Lets look at your 800 dollar "pocket computer", in terms of economic value, rather than dollars spent.
800 / 24 = $33.34 / month in value amortized across two years .
Let me ask you, do you get $33.34 in value for your phone, each and every month? My guess, is that you do. Do you use every last feature on your phone, every month? Probably not, but that is almost irrelevant. So, you extend your life of your phone, perhaps a year, maybe by adding a replaceable battery.
815 / 36 = $22.64/month. So, you "save" $11 month (not really).
Instead of buying a "top of the line" (Samsung/Apple) cell phone, packed with features you you don't always use, you can go for a more middle of the road model like the top of the line Nexus (and avoid the bloat and crap installed by your carrier) for the same "$22.64/mo" you're getting out of the top of the line model, and extra battery, replacing your phone every other year instead of every three years, getting better technology more often than trying to extend your expensive eye candy purchase an extra year.
This doesn't even include options for even cheaper phones, more often.
So, in summary, you can buy a "Name Brand Signature Model Cell Phone" every three years, or get a less expensive phone, with all the things you're likely to actually use every two years, for the exact same money. And trust me, when I say this, in three years, your three year old phone is REALLY old, and tired. and in two years, a cheaper phone is going to out perform your now aging phone that you're still going to have to hold onto another year simply to break even.
So, while you THINK you're doing yourself a favor and saving money, you're likely not doing any such thing, and in the end, in two years, you're gonna want to buy that flashy shiney (since you've already proven that is what you're really doing, buying top of the line model ) and buy a new phone anyway. It is better to not lie to yourself, admit you're being foolish and get a better phone every two years, than it is to hold onto a old tired phone every three.
Lastly, when you drop and break your "expensive phone", or lose it on the taxi ride, or have it stolen out of your purse(man bag) at the club, you'll feel much better if it was not quite as costly to replace.
The Real Piracy is the wholesale stealing of our government by the rich, powerful elites, who conspire to get away with crimes others are rotting in jail for.
I wasn't referring to Riley. I was referring to the more recent ruling where it was decided that "computers" aren't "papers" (5th Amendment) and thus aren't subject to the 5th Amendment.
And as a Libertarian, I can argue the merits of Liberty without the use of the founding documents just fine. However, since the framing of the whole country was founded upon the Constitution, I use that as a LEGAL document that enshrines the very concept of what Liberty is into a framework of an absolute (until changed).
As a Libertarian, I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY purpose of government is to protect the Liberty of those that cannot defend themselves against the rule of the Mob. As such, should be limited to that Function alone. Imagine a system where Police didn't do anything except defend the Liberty of citizens minding their own business. Where Prosecutors actively defended citizens from criminals who subverted Liberty, not just prosecuted common crimes. Imagine a court system where LIBERTY is the guiding principle, not usurping the power of the people to govern themselves and giving that power to the Government to rule over us.
It is already happening. Municipal based transmission ownership, to a COLO facility where you can order/purchase the services you want, from the vendor you like best. The fiber lines are the same as "streets" maintained by the municipality, and the services are open to any and all (think FedEx vs UPS vs USPS).
The fact is, once you get past the problem of the last mile, the monopoly goes away, Net Neutrality is a non issue, as the vendors will actually have to compete for you as a customer.
The court has created so many new "Rights" that they are now ignoring what is actually found in the constitution as a "right" in order to support "rights" that aren't actually enumerated.
And as a Libertarian, my charge to the Court would be to support "rights" (not make them up) found in the Constitution first, and not come up with fancy legal reasoning to trump them with "new" rights not actually found in it. The recent rulings in favor of the state (cell phones/computers aren't "papers") clearly the Court doesn't really care about the actual Constitution. So, my view of the court is likely to be not exactly what you're expecting.
Actually, we live in 1300s now, with Government controlling all the serfs who are required to pay tribute to the king (and soon to be queen), who write laws they themselves don't have to obey. So, Strawman.
And you forgot "dirty water, pollution, Somalia, and tossing grandma off a cliff"
And Cavemen were long gone by 1300, by racist Homo sapiens who killed them all off. Give back Europe to the Homo neanderthalensis! They were here first!
