I'll have to check CEI. I respect them. They do good analysis.
I don't usually consider foreign tax credit as a subsidy and I need to look into the others you mentioned such as the definition of non-conventional fuels. (Is that a subsidy for non-carbon based fuels?)
We were talking about tax breaks for energy types (carbon v non-carbon) not companies. (If Exxon gets one of the tax breaks for developing a wind farm it's still a subsidy for alt-energy even though it's going to Exxon.)
As far as 3rd Party. I'm a libertarian so if you think you own your own body, in favor of freedom of speech and in think that individual freedom is a foremost priority then I would persuade you to vote libertarian. If freedom is less important than equality of outcome then vote Green or Socialist. Regardless it's time to end the two party system. Now, in practice, there would coalitions, but that's fine. It's the nature of things.
You have a right to defend yourself and your property.
And armed citizenry is the last check and balance against an oppressive government. (Notice that blacks weren't allowed to defend themselves. You think there would have been so many beatings and lynches if guns appeared in the windows trained at all those nice white-cloaked men in pointy hats?
The second reason is less important than the first in a civil society. And yet there are many, many people who argue that one does not have a right to defend oneself; that the responsibility lies solely with the state. And yet, the Supreme Court says the state isn't obligated or responsible for protecting you.
Those first two reasons are the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd A. They held true in the 18th C and they hold true today.
The biggest US "subsidy" to oil companies is not something that I, or many others, consider to be a subsidy.
The US government, in it's ever diligent attempt to grab every cent, declares that you cannot depreciate the full value of an item on purchase so they estimate the life of the object and have you depreciate it over that time. The rational way would be full depreciation on purchase and then pay taxes on the sale. But, that's not the way it works.
This is especially horrible on capital intensive projects such as building oil rigs and refineries. So, the US government created "accelerated depreciation". It's still bad, only not as bad.
I, for one, do NOT consider accelerated depreciation to be a subsidy. In fact I consider it disingenuous to do so.
I am a big proponent of alternative energy. I have no love for the oil companies. I would love to see fossil fuels become a thing of past, along with horse shoes.
So. Is that what they did and expected to do in the 1780s and 1790s? No.
Just think about what you're saying. The second A was clearly written to prevent the government from taking away your firearms (such as the King of England did in the English Civil War).
Read the different state constitutions. Read the Federalist Papers. Notice that we had over 100 years where the idea of private gun ownership was so ingrained that there weren't judicial cases regarding them. (Just as there aren't about the 3rd).
We had an armed insurrection with 1000s of men under arms (Shays Rebellion) and private gun ownership was never an issue.
You're wrong. But keep fighting this battle. Keep up the good fight.
There are different definitions of capitalism which is why we have to define our terms.
Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Rand, Rothbard, Friedman have a different definition than does Marx, Lenin, Andre Gunder Frank, Wallarstein and other underdevelopment theorists.
You don't have THE definition of capitalism. You have a definition of capitalism. I'm certain that you would disagree with my definition of socialism. And I cannot disagree more with your definition of capitalism. Some points such as 2 and 3 are completely absurd to me.
As a free-market capitalist I define it as economic activity not directed by government agencies. We get gray areas as the economy is more and more regulated.
We know we disagree, but if you want to have real discussions with people please don't think that your definition is the only one.
So questions for you:
if capitalism is not free market what do you call the unregulated exchange of goods and services?
At what point in regulation is it no longer a free-market?
When it crosses the boundary from free market what does it become.
What is the gray area between free market and completely regulated (whether fascist or socialist)?
Suppressors and silencers are interchangeable words.
However I don't think clip and magazine are. Not that it matters to this conversation.:)
Re selling guns. I, as a law-abiding gun owne,r face numerous restrictions, many arbitrary and completely foolish.
There is a background check in existence. The Orlando shooter was reported by the gun store and still passed the FBI check. (Was it for politically correct reasons? Don't know.)
Military is fully automatic. Not semi-automatic. That's what makes it military. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s.
Because we have many "common sense" gun bills on the books as it is.
You decry gun violence. Well the overwhelming majority of the violence is in 2 percent of the counties. Focus your attention there.
How does preventing me from having a 10 round clip help us in lowering gun violence in those 2 counties? It doesn't.
Commonsense is this:
- Pass a background check.
- Pass a gun safety course.
- Each time I buy a gun you run a check to see that I not a felon who has there gun rights temporarily suspended.
- At that point I can buy any semi-automatic weapon of my choice regardless of color, or after market add ons such as grips or silencers (guns are very loud and movies are BS silencers do not reduce the sound to a whisper)
- As long as I do not convert the semi-automatic to fully automatic the weapon is legal.
