This keeps the debates from having zillions of people in them.
That's the straw man offered by the Republicrat debate commission in defense of its exclusionary rule. (I realize that you aren't necessarily defending their position.)
An objective standard (there's no way anything based on polls can be objective, since polls can be easily spun to get the results one wants) such as listing on enough state ballots to be theoretically able to win would typically give four to six candidates (in this case, five: Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, and Nader).
Admittedly, there is a case for having the top two go head-to-head, also. Perhaps it should be like Survivor, with one of the debaters being voted out each round until the top two remain for the closing debate. That should also make it more interesting. /.
I think we should have a runoff election the first Tuesday in December between the top two candidates selected at the national level by popular vote, and dump the electoral college. This could even potentially help third party candidates as all they have to do is garner a larger popular vote than one of the two big parties for an opportunity to win it big.
More importantly, it eliminated the "lesser of two evils" argument -- if you want to vote for Browne but are worried about the election tipping to Gore (or want to vote for Nader but are worried about the election tipping to Bush), vote for your preferred candidate in the general election and the lesser of two evils in the runoff. /.
Is it wrong to pump more money into public schools?
Given the usual results, it's kind of stupid, but not wrong (if you pump your own money, not somebody else's, of course).
Is it wrong to expect the rich to pay more taxes?
I don't object to the idea that the rich should pay in direct proportion -- the more you own, the more benefit you get from the nice policeman who carts thieves off to jail.
Note the words "direct proportion"; that means a flat rate (except for a zero bracket for the first $X, to protect people who genuinely can't afford to pay).
Is it wrong to vote for someone who is obviously more intelligent?
Because I also believe that in an ideal world, children would enter a level playing field. They would not be discrimininated against according to the misfortunes of their parents. Nor would they be unduly advantaged.
That's all very well and good, but it just doesn't apply to the real world. Some parents just don't have a clue how to manage their own lives, much less raise children; others do better; still others do superbly well. Short of raising the next generation in communes or hiring a Handicapper General, level playing fields in the sense you describe (as opposed to a level playing field of equality before the law) just don't exist.
/.
Yes, and at the upper end of the economic scale as well as the lower. Brin's (unstated, but clearly essential) assumption is that, in the absence of inheritance taxes, the unworthy heirs of the rich would become and permanently remain rich. Of course, what will really happen is that they will be scammed out of the money or just piss it away -- hence, the old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".
/.
...she cited one study that indicated that the children of a father whose income was at the 75th percentile of income, had about twice as much chance of making it into the top quintile of all income as the children of a father whose income was at the 25th percentile.
Why, who woulda thunk that it was so much easier to rise five percentiles (from 75th to 80th) as it is to rise fifty-five percentiles (from 25th to 80th)?
/.
An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics.
This is impossible on its face. Every complication was put there to serve some political special interest; removing any of them is inherently a political decision.
More fundamentally, even the simplest replacement (e.g. zero taxes up to X income, then Y% of everything above that) requires a determination of X and Y based on a political decision between appeal to envy (set Y high to "soak the rich" and set X at upper-middle-class level to avoid hitting the bulk of voters) and appeal to fairness (set X at a lower-middle-class level to spread the load as widely as possible while protecting people who really can't afford to pay, set Y at the minimum necessary level to fund the government).
The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
True. Too bad Brin doesn't apply this principle consistently, noting that the power of the people in government office increases with both the total amount of taxes levied and the amount of discretion applied in who shall be made to pay what amount.
/.
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves. They also come out as being "dead center".
Er, which is it? Is it "the maximum point on both scales" or is it "dead center"??
But, since they insist on deregulation, which by removing accountability gives more power to corporations
Actually, regulation gives more power to corporations, which co-opt the regulatory process and write the rules to suit themselves and to screw any new competition -- see any IP thread on/. for examples.
