. I, for one, would give up the right to bear arms for everyone, and not miss it.
- yeah, the cattle in USA already gave up all other rights, what's the big deal, right? What rights are there left that government respects?
How many innocent people are killed by government, US government around the world daily? Killed with bombs and missiles and drones and machine guns.
If it is guns you want to ban, ban your government from having them first and THEN you can ban people from having them, because the purpose of guns is protection of self and private property but also, very importantly, removal of tyrannical government. USA government is tyrannical, it's not the government that was authorised by the States, it violates human rights every day, many people die.
USA government kills children around the world, I guess nobody cares, those are mainly non-white, some are even scary a-rab children, so fuck'em.
But when some white kids are murdered by a maniac with a weapon inside a US school, well then, of-course, give up more rights, and to government out of all things.
No, you know what, you are right. You don't need that right, you don't deserve it, what's the point, you are not going to take down this tyrannical government and you won't stop the murder of children around the world that happens from your name, by the way, so might as well stop the pretence of having any individual rights anyway. Who is an individual?
Jefferson clearly says "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another". Your statement directly contradicts this quote.
- he may say whatever he likes, that's not part of the Constitution, it's not law.
BTW., if you look at the Declaration and Constitution, you will see those documents for what they are: a bait and switch operation.
The Declaration is the bait and the Constitution is the switch.
Declaration states that people have all these inalienable self-evident rights, and then the Constitution starts enumerating rights in bills and amendments. That's a contradiction. If the founders didn't do the bait and switch, they could have actually carried the principle of individuals having all the rights into the Constitution, they could have very specifically and explicitly said:
*People can do anything they want and government is only allowed to impede on the rights listed below only under very limited conditions, also listed below.
Then they could have listed the conditions, when government is allowed to impede on individual rights. Under all other circumstances, the individual rights could be considered paramount and even absolute if that was the intent.
However the Declaration was made to be a populous document and the Constitution was not, it was an authorisation of power to government force and provision of certain means to maintain that power.
Here is an example of how the Constitution failed to protect individual rights of people: income taxes.
Income taxes are unconstitutional and are collected unconstitutionally. However it is such a technical argument that it is lost on most people, including lower courts. The question is, why is it so? It is so because the Constitution does not actually protect individual rights, if it truly did, it would have been much more aligned with the Declaration, and in the Declaration the right of people to abolish governments that become tyrannical is clearly stated.
If you read the Declaration and the complaints about the King, you can actually draw very close parallels between those grievances and the transgressions against the individual rights that the democratic US government is actually guilty of today. Why is the government still in power then? It is actually more guilty then the King at this point, the King could never dream of what the current despotic democratic mobocracy type government is achieving.
The government that USA has today allows for tyranny of one person against another, that's what the majority based elections are about, tyranny of majority. So the question becomes, how is it that the Constitutional government turned to be a tyranny of majority, a mobocracy?
The answer is not too hard: the Constitution does not do a good enough job protecting real individual rights from the government. It's just too broad, the powers that are authorised to government are too broad, there are no clear indications that the powers must never exceed what is authorised by the Constitution explicitly.
However again, nowhere in the Amendments, Bill of Rights does it state anything about rights being guaranteed to be respected, protected, even afforded by one individual to another. That's not what rights are about. The Constitution defines rights as relationship between the individual and the collective, it says (for example):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you see the words? Does it say: individual must make permission or must afford or must abide by?
This type of misunderstanding of Constitution is so spread across the population, it's so insidious, that I think even some judges may fall prey to it, however I don't believe that the spammer in question is misunderstanding the law, he hopes to use this misunderstanding of the law by the public to try and get his way.
The Constitution does not at all say that private individuals or companies must protect and defend and recognise the right to free speech of other individuals. The Constitution applies to the federal government, it's a document that states what authority federal government has.
The federal government is not allowed to impede free speech (though it very often does), an ISP is NOT any government, it's a company or a person (yeah, a corporation is just a fictional front for people). One person does not have to provide another person with a free media access.
Federal government OTOH cannot place this spammer to jail for saying controversial things, that's the point of the free speech right.
But this is just another out of series of misunderstanding of what rights are. Constitutionally protected individual rights are not there so that one individual would not violate right of another, it's there so that the government, the collective would not violate rights of individuals.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.
Of-course today it is the wealthy that are forced to pay for all this socialism and that's why the concept is so popular with the majority of voters, who are simply voting for a bigger government that promises to tax the rich and redistribute the proceeds of this confiscation, more commonly known as theft or robbery (it is done with weapons of-course, under the barrel of a gun).
I drink plenty of coffee and there are no side-effects and there are no side-effects... and there are no side-effects... and there are no side-effects. and there are no side-effects... and there are no... side-effects and there are... no side-effects and... there are no side-effects and there... are no side-effects and there are... no... side-effects... and there are no side-effects
It's OK, somebody was going to run an intergalactic superhighway through these places eventually, so it doesn't matter much.
But seriously, the correct thing to do with was 110 years ago, not 20. 100 years ago in USA the socialist ideology started pushing forward with ideas that government should be taking care of everything by stealing from some and subsidising others. That's when the right time was to stop that in its tracks and allow the free market to continue operating. Nuclear power should be investigated, but it can't be because government controls every aspect of it. People should be free to do whatever they want in a search of solutions to sell in the free market, they shouldn't be stopped by any collective.
