- Income taxes only exist in USA since 1913, so a fantasy it is not, when it's based on 200 years of fact.
If you have two neurons communicating with each other you would know that is an impossible thing to do, government would collapse if income tax went away completely. Your "liberties" would go away with it.
- you don't even have 1 neuron, never mind 2. USA became the most productive country in the world, creating most of the wealth before income taxes were created.
On February 20, libertarian activist and Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh, and Nathan Cox, co-founder with Kokesh of Veterans for Ron Paul, hosted a rally and march for veterans and active duty service members who support the Texas Congressman for the 2012 Republican nomination. The "Ron Paul Is the Choice of the Troops" rally began at noon in the Sylvan Theater by the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.. Troops marched on the White House in a 48 x 8 formation, totaling 384, and they were joined by roughly a hundred supporters and observers.
The prescription contraceptive market is already priced to be affordable only for those with insurance, for the most part.
- no, most people who have jobs can buy their own condoms and pills.
I'll tell you more - child birth is also not something that belongs in insurance. Complications - sure, normal child birth? No. This should be paid out of pocket.
With effects on female jobs, you're right in that if things unfold as you suggest, there will be more lawsuits.
- yes, and fewer women will be hired and more women will be fired and women will get less salary, because part of their salary will be contraception, or did you think things that are declared 'free' by the government don't actually have to be paid for? Things that are declared 'free' by the government normally end up costing an arm and a leg.
Hopefully that properly motivates employers to stay away from violating civil rights.
- there is no such thing as 'civil rights', there are only individual rights. Anything that gov't calls a 'civil right' is an entitlement to some and an obligation to others.
You can't give a group of people special rights, just because you hire somebody doesn't mean they get more rights than you and you lose rights to them.
Practical effect of this is that fewer women will have jobs, and women's jobs will pay less, same as what happened with racial minorities after the 'civil rights act'.
I don't see why premiums would go any higher because of this...current plans almost universally include contraception coverage.
- oh you don't? I'll tell you what will happen - nobody will buy contraceptives again. Men won't buy them, they'll assume women will get them free, women won't buy them, they'll be getting paid in them. It will be up to the employer and insurance to buy them, and thus all of the women who used to be price sensitive lose that motivation, so all of them will be getting as many and as expensive things as possible - they aren't paying for them, and this will immediately give a huge signal to the industry to start 'competing' on various options but prices will go up.
You won't find a normal 'pill' it will be a 'better pill' that will cost 5 times as much, etc. That's what happened with health care and education and everything else gov't touched (didn't I mention the gov't inflated housing bubble?)
With freedom, you have a valid point. I'm not sure the mandate is a good idea, especially as written. If done properly it could have reduced the inefficiency of current government health programs (Medicaid/Medicare/VA/etc), but as with many things, it got watered down to the point of only being controversial without solving many problems.
- no government programs and mandates are authorised to exist.
Never mind religion, tell me something, have you heard about a little thing called "Affordable Housing Act"? Do you know what happened with it?
The difference between that and the new "Affordable Condom Act" will be that with the housing crisis, government only caused massive economic problem (that will result in various health problems for many people), with the condom and other contraception crisis, it will be a massive health problem and an economic problem as well.
There is no authority for the federal government of USA to require that employers pay their employees in condoms instead of money.
Some "experts" say that contraception is an important health problem preventative practice. Well, I suppose those same "experts" would have to agree that good fresh clean food and good warm clean clothing is also important for health reasons.
Should government be mandating that employees pay their employers in food and clothing instead of money and that insurance companies include usage of 'free' food and clothing into their coverage?
How is it insurance, if it is not an emergency, by the way? It's a managed money account used for various reasons other than emergencies.
How will this affect the contraceptive market? The prices will go up as customers stop being price sensitive, and it is up to employers/insurance to cover the costs. What will that do to prices? They will go up, as people find new and exciting ways of using contraception for purposes other than advertised (and maybe even just reselling to other countries/markets).
What will that do to people who have little money and no insurance? They'll use fewer contraceptives, there will be more STDs and unwanted pregnancies and there will be women who won't be able to use the pill for other purposes (keep their cycles regular or whatever it does.)
What is the overall effect on the economy? Negative, as fewer women will be hired, more of them will be fired, their salaries will be lower, there will be more lawsuits because of it, insurance premiums will go higher, costs of contraceptives will go higher, fewer contraceptive makers will be in the gov't monopoly dominated market, more STDs and unwanted pregnancies = more health care costs.
What is the overall effect on freedom?
It's in the toilet, wondering why wasn't it shot in the head before being flushed there, after all, Obama just could declare 'freedom' to be a terrorist sympathiser and shoot it before throwing it in the toilet first.
- of-course I can. Government should be ran on exactly amount of taxes that it earmarks to spend, then allocates to State proportionately to the population and then the States can collect that from the people, who should only be required to pay excise/import/sales taxes, never any taxes on production, because by taxing consumption only, the people have a choice to allocate more or less of their money to the government by spending more or less. I don't have to guess a number when it's the nation that decides what exactly it will spend and it can make that decision taking sales taxes into account.
and I tried many times to ask people: how much taxes should be enough to collect from people, and it's the same thing, they can't specify the number (in reality, if they specified a number it would always be lower than what the governments already collect, it's just few people want to seem as insane as governments already are.)
