MacGyver is still alive and kickin on Netflix! Just last night good old Mac made some plastic explosive from nitroglycerin pills and ammonia (or something like that... I dunno, I just watch it for background noise while I work). He use it to break some activist out of a russian mental hospital by blowing up the window bars. Hopefully they won't shut it down on Netflix now...
Water is a conductor... a pretty good one. I think your explanation is missing something. And you're not allowed to say "ferrous conductors" because, well, then we're back where you guys started.
Incidentally, and strangely on topic, there was an episode of "Bones" where some bad guy rigged up a handheld machine that shot ice pellets as a projectile with enough force to pierce human flesh.
Sadly, this is already what we do! The people vote in real elections just like they do on these TV shows. Who looks like me? Check. Who makes me FEEL like they're on MY side? Check. Who says they'll protect me from the boogie man? Check. Who would I want to have beer with? Check. Who wants to be my Santa Clause? Check.
You'd end up with the same people in charge because those people ARE smart - politically or "socially". They ARE calculating. Many of them are eloquent and if given time to actually prepare a speech on each topic would be even more so. I don't think your method changes anything... which is quite sad to actually think about.
There has never been a society with both a functional government and no government distortions in the market. That's because *any* government action distorts the marketplace.
It almost seems like you think that any adaptation by the market is a distortion by the agent the precipitated the adaptation of the market. But, I assume you don't actually think that way because if you did then you'd also believe that ANY event distorts the market - even by a given individual, not just the government. That is, if I decided I wanted a tree cut down all of a sudden I've somehow distorted the tree removal market by getting involved. Or if I want my ass scratched for me that I've distorted everything because an ass scratcher didn't even exist until I said I wanted to buy one. But so far as I can tell, you're only blaming the government in your distortion discussion so you're obviously not going to subscribe to the idea that ANY event distorts the market... after all... if that were the case there'd be no actual free market because it'd be getting distorted by everyone anytime anyone made any decision.
Did viagra distort the market for get 'er uppers when they came on the scene? Of course not. The drug was only invented because there was a market (known or unknown - talked about or all hush hush - doesn't matter). The market was there even though no one thought about it consciously or talked about it at all. Surely they didn't distort anything by simply giving people a product they wanted. So why are all these other example you mentioned any different? I know why, and I'll say so at the end, but humor me.
If the government has a police force to enforce laws, suddenly there's a demand for cruisers, tasers, nightsticks, pepper-spray, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
This could just as easily have happened if the people of the community got together and decided to create a local security force... like a volunteer police force. Nothing was created by the government in this example that would not be created by a private venture to do the same thing. And guess what, if the government didn't want to do it, and the people wanted protection, I can promise you that someone would step in and do the job. The government didn't create that market... it was there with or without them.
If the government has a fire department (with a very real government interest that its cities don't burn down), there's a demand for hoses, trucks, pumps, hydrants, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
Two issues here. First, the city doesn't belong to the government (possession).
Second, again, no one distorted a market. A market was essentially created... or it could be argued that the market came to visibility. Much like the police item already discussed, the decision to create a fire department whether public or private would cause the market to change. It wasn't the government that created the market... it was the need for service that created the market. There was nothing preventing the cities from having their own fire department or just not having one at all. This happens all the time in rural areas.
If the government builds a road (to ensure that its police and fire departments can get to where they're needed), that distorts the property values around the road (e.g. look at what happens at nearly every exit ramp of major highways).
This is getting old, but citizens can build roads too. And if they're needed bad enough the citizens of an area will do it. Maybe in the case that the road was between two far away places (interstate) you have an arguable point, but that's the best you get, is arguable. I'd say (1) that the government doesn't have to be involved, but since they are (2) the market was obviously there. Unless the government is in the business of building roads to nowhere and for no reason then there was a value in having the road. The market va
The free market is not the answer. The free market may be the efficient decision maker, but it lacks the things we say makes us human. The free market has no empathy, compassion, intelligence, foresight, or shame. Would you ask a person lacking those trait to be your boss?
The free market isn't anyone's boss. That's the beauty of it. It's a system in which people operate, but it's not the boss... so you can't exactly make that jump. But since your brought up those who understand what it is and create / manage things that people need / want will make excellent bosses. They'll make the kind of bosses that can do useful things like, for example, make payroll because they actually produce something that someone else in the market finds valuable. Not only that, but the people who actually understand the free market are those that have all those attributes you mentioned above... because all those attributes play in to how people interact with each other in that market.
An also, since you asked, I'll say this. I can think of a worse boss than the free market that will, atleast, in theory reward those who provide value and ignore / punish those who do not. The free market will stay the hell out of the way and let me get my work done and be judged on my results. But maybe you'd prefer a boss who only has empathy for those who can help them get (re)elected, only has compassion when it suits them politically, has lots of intelligence (but an agenda to go along with it and that agenda only includes you as long as you're "useful" [not profitble... just "useful"]), has foresight in staggering amounts and actually plans problems so that they can manipulate others into reacting rather than actually prevent problems, and who also has no shame.
The fact is that the free market only works if we can get your kind of boss to quit getting involved in the market. If someone is artificially tipping the scales then it's not a free market. That's what user moeinvt was saying, but you completely ignored that point when you responded.
Read my response to the other guy if you actually care. I can't tell what you're saying. If you think I said anything about maiming you're wrong. If you we're simply responding to the other guys comment (he was wrong) then that's up to you. But you should have responded to him if that was the case... Not to me.
Nothing I said is any different than what you said. I simply set out to make clear that its not the goal of conflict that people die. The goal is to resolve the issue without dying yourself.
Read what I said again and tell me where I said not to kill the home invader if you have a chance. You can't show me because I said the exact opposite. I even explained why you don't have a choice. Read carefully - you'll see we said the same thing, but the words actually matter.
I didn't say shoot to maim ANYWHERE! Again, you cant show me where i did say it because it didn't happen. Slow down and read the words instead of jumping to conclusions - everything you need is right there in black and white.
You don't maim in war (or so they say) and you for damn sure don't do it it the dark alley. I've had training and am a proud carry permit holder. Odds are real good that if someone attacks me or my family anywhere at all that they will be met with deadly force meant to neutralize the threat (a nice way of saying attempt to kill them). I'm not WANTING to kill them, even though we're are in conflict, but once they open that door there ain't no closing it... I will be TRYING to kill them. But again that doesn't mean I want to. Again, words matter and all I was doing was addressing the OPs "want" comment.
