Taxation is theft, if we don't have the ability to avoid it. Taxing income is immoral. Period. If you counter with how do we run a government without income taxes, I will educate you, starting with the idea that my money is MINE, and the government has no right to it. Socialism is the idea that nothing is yours (or mine) and government can and will take everything you have and give it to whomever it deems worthy. If you think that is fair or "democratic", I would suggest to you that you support slavery (involuntary servitude), you just dress up the pig with pretty lipstick and call it "hot".
tax cut that will add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027 is going to do?
Obama doubled the Debt in 8 years. Blame it all on Bush though because Obama was great and the GOP sucks, right?
Its nice that the Democrats only care about debt when the GOP has power (and visa versa). Both parties are corrupt power hungry sociopaths, and yet most everyone continues to vote for them. Meanwhile all the power continues to accrue in the highest levels of the statist bureaucracy (see deep state) that does everything in its power to protect itself from the crimes it is committing in the name of serving its masters.
Taxes, all of them, are regressive. The rich can avoid them, by moving their wealth to places that protects wealth, pay bribes (campaign contributions) to get benefits that nobody else can afford etc, and the poor don't pay them. Only the middle class wage earners get their incomes sucked dry by the meat grinder that is government. And nobody seems to care about that, and especially democrats who have shit on the middle class so bad that they managed to get DJT elected president, because he pandered to those forgotten by the elitists in both parties.
You're correct, but instead of silencing Daily Stormer, you've helped Streisand Effect it to the point where I had no idea it existed, but now I am fully aware of it. free advertising.
You're exactly right, and that is exactly why SJW are scary as a group. Because "I don't like it" becomes "Should not be allowed" becomes "Illegal to say". It is all part of the "I'm offended, which is an micro-aggression, which is an assult, which allows me to punch a Nazi, everyone I don't like is a Nazi, I can punch anyone I don't like".
Knee-Jerk reactions are easy when you're an idiot.
Right, regardless of the fact that the PE might or might not understand anything the actual engineer did.
I happen to know a Draftsman who works for an engineering company, he does ALL the engineering, and the guy signing the drawings can barely (if at all) read them, and most of the time doesn't even bother. If people actually knew that the guy with the piece of paper didn't actually do the actual work, they'd be freaking out. On the other hand, they should be grateful that they aren't.;)
license is a good to make sure you have the basic skills...
That is not really saying a lot.
... to do such a job safely.
Basic skills and Safely aren't really in the same ballpark IMHO.
I happen to know people who should be "engineers" but don't have the piece of paper to say they are, as well as people that have the piece of paper, that really shouldn't. Piece of paper is just a barrier to entry and doesn't indicate any real competency.
Once you realize that, you look beyond the paper for actual experience and proof of skill, which is what you should be doing regardless of the piece of paper requirement by the state.
Not only that, many of the businesses he invests in on Shark Tank, are convenience businesses. I can't imagine 3-7 day old cupcakes are all that spectacular, but that is one of his famous deals he brags about.
I follow his advice, buy the business, not the product it sells.
Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?
The source for the original problem(local monopoly) is what, exactly? If you say Comcast or Verizon or ATT or whatever, you're wrong. The source is government granting a Franchise Agreement. The solution most people want is more government to a government created problem. THE SOURCE is the problem of the last mile, and the current method of solving that is... Franchise Agreements.
The REAL solution isn't more government, it is MORE CHOICE. The authoritarian methods being proposed today, don't offer me any more choices than before, and now I have to deal with the Federal Government mandates on top of shitty service from Comcast. How exactly is that better?
Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies
THAT is the problem, and it is caused by government "Franchise agreements" that protect that monopoly. This is the government taking the "easy" way out, rather than doing what is best for their constituents. "Hey, lets create a monopoly, and enforce it with draconian laws".
This has ALWAYS been my case, that solving problems with competition, is always better than solving problems through authoritarian methods (see Monopoly). The solution is to eliminate the last mile monopoly. That should be done by LOCAL municipalities and is solvable in a number of different ways, but the easiest is to have the local municipality build out the last mile, and bring it to a COLO facility which then offers access to any number of providers. That way, the customer deals with JUST the provider for content, and the Municipality maintains the infrastructure, in the same way that the locals build and maintain roads and allows FEDEX, UPS and all sorts of others on the road, rather than telling everyone "You must you FEDEX, you don't have a choice!"