The real cost of employment is closer to 3-4 times what the hourly employee makes. People complain about Minimum Wage jobs, have no idea that employing a person costs that much.
Vote Gary Johnson. Libertarian. Honest Politicians are rare, and he has the right policies to sway both Democrats and Republican "single issue voters".
Trump is a non-issue, as the press and even the Republicans not supporting him. He doesn't get a "generous portrayal" of his ethics, so there is no double standard there. Yes, there are people who will vote for Trump, just as there are those who support Clinton. But since this is a story of and about Clinton, and how people are willing to say anything to support her, I only mentioned her.
FYI, Gary Johnson is the ONLY Presidential Candidate worth voting for at this point. Especially if you are concerned about the Ethics of Clinton and/or Trump.
And don't give me the bullshit argument about he can't win. Voting for someone just because they might be able to win is a popularity contest. Neither Clinton nor Trump aren't even close to being good enough.
First off, as a Libertarian, people (all) have the same rights. Gays don't have more or less rights than I do.
Second off, as a Libertarian, I have no idea why government is involved in defining marriage, one way or another. Government shouldn't be supporting, promoting or otherwise having anything to do with "Marriage". The problem with gay marriage isn't the "gay" part, it is the nature of the "promotion" via government sanctioned grants, deductions and benefits to people engaged in contractual relationships of any sort.
At some point, we're going to have to admit that government sanction "rights" that are actually "benefits" and "deductions" and "Grants" are themselves discriminatory even when trying to address previous discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a "right":)
Actually, there are a number of Sanders supporters that will be voting for Trump, because they see Hillary as being more evil than Trump. Just like you're likely to see Republicans voting for Hillary, because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
So, this year, all normal prognostications are going to be wrong.
I am a Libertarian, and so I am enjoying every popcorn munching moment so far.
your assumption is that we are being taxed to death
We are taxed, daily, until death, and then taxed again. So, yes we are "taxed to death", just not in the way you intended. The moment you earn your first dollar, you are taxed on it, and every dollar after that, including the ones you save for your posterity, and those are taxed again, because people like yourself think government has a RIGHT to our money. I have a right to my money, that I earn. Taking, in the form of taxes, under threat of government guns, is nothing short of slavery. We've just changed the name.
According to the US government, I am a slave. See the 14th Amendment. I am compelled under threat of government guns to forfeit my wages to support other people.;) So I am under no illusions that I am a free man.
The supreme law of the land give the government the authority collect taxes.
Authority isn't a right. Yes, I agree that it has the authority, but that doesn't make it a right. People have rights, governments have authority, by consent of the governed.
Please see the 14th amendment, involuntary servitude, and tell me when I am free to keep what I earn, completely, without being threatened by government guns. Changing the name of the slave owner doesn't change the effect.
It is NOT a right of government to collect taxes. It is the consent of the governed that provides that authority. It is a limited power (see below) Consent isn't a right. Taking without consent is what we call "Rape".;)
In the US this is enshrined in the Constitution [wikipedia.org].
If you're going to refer to an document, and use that to justify taxes, you should also realize that that document limits taxation for only two purposes.
While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
You might try reading it sometime.
I read it all the time. I actually know what's in it. I use specific words (right, authority, consent etc) on purpose.
Taxes are the price of civilized society.
Civilization and society doesn't require taxes. Taxes should be avoidable, and unavoidable taxes are a violation of the 14th amendment of involuntary servitude. In this case, slavery to the state. You should read it sometime.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean "Knights who say NI" ?
Lets look at your 800 dollar "pocket computer", in terms of economic value, rather than dollars spent.
800 / 24 = $33.34 / month in value amortized across two years .
Let me ask you, do you get $33.34 in value for your phone, each and every month? My guess, is that you do. Do you use every last feature on your phone, every month? Probably not, but that is almost irrelevant. So, you extend your life of your phone, perhaps a year, maybe by adding a replaceable battery.
815 / 36 = $22.64 /month. So, you "save" $11 month (not really).