Either we, as a collection of individuals will try and try and fail and try again and figure out our solutions or we will shed all personal responsibility and delegate all matters, economic and social as well is ideology and morality to the collective itself, not the individuals, but the centrally planning collective and we will fail. There is no way that the collective will be able to allocate the resources in the most efficient manner, there is no way that the collective will work all the political angles out in order to achieve some form of a solution that actually works in the long run. It's impossible. It is as impossible for that to happen as it was impossible for the Soviet Union to survive economically speaking, and people predicted the fall of that country even in the twenties of the last century.
It is absolutely impossible to use the collective to solve any such economic problem, and this problem is an economic problem. By the way, the real reason that so many people disagree with the Greens is that they realise that the Green movement are actually just a disguised anti-capitalist, pro-collectivist, socialist ideology. You can easily see this in the answers of the Green party candidate in the third party debates on youtube. Jill Stein is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Green movement and why so many people will never support it, even if the entire planet cooks and goes to hell, we can't support the Green movement, it doesn't matter. It's better to die than to become what she advocates. What is the purpose of living as a slave, there is no reason to allow that.
Exceptions are named for what they stand: exceptional cases. Somebody pulled the network cable out somewhere while you are trying to get data from that networked device. A file is not there that you are checking for because some other piece of code didn't put it there or maybe the file is there but the format has changed and nobody notified the dev team.
New type of data is introduced into a file or maybe the data location changes or maybe the user input is outside of expected parameters (actually this one is the easiest to check and tell the user right away IF it is a synchronous session, if it's asynchronous, then again, you have to send back some notification and log it).
However I do think that there is a more interesting question around exceptions that can be answered: how about recording the total state of data before exception and after, of-course I am talking about data that is used within the process or the thread.
So the 'try / catch' mechanism becomes something more than just a trap, it becomes a frame by frame snapshot of data. Maybe a new type of exception handler, that is beyond the normal 'try / catch'. Call it: 'try-record / catch-record', something like that.
So here is what it could look like:
SomeClass { static char A = 'a'; ... callerFunction() { ... int input = 0; someFunction(input); ... } ... someFunction(int input) { a="blah string"; b=100; try-record { A='b'; a = a + String.valueOf(b / input); } catch-record (Exception e) {
log.exception(); } } } ------------ what you get out of the exception log file: someFunction.try-record.0: SomeClass.A='a' input=0 a="blah string" b=100 someFunction.try-record.1: SomeClass.A='b' input=0 a="blah string" b=100 someFunction.try-record.2: error at: b / input
(and your standard error, division by 0) ------------
Bitcoins cannot 'join global bank network', it's an exchange that operates as a bank in Euro while allowing Bitcoin accounts.
Saying that Bitcoins join a bank is like saying that Euros join a bank or Australian dollars join a bank. Banks operate in certain currencies, if there is more than one bank that allows Bitcoin accounts then they can exchange Bitcoins between their accounts directly without converting one currency into another for transfers.
But you know, the old people who voted themselves this nice slice of a future pie are very important, on the other hand science, well, it doesn't give most people a woody (though some get it through the miracle of a blue pill).
There shouldn't be any price and wage controls. Wage is just another price, controlling it artificially means increasing prices artificially while limiting supply artificially. This goes hand in hand with the welfare state, which removes incentives for people to work.
You think a single mother who is getting welfare benefits today is going to take a job if the job pays say 50K? She receives about 45K in benefits and she doesn't have to go to work (at least officially), she doesn't have to invest any of her money and time into preparing for work, handling things outside of work, for her a 50K salary represents highest marginal tax rate there is, it's 100%.
Actually for her to take a job, the job must pay at the minimum 100K and even then it's not a sure thing because once she takes the job, what if she gets fired or quits or something else happens? By that time she already lost her benefits and has to go through the motions again.
No, there shouldn't be any wage and price controls and there shouldn't be any welfare for anybody if they are not an under-aged child themselves or a disabled (even then the welfare shouldn't be based on any government assistance, it's up to individuals and private charity to provide that welfare).
There is no minimum wage, any 2 parties must be able to enter any sort of contract if it's voluntary and not criminal. If you are an employer, you should be able to hire people at 50cents an hour obviously, because at that range you won't find ANY skilled work, but you may find a number of people who would skip the nonsensical 'higher education' (even high school should be optional, once you know how to read, write and do arithmetic, you can handle many jobs).
Instead of punishing employers for creating jobs, instead of preventing jobs from being created, instead of destroying incentives for people to take work, instead of creating dependency class and welfare society, government must do one single thing: provide maximum protection of individual liberty so as to allow people to elevate themselves above their own circumstance on their own merits and in their own way.
Low wage jobs aren't designed to support a family by the way, low wage jobs are there so that the least skilled people can have a chance of taking at least some entry level position and eventually progress into better paying ones.
Who works a minimum wage job once they can command a better salary, wage, benefits, employment conditions? Who said that all jobs are equal in any case? If somebody wants to hire a babysitter, does it mean that the babysitting job must provide a 'living wage'? Why?
Why does a teenager need a living wage? He lives with his parents, he needs an opportunity, not a living wage.
Good quality is good strategy, but your conclusions are wrong. Being competitive by providing the cheapest goods, however it is done, makes all people wealthier and wealthier, that's what cheaper and cheaper goods mean - you can buy things you couldn't before and you can buy more of them for less money. This is the lesson of 19th century USA and current China.
-- By the way, here is a store that sells only goods that are 'Made in USA'. The goods sold in it look like the same goods might have been in a store 150 years ago (except for an electrical flashlight, the only thing there that runs on electricity I think).