Take it a bit further. attacker whacks me on the head and runs away. If they manage to flee (disengage) then I'm certainly not putting a bullet in them when they are no longer a threat. I'm not going to be upset that I didn't kill them because all I wanted was resolution (safety). But again, nowhere did I say before or have I said here that maiming with deadly force is proper.
I agree with what I think you meant to say. But the words you chose were just too wrong (all by themselves) to leave there...
You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.
No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.
Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).
For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.
Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.
Well, on the Glocks I've used it's that little thingy that points out on the front of your trigger. Without pressing that little item you can't squeeze the trigger. Basically it takes away almost all likelihood of an accidental trigger pull. Glocks are known and designed for safety (they have atleast "invisible safeties" built right in - the trigger safety and the drop safety) and reliability - so to insinuate that they don't have built in safety mechanisms (even if you don't consciously think about it) is a disservice to the engineers who actually come up with that stuff. Not to mention that doing so is also perpetuating the idea that guns in general are unsafe when they are actually quite safe as long as the user themselves isn't acting stupid.
What about a private investigator doing the same thing? They don't need a warrant or suspicion. They just need payment from someone else who pays them to do it.
You've taken an overly broad view of what we're talking about. The question is one of privacy expectations - and in public you get to have them.
Please understand that this is coming from someone who wants it to be like you seem to think it ought to be. But I also understand words... and they mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean (most of the time).
I can expect plenty of privacy in public places. I can expect anything I do that's not too attention-getting to be ignored and forgotten. Only children think in terms of absolutes: "it's not absolutely private so it must be absolutely public".
I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I was absolutely amused by your "Only children think in terms of absolutes". Think about it. You use the word ONLY (which is by definition an ABSOLUTE word due to the limits it imposes) to belittle what you believed to be someone else's use of absolute thinking. Classic slashdot.
And by the way, you were both right. You were just being too much of an ass to respect / take into account the fact that they were technically right (ignoring philosophical issues). You were approaching it from a completely different direction choosing to ignore the technical part (the facts / the truth) because you have issues with the philosophical issues.
The fact remains that it's in public and therefore it has a chance of being public. You don't have any right to privacy there. You only have a desire to not be remembered and so far in your life that been the case. But having privacy and being unremembered are different things - I would think that anyone who wants to call people children (or insinuate that they think like a child) would be able to understand the difference.
Well, they stop buying some stuff and stop selling some stuff and start buying some stuff and start selling some stuff.
I dunno. Lots of people quit buying airplane tickets right after 9/11. If I recall spending cut down to a point that the government was urging people to go shopping and spend their money to keep the economy from getting stalled. Whether you agree with the advice or not doesn't really matter for this discussion. You asked if people quit buy because something goes boom and the answer is yes... some things. Other things get a LOT of buys when something goes boom. Preppers (right word?) might by firearms, or gas, or bread. Or duct tape or plastic sheeting. People who think nothing bad will ever happen might see this as an inconvenient rise in cost and will STOP buying duct tape for normal usage. Heck, they might even wait until no more is out there and then sell the little they have for a big profit. Yes, big booms affect the economy when people react to it.
Now, in the end it turns that this is often a wasted bit of action. But it is a legitimate reaction and it can be "gamed" for profit. By automations and by humans.
I read your comment about why one should care about HFT, and it all sounds sinsister and scary, and yet, as the buyer you still get the stock at exactly the price you said you were willing to pay. Sure you might have gotten it for less (maybe) without these other automated traders, but if you wanted it for less then you could have simply bid less and gotten it at that lower price. The HFT would have still satisfied your bid as long as there was a profit to take, right? And if it was a perfectly even trade then it wouldn't get involved. And if it was a bad offer (lower than asking price) then your bid will just sit there anyway.
Take the boogie man out of the picture and you got exactly what you wanted right? If anything you got it faster so your money is tied up in actual shares instead of bids for shares.
Am I missing something or are you just bothered that someone else got in on the action by hopping in the middle?
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about this "like minded" business. Slashdot has just as much variety of opinion on topics as anywhere else. Perhaps user of/. are more informed, but definitely not "like minded". You could argue with me, but then you'd just make my point about the not like minded deal. Of course, if you agree with me instead then you concede my point.
Seriously though, you're basically right, and anyone who doesn't get that this story is "stuff that matters" is missing an understanding of what "stuff that matters" means.
Wow. I think you missed my point - or probably more accurately - i did a bad job of showing sarcasm in the first paragraph and true appreciation in the second. It rare on slashdot that anyone actually has a mindset such as ours (shared at least on this particular topic) and actually speaks up in the discussion, and I was taken aback that you were so brazenly doing so. I was merely mentally preparing you for the lashing coming you way (by those that think everyone gets a trophy and that those trophies should be paid for with other people's money) by giving you a little ribbing first. You completely misunderstood... classically almost.
Trust me. I meant the "bravo" and that I really did feel better getting to hear someone else tell it like it is.
PS. If there were any doubts at all about what I was saying you could have looked at my profile and my comments. I'm pretty sure if you did so you'd see we're coming from the same place. In any case, thanks again for your original comment.
That's crazy talk! Capitalist bastard! You and your business should be able to survive off good feelings about what you value you think you bring and just "knowing" you're doing something worth while... even if no one else is willing to actually affirm your choices by, you know, giving you money for doing so.
Thank goodness someone gets it. I've recently begun worrying about the state of things, but your post will help me sleep better this weekend knowing that someone gets this. Bravo.
You are saying that YOUR morality (what you think) should be the law of the land instead of, ya know, actual laws. I'm not trying to change your views - rather to point out that your views aren't all that matters.
And we're all basically either "apologists" or "advocates". It just depends on whose side you're on what you call someone. But you don't care about that - I don't agree with you so I must be immoral and unethical and probably just not as smart as you. Maybe you think I'm all of those things.
For the record, I think you're none of those things. You're notions are just misguided and your efforts ill focused. I'll leave you the last word now. Maybe we'll pick up another topic another day. Regards.
