Good question. Traditionally, it means that the owner controls the land and who or what is allowed on that land. The owner is the owner by virtue of the fact that he has the power to control the land. This power can be asserted various ways. Violence or the implied threat of violence is the traditional way, and ultimately the only way that works.
In modern times, the threat of violence is indirectly applied by the owner using the government as the instrument of violence. The actual violence and even the threatening is outsourced to government authority.
A lot of the "but it was their land first" arguments are quite silly when you understand the basis for land ownership. Sentiment has no force. Only force has force.
Since violent force is ultimately the only way to control a person, you can conclude that everyone who wants to control people wants to use violent force on them, no matter how much they'll say otherwise. It is useful to understand this.
After thinking about it some more, I do apologize.
It's understandable to think of this as a subsidy to phone companies. It's not a government subsidy in the normal sense though. It is a fund to move money from one phone company to another to fit some kind of social engineering scheme.
The context of the discussion was people (who don't care about free markets anyway) saying that since the government subsidizes phone companies, then free-market arguments for them to be left alone and their property not stolen are illegitimate. "The government pays their bills, therefore, they serve at our pleasure. Like our slaves." These are not government subsidies in that sense.
Even if they were, it's only an argument for getting rid of the subsidies, not for using them to justify oppression of the people subsidized -- the phone companies, their employees and their shareholders in this case.
I'm not going to apologize for opposing efforts to constantly steal from people and force people to do things against their will and spread hate to get popular support for these efforts. I will continue to be "rude" and point this out when it occurs.
I do apologize for being incorrect about the interpretation of this particular fee though. Characterizing it as a "subsidy" is reasonable.
These cell phone companies are innocent people minding their own business and the "First Nations" are picking fights with them. Does starting conflicts with innocent people play a part in someone's eventual defeat?
There's another name for your plan: equality. The tribes (or first nations or whatever) should be equal. The US should amend the Constitution to get rid of the special status for tribal lands and simply make them property of the folks who live there. No special rules, no special treaty rights, nothing. Equality.
States could start on this. For example, if someone has the right to open a casino on tribal lands, give that same right to the folks with property off of tribal lands. If a tribe member gets an exemption on fishing limits, repeal the limit for everyone. If a tribe can sell without charging a tax, repeal the tax for everyone.
Equality under the law should be the goal. It is long overdue.
He is a liar. If phone companies pay into a fund, and then that money goes directly out to other phone companies, how is that a government subsidy? Federal surcharges on phone bills are taxes, not government subsidies. Saying otherwise is simply false.
... it was similarly ill-mannered
I'm not interested in trying to get along with people who lie or hate-monger to further their political aims. The current political-trend of "let's all hate xyz-group so we can have your support to oppress them and steal their money" is dehumanizing, morally despicable, and evil. Pardon me for seeming "rude" in opposing it.
Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation's policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the "Federal Universal Service Fee" or "Universal Connectivity Fee".
It is a tax paid by phone companies and passed on to their customers (like taxes paid by companies always are).
... not passing the law would allow companies to create barriers to entry... I just don't see how someone could look at the issue and not understand that internet providers are trying to screw consumers.
We could look at reality. Which internet provider created these barriers to entry again? Exactly what barriers to entry did they create? Who are their subscribers?
Do we need a law to prevent everything that could happen but hasn't happened yet? Or do we just need laws when Yahoo! and Google want them?
I wonder if the tiny little content companies like Google have donated to any campaigns. All they want is the government to force favorable rules on other companies -- favorable to Google anyway.
It's interesting that big companies can get so much mindless popular support in their fight against other big companies by using the "neutrality" buzzword.
How is he a "maverick" that annoys the right when he's lock-step with them? That may have been true ten years ago, but somewhere along the way he started sounding and acting just like them.
You are completely ignorant.
He annoys the right when he refuses to support tax cuts, fights for the new immigration bill, and censors political speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.
Jesus also said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Sorry to break this to you, but that doesn't mean Jesus just appointed you Caesar and wrote you a blank check from everyone's account. He was talking to Caesar's victims (the taxpayers) at the time. He never told Caesar to go ahead and take whatever he wanted.
Taking money from people against their will is stealing. Wanting to take it is greed. Trying to get "the rich" to "pay their fair share" is envy and covetousness.
He didn't believe that taxes were stealing...
All taxes aren't stealing. A gas tax to pay for roads charges people who use the roads for their construction and maintenance.
A tax to take cash from person A to give to person B is stealing.
It just amazes me to see what heartless assholes we have all become. Chritians only care about abortions and gay marriage. Heaven forbid you actually think about the least among us. That you work to help the poor rather than ignore them.
There's this commandment about stealing though. Thou shalt not steal. Stealing is taking from a person against his will. Getting the government to steal (tax) for you breaks this commandment.
It's hard to say this is bad. Anti-videogame laws are unconstitutional and generally stupid.
Welfare payments trap people in poverty and support criminal activity, drug use, single parenthood (a.k.a. growing up without a father), irresponsibility, dependence, and the inability to develop capabilities or skills.