In the world of 'Big Stuff' USA still rules maybe, but that is specifically because USA builds so much military equipment. However this helps but doesn't fix USA trade deficit problem, which is a severe one, tens of billions USD per month worth of trade deficit for decades and thus foreigners importing into USA all the actual products that Americans buy and these foreigners accumulating US dollars and debt obligation cannot last forever. It creates inflation for the foreigners and subsidises US consumer. When it stops the inflation comes back to USA and the American consumer is too poor to buy Komatsu and Caterpillar products (that's beside the fact that you can't cook a Komatsu, maybe a Caterpillar, but it doesn't provide the same nutritional value as 90% of seafood that USA apparently imports).
It is precisely the moral issue like slavery (of-course the Civil war USA fought in 19th century wasn't about slavery, it was about control, other countries didn't have to fight a civil war to abolish slavery, there were many methods of doing it that didn't need a war). But it is today a moral issue, like slavery, where the majority is using the vote of the mob to discriminate against a minority.
Of-course nobody is going to secede to join Canada, out of all places. When people secede they don't do it in a search for yet another ruler, they do it for themselves.
Do you know that Somalians fought against these exact policies by their former communist government? Do you know that people came to USA to escape their own tyrannical governments in the past? Actually if the things keep going the way they are going now, it will make perfect sense to move out of USA and actually go to Somalia.
The way things are going, USA just may have to undergo a similar armed conflict that Somali has gone through 20 years back when it ousted its Communist regime. Sure, the country is poor now, but it actually has a stable enough currency and parts of it see quick technological progress. They have nearly perfected the system of private liability insurance, private court system, property rights, they are working out a system that at least corresponds to their technological prowess.
However here is a thought: people came to USA running away from their own former tyrannies, just maybe some of them decide that this time there is no Terra Nova to run to (though many will skip to various regions in Asia, Australia, South America, Africa maybe), but there is definitely enough both: space in USA and likeminded, freedom seeking people, who very likely will want at least part of their country back. While you say: go back to Somalia, I expect some of them will say: you should go back to Somalia prior to the conflict that ended its communist regime.
I think it just may happen in our lifetimes (unless Barry decides to drop a missile from a drone on some of our heads), that USA will be split at least once, and I can imagine a southern State or two, that may like that idea and will be willing to try it out.
Enlist an educational facility (regardless of what type it is) to run your re-education campaign.
Listen, whether you are for the public education or against it or have no opinion on it one way or another, you have to admit that this type of action by the Governor is questionable at the least.
Personally I advice everybody to take a step back and ask themselves this question: did I promise anything to anybody? Did I promise to be a tax slave in a system that was set up without any of my participation? Did I vote back then when Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and Hoover and Nixon and Carter and everybody in between, all the rest of the socialists were pushing for their agenda?
OK, so if YOU voted for it, you may feel some form of obligation to pay for it. However tens to hundreds of millions of unsuspected individuals were born and died and were born again in a system that fleeced them dry, prevented the economy from working with these exact types of policies.
You should be opposed to any of this on the general principle alone, never mind the fact that you have no money to do any of it.
The unfunded liabilities to all the pensioners in the system, the SS and Medicare and then State liabilities, they are running around 222 Trillion dollars in USA (that's not the 16 Trillion public debt, it's something else, and it's not the contingency liabilities, most or all of which will hit once the real fiscal grand canyon takes place).
No no no, do not let yourself to be re-educated this way. You can think whatever you want, but you didn't sign for it unless of-course you were the one voting for any politician who promised it.
The people who voted for Barry Goldwater DID NOT SIGN UP FOR IT. The people who voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson DID NOT SIGN UP FOR IT.
In fact even the people who voted for Reagan didn't sign up for any of it, though he still ended up fleecing them.
Don't fall for it, in fact consider your options of moving OUT OF ILLINOIS very very carefully, because the taxes will be going up and the economy of that state will be collapsing all on its own, never mind the union.
So I don't know how it is worded in United Kingdom's law, but in USA law government protectionism of copyright is worded as:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
From TFA:
If the blockade continues, it wonâ(TM)t be too farfetched to assume that UK based artists might not be able to benefit from the opportunity that The Promo Bay provides. ISPs in the UK are blocking the new site with a similar message as is displayed for The Pirate Bay. The block on the promotion platform seems to be a mistake and probably will be resolved it is believed.
I don't know if UK sees its role as that of 'promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts' but whatever it is they are doing, they clearly HURTING promotion of useful Arts in this case.
The reason for me writing this is just how many times I have seen people using that tool of government propaganda supposedly to support their position.
If you read it you will find a more complete picture of my thoughts on Buffet, if you then have any question, I'll be happy to respond.
Yes, of-course it is my/. journal, where I expand with actual data and refer to the actual IRS site, which contains actual PDF files that have in them income tax returns for the years mentioned.
Maybe you have missed on this entire 'hyper text markup' thing but I try to stay in tune with the times.
Also in my linked/. journal, where I point at the IRS PDF files with the actual data in them I cite the data that I found in those PDF files, which must be a surprise to you, that it is possible for somebody to take an actual factual historic record of actual taxes and post it as a comment on their/. journal. I understand it is a hard concept and I understand it doesn't fit your agenda, however regardless of your protests based on propaganda and nothing else, I actually use historical data to show that:
1. The wealthy of the 1958 paid the total of 3.5% of income taxes. That's 0.178 returns (8549 people) out of about 45.6 Million submitted. That's people who paid 35% or more in income taxes and that includes the 236 people who were silly enough to not find enough ways to reduce their payments and so they paid some of their taxes in the 91% bracket.
