If there's one thing I understand, its the 'not invented here' problem. I don't know the answer either.
I do, however, take issue with your use of Texas as an example of capitalism gone awry. Texas (and most southwestern states for that matter), given its geography, faces some very unique problems which can make traditional metrics for things like education and health less reliable. Don't misunderstand me, I do not hold Texas up as the "shinning state on the hill" as it were. It has its problems. However, it also has no income tax .
As I said earlier, one of the roles of the federal government is in managing interstate affairs. I believe that the environment would be one of those issues, not via organizations like the EPA but by mediating disputes between the states on such matters. They wouldn't necessarily need to sue, but there would need to be some kind of mediation system.
As for drinking laws, you will garner now sympathy from me on this. There have always, and will likely always be a problem, if you can call it a problem, with teens sneaking accross the border to buy beer where the drinking age is lower. Drinking laws, from age to legal limits, are still set at the state level.
The wellfare problem is actually pretty easy to work out. The system will bring itself into a natural equilibrium, assumming all states are willing to pay at least something out. If state A is offering better benefits than state B, the poor will move from state B to state A which has the effect of simultaneously increasing the burden on state A and decreasing the burden on state B. This means that state B now has more to offer and state A has less. If too many people move, the balance shifts entirely so that B is more attractive to the poor than A and the flow reverses. Eventually a near equilibrium will be reached.
I don't believe in 'privatized public education' either. Its an oxymoron. I do believe, however, that perhaps management and accounting techniques as well as competition from the private sector may increase the efficiency and quality of public schools. Just so you know where I stand, I do believe that vouchers for private education are an option if, and only if, the public schools within a district are unable to do the job.
Say what you will about the imperfections of our current system, but I still believe that its better than any other system currently in use.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is my duty to help those who are less fortunate than myself. However, I also believe that it should be up to me to decide who those people are and how much help they need.
I agree with your assessment of self-improvement. I also beleive that there is a difference between being unfortunate and being unmotivated.
OK, not much of an argument in that comment, but lets run with it anyway.
First a disclaimer. I am a nice guy. I am not mean. For the sake of intellectual curiosity and discussion answer me this: if I run out of money treating my cancer, does government have the right to force you to pay for? If so, from where does this mandate originate? Finally, is there such thing as mandated morality?
My hat's off to the first logically constructed retort on this thread.
I will concede that my comment must be flamebait given that it has indeed attracted flames. I should have said that the replies to my comment were more flame-worthy than the comment itself.
And I think it's depressing that 23 year-olds who obviously haven't spent much time in the real world can be so self-righteous about their selfishness.
OK, now that you've taken a stand on the issue how about backing up your opinion with some sort of argument. I refer you to my previous repsonse regarding the role of federal government and charity. Or are you in this for the cheap shots?
"Make no mistake, you're getting monosyllabic responses because anybody capable of responding more logically and reasonably to your points can see very clearly that it won't change your mind."
What gives you that impression? I would be willing to bet that you couldn't guess my political affilliation and thereby could gauge neither the firmness of those positions nor their origins.
As for the "flamebait" crack is concerned, I'd say you've got your signs reversed. IMHO, I seem to be attracting flamebait rather than producing it.
Its depressing to see how quickly even this site's otherwise intelligent readers can transition from a discussion of ideology, philosophy and history to one based on immaterial criticisms with fewer sylables than a Sylvester Stalone film.
What is it about politics that drives people to forsake reason in favor of vitriol and fact in favor of belief. It appears that even the nerds are not immune to it.
"I assume you didn't benefit from a public education, that you travel over your own roads on your own property, and don't use any government facilities in any way. That way, your pathetically self-righteous stand would at least be conscientious."
Let's get something straight, I never said that I had a problem with the federal government. I said that I have a problem with responsiblity for federal funding being out of alignment responsibility for federal spending. Put more simply, I have a problem with the fact that control over the government and funding of the government come from two different sources. Put even simpler, a minority of voters provide the majority of funding (percentage wise). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that voting should be in any way tied to tax returns. I do, however, believe that taxation (as a percentage of income, or spending, or however you wish to assess it) needs to be equal for those who pay them. Put exceedingly (probably overly) simple, the only fair tax is a flat tax.
I will concede that I did not clearly spell out my opinion on what role the federal government has. I do believe that the federal government has a place. That place falls in line with a Jeffersonian states-rights ideology. The job of the federal government is to do those things which the states, as independent entities, cannot do. This means that the federal government is responsible national defense, interstate commerce (including roads), and providing an ultimate court of appeals which makes rulings based solely upon the subject of constitutionality. It does have few other responsibilities (foriegn relations, management of collective endeavors, etc.) but these are relatively minor in the grander scheme of things and in now way provides for such things as the Department of Energy, HUD, etc. All other responsibilities, including education, drug policy, etc., fall under the perview of the states.
As for Texas, I suggest that you study your history a little closer. The Texas state constitution (approved by the U.S. Congress) does provide the Republic of Texas with right to sever itself into two independant entities, one of shich would no longer be a member of the union. That's why its called the Republic of Texas rather than the State of Texas. A for the federal government enforcing Texas unity, I wouldn't be suprised if they did, but that makes it neither legal for right.
"you, or someone you love... will need the help of some collective group of "
That's what family is for. I have no problem helping people. I do not, however, believe it is the governments place to dicate the types of people and to what degree I must help them.
There is a difference between taxes and charity. Charity is a "good act" because it is, by its very nature, voluntary and thereby requires that the source of charity desire to do "good". Taxes can never be a good act because they are, by their very nature, compensatory and require no intention, "good" or otherwise, on the part of the individual responsible for them.
