But when the terms say "subject to change at our whim, without even notifying you", as 99% of ISP contracts do, it's a guessing game as to which are crap, and which do what they advertise. It's one thing choosing one ISP over another, quite another to switch to a new provider once you already have a connection (for me at least - it would mean a new cable coming into my house, and a new hole in the wall)
For those who can't read between the lines about this lazy and irresponsible Anonymous Coward, let me break down what he/she said:
1. Some contracts have terms that may change. This person will still sign the contract, rather than asking what the month-to-month price is with installation. The AC has a choice, but refuses to pick the choice best for them, because he's unwilling to pay for the expensive installation costs that are subsidized over the term of the contract.
2. This AC is too lazy to shop around and get new service when the price or performance is better for them. They don't want another hole in the wall or a new cable coming onto their property.
Basically, this anonymous coward is saying that money, and few cables, are more important than performance. This is also the same person that will complain if they don't get exactly what was advertised months ago.
You chose this process. Don't complain because you're unwilling to make a few adaptations in your life to score the best performance for the price.
No, that's not a problem at all, if open competition is allowed in that market. In many cases, if not most cases, competition is prevented due to local, state and Federal regulations and restrictions. It isn't the last mile problem, it's the subsidization problem.
If someone tells me "You'll get 200mb/s on our connection*," I'll read the terms of service. It'll usually tell the whole story. If someone tells me I get free nights and weekends to make calls, I'll read the terms of service. If someone tells me that I can take 20% off any purchase in the store, I'll read the fine print and see that Coach, Sony and Bose are not included.
Big advertising statements always have restrictions. People should realize this and READ THE F(#KING CONTRACTS before signing up for anything. If you don't read what you sign or click to agree to, you're the one who is harming yourself.
Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.
MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.
Murdoch overpaid for something that can probably never make a reasonable profit. It's like trying to commercialize peer groups. It doesn't work. Murdoch screwed up time and time again by not providing for correct advertising focus to the customers of MySpace. The advertising doesn't work. It's a broken system. Facebook is no better, in my opinion, but at least they're providing services that a slightly upper crust clientele wants.
The future of the web is not about large-scale sites dominating over tiny ones. It's the whole long tail situation: the big sites are mere portals to other sites, and the sites that fail to do this properly will be hurt significantly by trying to be the big boy on campus. Those who made money by being shills for the State will also suffer (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc). The long tail is getting longer, and thicker, and stronger, and it will become superior in financial clout than the few large sites that used to be powerful. Even slashdot (probably NOT a shill for the State) is likely finding pain as smaller sites/blogs/forums are grabbing a larger chunk of the pie.
So what should Murdoch do? Break down MySpace. Don't be one big site on one big platform: expand to being tiny widgets and plugins that are part of the long tail of tiny blogs and forums and personal webpages. Let people host their MySpace widget on their platform, and send traffic back to MySpace as MySpace sends traffic to billions of tiny sites. MySpace can brand the widget with their own advertising or marketing clout because it'll be a part of millions or billions of sites.
But Murdoch doesn't understand this. Murdoch doesn't want to. He thought "Ohh, billions of teenagers and young adults, we'll sell iPod thingies to them and make trillions! And then we'll push the Iraq War on them subconsciously."
Almost everyone I know that isn't a geek cares about one thing when it comes to the Internet: speed. But the non-geeks don't understand that speed is not about how fast things download always, but sometimes about how fast things appear. It's the bandwidth versus latency issue.
I've come to discover in my 21 years of being "online" that even with geeks, low latency is more important than high speed most of the time. I ran a large multinode BBS, and the most important reason for having a faster modem was not to download files quicker. It was so that the site would appear quicker: the message forums, the BBS doors (online games), the chat area, etc.
Today, when I see people complain about the speed of their Internet, it's always a latency issue. Maybe some spyware swapped DNS servers, maybe they're using an antiquated dial-up; whatever the case, latency is more important to the vast majority of users than bandwidth. This is why traffic shaping is so important, and also why keeping it private is also important. The moment that the few geeks who demand maximum bandwidth find a way around traffic shaping, those who demand low latency will suffer. For the huge majority of Internet users, if their downloads are 200kbps or 2000kbps, they don't care. While they're downloading, they're surfing, and they want that web site to pop up on the screen instantly or quicker.
We have to look at the real problem here: the lack of competition. Even if there are two or three competitors in a market, there is still room for more. When you realize that the lack fo competition is due to the stifling of local, state and Federal government regulations, you'll find the true culprit for what ails you: too many regulations preventing competition from bringing to the market what you want at a price you're willing to pay. Get rid of government strangeholds and the Internet will blossom further. This article tells me things will get worse as those who promise to protect you will only find new ways to collect their paychecks in the form of political contributions.
I have a business consulting corporation (founded in 1993, incorporated in 1997) that works in large scale construction and tech. We will never require an employer to sign a non-compete. We don't even require them to sign anything preventing them from "stealing" our business. What you do on your own time is yours. If you go off on your own and take our customers, all it does is teaches us to be more efficient, competitive and effective for our clients. I openly motivate my own employees to discover how to become their own bosses: save money, learn basic business skills, gain confidence, discover a niche market. Capitalize.
A true capitalist welcomes competition, and also pushes themselves, not their employees, to be a motivator and an expert in their field. I would refuse employment if I had to sign anything that stifles my freedom to produce, invent or perfect a current product or service.
But the contract's early termination fee is NOT just about subsidizing a phone, it is also about being a part of the costs of expanding the network to cover the needs of the customer.
If 10,000 customers sign up in a given area, and the cell provider doesn't have significant coverage in that area, there is a high burden of cost over the time that the customer is signed up: finding land, leasing land, providing towers, maintaining towers, etc. That $200 or so you'd pay is probably close to the realistic guideline of cost+profit for providing service to you, given that you will likely use your phone within a given region more often than not.
That's not to say that $200 goes towards exactly your town or county, but it does defray the costs of expansion and maintenance of the network.
I'm not sure that any major cell provider is making money hand over fist once you consider all the other possible costs. Examples:
1. People will want to call in for customer service. There is a general figure the cell provider has calculated based on how many hours of customer service the average customer will need. When New Customer X signs up, the cell provider must add them to the pool of possible future callers. This means hiring people TODAY to handle a future POSSIBILITY. This is also a fixed cost, correct? YOu can't just keep hiring and firing based on current demand but on expected future demand.
2. People will have an expectation for quality of bandwidth and signal, not just for calling but for text messaging, GPRS/EDGE/3G data, etc. This has a cost at the backend of the network. As more users need more of this bandwidth (or signal quality), there is a higher backend cost. This is also a long term cost based on future expected demand.
I always buy my phones third party, generally out of the country. Even with a weak dollar, I prefer to buy my phones in Dubai or Asia - they're usually available in the States in a few months, but I like my cell phone toy. My iMate Ultimate has been awesome and hasn't crashed once, unlike almost every telcom-provided PDA phone.
Nonetheless, the subsidized cheap/free phones people want make sense. It's like a simple credit extension by the provider: people get free phones every few years, and the provider gets their money back and then some over the life of the contract.