Try it yourself: what is the "fair" tax rate on somebody, anybody? Is there a maximum? (even 100% isn't a hard limit, you can try and collect more, that's what you get today with negative returns on investment and even having to pay banks to hold your deposits there because you see those specific banks as being protected by the government, because they'll get bailed out again.)
The reason why it's impossible to specify such things is because you are correct - it is never enough. It's because no amount of money is enough when one talks about what government can consume with its unlimited consumption ideas.
I use Apache Server with mod_jk.so to redirect requests to Tomcat and mod_ssl so that Apache Server is responsible for channel encryption. If you have to do something like that your best bet is Apache Server, not Nginx.
Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt
on
Tetris In 140 Bytes
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Well, version 2 is 'binary Tetris', so I just assume that version 1 was 'unary Tetris'.
You are a schmuck. You don't care about people. You don't care about any actual problems. You don't give a shit about the economy. Your complain is that in free market there are people who make more money than others and that it is bad in itself, and that's a perfectly fine Marxist idiocy to hold for ideology. But the practical application of your idiotic ideology is that you are going to have all of your people go hungry and die on the streets and kill each other and themselves in a civil war. You think USA had a bad civil war in 19 century? 600K dead. Russia had near 2 million people just die in battles and being slaughtered, never mind all the deaths from hunger and disease, that killed 10 times as many people. That was people fighting and dying because some believed in things similar to yours.
The top richest people mostly left the country, tsar and his family were killed, nearly all military officers were killed in all the battles, millions of children died from hunger and disease.
You want equality - you are going to get your equality. You should really enjoy it when it comes and you are awash in it.
1. In USA federal income taxes are illegal and collected illegally, I explained already.
2. In USA there are 9 States that have no income tax.
3. As to the rest of the world, there are countries without income tax or where income tax is very low and can be avoided, I have a company registered in Cyprus
Andorra The Bahamas Cyprus Liechtenstein Luxembourg Mauritius Monaco Panama San Marino Seychelles Switzerland
Then there are other places where income taxes can be avoided Bermuda British Virgin Islands Campione d'Italia Cayman Islands The Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey City of London The Isle of Man Jebel Ali Free Zone Labuan Netherlands Antilles Turks and Caicos Islands
Of-course there is Delaware.
As to roads and everything else - it's not even close how little money is spent on these, and since money is fungible paying ANY tax (sales, import, any excise) suffices to maintain those, besides, I prefer private roads myself.
And yes - going to jail IS VIOLENCE, having cops raid you IS VIOLENCE.
Violence is not just shooting you, it's an threat to shoot you as well.
right, and the usa is becoming like feudal russia, as more wealth and power accumulates into the hands of the few, as we remove regulations on the flow of money. we need to tax the rich harder in order to move back towards a more fair society. otherwise, we are headed to a world where our democracy is a sham and everything is controlled by a 5% few with 90% of society's wealth
- I knew you were going to fall into that, I have a simple response:
USA has sold out its freedoms and because of that, after 100 years of BIG GOVERNMENT it now is at the stage where there is GOVERNMENT CREATED wealth disparity that BOTHERS people because this wealth disparity was created by government via inflation and not by market forces via productive allocation of resources, and your entire premise, that somehow what is happening right now can be fixed with MORE government is idiotic.
More government - is how you got to this point, and if you are going to compare USA of today and Russia of 1917, then you may have a little bit of a point, that USA today and Russia of 1917 both were unproductive and both suffered from the same problem - gigantic warmongering and inflating government that is destroying the free market.
and i don't understand how or why you think the example of feudal russia is anything but an example of exactly what i am talking about:
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
- and that's your problem, you can't understand simple things, that wealth that is created as part of productivity in the market is not a problem, it's never a problem.
Whose problem is it that Jobs had all this money? He MADE it, he CREATED the money, because he created the productivity that didn't exist before he created it. It didn't exist on this planet - all these Macs and iPods/pads/phones didn't exist in nature or in our stores and homes.
He created the wealth.
Russian government, like any other nobility based government came out of warmongers who were better at killing and manipulating others, not out of increasing productive output and not out of making other people wealthy by giving them products and even amazingly enough creating jobs.
So the billionaires that Russia had and those that USA has that came out of the crisis better off because the Fed printed all that cash and gave it to them - yeah. YOU CREATED THEM WITH BIG GOVERNMENT.
You are never going to solve your problems until majority of population stops going alone with idiotic ideology you are displaying. Your problem is - you've been duped for too long by the very big government that you are protecting.
without a strong central government that reallocates wealth away from a wealthy few, you get societies that will revolt, because these are unfair societies. the "government" becomes "whatever the rich few want"
- this is idiotic to the n'th degree, all of the examples, Egypt, France, Russia whatever - MONARCHIES and TOTALITARIAN REGIMES.
In fact original US revolution did happen - against King George. A KING. Biggest fucking government you can have. A dictator. A fucking monarch. You have your new monarch right now - killing people on a whim. You want it?
You want your big government? You have it.
You have your big government, you have your big fucking amazing monstrosity you wanted, good luck with it.
Wrong - there was no revolution in USA, there was one in Russia.
USA was a free country and then it sold out its freedoms, no revolution, just constant growth of government power and destruction of liberties. USA produced enormous amounts of wealth while it was free and now it's going to have a major crisis and emergency, that it is bankrupt because it decided to give up on freedoms.
