"What system do you think is reasonable for handling the problem?"
Well, not the Marxism that you got to in just a few rounds. How about viewing taxation as a necessary evil. That would stop people crowing about how the rich deserve to pay yet more, blah blah, as if it were morally righteous to do yet greater evil to them/us. There should be a gratitude and regret for having to tax, and a moral impetus to explain and minimize it. Government would shrink.
Only wild-eyed lefties would imagine that the bulk of taxation actually advances civilization and fairness. To the rest of us, taxation is a tolerable legally mandated taking, best done in small amounts and on wise expenditures.
"If they don't want this stuff provided for them..."
Are you sure you want to go there? That way lies the treatment of government as a provider of monopoly infrastructure services. If you teach people to expect value for their (tax) money, they may get a touch upset if so much of it simply goes into wealth transfers to someone else.
How do you measure that? I mean, promising "increased productivity" to technical folks has been a marketing gimmick for decades, for new language X, new mouse Y, new chair Z, etc. etc. "comfort", sure, but productivity? How were you convinced?
It is tragic to have grown generations of people who think of "society" as equal to their "government", as opposed to "the group of fellow citizens", the latter of which is a much much larger set, at least in any free & viable state.
"The alternative is to have no human rights at all."
No. The alternative is a system of government that limits itself to protecting the classical - in wikipedia, called "negative" - rights.
"The right to life? Meaningless if society can simply starve you to death."
That is too vague to judge. "society" does not starve people to death.
"When living your life often requires [...something...], then it becomes a right"
Hogwash. The world does not owe you survival. Your neighbour is not violating your "human rights" because he fails to donate you something "your life often requires".
Slashdot Mirror
"... just ... chop them up ..."
Wow, you have a strange imagination.
"What system do you think is reasonable for handling the problem?"
Well, not the Marxism that you got to in just a few rounds. How about viewing taxation as a necessary evil. That would stop people crowing about how the rich deserve to pay yet more, blah blah, as if it were morally righteous to do yet greater evil to them/us. There should be a gratitude and regret for having to tax, and a moral impetus to explain and minimize it. Government would shrink.
From each according to his means, to each according to his need, got it.
Only wild-eyed lefties would imagine that the bulk of taxation actually advances civilization and fairness. To the rest of us, taxation is a tolerable legally mandated taking, best done in small amounts and on wise expenditures.
"If they don't want this stuff provided for them ..."
Are you sure you want to go there? That way lies the treatment of government as a provider of monopoly infrastructure services. If you teach people to expect value for their (tax) money, they may get a touch upset if so much of it simply goes into wealth transfers to someone else.
"Someone has to pay those things. "
Right, and it has to be someone other than us. Maybe Santa?
"tax havens that are effectively stealing from the US and European treasuries"
That's glorious turnaround: instead of considering taxation is theft - supposedly it's non-taxation that is theft.
"mandating IPv6 is a business opportunity for the private sectors"
Sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy.
... and chairs at a geek conference
A free state is not one of perpetual peace and happiness; laws that support the former can't asymptotically approach the latter.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Arrest the arresting officer on suspicion of stupidity.
Wise words.
"I find it makes me more productive all in all"
How do you measure that? I mean, promising "increased productivity" to technical folks has been a marketing gimmick for decades, for new language X, new mouse Y, new chair Z, etc. etc. "comfort", sure, but productivity? How were you convinced?
"violated the unwritten code that SEALs are silent warriors who shun the spotlight."
Oh dear, there goes THAT bit of secrecy. Or maybe it was already gone:
http://usnavysealfoundation.org/SEAL_CODE.html
... including that belief system wherein one may judge and disrespect other people's belief system(s) ?
That's "just" a loan against future taxes.
"Which do you think is easier to get through Congress?"
Bad question. The former cannot exist without the latter.
TIME's - er, Onion's - answer to that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TT81o4hL4c
(You need a refresher on what "democracy" actually means, and how it relates to constitutional republics, such as the USA.)
"Trolling is deliberate cruelty and harassment."
That sounds like a circular definition, and excludes normal "trolls" who are neither cruel or harassers, like our -1 friends here on /.
"It's an ABUSE of freedom and should be curtailed."
Do you see process and slippery-slope risks, if freedoms are taken away after someone simply _declares_ them "abused"?
"Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The only tipping point 'round here is by the customers of the ale store.
Yes.
"Society, via its instrument the government ..."
It is tragic to have grown generations of people who think of "society" as equal to their "government", as opposed to "the group of fellow citizens", the latter of which is a much much larger set, at least in any free & viable state.
"The alternative is to have no human rights at all."
No. The alternative is a system of government that limits itself to protecting the classical - in wikipedia, called "negative" - rights.
"The right to life? Meaningless if society can simply starve you to death."
That is too vague to judge. "society" does not starve people to death.
"When living your life often requires [...something...], then it becomes a right"
Hogwash. The world does not owe you survival. Your neighbour is not violating your "human rights" because he fails to donate you something "your life often requires".