Germany used to have free university education and liberal financial aid, but that was back when only a few percent of Germans went to university. Back then, your primary school teachers effectively decided whether you'd be able to go to university a decade later.
Today, many German universities do charge tuition. Furthermore, most Germans don't get financial aid for living expenses. There is a student loan program, loans are partially subsidized, and many Germans are left with student loan debt.
Does the system work? A much smaller percentage of Germans are university graduates, and a much smaller percentage of secondary students enroll in college or university. And Germans adults are less educated on average than Americans.
The German system isn't bad, but I don't see any objective sense in which it is better than the US system.
Republicans and Democrats are about equally dysfunctional when it comes to science, and in roughly the same areas: social science, psychology, biology, and those scientific issues closest to their big corporate donors and buddies in industry.
As I was saying: you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".
You don't hear about it, so you make the mistake of believing that they don't exist or that they believe (or don't) as you do.
The silent majority of Christians voted for Prop 8, is intolerant towards atheists, and accepts government funding to promote its religion. And even if you don't hold those beliefs, remaining a church member and remaining silent in the presence of intolerance and injustice by your church makes you responsible.
Oh, well I read the rules such that they imply that the only reason a person would ever live outside the USA is for work, as nobody would ever want to leave a country that would elect Bush for a second term
Your desire to leave the US is not in question. And now you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".
It wasn't his personal religious beliefs, it was the fact he wouldn't keep them personal.
Do you actually believe his coworkers kept their beliefs personal? He was fired because he didn't fit in with his political and religious views. Let's not pretend that it is anything else, and let's instead understand that it's OK for workplaces to fire people who don't fit in.
But Christianity in the US and Europe is not "polite": its adherents and officials constantly insult non-members, and, worse, churches misuse taxes paid by non-members to finance their operations and recruit.
Are you an American citizen living outside the US?
Yes. You either are not, or you are financially illiterate.
If not, then I'll ignore you as an Internet expert (someone who is an expert because he read a website once). Because, from my information, you are wrong. But there's no point educating someone who doesn't want to be educated and will willfully discard the truth if it doesn't fit his opinion.
Can we please stop getting articles about what UIs Linus prefers? I'm happy for him that he has found a UI that works for him, but his opinion on UI matters is totally irrelevant.
I get credit for taxes paid, and get to count some extra credits such that I don't have to pay the difference.
There are no significant "extra credits" on your income tax you would get outside the US that you don't also get inside the US. If you don't owe US taxes, that means your income tax there is at least as high as in the US; that's not surprising since other nations usually have lower average incomes and higher progressivity.
And, of course, that's only income tax. If we stick with NZ as an example, overall tax burden is much higher than the US, salaries are lower for comparable jobs, and prices are higher too. Moving to NZ to save taxes and get "free" health care is financially a bad decision (of course, there are other reasons to move there, it's a beautiful country).
Take strong pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc. Get a CO2 tank and a solenoid you can put on a timer then go into an enclosed space like a closet. The drugs put you to sleep, the gas makes sure you don't wake up. If I'm wrong somehow, or you didn't have enough drugs, or you otherwise find it unpleasant, just open the door to the enclosed space.
Your bad suggestions just underline the need for physician assistance.
Yeah, there is little evidence that cutting taxes for the rich spurs economic growth. But there is also no good evidence that raising taxes and spending it on "stimulus packages" works either, or that subsidizing "renewable energy companies" works. There is no good evidence that welfare helps move people out of poverty, or that spending more money on public schools produces better outcomes. There is no good evidence that DHS works, that anti-terrorism efforts are worth their money, or that Obamacare improves outcomes or reduces costs. Economic policies of both the left and the right are based on guesswork and ideology.
Both parties make wild assertions about what we need to spend money on at the federal level. And the real motivation behind all that spending is just paying off political constituencies, whether it's corporations, unions, the military, the rich, the poor, welfare recipients, or college students. And the solution is to spend less and tax less, across the board, not necessarily because that is "good for the country" in some grand economic scheme, but because it lets people keep more of what they earned.
(Unlike federal taxes, local taxes generally produce tangible results and address identifiable needs. And at the local level, people understand that if taxes go to high, tax payers start moving away.)
I moved to a place where for the same income as the US, I pay less taxes. I also have free health care. That should narrow it down, I've been told that there's only one country on the planet where that's true.
There are plenty of places in the world where that is true, from Cuba to Monaco to New Zealand. It's not hard to have lower taxes and free health care if you're a small country and lucky about your geographic situation. Plenty of nations are also happy to give tax breaks and other benefits to rich expatriates. That's not a sign of political or moral superiority, those nations are just piggy-backing on the success and power of other nations.
Incidentally, if you still have your US citizenship or have given it up recently, the fact that NZ has lower taxes doesn't help you, because you're required to pay the difference to the IRS.
It still carries with it the risk of coercion. How do you know that it was the right person voting, and not someone else in the household?