The FCC has no right to butt into this portion of the market. I'd love to see a "Non-subsidized" contract price, but my company handles all my employees' cell phone accounts, so we already get a nice reduction in our monthly price because we never take their free/cheap cell phone deals. So that option IS there, you just have to negotiate with the right department and not a retail store.
Since the list of all possible problems is pretty much infinitely long, being able to prepare for MOST problems still leaves a very long list of problems that cannot be prepared for.
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
BS. The President is the Head of State, by default that's a leadership position. Never mind the powers expressly granted to the President by the Constitution.
And the Head of State in this Constitutional Republic has one major reason for existing: the protect the rights of the people from tyranny and abuse of Congress, the States, and foreign States. Fairly simple, if you read your Constitution. Any other powers (implied or unconstitutionally passed as law) go beyond what the President was to do. He was not to lead, but to protect the rights of individuals so they could lead themselves and their families and households.
Oh, wait, I forgot -- you believe that every man is an island, and apparently Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher ever. Your worldview sadly doesn't accomodate the fact that relationships (inclduing power relationships) actually exist, regardless of how they are codified (via the Constitutions of the US and of the States, and the laws issued in accordance with them).
Actually, I detest Rand. I did love Atlas Shrugged, but Objectivism doesn't work for me. Power relationships only exist when certain parties believe they are weaker and must submit to those in power. That's your worldview. I believe individuals are more powerful than the masses, since individuals can make instant decisions to change the path their lives are on. You believe the masses are needed to make decisions, a process that is slow, remarkably inconsistent, and doesn't treat any person with respect.
The biggest problem with your worldview is that it is unrealistic. There are issues far bigger than one person, that cannot be resolved in a manner consistent with the greatest good (or, if it helps you understand better, optimal utilisation of resources) without a decision being taken en masse that applies to all. The "tragedy of the commons" is a great example to illustrate why sometimes it is necessary for one decision to apply to all in order to maintain best use of resources.
Every man IS an island, though. You're saying there are issues bigger than one person (what issues are those?) and yet you want to elect one person to deal with those issues. Nice contradiction to your own debate process. I can not find even ONE issue that is bigger than one person (not one issue, anywhere). Every issue that matters only matters because it effects one person - you. When it does, you are given the chance, instantly, to adapt to that issue. In the cases we call "surprises" or "emergencies," I would guess that 95+% of these surprises or emergencies are situations that we could have prepared for (be it insurance, thinking longer about a decision we made in the past, saving for financial changes, etc). These are all issues that each man and woman must think through themselves, and prepare for themselves. When surprises and emergencies do happen, and you are unprepared, I am all for charitable organizations to be there to help you through those tough times. BUT if you continue to have surprises or emergencies constantly, I believe charitable organizations have to have the right to walk away and let you fail. I know a gal who has been married 3 times (she's 35) with 3 kids from 3 fathers, and all her ex-husbands are "deadbeats." Yeah, right. I know a guy who lost 8 jobs in 4 years, and all his bosses were evil. Sure, sure. I know a lady (very overweight) who can't work and collects disability because she's obese from a genetic flaw. Uh huh, I'm sure that's the case (or is it the case of Pringles she buys at Costco each month?).
Sorry, ALL problems are unique to the individual at the time they happen, but MOST problems can be prepared for. You want a society where people are given second changes infinite times, and some abuse those chances. I want a system where people are responsible for their decisions, and should learn from them. I've made HUGE mistakes, costing me 6 figures, and I learned from them. I never asked for a hand-out.
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content. 2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally thousands of Slashdot posts pointing to my opinion. I even tell people to Google my name along with what they want to know about me, and Slashdot comes to the rescue, usually pulling up a few past posts over what I said. I profit from what I say here, as do those who learn from me (or help me learn from what I may have missed). 3. Slashdot provides a venue for alternative opinions, and not just a heads-or-tails situation. We have a fairly massive user base, but the content that comes out of the users is more varied than almost any other blog or forum. This means that we all learn from each other (or help each other learn). My posts are just a drop in the bucket, but they add something to this system of learning. 4. I am moderated generally high, but I am not a Karma whore. If you go through my mod history, you'll see that I am -1 about 1/2 the time as +5. That's fine with me, it helps me gauge "the market" of what people are interested in hearing, and what they're not. I no longer user the term "anarcho-capitalist" in my posts, because people didn't like my use of the term. I learned. 5. There are features that allow you to ignore me on the board completely. Make me a Foe, moderate foes to -5, and I'm gone from your screen. Easy as pie.
Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.
So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?
Well, the first thing that you need to see is that Slashdot works for me as a community to bounce ideas off of. These ideas are either accepted fully by some, or denied fully by others. Rarely do I get any gray area in how people relate to what I have to say. Now, why would I share details on my life? Because Slashdot is heavily archived by Google, and I love to look over the years at how my opinions have changed, plus I can compare it to what other people said. My blogs don't get as much traffic as Slashdot does, so I have an excellent archive of how I have progressed over time, versus how technical/geek society has changed. When I first registered at slashdot, just saying "libertarian" was sure to get you moderated Troll. Now it is almost as sure to moderate you up. Tech society has changed, and I'd say for the better.
So I will go away, but you have to take the steps to do so.
Sorry for the late reply. Aftermath was "the" Industrial club in the country for a few years, due to Wax Trax! Records being in Chicago. The regulars were the creme de la creme of the industrial movement in the 90s (Jourgenson and Barker @ Ministry, de Meyer @ Front 242, Konietzko @ KMFDM, Randall @ Sister Machine Gun, the entire cast of MLWtTKK, etc). The main DJ at the time was DJ Cykophuk, who was really an amazing DJ and still exists in some form, although I believe in Janesville, WI. Many of the cast and characters from those days are now suburbanites (I know, because I run into women and a few guys I knew back then pushing babies in grocery carts up in Lake County).
Yes, it is easy to forget how amazing that scene really was, due to the lack of pompous attitude by the stars along with a general love of and by the fans. I do miss it, but I don't miss the late nights (leaving the club at 8am was early). When Crobar faltered from Industrial Wednesdays (remember the girls swinging from the warehouse ceiling?), it was obvious that things were a-changing, so I vacated my silent position and moved on. Those were rough days on the body -- running a business during the day, and maintaining income at night, all the while rubbing elbows with industry bigwigs who were pretending to be hip. I'm amazed I only aged about 20 years during those 5 years. Some of my friends are gone, their bodies unable to hold up to nightly abuse.
I met my DW there almost 14 years ago. She was the girlfriend of a very popular industrial musician, and I was the only pompous high-attitude roller. It amazes me that through thick and through thin, we've stayed together (only broke up about a dozen times over the 14 years, ha!). While we've both moved on from those days, we now happily spin Wax Trax! Records' Black Box compilation, and joke about where those people are today. A few years ago I saw Paul Barker walking down Lincoln with his dog. A few years before I saw a famed bartender working at a sushi restaurant tending bar. Times change, the music doesn't.
I do give Trent major props for keeping the edge going in his music, his style, and his renderings. I can only hope he keeps it up.
Politics continues to sicken me, although not more than before. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm less sickened that I was in the past, because I now place the blame on where it should be placed: on the voters.
I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.
The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.
The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.
It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
We ran the Nexus at Aftermath over on Evergreen. Long gone, now, but those were the good days when Industrial was "fresh" and artists were everywhere unemployed. Wonder who has that domain name now... I can't even remember what it was. The club's first site was at mcs.net, scary.