Instead of buying a "top of the line" (Samsung/Apple) cell phone, packed with features you you don't always use, you can go for a more middle of the road model like the top of the line Nexus (and avoid the bloat and crap installed by your carrier) for the same "$22.64/mo" you're getting out of the top of the line model, and extra battery, replacing your phone every other year instead of every three years, getting better technology more often than trying to extend your expensive eye candy purchase an extra year.
This doesn't even include options for even cheaper phones, more often.
So, in summary, you can buy a "Name Brand Signature Model Cell Phone" every three years, or get a less expensive phone, with all the things you're likely to actually use every two years, for the exact same money. And trust me, when I say this, in three years, your three year old phone is REALLY old, and tired. and in two years, a cheaper phone is going to out perform your now aging phone that you're still going to have to hold onto another year simply to break even.
So, while you THINK you're doing yourself a favor and saving money, you're likely not doing any such thing, and in the end, in two years, you're gonna want to buy that flashy shiney (since you've already proven that is what you're really doing, buying top of the line model ) and buy a new phone anyway. It is better to not lie to yourself, admit you're being foolish and get a better phone every two years, than it is to hold onto a old tired phone every three.
Lastly, when you drop and break your "expensive phone", or lose it on the taxi ride, or have it stolen out of your purse(man bag) at the club, you'll feel much better if it was not quite as costly to replace.
Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.
The Real Piracy is the wholesale stealing of our government by the rich, powerful elites, who conspire to get away with crimes others are rotting in jail for.
I wasn't referring to Riley. I was referring to the more recent ruling where it was decided that "computers" aren't "papers" (5th Amendment) and thus aren't subject to the 5th Amendment.
And as a Libertarian, I can argue the merits of Liberty without the use of the founding documents just fine. However, since the framing of the whole country was founded upon the Constitution, I use that as a LEGAL document that enshrines the very concept of what Liberty is into a framework of an absolute (until changed).
As a Libertarian, I've come to the conclusion that the ONLY purpose of government is to protect the Liberty of those that cannot defend themselves against the rule of the Mob. As such, should be limited to that Function alone. Imagine a system where Police didn't do anything except defend the Liberty of citizens minding their own business. Where Prosecutors actively defended citizens from criminals who subverted Liberty, not just prosecuted common crimes. Imagine a court system where LIBERTY is the guiding principle, not usurping the power of the people to govern themselves and giving that power to the Government to rule over us.
It is already happening. Municipal based transmission ownership, to a COLO facility where you can order/purchase the services you want, from the vendor you like best. The fiber lines are the same as "streets" maintained by the municipality, and the services are open to any and all (think FedEx vs UPS vs USPS).
The fact is, once you get past the problem of the last mile, the monopoly goes away, Net Neutrality is a non issue, as the vendors will actually have to compete for you as a customer.
The court has created so many new "Rights" that they are now ignoring what is actually found in the constitution as a "right" in order to support "rights" that aren't actually enumerated.
And as a Libertarian, my charge to the Court would be to support "rights" (not make them up) found in the Constitution first, and not come up with fancy legal reasoning to trump them with "new" rights not actually found in it. The recent rulings in favor of the state (cell phones/computers aren't "papers") clearly the Court doesn't really care about the actual Constitution. So, my view of the court is likely to be not exactly what you're expecting.
Actually, we live in 1300s now, with Government controlling all the serfs who are required to pay tribute to the king (and soon to be queen), who write laws they themselves don't have to obey. So, Strawman.
And you forgot "dirty water, pollution, Somalia, and tossing grandma off a cliff"
And Cavemen were long gone by 1300, by racist Homo sapiens who killed them all off. Give back Europe to the Homo neanderthalensis! They were here first!
The real cost of employment is closer to 3-4 times what the hourly employee makes. People complain about Minimum Wage jobs, have no idea that employing a person costs that much.
Vote Gary Johnson. Libertarian. Honest Politicians are rare, and he has the right policies to sway both Democrats and Republican "single issue voters".
Trump is a non-issue, as the press and even the Republicans not supporting him. He doesn't get a "generous portrayal" of his ethics, so there is no double standard there. Yes, there are people who will vote for Trump, just as there are those who support Clinton. But since this is a story of and about Clinton, and how people are willing to say anything to support her, I only mentioned her.