- My license is valid in all 50 states.
I can travel with my arms in all 50 states (subject to differing storage and carrying laws) Meaning, for instance, that they have to be unloaded and stored in a locked bag.
Capitalism from a socialist definition is different than a free-market definition. A food-coop run by socialists is "free-market" in my perspective. Why? Because it isn't dictated from up high by the government.
Fascism is antithetical to free markets.
Fascism is antithetical to individual liberty.
Any and all libertarians and free market ideas are not fascism. If they promote a state run enterprise, forcing people to act according to state rules then that is not libertarian.
If socialists cared about what they were saying they would be working to get off the grid.
Join together (form a corporation - which means to make one body) and buy a building. Then another. Soon many people would be partially off the grid re housing. You'll need maintenance guys. Now those people would be even more off the grid as their homes and employers are off the grid. Join with food coops and farms (there are plenty) and now you will have housing, job and food off the grid. And so on... and so on,
You can do it. It's called voluntary association. Instead you try to use force to make me join your collective. Now, instead of an ally you have an enemy.
I agree about the anonymous voter verifiable ballots. 100%.
I guess we have a different definition of hackable. Of course you can corrupt vote counters. You can have ballot boxes in the trunk of a car. Etc. I just don't call that hackable.
First. Muslims are not necessarily brown. Arabs are not brown. So that argument is moot.
The second thing is that nobody is for medical malpractice. There may be differences in opinion in how to deal with it. I would reduce the use of financial reward and increase the use of remove licenses and (in extreme cases) jail. - Let's leave that point aside. The key point is that we all agree medical malpractice is a bad thing.
However proponents of Sharia Law promote (in my opinion) many bad things
Kill atheists (Hey that's me!!!)
Kill my gay friends.
Practice FGM.
Want to institute blasphemy laws
Use violence to intimidate. (Let's do a Piss Mohammad and see what the f**k happens.)
There are no promoters of medical malpractice. There are promoters of Sharia Law.
And I say f**k that. You want sharia law? Fine. Then why the f**k are you coming here. I want progressive social values; I want a limited government. I don't want religion in the public arena.
Well. You understand that 2% of the US counties have something like 33% - 50% of the gun violence.
If you're interested in gun violence we ought to apply the Pareto principle. Let's focus there.
The problem is not the availability of guns as there are many counties with a far greater concentration of guns but less gun violence. Therefore the solution is not the removal of guns.
It would also help if gun control advocates didn't keep distorting things and fooling themselves that they have a grasp of the statistics.
Here's the big one - the bait and switch: Talk about murders and how horrible it is and then say there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year. Notice the bait and switch? Gun deaths includes suicides and they account for 2/3 of the total. If countries without guns had a lower suicide rate you would have a case. But, unfortunately for the argument, other countries do not have a lower suicide rate.
Disagree with policies fine. But it's not fascist. It's not authoritarian.
And you realize that the idea is this - the solution to living beyond your means and making promises that you cannot keep is
1. Live within your means.
2. Only make promises that you can keep.
Look at the goodies coming down the pike in California and elsewhere.
Politicians today promise a salary and a pension. Today's taxes pays the salary but not enough is put into the pension. In a few years the pension must be paid - and where does the money come from. Well raise taxes of course. Eventually this cycle breaks down.
The solution is - today's politicians (and tax payers) pay the salary and put enough for the pension. But we don't do that.
You disagree with me. Fine.
You think my ideas are foolish. Fine.
Calling me a fascist (when I'm not) is not fine.
Calling me a fascist and then saying "bash a fash." Not fine.
OK. I agree delineating the law in the edge cases is near impossible.
Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep;
Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet.... nothing.
Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.
Show some motherf**king outrage at this sh!t. The fact that progressives say sh!t makes them look if they don't believe what they're saying.
If Christian Republicans said those things you would be going apoplectic. (And, as an atheist, I would be on your side 100%). But the same sh!t is said by a muslim and....
Keep pretending to yourself that you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of laws out there. More than enough to regulate the legal ownership of guns. You're not simply interested in making certain that felons and mentally ill people don't purchase guns. What you truly want is to remove guns from the society.
There are not "near-zero restrictions on firearm sales." As a gun-owner I know first hand. I live in NYS. I cannot even touch a side arm without showing my license. The gun store owner will not even take it out of the case.
If you want to be respected please take the time to learn about the subject else you sound like those recruiters who don't know the difference between Java and Javascript.
