The lesson of Nevada is that there are self entitled people who don't realize that they belong to a country.
You're right, we crazy anarchists don't think people belong to a country. In fact, we're so bonkers we think that the country should belong to the people.
Define, precisely, what 'belonging to the people' means in terms of property ownership (who is the ultimate arbitrator)? Because the Nevada rancher in question refuses to recognize the Federal ownership of the land he's on, and in fact refuses to acknowledge the existence of a federal government entirely.
Now if the rancher would prefer to recognize his State's government, fine. Work with the State to buy the land, or buy the land himself, or otherwise shift the ownership of the land to an entity that he recognizes the authority of. But simply declaring "I do not recognize your ownership of this land" is not a legal or valid method of deciding property rights.
I'll look into the Germany vs France situation. Thanks for sharing that info.
As for Capital Gains increasing inequity - I would put that in 2nd or 3rd place. Information technology is the primary culprit - allowing highly skilled workers to really leverage their skills at the expense of the average.
The engineer making 150,000 a year vs the blue collar worker making 25,000, isn't the inequity I was talking about. More about the top 5% vs the bottom 5%, and the shrinking middle class.
I just saw a statistic that 132 people gave over 60% of all the money used in SuperPACS last election. (I think I heard it on this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim).
It is that top couple thousand people that have had income gains over 200% in the last 30 years, while that 25,000 dollar blue collar worker hasn't had a raise in 10 years. You are likely right that one of the bigger factors is that there is less manufacturing and other higher paying jobs for the lower end of the work scale.
However, what is the purpose of this tax system, if the richest people in the country can double or triple their net worth, and yet there seems to be no incentives for them to invest any of that back into America? There may be some set of incentives, but they are not working.
What did Germany do (differently than the US), that turned the growth of capital, into actual real world construction/jobs?
As for your example, preparing a drilling site for drilling sounds like a reasonable expenditure in the course of doing business/industry. My business can deduct expenditures for preparing a new office, so unless you have further evidence that this drill site preparation deduction is somehow "special",
It is something "extra" that oil companies get. I would be perfectly happy to let them have the same deductions as regular businesses do when the build or expand.
We did indeed give oil companies lots of "special" tax breaks that no other industry gets to use.
Don't you think that any special tax break, that was created 100 years ago, is probably a bit outdated and deserves discussion?
That said, it's incomprehensible to me how a kid gets in trouble for standing up for himself to a bully.
I picture something like this:
1. Bully is tossing wads of paper at a kid during a class. Spitwads, quiet stuff like that, and this goes on for a month. 2. Victim snaps and screams at the bully, maybe pushing him.
It needs to go further than getting corporations out of politics. We really need limits on individuals as well. I'd like to see the limit be very small. Like 100 dollars.
Elections should be funded using tax payer dollars. Money should not be considered political speech.
I would not use the Iraq war as an example. Polling showed pretty high support for the invasion, even before 9/11. And the Bush jr. administration really tried, and succeeded, in selling the war to America. The media was largely asleep at the wheel during the propaganda campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
And yeah, the studies are very hard to make conclusive. Which is why issues like this are so easily politicized.
For me, one clear signal that low capital taxes and taxes overall, is not working in the best interests of the country, is the stead rise of income inequality over the last 30-40 years. Investments may be happening, but it isn't making the country stronger overall. It is just concentrating wealth.
Seriously: all but an irrelevant fraction of the "subsidies" amount to "we don't believe fossil fuels are being taxed punitively enough, therefore the absence of those punitive taxes means they are receiving a subsidy".
If I gave your family, and only your family, a special federal tax break, isn't that exactly the same as giving you money?
One of the subsidies that "these people" want to end, is a special 2-3 billion dollar tax break, just for oil companies and just for preparing drilling sites. It was an incentive to get more oil in production...100 years ago. That tax break has outlived its purpose and has nothing to do with wanting to apply "punitive taxes" to oil.