Funny that Trent should do it, he was a regular at a nightclub in Chicago over a decade ago that I was a part owner in, and used to scream about the record label monopoly even back then. Wonder if he ever remembers it...
I've helped a few bands over the years break free from relying on the distributor monopoly by providing their easily-copied material for free, while providing hard to copy material at great cost (or higher cost). Bands should make their big money by providing the hardest to mimic items at the higher cost, and the easy to mimic items at a lower cost.
The hardest to mimic? Playing live. This is where bands should make their money -- performing for fans. Those of us who are not musicians make our money, generally, by ongoing work. We don't get paid for previous work (often), we get paid for current and future work. Bands should be no different.
Trent has a unique set of prices on his site: $5 for a download, $10 for a CD+download, $300 for a CD, 180gram LPs, a DVD with 36 tracks of each song (to remix), and a giclee printbook. Great idea. The multitrack DVD idea I came up with many years ago for bands to release to fans to remix. David Crowder Band is one band that did this to great acclaim (and even released a few of his fans' remixes).
Trent is ahead of the game. I'm prebuying the $300 kit because I want to support Trent's ideas, music, and astounding insight into why the RIAA and other monopolists have no place in the new digital world. If it can be copied easily, the price should fall to near zero. If it can't be copied easily, the limited supply should dictate the price based on whatever the demand level is. Supply and demand, the most important aspect of a market economy.
This is NO experiment for Trent, this is his step into the correct version of the current music market. He doesn't need monopolized distribution from the RIAA, he has distribution. Even small bands are doing just fine distributing their music via iTunes, and touring, touring, touring. Selling t-shirts (which can be copied, but are a hassle to do a dozen cheaply), giving away hundreds of stickers for fans' cars (cheap), selling albums (LPs, impossibly expensive to duplicate), signing posters, and other options are a great way to provide a consistent income. Touring just 8 months a year, a few bands I've consulted with are already pushing nearly $50k per year per member in profit. Yes, it is hard work. Isn't what you're doing hard work, too?
It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators.
It means that it'll show up on boot-leg DVDs for $5/pop - with all $5 going to the person who ripped the disk and nothing to the creator.
Good! That's how it should be!
Someone taking a near infiite resource (digital info), combining it with a very finite resource (time/airwaves) and then finding a hungry market for it!
Everything I create I release to the public domain, yet I still make good income on it.
Every customer I have knows I'm anti-socialism. Everyone I pitch is invited to Google me to see if my opinions might conflict with theirs. I've no secrets, yet I've only been fired once from a contract (not fired, just not renewed).
I'm proud of advocating freedom to clients. I only work with CxO's, and most agree with my positions, but not publicly.
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
BTW, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the epistle to the Romans. The Roman destruction of Israel is not mentioned in the letter, and took place years after that letter was written. The book is predominately a doctrinal work, dealing largely with the nature of grace (an especially important topic for modern Christians, IMO). There's some OT history in there, but only used as illustration. Have I mistaken you?
Romans 1:7 specifies exactly who the letter is for, and it is not for us in modern times. It was specific to the actual Christians living in Rome at time of the Epistle.
Romans 1:8 goes on to prove the eschatological time-frame was coming close, which was why it was important for Paul to provide structure to the Christians as the Old Covenant was soon to be washed away.
Romans 2 speaks of the imminent Judgment coming, and warns those in Rome not to partake in the activities listed in the final verses of Romans 1. Romans 2:9 gives details on who will be judged (the Jews, but also Greeks). Romans 2:17-19 or so also speaks of the Jew living in Rome, and offers advice for salvation from the imminent Judgment.
Romans 3 is a bit more general, but specifies more about those under the Law from chapter 2, and that the Law isn't enough but it was only the Jews who were under it. The rest have the prophets to explain Christ.
In Romans 4 Paul makes a mockery of the "good works" doctrine that the Pharisees commanded by.
Romans 16:20 is a proof of the time frame of the Old Covenant ending, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." Note that Paul said "soon." In fact, all of Romans 16 goes to show that this was not written for all Christians in general, but for the very specific Christians in Rome. How else would you explain the end verses of Romans 16? I surely hope that I don't have to greet Andronicus and Junias!
Wow, you've surely been reading your (public education forced) history books!
Shame on you.
No, shame on you for not researching Lincoln's traitorous nature deeper, and accepting history based on what the powers that be want it to say.
While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him.
Lincoln proved to Congress that he was a tyrant and a dictator. He deported a Congressman who disagreed with his interpretation of Presidential powers. Read up on it, it's amazing. He jailed hundreds of the PRESS who disagreed with him. Lincoln supported the laws in Illinois when he was a State politician that banned blacks from immigrating into the State. He was the worst president, provably.
I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous.
Sure, because the current court of law takes its power from the dictatorial creation that Lincoln left in the wake of the War between States. I'd say that Roosevelt was worse in terms of destroying the Judicial branch, but Lincoln opened the door for him. See DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for an amazing amassing of Lincoln's own words in his hatred for the Republic.
If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Lincoln hated blacks. He wanted all blacks deported to Haiti or Africa. He believed blacks were sub-human, and didn't want them in Illinois. Lincoln never freed a single black, actually. His "Emancipation Proclamation" was written specifically to only free blacks in a country that he wasn't President in. His war was one of terrorism, raping and pillaging (see: Sherman's March to the Sea). He destroyed the powerful dollar by taking it off a metal standard, created one of the worst economic situations with his Greenback, and proceeded to jail thousands upon thousands of dissidents. He found an unconstitutional war (secession was a right held by many States that entered into the voluntary Union from the start).
The War between States was not about slavery, either. The primary reason to fight the war was so that Lincoln could tax southern states in order to provide the money for his corporate buddies to build "bridges to nowhere" type internal "improvements." Lincoln did this while an Illinois politician, raising billions in taxes to build canals that were never built (but the money spent), and other improvements that improved nothing.
He was a tyrant. As a person of mixed race myself, I would never believe that Lincoln freed anyone. He was racist, a criminal, and doesn't deserve the heralding and cheer that confused people give him.
I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today
Appreciate that explanation, because I've stopped replying to AC's.
I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.
And you're saying that unionized public school teachers know what is best for the student? I think not. First, standards in markets are set by what the community shows need for based on how they spend their money. In my town, definitely a lower class town, our local stores don't carry a lot of expensive items, because they don't sell. The town south of me is almost entirely hispanic, and their shoe stores tend to carry a lot of shoes in smaller sizes -- because their population tends to have smaller feet. We have a lot of taco restaurants, but no steak houses. The market has answered it's need. When the Federal, or even State government gets involved in trying to fulfill a market need, it does so with a blind eye to what the local population needs. Some people want cheap, small shoes that they can afford, and others want expensive designer shoes in size 14. Forcing the same standard on all localities leaves people with a product they can neither afford, nor need at the level they want. Education to me is not a right, and by making it one we've only made education worse for the average person who wants it for their kids.
I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).
What is wrong with a person saying "I believe in this, but I have to tell you that if I take this position, I really have no legal authority to dictate the issue, so my answer is that it's none of my business." That's Paul's position.
Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.