Russia was not a free country, it was always a feudal society and there was no Constitution, individuals were not free. Revolution was an attempt at getting some freedoms, however misguided, it was an attempt to remove the power from the hands of the tsar and feudals and into the hand of the people. The tsar signed his own death warrant with the way he conducted the Japanese war of 1905 but even then, most of the country was NOT with the revolutionaries, that's why tens of millions were killed at their hands.
I want wealth to flow how it flows without government coercion, is this clear?
I also know that free people, free of government force, create a better society than people that are living in chains.
I also know that restraining government is the only way to keep individuals free.
I also know that out of 37 wealthiest people in USA, 27 were born before 1850 and only 3 were born in 20th century - Gates, Buffet and Walton.
I also know that the second half of 19th century (after the war) produced a much bigger qualitative and quantitative jump in quality of life and wealth of society than all of 20th century. Comparing what people had before civil war and what they acquired by about the beginning of the WWI, and then comparing what people had past WWII and what they have now, the quantity and quality of what they had acquired in a very much freer society is incomparably higher.
But again to my point - I do NOT begrudge others their wealth. I do begrudge their willingness to steal by using government force, and I do everything I can to not allow them this opportunity.
You are going to get what you are preaching - that violence that you want to apply is coming back to you, multiplied by a huge margin. You are going to have it, the dollar is going to collapse, the economy will be destroyed and then you'll have your socialism.
Government - top officials, legislators, bureaucrats, technocrats, justices in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state based on whatever system of state organisation, be it elections of any type or a dictatorship, a monarchy.
Government force - using whatever passes for 'executive branch' of government to achieve goals of administering legislation and laws that are prescribed by the government system, and using private or state police or military force to coerce people to behave in whatever manner prescribed by the legislators, judiciaries and other members of government.
But you knew that, and I believe that the only reason you are asking me to restate the obvious here is because you cannot escape it, but admit, that you are interested in coercing people by government force into doing something they are unlikely to do on their own at their own will.
to counteract the natural accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, backed up with their own violent means of force. this is what government is in some places in the world
in a democratic country, where the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, the people are empowered to make sure that such accumulation is counteracted, so that the people remain in charge
- We have a breakthrough. Thus you are against 'natural accumulation of wealth in hands of some'. Thus in reality, as I said, it doesn't matter to you how some people go about becoming wealthier than others, as long as there is a mobocracy that can take away from them based on some idea of what is 'fair', which you still did not define.
BUT you just said: it is FAIR to use government threat of violence to steal from those, who have (and I SUPPOSE you mean to give to those who do not.)
your criticism seems to stem from a world without any force of violence. this is an imaginary place. a place without government is a place of total violence: warlords
- and USA was the first country ever that created a government system that was not actually based on nobility and was exactly AGAINST your idea that you are proposing here. USA was NOT created with an income tax, there was an attempt by the way, but it failed, because States wouldn't ratify it.
people who think like you see the force and violence of government and criticize it from an imaginary world where no violence exists.
- oh. An imaginary world, where people came together and signed a contract and in it there was no government violence against people, it was a contract that created a weak federal government, but of-course it managed to steal all of the powers that it was not specifically granted and never had any authority to have.
violence always exists. so if you are a wise person, you criticize HOW the implied threat of force is structured in society, not the mindless criticism that it shouldn't exist at all.
- yes, and people did see the violence that government inherently is and thus they created a contract stating that this violence must be limited to very small number of items. Yet eventually the government found a way to crack all the limits, and now we are presented with the result, and you are welcoming it.
if violence exists, from what quarter does it come, for what reason? in anarchy, it is from any quarter, for any reason. in a democratic society, it is according to rules agreed upon by the people
- and since USA was not created a Democracy but it was created a Republic (if you can keep it) and you are proving unable to keep it, you are going to get the violence that you think is authorised to the government somehow (and it is not, it's the exact opposite of what is authorised to the government), but you are going to get it.
POTUS killing people he believes to be 'bad'. Jailing civilians with military force and denying them the rule of law and justice, because he believes he is a king.
You had a Republic and you had pretty much in the history of the country that 'dream' and you couldn't keep it and now you are arguing for all that violence that is NOT authorised to your government.
But that is exactly why the government was able to steal all that unauthorised power - because of people like you, that believe that it is NOT good that violence is NOT used in order to steal from some and then redistribute to others.
It's ironic that you are going to see something else coming out of it - that violence, that you prefer, it's coming around, coming back, it's going hit you right back. All that violence that was bottled and chained and that you managed to allow to escape the chains because you wanted it - you are going to get it.
I don't have a purpose for you any longer, you have proven the exact positions that I was showing you have, and you can't deny them as you have just confirmed them.
We have lots of options. The question is what sort of society do we want to live in together?
- I am straight out telling you, I am uninterested in any society that believes that using government force to distribute anything from anybody to anybody is acceptable. I don't need to read your lists, it's very simple - government force, yes or no?
What is FAIR. Are you ABLE to define your own position or not? What is your position on fairness?
How is using government enforcement (read - threat of violence) a fair position to take away and redistribute from some to others?
How is it wrong to describe your position, as position of violence? You ARE after all, talking about government enforcement of fairness, and still, you only defined fairness in very vague terms, something about 'equality'.