I like nuclear power, but the grid can be stable with mostly renewables. I don't know about Germany's plans in details, but if they didn't include energy storage (pumped hydro, batteries, etc..) as part of the plan, of course they would hit a wall with how much sun/wind they can use at any particular time.
Get a grip. Without nuclear, there's no hope to solve climate change
Very true, if we do not invest in any energy storage.
When I was researching how to build a windmill for electricity generation, alternators were universally booed by hobbyists. They need to turn very fast to generate much electricity.
You are better off using motors that perform slow work, like washing machines.
Without constant supply chains from Farm to Walmart, the groceries would be gone in a week. Maybe two weeks max. Having a supply of fruit/veg seeds, a rifle, a fishing pole/net, and a little bit of survival knowledge would be very useful by week 3.
The only way that you'd have years of groceries left to loot is if something like The Walking Dead happened where 99% of humanity was killed quickly.
First, have your nation start making 15-20 Trillion dollars per year. Then watch it change as the lobbyists and media groups pour into your country, influencing politics, media, and policy.
Huge amounts of income inequality seem to result in only those with huge amounts of money being able to effectively buy messaging for elections, and then buy policy, and then finally buy media ownership.
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
Sigh...
There is not other way to make the changes than DRASTICALLY, right? There is no way we could, say, phase in changes over 30-50 years, right?
There is so much resistance, because the pro-oil side is highly organized lobbying machine, with tendrils in the majority of the nation's media, blogs, politicians, and "think tanks". The only reason most people buy into the whole "DRASTIC CHANGE" notion is because of the repeated, consistent, messaging coming from the oil lobby/think tanks/"news".
There are lots of people who have thought about how to make this energy change fairly painless. Like this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame
As long as we continue to buy into the notion that we will face DRASTIC CHANGE if we attempt to reduce CO2, nothing will every change.
We absolutely, positively need petroleum right now in order to exist. Without it, we'd have to fall back to an 1800's agrarian existence
Sure. Right now today. But what about 10 years from now if we make an effort to change? The problem is, no one is starting to change. No politician has created a national plan with milestones. And Deniers keep throwing up their hands and saying, "it is impossible to get off petrol".
Right now, techniques exist to apply nitrogen to crops without being petroleum based, and it is cheaper than conventional nitrogen. I know, because I sell it. http://www.mabiotec.com/main.php?page=twinn1 It also provides disease resistance, increased soil carbon, and is 100% nitrogen neutral. The product is a living organism that sucks nitrogen out of the air and fixes it to the roots of a plant.
Right now, battery technology exists that could power a tractor or combine. Or if not 100% electric now (or in 10 years time), at least Hybrid http://www.complex.com/rides/2014/03/walmart-getting-behind-electric-semi-trucks. Farms could continue to use petroleum products in reduced amounts. Besides, the VAST majority of the petroleum c02 pollution is from commuter cars.
best methods to obtain petroleum based products, fracking, to keep costs down so we have enough research money to throw into things
Yeah, because the profits of the oil and natural gas companies is being used to drive green research, or the cost savings in my personal electric bill is being channeled into green energy research... The two are not linked.
There are a lot of very painless transition plans to move off oil. Like this one Winning the Oil Endgame . The problem isn't that it is impossible, the problem is that we are not starting at all.
Yeah, it is pretty obvious that a realistic scientific explanation about how a computer could rapidly (say months of absorbing language and cultural data from the aliens, while being hand tuned) would be very boring for most TV shows to portray.
I actually appreciate shows that don't bother, like Stargate SG1. Everyone spoke English, with no explanation. Worked for me.
Raising the minimum wage would result in more automation, more outsourcing, and higher unemployment.
Not according to the cities and states that have elected to raise the wage because they got tired of waiting for it to happen at a federal level.