What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?
The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.
BTW, My organization is peered, same as Comcast and Google.
There is pretty much no such thing as a public network operator, as there is very little of the internet backbone that is public. We all just assume it is, but it is all a bunch of peering nodes on private networks linking everything together.
What you and every other Net Neutrality supporter is saying is the government has a right to dictate to private companies how to control the flow of packets on their own private networks. I disagree that the government has any such power. This isn't that I don't support the ideals of internet Net Neutrality, because I do. I just know that once the government can control ANY part of the internet, it can control the whole of it, and that is more terrifying to me than not having Netflix streamed HD to my cellphone.
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The problem is, that most people don't have a grasp of what the internet actually looks like, and who is buying what from whom. And the biggest reason is, we (the average end user) don't have a choice, or if we do it is between CableCo Cable Internet or DSL from TELCO. If you fix THAT problem (thanks government for Franchise agreements) you'd fix net neutrality quickly.
Not understanding who owns their network and controls it is a large part of the problem.
Except that all packets are not treated equally, almost universally. There are all sorts of QOS, packet discarding rules etc all over the place. Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant. The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality. No, not all packets are the same, and anyone pretending they are, doesn't really know anything about how the Internet actually works.
And since just about the whole of the internet is not "public", but rather private lines provided by companies to their customers, it is the customer's responsibility to demand the kind of internet they need.
The worst laws start out with the phrase "There ought to be a law".
FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet, starting with franchise agreements that create the monopolies that are breaking Net Neutrality. The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source, the freedom of the customer to choose the vendor they want, not the one the local Municipality choose 35-50 years ago.
They don't know, and there is a valid reason for it. The market is irrational. The market is as much about emotion as it is about fundamentals, maybe even more so. There will be a correction. The problem is, there are no forces that can take any of the irrationality out of the market. The real panic will happen when the BTC is worth 5 or 6 figures each, and corrects down to three or so. That's when people holding fair numbers of coins will start to panic, and sell off just like everyone else, trying to get any part of the profit they missed when it peaked.
And then you'll see it normalized for a while, perhaps even disappear. People mocked when a guy bought a 20,000 BTC pizza, and now many of those same people are mocking $1000 BTC.
Well, you are uselessly railing in a hysterical fashion while completely misunderstanding what is occurring in the world, which is less government and more exploitation by entities that subvert legitimate moral principles of suffrage to eliminate our securities and curtail our liberties, but you just got fooled by the snow job.
So, you're arguing that either we need more government or that government is just about right, right at this moment.
Lets look at Net Neutrality for a second, Mkay?
1) Everything the Net Neutrality people are asking for is more government. More government telling people how to run businesses, putting smaller more agile companies it harder to comply (and thus go out of business) with government regulations. So, the end result is exactly the opposite of what is intended, which is larger monopolies where you only get one choice (see point 2), which is eerily similar to communism. You can have anything you want, as long as it is government approved.
2) Net Neutrality problems are inherited from previous big government decisions, namely franchise agreements for local CableTV and Local Telco services. It worked when in infancy to get tech to the house (Last mile) , but now, it is the problem that there is only one(or two) choice(s) for land based High Speed Internet. That monopoly is now trying to protect its networks from more competition and attacking what little Net Neutrality there is.
The solution isn't "more" centralized powerful (i.e. Federal) government, it is freeing up the local municipalities from restrictions that prevent them from building the modern infrastructure needed to support liberated free high speed internet. My solution to the Net Neutrality is to allow local municipalities to build out a common last mile to a COLO facility that provides access to any and all service providers to provide any service they want, at any price they want. You could have your Net Neutral 100% No throttling, No Shaping, fast internet, and find out that it is being sucked down by the two assholes torrenting their HD porn Libraries.
But that is so "out there" that most people won't even consider it, because it doesn't have Three Letter Agency in charge of the fascist large corporate government . Again the fix isn't more government, it is less, and what does exist, be locally controlled rather than bureaucratically controlled from 2500 miles away.
1) As a libertarian, I would prefer a vastly more limited government that fought real crimes like theft, and assault and less on non-crimes like drugs and alcohol. 2) As a libertarian, I would prefer the corporate guardians of information said "Can I have a warrant please" and not willingly give up information just because it is the police. In fact, I would prefer if EVERYONE said that to a cop when they ask questions. 3) The world isn't libertarian, but is tending more towards the fascism (real kind, not the ANTIFA kind) that is antithetical to liberty of citizens, so point 1 and 2 are moot.