Also, the typical progressive answer to the quiz will land you into the "Left Liberal"
camp, where they conclude you "prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters" (a.k.a. the USSR economy) because you think people deserve to make a minimum wage, governments should subsidize basic goods such as food, people might not necessarily be "better off" with free trade, you believe taxing people is better than user fees (which leave the rich free not pay for services they'd have to share with the poor and instead go for private alternatives
Well, if you think the government should decide wages, subsidize certain foods, regulate trade, and forbid private alternatives to government services, then you are in favor of central decision-making. By all means, present your arguments for why you believe central decision-making to be a superior economic model, but don't try to palm it off as something other than what it is. /.
have been a bit surprised that no one posted a story relating to George Bush's comment in last week's debate blami ng the the internet for the Columbine murders. Did anyone else notice?
Didn't you notice the two stories on this in the last few days: here and here. /.
God had, and still has, deserted England, but unfortunately it looks as though "people" like Marilyn Manson will soon drive him away from America as well.
I had no idea that Marilyn Manson was so powerful. /.
The election this year between Gore and Bush is going to be really close. The 5% that Nader might get, or the 5% that Brown might get, would radically change the election if those people wer instead to vote for one of the "Dumb and Dumbers."
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
This is precisely how Populist and Socialist positions were incorporated into the Democratic Party, how Dixiecrat positions were incorporated into the Republican Party, and how deficit reduction became a major issue for both parties after Perot's performance in 1992.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment. /.
After all, I thought Libertarians were experts in economics? And taxes are a cost of living (or a cost of doing business), and thus automagically accounted for in salaries and pricing. If you reduce taxes, you'll reduce prices, but you'll also reduce wages. Ultimately everyone's buying power will be the same.
To extend Bastiat's argument, if a city were so riddled with vandals that everyone had their windows broken every few days, then window repair would be part of the "cost of living" which is "automagically accounted for in salaries and pricing". Your argument implies that if the vandalism were stopped, then prices and wages would fall in such a way that the net standard of living would not increase -- which is absurd, since it is obvious on its face that people who are constantly beset by vandals have a lower standard of living than people who are not. /.
Far be it from me to introduce actual informed analysis into a gun control flame war -- so instead I'll just refer anybody who is still interested to A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment. /.
It's a ploy to flush out all the people who were working on the crack with the intention of releasing it after SDMI launched -- once the cat was (apparently) out of the bag, they'd have nothing to lose by bragging.
Uh, yes, and they've decided that they would like their local government to make it illegal for the vendors of the games to present the violent material to their children without their consent.
The fallacy here parallels the one in this sillygism:
1. No cat has two tails.
2. A cat has one more tail than no cat.
3. Therefore, a cat has three tails.
Specifically, the fallacy is equating an aggregate with an individual example. That's an easy mistake to make when the same term ("parents") is used for both, which no doubt is why the advocates of collective decision over individual decision like the language that way.
/.
That happens to be my point -- if liquid CO2 can't exist under Earth's atmospheric pressure, it's rather unlikely on the Martian surface unless it started out with a lot more atmosphere (the consensus is that Mars did have more atmosphere early in the solar system's history, but that much more?) /.
The fact that a car can be used to kill someone is a consequence of physics, not design. A car is designed to move people from one place to another. Since it'd be impossible to design a car that could accomplish this goal but could NOT kill someone if appropriately misused, yes cars can kill people. This is still worlds apart from guns, which have no other use other than the one they are designed for: to kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage to people or objects.
The same logic applies to guns. They are designed to "kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage" to someone who is attempting to "kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage" to you. It is impossible to design a gun that could accomplish this goal but could NOT kill an innocent person if (in)appropriately misused. /.
The second amendment is not about cutting down on crime, its about protecting yourself from an overreaching government.
The two aren't really separate issues (which blows away claims that Europe is somehow "less violent", as if someone murdered by Hitler or Stalin is less dead than someone murdered by a random street thug). /.
Dubya grew up in an era of comic carnage as bad, if not worse (since it was mostly the "die for god and country," sort), than what is available today.