Do you have any studies that show raising the minimum wage causes higher unemployment? The articles I've found online either show no correlation or show the opposite: raising the base pay puts more money in people's pockets. Restaurants, movies theaters, etc.., the very places that often employ minimum wage workers, are also the places that many minimum wage workers spend disposable income. Basically, the service industry, the vast majority of the minimum wage jobs, is stimulated by a higher minimum wage.
Equal treatment under the law is very much a rights issue.
Consider: only white people get food stamps. Sure, that is "just a benefit, nothing more, nothing less", but it is obviously racist.
At one point in our history, many states forbid black white marriages. And sure, that marriage certificate was "just a benefit", but that situation is obviously one about Civil Rights.
The Polygamy argument is just silly. It is the slippery slope argument that most far right conservatives start with, and it usually ends with them mentioning something about bestiality. However, the slope really doesn't exist. Polygamy has historically been shown to be a bad idea. And one that is nearly always about the exploitation of women. The split second that women get close to equal power in a society, polygamy vanishes. If polygamy is a non-starter, the slope doesn't exist.
Marriage has always been about two people creating a partnership, which creates stability and benefits society. As our society has changed, grown, and matured, we've decided to code into law protections against discrimination. At first, they were obvious ones, like race, religion, etc.. The latest one happens to be sexual orientation. It just takes time for a new civil rights protection to seep into all the aspects of society that people use to inform their worldviews, like churches for instance.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".
There was a point in time in the US when the majority of people were bad people when it came to equal rights for Black Americans. At what point in time the majority became the minority is up for debate. However, that is precisely the reason why historically civil rights issues are not decided by popular vote.
Many of those employment discrimination laws are based on what society considers to be legitimate factors (race, religion, etc..).
No matter if a belief is based in religion, if it is bigoted, or racist, or illegal, it would not be covered under employment discrimination laws.
I can certainly decide not to hire someone if they are a card carrying member of the KKK, and face no legal challenges. The question here, is whether history will decide that being against marriage equality was bigotry or not. I suspect that history books will look back at this period of time and label people against equal treatment as no different than the people who opposed black/white marriages.
However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.
Religions do not get carte blanche protections for their conclusions and actions. There are many religious people who have reached conclusions about things that a jury/judge would not allow. It doesn't matter what system of belief or logic created an idea, if that idea is illegal.
non-bigoted reasons
more concerned about judicial activism (their words) than in discriminating against gays
Civil rights have never been a matter of public opinion. See the civil rights movement. That is also not a sign of being non-bigoted. It is more a sign of being ignorant of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the history of Civil Rights.
who felt that civil unions were a good solution but who did not think that redefining the word "marriage" was the right way
Unequal treatment based on a person's natural attributes (race, orientation, etc..) is pretty close to the definition of bigotry.
And finally there were others who just want to see gay marriage be on the ballot rather than be decided by a judge.
The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it. We all have some laws that strike us as oppressive.
In the case of civil rights / bill of rights stuff, we sure do have a ton of historical law that helps us define what makes something a right. You can basically summarize it, that everyone is allowed to be completely free to do anything... except when it adversely harms another. The whole, "your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose" argument.
Some see this CEO's advocacy of Prop 8 as oppression. Many Christians see their being forced to support gay marriages
In that light, it would require Christians to argue how the 'fist' of gay marriage is impacting their nose. Because if you cannot prove you are being harmed, you cannot deny someone a right just for the heck of it.
I don't think his motives should matter. The end result of his actions was supporting unequal treatment of human beings. When the history books re-examine this period 50 years from now, the "Christians just trying to do good by opposing equal rights for gays" will be placed in the same category as those that opposed equal rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's.
Differences of opinion are one thing. Advocating against equal rights is different.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do.
So if you had a choice between going to two restaurants..... One owned by a vocal KKK family, and one owned by a family that was 'more normal'. The blatant racism of the KKK family would be of zero concern to you when deciding where to eat?
Slashdot Mirror
The lesson of Nevada is that there are self entitled people who don't realize that they belong to a country.