There are quite a number of people who want more and bigger government who involves itself into more and more of our lives demanding we give up essential rights for temporary security, and I realize that I am arguing a losing battle here. Which is why I said what I said. In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think, it only matters what a dozen people in black robes think. And they don't think like you or I.
It is not public information, but it is also not yours, or my information that we own. It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it.
It is exactly the same thing, information about your whereabouts from a third party. No warrant needed.
And if you think that only the Cell companies are tracking your every move, you're very mistaken. Every large box store, every website, every app, everything you do is being tracked right now. Short of being a luddite cave dweller, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Shop at BigBoxCo, your purchase is linked to you (unless you use cash everywhere 100% of the time). Result, when you finally get the BigBoxCo Credit Card, it already knows what you've purchased even without using it.
That Gaming ap you use to catch pocketmonsters ? Tracking you. That Speedometer, Traffic App, Map App, Ride Hailing App... Tracking you.
The fact is, there are about a million datapoints per year per person... all tracking you.
And you don't even need to use Facebook for the world to know about you.
I would suggest to you, that the party ballot and primaries are the actual problem with our system.
My immediate fix, which would not require any Constitutional Amendments would be as follows
1) No Partisan Markings on the ballot 2) No partisan elections using public funding.
If the parties wish to sponsor a candidate, they can fund their own elections and elect their own candidates without ANY support from our government. The primaries would be completely open, and having no party markings on the ballot. If we reduce partisanship in elections, then perhaps we can actually vote on substance.
Slashdot Mirror
I would go one step further. When a corporation fails, it simply goes away. When government fails, everyone is on the hook for it.
Taxation is theft, if we don't have the ability to avoid it. Taxing income is immoral. Period. If you counter with how do we run a government without income taxes, I will educate you, starting with the idea that my money is MINE, and the government has no right to it. Socialism is the idea that nothing is yours (or mine) and government can and will take everything you have and give it to whomever it deems worthy. If you think that is fair or "democratic", I would suggest to you that you support slavery (involuntary servitude), you just dress up the pig with pretty lipstick and call it "hot".
tax cut that will add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027 is going to do?
Obama doubled the Debt in 8 years. Blame it all on Bush though because Obama was great and the GOP sucks, right?
Its nice that the Democrats only care about debt when the GOP has power (and visa versa). Both parties are corrupt power hungry sociopaths, and yet most everyone continues to vote for them. Meanwhile all the power continues to accrue in the highest levels of the statist bureaucracy (see deep state) that does everything in its power to protect itself from the crimes it is committing in the name of serving its masters.
Taxes, all of them, are regressive. The rich can avoid them, by moving their wealth to places that protects wealth, pay bribes (campaign contributions) to get benefits that nobody else can afford etc, and the poor don't pay them. Only the middle class wage earners get their incomes sucked dry by the meat grinder that is government. And nobody seems to care about that, and especially democrats who have shit on the middle class so bad that they managed to get DJT elected president, because he pandered to those forgotten by the elitists in both parties.
Hate is not the worst emotion to express, indifference is.
You're correct, but instead of silencing Daily Stormer, you've helped Streisand Effect it to the point where I had no idea it existed, but now I am fully aware of it. free advertising.
You're exactly right, and that is exactly why SJW are scary as a group. Because "I don't like it" becomes "Should not be allowed" becomes "Illegal to say". It is all part of the "I'm offended, which is an micro-aggression, which is an assult, which allows me to punch a Nazi, everyone I don't like is a Nazi, I can punch anyone I don't like".
Knee-Jerk reactions are easy when you're an idiot.
Here is an example of what you speak of. Not that it will matter.
Of course, when the government doesn't police themselves, usually means they're tyrants.
FTFY.
In this case, little "t" tyrants, petty; power hungry none the less. Abuse of power is abuse of power. But its okay, since it is Oregon. ;)
Right, regardless of the fact that the PE might or might not understand anything the actual engineer did.