So if you are talking about equality and defining it as fairness by use of government force, and I am calling this on you and you are absolutely not even trying to DEFINE what FAIR means to you, then I don't see a reason to believe that you are correct, and that 'position A' and 'position B' are at all at odds. They are the same position.
Define fairness and explain how you are going to use government force to create equality?
oh, and it's "worth your effort" obviously, not "worse".
But the question remains. How much blood are you, yourself willing to spill?
How do you define what's fair, and why do you believe you can? Why do you think you can measure people's suffering and redistribute the fruits of their work based on that measurement?
Why do you like violence so much? Do you think of yourself as of a national hero that will help the poor?
Why do you base your morality on theft and your fairness on violence?
Do you think people should be helped regardless of their own ideas on the matter?
Anyway, I am sure it's not something you like to define actually, answers to all those questions, because my next question would be more specific, like: how much tax is enough, percentage wise, etc.
To you, it will never be enough, because this is not the stuff that turns poor people into wealthy or even into middle class, not taxes, not government, not any type of redistribution. You can only redistribute down, towards poverty.
Well, I may be 'Dnepropetrovsk maniac', I don't know, I have only been in Zaporizhzhya never in Dnepropetrovsk, but who knows what that means. NOT that it matters here at all.
In exactly the same way what you write above about what I stand for is unfair and groundless.
I disagree. Everything I wrote here is correct, it's the only way to understand your ideology, because you are clearly trying to weasel out of defining your own position on what FAIR means.
Well I see your position better than you do, you define fairness as amount of violence needed to take away fruits of labour from some to give them to somebody else, and you are going to determine how to do that based on some form of measurement, and you are going to measure suffering - misery, there is nothing else to measure.
Again, those who you think you are speaking for, the 'suffering', the 'miserable', did you ASK THEM if they are willing to spill blood? Because if they are willing, are you sure you want to stand here and protect them this much, are they worse your effort?
Do you like being the 'hero' of the miserable? How do you define 'miserable', how do you measure who is more miserable - somebody who is on a government dole vs somebody who works 12 maybe 14 hour days to run their business?
And I absolutely don't care about the fact that there are edge cases - some people didn't "deserve" to be wealthy, some people are poor for no fault of their own, it doesn't matter. The ones who always end up suffering are not those edge cases, it's the MAJORITY of the people who end up falling down from hunger on the streets and being shot at by whatever 'Red Army' that comes into their village to 'collectivise' them.
You define theft and violence as fairness. You define misery as virtue and morality. You set the standard for "needs" based on some level of misery that you believe you can measure. You want to set the collective above the individual, completely missing the point that there is no way to run the collective, because it is all separate individuals.
Do you love people? You find yourself often thinking about helping the poor? How much violence are you willing to apply to reach your goals? You need to read some Dostoyevsky, I suggest the Karamazov Brothers, it suits you.
- oh good. So when you stop filing your tax forms at the end of the year (or whenever you do it), there won't be violence. No IRS, no police will be coming to get you.
Did anybody notify Wesley Snipes?
people who disagree with you are not "Marxists"
- I agree. Only Marxists are Marxists, and the one I am chatting with in this thread above is somebody I know is a Marxist.
Also, "freedom" isn't just a buzzword to use as a cudgel against things you don't like
- freedom is the issue, isn't it? It's means ability to go about your business without being harassed by government.
You are promoting social entropy because your definition of fairness requires spreading of suffering across the collective and
you are denying the freedoms of an individual to promote an ant farm as some top form of virtue.
The FUNNY thing is it's all falling apart right now, all crumbling around the world because it was all based on your completely debunked ideas and you are clinging to them and calling for a bloody revolution (your version of goodness) in order to promote your ideas of what is moral, good, fair. All of it completely is based on violence.
You said it yourself at some point - you reap what you sow. It is happening right now. You are getting what you've been cultivating.
So many letters and still nothing at all is addressed. Where is your admission that your entire premise is wrong because you rely on measuring people's level of suffering and you want to equalise that?
Where is your admission that what you call fairness is based upon violence?
I completely obliterated your argument
Your double speak nonsense equates violence and fairness.
Your lack of understanding leads you to believe you can base equality on measuring the suffering.
Your arguments are based on your desire to use violence in order to impose your idea of fairness in fact without even asking the people whether they want your version of 'fairness' to be imposed in their name.
As I said, you are Sharikov, there are no ifs and buts about it. Do you play a balalaika?
Tell that to Linus Torvalds and all the Debian GNU/Linux maintainers. Kids should tell that to their parents and adopters too. There are many ways of organizing how things get done based on what values we want to celebrate.
- ARE you telling me that the is GOVERNMENT force standing behind them, with machine guns, ready to fire?
No, wait, what is the point you are trying to make? Either you are predicating your ideology on government power and violence or you are talking about voluntary exchange of some sort, and I have nothing about voluntary exchanges of any kind for any purpose at any time.
So what is your argument about, do you want government to FORCE people into your paradise or are you talking about voluntary participation?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a fun fantasy, isn't it?
- Income taxes only exist in USA since 1913, so a fantasy it is not, when it's based on 200 years of fact.
If you have two neurons communicating with each other you would know that is an impossible thing to do, government would collapse if income tax went away completely. Your "liberties" would go away with it.