What you think should be the law of the land is apparently morality. But whose? The ones you keep saying are being circumvented are YOUR MORALS. Everyone has their own little set where the union of them all are essentially the laws of that are universally agreed to. All these different ways of viewing the world is why the LAW is the decider... not some one in particular view.
As for the turnstile... did I miss something in this conversation? Maybe I have my filters set differently and you're responding to someone else, but if not I just have to wonder where your head went. We were having a conversation that at least made sense until you started in on that completely unrelated stuff. This isn't about any of the political actors you mentioned - you simply believe that morally one should put as much into taxes as they "can afford to" (as defined by you instead of them) and I think they are within their rights to only pay what they are legally obligated to pay so they can apply the difference elsewhere as they see fit.
I'm just saying what's real. Go ahead and deny that legality is what is important when it comes to paying your taxes if you want. It won't make you any more right than you were when we started this conversation. You can say all this other stuf comes into play, but it doesn't.
Two different tax advisers come up with two different figures for the same person all the time.
That's a problem with the law, not with the people trying to figure out how much to pay. If they bend it so far that it breaks then they're breaking the law. Morality isn't a necessary component.
With regard to drafting law, for any given revenue target there are infinite potential tax codes that could yield that revenue.
Right. There are many ways to make a pizza too. Is one of them more morally correct than the other? And again... who's morals? I'll accept "societies" as an answer, but even then it follows that different members will think different things and will try to find ways to win others to their own way of thinking.
You need to choose how the burden should be spread out in some way. We can all have our own preferences, but short of "I want to personally pay less" something else has to factor in to the decision. If you don't think people's sense of fairness comes in to play then I think you are kidding yourself.
See the last paragraph. Everyone will have different views of fairness. So why does your view of what's fair matter when it comes to paying your taxes? It doesn't. What about my view of what a fair tax rate would be? Does it matter when I'm figuring out how much to pay? Of course not. What matters is what the law says I have to pay and what you have to pay.
You've changed, it seems, from there being a moral question in how you pay taxes to instead arguing that there is a moral issue involved in the making of the law. Again, you're arguing with no one. Of course morality comes into play in the making of laws, but it's not just YOUR morality or MY morality. I said it earlier. Different zip codes will have different morals / senses of fairness and they'll vote in representatives that should try to get those views worked into the laws.
Maybe looking at this way will make a difference. The morality AND opinions of the society are supposedly "baked into the laws". This means that when someone in the society follows the law they almost have to be acting morally (according to that society). If the laws do not reflect the morals then that's on the representation who make the laws. It's ludicrous to believe that people P should have to worry about whether there is someone S out there who S will disapprove of their P choices due to their S arbitrary morality relating to things where there are existing laws that govern those choices. Someone somewhere will agree with every decision S makes and someone somewhere will disagree. And they'll do it at different times. That's why the law is important. So I can't make you give your money to my charity and you can't make me give my money to Uncle Sam - based on our own particular views of right / wrong.
That doesn't mean you can't evaluate the particulars of one hypothetical legal imperative against the particulars of another.
We have an agreement again! (sadly it won't last long)
Sheer legality is a nonsense metric. With only that metric, how could the electorate decide if the tax code passed by their representation is preferable to the proposed alternatives? You need some other means. Pick one.
Not so sure about this one. I think you might have forgotten. It's THE ONLY METRIC when it comes to how much you should pay in taxes. The tax code is supposedly meant to make sure that enough taxes are gathered to cover the spending that those same representatives deem appropriate. It's a legal set of rules. If the rules don't cover a situation then so be it. If the rules explicitly exclude a situation then so be it. How the rules came to be matters not - except come voting season.
Now, the way the electorate decides how they feel about the whole situation is up to them. They can use whatever criteria they want. Their pastor may tell them how to think about it. Their favorite talk show host might push them a little in one direction. Their favorite MTV anchor or comedy show host might. Their favorite late show host might. Their uninformed uncle might go crazy at a family dinner and try to convince everyone. Their news anchor will try to slant things. Their teachers will try for sure, and, god forbid, their parents might even raise them with a particular set of beliefs on which they can base their thoughts.
And guess what?! They're all different. Two zip codes right next to each other will often have vastly different morals and ideas about what is right, what is wrong, and reasons for believing their own way is the "right way" or the "moral way". This is why government should not be legislating morality - nor should they be creating a tax code that actually speaks on behalf of one morality.
How much you should pay in your taxes is not a moral question. It's a legal one. It is CONSTANTLY argued that the tax code itself needs revamping, but even that's not a moral issue any more than my home budgeting that my family and I do at the beginning of each year is a moral issue. In our home when we encounter a money shortage (or project one) we figure out where we can cut spending and where we might be able to actually generate more income. No morality ever enters the picture in these discussions unless someone offers to go be a stripper or something to pay for next year's tuition (joke). But even if that joke happened the morality question would be about the morality of stripping, not about how much we owed or ought to pay.
Note, you make no mention of wishing the private citizens perpetrating the shenanigans would stop. It doesn't take a giant leap to view those wishes as an attribution of blame.
Quit trying to "leap" and just read what I said. Look, I wish young people would quit having unprotected sex leading to them having babies when they are still babies themselves. That doesn't mean I think it should be made illegal for them and that they should face criminal punishment. Many would argue that their behavior is not unethical... just people having fun and experimenting. I certainly can't blame them for being little hormone bags even though many have been told why it's a bad idea. So if it's not illegal and not unethical then what is it? I'll tell you. It just IS. It's undesirable behavior at the most. If you're religious then it is perhaps immoral, but within the society as a whole it is not unethical. It IS something I WISH wasn't happening. As a parent about all one can do is try to educate and then put all the "controls" (no boys in the bedroom, reasonable curfew, etc) in place possible in order to prevent it from happening, and find ways to encourage different behavior. Still no guarantees..
You suggest that the representatives have done something for which they should be "held accountable."
The representatives have done things that their constituents claim they don't like. The reps should therefore, in theory, be held accountable for doing so by their constituents. I didn't say legally accountable. The problem is that they're not even "job security accountable". They'll get voted right back in. Again for clarity, they didn't necessarily do anything that was illegal or unethical, rather they made decisions that those who voted them into power would disagree with. That's all.
Since we've already constrained this conversation to legal means of tax evasion one can only assume you view their collusion with private interests to change law as unethical activity.