Now, OTOH, it is 2% of people who pay 35% or more, it's 2.5 Million people and together they contribute 41.5% of all income taxes.
The top 5% of income earners contribute 59% of all income taxes by the way.
So this does not fit your nonsensical propaganda that in 1958 taxes were so much more 'progressive' that the wealthy were paying much more than they are paying today as a percentage of their income and as a percentage of all income taxes that were paid. Clearly today the wealthy are completely overtaxed, they are hit by the taxes disproportionately and that is the actual reason that the savings, investments and thus productivity (production) more commonly known as 'jobs' have left or are leaving.
I know it doesn't fit your agenda, but unfortunately anybody can open the same exact files and do the same exact research. I hope you can read text within images in those files, that's how they are stored.
1. Assange is not a USA citizen. He didn't commit any crime. You may believe it to be true, but actually US criminal code, whatever it is, it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign land. If Assange kills somebody in Copenhagen, then they can try him criminally in Denmark. But if he kills somebody in Australia, Denmark won't be trying him.
He is not a US citizen he is not a US resident and he is not liable to care about US criminal code.
2. Journalists must be protected against government going after people who disseminate information. Whether you like it or not, it is important that government cannot stop journalists from uncovering the information. While actually stealing the information from somewhere may be a crime, printing it in a newspaper once it got to you anonymously cannot be a crime.
As I said, I have to do my own research, I do not trust people that's all. Why would I trust people? The majority on the TV box and the Internet right now are spewing incredible propaganda that the 'rich' for example are paying low taxes, even 'historically low taxes' (hopefully they do mean when compared to 40s and 50s, hopefully, because before 1913 there were no income taxes of any kind at all and that's when US economy was actually built, the towns, the factories, everything, and that's taking into account the most bloody war on US soil).
So once again, what I see from actual documents is: 0.178% of people in 1958 paid 35% or more in income taxes (or were in those brackets) and they contributed 3.5% of all income tax revenue to the federal government.
Today 2% of people pay 35% or more in income taxes (or fall into those brackets) and that's 2.5 million and they contribute 41.5% of all income taxes. That's more than 10 times the people and that's insane increase in ratio of how much they pay into the system compared to the 1958.
236 people were in 91% tax bracket, it doesn't mean that they paid too much in those brackets, it means it was a small number of people and clearly people who are smart enough to make enough money to be in 91% tax bracket are intelligent enough to avoid paying most of their money in taxes in the first place. So these must be outliers. My point is that a very small percentage of people paid high taxes at the time and to understand it you have to understand that in 1958 it was very easy not to pay taxes at all.
1. you could deduct any loss from any gain. You could deduct house depreciation (it is in those tax documents, I suggest you open them, I linked to them), you could deduct stock market losses and carry credits into the next years even, you could deduct stock market losses from your salary dollar per dollar FFS, that's impossible today. Today the maximum deduction you can have is 3000 dollars. So if you lose 100K on the stock market and your salary is 150K you can't deduct 100K, you can deduct a maximum of 3000. That's a huge difference.
2. You could deduct any purchase whatsoever from your income. You could buy a yacht, a plane, a pen or a chair or take a trip. People deducted club memberships and casino losses! You could deduct all of your expenses from your income, and there was only 1 type of income, not 4 different types of income as today, losses from which can't be deducted one from another.
Sure sure, if somebody (gov't) guarantees your losses so you can't lose, then you can truly disregard the tax rate. If you lose, you'll be made whole by the gov't, if you win, you keep your after-tax portion and you can now re-invest again. It doesn't work this way in real life unless you are a bank OR Buffet actually. The guy is full of shit.
In any case I have to see the numbers on my own to make any sort of educated comment on this, otherwise it's like a bunch of blind people, each holding to a different part of an elephant, trying to describe what it is they are holding to each other.
For some reason this whole thing immediately reminded me of all those movies about the WWII that I watched where the nazis used trucks with radio-transmitter detectors to find enemy spies.
This to me looks very similar: the government power is using technological means to find people that are part of a network that exists specifically to hide its activity away from government power.
As to 2009, those numbers make no sense given the numbers I saw reported in 2010, I doubt the changes from year to year were so huge, then again, 2009 was the year of the market crash, everything is possible. Comparing tax data to 2009 is not useful at all, it's like comparing the average climate of the planet to a year when a huge volcano erupts or when a meteorite strikes.
I am going to look over the 1979 documents to see whether this is true or not, basically I don't trust any aggregates given to me by third parties anymore after looking at the actual IRS historic information. Unfortunately it takes a while, it took me a while to go over a few hundred pages of the 1958 returns to find the data, that's because the data is in image form in those PDFs and there are many various types of views and aggregates done from different perspectives.
Now, he pays himself about 60Million in taxes out of about a billion
- I meant to say he pays himself 60Million in dividends and pays 15% tax on that 60 Million. However his billion is taxed at 35% (or whatever the rate that he is fighting IRS about).
Slashdot Mirror
. I, for one, would give up the right to bear arms for everyone, and not miss it.
- yeah, the cattle in USA already gave up all other rights, what's the big deal, right? What rights are there left that government respects?
How many innocent people are killed by government, US government around the world daily? Killed with bombs and missiles and drones and machine guns.
If it is guns you want to ban, ban your government from having them first and THEN you can ban people from having them, because the purpose of guns is protection of self and private property but also, very importantly, removal of tyrannical government. USA government is tyrannical, it's not the government that was authorised by the States, it violates human rights every day, many people die.