I've been going to school board meetings since I was 19 (14 years). I've read almost 16 school year budgets. I've discussed actual needs with teachers AND administrators. The teachers' unions are lying, methodical thieves, who give nothing to the teachers they're supposed to protect. Little surprise, since most national unions act the same way. The administration is meaningless, too. In my state (Illinois), kids are getting dumber, but the administrations are fighting for freaking artificial turf for their sporting fields! The kids are dumb as bricks, but they need better grass for their football games? Right.
The parents, and only the parents, have the responsibility to lead their children in the proper direction. If the parents can't afford an education, that is what private subsidized education has been about. We've always had private churches and organizations providing for inexpensive education, until we taxpayers were forced to foot the bill on substandard "everyone's equal" education. It sickens me, because I do see the average person getting dumber and dumber. One-size-fits-all doesn't work, not even with gloves or hats.
Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.
Wow that is SO untrue. I bought a notebook for $2000 3 years ago that is sub-par to the notebook I bought recently for $600. Recently I found an oil-change service (prepaid annually) that is 1/2 the price of my previous place, but does a MUCH better and faster job. I'm a foodie, and I guarantee you that price does not equal quality of service. One of my businesses is the cheapest in the industry nation-wide, and we consistently get higher ratings than our competition that is 3-4x more expensive than we are.
Price and quality do not go hand-in-hand. Remember, with p
Good post, but I disagree with you on the render to Caesar line. I'm a full-heart Christian, but I don't see that verse in Romans, or any of Romans actually, as pertaining to me or any Christian today. It was written to the Christians in Rome, for the Christians in Rome, to dissuade them from upsetting the government of Rome as God had planned to use Rome in his judgment against the ancient Israelites. Since God judged the Israelites, banished from the ancient Israel, destroyed their Temple forever, and forced them to the ends of the earth, using Rome as His method of vengeance, I believe that book to be over and done, but a great history lesson on how God operates against those who whored themselves with government (ancient Israel whored itself with Rome, against God's desires for them).
While most Evangelical Futurist Christians may disagree with me, I can see absolutely no weight in their argument to follow Romans in any way, shape or form. Christ left Christians to be good stewards of the world, using peace, charity, love and hope to change things. Government is war, theft, hate and depression, the complete anti-thesis to Christ's role for us.
What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?
I vote in every election, but I only write myself in. The only candidate who cares about me is me. We have quite a movement in my community on anti-voting. By 2012, I hope that "Other" ends up with 20% of the vote because people are sick of voting for force, so this gives them the chance to get other people questioning the act of voting for evil. All politicians are evil, because government is the use of force, plain and simple.
You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.
I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in sin as defined in the Bible. Even if you believe in sin, it is not your place to judge anyone else. Ever. We're not Pharisees, we're not Saducees, and we're surely not God, so it isn't our place to call out another person's actions. It is especially not our place to steal from people to try to make the world sin free.
Biblically, the first place of judgment comes from you to yourself. If a Christian harms you, you are called to talk with them. If they ignore you, you are to speak with a few brethren within the Body to talk to the Christian. If they still ignore you, you call them out to the congregation. Expulsion is the last step.
If a non-Christian harms you, you are to accept the abuse. Love your enemy. Christ brought forth two Commandments that stick for Christians: Love God, love others. Hoping for government to help a few means hoping for government to hurt the many. YOU should help those you know are in trouble, but don't force non-Christians to.
Actually, most of what you've talked about is similar to the most compelling reasons to support a national consumption tax to replace all other taxes: putting domestically-made goods sold in the US on the same tax footing as imported goods, and simplifying the personal income tax system to increase compliance.
For many years, I would have agreed with you, until I read that terrible book about the so-called FairTax, and then delved deeper into how tax funds are spent.
The first key factor is that most FairTax or consumption tax advocates ignore the fact that most people don't pay much in income tax. We almost all pay 15%+ in social security costs, though, which can far exceed income tax. Also, there are secondary hidden costs that are VERY high that can't be ignored, such as fuel surcharges (local, state, federal), import duties, and selective regulations of various industries (see: sugar, corn, peanuts, oil refining, etc).
The income tax is relatively easy to fulfill unless you're making over $85,000 per year gross, at which point it makes sense to hire a CPA and tax attorney to find the loopholes. Sadly, the CPAs and tax attorneys are the ones who lobby Congress to extend the tax laws more. A consumption tax would NOT change much, since the regulations would get screwy for businesses, which would lead to added product costs and less competition.
I can see a consumption tax exist, but I can also see all the additional regulatory costs that would be passed on to businesses in the collection stage, and I don't think it would work.
Also, I live a few weeks of each year in Europe, where the VAT tax is easily sidestepped in the black market. As a business owner myself, I know of many competitors that sidestep business-collected taxes through black market trades, and I guarantee that many people will do this as well.
A consumption tax SOUNDS good, but in reality doesn't fix the crux of the problem: too much damn government from too many angles to fight individually.
That's pure poppycock. We have someone to run the organization call the United States of America: You. The individual. You are the true leader, the most important part of the Republic.
The founders realized this, and that's why they were hoping for gridlock in the system they devised. It worked well, for a long time, and then started to show signs of failure after the system had changed (thanks to the traitor Lincoln and his mentors).
The President is NOT a leader. The Constitution doesn't show a President to have the power to lead, but only the power to execute that which is Constitutionally valid. The President is supposed to allow YOU to lead so that you can make your life better for yourself and your family, and by secondary effect the lives of those you deal with.
I'm amazed that people want more leadership when it is past leadership that has caused this country to fail. These United States have been an amazing test to the power of the masses, billions of decisions made each second, with every choice you make. The markets flourish based on what people do en masse, but separate. Now instead of lions protecting our homes, we're sheep looking for guidance.
I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).
Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.
I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.
4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.
5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.
Slashdot Mirror
But when the terms say "subject to change at our whim, without even notifying you", as 99% of ISP contracts do, it's a guessing game as to which are crap, and which do what they advertise. It's one thing choosing one ISP over another, quite another to switch to a new provider once you already have a connection (for me at least - it would mean a new cable coming into my house, and a new hole in the wall)
For those who can't read between the lines about this lazy and irresponsible Anonymous Coward, let me break down what he/she said:
1. Some contracts have terms that may change. This person will still sign the contract, rather than asking what the month-to-month price is with installation. The AC has a choice, but refuses to pick the choice best for them, because he's unwilling to pay for the expensive installation costs that are subsidized over the term of the contract.
2. This AC is too lazy to shop around and get new service when the price or performance is better for them. They don't want another hole in the wall or a new cable coming onto their property.
Basically, this anonymous coward is saying that money, and few cables, are more important than performance. This is also the same person that will complain if they don't get exactly what was advertised months ago.
You chose this process. Don't complain because you're unwilling to make a few adaptations in your life to score the best performance for the price.
No, that's not a problem at all, if open competition is allowed in that market. In many cases, if not most cases, competition is prevented due to local, state and Federal regulations and restrictions. It isn't the last mile problem, it's the subsidization problem.
If someone tells me "You'll get 200mb/s on our connection*," I'll read the terms of service. It'll usually tell the whole story. If someone tells me I get free nights and weekends to make calls, I'll read the terms of service. If someone tells me that I can take 20% off any purchase in the store, I'll read the fine print and see that Coach, Sony and Bose are not included.
