Doesn't happen that way, the protected monopoly does not allow you a choice.
Thankfully, it is not quite a monopoly — several corporations compete in my area, and contrary to constant whining on/., my area is not uniquely competitive. Granted, it is not a properly free market either, but the solution is to free it, not make it a full bona-fide monopoly the way public highways already are.
Only a public utility can provide that.
Bullshit. "Public utility" is a monopoly. And that it is government run only makes it worse. Your argument is exactly the sort of moronic but seductive thinking, that gave rise to AT&T's monopoly and the cable TV-monopolies after that. Those monopolies are — officially — no more, but the monsters they created are still with us today well-entrenched.
But, like I said, 100 years of failure mean nothing to you...
Hey, if you don't want to pay for infrastructure maintenance
I certainly don't. I want (am willing) to pay for the Internet service. And when a particular service-provider disappoints me, I want to be able to switch to a competing one in a matter of hours, rather than begin the process of raising awareness so some kind of healing can begin and a new political appointee (after the next elections) fixes whatever is wrong — which is the only way to fix a publicly-owned anything.
cut the government loose from the corporate politburo
I would prefer "corporate politburo" (whatever that means) to the actual Politburo (and the inevitable Gosplan that comes with it).
This is why we have to turn them into public utilities and abolish all exclusive franchising.
Having just spent 7 hours driving through public highways, I can't wait for the Internet to become similarly mismanaged.
But I do admire the strength of your belief in the Collective's power to defeat the basic laws of the universe (such as TNSTAAFL)... I mean, you personally belong on a lamp-post with your Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed into your mouth, but the solidity of your convictions is still enviable. The 100 years of Socialism's failure means nothing to you.
by relying on the generosity of corporations, wealthy individuals, and nonprofits to fund STEM, computer science, and technology programs, learning opportunities would be limited to a small group of students, creating disparity of opportunity. "If this is a real priority," pleaded Chris Vance, "fund it fully"
By "fund it fully", of course, he meant, usage of monies collected from citizens at gun-point (as all taxes are collected).
The lesson here is: be careful with your charity — or the government may decide to make it mandatory for all.
It was not a State of The Union Address, which is delivered in Januaries. It was an ordinary speech to Congress — in September (of 2009). The exact words were "You lie!", not "You're lying".
My corrections here are just as insignificant as yours was.
It is repugnant to refer to anyone, but especially a judge that way. Recall the firestorm, that arouse, when a Congressman merely accused Barack Obama of lying. The "culprit" was admonished by the House and forced to apologize.
That he was correct — contrary to various denials — is besides the point, you don't talk to President that way.
So, of course, it is repugnant. But not illegal. I doubt, DOJ, are even hoping to win a conviction. But, being part of a rather vicious and vindictive Administration, they are aiming to harass these people and make their lives miserable. Kind of like a pig arresting you for "resisting arrest".
Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare.
Congress can do anything for the "general welfare" — if that's how we interpret the two words.
NSA eavesdropping, banning or establishing religions, and confiscating guns are neither taxing nor spending
Huh? It is not done for free — it certainly is taxing and spending!
If you've noticed, Congress often tries to establish policy by giving out money with strings attached
Yes, I have noticed — and I hate it, because it means, like I said, that they can do anything and the only limit is the political will (as in UK, for example), but not the Constitution.
which in many of these cases Congress can't do.
Well, you meant to say "should not be able to do", because they clearly can — and have — done it in this round-about way.
Can Congress vote to put a person to death — for the "general welfare" (better known among the openly Socialist as The Greater Good[TM])? They sure can — according to your interpretation — by spending money on the execution.
But let's get back to the topic of coerced "benevolence".
Your interpretation of the clause is wrong if only for the above reason — that it removes any Constitutional limit on government's power.
But that's not the only reason. Your earlier statement, that laws must be interpreted as software, is not quite correct. While I agree, that laws aren't unlike programs, humans — being semantic rather than merely syntactic devices — aren't like computers. While the machines can not (yet?) know the programmer's desires beyond what he actually writes, we can — and do — consider the legislative intent.
While such intent is not always known, in this case it is perfectly clear. Not only did James Madison (known as Father of the Constitution, BTW) state it, we also know, that not one of the other Constitution-framers still alive at the time (1794), rose up to remind him about the "general welfare" clause. The refugees from Haiti did not receive tax-paid help from America..
Effective sarcasm requires a better command of the language than that...
Oh, I think it was phrased perfectly fine. And even if it was not, it certainly proved to be quite effective regardless.
Now, if you want to criticize my command of English, let's see, whether you can stand perpendicular on that ground yourself. Oh, but you can't: you aren't even clear on where to use "the" vs. "a"!..