No sir. From the 1640 English Civil War all the way through the 19th C was no debate. It was as "obvious" as the 3rd A. The consensus started changing during the Progressive Era and then post New Deal era.
The thought that "the people" means the state is absurd. The thought that an amendment gave a state rights over individuals is also absurd. And, in case you're still confused:
Here's some relevant points from the Virginia Constitution (1776)
SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The militia is the body of the people trained to arms. The state can call up this body of people and give them roles in a the State Militia, The word militia has multiple meanings. One is every able bodied white male (1790s) from about the age of 16-55 (ages differ in different documents.) The other is the State Militia - that which the governor of the state has authority over. At this point the militia (able-bodied men) have joined the State Militia and are given roles and duties and serve under the direction of the governor.
It's like the word "New York". It can mean the island of Manhattan, the City of NY or the State of NY.
The interesting part is its typically Republicans that are pro-2nd Amendment. Now they have been hit (no pun intended) closer to home. I guess we will see if the gun control tune of Republicans moves left a bit.
If you think that is a possibility you really have NO f**king clue about how we ( pro-Second Amendment people ) think.
There are nut jobs everywhere. What's been ratcheted up is the hate from AntiFa et al. They consider anyone pro-free market as a fascist; and as we all know fascists are scum that need to punched (if not killed).
I'm an atheist, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization libertarian and I am yelled at as a fascist here in deep-blue Brooklyn. It's the left going off the rails.
I'm also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. As far as accidents happening (your last point) guns are dangerous. Duh. But so are other sports - skiing, scuba diving, rock climbing, surfing, spelunking. I don't hear people say that we should ban skiing because it's dangerous.
www.denverpost.com/2017/.../skier-fatalities-myths-who-dies-skiing-where-debunked...
Jan 12, 2017 - The average person who died on the slopes of U.S. ski resorts during the... according to the National Ski Area Association's annual report on safety.... Colorado averages 11 deaths on its slopes each year according to...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to check CEI. I respect them. They do good analysis.
I don't usually consider foreign tax credit as a subsidy and I need to look into the others you mentioned such as the definition of non-conventional fuels. (Is that a subsidy for non-carbon based fuels?)
We were talking about tax breaks for energy types (carbon v non-carbon) not companies. (If Exxon gets one of the tax breaks for developing a wind farm it's still a subsidy for alt-energy even though it's going to Exxon.)
As far as 3rd Party. I'm a libertarian so if you think you own your own body, in favor of freedom of speech and in think that individual freedom is a foremost priority then I would persuade you to vote libertarian. If freedom is less important than equality of outcome then vote Green or Socialist. Regardless it's time to end the two party system. Now, in practice, there would coalitions, but that's fine. It's the nature of things.
You have a right to defend yourself and your property.
And armed citizenry is the last check and balance against an oppressive government. (Notice that blacks weren't allowed to defend themselves. You think there would have been so many beatings and lynches if guns appeared in the windows trained at all those nice white-cloaked men in pointy hats?
The second reason is less important than the first in a civil society. And yet there are many, many people who argue that one does not have a right to defend oneself; that the responsibility lies solely with the state. And yet, the Supreme Court says the state isn't obligated or responsible for protecting you.
Those first two reasons are the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd A. They held true in the 18th C and they hold true today.
No. We don't do that for any business anywhere. That's a false flag.
The biggest US "subsidy" to oil companies is not something that I, or many others, consider to be a subsidy.
The US government, in it's ever diligent attempt to grab every cent, declares that you cannot depreciate the full value of an item on purchase so they estimate the life of the object and have you depreciate it over that time. The rational way would be full depreciation on purchase and then pay taxes on the sale. But, that's not the way it works.
This is especially horrible on capital intensive projects such as building oil rigs and refineries. So, the US government created "accelerated depreciation". It's still bad, only not as bad.
I, for one, do NOT consider accelerated depreciation to be a subsidy. In fact I consider it disingenuous to do so.
I am a big proponent of alternative energy. I have no love for the oil companies. I would love to see fossil fuels become a thing of past, along with horse shoes.
So. Is that what they did and expected to do in the 1780s and 1790s? No.
Just think about what you're saying. The second A was clearly written to prevent the government from taking away your firearms (such as the King of England did in the English Civil War).
Read the different state constitutions. Read the Federalist Papers. Notice that we had over 100 years where the idea of private gun ownership was so ingrained that there weren't judicial cases regarding them. (Just as there aren't about the 3rd).
We had an armed insurrection with 1000s of men under arms (Shays Rebellion) and private gun ownership was never an issue.