- you don't even have 1 neuron, never mind 2. USA became the most productive country in the world, creating most of the wealth before income taxes were created.
Oh you poor shmuck.
On February 20, libertarian activist and Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh, and Nathan Cox, co-founder with Kokesh of Veterans for Ron Paul, hosted a rally and march for veterans and active duty service members who support the Texas Congressman for the 2012 Republican nomination. The "Ron Paul Is the Choice of the Troops" rally began at noon in the Sylvan Theater by the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.. Troops marched on the White House in a 48 x 8 formation, totaling 384, and they were joined by roughly a hundred supporters and observers.
The prescription contraceptive market is already priced to be affordable only for those with insurance, for the most part.
- no, most people who have jobs can buy their own condoms and pills.
I'll tell you more - child birth is also not something that belongs in insurance. Complications - sure, normal child birth? No. This should be paid out of pocket.
With effects on female jobs, you're right in that if things unfold as you suggest, there will be more lawsuits.
- yes, and fewer women will be hired and more women will be fired and women will get less salary, because part of their salary will be contraception, or did you think things that are declared 'free' by the government don't actually have to be paid for? Things that are declared 'free' by the government normally end up costing an arm and a leg.
Hopefully that properly motivates employers to stay away from violating civil rights.
- there is no such thing as 'civil rights', there are only individual rights. Anything that gov't calls a 'civil right' is an entitlement to some and an obligation to others.
You can't give a group of people special rights, just because you hire somebody doesn't mean they get more rights than you and you lose rights to them.
Practical effect of this is that fewer women will have jobs, and women's jobs will pay less, same as what happened with racial minorities after the 'civil rights act'.
I don't see why premiums would go any higher because of this...current plans almost universally include contraception coverage.
- oh you don't? I'll tell you what will happen - nobody will buy contraceptives again. Men won't buy them, they'll assume women will get them free, women won't buy them, they'll be getting paid in them. It will be up to the employer and insurance to buy them, and thus all of the women who used to be price sensitive lose that motivation, so all of them will be getting as many and as expensive things as possible - they aren't paying for them, and this will immediately give a huge signal to the industry to start 'competing' on various options but prices will go up.
You won't find a normal 'pill' it will be a 'better pill' that will cost 5 times as much, etc. That's what happened with health care and education and everything else gov't touched (didn't I mention the gov't inflated housing bubble?)
With freedom, you have a valid point. I'm not sure the mandate is a good idea, especially as written. If done properly it could have reduced the inefficiency of current government health programs (Medicaid/Medicare/VA/etc), but as with many things, it got watered down to the point of only being controversial without solving many problems.
- no government programs and mandates are authorised to exist.
Oh, did I? 0. The correct income tax is 0.
How come the atheists and others are getting fucked by all these people? Can't a non-Catholic get the same exemption? How about exemption from all unconstitutional government laws?
Never mind religion, tell me something, have you heard about a little thing called "Affordable Housing Act"? Do you know what happened with it?
The difference between that and the new "Affordable Condom Act" will be that with the housing crisis, government only caused massive economic problem (that will result in various health problems for many people), with the condom and other contraception crisis, it will be a massive health problem and an economic problem as well.
There is no authority for the federal government of USA to require that employers pay their employees in condoms instead of money.
Some "experts" say that contraception is an important health problem preventative practice. Well, I suppose those same "experts" would have to agree that good fresh clean food and good warm clean clothing is also important for health reasons.
Should government be mandating that employees pay their employers in food and clothing instead of money and that insurance companies include usage of 'free' food and clothing into their coverage?
How is it insurance, if it is not an emergency, by the way? It's a managed money account used for various reasons other than emergencies.
How will this affect the contraceptive market? The prices will go up as customers stop being price sensitive, and it is up to employers/insurance to cover the costs. What will that do to prices? They will go up, as people find new and exciting ways of using contraception for purposes other than advertised (and maybe even just reselling to other countries/markets).
What will that do to people who have little money and no insurance? They'll use fewer contraceptives, there will be more STDs and unwanted pregnancies and there will be women who won't be able to use the pill for other purposes (keep their cycles regular or whatever it does.)
What is the overall effect on the economy? Negative, as fewer women will be hired, more of them will be fired, their salaries will be lower, there will be more lawsuits because of it, insurance premiums will go higher, costs of contraceptives will go higher, fewer contraceptive makers will be in the gov't monopoly dominated market, more STDs and unwanted pregnancies = more health care costs.
What is the overall effect on freedom?
It's in the toilet, wondering why wasn't it shot in the head before being flushed there, after all, Obama just could declare 'freedom' to be a terrorist sympathiser and shoot it before throwing it in the toilet first.
And you can't either, so what's your point?
- of-course I can. Government should be ran on exactly amount of taxes that it earmarks to spend, then allocates to State proportionately to the population and then the States can collect that from the people, who should only be required to pay excise/import/sales taxes, never any taxes on production, because by taxing consumption only, the people have a choice to allocate more or less of their money to the government by spending more or less. I don't have to guess a number when it's the nation that decides what exactly it will spend and it can make that decision taking sales taxes into account.