Wrong - you can not assume that. See second paragraph.
Still, you don't "wish" that people would stop trying to co-opt representation in the first place.
I didn't wish for that out loud. I wished out loud for the things that made sense to wish for because they should be a given in terms of human behavior. See first paragraph AND last paragraph for why I didn't wish for that out loud.
If legality determines the ethics of taxes, how should we determine appropriate tax law?
There are no ethics of taxes. Stop it.
When unethical behavior has crossed the threshold into "rational" behavior shouldn't we change law to render it illegal and thus (hopefully) irrational?
Finally! You get it!
There will always be new ways to skirt the tax code.
Almost absolutely.
Similarly, just because you've legally secured yourself a special exemption from taxes doesn't mean doing so was ethical.
You haven't bothered showing it was unethical. You leave the onus on me to prove something was ethical when I don't even think it has anything to do with ethics.
If we can't separate the morality of mechanisms of tax evasion from their legality we have no means by which we can evaluate the appropriateness of the tax code.
Bah. That's just lazy thinking. WHY is there a tax code? Start there. It's sure as hell not about morality. Therefore the morality of the mechanisms and the legality of those mechanisms start off separated - you don't have to separate them as only one actually exists at all. People don't pay taxes through thick and thin because it's morally the right thing to do. They do it because if they don't the government will make their life a living hell. It's not a moral imperative or whatever you're trying to make it. It's a legal one.
I'm not blaming anyone. That's what this has been about. You keep trying to get me to cast blame, but in doing so you assume someone did something wrong.
So we agree that the wealthy (or anyone for that matter) should not be using shell corporations, offshore accounts, and the like in order to avoid paying taxes even if their means are technically legal in this country?
No. We don't agree. If the means are legal then I'd lean towards it being ethical to do so as a rule of thumb. Might there be cases where that's not true, absolutely. But in general, ethics has to do with the moral correctness of something and taxes aren't a moral question. They are a legal question. If you live in a society of laws (whose laws presumably represent the ethics of the society), and you follow the laws when you pay your taxes, then there's not even a question of ethical-ness. You seem to think that the government saying they want your money means that morally you should give it to them and feel all warm and fuzzy about it. Others would say that if the government wants the money they didn't earn but feel like they have a claim on then they need to take the time to create and maintain laws that result in their achieving that goal.
We further agree that special interests (e.g. farm or oil lobbies) spending money to secure special exemptions from taxes is wrong?
No, we don't necessarily agree here either... That's a broad brush and you won't paint me in to that corner. Be more specific about the exact special interest, amount of money, specified exemption level and we've got something to talk about. Is the group doing something else that relieves stress from government and it therefore should qualify them for some exemptions? The answer that question is very important. Then there's the fact that people define "special interests" differently so you've got to be more precise. And, yes, some exemptions really piss me off and I know they're only their because of lobbying efforts. Sometimes in life we have to take the bad with the good.
That said, you still don't seem to agree with those points. You seem to attribute all blame to those that accept campaign contributions, and none to those that conditionally offer them.
I repeat. I'm not the one blaming anyone. You keep trying to get me to cast blame, but in doing so you assume someone did something wrong (unethical according your ethics). I think that often people just act in the system they've got - and then others get mad. You seem to think I should engage in the blame game and hate on big business or rich people. I don't think it's warranted as often as some people. I don't blame someone for taking a legal means of protecting their money from someone else who's taking a legal slant to take, by force if necessary, their money from them. I don't blame someone for requesting a law change - even though the change might be a little sick in others' view. There are crazies out there (and we don't even agree on who they are).
I wish people would hold accountable the representative that goes along with shenanigans and then the rest of the representatives that vote it in. I wish people would quite voting against their own interests even after they've seen they've been duped. None of this continues to happen and it doesn't grow worse if people who understand that they're actually a part of it choose to alter it.
Irrespective of how I feel the government spends its money I feel it is unethical to go out of my way in order to avoid paying the amount my fellow citizens and their representation have deemed appropriate (i.e. fair) given my means. You seem to disagree. Or at least you implied you were sympathetic with the perpetrators as they were only acting "rationally."
You've had serious comprehension fail when you read my first response. Just read the sentence. Don't read into it. Just read the sentence.
Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
There is nothing about illegal behavior in my statement. Nothing shady. No HIDING of money. I might as well have said "if i could put more money into an investment account like a ROTH and not get it taxed then I'd do it". You twisted that statement into the idea that I want to go an illegal route and hide my money in order to keep the hungry hungry. I find it breathtaking that you have answered in the affirmative and that you want to pay even more money in taxes. That you think your government can handle your money better than you can is a bewildering concept for me. But I'm not really worried about your choice. It's yours to make. It's your money too. I don't care if you just flush it all down the toilet - it IS YOURS. You earned it and who am I to tell you how to manage it? I'm not going to twist it into something that it is not.
I expect the same from you. It is NOT your choice to interpret what I plainly said however you want. I said what I said.
Now, from a purely intellectual perspective regarding the term 'rational':
Rationality doesn't speak to ethics.
Decision making speaks to rationality and ethics. And the "rationality score" for any given decision can certainly take ethics into account. Hell, it can take superstition, religion, hair color, whatever into account.
Back to the same quote again. This is where the concept (rational) was introduced:
Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
Someone WOULD HAVE TO make this decision if they are purely rational beings. Done.
Now on to your point about ethics (which is never excluded in anything I said). You're arguing that ethics comes into play at some point, but you're arguing with no one! I never denied ethics a place in the decision making process. Nothing I have said precludes that one's personal ethics should be taken into account when making a decision... doing so is part of being rational. In fact I've stated repeatedly that somethings are technically rational but still scummy when ethics is taken into account. The rationality score, if you will, of those decisions would be vastly different depending on the ethics of the actors involved. Some things might be viewed as irrational to those outside the picture, but still be a good thing to everyone involved. As an example, it might not be rational (excluding an agents specific ethics) to give some food to the needy. But when you take into account the good feelings, the good "karma", the desire to help a fellow, and the possibility of good things coming from it later (maybe when you're down the favor will be repaid) then it becomes rational. If the agent has different ethics / beliefs then it might not be rational. If, for example, one believes you can help the person better by teaching them to fish rather than feeding them then it would be irrational to give them food even though the decision maker may want to do so for a variety of other reasons.