Big advertising statements always have restrictions. People should realize this and READ THE F(#KING CONTRACTS before signing up for anything. If you don't read what you sign or click to agree to, you're the one who is harming yourself.
Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.
MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.
Murdoch overpaid for something that can probably never make a reasonable profit. It's like trying to commercialize peer groups. It doesn't work. Murdoch screwed up time and time again by not providing for correct advertising focus to the customers of MySpace. The advertising doesn't work. It's a broken system. Facebook is no better, in my opinion, but at least they're providing services that a slightly upper crust clientele wants.
The future of the web is not about large-scale sites dominating over tiny ones. It's the whole long tail situation: the big sites are mere portals to other sites, and the sites that fail to do this properly will be hurt significantly by trying to be the big boy on campus. Those who made money by being shills for the State will also suffer (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc). The long tail is getting longer, and thicker, and stronger, and it will become superior in financial clout than the few large sites that used to be powerful. Even slashdot (probably NOT a shill for the State) is likely finding pain as smaller sites/blogs/forums are grabbing a larger chunk of the pie.
So what should Murdoch do? Break down MySpace. Don't be one big site on one big platform: expand to being tiny widgets and plugins that are part of the long tail of tiny blogs and forums and personal webpages. Let people host their MySpace widget on their platform, and send traffic back to MySpace as MySpace sends traffic to billions of tiny sites. MySpace can brand the widget with their own advertising or marketing clout because it'll be a part of millions or billions of sites.
But Murdoch doesn't understand this. Murdoch doesn't want to. He thought "Ohh, billions of teenagers and young adults, we'll sell iPod thingies to them and make trillions! And then we'll push the Iraq War on them subconsciously."
You failed Rupert. Go away.
Almost everyone I know that isn't a geek cares about one thing when it comes to the Internet: speed. But the non-geeks don't understand that speed is not about how fast things download always, but sometimes about how fast things appear. It's the bandwidth versus latency issue.
I've come to discover in my 21 years of being "online" that even with geeks, low latency is more important than high speed most of the time. I ran a large multinode BBS, and the most important reason for having a faster modem was not to download files quicker. It was so that the site would appear quicker: the message forums, the BBS doors (online games), the chat area, etc.
Today, when I see people complain about the speed of their Internet, it's always a latency issue. Maybe some spyware swapped DNS servers, maybe they're using an antiquated dial-up; whatever the case, latency is more important to the vast majority of users than bandwidth. This is why traffic shaping is so important, and also why keeping it private is also important. The moment that the few geeks who demand maximum bandwidth find a way around traffic shaping, those who demand low latency will suffer. For the huge majority of Internet users, if their downloads are 200kbps or 2000kbps, they don't care. While they're downloading, they're surfing, and they want that web site to pop up on the screen instantly or quicker.
We have to look at the real problem here: the lack of competition. Even if there are two or three competitors in a market, there is still room for more. When you realize that the lack fo competition is due to the stifling of local, state and Federal government regulations, you'll find the true culprit for what ails you: too many regulations preventing competition from bringing to the market what you want at a price you're willing to pay. Get rid of government strangeholds and the Internet will blossom further. This article tells me things will get worse as those who promise to protect you will only find new ways to collect their paychecks in the form of political contributions.
I have a business consulting corporation (founded in 1993, incorporated in 1997) that works in large scale construction and tech. We will never require an employer to sign a non-compete. We don't even require them to sign anything preventing them from "stealing" our business. What you do on your own time is yours. If you go off on your own and take our customers, all it does is teaches us to be more efficient, competitive and effective for our clients. I openly motivate my own employees to discover how to become their own bosses: save money, learn basic business skills, gain confidence, discover a niche market. Capitalize.
A true capitalist welcomes competition, and also pushes themselves, not their employees, to be a motivator and an expert in their field. I would refuse employment if I had to sign anything that stifles my freedom to produce, invent or perfect a current product or service.
But the contract's early termination fee is NOT just about subsidizing a phone, it is also about being a part of the costs of expanding the network to cover the needs of the customer.
If 10,000 customers sign up in a given area, and the cell provider doesn't have significant coverage in that area, there is a high burden of cost over the time that the customer is signed up: finding land, leasing land, providing towers, maintaining towers, etc. That $200 or so you'd pay is probably close to the realistic guideline of cost+profit for providing service to you, given that you will likely use your phone within a given region more often than not.
That's not to say that $200 goes towards exactly your town or county, but it does defray the costs of expansion and maintenance of the network.
I'm not sure that any major cell provider is making money hand over fist once you consider all the other possible costs. Examples:
1. People will want to call in for customer service. There is a general figure the cell provider has calculated based on how many hours of customer service the average customer will need. When New Customer X signs up, the cell provider must add them to the pool of possible future callers. This means hiring people TODAY to handle a future POSSIBILITY. This is also a fixed cost, correct? YOu can't just keep hiring and firing based on current demand but on expected future demand.
2. People will have an expectation for quality of bandwidth and signal, not just for calling but for text messaging, GPRS/EDGE/3G data, etc. This has a cost at the backend of the network. As more users need more of this bandwidth (or signal quality), there is a higher backend cost. This is also a long term cost based on future expected demand.
Etc, etc.
I always buy my phones third party, generally out of the country. Even with a weak dollar, I prefer to buy my phones in Dubai or Asia - they're usually available in the States in a few months, but I like my cell phone toy. My iMate Ultimate has been awesome and hasn't crashed once, unlike almost every telcom-provided PDA phone.
Nonetheless, the subsidized cheap/free phones people want make sense. It's like a simple credit extension by the provider: people get free phones every few years, and the provider gets their money back and then some over the life of the contract.
The FCC has no right to butt into this portion of the market. I'd love to see a "Non-subsidized" contract price, but my company handles all my employees' cell phone accounts, so we already get a nice reduction in our monthly price because we never take their free/cheap cell phone deals. So that option IS there, you just have to negotiate with the right department and not a retail store.
Since the list of all possible problems is pretty much infinitely long, being able to prepare for MOST problems still leaves a very long list of problems that cannot be prepared for.
I can not imagine any problems that can't be prepared for in some way. In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies, and in every case, I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me. Again, there are numerous ways to prepare for MANY unlikely situations, but most people don't care. They just want to spend today (and spend tomorrow's income today) and ignore the bad things that may happen. Then, when they do happen, we all have to pay for them. We don't share in their joy of overspending and irresponsibility, but we have to share in their problems.
What about problems that don't stem from the person who has them making a bad decision ? Or do you follow the "You've got problems, so you must have made a bad decision." line of thinking ?
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
6 figures doesn't really require HUGE mistakes. Some car accidents will be right in that range (especially when people are injured). You just don't realize that you've been lucky so far.
