"So you are saying that you would rather use your freedom of speech to convince other people to change the world for you, rather than enacting the change yourself?"
I cannot enact the change by myself. I am saying I would rather use my freedom of speech to bring about a situation where I can join with everyone else to enact the change.
"That sounds a lot like 'Do as I say, not as I do.'" - People follow by example.
If you would prefer to gloss over the entire discussion and categorize my statements as such, feel free. However you would be wrong to do so. You're assuming I am wrong in order to show I am wrong. In other words, your incorrect assumption is that the only way to influence other voters is to vote yourself. Another way to influence them is with opinions and discussion - the whole point of this thread.
"In the last election about 50% of the population did not vote... So by choosing not to vote, you are cutting-off your own possibilities for alternatives."
I myself am not responsible for the 50% of the population that do not vote. My voting one way or the other is not going to get them to vote. They will only vote if they are persuaded to vote, either by having a preferable choice for candidate, or by having a much worse candidate to vote against among the top two. To be persuaded requires there to be a persuader - that is what I am trying to do here. So, saying that "you are wasting your breath" in the same post that you say that I should help get those 50% to vote is contradictory.
I could not bring myself to vote for the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act. His longstanding support for the War on Drugs is also unsettling. (I have never done drugs and have no intention to - I just realize all of the negative consequences of the War on Drugs on society and our rights.)
"Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting."
Both of those assumptions are false. I will only support a candidate willing to uphold the rights of the citizenry. Show me such a candidate. My vote is of little consequence, especially when it is a vote for a candidate who cannot get a majority. Freedom of speech is the more effective route: persuading lots of members of the public to eventually bring about a viable candidate.
"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
The status quo has been increased government manipulation of the economy through increased selective taxation and tax breaks controlled by special interest groups and lobbying. If Mrs. Obama's speech is any indication, I don't see how Obama would be changing anything:
"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And McCain can be expected to maintain the status quo as well, given his statements.
If Obama's wife's speech is any indication of the increased government manipulation of the economy to come, this is going to be a fun ride:
"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And as usual the Republicans don't offer any better alternative, so my vote will have to wait another 4 years.
"The true evil is a docile ignorant stupid population."
And I'm sure you what's best for each and every member of the population, correct? If only you had unlimited power to take their entire income and disperse it as you see fit, and decide what jobs they are allowed to have and where they are allowed to live. Yes, that would be the ideal society...
The true evil is telling people what is best for them and controlling their productivity through government-backed force. It is an immoral violation of their fundamental rights as human beings.
"And paying your taxes, of course. If you feel so overtaxed, then leaving might be the more economical choice in the long run."
First, the point is not to try saving money. The point is to stop these rights violations from occurring. My moving to another country does not stop the violations of my friends' and family's rights. The only way this can be done without further violations to other rights is to wean the public off with persuasive reasoning. That is my reason for this discussion.
"And no one said that fighting for your rights needed to be effortless or free."
Of course those who uphold our rights - the police, military, judiciary, etc - must be funded to survive, just as insurance companies must continue getting money to survive and help people in times of emergency. The difference between the two is that the former is unjustifiably forced upon the public when it need not be.
"If you're discounting the viable alternatives just because the choice you'd like to have isn't offered, then you're basically just whining."
The point of my replies is to help make another alternative possible, as the current choices are unjust.
"If you feel so badly violated in your rights, then moving to a place that offers better conditions, even at your own expense, is the rational thing to do."
It's the quick solution but not the rational one. As long as rights violations exist they can and will spread to outside their borders. We must work to eliminate these violations wherever they occur.
So my only choices are jail or to pick up and leave at my expense? If I cannot freely choose not to pay without incurring some other much larger expense and loss of productivity (jail or unemployment+deportation), then the taxation is being forced. Do you still disagree?
"The vast majority comply because they know it's part of a system that more or less works"
Question begging. You've assumed not only that majority opinion dictates reality, but also that the system "more or less works" and therefore is a just system.
"there are better ways to change it than puerile comparisons between taxation and theft."
Alright, you've characterized my statement as childish. Now, how about actually providing a rebuttal to my claim that I am being forced - as is everyone else - to give up an increasingly large part of my productivity. What choice do I have that is not forced on me? How does legislation justify rights violations?
Another interesting question to think about: why is it assumed that voluntary taxation is not possible? I voluntarily pay for insurance as a safety net for emergency situations; why would I not do the same when it comes to upholding my rights?