Money wasted failing to accomplish anything versus money spent succeeding in harming people. Better if they just throw bundles of cash on a bonfire (or let the tax payers who earned it keep it).
Yes. That's why they bought them. They had some money and decided they wanted to trade it for an SUV because they thought they'd be better off with the SUV. Since an individual is best able to judge his own life, it would be unwise to assume they made incorrect choices.
What surprises me when looking at the U.S. numbers is that the median household income has risen only 30% since the 1960s, yet the participation of women in the workforce has risen to 60%. (source whitehouse.gov and dol.gov)
That says more about the change in households than the change in income.
In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quarter of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household demographics, median household income rose only slighly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a considerable increase in the percentage of college graduates.
The SUV in the driveway may make them feel richer, but in real terms, the American middle class is being pushed down the economic ladder.
You just said that household income was higher. Higher means up, not down.
More or less everything else you've said is based on this false premise. I'm not sure why you'd want to put forward a false picture of folks getting poorer. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
You don't understand what they're saying. They're bashing the US and they blame the US for everything that goes wrong. What do China and India have to do with that?
A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.
But if hating America and hating big oil and hate in general are your thing, you can't beat SUVs for their buzzword power.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
When the longer term analysis starts being more focused on reality rather than doomsday scenarios and the promotion of socialism and disparagement of America.
A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.
Actually, they remember being worse off before they bought their SUV and before they could buy their stuff at Walmart. Their comprehension of American life is, in fact, the key thing that keeps it the way it is.
What they don't "comprehend" is why you and other folks like you hate/dislike/look down on/disparage their lives and their choices. I'm pretty sure I "comprehend" it though.
Not analogous. Assaults using force against people are injurious to more than their feelings, even if they seem physically unhurt. It's also a criminal matter.
Posting a car crash video on You Tube forces no one. Feeling bad about it is really the family's choice. They can choose to either feel bad, or be OK with it. Why should they be able to cash in by deciding (or pretending) to feel bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Good question. Traditionally, it means that the owner controls the land and who or what is allowed on that land. The owner is the owner by virtue of the fact that he has the power to control the land. This power can be asserted various ways. Violence or the implied threat of violence is the traditional way, and ultimately the only way that works.
In modern times, the threat of violence is indirectly applied by the owner using the government as the instrument of violence. The actual violence and even the threatening is outsourced to government authority.
A lot of the "but it was their land first" arguments are quite silly when you understand the basis for land ownership. Sentiment has no force. Only force has force.
Since violent force is ultimately the only way to control a person, you can conclude that everyone who wants to control people wants to use violent force on them, no matter how much they'll say otherwise. It is useful to understand this.
After thinking about it some more, I do apologize.
It's understandable to think of this as a subsidy to phone companies. It's not a government subsidy in the normal sense though. It is a fund to move money from one phone company to another to fit some kind of social engineering scheme.
The context of the discussion was people (who don't care about free markets anyway) saying that since the government subsidizes phone companies, then free-market arguments for them to be left alone and their property not stolen are illegitimate. "The government pays their bills, therefore, they serve at our pleasure. Like our slaves." These are not government subsidies in that sense.
Even if they were, it's only an argument for getting rid of the subsidies, not for using them to justify oppression of the people subsidized -- the phone companies, their employees and their shareholders in this case.
I'm not going to apologize for opposing efforts to constantly steal from people and force people to do things against their will and spread hate to get popular support for these efforts. I will continue to be "rude" and point this out when it occurs.
I do apologize for being incorrect about the interpretation of this particular fee though. Characterizing it as a "subsidy" is reasonable.
Okay, so I just skimmed the article, but don't most native Americans thing that everything is sacred in some way, including the air?
Why should anyone else care? What if someone says the stars are sacred and you are profane, and therefore you are not allowed to look at the stars?
Cell phone companies should simply put up directional antennas and deny cell phone service to people who do this sort of thing.
These cell phone companies are innocent people minding their own business and the "First Nations" are picking fights with them. Does starting conflicts with innocent people play a part in someone's eventual defeat?
Only if he loses, I guess.
There's another name for your plan: equality. The tribes (or first nations or whatever) should be equal. The US should amend the Constitution to get rid of the special status for tribal lands and simply make them property of the folks who live there. No special rules, no special treaty rights, nothing. Equality.
States could start on this. For example, if someone has the right to open a casino on tribal lands, give that same right to the folks with property off of tribal lands. If a tribe member gets an exemption on fishing limits, repeal the limit for everyone. If a tribe can sell without charging a tax, repeal the tax for everyone.
Equality under the law should be the goal. It is long overdue.
I'm not interested in trying to get along with people who lie or hate-monger to further their political aims. The current political-trend of "let's all hate xyz-group so we can have your support to oppress them and steal their money" is dehumanizing, morally despicable, and evil. Pardon me for seeming "rude" in opposing it.
Did you even read the thing you linked to?
Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation's policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the "Federal Universal Service Fee" or "Universal Connectivity Fee".
It is a tax paid by phone companies and passed on to their customers (like taxes paid by companies always are).
... not passing the law would allow companies to create barriers to entry ... I just don't see how someone could look at the issue and not understand that internet providers are trying to screw consumers.
We could look at reality. Which internet provider created these barriers to entry again? Exactly what barriers to entry did they create? Who are their subscribers?
Do we need a law to prevent everything that could happen but hasn't happened yet? Or do we just need laws when Yahoo! and Google want them?
passing laws that benefit large corporations
Like network neutrality benefits tiny little companies like Yahoo! and Google.
I wonder if the tiny little content companies like Google have donated to any campaigns. All they want is the government to force favorable rules on other companies -- favorable to Google anyway.
It's interesting that big companies can get so much mindless popular support in their fight against other big companies by using the "neutrality" buzzword.
How is he a "maverick" that annoys the right when he's lock-step with them? That may have been true ten years ago, but somewhere along the way he started sounding and acting just like them.
You are completely ignorant.
He annoys the right when he refuses to support tax cuts, fights for the new immigration bill, and censors political speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.
See those federal surcharges? Those are subsidies.
No. Those are taxes paid by the phone customer.
You are a liar.
Jesus also said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Sorry to break this to you, but that doesn't mean Jesus just appointed you Caesar and wrote you a blank check from everyone's account. He was talking to Caesar's victims (the taxpayers) at the time. He never told Caesar to go ahead and take whatever he wanted.
Taking money from people against their will is stealing. Wanting to take it is greed. Trying to get "the rich" to "pay their fair share" is envy and covetousness.
He didn't believe that taxes were stealing...
All taxes aren't stealing. A gas tax to pay for roads charges people who use the roads for their construction and maintenance.
A tax to take cash from person A to give to person B is stealing.
It just amazes me to see what heartless assholes we have all become. Chritians only care about abortions and gay marriage. Heaven forbid you actually think about the least among us. That you work to help the poor rather than ignore them.
There's this commandment about stealing though. Thou shalt not steal. Stealing is taking from a person against his will. Getting the government to steal (tax) for you breaks this commandment.
It's hard to say this is bad. Anti-videogame laws are unconstitutional and generally stupid.
Welfare payments trap people in poverty and support criminal activity, drug use, single parenthood (a.k.a. growing up without a father), irresponsibility, dependence, and the inability to develop capabilities or skills.
Money wasted failing to accomplish anything versus money spent succeeding in harming people. Better if they just throw bundles of cash on a bonfire (or let the tax payers who earned it keep it).
Yes. That's why they bought them. They had some money and decided they wanted to trade it for an SUV because they thought they'd be better off with the SUV. Since an individual is best able to judge his own life, it would be unwise to assume they made incorrect choices.
What surprises me when looking at the U.S. numbers is that the median household income has risen only 30% since the 1960s, yet the participation of women in the workforce has risen to 60%. (source whitehouse.gov and dol.gov)
That says more about the change in households than the change in income.
From Wikipedia (which references US Census data):
The SUV in the driveway may make them feel richer, but in real terms, the American middle class is being pushed down the economic ladder.
You just said that household income was higher. Higher means up, not down.
More or less everything else you've said is based on this false premise. I'm not sure why you'd want to put forward a false picture of folks getting poorer. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
You don't understand what they're saying. They're bashing the US and they blame the US for everything that goes wrong. What do China and India have to do with that?
A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.
But if hating America and hating big oil and hate in general are your thing, you can't beat SUVs for their buzzword power.
What is China's interest in boycotting the US again?
Any room for reality in this scenario?
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
When the longer term analysis starts being more focused on reality rather than doomsday scenarios and the promotion of socialism and disparagement of America.
A large population of our country is simply unable to comprehend american life without their SUVs/cheap gas/walmart lifestyles.
Actually, they remember being worse off before they bought their SUV and before they could buy their stuff at Walmart. Their comprehension of American life is, in fact, the key thing that keeps it the way it is.
What they don't "comprehend" is why you and other folks like you hate/dislike/look down on/disparage their lives and their choices. I'm pretty sure I "comprehend" it though.
surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? ... but I don't see any other option in the long term.
Other option: Not imposing trade tariffs.
Just trying to help.
Not analogous. Assaults using force against people are injurious to more than their feelings, even if they seem physically unhurt. It's also a criminal matter.
Posting a car crash video on You Tube forces no one. Feeling bad about it is really the family's choice. They can choose to either feel bad, or be OK with it. Why should they be able to cash in by deciding (or pretending) to feel bad?
So how was the family harmed? Were their feelings hurt? Courts should stick to resolving claims based on real, actual harm, not on hurt feelings.
"My feelings were hurt. Give me money." No.
In order to sue, you're supposed to have suffered harm or damage in some way. How was the dead guy harmed by this video?
Lawsuits are supposed to be about addressing genuine harm, not about using the courts to push people around.