And that's despite — a fair guess here — English being the first and only language for you ("una cerveza por favor" does not count), whereas for me it is the third. Celebrate diversity.
paid to the idea that "only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing".
You have not identified any corporation, that quadrupled the price of its offering without improving quality (or due to spike in cost of raw materials).
Having nothing to say, it really would've been best for you to say nothing... You are only making the whipping you received look worse.
If you want to live somewhere without Government, there are several of them. None are particularly nice places to be, however.
As I answered that poster and idiots like him. I want the government to
defend the country from without;
enforce the law-and-order within
Statists expecting more from their government are, no doubt, welcome to Cuba and North Korea and the even much nicer Germany or Greece.
No they [food needs] ’re not [provided for by private markets].
Hah! I grew up, where children were encouraged to "Thank the Party" for providing food and other aspects of "Happy Childhood". I didn't realize, here in the US I must also be thanking the Government for the daily sustenance...
Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education.
These indisputable facts may not directly support ChrisMaple's statement, but they certainly do make mockery of any claim, that the tax-collecting government is somehow uniquely well-qualified in educating children and that the only way to provide for education is to coerce citizens into paying for it.
I would further add, that no "KKKorporation", however evil, would be able to quadruple the price of its offering(s) without significantly improving the quality (or a spike in raw-material costs). Only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing — and only because its source of financing is backed by the armed coercion.
Except that Congress gets to tax and spend for the general welfare.
If you interpret the "general welfare" part so, then there is no limit on government's power at all and the entire Bill of Rights is dead.
NSA can argue, their eavesdropping is "for general welfare". Banning a religion — or establishing one — can be done on the same grounds. Confiscating guns.
Anything — if the only burden a proponent of a new law has to clear is that it will improve "general welfare", then the Collective will trump the Individual. Officially and for ever.
I've been told that Madison disagreed with that, but he is not the enshrined interpreter of the Constitution.
mi is CLEARLY sarcastically expressing an opinion about all taxes.
False. The quote I linked to singles-out spending tax-monies on benevolence. It is that — government's funding of charities — that I and James Madison consider unconstitutional.
I then clarified my (quite coherent, thank you) point in a follow-up. For you to continue pretending, I reject all taxes is disingenuous (a.k.a. dishonest).
Yes, Virginia, the United States government has the Constitutional power to tax and to spend for general welfare
Are you seriously going to argue the legislative intent with the guy, who wrote the very law? I linked to the quote already, but you are too righteous to click on some wingnut's links, aren't you? Well, here it goes by value, rather than reference:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
— James Madison
Or, maybe, you are confusing "general welfare" with the Welfare-check? That must be it, Virginia... Because if Madison says, spending taxes on benevolence is against the Constitution, then it really must be...
Ukraine has only Soviet-era air force, and it is all grounded due to concentration of Russian anti-air tech
No, they were using, what little was usable after two decades of neglect (much of it induced by Russia's infiltrators in Ukraine's military). It just was not much to begin with and there were combat losses...
not unless major long-range missile bombardment effort was undertaken to suppress all that AA.
The enemy's AA is not any better — and likely worse — than the Serbian army's was, when we bombed them in Kosovo... It can be done — and with minimum losses.
Also, the enemy's AA has been reduced (if not entirely withdrawn back to Russia), when the morons shot down that unfortunate airliner a year ago. Should Ukraine suddenly grow a capable air force, Russia may give the Buks back, but it will take them time during which some juicy targets can be spectacularly destroyed...
Finally, even those scary Buks, apparently, aren't such a menace to the real fighting planes — most of the air-losses Ukraine suffered were transport-planes and helicopters...
then they would not have referred to taxes as "monies taken from you and me at gunpoint"
Well, whatever your and mine opinion on taxes, they really are collected at gunpoint — you aren't even trying to refute this truism, you (and kenj123) are just expressing your displeasure at it being pointed out to you.
Does this mean, we reject all taxation? No, I don't think so. But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral. And, yes, this includes spending even a dime on charities.
That's the advantage of benevolence based on private charities — the mismanaged ones lose donations and disappear. I too stopped donating to Red Cross long ago — my charity money goes to the IRC.
I refuse to give them a single dime.
Try that attitude with public charities — financed by monies taken from you and me at gunpoint (taxes)... Whatever you may feel about their goals and methods, you can not simply stop paying them — your only recourse is to raise awareness hoping for the eventual healing to begin.
Oh, and they are unconstitutional too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.
One refers to a people, the other refers to a place.
Ah, so it is the place! I see. Would it be fair to develop your argument into something like "North America is exceptionally conductive towards Democracy"?..
I'm sorry, I did not mean to make it so painfully obvious for your kind. Really insensitive of me towards all of the good folks, who are challenged in this regard.
