Nothing makes a 4 year old more interested in science than watching, and after she turns 5, participating in organized cage fighting. You need to start training her before it's too late.
I would also suggest you wear a luchadore mask around the house and always speak to her using a bad Mexican accent.
I guarantee she will forget about that princess nonsense right away.
They are natural and inalienable. They exist as a part of each individual's humanity. First and foremost, you guarantee them yourself by exercising your self-defense rights.
And if you raise another 100MM, what keeps them from spending another 200MM on really great government stuff? A shortfall is just a number. Spend less and then the tax levels will be adequate. Spend a lot less and all of a sudden all these tax payers are being super generous -- paying more than is needed.
I don't think the majority of the population wants to go back to working on farms. Saying "the economy worked just fine" back then -- even if true -- isn't really an argument for getting rid of the corporate structure in the context of a modern economy.
If you wanted to get rid of corporations and limited liability, you'd probably want to argue how an alternative arrangement would enable people to have better lives. Otherwise it's just destructive: "Corporations bad. Smash."
They always want more and never have any answer for how much is enough. That's the problem with the "we built roads, so pay up" argument. We already pay many times the cost of building roads. There are a limited number of roads, but no limit to the calls to pay.
I already responded to this in the "people have natural rights" post up above. Some of the natural rights of the people who organize a corporation should limit the harm you can do to them in your quest to harm the corporation they have formed.
No one has argued that corporations have the natural rights to avoid all taxes.
I was only addressing your idea that it's OK to do unlimited harm to (people involved in) corporations because they filed some paperwork to create an organization.
Fairness of taxation depends on the amount. Obviously, a 100% tax is indistinguishable from outright theft. Anyone would be justified in evading such a tax by more-or-less any means, just as a home owner is justified in protecting his home from burglary or arson.
If you want to argue a tax is fair, you have to specify the amount you're taxing.
If governments are just an organized scheme to get money away from people, then yes.
If governments exist to serve the citizens, then they shouldn't try to take as much as they can get. They should try to do their job as efficiently as possible so they can leave a maximum amount in the hands of the citizens they serve.
No. Everyone has the inherent natural right to be safe from murder/rape/robbery.
And there's more to life than roads, plumbing, and electricity. They are only worth what they cost, not an infinite amount. We don't owe "society" an unlimited tribute for a few watts of electricity. Government is supposed to serve the citizens, not the other way around.
People have natural rights. People don't give up their natural rights when they form an organization like a corporation. Whatever harm you mean to cause corporations, that harm will be felt by the people involved.
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 couldn't build something like a factory -- why bother when it can disappear at any time because someone made a mistake?
A similar problem keeps countries like Haiti and some African nations poor. No one can get ahead -- if you start doing better than the people around you and accumulate a little wealth, it gets stolen or confiscated by government and you become a target. So no one bothers, there are no success stories to teach new people how get ahead, and the people are extremely poor.
You need to be able to retain earnings and use past success to build infrastructure for future success. Without this, you'll be in hand-to-mouth mode forever. Limited liabilty is required.
They should spin, so the heavier electrons settle around the outside of the disk for easy collection. This would also allow more light to get through in the center of the panel without the electrons casting a shadow.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing makes a 4 year old more interested in science than watching, and after she turns 5, participating in organized cage fighting. You need to start training her before it's too late.
I would also suggest you wear a luchadore mask around the house and always speak to her using a bad Mexican accent.
I guarantee she will forget about that princess nonsense right away.
Every government of every size has this authority. It's called the criminal justice system.
They are natural and inalienable. They exist as a part of each individual's humanity. First and foremost, you guarantee them yourself by exercising your self-defense rights.
Government's authority to tax property is limited by the individual natural rights of the property owners. It is not unlimited.
A great argument for small government. Why should individuals pay for and support big government when it serves them so poorly?
And if you raise another 100MM, what keeps them from spending another 200MM on really great government stuff? A shortfall is just a number. Spend less and then the tax levels will be adequate. Spend a lot less and all of a sudden all these tax payers are being super generous -- paying more than is needed.
I don't think the majority of the population wants to go back to working on farms. Saying "the economy worked just fine" back then -- even if true -- isn't really an argument for getting rid of the corporate structure in the context of a modern economy.
If you wanted to get rid of corporations and limited liability, you'd probably want to argue how an alternative arrangement would enable people to have better lives. Otherwise it's just destructive: "Corporations bad. Smash."
Because lots of people would invest in companies if buying a share meant you could go to prison for something a middle manager did wrong.
You mean back when the majority of the population worked on farms?
They always want more and never have any answer for how much is enough. That's the problem with the "we built roads, so pay up" argument. We already pay many times the cost of building roads. There are a limited number of roads, but no limit to the calls to pay.
I already responded to this in the "people have natural rights" post up above. Some of the natural rights of the people who organize a corporation should limit the harm you can do to them in your quest to harm the corporation they have formed.
No one has argued that corporations have the natural rights to avoid all taxes.
When did pro-taxers ever say there was a limit? What's the maximum amount anyone should ever have to pay?
If they don't have any rights at all, how does that not justify unlimited harm?
Historically, when someone has proclaimed that certain people have zero rights, it has meant those people were in for more-or-less unlimited harm.
A group of men have the power to rape a woman when they catch her. They don't have the right. The ability to do something is not the right to do it.
No they wouldn't. You don't understand what insurance is.
I was only addressing your idea that it's OK to do unlimited harm to (people involved in) corporations because they filed some paperwork to create an organization.
Fairness of taxation depends on the amount. Obviously, a 100% tax is indistinguishable from outright theft. Anyone would be justified in evading such a tax by more-or-less any means, just as a home owner is justified in protecting his home from burglary or arson.
If you want to argue a tax is fair, you have to specify the amount you're taxing.
If governments are just an organized scheme to get money away from people, then yes.
If governments exist to serve the citizens, then they shouldn't try to take as much as they can get. They should try to do their job as efficiently as possible so they can leave a maximum amount in the hands of the citizens they serve.
A car crash isn't a business mistake. There's no "my new candy didn't sell" insurance. No one would ever sell you that insurance.
No. Everyone has the inherent natural right to be safe from murder/rape/robbery.
And there's more to life than roads, plumbing, and electricity. They are only worth what they cost, not an infinite amount. We don't owe "society" an unlimited tribute for a few watts of electricity. Government is supposed to serve the citizens, not the other way around.
People have natural rights. People don't give up their natural rights when they form an organization like a corporation. Whatever harm you mean to cause corporations, that harm will be felt by the people involved.
If you're in favor of this in the US, you're in favor of a huge tax cut for multinational companies.
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 couldn't build something like a factory -- why bother when it can disappear at any time because someone made a mistake?
A similar problem keeps countries like Haiti and some African nations poor. No one can get ahead -- if you start doing better than the people around you and accumulate a little wealth, it gets stolen or confiscated by government and you become a target. So no one bothers, there are no success stories to teach new people how get ahead, and the people are extremely poor.
You need to be able to retain earnings and use past success to build infrastructure for future success. Without this, you'll be in hand-to-mouth mode forever. Limited liabilty is required.
As long as it's a prime number of panels facing a prime number of different directions, you should be OK.
They should spin, so the heavier electrons settle around the outside of the disk for easy collection. This would also allow more light to get through in the center of the panel without the electrons casting a shadow.
Which was ...?