You're right, we crazy anarchists don't think people belong to a country. In fact, we're so bonkers we think that the country should belong to the people.
Define, precisely, what 'belonging to the people' means in terms of property ownership (who is the ultimate arbitrator)? Because the Nevada rancher in question refuses to recognize the Federal ownership of the land he's on, and in fact refuses to acknowledge the existence of a federal government entirely.
Now if the rancher would prefer to recognize his State's government, fine. Work with the State to buy the land, or buy the land himself, or otherwise shift the ownership of the land to an entity that he recognizes the authority of. But simply declaring "I do not recognize your ownership of this land" is not a legal or valid method of deciding property rights.
I'll look into the Germany vs France situation. Thanks for sharing that info.
As for Capital Gains increasing inequity - I would put that in 2nd or 3rd place. Information technology is the primary culprit - allowing highly skilled workers to really leverage their skills at the expense of the average.
The engineer making 150,000 a year vs the blue collar worker making 25,000, isn't the inequity I was talking about. More about the top 5% vs the bottom 5%, and the shrinking middle class.
I just saw a statistic that 132 people gave over 60% of all the money used in SuperPACS last election. (I think I heard it on this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim).
It is that top couple thousand people that have had income gains over 200% in the last 30 years, while that 25,000 dollar blue collar worker hasn't had a raise in 10 years. You are likely right that one of the bigger factors is that there is less manufacturing and other higher paying jobs for the lower end of the work scale.
However, what is the purpose of this tax system, if the richest people in the country can double or triple their net worth, and yet there seems to be no incentives for them to invest any of that back into America? There may be some set of incentives, but they are not working.
What did Germany do (differently than the US), that turned the growth of capital, into actual real world construction/jobs?
As for your example, preparing a drilling site for drilling sounds like a reasonable expenditure in the course of doing business/industry. My business can deduct expenditures for preparing a new office, so unless you have further evidence that this drill site preparation deduction is somehow "special",
It is something "extra" that oil companies get. I would be perfectly happy to let them have the same deductions as regular businesses do when the build or expand.
We did indeed give oil companies lots of "special" tax breaks that no other industry gets to use.
Don't you think that any special tax break, that was created 100 years ago, is probably a bit outdated and deserves discussion?
That said, it's incomprehensible to me how a kid gets in trouble for standing up for himself to a bully.
I picture something like this:
1. Bully is tossing wads of paper at a kid during a class. Spitwads, quiet stuff like that, and this goes on for a month.
2. Victim snaps and screams at the bully, maybe pushing him.
All the teacher saw was 2.
It needs to go further than getting corporations out of politics. We really need limits on individuals as well. I'd like to see the limit be very small. Like 100 dollars.
Elections should be funded using tax payer dollars. Money should not be considered political speech.
I would not use the Iraq war as an example. Polling showed pretty high support for the invasion, even before 9/11. And the Bush jr. administration really tried, and succeeded, in selling the war to America. The media was largely asleep at the wheel during the propaganda campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
People like the Koch Brothers, and others, having been very successful in moving the Overton window far to the right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#Rationale
And yeah, the studies are very hard to make conclusive. Which is why issues like this are so easily politicized.
For me, one clear signal that low capital taxes and taxes overall, is not working in the best interests of the country, is the stead rise of income inequality over the last 30-40 years. Investments may be happening, but it isn't making the country stronger overall. It is just concentrating wealth.
Seriously: all but an irrelevant fraction of the "subsidies" amount to "we don't believe fossil fuels are being taxed punitively enough, therefore the absence of those punitive taxes means they are receiving a subsidy".
If I gave your family, and only your family, a special federal tax break, isn't that exactly the same as giving you money?
One of the subsidies that "these people" want to end, is a special 2-3 billion dollar tax break, just for oil companies and just for preparing drilling sites. It was an incentive to get more oil in production...100 years ago. That tax break has outlived its purpose and has nothing to do with wanting to apply "punitive taxes" to oil.