In any case, you started off misinterpreting and just kept on. My response was to the AC who
Slashdot Mirror
MacGyver is still alive and kickin on Netflix! Just last night good old Mac made some plastic explosive from nitroglycerin pills and ammonia (or something like that... I dunno, I just watch it for background noise while I work). He use it to break some activist out of a russian mental hospital by blowing up the window bars. Hopefully they won't shut it down on Netflix now...
Metal detectors detect conductive materals.
Water is a conductor... a pretty good one. I think your explanation is missing something. And you're not allowed to say "ferrous conductors" because, well, then we're back where you guys started.
Incidentally, and strangely on topic, there was an episode of "Bones" where some bad guy rigged up a handheld machine that shot ice pellets as a projectile with enough force to pierce human flesh.
Sadly, this is already what we do! The people vote in real elections just like they do on these TV shows. Who looks like me? Check. Who makes me FEEL like they're on MY side? Check. Who says they'll protect me from the boogie man? Check. Who would I want to have beer with? Check. Who wants to be my Santa Clause? Check.
You'd end up with the same people in charge because those people ARE smart - politically or "socially". They ARE calculating. Many of them are eloquent and if given time to actually prepare a speech on each topic would be even more so. I don't think your method changes anything... which is quite sad to actually think about.
There has never been a society with both a functional government and no government distortions in the market. That's because *any* government action distorts the marketplace.
It almost seems like you think that any adaptation by the market is a distortion by the agent the precipitated the adaptation of the market. But, I assume you don't actually think that way because if you did then you'd also believe that ANY event distorts the market - even by a given individual, not just the government. That is, if I decided I wanted a tree cut down all of a sudden I've somehow distorted the tree removal market by getting involved. Or if I want my ass scratched for me that I've distorted everything because an ass scratcher didn't even exist until I said I wanted to buy one. But so far as I can tell, you're only blaming the government in your distortion discussion so you're obviously not going to subscribe to the idea that ANY event distorts the market... after all... if that were the case there'd be no actual free market because it'd be getting distorted by everyone anytime anyone made any decision.
Did viagra distort the market for get 'er uppers when they came on the scene? Of course not. The drug was only invented because there was a market (known or unknown - talked about or all hush hush - doesn't matter). The market was there even though no one thought about it consciously or talked about it at all. Surely they didn't distort anything by simply giving people a product they wanted. So why are all these other example you mentioned any different? I know why, and I'll say so at the end, but humor me.
If the government has a police force to enforce laws, suddenly there's a demand for cruisers, tasers, nightsticks, pepper-spray, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
This could just as easily have happened if the people of the community got together and decided to create a local security force... like a volunteer police force. Nothing was created by the government in this example that would not be created by a private venture to do the same thing. And guess what, if the government didn't want to do it, and the people wanted protection, I can promise you that someone would step in and do the job. The government didn't create that market... it was there with or without them.
If the government has a fire department (with a very real government interest that its cities don't burn down), there's a demand for hoses, trucks, pumps, hydrants, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
Two issues here. First, the city doesn't belong to the government (possession).
Second, again, no one distorted a market. A market was essentially created... or it could be argued that the market came to visibility. Much like the police item already discussed, the decision to create a fire department whether public or private would cause the market to change. It wasn't the government that created the market... it was the need for service that created the market. There was nothing preventing the cities from having their own fire department or just not having one at all. This happens all the time in rural areas.
If the government builds a road (to ensure that its police and fire departments can get to where they're needed), that distorts the property values around the road (e.g. look at what happens at nearly every exit ramp of major highways).
This is getting old, but citizens can build roads too. And if they're needed bad enough the citizens of an area will do it. Maybe in the case that the road was between two far away places (interstate) you have an arguable point, but that's the best you get, is arguable. I'd say (1) that the government doesn't have to be involved, but since they are (2) the market was obviously there. Unless the government is in the business of building roads to nowhere and for no reason then there was a value in having the road. The market va
The free market is not the answer. The free market may be the efficient decision maker, but it lacks the things we say makes us human. The free market has no empathy, compassion, intelligence, foresight, or shame. Would you ask a person lacking those trait to be your boss?
The free market isn't anyone's boss. That's the beauty of it. It's a system in which people operate, but it's not the boss... so you can't exactly make that jump. But since your brought up those who understand what it is and create / manage things that people need / want will make excellent bosses. They'll make the kind of bosses that can do useful things like, for example, make payroll because they actually produce something that someone else in the market finds valuable. Not only that, but the people who actually understand the free market are those that have all those attributes you mentioned above... because all those attributes play in to how people interact with each other in that market.
An also, since you asked, I'll say this. I can think of a worse boss than the free market that will, atleast, in theory reward those who provide value and ignore / punish those who do not. The free market will stay the hell out of the way and let me get my work done and be judged on my results. But maybe you'd prefer a boss who only has empathy for those who can help them get (re)elected, only has compassion when it suits them politically, has lots of intelligence (but an agenda to go along with it and that agenda only includes you as long as you're "useful" [not profitble... just "useful"]), has foresight in staggering amounts and actually plans problems so that they can manipulate others into reacting rather than actually prevent problems, and who also has no shame.
The fact is that the free market only works if we can get your kind of boss to quit getting involved in the market. If someone is artificially tipping the scales then it's not a free market. That's what user moeinvt was saying, but you completely ignored that point when you responded.
Read my response to the other guy if you actually care. I can't tell what you're saying. If you think I said anything about maiming you're wrong. If you we're simply responding to the other guys comment (he was wrong) then that's up to you. But you should have responded to him if that was the case... Not to me.
Nothing I said is any different than what you said. I simply set out to make clear that its not the goal of conflict that people die. The goal is to resolve the issue without dying yourself.
Read what I said again and tell me where I said not to kill the home invader if you have a chance. You can't show me because I said the exact opposite. I even explained why you don't have a choice. Read carefully - you'll see we said the same thing, but the words actually matter.
I didn't say shoot to maim ANYWHERE! Again, you cant show me where i did say it because it didn't happen. Slow down and read the words instead of jumping to conclusions - everything you need is right there in black and white. You don't maim in war (or so they say) and you for damn sure don't do it it the dark alley. I've had training and am a proud carry permit holder. Odds are real good that if someone attacks me or my family anywhere at all that they will be met with deadly force meant to neutralize the threat (a nice way of saying attempt to kill them). I'm not WANTING to kill them, even though we're are in conflict, but once they open that door there ain't no closing it... I will be TRYING to kill them. But again that doesn't mean I want to. Again, words matter and all I was doing was addressing the OPs "want" comment.