Yes, and universities would never have an incentive to invest in such research to attract the best and brightest students and faculty... oh wait, universities flock to such projects. No, no, clearly we must continue demanding the funding at gunpoint from our own citizenry. I'm sure if we voluntarily asked the public for donations they would be too greedy to fork over a cent!
In a sagging economy, people couldn't care less about new tech. The only way I could see a poor economy effecting tech innovation is if the new tech will clearly effect a cost reduction to the consumer. Without those effects, tech innovation will continue to be negatively affected by the current economic downturn.
For you to be able to claim that health insurance is a fundamental right as a human being, you must also claim that the right to property is not a fundamental right. Is this what you're claiming?
If you've got the Zorkmid that came with the Zork Trilogy package, it can fetch $75+ on eBay.
Re:A lot of non-nerds must be reading /. these day
on
I Will Derive
·
· Score: 1
Where was the funny part? There were no brilliant math jokes that only math nerds would get. If you were forced to take pre-calc in high school, you would get the jokes.
"No, they could also run it a zero profit (not needing any subsidies) or at a significantly lower profit margin than any company could accept. It's not nonsense and not a circle, sorry."
Only if they likewise increased taxes.
"They would have to raise taxes to keep the same revenue stream coming in."
Yes but they no longer have a fleet to maintain or drivers to pay. How can you suggest running at zero profit in the same post that you claim they would have to raise taxes if they no longer offered the services?
"and a network that makes a sieve look perfectly able to hold water."
According to what? If you would like to argue that competition doesn't reduce cost to the customer, feel free, but now you're just pulling excuses out of thin air.
"There's no right not to be taxed."
So are you saying that my income is not my property, or that I have no right to my property?
"Maybe you want to move to a country"
Why do these debates always lead to the other person saying "move to another country if you don't like it"? Has your logic simply hit a wall? You can't say your money is not being taken by force at gunpoint when the only choices given are to "move to another country" or be jailed.
"And I'd much rather have "government" spend my taxes on keeping the air I breather somewhat cleaner and the roads somewhat less congestest than on the gazillion of other things "government" usually blows money on."
And that's nice that you have ideas about what your money should be spent on. But you should not expect others to just fork over their money to support your ideas. But that is exactly what the government has become - a means to force people to fund projects that sometimes have good results, often are a bust, and always a violation of everyone's rights.
"And that's written down where ?"
Rand is just the most recent pop culture analysis of the fundamental right that's been discussed since ancient times and in more recent detail by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Blackstone, Hume, etc. In the U.S., the Bill of Rights prevents the government from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I'm not sure what rights are like in other countries, but property rights are probably common in the developed nations. For more info check out this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"Because a taxi service has way, way higher profit margins than a busing service."
You're just going in circles with the same nonsense. Public buses are cheap because they get the rest of your ticket's cost through taxes. If the city sold off their busing to private companies, the ticket price would probably go up, but taxes would go down. And with privatization comes competition to reduce the price to the customer - they will instead get their money through advertising and agreements with companies wanting bus stops near their stores.
But that's not the purpose of all of this. The point is not to get things as "cheap" as possible. The point is to stop violating everyone's rights. The government has no right to take by force a percentage of anyone's productivity to make a stranger's bus ticket seem cheaper.
That's a nice fantasy, however I am sure were they able to, the same companies that provide taxi services would also want to provide private busing. They can't, however, presumably because the city owns the roads... unless you can think of some other reason...
"For society however it's quite good for people to take public transport(less pollution, less wear and tear on roads, [snip]"
Again this makes no sense. Why can't a private company offer bus and subway services? You're acting like buses are a patented invention of the government. I'm all for less pollution, damage to roads, etc, but services like these do not need to be provided by the city.
"it doesn't get convenient until you've got a whole lot of buses/trains running all over the place all the time."
You're only proving my case more and more. What better way to get more buses on the road than to allow busing by competing private companies. If you're truly for the environment and reducing emissions and destruction to roads, then you have to be in favor of privatizing mass transportation.
Slashdot Mirror
"So you are saying that you would rather use your freedom of speech to convince other people to change the world for you, rather than enacting the change yourself?"
I cannot enact the change by myself. I am saying I would rather use my freedom of speech to bring about a situation where I can join with everyone else to enact the change.