No, nginx is slower when talking to Apache Tomcat than Apache server is, check your mouth at the door.
and I tried many times to ask people: how much taxes should be enough to collect from people, and it's the same thing, they can't specify the number (in reality, if they specified a number it would always be lower than what the governments already collect, it's just few people want to seem as insane as governments already are.)
Try it yourself: what is the "fair" tax rate on somebody, anybody? Is there a maximum? (even 100% isn't a hard limit, you can try and collect more, that's what you get today with negative returns on investment and even having to pay banks to hold your deposits there because you see those specific banks as being protected by the government, because they'll get bailed out again.)
The reason why it's impossible to specify such things is because you are correct - it is never enough. It's because no amount of money is enough when one talks about what government can consume with its unlimited consumption ideas.
I use Apache Server with mod_jk.so to redirect requests to Tomcat and mod_ssl so that Apache Server is responsible for channel encryption. If you have to do something like that your best bet is Apache Server, not Nginx.
Well, version 2 is 'binary Tetris', so I just assume that version 1 was 'unary Tetris'.
You are a schmuck. You don't care about people. You don't care about any actual problems. You don't give a shit about the economy. Your complain is that in free market there are people who make more money than others and that it is bad in itself, and that's a perfectly fine Marxist idiocy to hold for ideology. But the practical application of your idiotic ideology is that you are going to have all of your people go hungry and die on the streets and kill each other and themselves in a civil war. You think USA had a bad civil war in 19 century? 600K dead. Russia had near 2 million people just die in battles and being slaughtered, never mind all the deaths from hunger and disease, that killed 10 times as many people. That was people fighting and dying because some believed in things similar to yours.
The top richest people mostly left the country, tsar and his family were killed, nearly all military officers were killed in all the battles, millions of children died from hunger and disease.
You want equality - you are going to get your equality. You should really enjoy it when it comes and you are awash in it.
1. In USA federal income taxes are illegal and collected illegally, I explained already.
2. In USA there are 9 States that have no income tax.
3. As to the rest of the world, there are countries without income tax or where income tax is very low and can be avoided, I have a company registered in Cyprus
Andorra
The Bahamas
Cyprus
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mauritius
Monaco
Panama
San Marino
Seychelles
Switzerland
Then there are other places where income taxes can be avoided
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Campione d'Italia
Cayman Islands
The Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey
City of London
The Isle of Man
Jebel Ali Free Zone
Labuan
Netherlands Antilles
Turks and Caicos Islands
Of-course there is Delaware.
As to roads and everything else - it's not even close how little money is spent on these, and since money is fungible paying ANY tax (sales, import, any excise) suffices to maintain those, besides, I prefer private roads myself.
And yes - going to jail IS VIOLENCE, having cops raid you IS VIOLENCE.
Violence is not just shooting you, it's an threat to shoot you as well.
right, and the usa is becoming like feudal russia, as more wealth and power accumulates into the hands of the few, as we remove regulations on the flow of money. we need to tax the rich harder in order to move back towards a more fair society. otherwise, we are headed to a world where our democracy is a sham and everything is controlled by a 5% few with 90% of society's wealth
- I knew you were going to fall into that, I have a simple response:
USA has sold out its freedoms and because of that, after 100 years of BIG GOVERNMENT it now is at the stage where there is GOVERNMENT CREATED wealth disparity that BOTHERS people because this wealth disparity was created by government via inflation and not by market forces via productive allocation of resources, and your entire premise, that somehow what is happening right now can be fixed with MORE government is idiotic.
More government - is how you got to this point, and if you are going to compare USA of today and Russia of 1917, then you may have a little bit of a point, that USA today and Russia of 1917 both were unproductive and both suffered from the same problem - gigantic warmongering and inflating government that is destroying the free market.
and i don't understand how or why you think the example of feudal russia is anything but an example of exactly what i am talking about:
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
- and that's your problem, you can't understand simple things, that wealth that is created as part of productivity in the market is not a problem, it's never a problem.
Whose problem is it that Jobs had all this money? He MADE it, he CREATED the money, because he created the productivity that didn't exist before he created it. It didn't exist on this planet - all these Macs and iPods/pads/phones didn't exist in nature or in our stores and homes.
He created the wealth.
Russian government, like any other nobility based government came out of warmongers who were better at killing and manipulating others, not out of increasing productive output and not out of making other people wealthy by giving them products and even amazingly enough creating jobs.
So the billionaires that Russia had and those that USA has that came out of the crisis better off because the Fed printed all that cash and gave it to them - yeah. YOU CREATED THEM WITH BIG GOVERNMENT.
You are never going to solve your problems until majority of population stops going alone with idiotic ideology you are displaying. Your problem is - you've been duped for too long by the very big government that you are protecting.
without a strong central government that reallocates wealth away from a wealthy few, you get societies that will revolt, because these are unfair societies. the "government" becomes "whatever the rich few want"
- this is idiotic to the n'th degree, all of the examples, Egypt, France, Russia whatever - MONARCHIES and TOTALITARIAN REGIMES.
In fact original US revolution did happen - against King George. A KING. Biggest fucking government you can have. A dictator. A fucking monarch. You have your new monarch right now - killing people on a whim. You want it?
You want your big government? You have it.
You have your big government, you have your big fucking amazing monstrosity you wanted, good luck with it.
Wrong - there was no revolution in USA, there was one in Russia.