You're wrong. But keep fighting this battle. Keep up the good fight.
Yup. I'm a nut. But I have the facts on my side and I'm winning the battle of ideas.
Stop it.
There are different definitions of capitalism which is why we have to define our terms.
Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Rand, Rothbard, Friedman have a different definition than does Marx, Lenin, Andre Gunder Frank, Wallarstein and other underdevelopment theorists.
You don't have THE definition of capitalism. You have a definition of capitalism. I'm certain that you would disagree with my definition of socialism. And I cannot disagree more with your definition of capitalism. Some points such as 2 and 3 are completely absurd to me.
As a free-market capitalist I define it as economic activity not directed by government agencies. We get gray areas as the economy is more and more regulated. We know we disagree, but if you want to have real discussions with people please don't think that your definition is the only one.
So questions for you:
if capitalism is not free market what do you call the unregulated exchange of goods and services?
At what point in regulation is it no longer a free-market?
When it crosses the boundary from free market what does it become.
What is the gray area between free market and completely regulated (whether fascist or socialist)?
Suppressors and silencers are interchangeable words. :)
However I don't think clip and magazine are. Not that it matters to this conversation.
Re selling guns. I, as a law-abiding gun owne,r face numerous restrictions, many arbitrary and completely foolish.
There is a background check in existence. The Orlando shooter was reported by the gun store and still passed the FBI check. (Was it for politically correct reasons? Don't know.)
Military is fully automatic. Not semi-automatic. That's what makes it military. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s.
Because we have many "common sense" gun bills on the books as it is.
You decry gun violence. Well the overwhelming majority of the violence is in 2 percent of the counties. Focus your attention there.
How does preventing me from having a 10 round clip help us in lowering gun violence in those 2 counties? It doesn't.
Commonsense is this:
- Pass a background check.
- Pass a gun safety course.
- Each time I buy a gun you run a check to see that I not a felon who has there gun rights temporarily suspended.
- At that point I can buy any semi-automatic weapon of my choice regardless of color, or after market add ons such as grips or silencers (guns are very loud and movies are BS silencers do not reduce the sound to a whisper)
- As long as I do not convert the semi-automatic to fully automatic the weapon is legal.
- My license is valid in all 50 states.
I can travel with my arms in all 50 states (subject to differing storage and carrying laws) Meaning, for instance, that they have to be unloaded and stored in a locked bag.
The above would be common sense gun laws.
Capitalism from a socialist definition is different than a free-market definition. A food-coop run by socialists is "free-market" in my perspective. Why? Because it isn't dictated from up high by the government.
... and so on,
Fascism is antithetical to free markets. Fascism is antithetical to individual liberty. Any and all libertarians and free market ideas are not fascism. If they promote a state run enterprise, forcing people to act according to state rules then that is not libertarian.
If socialists cared about what they were saying they would be working to get off the grid.
Join together (form a corporation - which means to make one body) and buy a building. Then another. Soon many people would be partially off the grid re housing. You'll need maintenance guys. Now those people would be even more off the grid as their homes and employers are off the grid. Join with food coops and farms (there are plenty) and now you will have housing, job and food off the grid. And so on
You can do it. It's called voluntary association. Instead you try to use force to make me join your collective. Now, instead of an ally you have an enemy.
Got it. Thank you. I stand corrected.
I agree about the anonymous voter verifiable ballots. 100%.
I guess we have a different definition of hackable. Of course you can corrupt vote counters. You can have ballot boxes in the trunk of a car. Etc. I just don't call that hackable.
First. Muslims are not necessarily brown. Arabs are not brown. So that argument is moot.
The second thing is that nobody is for medical malpractice. There may be differences in opinion in how to deal with it. I would reduce the use of financial reward and increase the use of remove licenses and (in extreme cases) jail. - Let's leave that point aside. The key point is that we all agree medical malpractice is a bad thing.
However proponents of Sharia Law promote (in my opinion) many bad things
Kill atheists (Hey that's me!!!)
Kill my gay friends.
Practice FGM.
Want to institute blasphemy laws
Use violence to intimidate. (Let's do a Piss Mohammad and see what the f**k happens.)
There are no promoters of medical malpractice. There are promoters of Sharia Law.
And I say f**k that. You want sharia law? Fine. Then why the f**k are you coming here. I want progressive social values; I want a limited government. I don't want religion in the public arena.
Well. You understand that 2% of the US counties have something like 33% - 50% of the gun violence.
If you're interested in gun violence we ought to apply the Pareto principle. Let's focus there.