Don't even get me started on car accidents, which are completely harmed by government intervention in the insurance and tort/civil industries. First of all, the only insurance that should matter is YOUR insurance, based on YOUR needs. A very wealthy individual should be buying uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance to cover what HIS loss would be in a near-fatal accident. If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance. The same is true for medical malpractice liability: it should not exist. Instead, people should buy "negative outcome" insurance based on what their needs are in the event of a negative outcome. The insurers have gotten together with the State to protect their assets, while requiring ridiculous insurance for all so that everyone's insurance options are limited. Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance? Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist. Easy enough.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming," I'll say "Then you didn't research your decision well enough." I got castigated here on Slashdot for YEARS when I recommended people rent or buy a mobile home in 2004 and 2005, and hundreds of people told me I was wrong. Well, I researched it, and in the end, I was right. I've told hundreds of people to consider NOT going to college if it will cost them $150,000 out of pocket in student loans, and some listened, got good jobs, and in 4 years are making well more than the college graduates who now have $500,000 to pay over the next 15 years (in interest and principle). Again, I researched it. I've explained to many friends that marriage is a terrible idea unless their religion requires it. Now, more than 55% of those who got married are going through horrible divorces because they did not think things through. Again, research will give you the statistics for you to protect yourself against.
Unemployment? That's why you SAVE. Disability? Get good disability insurance (one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea) to cover the remaining years of income. Divorce? Don't get married without a prenup. Death? Life insurance. Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
It is endless: the excuses people make for why they didn't prepare for negative outcomes. Yet the information is there, and people just don't listen. They want things NOW, but the important things they want others to pay.
BS. The President is the Head of State, by default that's a leadership position. Never mind the powers expressly granted to the President by the Constitution.
And the Head of State in this Constitutional Republic has one major reason for existing: the protect the rights of the people from tyranny and abuse of Congress, the States, and foreign States. Fairly simple, if you read your Constitution. Any other powers (implied or unconstitutionally passed as law) go beyond what the President was to do. He was not to lead, but to protect the rights of individuals so they could lead themselves and their families and households.
Oh, wait, I forgot -- you believe that every man is an island, and apparently Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher ever. Your worldview sadly doesn't accomodate the fact that relationships (inclduing power relationships) actually exist, regardless of how they are codified (via the Constitutions of the US and of the States, and the laws issued in accordance with them).
Actually, I detest Rand. I did love Atlas Shrugged, but Objectivism doesn't work for me. Power relationships only exist when certain parties believe they are weaker and must submit to those in power. That's your worldview. I believe individuals are more powerful than the masses, since individuals can make instant decisions to change the path their lives are on. You believe the masses are needed to make decisions, a process that is slow, remarkably inconsistent, and doesn't treat any person with respect.
The biggest problem with your worldview is that it is unrealistic. There are issues far bigger than one person, that cannot be resolved in a manner consistent with the greatest good (or, if it helps you understand better, optimal utilisation of resources) without a decision being taken en masse that applies to all. The "tragedy of the commons" is a great example to illustrate why sometimes it is necessary for one decision to apply to all in order to maintain best use of resources.
Every man IS an island, though. You're saying there are issues bigger than one person (what issues are those?) and yet you want to elect one person to deal with those issues. Nice contradiction to your own debate process. I can not find even ONE issue that is bigger than one person (not one issue, anywhere). Every issue that matters only matters because it effects one person - you. When it does, you are given the chance, instantly, to adapt to that issue. In the cases we call "surprises" or "emergencies," I would guess that 95+% of these surprises or emergencies are situations that we could have prepared for (be it insurance, thinking longer about a decision we made in the past, saving for financial changes, etc). These are all issues that each man and woman must think through themselves, and prepare for themselves. When surprises and emergencies do happen, and you are unprepared, I am all for charitable organizations to be there to help you through those tough times. BUT if you continue to have surprises or emergencies constantly, I believe charitable organizations have to have the right to walk away and let you fail. I know a gal who has been married 3 times (she's 35) with 3 kids from 3 fathers, and all her ex-husbands are "deadbeats." Yeah, right. I know a guy who lost 8 jobs in 4 years, and all his bosses were evil. Sure, sure. I know a lady (very overweight) who can't work and collects disability because she's obese from a genetic flaw. Uh huh, I'm sure that's the case (or is it the case of Pringles she buys at Costco each month?).
Sorry, ALL problems are unique to the individual at the time they happen, but MOST problems can be prepared for. You want a society where people are given second changes infinite times, and some abuse those chances. I want a system where people are responsible for their decisions, and should learn from them. I've made HUGE mistakes, costing me 6 figures, and I learned from them. I never asked for a hand-out.
I think this is mos
No one cares what you think. Seriously.
I think some do. Maybe not many, but in all honesty, let's look at the long term viability of my posting on slashdot:
1. People add me as their friend. This means they have some respect for my style of writing, even if they disagree with the content.
2. People email me often. My real name is up there, not a fake name or worse "Anonymous Coward." I appreciate that people connect me to my posts on slashdot, and when future customers Google me, they will get literally thousands of Slashdot posts pointing to my opinion. I even tell people to Google my name along with what they want to know about me, and Slashdot comes to the rescue, usually pulling up a few past posts over what I said. I profit from what I say here, as do those who learn from me (or help me learn from what I may have missed).
3. Slashdot provides a venue for alternative opinions, and not just a heads-or-tails situation. We have a fairly massive user base, but the content that comes out of the users is more varied than almost any other blog or forum. This means that we all learn from each other (or help each other learn). My posts are just a drop in the bucket, but they add something to this system of learning.
4. I am moderated generally high, but I am not a Karma whore. If you go through my mod history, you'll see that I am -1 about 1/2 the time as +5. That's fine with me, it helps me gauge "the market" of what people are interested in hearing, and what they're not. I no longer user the term "anarcho-capitalist" in my posts, because people didn't like my use of the term. I learned.
5. There are features that allow you to ignore me on the board completely. Make me a Foe, moderate foes to -5, and I'm gone from your screen. Easy as pie.
Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.
So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?
Well, the first thing that you need to see is that Slashdot works for me as a community to bounce ideas off of. These ideas are either accepted fully by some, or denied fully by others. Rarely do I get any gray area in how people relate to what I have to say. Now, why would I share details on my life? Because Slashdot is heavily archived by Google, and I love to look over the years at how my opinions have changed, plus I can compare it to what other people said. My blogs don't get as much traffic as Slashdot does, so I have an excellent archive of how I have progressed over time, versus how technical/geek society has changed. When I first registered at slashdot, just saying "libertarian" was sure to get you moderated Troll. Now it is almost as sure to moderate you up. Tech society has changed, and I'd say for the better.
So I will go away, but you have to take the steps to do so.
Sorry for the late reply. Aftermath was "the" Industrial club in the country for a few years, due to Wax Trax! Records being in Chicago. The regulars were the creme de la creme of the industrial movement in the 90s (Jourgenson and Barker @ Ministry, de Meyer @ Front 242, Konietzko @ KMFDM, Randall @ Sister Machine Gun, the entire cast of MLWtTKK, etc). The main DJ at the time was DJ Cykophuk, who was really an amazing DJ and still exists in some form, although I believe in Janesville, WI. Many of the cast and characters from those days are now suburbanites (I know, because I run into women and a few guys I knew back then pushing babies in grocery carts up in Lake County).
Yes, it is easy to forget how amazing that scene really was, due to the lack of pompous attitude by the stars along with a general love of and by the fans. I do miss it, but I don't miss the late nights (leaving the club at 8am was early). When Crobar faltered from Industrial Wednesdays (remember the girls swinging from the warehouse ceiling?), it was obvious that things were a-changing, so I vacated my silent position and moved on. Those were rough days on the body -- running a business during the day, and maintaining income at night, all the while rubbing elbows with industry bigwigs who were pretending to be hip. I'm amazed I only aged about 20 years during those 5 years. Some of my friends are gone, their bodies unable to hold up to nightly abuse.
