Why are Chimps not people? What exactly separates humans from non-humans?
Lots of things but for the purposes of this argument I'd suggest that their inability to ever pay taxes is probably justification enough.
Chimps, dolphins and other proto-sentients probably deserve an elevated class of rights over that of lesser species like say chickens or rats for example but granting them full human rights doesn't make sense. They don't have the ability to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities that go with being full members of society.
And furthermore we're going to need it to deliver food and medicine when some bored teenager in Budapest switches every traffic light in Western Europe, Australia, and North America to a permanent red.
Well, if you're going to pull a prank like that yellow in both directions would be funnier. (for teenage values of funny)
As a consequence, you'll have to enter into it how much milk you drank each time.
Nonsense, my milk will come in a smart package that automatically reports to the fridge how much is left in the package and an RFID tag so that the smart fridge and smart garbage can will know when I've thrown it away.
Of course all of this is open to a variety of legal and illegal forms of abuse, but I was only commenting that there is a desireability for some features of the IoT.
Apparently you missed the part where I said the current system is better. From an economic perspective limited liability encourages investment by lowering the risk of investments. Lower risk means more projects get done which generally results in greater wealth generation.
There are some downsides to our current system that make it more like zero liability than limited liability and those should probably be addressed. The simplest fix I've seen is called "double liability", essentially shareholders are on the hook for an additional amount equal to their original investment. Given that sort of increased but still quantifiable and limited risk I believe shareholders would take a much more active role in ensuring their directors keep a tight rein over sources of potential liability. This solution has the advantage of actually having been used before in the US and it seemed to work tolerably well, though of course nothing is perfect.
There are a variety of different ways you could do it, probably the simplest would be to divide earnings by the number of shares outstanding and require that each shareholder report that money on their own tax form (adjusted for the number of shares they own of course). I'm not a tax accountant but I believe that's fairly similar to how an S Corp works. Obviously the devil is in the details but in principle that sounds reasonable.
Well, agriculture employed more than 50% of the population till about the mid 1880s. The main court decisions that lead to the explosion of the corporate form were:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)
Carnegie Steel was a company, but when it was sold to J.P. Morgan in 1901 to form US Steel that was a corporation. As a rough estimate I'd have to say I'm talking about the pre-20th century economy for the most part.
What's the maximum amount anyone should ever have to pay?
That's a matter of considerable debate. We can't all agree on what we want government to do. Want a big military, well that's expensive and we have to pay for it. Want socialized medicine, that's expensive too and we have to pay for that. The problem is that in a simple majority rule system you're going to have a significant minority that aren't happy with any particular policy. Most of the time, much of the populace is going to feel like they're paying for things that they don't really support. The only good thing about representative democracy is that everything else we've tried has been worse.
Limiting liability isn't a "benefit". It's a basic necessity to doing business. Without limited liability to business owners, every business owner would always have to bet his family's life savings on every business transaction. One failure would mean permanent destitution. No one with any money would ever take a risk like that.
You realize the economy worked just fine prior to corporations being the dominant form of business right? You're right that the risk is higher and that does make the economy somewhat less productive which is why our current system is better, but it's not like limited liability is a pre-condition for a free market.
Taxes make people not do the thing you are taxing. Tax income, and they have reason to make less.
Completely agree. Which is why I propose high pollution taxes, corporate merger taxes, a lobbyist tax and a tax on sugar added to foods that aren't desserts.
The current tax code does a very poor job of accounting for the "expenses related to producing that hour of labor". In effect individuals are taxed on their gross revenue while corporations are taxed on their net income.
I'm not necessarily opposed to that but it does create some interesting incentives with regards to vertical integration that we'd need to consider beforehand. Additionally we would need to carefully specify that yes, indeed this applies to ALL transactions, including things like buying stocks.
We don't owe "society" an unlimited tribute for a few watts of electricity.
Who was suggesting that taxes should be unlimited? Other than some die hard communists I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that thinks taxation should be set at 100%.
So you have a fire department that protects your house, do you pay the full cost of the fire house and the full pay of the firemen?
Umm, yes? The cost is spread over all the people in the district rather than being born only be people who actually have the fires but it is fully paid.
Slashdot Mirror
Not less human no, that's a genetic issue in this case, but they do have a reduced set of rights compared to fully functioning adults.
Do human rights not apply to humans who by inexeperience, disability, etc. are unable understand contracts or laws?
Based on our current system, no. Individuals in those categories receive a reduced set of rights.
Why are Chimps not people? What exactly separates humans from non-humans?
Lots of things but for the purposes of this argument I'd suggest that their inability to ever pay taxes is probably justification enough. Chimps, dolphins and other proto-sentients probably deserve an elevated class of rights over that of lesser species like say chickens or rats for example but granting them full human rights doesn't make sense. They don't have the ability to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities that go with being full members of society.