I happen to know a Draftsman who works for an engineering company, he does ALL the engineering, and the guy signing the drawings can barely (if at all) read them, and most of the time doesn't even bother. If people actually knew that the guy with the piece of paper didn't actually do the actual work, they'd be freaking out. On the other hand, they should be grateful that they aren't. ;)
license is a good to make sure you have the basic skills ...
That is not really saying a lot.
... to do such a job safely.
Basic skills and Safely aren't really in the same ballpark IMHO.
I happen to know people who should be "engineers" but don't have the piece of paper to say they are, as well as people that have the piece of paper, that really shouldn't. Piece of paper is just a barrier to entry and doesn't indicate any real competency.
Once you realize that, you look beyond the paper for actual experience and proof of skill, which is what you should be doing regardless of the piece of paper requirement by the state.
Isn't there an emoji character for "whoosh" ? If not, there ought to be!
I beg to differ. Everyone has ethics, some are more hypocritical that others; as in "Ethics are for the other guy".
Not only that, many of the businesses he invests in on Shark Tank, are convenience businesses. I can't imagine 3-7 day old cupcakes are all that spectacular, but that is one of his famous deals he brags about.
I follow his advice, buy the business, not the product it sells.
Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?
The source for the original problem(local monopoly) is what, exactly? If you say Comcast or Verizon or ATT or whatever, you're wrong. The source is government granting a Franchise Agreement. The solution most people want is more government to a government created problem. THE SOURCE is the problem of the last mile, and the current method of solving that is ... Franchise Agreements.
The REAL solution isn't more government, it is MORE CHOICE. The authoritarian methods being proposed today, don't offer me any more choices than before, and now I have to deal with the Federal Government mandates on top of shitty service from Comcast. How exactly is that better?
Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies
THAT is the problem, and it is caused by government "Franchise agreements" that protect that monopoly. This is the government taking the "easy" way out, rather than doing what is best for their constituents. "Hey, lets create a monopoly, and enforce it with draconian laws".
This has ALWAYS been my case, that solving problems with competition, is always better than solving problems through authoritarian methods (see Monopoly). The solution is to eliminate the last mile monopoly. That should be done by LOCAL municipalities and is solvable in a number of different ways, but the easiest is to have the local municipality build out the last mile, and bring it to a COLO facility which then offers access to any number of providers. That way, the customer deals with JUST the provider for content, and the Municipality maintains the infrastructure, in the same way that the locals build and maintain roads and allows FEDEX, UPS and all sorts of others on the road, rather than telling everyone "You must you FEDEX, you don't have a choice!"
What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?
The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.
BTW, My organization is peered, same as Comcast and Google.
I understand better than you ....
public network operators.
There is pretty much no such thing as a public network operator, as there is very little of the internet backbone that is public. We all just assume it is, but it is all a bunch of peering nodes on private networks linking everything together.
What you and every other Net Neutrality supporter is saying is the government has a right to dictate to private companies how to control the flow of packets on their own private networks. I disagree that the government has any such power. This isn't that I don't support the ideals of internet Net Neutrality, because I do. I just know that once the government can control ANY part of the internet, it can control the whole of it, and that is more terrifying to me than not having Netflix streamed HD to my cellphone.
Middle men? You mean Peering Nodes or Comcast?
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The problem is, that most people don't have a grasp of what the internet actually looks like, and who is buying what from whom. And the biggest reason is, we (the average end user) don't have a choice, or if we do it is between CableCo Cable Internet or DSL from TELCO. If you fix THAT problem (thanks government for Franchise agreements) you'd fix net neutrality quickly.
Not understanding who owns their network and controls it is a large part of the problem.
Except that all packets are not treated equally, almost universally. There are all sorts of QOS, packet discarding rules etc all over the place. Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant. The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality. No, not all packets are the same, and anyone pretending they are, doesn't really know anything about how the Internet actually works.
And since just about the whole of the internet is not "public", but rather private lines provided by companies to their customers, it is the customer's responsibility to demand the kind of internet they need.
The worst laws start out with the phrase "There ought to be a law".
FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet, starting with franchise agreements that create the monopolies that are breaking Net Neutrality. The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source, the freedom of the customer to choose the vendor they want, not the one the local Municipality choose 35-50 years ago.