I met my DW there almost 14 years ago. She was the girlfriend of a very popular industrial musician, and I was the only pompous high-attitude roller. It amazes me that through thick and through thin, we've stayed together (only broke up about a dozen times over the 14 years, ha!). While we've both moved on from those days, we now happily spin Wax Trax! Records' Black Box compilation, and joke about where those people are today. A few years ago I saw Paul Barker walking down Lincoln with his dog. A few years before I saw a famed bartender working at a sushi restaurant tending bar. Times change, the music doesn't.
I do give Trent major props for keeping the edge going in his music, his style, and his renderings. I can only hope he keeps it up.
Politics continues to sicken me, although not more than before. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm less sickened that I was in the past, because I now place the blame on where it should be placed: on the voters.
I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.
The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.
The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.
It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
We ran the Nexus at Aftermath over on Evergreen. Long gone, now, but those were the good days when Industrial was "fresh" and artists were everywhere unemployed. Wonder who has that domain name now... I can't even remember what it was. The club's first site was at mcs.net, scary.
Funny that Trent should do it, he was a regular at a nightclub in Chicago over a decade ago that I was a part owner in, and used to scream about the record label monopoly even back then. Wonder if he ever remembers it...
I've helped a few bands over the years break free from relying on the distributor monopoly by providing their easily-copied material for free, while providing hard to copy material at great cost (or higher cost). Bands should make their big money by providing the hardest to mimic items at the higher cost, and the easy to mimic items at a lower cost.
The hardest to mimic? Playing live. This is where bands should make their money -- performing for fans. Those of us who are not musicians make our money, generally, by ongoing work. We don't get paid for previous work (often), we get paid for current and future work. Bands should be no different.
Trent has a unique set of prices on his site: $5 for a download, $10 for a CD+download, $300 for a CD, 180gram LPs, a DVD with 36 tracks of each song (to remix), and a giclee printbook. Great idea. The multitrack DVD idea I came up with many years ago for bands to release to fans to remix. David Crowder Band is one band that did this to great acclaim (and even released a few of his fans' remixes).
Trent is ahead of the game. I'm prebuying the $300 kit because I want to support Trent's ideas, music, and astounding insight into why the RIAA and other monopolists have no place in the new digital world. If it can be copied easily, the price should fall to near zero. If it can't be copied easily, the limited supply should dictate the price based on whatever the demand level is. Supply and demand, the most important aspect of a market economy.
This is NO experiment for Trent, this is his step into the correct version of the current music market. He doesn't need monopolized distribution from the RIAA, he has distribution. Even small bands are doing just fine distributing their music via iTunes, and touring, touring, touring. Selling t-shirts (which can be copied, but are a hassle to do a dozen cheaply), giving away hundreds of stickers for fans' cars (cheap), selling albums (LPs, impossibly expensive to duplicate), signing posters, and other options are a great way to provide a consistent income. Touring just 8 months a year, a few bands I've consulted with are already pushing nearly $50k per year per member in profit. Yes, it is hard work. Isn't what you're doing hard work, too?
It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators.
It means that it'll show up on boot-leg DVDs for $5/pop - with all $5 going to the person who ripped the disk and nothing to the creator.
Good! That's how it should be!
Someone taking a near infiite resource (digital info), combining it with a very finite resource (time/airwaves) and then finding a hungry market for it!
Everything I create I release to the public domain, yet I still make good income on it.
Every customer I have knows I'm anti-socialism. Everyone I pitch is invited to Google me to see if my opinions might conflict with theirs. I've no secrets, yet I've only been fired once from a contract (not fired, just not renewed).
I'm proud of advocating freedom to clients. I only work with CxO's, and most agree with my positions, but not publicly.
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
BTW, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the epistle to the Romans. The Roman destruction of Israel is not mentioned in the letter, and took place years after that letter was written. The book is predominately a doctrinal work, dealing largely with the nature of grace (an especially important topic for modern Christians, IMO). There's some OT history in there, but only used as illustration. Have I mistaken you?
Romans 1:7 specifies exactly who the letter is for, and it is not for us in modern times. It was specific to the actual Christians living in Rome at time of the Epistle.
Romans 1:8 goes on to prove the eschatological time-frame was coming close, which was why it was important for Paul to provide structure to the Christians as the Old Covenant was soon to be washed away.
Romans 2 speaks of the imminent Judgment coming, and warns those in Rome not to partake in the activities listed in the final verses of Romans 1. Romans 2:9 gives details on who will be judged (the Jews, but also Greeks). Romans 2:17-19 or so also speaks of the Jew living in Rome, and offers advice for salvation from the imminent Judgment.
Romans 3 is a bit more general, but specifies more about those under the Law from chapter 2, and that the Law isn't enough but it was only the Jews who were under it. The rest have the prophets to explain Christ.
In Romans 4 Paul makes a mockery of the "good works" doctrine that the Pharisees commanded by.
Romans 16:20 is a proof of the time frame of the Old Covenant ending, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." Note that Paul said "soon." In fact, all of Romans 16 goes to show that this was not written for all Christians in general, but for the very specific Christians in Rome. How else would you explain the end verses of Romans 16? I surely hope that I don't have to greet Andronicus and Junias!
Wow, you've surely been reading your (public education forced) history books!
Shame on you.
No, shame on you for not researching Lincoln's traitorous nature deeper, and accepting history based on what the powers that be want it to say.
While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him.
Lincoln proved to Congress that he was a tyrant and a dictator. He deported a Congressman who disagreed with his interpretation of Presidential powers. Read up on it, it's amazing. He jailed hundreds of the PRESS who disagreed with him. Lincoln supported the laws in Illinois when he was a State politician that banned blacks from immigrating into the State. He was the worst president, provably.
I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous.
Sure, because the current court of law takes its power from the dictatorial creation that Lincoln left in the wake of the War between States. I'd say that Roosevelt was worse in terms of destroying the Judicial branch, but Lincoln opened the door for him. See DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for an amazing amassing of Lincoln's own words in his hatred for the Republic.
If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Lincoln hated blacks. He wanted all blacks deported to Haiti or Africa. He believed blacks were sub-human, and didn't want them in Illinois. Lincoln never freed a single black, actually. His "Emancipation Proclamation" was written specifically to only free blacks in a country that he wasn't President in. His war was one of terrorism, raping and pillaging (see: Sherman's March to the Sea). He destroyed the powerful dollar by taking it off a metal standard, created one of the worst economic situations with his Greenback, and proceeded to jail thousands upon thousands of dissidents. He found an unconstitutional war (secession was a right held by many States that entered into the voluntary Union from the start).
The War between States was not about slavery, either. The primary reason to fight the war was so that Lincoln could tax southern states in order to provide the money for his corporate buddies to build "bridges to nowhere" type internal "improvements." Lincoln did this while an Illinois politician, raising billions in taxes to build canals that were never built (but the money spent), and other improvements that improved nothing.