USA government kills children around the world, I guess nobody cares, those are mainly non-white, some are even scary a-rab children, so fuck'em.
But when some white kids are murdered by a maniac with a weapon inside a US school, well then, of-course, give up more rights, and to government out of all things.
No, you know what, you are right. You don't need that right, you don't deserve it, what's the point, you are not going to take down this tyrannical government and you won't stop the murder of children around the world that happens from your name, by the way, so might as well stop the pretence of having any individual rights anyway. Who is an individual?
No no, you missed the picture of one of the cops, he was quoted as saying: "I AM the law".
Jefferson clearly says "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another". Your statement directly contradicts this quote.
- he may say whatever he likes, that's not part of the Constitution, it's not law.
BTW., if you look at the Declaration and Constitution, you will see those documents for what they are: a bait and switch operation.
The Declaration is the bait and the Constitution is the switch.
Declaration states that people have all these inalienable self-evident rights, and then the Constitution starts enumerating rights in bills and amendments. That's a contradiction. If the founders didn't do the bait and switch, they could have actually carried the principle of individuals having all the rights into the Constitution, they could have very specifically and explicitly said:
*People can do anything they want and government is only allowed to impede on the rights listed below only under very limited conditions, also listed below.
Then they could have listed the conditions, when government is allowed to impede on individual rights. Under all other circumstances, the individual rights could be considered paramount and even absolute if that was the intent.
However the Declaration was made to be a populous document and the Constitution was not, it was an authorisation of power to government force and provision of certain means to maintain that power.
Here is an example of how the Constitution failed to protect individual rights of people: income taxes.
Income taxes are unconstitutional and are collected unconstitutionally. However it is such a technical argument that it is lost on most people, including lower courts. The question is, why is it so? It is so because the Constitution does not actually protect individual rights, if it truly did, it would have been much more aligned with the Declaration, and in the Declaration the right of people to abolish governments that become tyrannical is clearly stated.
If you read the Declaration and the complaints about the King, you can actually draw very close parallels between those grievances and the transgressions against the individual rights that the democratic US government is actually guilty of today. Why is the government still in power then? It is actually more guilty then the King at this point, the King could never dream of what the current despotic democratic mobocracy type government is achieving.
The government that USA has today allows for tyranny of one person against another, that's what the majority based elections are about, tyranny of majority. So the question becomes, how is it that the Constitutional government turned to be a tyranny of majority, a mobocracy?
The answer is not too hard: the Constitution does not do a good enough job protecting real individual rights from the government. It's just too broad, the powers that are authorised to government are too broad, there are no clear indications that the powers must never exceed what is authorised by the Constitution explicitly.
However again, nowhere in the Amendments, Bill of Rights does it state anything about rights being guaranteed to be respected, protected, even afforded by one individual to another. That's not what rights are about. The Constitution defines rights as relationship between the individual and the collective, it says (for example):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you see the words? Does it say: individual must make permission or must afford or must abide by?
No.
It says: Congress shall make no law
That's all we need to know, so where it come
This type of misunderstanding of Constitution is so spread across the population, it's so insidious, that I think even some judges may fall prey to it, however I don't believe that the spammer in question is misunderstanding the law, he hopes to use this misunderstanding of the law by the public to try and get his way.
The Constitution does not at all say that private individuals or companies must protect and defend and recognise the right to free speech of other individuals. The Constitution applies to the federal government, it's a document that states what authority federal government has.
The federal government is not allowed to impede free speech (though it very often does), an ISP is NOT any government, it's a company or a person (yeah, a corporation is just a fictional front for people). One person does not have to provide another person with a free media access.
Federal government OTOH cannot place this spammer to jail for saying controversial things, that's the point of the free speech right.
But this is just another out of series of misunderstanding of what rights are. Constitutionally protected individual rights are not there so that one individual would not violate right of another, it's there so that the government, the collective would not violate rights of individuals.
The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.
Socialism works for people who don't pay for it.
Of-course today it is the wealthy that are forced to pay for all this socialism and that's why the concept is so popular with the majority of voters, who are simply voting for a bigger government that promises to tax the rich and redistribute the proceeds of this confiscation, more commonly known as theft or robbery (it is done with weapons of-course, under the barrel of a gun).
More on the topic of taxing the wealthy today much more than 60 years ago and with a video.
Of-course the purpose of taxes is supposed to be using it to pay for minimum Constitutionally sized government, not this forever growing monstrosity people vote for today. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally by the way.
I drink plenty of coffee and there are no side-effects and there are no side-effects... and there are no side-effects... and there are no side-effects. and there are no side-effects... and there are no... side-effects and there are... no side-effects and... there are no side-effects and there... are no side-effects and there are... no... side-effects... and there are no side-effects
It's OK, somebody was going to run an intergalactic superhighway through these places eventually, so it doesn't matter much.
But seriously, the correct thing to do with was 110 years ago, not 20. 100 years ago in USA the socialist ideology started pushing forward with ideas that government should be taking care of everything by stealing from some and subsidising others. That's when the right time was to stop that in its tracks and allow the free market to continue operating. Nuclear power should be investigated, but it can't be because government controls every aspect of it. People should be free to do whatever they want in a search of solutions to sell in the free market, they shouldn't be stopped by any collective.