Take it a bit further. attacker whacks me on the head and runs away. If they manage to flee (disengage) then I'm certainly not putting a bullet in them when they are no longer a threat. I'm not going to be upset that I didn't kill them because all I wanted was resolution (safety). But again, nowhere did I say before or have I said here that maiming with deadly force is proper.
You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.
No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.
Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).
For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.
Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.
Well, on the Glocks I've used it's that little thingy that points out on the front of your trigger. Without pressing that little item you can't squeeze the trigger. Basically it takes away almost all likelihood of an accidental trigger pull. Glocks are known and designed for safety (they have atleast "invisible safeties" built right in - the trigger safety and the drop safety) and reliability - so to insinuate that they don't have built in safety mechanisms (even if you don't consciously think about it) is a disservice to the engineers who actually come up with that stuff. Not to mention that doing so is also perpetuating the idea that guns in general are unsafe when they are actually quite safe as long as the user themselves isn't acting stupid.
What about a private investigator doing the same thing? They don't need a warrant or suspicion. They just need payment from someone else who pays them to do it.
You've taken an overly broad view of what we're talking about. The question is one of privacy expectations - and in public you get to have them.
Please understand that this is coming from someone who wants it to be like you seem to think it ought to be. But I also understand words... and they mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean (most of the time).
I can expect plenty of privacy in public places. I can expect anything I do that's not too attention-getting to be ignored and forgotten. Only children think in terms of absolutes: "it's not absolutely private so it must be absolutely public".
I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I was absolutely amused by your "Only children think in terms of absolutes". Think about it. You use the word ONLY (which is by definition an ABSOLUTE word due to the limits it imposes) to belittle what you believed to be someone else's use of absolute thinking. Classic slashdot.
And by the way, you were both right. You were just being too much of an ass to respect / take into account the fact that they were technically right (ignoring philosophical issues). You were approaching it from a completely different direction choosing to ignore the technical part (the facts / the truth) because you have issues with the philosophical issues.
The fact remains that it's in public and therefore it has a chance of being public. You don't have any right to privacy there. You only have a desire to not be remembered and so far in your life that been the case. But having privacy and being unremembered are different things - I would think that anyone who wants to call people children (or insinuate that they think like a child) would be able to understand the difference.
Well, they stop buying some stuff and stop selling some stuff and start buying some stuff and start selling some stuff.
I dunno. Lots of people quit buying airplane tickets right after 9/11. If I recall spending cut down to a point that the government was urging people to go shopping and spend their money to keep the economy from getting stalled. Whether you agree with the advice or not doesn't really matter for this discussion. You asked if people quit buy because something goes boom and the answer is yes... some things. Other things get a LOT of buys when something goes boom. Preppers (right word?) might by firearms, or gas, or bread. Or duct tape or plastic sheeting. People who think nothing bad will ever happen might see this as an inconvenient rise in cost and will STOP buying duct tape for normal usage. Heck, they might even wait until no more is out there and then sell the little they have for a big profit. Yes, big booms affect the economy when people react to it.
Now, in the end it turns that this is often a wasted bit of action. But it is a legitimate reaction and it can be "gamed" for profit. By automations and by humans.
I read your comment about why one should care about HFT, and it all sounds sinsister and scary, and yet, as the buyer you still get the stock at exactly the price you said you were willing to pay. Sure you might have gotten it for less (maybe) without these other automated traders, but if you wanted it for less then you could have simply bid less and gotten it at that lower price. The HFT would have still satisfied your bid as long as there was a profit to take, right? And if it was a perfectly even trade then it wouldn't get involved. And if it was a bad offer (lower than asking price) then your bid will just sit there anyway.
Take the boogie man out of the picture and you got exactly what you wanted right? If anything you got it faster so your money is tied up in actual shares instead of bids for shares.
Am I missing something or are you just bothered that someone else got in on the action by hopping in the middle?
> Companies with more diversity tend to do better. Source please. Also, please expand on "do better".
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about this "like minded" business. Slashdot has just as much variety of opinion on topics as anywhere else. Perhaps user of /. are more informed, but definitely not "like minded". You could argue with me, but then you'd just make my point about the not like minded deal. Of course, if you agree with me instead then you concede my point.
Seriously though, you're basically right, and anyone who doesn't get that this story is "stuff that matters" is missing an understanding of what "stuff that matters" means.
Wow. I think you missed my point - or probably more accurately - i did a bad job of showing sarcasm in the first paragraph and true appreciation in the second. It rare on slashdot that anyone actually has a mindset such as ours (shared at least on this particular topic) and actually speaks up in the discussion, and I was taken aback that you were so brazenly doing so. I was merely mentally preparing you for the lashing coming you way (by those that think everyone gets a trophy and that those trophies should be paid for with other people's money) by giving you a little ribbing first. You completely misunderstood... classically almost.
Trust me. I meant the "bravo" and that I really did feel better getting to hear someone else tell it like it is.
PS. If there were any doubts at all about what I was saying you could have looked at my profile and my comments. I'm pretty sure if you did so you'd see we're coming from the same place. In any case, thanks again for your original comment.
That's crazy talk! Capitalist bastard! You and your business should be able to survive off good feelings about what you value you think you bring and just "knowing" you're doing something worth while... even if no one else is willing to actually affirm your choices by, you know, giving you money for doing so.
Thank goodness someone gets it. I've recently begun worrying about the state of things, but your post will help me sleep better this weekend knowing that someone gets this. Bravo.
You are saying that YOUR morality (what you think) should be the law of the land instead of, ya know, actual laws. I'm not trying to change your views - rather to point out that your views aren't all that matters.
And we're all basically either "apologists" or "advocates". It just depends on whose side you're on what you call someone. But you don't care about that - I don't agree with you so I must be immoral and unethical and probably just not as smart as you. Maybe you think I'm all of those things.
For the record, I think you're none of those things. You're notions are just misguided and your efforts ill focused. I'll leave you the last word now. Maybe we'll pick up another topic another day. Regards.