FYI, Gary Johnson is the ONLY Presidential Candidate worth voting for at this point. Especially if you are concerned about the Ethics of Clinton and/or Trump.
And don't give me the bullshit argument about he can't win. Voting for someone just because they might be able to win is a popularity contest. Neither Clinton nor Trump aren't even close to being good enough.
FBI director is a Drama King based on his other security claims
Please be just as generous in your portrayal of Clinton's Ethics / Lying when you decide to vote for her. MKAY?
First off, as a Libertarian, people (all) have the same rights. Gays don't have more or less rights than I do.
Second off, as a Libertarian, I have no idea why government is involved in defining marriage, one way or another. Government shouldn't be supporting, promoting or otherwise having anything to do with "Marriage". The problem with gay marriage isn't the "gay" part, it is the nature of the "promotion" via government sanctioned grants, deductions and benefits to people engaged in contractual relationships of any sort.
At some point, we're going to have to admit that government sanction "rights" that are actually "benefits" and "deductions" and "Grants" are themselves discriminatory even when trying to address previous discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a "right" :)
Vapid Emotionalism. Nice Job Snowflake.
Liberals blame everything on White Heterosexual Christian Males. They are the devil! Vote Hillary 2016!
Actually, there are a number of Sanders supporters that will be voting for Trump, because they see Hillary as being more evil than Trump. Just like you're likely to see Republicans voting for Hillary, because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
So, this year, all normal prognostications are going to be wrong.
I am a Libertarian, and so I am enjoying every popcorn munching moment so far.
your assumption is that we are being taxed to death
We are taxed, daily, until death, and then taxed again. So, yes we are "taxed to death", just not in the way you intended. The moment you earn your first dollar, you are taxed on it, and every dollar after that, including the ones you save for your posterity, and those are taxed again, because people like yourself think government has a RIGHT to our money. I have a right to my money, that I earn. Taking, in the form of taxes, under threat of government guns, is nothing short of slavery. We've just changed the name.
According to the US government, I am a slave. See the 14th Amendment. I am compelled under threat of government guns to forfeit my wages to support other people. ;) So I am under no illusions that I am a free man.
The supreme law of the land give the government the authority collect taxes.
Authority isn't a right. Yes, I agree that it has the authority, but that doesn't make it a right. People have rights, governments have authority, by consent of the governed.
Please see the 14th amendment, involuntary servitude, and tell me when I am free to keep what I earn, completely, without being threatened by government guns. Changing the name of the slave owner doesn't change the effect.
one must first cease and desist using the services of a government.
Government compels, under threat of government guns, the use of Government services.
Your argument is invalid.
To be clear, the NRA didn't take down 38,000 websites. Incompetent hosting company took down 38,000 websites.
But like good liberals, you blame something else, instead of the actual culprit.
or killing unborn children.
Your assumption is that we didn't have roads and schools and such before taxing everyone to death (hint: we did)
Your assumption that taxes we pay for these things aren't redirected to other things. (The government makes more on Gas than the oil companies)
Your assumption is that government is the only way to have these things (it isn't)
Your assumption is that oh wait, I see your point. You actually agree with me, just that you won't admit it.
They do have a right to collect taxes
It is NOT a right of government to collect taxes. It is the consent of the governed that provides that authority. It is a limited power (see below) Consent isn't a right. Taking without consent is what we call "Rape". ;)
In the US this is enshrined in the Constitution [wikipedia.org].
If you're going to refer to an document, and use that to justify taxes, you should also realize that that document limits taxation for only two purposes.
While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
You might try reading it sometime.
I read it all the time. I actually know what's in it. I use specific words (right, authority, consent etc) on purpose.
Taxes are the price of civilized society.
Civilization and society doesn't require taxes. Taxes should be avoidable, and unavoidable taxes are a violation of the 14th amendment of involuntary servitude. In this case, slavery to the state. You should read it sometime. :)
Population of Germany 80.62 million
Population of US 318.9 million
US has almost 4 times the population of Germany.
Size of Germany 357,168 km
Size of USA 9.857 million km
US has 27 times more land mass than Germany. US is 8 times less dense than Germany. Pretending that these things do not matter is a fools argument.