Morons are a problem for all. Russia — whose attitude towards accusations of being involved in Ukraine is "Our soldiers aren't there, but they will prevail" — is repeatedly embarrassed by the same kind of morons among her servicemen posting selfies and other photographs picturing them with well-recognizable landmarks and monuments inside Ukraine in the background.
Sigh, if only Ukraine had anywhere near the punch of America's air-force...
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, it is not quite a monopoly — several corporations compete in my area, and contrary to constant whining on /., my area is not uniquely competitive. Granted, it is not a properly free market either, but the solution is to free it, not make it a full bona-fide monopoly the way public highways already are.
Bullshit. "Public utility" is a monopoly. And that it is government run only makes it worse. Your argument is exactly the sort of moronic but seductive thinking, that gave rise to AT&T's monopoly and the cable TV-monopolies after that. Those monopolies are — officially — no more, but the monsters they created are still with us today well-entrenched.
But, like I said, 100 years of failure mean nothing to you...
I certainly don't. I want (am willing) to pay for the Internet service. And when a particular service-provider disappoints me, I want to be able to switch to a competing one in a matter of hours, rather than begin the process of raising awareness so some kind of healing can begin and a new political appointee (after the next elections) fixes whatever is wrong — which is the only way to fix a publicly-owned anything.
I would prefer "corporate politburo" (whatever that means) to the actual Politburo (and the inevitable Gosplan that comes with it).
The one about hanging fustakrakich on a lamp-post with his Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed in his gaping mouth? I don't see a connection...
In fact, I don't see a connection between anything I said in the last week and people (not) dying of whooping cough...
My response was to the proposal to turn ISPs into "public utilities", not "net neutrality".
Citations missing.
Having just spent 7 hours driving through public highways, I can't wait for the Internet to become similarly mismanaged.
But I do admire the strength of your belief in the Collective's power to defeat the basic laws of the universe (such as TNSTAAFL)... I mean, you personally belong on a lamp-post with your Che Guevara T-shirt stuffed into your mouth, but the solidity of your convictions is still enviable. The 100 years of Socialism's failure means nothing to you.
By "fund it fully", of course, he meant, usage of monies collected from citizens at gun-point (as all taxes are collected).
The lesson here is: be careful with your charity — or the government may decide to make it mandatory for all.
It was not a State of The Union Address, which is delivered in Januaries. It was an ordinary speech to Congress — in September (of 2009). The exact words were "You lie!", not "You're lying".
My corrections here are just as insignificant as yours was.
It is repugnant to refer to anyone, but especially a judge that way. Recall the firestorm, that arouse, when a Congressman merely accused Barack Obama of lying. The "culprit" was admonished by the House and forced to apologize.
That he was correct — contrary to various denials — is besides the point, you don't talk to President that way.
So, of course, it is repugnant. But not illegal. I doubt, DOJ, are even hoping to win a conviction. But, being part of a rather vicious and vindictive Administration, they are aiming to harass these people and make their lives miserable. Kind of like a pig arresting you for "resisting arrest".
Congress can do anything for the "general welfare" — if that's how we interpret the two words.
Huh? It is not done for free — it certainly is taxing and spending!
Yes, I have noticed — and I hate it, because it means, like I said, that they can do anything and the only limit is the political will (as in UK, for example), but not the Constitution.
Well, you meant to say "should not be able to do", because they clearly can — and have — done it in this round-about way.
Can Congress vote to put a person to death — for the "general welfare" (better known among the openly Socialist as The Greater Good[TM])? They sure can — according to your interpretation — by spending money on the execution.
But let's get back to the topic of coerced "benevolence".
Your interpretation of the clause is wrong if only for the above reason — that it removes any Constitutional limit on government's power.
But that's not the only reason. Your earlier statement, that laws must be interpreted as software, is not quite correct. While I agree, that laws aren't unlike programs, humans — being semantic rather than merely syntactic devices — aren't like computers. While the machines can not (yet?) know the programmer's desires beyond what he actually writes, we can — and do — consider the legislative intent.
While such intent is not always known, in this case it is perfectly clear. Not only did James Madison (known as Father of the Constitution, BTW) state it, we also know, that not one of the other Constitution-framers still alive at the time (1794), rose up to remind him about the "general welfare" clause. The refugees from Haiti did not receive tax-paid help from America..
Oh, I think it was phrased perfectly fine. And even if it was not, it certainly proved to be quite effective regardless.
Now, if you want to criticize my command of English, let's see, whether you can stand perpendicular on that ground yourself. Oh, but you can't: you aren't even clear on where to use "the" vs. "a"!..
And that's despite — a fair guess here — English being the first and only language for you ("una cerveza por favor" does not count), whereas for me it is the third. Celebrate diversity.
You have not identified any "fallacy".