And once you start calling me names... we're done. Thanks for the conversation.
What you think should be the law of the land is apparently morality. But whose? The ones you keep saying are being circumvented are YOUR MORALS. Everyone has their own little set where the union of them all are essentially the laws of that are universally agreed to. All these different ways of viewing the world is why the LAW is the decider... not some one in particular view.
As for the turnstile... did I miss something in this conversation? Maybe I have my filters set differently and you're responding to someone else, but if not I just have to wonder where your head went. We were having a conversation that at least made sense until you started in on that completely unrelated stuff. This isn't about any of the political actors you mentioned - you simply believe that morally one should put as much into taxes as they "can afford to" (as defined by you instead of them) and I think they are within their rights to only pay what they are legally obligated to pay so they can apply the difference elsewhere as they see fit.
Two different tax advisers come up with two different figures for the same person all the time.
That's a problem with the law, not with the people trying to figure out how much to pay. If they bend it so far that it breaks then they're breaking the law. Morality isn't a necessary component.
With regard to drafting law, for any given revenue target there are infinite potential tax codes that could yield that revenue.
Right. There are many ways to make a pizza too. Is one of them more morally correct than the other? And again... who's morals? I'll accept "societies" as an answer, but even then it follows that different members will think different things and will try to find ways to win others to their own way of thinking.
You need to choose how the burden should be spread out in some way. We can all have our own preferences, but short of "I want to personally pay less" something else has to factor in to the decision. If you don't think people's sense of fairness comes in to play then I think you are kidding yourself.
See the last paragraph. Everyone will have different views of fairness. So why does your view of what's fair matter when it comes to paying your taxes? It doesn't. What about my view of what a fair tax rate would be? Does it matter when I'm figuring out how much to pay? Of course not. What matters is what the law says I have to pay and what you have to pay.
You've changed, it seems, from there being a moral question in how you pay taxes to instead arguing that there is a moral issue involved in the making of the law. Again, you're arguing with no one. Of course morality comes into play in the making of laws, but it's not just YOUR morality or MY morality. I said it earlier. Different zip codes will have different morals / senses of fairness and they'll vote in representatives that should try to get those views worked into the laws.
Maybe looking at this way will make a difference. The morality AND opinions of the society are supposedly "baked into the laws". This means that when someone in the society follows the law they almost have to be acting morally (according to that society). If the laws do not reflect the morals then that's on the representation who make the laws. It's ludicrous to believe that people P should have to worry about whether there is someone S out there who S will disapprove of their P choices due to their S arbitrary morality relating to things where there are existing laws that govern those choices. Someone somewhere will agree with every decision S makes and someone somewhere will disagree. And they'll do it at different times. That's why the law is important. So I can't make you give your money to my charity and you can't make me give my money to Uncle Sam - based on our own particular views of right / wrong.
It certainly is a legal imperative.
We have an agreement!
That doesn't mean you can't evaluate the particulars of one hypothetical legal imperative against the particulars of another.
We have an agreement again! (sadly it won't last long)
Sheer legality is a nonsense metric. With only that metric, how could the electorate decide if the tax code passed by their representation is preferable to the proposed alternatives? You need some other means. Pick one.
Not so sure about this one. I think you might have forgotten. It's THE ONLY METRIC when it comes to how much you should pay in taxes. The tax code is supposedly meant to make sure that enough taxes are gathered to cover the spending that those same representatives deem appropriate. It's a legal set of rules. If the rules don't cover a situation then so be it. If the rules explicitly exclude a situation then so be it. How the rules came to be matters not - except come voting season.
Now, the way the electorate decides how they feel about the whole situation is up to them. They can use whatever criteria they want. Their pastor may tell them how to think about it. Their favorite talk show host might push them a little in one direction. Their favorite MTV anchor or comedy show host might. Their favorite late show host might. Their uninformed uncle might go crazy at a family dinner and try to convince everyone. Their news anchor will try to slant things. Their teachers will try for sure, and, god forbid, their parents might even raise them with a particular set of beliefs on which they can base their thoughts.
And guess what?! They're all different. Two zip codes right next to each other will often have vastly different morals and ideas about what is right, what is wrong, and reasons for believing their own way is the "right way" or the "moral way". This is why government should not be legislating morality - nor should they be creating a tax code that actually speaks on behalf of one morality.
How much you should pay in your taxes is not a moral question. It's a legal one. It is CONSTANTLY argued that the tax code itself needs revamping, but even that's not a moral issue any more than my home budgeting that my family and I do at the beginning of each year is a moral issue. In our home when we encounter a money shortage (or project one) we figure out where we can cut spending and where we might be able to actually generate more income. No morality ever enters the picture in these discussions unless someone offers to go be a stripper or something to pay for next year's tuition (joke). But even if that joke happened the morality question would be about the morality of stripping, not about how much we owed or ought to pay.
Note, you make no mention of wishing the private citizens perpetrating the shenanigans would stop. It doesn't take a giant leap to view those wishes as an attribution of blame.
Quit trying to "leap" and just read what I said. Look, I wish young people would quit having unprotected sex leading to them having babies when they are still babies themselves. That doesn't mean I think it should be made illegal for them and that they should face criminal punishment. Many would argue that their behavior is not unethical... just people having fun and experimenting. I certainly can't blame them for being little hormone bags even though many have been told why it's a bad idea. So if it's not illegal and not unethical then what is it? I'll tell you. It just IS. It's undesirable behavior at the most. If you're religious then it is perhaps immoral, but within the society as a whole it is not unethical. It IS something I WISH wasn't happening. As a parent about all one can do is try to educate and then put all the "controls" (no boys in the bedroom, reasonable curfew, etc) in place possible in order to prevent it from happening, and find ways to encourage different behavior. Still no guarantees..
You suggest that the representatives have done something for which they should be "held accountable."
The representatives have done things that their constituents claim they don't like. The reps should therefore, in theory, be held accountable for doing so by their constituents. I didn't say legally accountable. The problem is that they're not even "job security accountable". They'll get voted right back in. Again for clarity, they didn't necessarily do anything that was illegal or unethical, rather they made decisions that those who voted them into power would disagree with. That's all.
Since we've already constrained this conversation to legal means of tax evasion one can only assume you view their collusion with private interests to change law as unethical activity.