Either we, as a collection of individuals will try and try and fail and try again and figure out our solutions or we will shed all personal responsibility and delegate all matters, economic and social as well is ideology and morality to the collective itself, not the individuals, but the centrally planning collective and we will fail. There is no way that the collective will be able to allocate the resources in the most efficient manner, there is no way that the collective will work all the political angles out in order to achieve some form of a solution that actually works in the long run. It's impossible. It is as impossible for that to happen as it was impossible for the Soviet Union to survive economically speaking, and people predicted the fall of that country even in the twenties of the last century.
It is absolutely impossible to use the collective to solve any such economic problem, and this problem is an economic problem. By the way, the real reason that so many people disagree with the Greens is that they realise that the Green movement are actually just a disguised anti-capitalist, pro-collectivist, socialist ideology. You can easily see this in the answers of the Green party candidate in the third party debates on youtube. Jill Stein is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Green movement and why so many people will never support it, even if the entire planet cooks and goes to hell, we can't support the Green movement, it doesn't matter. It's better to die than to become what she advocates. What is the purpose of living as a slave, there is no reason to allow that.
Exceptions are named for what they stand: exceptional cases. Somebody pulled the network cable out somewhere while you are trying to get data from that networked device. A file is not there that you are checking for because some other piece of code didn't put it there or maybe the file is there but the format has changed and nobody notified the dev team.
New type of data is introduced into a file or maybe the data location changes or maybe the user input is outside of expected parameters (actually this one is the easiest to check and tell the user right away IF it is a synchronous session, if it's asynchronous, then again, you have to send back some notification and log it).
However I do think that there is a more interesting question around exceptions that can be answered: how about recording the total state of data before exception and after, of-course I am talking about data that is used within the process or the thread.
So the 'try / catch' mechanism becomes something more than just a trap, it becomes a frame by frame snapshot of data. Maybe a new type of exception handler, that is beyond the normal 'try / catch'. Call it: 'try-record / catch-record', something like that.
So here is what it could look like:
Bitcoins cannot 'join global bank network', it's an exchange that operates as a bank in Euro while allowing Bitcoin accounts.
Saying that Bitcoins join a bank is like saying that Euros join a bank or Australian dollars join a bank. Banks operate in certain currencies, if there is more than one bank that allows Bitcoin accounts then they can exchange Bitcoins between their accounts directly without converting one currency into another for transfers.
But you know, the old people who voted themselves this nice slice of a future pie are very important, on the other hand science, well, it doesn't give most people a woody (though some get it through the miracle of a blue pill).
There shouldn't be any price and wage controls. Wage is just another price, controlling it artificially means increasing prices artificially while limiting supply artificially. This goes hand in hand with the welfare state, which removes incentives for people to work.
You think a single mother who is getting welfare benefits today is going to take a job if the job pays say 50K? She receives about 45K in benefits and she doesn't have to go to work (at least officially), she doesn't have to invest any of her money and time into preparing for work, handling things outside of work, for her a 50K salary represents highest marginal tax rate there is, it's 100%.
Actually for her to take a job, the job must pay at the minimum 100K and even then it's not a sure thing because once she takes the job, what if she gets fired or quits or something else happens? By that time she already lost her benefits and has to go through the motions again.
No, there shouldn't be any wage and price controls and there shouldn't be any welfare for anybody if they are not an under-aged child themselves or a disabled (even then the welfare shouldn't be based on any government assistance, it's up to individuals and private charity to provide that welfare).
There is no minimum wage, any 2 parties must be able to enter any sort of contract if it's voluntary and not criminal. If you are an employer, you should be able to hire people at 50cents an hour obviously, because at that range you won't find ANY skilled work, but you may find a number of people who would skip the nonsensical 'higher education' (even high school should be optional, once you know how to read, write and do arithmetic, you can handle many jobs).
Instead of punishing employers for creating jobs, instead of preventing jobs from being created, instead of destroying incentives for people to take work, instead of creating dependency class and welfare society, government must do one single thing: provide maximum protection of individual liberty so as to allow people to elevate themselves above their own circumstance on their own merits and in their own way.
Low wage jobs aren't designed to support a family by the way, low wage jobs are there so that the least skilled people can have a chance of taking at least some entry level position and eventually progress into better paying ones.
Who works a minimum wage job once they can command a better salary, wage, benefits, employment conditions? Who said that all jobs are equal in any case? If somebody wants to hire a babysitter, does it mean that the babysitting job must provide a 'living wage'? Why?
Why does a teenager need a living wage? He lives with his parents, he needs an opportunity, not a living wage.
That's nonsense. Governments shouldn't be in any business decisions regarding any products sold.
Governments are supposed to exist only to protect individual freedoms, of-course what the hell would people know about it today?
Good quality is good strategy, but your conclusions are wrong. Being competitive by providing the cheapest goods, however it is done, makes all people wealthier and wealthier, that's what cheaper and cheaper goods mean - you can buy things you couldn't before and you can buy more of them for less money. This is the lesson of 19th century USA and current China.
--
By the way, here is a store that sells only goods that are 'Made in USA'. The goods sold in it look like the same goods might have been in a store 150 years ago (except for an electrical flashlight, the only thing there that runs on electricity I think).
In the world of 'Big Stuff' USA still rules maybe, but that is specifically because USA builds so much military equipment. However this helps but doesn't fix USA trade deficit problem, which is a severe one, tens of billions USD per month worth of trade deficit for decades and thus foreigners importing into USA all the actual products that Americans buy and these foreigners accumulating US dollars and debt obligation cannot last forever. It creates inflation for the foreigners and subsidises US consumer. When it stops the inflation comes back to USA and the American consumer is too poor to buy Komatsu and Caterpillar products (that's beside the fact that you can't cook a Komatsu, maybe a Caterpillar, but it doesn't provide the same nutritional value as 90% of seafood that USA apparently imports).