USA was a free country and then it sold out its freedoms, no revolution, just constant growth of government power and destruction of liberties. USA produced enormous amounts of wealth while it was free and now it's going to have a major crisis and emergency, that it is bankrupt because it decided to give up on freedoms.
Russia was not a free country, it was always a feudal society and there was no Constitution, individuals were not free. Revolution was an attempt at getting some freedoms, however misguided, it was an attempt to remove the power from the hands of the tsar and feudals and into the hand of the people. The tsar signed his own death warrant with the way he conducted the Japanese war of 1905 but even then, most of the country was NOT with the revolutionaries, that's why tens of millions were killed at their hands.
Just that so you understand the real world.
I don't care, do you not understand?
I want wealth to flow how it flows without government coercion, is this clear?
I also know that free people, free of government force, create a better society than people that are living in chains.
I also know that restraining government is the only way to keep individuals free.
I also know that out of 37 wealthiest people in USA, 27 were born before 1850 and only 3 were born in 20th century - Gates, Buffet and Walton.
I also know that the second half of 19th century (after the war) produced a much bigger qualitative and quantitative jump in quality of life and wealth of society than all of 20th century. Comparing what people had before civil war and what they acquired by about the beginning of the WWI, and then comparing what people had past WWII and what they have now, the quantity and quality of what they had acquired in a very much freer society is incomparably higher.
But again to my point - I do NOT begrudge others their wealth. I do begrudge their willingness to steal by using government force, and I do everything I can to not allow them this opportunity.
You are going to get what you are preaching - that violence that you want to apply is coming back to you, multiplied by a huge margin. You are going to have it, the dollar is going to collapse, the economy will be destroyed and then you'll have your socialism.
Government - top officials, legislators, bureaucrats, technocrats, justices in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state based on whatever system of state organisation, be it elections of any type or a dictatorship, a monarchy.
Government force - using whatever passes for 'executive branch' of government to achieve goals of administering legislation and laws that are prescribed by the government system, and using private or state police or military force to coerce people to behave in whatever manner prescribed by the legislators, judiciaries and other members of government.
But you knew that, and I believe that the only reason you are asking me to restate the obvious here is because you cannot escape it, but admit, that you are interested in coercing people by government force into doing something they are unlikely to do on their own at their own will.
to counteract the natural accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, backed up with their own violent means of force. this is what government is in some places in the world
in a democratic country, where the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, the people are empowered to make sure that such accumulation is counteracted, so that the people remain in charge
- We have a breakthrough. Thus you are against 'natural accumulation of wealth in hands of some'. Thus in reality, as I said, it doesn't matter to you how some people go about becoming wealthier than others, as long as there is a mobocracy that can take away from them based on some idea of what is 'fair', which you still did not define.
BUT you just said: it is FAIR to use government threat of violence to steal from those, who have (and I SUPPOSE you mean to give to those who do not.)
your criticism seems to stem from a world without any force of violence. this is an imaginary place. a place without government is a place of total violence: warlords
- and USA was the first country ever that created a government system that was not actually based on nobility and was exactly AGAINST your idea that you are proposing here. USA was NOT created with an income tax, there was an attempt by the way, but it failed, because States wouldn't ratify it.
people who think like you see the force and violence of government and criticize it from an imaginary world where no violence exists.
- oh. An imaginary world, where people came together and signed a contract and in it there was no government violence against people, it was a contract that created a weak federal government, but of-course it managed to steal all of the powers that it was not specifically granted and never had any authority to have.
violence always exists. so if you are a wise person, you criticize HOW the implied threat of force is structured in society, not the mindless criticism that it shouldn't exist at all.
- yes, and people did see the violence that government inherently is and thus they created a contract stating that this violence must be limited to very small number of items. Yet eventually the government found a way to crack all the limits, and now we are presented with the result, and you are welcoming it.
if violence exists, from what quarter does it come, for what reason? in anarchy, it is from any quarter, for any reason. in a democratic society, it is according to rules agreed upon by the people
- and since USA was not created a Democracy but it was created a Republic (if you can keep it) and you are proving unable to keep it, you are going to get the violence that you think is authorised to the government somehow (and it is not, it's the exact opposite of what is authorised to the government), but you are going to get it.
POTUS killing people he believes to be 'bad'. Jailing civilians with military force and denying them the rule of law and justice, because he believes he is a king.
You had a Republic and you had pretty much in the history of the country that 'dream' and you couldn't keep it and now you are arguing for all that violence that is NOT authorised to your government.
But that is exactly why the government was able to steal all that unauthorised power - because of people like you, that believe that it is NOT good that violence is NOT used in order to steal from some and then redistribute to others.
It's ironic that you are going to see something else coming out of it - that violence, that you prefer, it's coming around, coming back, it's going hit you right back. All that violence that was bottled and chained and that you managed to allow to escape the chains because you wanted it - you are going to get it.
I don't have a purpose for you any longer, you have proven the exact positions that I was showing you have, and you can't deny them as you have just confirmed them.
We have lots of options. The question is what sort of society do we want to live in together?
- I am straight out telling you, I am uninterested in any society that believes that using government force to distribute anything from anybody to anybody is acceptable. I don't need to read your lists, it's very simple - government force, yes or no?
What is FAIR. Are you ABLE to define your own position or not? What is your position on fairness?
How is using government enforcement (read - threat of violence) a fair position to take away and redistribute from some to others?