You have not identified any corporation, that quadrupled the price of its offering without improving quality (or due to spike in cost of raw materials).
Having nothing to say, it really would've been best for you to say nothing... You are only making the whipping you received look worse.
As I answered that poster and idiots like him. I want the government to
Statists expecting more from their government are, no doubt, welcome to Cuba and North Korea and the even much nicer Germany or Greece.
Hey, don't be too harsh. At least, they aren't claiming, Twitter will help.
Hah! I grew up, where children were encouraged to "Thank the Party" for providing food and other aspects of "Happy Childhood". I didn't realize, here in the US I must also be thanking the Government for the daily sustenance...
Since 1960-ies, the per-pupil annual costs of public schools has quadrupled in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the education quality remained the same at best, or worsened — 70% of 8th-graders nation-wide can not be said to read proficiently, for just one example.
These indisputable facts may not directly support ChrisMaple's statement, but they certainly do make mockery of any claim, that the tax-collecting government is somehow uniquely well-qualified in educating children and that the only way to provide for education is to coerce citizens into paying for it.
I would further add, that no "KKKorporation", however evil, would be able to quadruple the price of its offering(s) without significantly improving the quality (or a spike in raw-material costs). Only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing — and only because its source of financing is backed by the armed coercion.
If you interpret the "general welfare" part so, then there is no limit on government's power at all and the entire Bill of Rights is dead.
NSA can argue, their eavesdropping is "for general welfare". Banning a religion — or establishing one — can be done on the same grounds. Confiscating guns.
Anything — if the only burden a proponent of a new law has to clear is that it will improve "general welfare", then the Collective will trump the Individual. Officially and for ever.
He certainly is one of them.
False. The quote I linked to singles-out spending tax-monies on benevolence. It is that — government's funding of charities — that I and James Madison consider unconstitutional.
I then clarified my (quite coherent, thank you) point in a follow-up. For you to continue pretending, I reject all taxes is disingenuous (a.k.a. dishonest).
Are you seriously going to argue the legislative intent with the guy, who wrote the very law? I linked to the quote already, but you are too righteous to click on some wingnut's links, aren't you? Well, here it goes by value, rather than reference:
Or, maybe, you are confusing "general welfare" with the Welfare-check? That must be it, Virginia... Because if Madison says, spending taxes on benevolence is against the Constitution, then it really must be...
No, they were using, what little was usable after two decades of neglect (much of it induced by Russia's infiltrators in Ukraine's military). It just was not much to begin with and there were combat losses...
The enemy's AA is not any better — and likely worse — than the Serbian army's was, when we bombed them in Kosovo... It can be done — and with minimum losses.
Also, the enemy's AA has been reduced (if not entirely withdrawn back to Russia), when the morons shot down that unfortunate airliner a year ago. Should Ukraine suddenly grow a capable air force, Russia may give the Buks back, but it will take them time during which some juicy targets can be spectacularly destroyed...
Finally, even those scary Buks, apparently, aren't such a menace to the real fighting planes — most of the air-losses Ukraine suffered were transport-planes and helicopters...
Well, whatever your and mine opinion on taxes, they really are collected at gunpoint — you aren't even trying to refute this truism, you (and kenj123) are just expressing your displeasure at it being pointed out to you.
Does this mean, we reject all taxation? No, I don't think so. But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral. And, yes, this includes spending even a dime on charities.
Ouch! Is this, what I get for pointing out that taxes are collected at gun-point? Wow, good thing, I have not told you about sky being blue...
That's the advantage of benevolence based on private charities — the mismanaged ones lose donations and disappear. I too stopped donating to Red Cross long ago — my charity money goes to the IRC.
Try that attitude with public charities — financed by monies taken from you and me at gunpoint (taxes)... Whatever you may feel about their goals and methods, you can not simply stop paying them — your only recourse is to raise awareness hoping for the eventual healing to begin.
Oh, and they are unconstitutional too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.
Ah, so it is the place! I see. Would it be fair to develop your argument into something like "North America is exceptionally conductive towards Democracy"?..
I'm sorry, I did not mean to make it so painfully obvious for your kind. Really insensitive of me towards all of the good folks, who are challenged in this regard.
Is this your way of saying, there is, indeed, no difference — in your opinion?
I said nothing about my own feelings or opinions on the subject. Let's not get side-tracked.
Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."
Thank you.
Morons are a problem for all. Russia — whose attitude towards accusations of being involved in Ukraine is "Our soldiers aren't there, but they will prevail" — is repeatedly embarrassed by the same kind of morons among her servicemen posting selfies and other photographs picturing them with well-recognizable landmarks and monuments inside Ukraine in the background.
Sigh, if only Ukraine had anywhere near the punch of America's air-force...