Well, you can go to college and then, when your boss wants a beer, he can say something like: hey there, you, with a college degree, fetch me a cold one. Or you can be a very well educated stripper.
It is precisely the moral issue like slavery (of-course the Civil war USA fought in 19th century wasn't about slavery, it was about control, other countries didn't have to fight a civil war to abolish slavery, there were many methods of doing it that didn't need a war). But it is today a moral issue, like slavery, where the majority is using the vote of the mob to discriminate against a minority.
Of-course nobody is going to secede to join Canada, out of all places. When people secede they don't do it in a search for yet another ruler, they do it for themselves.
Do you know that Somalians fought against these exact policies by their former communist government? Do you know that people came to USA to escape their own tyrannical governments in the past? Actually if the things keep going the way they are going now, it will make perfect sense to move out of USA and actually go to Somalia.
The way things are going, USA just may have to undergo a similar armed conflict that Somali has gone through 20 years back when it ousted its Communist regime. Sure, the country is poor now, but it actually has a stable enough currency and parts of it see quick technological progress. They have nearly perfected the system of private liability insurance, private court system, property rights, they are working out a system that at least corresponds to their technological prowess.
However here is a thought: people came to USA running away from their own former tyrannies, just maybe some of them decide that this time there is no Terra Nova to run to (though many will skip to various regions in Asia, Australia, South America, Africa maybe), but there is definitely enough both: space in USA and likeminded, freedom seeking people, who very likely will want at least part of their country back. While you say: go back to Somalia, I expect some of them will say: you should go back to Somalia prior to the conflict that ended its communist regime.
I think it just may happen in our lifetimes (unless Barry decides to drop a missile from a drone on some of our heads), that USA will be split at least once, and I can imagine a southern State or two, that may like that idea and will be willing to try it out.
Enlist an educational facility (regardless of what type it is) to run your re-education campaign.
Listen, whether you are for the public education or against it or have no opinion on it one way or another, you have to admit that this type of action by the Governor is questionable at the least.
Personally I advice everybody to take a step back and ask themselves this question: did I promise anything to anybody? Did I promise to be a tax slave in a system that was set up without any of my participation? Did I vote back then when Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and Hoover and Nixon and Carter and everybody in between, all the rest of the socialists were pushing for their agenda?
OK, so if YOU voted for it, you may feel some form of obligation to pay for it. However tens to hundreds of millions of unsuspected individuals were born and died and were born again in a system that fleeced them dry, prevented the economy from working with these exact types of policies.
You should be opposed to any of this on the general principle alone, never mind the fact that you have no money to do any of it.
The unfunded liabilities to all the pensioners in the system, the SS and Medicare and then State liabilities, they are running around 222 Trillion dollars in USA (that's not the 16 Trillion public debt, it's something else, and it's not the contingency liabilities, most or all of which will hit once the real fiscal grand canyon takes place).
No no no, do not let yourself to be re-educated this way. You can think whatever you want, but you didn't sign for it unless of-course you were the one voting for any politician who promised it.
The people who voted for Barry Goldwater DID NOT SIGN UP FOR IT. The people who voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson DID NOT SIGN UP FOR IT.
In fact even the people who voted for Reagan didn't sign up for any of it, though he still ended up fleecing them.
Don't fall for it, in fact consider your options of moving OUT OF ILLINOIS very very carefully, because the taxes will be going up and the economy of that state will be collapsing all on its own, never mind the union.
So I don't know how it is worded in United Kingdom's law, but in USA law government protectionism of copyright is worded as:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
From TFA:
If the blockade continues, it wonâ(TM)t be too farfetched to assume that UK based artists might not be able to benefit from the opportunity that The Promo Bay provides. ISPs in the UK are blocking the new site with a similar message as is displayed for The Pirate Bay. The block on the promotion platform seems to be a mistake and probably will be resolved it is believed.
I don't know if UK sees its role as that of 'promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts' but whatever it is they are doing, they clearly HURTING promotion of useful Arts in this case.
You know what, I decided to do a full blown rebuttal of Warren Buffet's nonsense
The reason for me writing this is just how many times I have seen people using that tool of government propaganda supposedly to support their position.
If you read it you will find a more complete picture of my thoughts on Buffet, if you then have any question, I'll be happy to respond.
Yes, of-course it is my /. journal, where I expand with actual data and refer to the actual IRS site, which contains actual PDF files that have in them income tax returns for the years mentioned.
Maybe you have missed on this entire 'hyper text markup' thing but I try to stay in tune with the times.
Also in my linked /. journal, where I point at the IRS PDF files with the actual data in them I cite the data that I found in those PDF files, which must be a surprise to you, that it is possible for somebody to take an actual factual historic record of actual taxes and post it as a comment on their /. journal. I understand it is a hard concept and I understand it doesn't fit your agenda, however regardless of your protests based on propaganda and nothing else, I actually use historical data to show that:
1. The wealthy of the 1958 paid the total of 3.5% of income taxes. That's 0.178 returns (8549 people) out of about 45.6 Million submitted. That's people who paid 35% or more in income taxes and that includes the 236 people who were silly enough to not find enough ways to reduce their payments and so they paid some of their taxes in the 91% bracket.