We didn't worry about that until the late 19th century.
It's safer for the integrity of the votes to have a system where voting ahead of time can only be done at consulates, embassies and post offices who have a regular voting booth.
Because voter fraud bigger than a few percent leads to obvious statistical inconsistencies with voter registration, exit polls, etc.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter anyway. The election is already over because the election system has produced what it is meant to produce: two interchangeable middle-of-the-road compromise candidates. You don't have to go to the ballot box anymore.
Laws that would make voter fraud detectable, such as requiring voters to show a picture ID, are facing court battles and have been prevented from going into effect (at least for this election).
I'm for voter ID laws. But they aren't going to make a difference in terms of outcomes.
And yes, I don't need piles of slashdottians bashing my choice of a better place
In different words, your choice of "better place" doesn't hold up to objective analysis; it is simply a quirky personal preference. But instead of saying "I prefer this kind of place, but I understand most Americans prefer America to be different", you become rude and insulting.
I am neither in Alaska, nor Christian
And that's why you are linked to "Romancing Alaska" and use the name of an Alaskan missionary site?
The secret ballot where a ballot cannot be attached to a specific person after it has been cast is a fundamental part of our electoral system
Only since around the late 19th century, a little after the UK, and even today, many people vote by mail.
Secret ballots are a good idea, but I think people attach way too much importance to them. Once you get fraud down to within a few percentage points, it makes little difference, and the US is way below that.
They may have written the Constitution, but they are not the genetic stock of Puritans who came to the US to force their religion on others, as they were prevented from doing so in the UK.
Oh, I have no love for the Puritans: they were a repressed and oppressive bunch. But they made up only a small percentage of the colonies and were more of a regional phenomenon. And they and others fled similarly oppressive Christian churches, like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The problem wasn't Puritanism, it was the moral and political evil of political Christianity that had spread across Europe, and the solution to that was separation of church and state as realized in the US.
Fuck you. I don't want any other Americans moving here.
The real reason you don't want to tell us is because you know that the supposed paradise you talk about is really an oppressive, economically backwards place, and you don't want your delusions ripped apart by facts. (Based on your links, though, it seems that you simply live in Alaska and are somehow related to Christian missionary work.)
You are bunch of assholes that will elect either Obama or Romney in a few days.
As opposed to who? Name some world leaders that you actually respect, and why.
If California legalizes it, how is the UN going to force California to decriminalize drugs? Without a standing army, the ruling of the UN is as worthless as, well, the UN.
California can legalize drugs all it wants (and it should). The treaty is between the US federal government and other nations, and that treaty is hard to get out of. The UN is one mechanism by which the US gets stuck with such treaties.
How is the UN suppose to enforce anything on any country without the cooperation of other countries
Countries enforce treaty provisions against each other by whatever mechanisms the treaties provide. The UN is the mechanism by which these treaties get created, often in an undemocratic way and contrary to the interests of Americans.
That doesn't mean that we should give up on the UN, but it means that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using the UN as a political tool. The UN is a tool, it has no moral authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany used to have free university education and liberal financial aid, but that was back when only a few percent of Germans went to university. Back then, your primary school teachers effectively decided whether you'd be able to go to university a decade later.
Today, many German universities do charge tuition. Furthermore, most Germans don't get financial aid for living expenses. There is a student loan program, loans are partially subsidized, and many Germans are left with student loan debt.
Does the system work? A much smaller percentage of Germans are university graduates, and a much smaller percentage of secondary students enroll in college or university. And Germans adults are less educated on average than Americans.
The German system isn't bad, but I don't see any objective sense in which it is better than the US system.
Republicans and Democrats are about equally dysfunctional when it comes to science, and in roughly the same areas: social science, psychology, biology, and those scientific issues closest to their big corporate donors and buddies in industry.
As I was saying: you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".
The silent majority of Christians voted for Prop 8, is intolerant towards atheists, and accepts government funding to promote its religion. And even if you don't hold those beliefs, remaining a church member and remaining silent in the presence of intolerance and injustice by your church makes you responsible.
So? You get more of those kinds of deductions when you live in the US.
Your desire to leave the US is not in question. And now you're sitting in your exclusive little island paradise / tax haven like Marie Antoinette in her palace, saying to the rest of the world "let them eat cake!".
Yes, that's what I just said. It was the GP who pretended it was otherwise.
(It may not be OK for government funded workplaces, though.)
Do you actually believe his coworkers kept their beliefs personal? He was fired because he didn't fit in with his political and religious views. Let's not pretend that it is anything else, and let's instead understand that it's OK for workplaces to fire people who don't fit in.
But Christianity in the US and Europe is not "polite": its adherents and officials constantly insult non-members, and, worse, churches misuse taxes paid by non-members to finance their operations and recruit.
Yes. You either are not, or you are financially illiterate.
That pretty much sums up you.