I like nuclear power, but the grid can be stable with mostly renewables. I don't know about Germany's plans in details, but if they didn't include energy storage (pumped hydro, batteries, etc..) as part of the plan, of course they would hit a wall with how much sun/wind they can use at any particular time.
Get a grip. Without nuclear, there's no hope to solve climate change
Very true, if we do not invest in any energy storage.
When I was researching how to build a windmill for electricity generation, alternators were universally booed by hobbyists. They need to turn very fast to generate much electricity.
You are better off using motors that perform slow work, like washing machines.
Without constant supply chains from Farm to Walmart, the groceries would be gone in a week. Maybe two weeks max. Having a supply of fruit/veg seeds, a rifle, a fishing pole/net, and a little bit of survival knowledge would be very useful by week 3.
The only way that you'd have years of groceries left to loot is if something like The Walking Dead happened where 99% of humanity was killed quickly.
First, have your nation start making 15-20 Trillion dollars per year. Then watch it change as the lobbyists and media groups pour into your country, influencing politics, media, and policy.
Huge amounts of income inequality seem to result in only those with huge amounts of money being able to effectively buy messaging for elections, and then buy policy, and then finally buy media ownership.
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
Sigh...
There is not other way to make the changes than DRASTICALLY, right? There is no way we could, say, phase in changes over 30-50 years, right?
There is so much resistance, because the pro-oil side is highly organized lobbying machine, with tendrils in the majority of the nation's media, blogs, politicians, and "think tanks". The only reason most people buy into the whole "DRASTIC CHANGE" notion is because of the repeated, consistent, messaging coming from the oil lobby/think tanks/"news".
There are lots of people who have thought about how to make this energy change fairly painless. Like this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame
As long as we continue to buy into the notion that we will face DRASTIC CHANGE if we attempt to reduce CO2, nothing will every change.
We absolutely, positively need petroleum right now in order to exist. Without it, we'd have to fall back to an 1800's agrarian existence
Sure. Right now today. But what about 10 years from now if we make an effort to change? The problem is, no one is starting to change. No politician has created a national plan with milestones. And Deniers keep throwing up their hands and saying, "it is impossible to get off petrol".
Right now, techniques exist to apply nitrogen to crops without being petroleum based, and it is cheaper than conventional nitrogen. I know, because I sell it. http://www.mabiotec.com/main.php?page=twinn1 It also provides disease resistance, increased soil carbon, and is 100% nitrogen neutral. The product is a living organism that sucks nitrogen out of the air and fixes it to the roots of a plant.
Right now, battery technology exists that could power a tractor or combine. Or if not 100% electric now (or in 10 years time), at least Hybrid http://www.complex.com/rides/2014/03/walmart-getting-behind-electric-semi-trucks. Farms could continue to use petroleum products in reduced amounts. Besides, the VAST majority of the petroleum c02 pollution is from commuter cars.
best methods to obtain petroleum based products, fracking, to keep costs down so we have enough research money to throw into things
Yeah, because the profits of the oil and natural gas companies is being used to drive green research, or the cost savings in my personal electric bill is being channeled into green energy research... The two are not linked.
There are a lot of very painless transition plans to move off oil. Like this one Winning the Oil Endgame . The problem isn't that it is impossible, the problem is that we are not starting at all.
Yeah, it is pretty obvious that a realistic scientific explanation about how a computer could rapidly (say months of absorbing language and cultural data from the aliens, while being hand tuned) would be very boring for most TV shows to portray.
I actually appreciate shows that don't bother, like Stargate SG1. Everyone spoke English, with no explanation. Worked for me.
Raising the minimum wage would result in more automation, more outsourcing, and higher unemployment.
Not according to the cities and states that have elected to raise the wage because they got tired of waiting for it to happen at a federal level.
