This is the closest thing I have seen to a justification for taxation. Unfortunately, it still misses the mark. You acknowledge yourself that the government mismanages our money, why do you then insist that we give them more? Clearly the path of taxation is well trodden, and leads nowhere. Let's at least investigate what would happen if we let people decide for themselves what to do with their money. I for one will do everything I can to keep the government from taking the money I earned. On the other hand I can and do volunteer my time to causes I feel are worthy and donate money to those charities I feel are actually doing some good. I can tell you now that I would be willing and able to do a great deal more volunteering and donating if I got to keep more of my paycheck... instead of using it to "subsidize the local sports team".
1)The guy never said his father laid off workers, you just assumed it.
2)Growth actually MUST continue. Go find a biologist and ask him what happens, inevitably, to an organism that does not grow.
3)Andrew Carnegie was an exceptionally successful, SELF-MADE man. And, unfortunately for your argument, he also GAVE AWAY, not had taken away, tremendous amounts of money to improve the lives of his fellow man. He may not have been perfect, but I'm willing to bet you aren't either, and at least he didn't advocate the government STEALING the fruits of our labour.
4)Finally, I also come from a family of poor labourers. I can tell you all the horror stories you'll sit still for about growing up with nothing, but it isn't significant. What is significant is that the money I earn now should be mine to do with as I choose. I have no quarrel with investing in my society, but DAMMIT IT'S MY MONEY! I earned it, I'll decide what happens to it. You want to spend my money, cover my GOD DAMN shift tomorrow!
I'm afraid I really don't see taxing the more successful members of society at a higher rate than everyone else particularly "progressive". Is it completely inconceivable that some people who make a lot of money did so through hard work and creative ideas? If so, don't you think they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours? As to the argument that the rich enjoy more benefits than the rest of us, I'll concede it's possible, but then DAMN IT, at least some of them EARNED IT!
As has been discussed, the only way to maintain a porn-free TLD is to constantly monitor it, and that ain't easy. How 'bout we pass the work on to those who want it, a.uptight TLD. Let them do the checking, they want the clean TLD.
Yes. I can't stand taxes in the first place, I've yet to hear an argument that could convince me that government deserves my tax maoney. I'm willing to put up with it, however, because as inefficient as government is, at least it does some good (please no flames, I am a libertarian, but we need some central management). What I can't accept is that some people should pay a higher RATE of tax just because they have more money. Either we have equality or we don't. There's no compromise here. Everyone must pay the same RATE.
In an almost certainly futile attempt to correct this misguided man I sent him the following email. Perhaps if we all took the time to rationally and competently reply to these ideas, at the source, we might get more done.
Sir,
I read with interest your article on www.ednmag.com, which I came accross through a link on slashdot.org. While I can appreciate your desire to protect your hard-work in the design of your products, I am greatly troubled by your characterization of reverse engineering. Not only do you SUGGEST that reverse engineering is wrong, or criminal, you actually CALL it theft - "The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." ".
I am not a chip designer. In fact, aside from a love of computer building left over, no doubt, from a childhood love of lego, I am completely ignorant of electronic design. I am, however, both a programmer and a political activist. I find sentiments such as those you displayed in your article very disturbing.
Certainly a company or individual should be able to protect their designs. That does not mean that anyone who attempts to determine HOW that company or individual produced the product is a criminal. I am sure you are well aware of the many great strides made in the computer industry based solely on the work of reverse engineers. I need only direct your attention to the creation of the first non-IBM PC BIOS chips, which spurred the revolution on which your industry is based to make my point. As you are no doubt aware, the IBM PC BIOS was clean room reverse engineered, allowing for the creation of cheaper PC clones, which I am sure you will agree has been of tremendous benefit to society.
I hope that in future you will be more careful to distinguish between the quest for knowledge, i.e reverse engineering, and the theft of intellectual property, which no-one can reasonably support.
I imagine you won't pay any attention, but for the record: I am not a barbarian. I have NEVER shot at anyone, and I hope I never have to. I don't currently own a gun, and I hope I never have to. That being said, I refuse to be labelled a barbarian because I believe responsible people should be allowed to own guns. It has apparently not been brought to your attention that 50+% of American households have guns. I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that the vast majority of those people MUST be responsible gun owners or we'd have a hell of a lot more shootings. Since we don't, clearly some people can be trusted with guns. How 'bout we just take the guns away from people with a demonstrated capacity for using them improperly and leave them in the hands of those who have demonstrated the ability to use them properly.