Can we please stop getting articles about what UIs Linus prefers? I'm happy for him that he has found a UI that works for him, but his opinion on UI matters is totally irrelevant.
There are no significant "extra credits" on your income tax you would get outside the US that you don't also get inside the US. If you don't owe US taxes, that means your income tax there is at least as high as in the US; that's not surprising since other nations usually have lower average incomes and higher progressivity.
And, of course, that's only income tax. If we stick with NZ as an example, overall tax burden is much higher than the US, salaries are lower for comparable jobs, and prices are higher too. Moving to NZ to save taxes and get "free" health care is financially a bad decision (of course, there are other reasons to move there, it's a beautiful country).
What a hateful thing to say.
Your bad suggestions just underline the need for physician assistance.
Yeah, there is little evidence that cutting taxes for the rich spurs economic growth. But there is also no good evidence that raising taxes and spending it on "stimulus packages" works either, or that subsidizing "renewable energy companies" works. There is no good evidence that welfare helps move people out of poverty, or that spending more money on public schools produces better outcomes. There is no good evidence that DHS works, that anti-terrorism efforts are worth their money, or that Obamacare improves outcomes or reduces costs. Economic policies of both the left and the right are based on guesswork and ideology.
Both parties make wild assertions about what we need to spend money on at the federal level. And the real motivation behind all that spending is just paying off political constituencies, whether it's corporations, unions, the military, the rich, the poor, welfare recipients, or college students. And the solution is to spend less and tax less, across the board, not necessarily because that is "good for the country" in some grand economic scheme, but because it lets people keep more of what they earned.
(Unlike federal taxes, local taxes generally produce tangible results and address identifiable needs. And at the local level, people understand that if taxes go to high, tax payers start moving away.)
Hey, look at this, Ali, you're on TV!
MARC in Alaska (AK) is a missionary site. And you link to an Alaskan business run by someone also into Bible quoting.
There are plenty of places in the world where that is true, from Cuba to Monaco to New Zealand. It's not hard to have lower taxes and free health care if you're a small country and lucky about your geographic situation. Plenty of nations are also happy to give tax breaks and other benefits to rich expatriates. That's not a sign of political or moral superiority, those nations are just piggy-backing on the success and power of other nations.
Incidentally, if you still have your US citizenship or have given it up recently, the fact that NZ has lower taxes doesn't help you, because you're required to pay the difference to the IRS.
We didn't worry about that until the late 19th century.
Talk about "voter disenfranchisement"!
Because voter fraud bigger than a few percent leads to obvious statistical inconsistencies with voter registration, exit polls, etc.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter anyway. The election is already over because the election system has produced what it is meant to produce: two interchangeable middle-of-the-road compromise candidates. You don't have to go to the ballot box anymore.
I'm for voter ID laws. But they aren't going to make a difference in terms of outcomes.
In different words, your choice of "better place" doesn't hold up to objective analysis; it is simply a quirky personal preference. But instead of saying "I prefer this kind of place, but I understand most Americans prefer America to be different", you become rude and insulting.
And that's why you are linked to "Romancing Alaska" and use the name of an Alaskan missionary site?
I think you're just being evasive and dishonest.
Only since around the late 19th century, a little after the UK, and even today, many people vote by mail.
Secret ballots are a good idea, but I think people attach way too much importance to them. Once you get fraud down to within a few percentage points, it makes little difference, and the US is way below that.
Oh, I have no love for the Puritans: they were a repressed and oppressive bunch. But they made up only a small percentage of the colonies and were more of a regional phenomenon. And they and others fled similarly oppressive Christian churches, like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The problem wasn't Puritanism, it was the moral and political evil of political Christianity that had spread across Europe, and the solution to that was separation of church and state as realized in the US.
The real reason you don't want to tell us is because you know that the supposed paradise you talk about is really an oppressive, economically backwards place, and you don't want your delusions ripped apart by facts. (Based on your links, though, it seems that you simply live in Alaska and are somehow related to Christian missionary work.)
As opposed to who? Name some world leaders that you actually respect, and why.
The Netherlands have not legalized drugs, they have reduced enforcement.
Are you confused about how judiciary and police relate to each other? Oh, yes, I see you are.
California can legalize drugs all it wants (and it should). The treaty is between the US federal government and other nations, and that treaty is hard to get out of. The UN is one mechanism by which the US gets stuck with such treaties.
Countries enforce treaty provisions against each other by whatever mechanisms the treaties provide. The UN is the mechanism by which these treaties get created, often in an undemocratic way and contrary to the interests of Americans.
That doesn't mean that we should give up on the UN, but it means that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using the UN as a political tool. The UN is a tool, it has no moral authority.
Other places don't do this for the simple reason that they lack the power and economic success.
Neither was the US. The US was founded by people who believed in liberty and justice, strongly influenced by the Enlightenment.
And what country is not "broken" in your sense? Do let us know!