minutes.
When you fuel your gas car the average [chemical] power of the connection is 8 MW.
he actually discussed plans for a terrorist attack
You can see such discussions even in some very public threads on Slashdot. One can discuss plans of a terrorist attack to commit it or to defend against it. The distinction can be undetectable until you actually start acting toward one goal or another.
If I were given the mission, I'd use special operations troops. The only sign of an attack would be the big explosion after everyone has already left.
Troops are deployed in many areas this is true. However, what you're not taking into account is that nearly all of those deployments are part of mutual defense pacts
That's what it says on paper, yes. Diplomats are good with words. You don't really expect the agreement about bases to say "we build a base here because we want to," do you?
Germany for instance does host a few large US bases, but surely you wouldn't call them conquered.
I certainly would. Germany was conquered by May 9, 1945 by allied forces (the USA and USSR.) The US bases remained on the territory of Germany since then. The same was true for USSR's bases until the two halves of Germany reunited.
Who was punished for merely disagreeing?
Cuba had political disagreements with the USA and got punished. So was Nicaragua. Even the war in Afghanistan was started to punish Taliban for their refusal to extradite OBL without any proof of his guilt. (They were willing to do so if a proof is provided.) If that wasn't a punishment, the USA would have captured OBL and departed right away.
Did we bomb Germany and the other countries for not going along with the silliness in Iraq?
Germany always obeyed their master. But Serbia was bombed, and Libya, and Iraq, and many other countries. Coups against Hugo Chavez were being prepared. Fidel Castro was targeted for an assassination, and many people around the world were assassinated - along with whoever happened to be near them. Predators fire missiles on targets on Pakistani territory right now.
Clearly if they're part of the "Empire" as you seem to be saying those counties should be punished for daring to refuse to provide troops and materials, right?
The British Poodle did take some beating, despite their "special relations" with the USA and despite the fact that they provided almost 10,000 units of cannon fodder to the war. Other countries in orbit of that Empire also had to pay in blood. Do you think Australia was in any way threatened by Taliban?
Radar isn't a battery. At best, it would supplement a battery.
Do not underestimate radars. They gather a lot of intelligence, all the time. You can use that intelligence in many ways (by sending a Predator, a spy drone, or a diplomatic message, or by pointing a satellite into the area of interest.) Missile batteries can only fire missiles - and they usually don't.
To put it differently, what is more valuable to a common man - a handgun on the belt or magical glasses who highlight all attackers a mile away?
The location of the proposed station would have been ideal to see into Iran. And the USA was claiming that the BMD is against Iran. By refusing to even look into this offer the USA clearly indicated that Iran is just a cover story.
Additionally, who would have been operating the radar station?
Operators, I'd guess. Since the idea was shot down by the USA, no further talks were conducted on details such as this.
I think Poland is looking back to what the Germans and Russians did to them last century and would like that to not happen again.
For some strange reason the history of Poland is nothing but the history of other nations doing something to Poland, just as if they are a tool. Polish citizens want independence, but the government of Poland is always lightning quick to volunteer Polish land or Polish people or Polish interests for some harebrained cause.
Similarly, if the US proposed establishing their batteries in the Russian Caucasus, Russia would refuse.
Actually, Russia proposed to set up a radar station in Caucasus, and the USA refused.
In this story the USA answers only with "no." This is because the USA does not want anyone's input and does not want to consider anyone else's interests.
This particular deployment may be insignificant in military terms. But once it is legally in place, newer technologies can be installed there invisibly to Russia, until the day comes - perhaps 50 years later - when these sites are 100% capable of intercepting anything that you can throw at them.
Given our current lack of World Empire
"The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain."
Link
When your currency is used as world currency, when your troops are deployed all over the world, when you control many international mechanisms, when you menace and punish those who disagree with you, you are an empire - even if you don't call it this way.
So yeah, Russia has enough missiles that they can trivially overwhelm any missile defense shield if it comes to all-out global war.
If the USA has means to counter the nuclear response by Russia then the USA can dictate terms to Russia without ever firing a single bullet - by just using the ability to do so.
Once the camel's nose is in the tent, soon the rest of the camel will follow.
If I were to play this game on the US side I would do it step by step. First, reduce the number of warheads and missiles by agreements. Then deploy interceptors near Russia's borders. Then work on whatever assets remain. Submarines can be easily countered by following them and destroying them before you press the big red button. All you need to do is to find them, and there are ways to do so (it's just a technical problem.) If a sub is attacked it will not be able to tell anyone; not from under water, and not quickly enough.