Slashdot Mirror
As it happens they are ok. They're just illegal.
This is the closest thing I have seen to a justification for taxation. Unfortunately, it still misses the mark. You acknowledge yourself that the government mismanages our money, why do you then insist that we give them more? Clearly the path of taxation is well trodden, and leads nowhere. Let's at least investigate what would happen if we let people decide for themselves what to do with their money. I for one will do everything I can to keep the government from taking the money I earned. On the other hand I can and do volunteer my time to causes I feel are worthy and donate money to those charities I feel are actually doing some good. I can tell you now that I would be willing and able to do a great deal more volunteering and donating if I got to keep more of my paycheck ... instead of using it to "subsidize the local sports team".
1)The guy never said his father laid off workers, you just assumed it.
2)Growth actually MUST continue. Go find a biologist and ask him what happens, inevitably, to an organism that does not grow.
3)Andrew Carnegie was an exceptionally successful, SELF-MADE man. And, unfortunately for your argument, he also GAVE AWAY, not had taken away, tremendous amounts of money to improve the lives of his fellow man. He may not have been perfect, but I'm willing to bet you aren't either, and at least he didn't advocate the government STEALING the fruits of our labour.
4)Finally, I also come from a family of poor labourers. I can tell you all the horror stories you'll sit still for about growing up with nothing, but it isn't significant. What is significant is that the money I earn now should be mine to do with as I choose. I have no quarrel with investing in my society, but DAMMIT IT'S MY MONEY! I earned it, I'll decide what happens to it. You want to spend my money, cover my GOD DAMN shift tomorrow!
I'm afraid I really don't see taxing the more successful members of society at a higher rate than everyone else particularly "progressive". Is it completely inconceivable that some people who make a lot of money did so through hard work and creative ideas? If so, don't you think they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours? As to the argument that the rich enjoy more benefits than the rest of us, I'll concede it's possible, but then DAMN IT, at least some of them EARNED IT!
As has been discussed, the only way to maintain a porn-free TLD is to constantly monitor it, and that ain't easy. How 'bout we pass the work on to those who want it, a .uptight TLD. Let them do the checking, they want the clean TLD.
Yes. I can't stand taxes in the first place, I've yet to hear an argument that could convince me that government deserves my tax maoney. I'm willing to put up with it, however, because as inefficient as government is, at least it does some good (please no flames, I am a libertarian, but we need some central management). What I can't accept is that some people should pay a higher RATE of tax just because they have more money. Either we have equality or we don't. There's no compromise here. Everyone must pay the same RATE.
Sir,
I read with interest your article on www.ednmag.com, which I came accross through a link on slashdot.org. While I can appreciate your desire to protect your hard-work in the design of your products, I am greatly troubled by your characterization of reverse engineering. Not only do you SUGGEST that reverse engineering is wrong, or criminal, you actually CALL it theft - "The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." ".
I am not a chip designer. In fact, aside from a love of computer building left over, no doubt, from a childhood love of lego, I am completely ignorant of electronic design. I am, however, both a programmer and a political activist. I find sentiments such as those you displayed in your article very disturbing.
Certainly a company or individual should be able to protect their designs. That does not mean that anyone who attempts to determine HOW that company or individual produced the product is a criminal. I am sure you are well aware of the many great strides made in the computer industry based solely on the work of reverse engineers. I need only direct your attention to the creation of the first non-IBM PC BIOS chips, which spurred the revolution on which your industry is based to make my point. As you are no doubt aware, the IBM PC BIOS was clean room reverse engineered, allowing for the creation of cheaper PC clones, which I am sure you will agree has been of tremendous benefit to society.
I hope that in future you will be more careful to distinguish between the quest for knowledge, i.e reverse engineering, and the theft of intellectual property, which no-one can reasonably support.
Thank you for your attention.
I imagine you won't pay any attention, but for the record: I am not a barbarian. I have NEVER shot at anyone, and I hope I never have to. I don't currently own a gun, and I hope I never have to. That being said, I refuse to be labelled a barbarian because I believe responsible people should be allowed to own guns. It has apparently not been brought to your attention that 50+% of American households have guns. I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that the vast majority of those people MUST be responsible gun owners or we'd have a hell of a lot more shootings. Since we don't, clearly some people can be trusted with guns. How 'bout we just take the guns away from people with a demonstrated capacity for using them improperly and leave them in the hands of those who have demonstrated the ability to use them properly.