"That sounds a lot like 'Do as I say, not as I do.'" - People follow by example.
If you would prefer to gloss over the entire discussion and categorize my statements as such, feel free. However you would be wrong to do so. You're assuming I am wrong in order to show I am wrong. In other words, your incorrect assumption is that the only way to influence other voters is to vote yourself. Another way to influence them is with opinions and discussion - the whole point of this thread.
"You are aware there are elections for people and things other than president, right?"
Yep. But the subjects of this entire discussion are the presidential election and the purposes of voting.
"In the last election about 50% of the population did not vote... So by choosing not to vote, you are cutting-off your own possibilities for alternatives."
I myself am not responsible for the 50% of the population that do not vote. My voting one way or the other is not going to get them to vote. They will only vote if they are persuaded to vote, either by having a preferable choice for candidate, or by having a much worse candidate to vote against among the top two. To be persuaded requires there to be a persuader - that is what I am trying to do here. So, saying that "you are wasting your breath" in the same post that you say that I should help get those 50% to vote is contradictory.
"Bob Barr seems good."
I could not bring myself to vote for the person who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act. His longstanding support for the War on Drugs is also unsettling. (I have never done drugs and have no intention to - I just realize all of the negative consequences of the War on Drugs on society and our rights.)
"Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting."
Both of those assumptions are false. I will only support a candidate willing to uphold the rights of the citizenry. Show me such a candidate. My vote is of little consequence, especially when it is a vote for a candidate who cannot get a majority. Freedom of speech is the more effective route: persuading lots of members of the public to eventually bring about a viable candidate.
"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
The status quo has been increased government manipulation of the economy through increased selective taxation and tax breaks controlled by special interest groups and lobbying. If Mrs. Obama's speech is any indication, I don't see how Obama would be changing anything:
"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And McCain can be expected to maintain the status quo as well, given his statements.
If Obama's wife's speech is any indication of the increased government manipulation of the economy to come, this is going to be a fun ride:
"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
And as usual the Republicans don't offer any better alternative, so my vote will have to wait another 4 years.
Bush's search for WMDs in Iraq was actually a cover story for the real search: Where's Waldo?
"The true evil is a docile ignorant stupid population."
And I'm sure you what's best for each and every member of the population, correct? If only you had unlimited power to take their entire income and disperse it as you see fit, and decide what jobs they are allowed to have and where they are allowed to live. Yes, that would be the ideal society...
The true evil is telling people what is best for them and controlling their productivity through government-backed force. It is an immoral violation of their fundamental rights as human beings.
"And paying your taxes, of course. If you feel so overtaxed, then leaving might be the more economical choice in the long run."
First, the point is not to try saving money. The point is to stop these rights violations from occurring. My moving to another country does not stop the violations of my friends' and family's rights. The only way this can be done without further violations to other rights is to wean the public off with persuasive reasoning. That is my reason for this discussion.
"And no one said that fighting for your rights needed to be effortless or free."
Of course those who uphold our rights - the police, military, judiciary, etc - must be funded to survive, just as insurance companies must continue getting money to survive and help people in times of emergency. The difference between the two is that the former is unjustifiably forced upon the public when it need not be.
"If you're discounting the viable alternatives just because the choice you'd like to have isn't offered, then you're basically just whining."
The point of my replies is to help make another alternative possible, as the current choices are unjust.
"If you feel so badly violated in your rights, then moving to a place that offers better conditions, even at your own expense, is the rational thing to do."
It's the quick solution but not the rational one. As long as rights violations exist they can and will spread to outside their borders. We must work to eliminate these violations wherever they occur.
So my only choices are jail or to pick up and leave at my expense? If I cannot freely choose not to pay without incurring some other much larger expense and loss of productivity (jail or unemployment+deportation), then the taxation is being forced. Do you still disagree?
"The vast majority comply because they know it's part of a system that more or less works"
Question begging. You've assumed not only that majority opinion dictates reality, but also that the system "more or less works" and therefore is a just system.
"there are better ways to change it than puerile comparisons between taxation and theft."
Alright, you've characterized my statement as childish. Now, how about actually providing a rebuttal to my claim that I am being forced - as is everyone else - to give up an increasingly large part of my productivity. What choice do I have that is not forced on me? How does legislation justify rights violations?
Another interesting question to think about: why is it assumed that voluntary taxation is not possible? I voluntarily pay for insurance as a safety net for emergency situations; why would I not do the same when it comes to upholding my rights?