He was a tyrant. As a person of mixed race myself, I would never believe that Lincoln freed anyone. He was racist, a criminal, and doesn't deserve the heralding and cheer that confused people give him.
I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today
Appreciate that explanation, because I've stopped replying to AC's.
I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.
And you're saying that unionized public school teachers know what is best for the student? I think not. First, standards in markets are set by what the community shows need for based on how they spend their money. In my town, definitely a lower class town, our local stores don't carry a lot of expensive items, because they don't sell. The town south of me is almost entirely hispanic, and their shoe stores tend to carry a lot of shoes in smaller sizes -- because their population tends to have smaller feet. We have a lot of taco restaurants, but no steak houses. The market has answered it's need. When the Federal, or even State government gets involved in trying to fulfill a market need, it does so with a blind eye to what the local population needs. Some people want cheap, small shoes that they can afford, and others want expensive designer shoes in size 14. Forcing the same standard on all localities leaves people with a product they can neither afford, nor need at the level they want. Education to me is not a right, and by making it one we've only made education worse for the average person who wants it for their kids.
I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).
What is wrong with a person saying "I believe in this, but I have to tell you that if I take this position, I really have no legal authority to dictate the issue, so my answer is that it's none of my business." That's Paul's position.
Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.
I've been going to school board meetings since I was 19 (14 years). I've read almost 16 school year budgets. I've discussed actual needs with teachers AND administrators. The teachers' unions are lying, methodical thieves, who give nothing to the teachers they're supposed to protect. Little surprise, since most national unions act the same way. The administration is meaningless, too. In my state (Illinois), kids are getting dumber, but the administrations are fighting for freaking artificial turf for their sporting fields! The kids are dumb as bricks, but they need better grass for their football games? Right.
The parents, and only the parents, have the responsibility to lead their children in the proper direction. If the parents can't afford an education, that is what private subsidized education has been about. We've always had private churches and organizations providing for inexpensive education, until we taxpayers were forced to foot the bill on substandard "everyone's equal" education. It sickens me, because I do see the average person getting dumber and dumber. One-size-fits-all doesn't work, not even with gloves or hats.
Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.
Wow that is SO untrue. I bought a notebook for $2000 3 years ago that is sub-par to the notebook I bought recently for $600. Recently I found an oil-change service (prepaid annually) that is 1/2 the price of my previous place, but does a MUCH better and faster job. I'm a foodie, and I guarantee you that price does not equal quality of service. One of my businesses is the cheapest in the industry nation-wide, and we consistently get higher ratings than our competition that is 3-4x more expensive than we are.
Price and quality do not go hand-in-hand. Remember, with p
Halivar:
Good post, but I disagree with you on the render to Caesar line. I'm a full-heart Christian, but I don't see that verse in Romans, or any of Romans actually, as pertaining to me or any Christian today. It was written to the Christians in Rome, for the Christians in Rome, to dissuade them from upsetting the government of Rome as God had planned to use Rome in his judgment against the ancient Israelites. Since God judged the Israelites, banished from the ancient Israel, destroyed their Temple forever, and forced them to the ends of the earth, using Rome as His method of vengeance, I believe that book to be over and done, but a great history lesson on how God operates against those who whored themselves with government (ancient Israel whored itself with Rome, against God's desires for them).
While most Evangelical Futurist Christians may disagree with me, I can see absolutely no weight in their argument to follow Romans in any way, shape or form. Christ left Christians to be good stewards of the world, using peace, charity, love and hope to change things. Government is war, theft, hate and depression, the complete anti-thesis to Christ's role for us.
What's the purpose of being an anti-voter? I mean, why would you take such a position and think that it is useful?
I vote in every election, but I only write myself in. The only candidate who cares about me is me. We have quite a movement in my community on anti-voting. By 2012, I hope that "Other" ends up with 20% of the vote because people are sick of voting for force, so this gives them the chance to get other people questioning the act of voting for evil. All politicians are evil, because government is the use of force, plain and simple.
You've GOT to be kidding. You're basically saying that if a Christian doesn't offer an alternative to sin, they are responsible for the sin of another person. Unbelievable. I think you've got a bit of the crazy in you.
I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in sin as defined in the Bible. Even if you believe in sin, it is not your place to judge anyone else. Ever. We're not Pharisees, we're not Saducees, and we're surely not God, so it isn't our place to call out another person's actions. It is especially not our place to steal from people to try to make the world sin free.
Biblically, the first place of judgment comes from you to yourself. If a Christian harms you, you are called to talk with them. If they ignore you, you are to speak with a few brethren within the Body to talk to the Christian. If they still ignore you, you call them out to the congregation. Expulsion is the last step.
If a non-Christian harms you, you are to accept the abuse. Love your enemy. Christ brought forth two Commandments that stick for Christians: Love God, love others. Hoping for government to help a few means hoping for government to hurt the many. YOU should help those you know are in trouble, but don't force non-Christians to.
Actually, most of what you've talked about is similar to the most compelling reasons to support a national consumption tax to replace all other taxes: putting domestically-made goods sold in the US on the same tax footing as imported goods, and simplifying the personal income tax system to increase compliance.
For many years, I would have agreed with you, until I read that terrible book about the so-called FairTax, and then delved deeper into how tax funds are spent.
The first key factor is that most FairTax or consumption tax advocates ignore the fact that most people don't pay much in income tax. We almost all pay 15%+ in social security costs, though, which can far exceed income tax. Also, there are secondary hidden costs that are VERY high that can't be ignored, such as fuel surcharges (local, state, federal), import duties, and selective regulations of various industries (see: sugar, corn, peanuts, oil refining, etc).
The income tax is relatively easy to fulfill unless you're making over $85,000 per year gross, at which point it makes sense to hire a CPA and tax attorney to find the loopholes. Sadly, the CPAs and tax attorneys are the ones who lobby Congress to extend the tax laws more. A consumption tax would NOT change much, since the regulations would get screwy for businesses, which would lead to added product costs and less competition.
I can see a consumption tax exist, but I can also see all the additional regulatory costs that would be passed on to businesses in the collection stage, and I don't think it would work.
Also, I live a few weeks of each year in Europe, where the VAT tax is easily sidestepped in the black market. As a business owner myself, I know of many competitors that sidestep business-collected taxes through black market trades, and I guarantee that many people will do this as well.
A consumption tax SOUNDS good, but in reality doesn't fix the crux of the problem: too much damn government from too many angles to fight individually.
That's pure poppycock. We have someone to run the organization call the United States of America: You. The individual. You are the true leader, the most important part of the Republic.
The founders realized this, and that's why they were hoping for gridlock in the system they devised. It worked well, for a long time, and then started to show signs of failure after the system had changed (thanks to the traitor Lincoln and his mentors).
The President is NOT a leader. The Constitution doesn't show a President to have the power to lead, but only the power to execute that which is Constitutionally valid. The President is supposed to allow YOU to lead so that you can make your life better for yourself and your family, and by secondary effect the lives of those you deal with.
I'm amazed that people want more leadership when it is past leadership that has caused this country to fail. These United States have been an amazing test to the power of the masses, billions of decisions made each second, with every choice you make. The markets flourish based on what people do en masse, but separate. Now instead of lions protecting our homes, we're sheep looking for guidance.
I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).
Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.
I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.
4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.
5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.