Well, then he could say that more clearly, I have an argument for that one too. But given the responses to my post, I'd have to say it looks more like you're the dullard.
Absolutely, but at least there's not a bias incentivizing the state to find for one side vs another in court. That seems, to me, to be a much more dangerous path.
First, traffic fines are a cash cow for cities, that's why they invest so much in enforcement. Whether or not that should be, it is.
I, personally, find there to be a meaningful difference between a two party issue (finee vs state, decision to be made by state in parking enforcement), vs a three party issue (finee vs copyright holder, decision to be made by state). If the state is motivated financially to find for the holder, we may as well roll up the holder into the state formally, and let us all vote on how we want copyright enforcement to work, rather than having those decisions made by a private organization.
That's challenging. So far as I know, we have no physics to support that (e.g., we have no knowledge of how to change any of the states of subatomic particles in order to store information).
So what you're requesting requires a breakthrough in physics rather than a breakthrough in technology.
Yes... the rich can hire security people with guns... they're known as police, and they are one of the things their taxes pay for. Really, it's a financial bargain compared to what they would pay for the same level of security in a decentralized plan. Stop complaining about the great deal you are getting, rich people.
You're conflating incidents with expectations in the first statement.
For the second, participation in a society does nothing but limit freedoms. You can never gain anything but safety in the exercising of existing freedoms. Part of the price of that is the risk of jack-booted thugs, which requires even more money (taxes) to manage.
Mod parent to the stratosphere. This is the lesson the rich need to learn: pay most of the costs of our society, or pay most of the costs of the lack thereof. Your choice.
Taxing only on spending would seem to be the reverse of the incentive you want in a consumerism based society. Seems like you'd be optimizing for savings at the expense of growth and investment, pretty much the opposite of what you want.
I'm not the parent, but i'd love to see you justify the connection between those two actions a little better, because they seem completely dissimilar to me, and I wouldn't expect any rational person to make that leap of logic.
Good luck with that. You're going to be a great dad some day. Well, maybe, if you give up the idea that a one size fits all formula is going to be the best way to raise a child.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod on crack alert: Redundant with what, mods?
Well, then he could say that more clearly, I have an argument for that one too. But given the responses to my post, I'd have to say it looks more like you're the dullard.
Mods: funny? I don't get it.
Absolutely, but at least there's not a bias incentivizing the state to find for one side vs another in court. That seems, to me, to be a much more dangerous path.
Right, and sadly since there is not a single 'state' without this problem, we're stuck with trying to avoid perverse incentives.
Are you sure? I've never heard of that. Can you cite an example?
First, traffic fines are a cash cow for cities, that's why they invest so much in enforcement. Whether or not that should be, it is.
I, personally, find there to be a meaningful difference between a two party issue (finee vs state, decision to be made by state in parking enforcement), vs a three party issue (finee vs copyright holder, decision to be made by state). If the state is motivated financially to find for the holder, we may as well roll up the holder into the state formally, and let us all vote on how we want copyright enforcement to work, rather than having those decisions made by a private organization.
No, in this case it's just illegal.
To the city, typically. But cities have a legitimate interest in parking control.
How does her having been a cheerleader have any impact on this case? Why even mention it?
It makes the 'I didn't know it was illegal' defense she is using more plausible.
It's not wrong, it's illegal. There's an important difference.
Who else can you award it to? The state? So that the state would then have an interest in finding for one side?
Also, (sorry for the two replies), that doesn't get us 'significantly' denser. The number of subatomic particles per atom is quite small.
That's challenging. So far as I know, we have no physics to support that (e.g., we have no knowledge of how to change any of the states of subatomic particles in order to store information).
So what you're requesting requires a breakthrough in physics rather than a breakthrough in technology.
Yes ... the rich can hire security people with guns ... they're known as police, and they are one of the things their taxes pay for. Really, it's a financial bargain compared to what they would pay for the same level of security in a decentralized plan. Stop complaining about the great deal you are getting, rich people.
You're conflating incidents with expectations in the first statement.
For the second, participation in a society does nothing but limit freedoms. You can never gain anything but safety in the exercising of existing freedoms. Part of the price of that is the risk of jack-booted thugs, which requires even more money (taxes) to manage.
Yep, that's the devil's bargain you made when you took advantage of the opportunities provided by our society to make 'your' money.
Mod parent to the stratosphere. This is the lesson the rich need to learn: pay most of the costs of our society, or pay most of the costs of the lack thereof. Your choice.
I'd bet it is because they are SURE that THIS time they are going to hit those winning numbers in the lottery.
Taxing only on spending would seem to be the reverse of the incentive you want in a consumerism based society. Seems like you'd be optimizing for savings at the expense of growth and investment, pretty much the opposite of what you want.
(To be clear, most libertarians are not nutjobs.)
Really? I haven't met that many libertarians (maybe ~100?, certainly <1000), but so far, 100% nutjobs.
And so an income tax is magically more evil than all those other taxes how?
If that's the law our community agreed to ... then yes. Exactly.
I'm not the parent, but i'd love to see you justify the connection between those two actions a little better, because they seem completely dissimilar to me, and I wouldn't expect any rational person to make that leap of logic.
Good luck with that. You're going to be a great dad some day.
Well, maybe, if you give up the idea that a one size fits all formula is going to be the best way to raise a child.