Television was rife with cowboy and police show violence: Paladin, The Rory Calhoun Show, Wagon Train, Rawhide, Sky King, and The Rough Riders, Naked City...
Actually, I find the presentation of "clean" violence (bad guy neatly falls down dead without making a mess) more worrisome than Quake-style gore, because it presents violence as unrealistically attractive.
EC comic books were burned by in-bred bible thumpers to save "our youth from corruption."
"This unhealthy trash should be banned and the publisher thrown in jail!"
"But what about the First Amendment?"
"Don't worry -- the Constitution doesn't apply to anything printed on such cheap paper."
--Radioactive Man #1
That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children
You cannot effectively defend your own rights by attacking someone else's. /.
This campaign speaks to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we have begun to disrespect the Constitution, where a "public servant" can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being in Washington, and walk in and decide to take over everybody else's life. /.
Slashdot Mirror
The next day, we'll see the founding of thousands of one-man "libraries"....
/.
That's the straw man offered by the Republicrat debate commission in defense of its exclusionary rule. (I realize that you aren't necessarily defending their position.)
An objective standard (there's no way anything based on polls can be objective, since polls can be easily spun to get the results one wants) such as listing on enough state ballots to be theoretically able to win would typically give four to six candidates (in this case, five: Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, and Nader).
Admittedly, there is a case for having the top two go head-to-head, also. Perhaps it should be like Survivor, with one of the debaters being voted out each round until the top two remain for the closing debate. That should also make it more interesting.
/.
More importantly, it eliminated the "lesser of two evils" argument -- if you want to vote for Browne but are worried about the election tipping to Gore (or want to vote for Nader but are worried about the election tipping to Bush), vote for your preferred candidate in the general election and the lesser of two evils in the runoff.
/.
Given the usual results, it's kind of stupid, but not wrong (if you pump your own money, not somebody else's, of course).
Is it wrong to expect the rich to pay more taxes?
I don't object to the idea that the rich should pay in direct proportion -- the more you own, the more benefit you get from the nice policeman who carts thieves off to jail.
Note the words "direct proportion"; that means a flat rate (except for a zero bracket for the first $X, to protect people who genuinely can't afford to pay).
Is it wrong to vote for someone who is obviously more intelligent?
Of course not; that's what I plan to do.
Is it wrong to dream that a Great Society can help improve the lot for all its citizens with directed government programs and ideas?
Well, no. It's not wrong to dream that you can fly like Superman, either. It's just not very wise to base your actions on either notion.
/.
That's all very well and good, but it just doesn't apply to the real world. Some parents just don't have a clue how to manage their own lives, much less raise children; others do better; still others do superbly well. Short of raising the next generation in communes or hiring a Handicapper General, level playing fields in the sense you describe (as opposed to a level playing field of equality before the law) just don't exist.
/.
Unless you live -- er, "lived" -- in Chicago.
/.
Yes, and at the upper end of the economic scale as well as the lower. Brin's (unstated, but clearly essential) assumption is that, in the absence of inheritance taxes, the unworthy heirs of the rich would become and permanently remain rich. Of course, what will really happen is that they will be scammed out of the money or just piss it away -- hence, the old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations".
/.
Why, who woulda thunk that it was so much easier to rise five percentiles (from 75th to 80th) as it is to rise fifty-five percentiles (from 25th to 80th)?
/.
So, when are opening arguments scheduled for the Gore v. Kaczynski plagiarism lawsuit?
/.
This is impossible on its face. Every complication was put there to serve some political special interest; removing any of them is inherently a political decision.
More fundamentally, even the simplest replacement (e.g. zero taxes up to X income, then Y% of everything above that) requires a determination of X and Y based on a political decision between appeal to envy (set Y high to "soak the rich" and set X at upper-middle-class level to avoid hitting the bulk of voters) and appeal to fairness (set X at a lower-middle-class level to spread the load as widely as possible while protecting people who really can't afford to pay, set Y at the minimum necessary level to fund the government).