Besides, what other bright idea do you have in mind to keep the USA as the top dog of the world? Having better business climate? Having the lowest prices? Offering the most stable currency? Having the highest employment rate? Having the most educated and peaceful population? Being progressive? Being an exporter of oil and rare minerals? Having the smartest leader?
As it stands, the USA had ran out of the temporary boost that it got after the World War II. Decay set in, and young grasshoppers of Asia are outperforming it. The USA can maintain its position only by military force, or by threats of using it. (Even that is not enough, but they are trying.)
Install from USB? I've seen some Linux distros that might be able to accomplish that, but they're not for the novice.
Ability to boot from a USB mass storage device is in about 100% of modern BIOSes. It is not any different from booting from an internal DVD drive.
On one of the photography sites I frequent, there was a poll years ago about: if you could choose, what would be the last photograph you ever take?
If there is a write-in field then I would say "My last photo shall be of the last star in this Universe that is warmer than absolute zero."
Seriously, explain to me, how guns are going to solve this.
It's very simple, and history has thousands of examples.
First, you and your friends (numbering from tens to tens of millions) refuse to obey unjust laws and tell corrupt politicians to vacate their offices.
Since an effective government can't let that stand, it sends armed forces to arrest the offenders and protect the corruption.
It's a straightforward bloodbath after that. If you are unarmed then you are supplying the blood. If you are armed then everyone contributes a little.
The USA went through this routine some time ago, and more than once too. The most recent example of such a thing was seen in Syria.
It should be trivial to keep the transmitters running but to stop routing calls. All incoming calls are not getting through, all outgoing calls report "busy" or "no answer."
As far as your example of losing your family home, you benefit from local and state services, so you should contribute in some way to the upkeep of your government.
It is lost on me how the square footage of my house, or the number of electrical lights, determine how much I should pay in property taxes. There is only one street, and only one driveway, and only one resident. I'd understand if property taxes were related to number of people who live there. But they are not.
Well, making the people who are broke and unemployed pay anything is pointless, because they can't no matter how much you try to make them.
If you do not work you do not eat. As simple as that. If you don't pay your taxes you will lose your house, completely - there will be a lien against it, and the house will be eventually sold for the exact amount of tax that you owe. That $10M house can be sold for $100. Such things happen now and then.
so the guy with $10M gets to pay nothing, which seems a bit unfair
How come? If I give your wife a diamond ring as a gift, but with your family's promise to never sell it, will you be ready to pay more in taxes? Your own income hasn't changed, and the fact that you are holding a valuable property doesn't mean a thing. You will become poorer - maybe to the extent of becoming bankrupt.
It's not like there's an easy way to do it, but you can't just say "small government, low taxes" and solve the problem.
Small government helps, but that's not all that it takes. Taxes will be still part of life. And those taxes must be fairly distributed. For example, I have zero children - but I pay for schools via my property taxes. This is not fair. If you choose to have children then you should pay for them, not I. I can imagine some taxes being imposed on per-person basis, and on per-car basis, and on per-child basis. They can even count your 911 calls (or averaged per block) and calculate police and fire taxes based on that. If you live in a dump where 911 is called twice per day to attend to some shooting, perhaps you should pay your share, n'est-ce pas?
If the only way you can do so is to move into a smaller home, well, sorry, but that's the way it is
Let me get this straight. Imagine that my family purchased some property and over decades built it up and improved. It's a family home, product of labor of tens of my ancestors. There are no debts. I pay utility bills as a clockwork. And then someone shows up and tells me TO SELL MY PROPERTY just because that man wants a piece of it???
Taxes are traditionally calculated as percentage of your income. This way you are always left with something to live on - and at some point taxes disappear altogether. But this is not the case with property taxes. Your income is not a factor. All that matters is an abstract number (assessment) made by someone based on certain rules that may or may not be relevant. Given that the value of real estate is traditionally high, these taxes can break the back of someone who has no job. With more and more people losing their jobs these days this is not a mere theory. I would understand if instead of property taxes some additional taxes were imposed on income. That would be reasonably fair: the more you EARN the more you pay into the common fund. But it is ridiculous to demand more from people who just happen to live in a certain house, or on a large piece of land. Those people don't necessarily have the money to pay!
You advice, if the homeowner has no cash, to sell the house. In this market a $10M mansion can be realistically sold only for 1/3 of that price, if not lower. So your recommendation is to sell when nobody sane would even think of selling. In this aspect I want to re-quote you:
Well, making the people who are broke and unemployed pay anything is pointless, because they can't no matter how much you try to make them.
If people with more expensive property are expected to sell their homes then pe