Yes, and universities would never have an incentive to invest in such research to attract the best and brightest students and faculty... oh wait, universities flock to such projects. No, no, clearly we must continue demanding the funding at gunpoint from our own citizenry. I'm sure if we voluntarily asked the public for donations they would be too greedy to fork over a cent!
In a sagging economy, people couldn't care less about new tech. The only way I could see a poor economy effecting tech innovation is if the new tech will clearly effect a cost reduction to the consumer. Without those effects, tech innovation will continue to be negatively affected by the current economic downturn.
Sorry, you can't legislate rights away by deeming taxes higher than rights. Nor can you create rights where none previously existed.
For you to be able to claim that health insurance is a fundamental right as a human being, you must also claim that the right to property is not a fundamental right. Is this what you're claiming?
Ha! Excellent find!!!
If you've got the Zorkmid that came with the Zork Trilogy package, it can fetch $75+ on eBay.
Where was the funny part? There were no brilliant math jokes that only math nerds would get. If you were forced to take pre-calc in high school, you would get the jokes.
"No, they could also run it a zero profit (not needing any subsidies) or at a significantly lower profit margin than any company could accept. It's not nonsense and not a circle, sorry."
Only if they likewise increased taxes.
"They would have to raise taxes to keep the same revenue stream coming in."
Yes but they no longer have a fleet to maintain or drivers to pay. How can you suggest running at zero profit in the same post that you claim they would have to raise taxes if they no longer offered the services?
"and a network that makes a sieve look perfectly able to hold water."
According to what? If you would like to argue that competition doesn't reduce cost to the customer, feel free, but now you're just pulling excuses out of thin air.
"There's no right not to be taxed."
So are you saying that my income is not my property, or that I have no right to my property?
"Maybe you want to move to a country"
Why do these debates always lead to the other person saying "move to another country if you don't like it"? Has your logic simply hit a wall? You can't say your money is not being taken by force at gunpoint when the only choices given are to "move to another country" or be jailed.
"And I'd much rather have "government" spend my taxes on keeping the air I breather somewhat cleaner and the roads somewhat less congestest than on the gazillion of other things "government" usually blows money on."
And that's nice that you have ideas about what your money should be spent on. But you should not expect others to just fork over their money to support your ideas. But that is exactly what the government has become - a means to force people to fund projects that sometimes have good results, often are a bust, and always a violation of everyone's rights.
"And that's written down where ?"
Rand is just the most recent pop culture analysis of the fundamental right that's been discussed since ancient times and in more recent detail by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Blackstone, Hume, etc. In the U.S., the Bill of Rights prevents the government from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I'm not sure what rights are like in other countries, but property rights are probably common in the developed nations. For more info check out this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"Because a taxi service has way, way higher profit margins than a busing service."
You're just going in circles with the same nonsense. Public buses are cheap because they get the rest of your ticket's cost through taxes. If the city sold off their busing to private companies, the ticket price would probably go up, but taxes would go down. And with privatization comes competition to reduce the price to the customer - they will instead get their money through advertising and agreements with companies wanting bus stops near their stores.
But that's not the purpose of all of this. The point is not to get things as "cheap" as possible. The point is to stop violating everyone's rights. The government has no right to take by force a percentage of anyone's productivity to make a stranger's bus ticket seem cheaper.
Alright, so what complaint does he have? Does he now no longer like the contract that he agreed to? Too bad. Move on.
... then why did he sign the contract? Had he not heard of all the previous GTAs enough to know that GTA IV would be a huge success?
"Taxis don't compete with public transport"
That's a nice fantasy, however I am sure were they able to, the same companies that provide taxi services would also want to provide private busing. They can't, however, presumably because the city owns the roads... unless you can think of some other reason...
"For society however it's quite good for people to take public transport(less pollution, less wear and tear on roads, [snip]"
Again this makes no sense. Why can't a private company offer bus and subway services? You're acting like buses are a patented invention of the government. I'm all for less pollution, damage to roads, etc, but services like these do not need to be provided by the city.
"it doesn't get convenient until you've got a whole lot of buses/trains running all over the place all the time."
You're only proving my case more and more. What better way to get more buses on the road than to allow busing by competing private companies. If you're truly for the environment and reducing emissions and destruction to roads, then you have to be in favor of privatizing mass transportation.