How is it wrong to describe your position, as position of violence? You ARE after all, talking about government enforcement of fairness, and still, you only defined fairness in very vague terms, something about 'equality'.
So if you are talking about equality and defining it as fairness by use of government force, and I am calling this on you and you are absolutely not even trying to DEFINE what FAIR means to you, then I don't see a reason to believe that you are correct, and that 'position A' and 'position B' are at all at odds. They are the same position.
Define fairness and explain how you are going to use government force to create equality?
oh, and it's "worth your effort" obviously, not "worse".
But the question remains. How much blood are you, yourself willing to spill?
How do you define what's fair, and why do you believe you can? Why do you think you can measure people's suffering and redistribute the fruits of their work based on that measurement?
Why do you like violence so much? Do you think of yourself as of a national hero that will help the poor?
Why do you base your morality on theft and your fairness on violence?
Do you think people should be helped regardless of their own ideas on the matter?
Anyway, I am sure it's not something you like to define actually, answers to all those questions, because my next question would be more specific, like: how much tax is enough, percentage wise, etc.
To you, it will never be enough, because this is not the stuff that turns poor people into wealthy or even into middle class, not taxes, not government, not any type of redistribution. You can only redistribute down, towards poverty.
Well, I may be 'Dnepropetrovsk maniac', I don't know, I have only been in Zaporizhzhya never in Dnepropetrovsk, but who knows what that means. NOT that it matters here at all.
In exactly the same way what you write above about what I stand for is unfair and groundless.
I disagree. Everything I wrote here is correct, it's the only way to understand your ideology, because you are clearly trying to weasel out of defining your own position on what FAIR means.
Well I see your position better than you do, you define fairness as amount of violence needed to take away fruits of labour from some to give them to somebody else, and you are going to determine how to do that based on some form of measurement, and you are going to measure suffering - misery, there is nothing else to measure.
Again, those who you think you are speaking for, the 'suffering', the 'miserable', did you ASK THEM if they are willing to spill blood? Because if they are willing, are you sure you want to stand here and protect them this much, are they worse your effort?
Do you like being the 'hero' of the miserable?
How do you define 'miserable', how do you measure who is more miserable - somebody who is on a government dole vs somebody who works 12 maybe 14 hour days to run their business?
And I absolutely don't care about the fact that there are edge cases - some people didn't "deserve" to be wealthy, some people are poor for no fault of their own, it doesn't matter. The ones who always end up suffering are not those edge cases, it's the MAJORITY of the people who end up falling down from hunger on the streets and being shot at by whatever 'Red Army' that comes into their village to 'collectivise' them.
You define theft and violence as fairness.
You define misery as virtue and morality.
You set the standard for "needs" based on some level of misery that you believe you can measure.
You want to set the collective above the individual, completely missing the point that there is no way to run the collective, because it is all separate individuals.
Do you love people? You find yourself often thinking about helping the poor? How much violence are you willing to apply to reach your goals? You need to read some Dostoyevsky, I suggest the Karamazov Brothers, it suits you.
Taxes are not violence
- oh good. So when you stop filing your tax forms at the end of the year (or whenever you do it), there won't be violence. No IRS, no police will be coming to get you.
Did anybody notify Wesley Snipes?
people who disagree with you are not "Marxists"
- I agree. Only Marxists are Marxists, and the one I am chatting with in this thread above is somebody I know is a Marxist.
Also, "freedom" isn't just a buzzword to use as a cudgel against things you don't like
- freedom is the issue, isn't it? It's means ability to go about your business without being harassed by government.
Same thing again.
You are defining violence as fairness.
You are defining theft as morality.
You are promoting social entropy because your definition of fairness requires spreading of suffering across the collective and
you are denying the freedoms of an individual to promote an ant farm as some top form of virtue.
The FUNNY thing is it's all falling apart right now, all crumbling around the world because it was all based on your completely debunked ideas and you are clinging to them and calling for a bloody revolution (your version of goodness) in order to promote your ideas of what is moral, good, fair. All of it completely is based on violence.
You said it yourself at some point - you reap what you sow. It is happening right now. You are getting what you've been cultivating.
So many letters and still nothing at all is addressed. Where is your admission that your entire premise is wrong because you rely on measuring people's level of suffering and you want to equalise that?
Where is your admission that what you call fairness is based upon violence?
I completely obliterated your argument
Your double speak nonsense equates violence and fairness.
Your lack of understanding leads you to believe you can base equality on measuring the suffering.
Your arguments are based on your desire to use violence in order to impose your idea of fairness in fact without even asking the people whether they want your version of 'fairness' to be imposed in their name.
As I said, you are Sharikov, there are no ifs and buts about it. Do you play a balalaika?
Tell that to Linus Torvalds and all the Debian GNU/Linux maintainers. Kids should tell that to their parents and adopters too. There are many ways of organizing how things get done based on what values we want to celebrate.
- ARE you telling me that the is GOVERNMENT force standing behind them, with machine guns, ready to fire?
No, wait, what is the point you are trying to make? Either you are predicating your ideology on government power and violence or you are talking about voluntary exchange of some sort, and I have nothing about voluntary exchanges of any kind for any purpose at any time.
So what is your argument about, do you want government to FORCE people into your paradise or are you talking about voluntary participation?