They don't know, and there is a valid reason for it. The market is irrational. The market is as much about emotion as it is about fundamentals, maybe even more so. There will be a correction. The problem is, there are no forces that can take any of the irrationality out of the market. The real panic will happen when the BTC is worth 5 or 6 figures each, and corrects down to three or so. That's when people holding fair numbers of coins will start to panic, and sell off just like everyone else, trying to get any part of the profit they missed when it peaked.
And then you'll see it normalized for a while, perhaps even disappear. People mocked when a guy bought a 20,000 BTC pizza, and now many of those same people are mocking $1000 BTC.
Well, you are uselessly railing in a hysterical fashion while completely misunderstanding what is occurring in the world, which is less government and more exploitation by entities that subvert legitimate moral principles of suffrage to eliminate our securities and curtail our liberties, but you just got fooled by the snow job.
So, you're arguing that either we need more government or that government is just about right, right at this moment.
Lets look at Net Neutrality for a second, Mkay?
1) Everything the Net Neutrality people are asking for is more government. More government telling people how to run businesses, putting smaller more agile companies it harder to comply (and thus go out of business) with government regulations. So, the end result is exactly the opposite of what is intended, which is larger monopolies where you only get one choice (see point 2), which is eerily similar to communism. You can have anything you want, as long as it is government approved.
2) Net Neutrality problems are inherited from previous big government decisions, namely franchise agreements for local CableTV and Local Telco services. It worked when in infancy to get tech to the house (Last mile) , but now, it is the problem that there is only one(or two) choice(s) for land based High Speed Internet. That monopoly is now trying to protect its networks from more competition and attacking what little Net Neutrality there is.
The solution isn't "more" centralized powerful (i.e. Federal) government, it is freeing up the local municipalities from restrictions that prevent them from building the modern infrastructure needed to support liberated free high speed internet. My solution to the Net Neutrality is to allow local municipalities to build out a common last mile to a COLO facility that provides access to any and all service providers to provide any service they want, at any price they want. You could have your Net Neutral 100% No throttling, No Shaping, fast internet, and find out that it is being sucked down by the two assholes torrenting their HD porn Libraries.
But that is so "out there" that most people won't even consider it, because it doesn't have Three Letter Agency in charge of the fascist large corporate government . Again the fix isn't more government, it is less, and what does exist, be locally controlled rather than bureaucratically controlled from 2500 miles away.
1) As a libertarian, I would prefer a vastly more limited government that fought real crimes like theft, and assault and less on non-crimes like drugs and alcohol.
2) As a libertarian, I would prefer the corporate guardians of information said "Can I have a warrant please" and not willingly give up information just because it is the police. In fact, I would prefer if EVERYONE said that to a cop when they ask questions.
3) The world isn't libertarian, but is tending more towards the fascism (real kind, not the ANTIFA kind) that is antithetical to liberty of citizens, so point 1 and 2 are moot.
There are quite a number of people who want more and bigger government who involves itself into more and more of our lives demanding we give up essential rights for temporary security, and I realize that I am arguing a losing battle here. Which is why I said what I said. In the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think, it only matters what a dozen people in black robes think. And they don't think like you or I.
It is not public information, but it is also not yours, or my information that we own. It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it.
It is exactly the same thing, information about your whereabouts from a third party. No warrant needed.
And if you think that only the Cell companies are tracking your every move, you're very mistaken. Every large box store, every website, every app, everything you do is being tracked right now. Short of being a luddite cave dweller, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Shop at BigBoxCo, your purchase is linked to you (unless you use cash everywhere 100% of the time). Result, when you finally get the BigBoxCo Credit Card, it already knows what you've purchased even without using it.
That Gaming ap you use to catch pocketmonsters ? Tracking you. ... Tracking you.
That Speedometer, Traffic App, Map App, Ride Hailing App
The fact is, there are about a million datapoints per year per person ... all tracking you.
And you don't even need to use Facebook for the world to know about you.
Governments are shit, look at US, UK, Italy, Belgium ..... need I go on?
I would suggest to you, that the party ballot and primaries are the actual problem with our system.
My immediate fix, which would not require any Constitutional Amendments would be as follows
1) No Partisan Markings on the ballot
2) No partisan elections using public funding.
If the parties wish to sponsor a candidate, they can fund their own elections and elect their own candidates without ANY support from our government. The primaries would be completely open, and having no party markings on the ballot. If we reduce partisanship in elections, then perhaps we can actually vote on substance.
I can dream.