The problem is not the availability of guns as there are many counties with a far greater concentration of guns but less gun violence. Therefore the solution is not the removal of guns.
It would also help if gun control advocates didn't keep distorting things and fooling themselves that they have a grasp of the statistics.
Here's the big one - the bait and switch: Talk about murders and how horrible it is and then say there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year. Notice the bait and switch? Gun deaths includes suicides and they account for 2/3 of the total. If countries without guns had a lower suicide rate you would have a case. But, unfortunately for the argument, other countries do not have a lower suicide rate.
Disagree with policies fine. But it's not fascist. It's not authoritarian.
And you realize that the idea is this - the solution to living beyond your means and making promises that you cannot keep is
1. Live within your means.
2. Only make promises that you can keep.
Look at the goodies coming down the pike in California and elsewhere.
Politicians today promise a salary and a pension. Today's taxes pays the salary but not enough is put into the pension. In a few years the pension must be paid - and where does the money come from. Well raise taxes of course. Eventually this cycle breaks down.
The solution is - today's politicians (and tax payers) pay the salary and put enough for the pension. But we don't do that.
You disagree with me. Fine.
You think my ideas are foolish. Fine.
Calling me a fascist (when I'm not) is not fine.
Calling me a fascist and then saying "bash a fash." Not fine.
Wonder how much of your data will be parsed, stored, collated and available to the IRS, NSA and others at their discretion?
Wish such thoughts were tin-foil conspiracy type things.
Exactly. Now all I'm thinking about is which do I want more a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500?
OK. I agree delineating the law in the edge cases is near impossible.
.... nothing.
....
Why no outrage about FGM? We have new cases coming out. Not a peep;
Why no outrage at "kill gays". We have tons of video.
Why no outrage at the misogyny? Look at all the outrage of Trump BSing in a lockerroom (pu$$ygrabbing) and yet
Why no outrage at Muslims saying we want the caliphate here (US and England). We have tons of video.
Show some motherf**king outrage at this sh!t. The fact that progressives say sh!t makes them look if they don't believe what they're saying.
If Christian Republicans said those things you would be going apoplectic. (And, as an atheist, I would be on your side 100%). But the same sh!t is said by a muslim and
Keep pretending to yourself that you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of laws out there. More than enough to regulate the legal ownership of guns. You're not simply interested in making certain that felons and mentally ill people don't purchase guns. What you truly want is to remove guns from the society.
Ain't gonna happen.
There are not "near-zero restrictions on firearm sales." As a gun-owner I know first hand. I live in NYS. I cannot even touch a side arm without showing my license. The gun store owner will not even take it out of the case.
If you want to be respected please take the time to learn about the subject else you sound like those recruiters who don't know the difference between Java and Javascript.
No sir. From the 1640 English Civil War all the way through the 19th C was no debate. It was as "obvious" as the 3rd A. The consensus started changing during the Progressive Era and then post New Deal era.
The thought that "the people" means the state is absurd. The thought that an amendment gave a state rights over individuals is also absurd. And, in case you're still confused:
Here's some relevant points from the Virginia Constitution (1776)
SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The militia is the body of the people trained to arms. The state can call up this body of people and give them roles in a the State Militia, The word militia has multiple meanings. One is every able bodied white male (1790s) from about the age of 16-55 (ages differ in different documents.) The other is the State Militia - that which the governor of the state has authority over. At this point the militia (able-bodied men) have joined the State Militia and are given roles and duties and serve under the direction of the governor.
It's like the word "New York". It can mean the island of Manhattan, the City of NY or the State of NY.
The interesting part is its typically Republicans that are pro-2nd Amendment. Now they have been hit (no pun intended) closer to home. I guess we will see if the gun control tune of Republicans moves left a bit.
If you think that is a possibility you really have NO f**king clue about how we ( pro-Second Amendment people ) think.
I'm not a Republican.
I'm an atheist, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization libertarian and I am yelled at as a fascist here in deep-blue Brooklyn. It's the left going off the rails.
I'm also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. As far as accidents happening (your last point) guns are dangerous. Duh. But so are other sports - skiing, scuba diving, rock climbing, surfing, spelunking. I don't hear people say that we should ban skiing because it's dangerous.
www.denverpost.com/2017/.../skier-fatalities-myths-who-dies-skiing-where-debunked... Jan 12, 2017 - The average person who died on the slopes of U.S. ski resorts during the ... according to the National Ski Area Association's annual report on safety. ... Colorado averages 11 deaths on its slopes each year according to ...
Amen.
The Second Amendment isn't a Constitutional Right?