Wrong - you can not assume that. See second paragraph.
Still, you don't "wish" that people would stop trying to co-opt representation in the first place.
I didn't wish for that out loud. I wished out loud for the things that made sense to wish for because they should be a given in terms of human behavior. See first paragraph AND last paragraph for why I didn't wish for that out loud.
If legality determines the ethics of taxes, how should we determine appropriate tax law?
There are no ethics of taxes. Stop it.
When unethical behavior has crossed the threshold into "rational" behavior shouldn't we change law to render it illegal and thus (hopefully) irrational?
Finally! You get it!
There will always be new ways to skirt the tax code.
Almost absolutely.
Similarly, just because you've legally secured yourself a special exemption from taxes doesn't mean doing so was ethical.
You haven't bothered showing it was unethical. You leave the onus on me to prove something was ethical when I don't even think it has anything to do with ethics.
If we can't separate the morality of mechanisms of tax evasion from their legality we have no means by which we can evaluate the appropriateness of the tax code.
Bah. That's just lazy thinking. WHY is there a tax code? Start there. It's sure as hell not about morality. Therefore the morality of the mechanisms and the legality of those mechanisms start off separated - you don't have to separate them as only one actually exists at all. People don't pay taxes through thick and thin because it's morally the right thing to do. They do it because if they don't the government will make their life a living hell. It's not a moral imperative or whatever you're trying to make it. It's a legal one.
The pr
So we agree that the wealthy (or anyone for that matter) should not be using shell corporations, offshore accounts, and the like in order to avoid paying taxes even if their means are technically legal in this country?
No. We don't agree. If the means are legal then I'd lean towards it being ethical to do so as a rule of thumb. Might there be cases where that's not true, absolutely. But in general, ethics has to do with the moral correctness of something and taxes aren't a moral question. They are a legal question. If you live in a society of laws (whose laws presumably represent the ethics of the society), and you follow the laws when you pay your taxes, then there's not even a question of ethical-ness. You seem to think that the government saying they want your money means that morally you should give it to them and feel all warm and fuzzy about it. Others would say that if the government wants the money they didn't earn but feel like they have a claim on then they need to take the time to create and maintain laws that result in their achieving that goal.
We further agree that special interests (e.g. farm or oil lobbies) spending money to secure special exemptions from taxes is wrong?
No, we don't necessarily agree here either... That's a broad brush and you won't paint me in to that corner. Be more specific about the exact special interest, amount of money, specified exemption level and we've got something to talk about. Is the group doing something else that relieves stress from government and it therefore should qualify them for some exemptions? The answer that question is very important. Then there's the fact that people define "special interests" differently so you've got to be more precise. And, yes, some exemptions really piss me off and I know they're only their because of lobbying efforts. Sometimes in life we have to take the bad with the good.
That said, you still don't seem to agree with those points. You seem to attribute all blame to those that accept campaign contributions, and none to those that conditionally offer them.
I repeat. I'm not the one blaming anyone. You keep trying to get me to cast blame, but in doing so you assume someone did something wrong (unethical according your ethics). I think that often people just act in the system they've got - and then others get mad. You seem to think I should engage in the blame game and hate on big business or rich people. I don't think it's warranted as often as some people. I don't blame someone for taking a legal means of protecting their money from someone else who's taking a legal slant to take, by force if necessary, their money from them. I don't blame someone for requesting a law change - even though the change might be a little sick in others' view. There are crazies out there (and we don't even agree on who they are).
I wish people would hold accountable the representative that goes along with shenanigans and then the rest of the representatives that vote it in. I wish people would quite voting against their own interests even after they've seen they've been duped. None of this continues to happen and it doesn't grow worse if people who understand that they're actually a part of it choose to alter it.
Irrespective of how I feel the government spends its money I feel it is unethical to go out of my way in order to avoid paying the amount my fellow citizens and their representation have deemed appropriate (i.e. fair) given my means. You seem to disagree. Or at least you implied you were sympathetic with the perpetrators as they were only acting "rationally."
You've had serious comprehension fail when you read my first response. Just read the sentence. Don't read into it. Just read the sentence.
Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
There is nothing about illegal behavior in my statement. Nothing shady. No HIDING of money. I might as well have said "if i could put more money into an investment account like a ROTH and not get it taxed then I'd do it". You twisted that statement into the idea that I want to go an illegal route and hide my money in order to keep the hungry hungry. I find it breathtaking that you have answered in the affirmative and that you want to pay even more money in taxes. That you think your government can handle your money better than you can is a bewildering concept for me. But I'm not really worried about your choice. It's yours to make. It's your money too. I don't care if you just flush it all down the toilet - it IS YOURS. You earned it and who am I to tell you how to manage it? I'm not going to twist it into something that it is not.
I expect the same from you. It is NOT your choice to interpret what I plainly said however you want. I said what I said.
Now, from a purely intellectual perspective regarding the term 'rational':
Rationality doesn't speak to ethics.
Decision making speaks to rationality and ethics. And the "rationality score" for any given decision can certainly take ethics into account. Hell, it can take superstition, religion, hair color, whatever into account.
Back to the same quote again. This is where the concept (rational) was introduced:
Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
Someone WOULD HAVE TO make this decision if they are purely rational beings. Done.
Now on to your point about ethics (which is never excluded in anything I said). You're arguing that ethics comes into play at some point, but you're arguing with no one! I never denied ethics a place in the decision making process. Nothing I have said precludes that one's personal ethics should be taken into account when making a decision... doing so is part of being rational. In fact I've stated repeatedly that somethings are technically rational but still scummy when ethics is taken into account. The rationality score, if you will, of those decisions would be vastly different depending on the ethics of the actors involved. Some things might be viewed as irrational to those outside the picture, but still be a good thing to everyone involved. As an example, it might not be rational (excluding an agents specific ethics) to give some food to the needy. But when you take into account the good feelings, the good "karma", the desire to help a fellow, and the possibility of good things coming from it later (maybe when you're down the favor will be repaid) then it becomes rational. If the agent has different ethics / beliefs then it might not be rational. If, for example, one believes you can help the person better by teaching them to fish rather than feeding them then it would be irrational to give them food even though the decision maker may want to do so for a variety of other reasons.
In any case, you started off misinterpreting and just kept on. My response was to the AC who