Perhaps, or they could be a bunch of nasty customers who are practicing emcon so that we won't get good targeting data.
Hey, at lest we get to claim the title of "most dangerous species in large groups". Makes me proud to be human!
Food and sleep are necessary overhead, if you don't believe me try cutting them and see how well your labor power holds up.
So they would pretty much be limited to following the roads.
For which Google already has a great application developed!
And furthermore we're going to need it to deliver food and medicine when some bored teenager in Budapest switches every traffic light in Western Europe, Australia, and North America to a permanent red.
Well, if you're going to pull a prank like that yellow in both directions would be funnier. (for teenage values of funny)
This seems like a way to sell extra toppings for an up-charge.
How is that not a feature? (assuming Pizza Hut's point of view of course)
Foodies can't be poor?
As a consequence, you'll have to enter into it how much milk you drank each time.
Nonsense, my milk will come in a smart package that automatically reports to the fridge how much is left in the package and an RFID tag so that the smart fridge and smart garbage can will know when I've thrown it away.
Of course all of this is open to a variety of legal and illegal forms of abuse, but I was only commenting that there is a desireability for some features of the IoT.
Apparently you missed the part where I said the current system is better. From an economic perspective limited liability encourages investment by lowering the risk of investments. Lower risk means more projects get done which generally results in greater wealth generation.
There are some downsides to our current system that make it more like zero liability than limited liability and those should probably be addressed. The simplest fix I've seen is called "double liability", essentially shareholders are on the hook for an additional amount equal to their original investment. Given that sort of increased but still quantifiable and limited risk I believe shareholders would take a much more active role in ensuring their directors keep a tight rein over sources of potential liability. This solution has the advantage of actually having been used before in the US and it seemed to work tolerably well, though of course nothing is perfect.
There are a variety of different ways you could do it, probably the simplest would be to divide earnings by the number of shares outstanding and require that each shareholder report that money on their own tax form (adjusted for the number of shares they own of course). I'm not a tax accountant but I believe that's fairly similar to how an S Corp works. Obviously the devil is in the details but in principle that sounds reasonable.
Well, agriculture employed more than 50% of the population till about the mid 1880s. The main court decisions that lead to the explosion of the corporate form were:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)
Carnegie Steel was a company, but when it was sold to J.P. Morgan in 1901 to form US Steel that was a corporation. As a rough estimate I'd have to say I'm talking about the pre-20th century economy for the most part.
His argument was that society provided him nothing.
Then he's an idiot. He may or may not feel he's getting full value for his dollar but to suggest that society provides nothing is just false.
What's the maximum amount anyone should ever have to pay?
That's a matter of considerable debate. We can't all agree on what we want government to do. Want a big military, well that's expensive and we have to pay for it. Want socialized medicine, that's expensive too and we have to pay for that. The problem is that in a simple majority rule system you're going to have a significant minority that aren't happy with any particular policy. Most of the time, much of the populace is going to feel like they're paying for things that they don't really support. The only good thing about representative democracy is that everything else we've tried has been worse.
What you want a multi-page definition of evolution in a Slashdot posting?
Sure they would, you just wouldn't like the price they'd probably charge.
Limiting liability isn't a "benefit". It's a basic necessity to doing business. Without limited liability to business owners, every business owner would always have to bet his family's life savings on every business transaction. One failure would mean permanent destitution. No one with any money would ever take a risk like that.
You realize the economy worked just fine prior to corporations being the dominant form of business right? You're right that the risk is higher and that does make the economy somewhat less productive which is why our current system is better, but it's not like limited liability is a pre-condition for a free market.
Taxes make people not do the thing you are taxing. Tax income, and they have reason to make less.
Completely agree. Which is why I propose high pollution taxes, corporate merger taxes, a lobbyist tax and a tax on sugar added to foods that aren't desserts.
Because if they taxed individuals on their profits, that would be 0 tax for 99.9% of all individuals.
I think that's overstating the case. A reasonable assumption would be that the median income is the break even line.
The current tax code does a very poor job of accounting for the "expenses related to producing that hour of labor". In effect individuals are taxed on their gross revenue while corporations are taxed on their net income.
I'm not necessarily opposed to that but it does create some interesting incentives with regards to vertical integration that we'd need to consider beforehand. Additionally we would need to carefully specify that yes, indeed this applies to ALL transactions, including things like buying stocks.
We don't owe "society" an unlimited tribute for a few watts of electricity.
Who was suggesting that taxes should be unlimited? Other than some die hard communists I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that thinks taxation should be set at 100%.
So you have a fire department that protects your house, do you pay the full cost of the fire house and the full pay of the firemen?
Umm, yes? The cost is spread over all the people in the district rather than being born only be people who actually have the fires but it is fully paid.