The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
True. Too bad Brin doesn't apply this principle consistently, noting that the power of the people in government office increases with both the total amount of taxes levied and the amount of discretion applied in who shall be made to pay what amount.
/.
Er, which is it? Is it "the maximum point on both scales" or is it "dead center"??
But, since they insist on deregulation, which by removing accountability gives more power to corporations
Actually, regulation gives more power to corporations, which co-opt the regulatory process and write the rules to suit themselves and to screw any new competition -- see any IP thread on /. for examples.
Also, the typical progressive answer to the quiz will land you into the "Left Liberal" camp, where they conclude you "prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters" (a.k.a. the USSR economy) because you think people deserve to make a minimum wage, governments should subsidize basic goods such as food, people might not necessarily be "better off" with free trade, you believe taxing people is better than user fees (which leave the rich free not pay for services they'd have to share with the poor and instead go for private alternatives
Well, if you think the government should decide wages, subsidize certain foods, regulate trade, and forbid private alternatives to government services, then you are in favor of central decision-making. By all means, present your arguments for why you believe central decision-making to be a superior economic model, but don't try to palm it off as something other than what it is.
/.
Didn't you notice the two stories on this in the last few days: here and here.
/.
I had no idea that Marilyn Manson was so powerful.
/.
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
This is precisely how Populist and Socialist positions were incorporated into the Democratic Party, how Dixiecrat positions were incorporated into the Republican Party, and how deficit reduction became a major issue for both parties after Perot's performance in 1992.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
/.
This analysis is a variant on Bastiat's Fallacy of the Broken Window.
To extend Bastiat's argument, if a city were so riddled with vandals that everyone had their windows broken every few days, then window repair would be part of the "cost of living" which is "automagically accounted for in salaries and pricing". Your argument implies that if the vandalism were stopped, then prices and wages would fall in such a way that the net standard of living would not increase -- which is absurd, since it is obvious on its face that people who are constantly beset by vandals have a lower standard of living than people who are not.
/.
Far be it from me to introduce actual informed analysis into a gun control flame war -- so instead I'll just refer anybody who is still interested to A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment.
/.
Hey, somebody had to say it....
/.
Uh, yes, and they've decided that they would like their local government to make it illegal for the vendors of the games to present the violent material to their children without their consent.
The fallacy here parallels the one in this sillygism:
Specifically, the fallacy is equating an aggregate with an individual example. That's an easy mistake to make when the same term ("parents") is used for both, which no doubt is why the advocates of collective decision over individual decision like the language that way./.
That happens to be my point -- if liquid CO2 can't exist under Earth's atmospheric pressure, it's rather unlikely on the Martian surface unless it started out with a lot more atmosphere (the consensus is that Mars did have more atmosphere early in the solar system's history, but that much more?)
/.
The pressure of Earth's atmosphere is too low to permit liquid carbon dioxide -- that's why dry ice is, well, dry.
/.
The same logic applies to guns. They are designed to "kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage" to someone who is attempting to "kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage" to you. It is impossible to design a gun that could accomplish this goal but could NOT kill an innocent person if (in)appropriately misused.
/.
The two aren't really separate issues (which blows away claims that Europe is somehow "less violent", as if someone murdered by Hitler or Stalin is less dead than someone murdered by a random street thug).
/.
Television was rife with cowboy and police show violence: Paladin, The Rory Calhoun Show, Wagon Train, Rawhide, Sky King, and The Rough Riders, Naked City...
Actually, I find the presentation of "clean" violence (bad guy neatly falls down dead without making a mess) more worrisome than Quake-style gore, because it presents violence as unrealistically attractive.
EC comic books were burned by in-bred bible thumpers to save "our youth from corruption."
/.
You cannot effectively defend your own rights by attacking someone else's.
/.
This campaign speaks to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we have begun to disrespect the Constitution, where a "public servant" can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being in Washington, and walk in and decide to take over everybody else's life.
/.