Now, OTOH, it is 2% of people who pay 35% or more, it's 2.5 Million people and together they contribute 41.5% of all income taxes.
The top 5% of income earners contribute 59% of all income taxes by the way.
So this does not fit your nonsensical propaganda that in 1958 taxes were so much more 'progressive' that the wealthy were paying much more than they are paying today as a percentage of their income and as a percentage of all income taxes that were paid. Clearly today the wealthy are completely overtaxed, they are hit by the taxes disproportionately and that is the actual reason that the savings, investments and thus productivity (production) more commonly known as 'jobs' have left or are leaving.
I know it doesn't fit your agenda, but unfortunately anybody can open the same exact files and do the same exact research. I hope you can read text within images in those files, that's how they are stored.
1. Assange is not a USA citizen. He didn't commit any crime. You may believe it to be true, but actually US criminal code, whatever it is, it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign land. If Assange kills somebody in Copenhagen, then they can try him criminally in Denmark. But if he kills somebody in Australia, Denmark won't be trying him.
He is not a US citizen he is not a US resident and he is not liable to care about US criminal code.
2. Journalists must be protected against government going after people who disseminate information. Whether you like it or not, it is important that government cannot stop journalists from uncovering the information. While actually stealing the information from somewhere may be a crime, printing it in a newspaper once it got to you anonymously cannot be a crime.
As I said, I have to do my own research, I do not trust people that's all. Why would I trust people? The majority on the TV box and the Internet right now are spewing incredible propaganda that the 'rich' for example are paying low taxes, even 'historically low taxes' (hopefully they do mean when compared to 40s and 50s, hopefully, because before 1913 there were no income taxes of any kind at all and that's when US economy was actually built, the towns, the factories, everything, and that's taking into account the most bloody war on US soil).
So once again, what I see from actual documents is: 0.178% of people in 1958 paid 35% or more in income taxes (or were in those brackets) and they contributed 3.5% of all income tax revenue to the federal government.
Today 2% of people pay 35% or more in income taxes (or fall into those brackets) and that's 2.5 million and they contribute 41.5% of all income taxes. That's more than 10 times the people and that's insane increase in ratio of how much they pay into the system compared to the 1958.
236 people were in 91% tax bracket, it doesn't mean that they paid too much in those brackets, it means it was a small number of people and clearly people who are smart enough to make enough money to be in 91% tax bracket are intelligent enough to avoid paying most of their money in taxes in the first place. So these must be outliers. My point is that a very small percentage of people paid high taxes at the time and to understand it you have to understand that in 1958 it was very easy not to pay taxes at all.
1. you could deduct any loss from any gain. You could deduct house depreciation (it is in those tax documents, I suggest you open them, I linked to them), you could deduct stock market losses and carry credits into the next years even, you could deduct stock market losses from your salary dollar per dollar FFS, that's impossible today. Today the maximum deduction you can have is 3000 dollars. So if you lose 100K on the stock market and your salary is 150K you can't deduct 100K, you can deduct a maximum of 3000. That's a huge difference.
2. You could deduct any purchase whatsoever from your income. You could buy a yacht, a plane, a pen or a chair or take a trip. People deducted club memberships and casino losses! You could deduct all of your expenses from your income, and there was only 1 type of income, not 4 different types of income as today, losses from which can't be deducted one from another.
Again, I explain here how taxes affect people's behaviour in terms of consumption spending vs. investment, the higher the taxes (marginal rate) the less investment there will be, which is contrary to what Buffet likes to say nowadays, because he doesn't admit that investments are risky.
Sure sure, if somebody (gov't) guarantees your losses so you can't lose, then you can truly disregard the tax rate. If you lose, you'll be made whole by the gov't, if you win, you keep your after-tax portion and you can now re-invest again. It doesn't work this way in real life unless you are a bank OR Buffet actually. The guy is full of shit.
In any case I have to see the numbers on my own to make any sort of educated comment on this, otherwise it's like a bunch of blind people, each holding to a different part of an elephant, trying to describe what it is they are holding to each other.
For some reason this whole thing immediately reminded me of all those movies about the WWII that I watched where the nazis used trucks with radio-transmitter detectors to find enemy spies.
This to me looks very similar: the government power is using technological means to find people that are part of a network that exists specifically to hide its activity away from government power.
This is not a nice association.
As to 2009, those numbers make no sense given the numbers I saw reported in 2010, I doubt the changes from year to year were so huge, then again, 2009 was the year of the market crash, everything is possible. Comparing tax data to 2009 is not useful at all, it's like comparing the average climate of the planet to a year when a huge volcano erupts or when a meteorite strikes.
I am going to look over the 1979 documents to see whether this is true or not, basically I don't trust any aggregates given to me by third parties anymore after looking at the actual IRS historic information. Unfortunately it takes a while, it took me a while to go over a few hundred pages of the 1958 returns to find the data, that's because the data is in image form in those PDFs and there are many various types of views and aggregates done from different perspectives.
Once I figure this out, I will post it in the journal entry where I talk about these IRS documents and taxes as a comment, let's find out, why not? Personally I can see why the 2009 data would be skewed and I can even see why 1979 data may be skewed (year of 14% inflation after all), so let's find out.
Do you care to find out? Again 1979 - the year of 14% official inflation. 2009 - the year when the financial crisis hit.
Now, he pays himself about 60Million in taxes out of about a billion
- I meant to say he pays himself 60Million in dividends and pays 15% tax on that 60 Million. However his billion is taxed at 35% (or whatever the rate that he is fighting IRS about).