Do you have any studies that show raising the minimum wage causes higher unemployment? The articles I've found online either show no correlation or show the opposite: raising the base pay puts more money in people's pockets. Restaurants, movies theaters, etc.., the very places that often employ minimum wage workers, are also the places that many minimum wage workers spend disposable income. Basically, the service industry, the vast majority of the minimum wage jobs, is stimulated by a higher minimum wage.
Equal treatment under the law is very much a rights issue.
Consider: only white people get food stamps. Sure, that is "just a benefit, nothing more, nothing less", but it is obviously racist.
At one point in our history, many states forbid black white marriages. And sure, that marriage certificate was "just a benefit", but that situation is obviously one about Civil Rights.
The Polygamy argument is just silly. It is the slippery slope argument that most far right conservatives start with, and it usually ends with them mentioning something about bestiality. However, the slope really doesn't exist. Polygamy has historically been shown to be a bad idea. And one that is nearly always about the exploitation of women. The split second that women get close to equal power in a society, polygamy vanishes. If polygamy is a non-starter, the slope doesn't exist.
Marriage has always been about two people creating a partnership, which creates stability and benefits society. As our society has changed, grown, and matured, we've decided to code into law protections against discrimination. At first, they were obvious ones, like race, religion, etc.. The latest one happens to be sexual orientation. It just takes time for a new civil rights protection to seep into all the aspects of society that people use to inform their worldviews, like churches for instance.
That means that you consider a majority of Americans to be said "bad people".
There was a point in time in the US when the majority of people were bad people when it came to equal rights for Black Americans. At what point in time the majority became the minority is up for debate. However, that is precisely the reason why historically civil rights issues are not decided by popular vote.
Many of those employment discrimination laws are based on what society considers to be legitimate factors (race, religion, etc..).
No matter if a belief is based in religion, if it is bigoted, or racist, or illegal, it would not be covered under employment discrimination laws.
I can certainly decide not to hire someone if they are a card carrying member of the KKK, and face no legal challenges. The question here, is whether history will decide that being against marriage equality was bigotry or not. I suspect that history books will look back at this period of time and label people against equal treatment as no different than the people who opposed black/white marriages.
However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.
Religions do not get carte blanche protections for their conclusions and actions. There are many religious people who have reached conclusions about things that a jury/judge would not allow. It doesn't matter what system of belief or logic created an idea, if that idea is illegal.
non-bigoted reasons
more concerned about judicial activism (their words) than in discriminating against gays
Civil rights have never been a matter of public opinion. See the civil rights movement. That is also not a sign of being non-bigoted. It is more a sign of being ignorant of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the history of Civil Rights.
who felt that civil unions were a good solution but who did not think that redefining the word "marriage" was the right way
Unequal treatment based on a person's natural attributes (race, orientation, etc..) is pretty close to the definition of bigotry.
And finally there were others who just want to see gay marriage be on the ballot rather than be decided by a judge.
See Civil Rights above.
That old saying, "it takes a village to raise a child".... is now being codified into law.
The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it. We all have some laws that strike us as oppressive.
In the case of civil rights / bill of rights stuff, we sure do have a ton of historical law that helps us define what makes something a right. You can basically summarize it, that everyone is allowed to be completely free to do anything... except when it adversely harms another. The whole, "your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose" argument.
Some see this CEO's advocacy of Prop 8 as oppression. Many Christians see their being forced to support gay marriages
In that light, it would require Christians to argue how the 'fist' of gay marriage is impacting their nose. Because if you cannot prove you are being harmed, you cannot deny someone a right just for the heck of it.
I don't think his motives should matter. The end result of his actions was supporting unequal treatment of human beings. When the history books re-examine this period 50 years from now, the "Christians just trying to do good by opposing equal rights for gays" will be placed in the same category as those that opposed equal rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's.
Differences of opinion are one thing. Advocating against equal rights is different.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do.
So if you had a choice between going to two restaurants..... One owned by a vocal KKK family, and one owned by a family that was 'more normal'. The blatant racism of the KKK family would be of zero concern to you when deciding where to eat?