As taxes increase and the capacity for charity decreases as a function of a decrease in available resources, the total "good", both potential and actual, within a community decreases. This is the root of the moral failure of communism. While everyone would agree that sharing is "good" thing, mandatory sharing is, at best, a "neutral" thing. In a society where all sharing is mandatory there is no capacity for "good" resulting from charity remaining. This leaves the society with no moral core and thereby no mandate by which it can require moral behavior, and we all know where that leads.
I recommend that in the future you think and what the birds are saying to you before you regurgitate it into a publis forum.
There is currently no frontier on this planet, much less in this country. This bothers me. In times past, people like me, when they grew sick of people like you, had somewhere to go. People went to the frontier to create new communities for themselves when no existing community was suitable for them. Well Junior, there are communities which I find suitable enough to live in.
This country is on an inexorable path towards socialism. The majority of citizens become increasingly lazy and demand more and more goods and services be provided to them. Paying for these goods, obviously, falls to the taxpayer. The majority of taxes are payed by a minority of citizens (people demonized by Gore and Nader) who happen to earn the most money. Now, I'm only 23 but according to the Liberal definition, I am rich. I am not rich. I am single. I work hard. I am intelligent. I am good at what I do. I have no problem with charging a premium for my services. I am, and likely will be until I die, a slave of the "common citizen." After less than two years in the workplace the "citizens" are already helping themselves to 35% (federal only) of everything I earn, as though they had anything to do with it.
This brings me to the frontier problem. Where can I go to escape enslavement. Europe is socialist. Canada is Europe, so is Australia. The US is becoming Europe. TV in Asia sucks. Africa maybe? Maybe not, too many wars.
So, where can people like me go to form a "more perfect union"? Maybe we just take over this little operation. Then again, the state of Texas still has the right to split into two parts, one remaining a part of the US, the other becoming an independant nation. I hate Texas, but anything's better than this dump.
Maybe I'm just an anarchist at heart, but something about this call for external regulation be it by the government or any other exclusive group, scares me. It smacks of the early days of radio and the formation of the FCC.
Radio and the Internet trace their origins back to their original "invention" and use as media for the military. Radio and the Internet both grew into playgrounds for the savvy individuals as hardware and know-how became more accessible. Radio and the Internet both began to attract a larger audience as hardware became cheaper and know-how became less integral to the end user experience. Radio and Internet became the focal point for social concerns over decency. In radio's case this took the form of the "7 words". The Internet had its Communications Decency Act.
Soon after widespread use of radio began, the FCC was formed to regulate who had the power to transmit. Soon, only the privileged few who could afford government license had the right to transmit to the general public. (True HAM radio and CB are the exception, but neither reach the majority of radio listeners.)
The Internet has yet to evolve to the point where government license is necessary to provide content over it, but it is the next step in its development. Allowing the government any stake in the Internet is too much as it gets their foot in the door. Once they can enforce social contracts on the Internet, who's to say what we will need them to enforce next?
The origins and paths of both the Internet and radio are strikingly similar. If we (the Internet community in general) aren't careful, the destination could be the same as well.
You know, the anarchists, no really they're anarchists, who started the WTO riots are based in Oregon.
It would be interesting to see if they are the ones getting the FBI's attention. If they did it, then they have to be one of the coolest anarchist groups I've ever seen in the US. Then again, if they didn't, the FBI may use it as an opportunity to get the people they couldn't after the WTO riot.
I'm no MS advocate. In fact, narry a day goes buy that I don't wish evil thhings of MS and all of its employees.
However, I must say that I have been using Win2K for about a month now and I have had fewer OS related problems with the out-of-the-box version of this OS than I had with the patched and upgraded versions of NT 4 and 98.
This means one of two things, either 98 and NT had far more "bugs" which is entirely possible, or, the 65,000 "bugs" are so minor and unnoticable on the user end that they may as well not be there. For example, they may consider redundant interrupt requests on startup a bug, but this happens so quickly and has no effect once the system has started. They may also consider problems with the provided drivers to be "bugs" as well and, though I hate to say it, these kinds of bugs cannot always be blamed on MS as many of these drivers are provided by the hardware companies. For example, I know for a fact that there are problems with the Initio SCSI controller driver provided with the OS.
So, despite the abundance of "bugs" in the Win2K OS, I'll still take it over 98 or NT 4.
All this talk of MS OSes is making me sick. LINUX ROCKS!!!! That's better.
I find it interesting, to no end, that a column concerning flaming and its inevitable and necessary existence on the Internet while at the same time chides what are agreeably some of the stupidest flames still attracts fire.
Tell me something, what could one say without attracting flames?
An obvious choice might be something clearly geeky, like "Linux Rules!!!" However, try it and you're sure to get massive feedback from the BSD freaks.
Hell, now I'm going to feedback from the BSD freaks.
So, what could I or anyone say in an online forum that would not attract fire?
About 25% of online orders I have made have been delivered on time, but in the wrong quantities. CDW routinely sends me twice what I ordered, while only billing me for what I asked for. A friend of mine bought a computer at Onsale, paid for one computer, was delivered three computers. At this rate, they'll fix the problems or go out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Unsurprising announcement after flirting with the idea for years now? Check!
Internet wanks complaining about "virtue signaling" and "SJWs"? Check!
Finally posting with this username after >15 years? Check!
If there's one thing I understand, its the 'not invented here' problem. I don't know the answer either.
I do, however, take issue with your use of Texas as an example of capitalism gone awry. Texas (and most southwestern states for that matter), given its geography, faces some very unique problems which can make traditional metrics for things like education and health less reliable. Don't misunderstand me, I do not hold Texas up as the "shinning state on the hill" as it were. It has its problems. However, it also has no income tax .
As I said earlier, one of the roles of the federal government is in managing interstate affairs. I believe that the environment would be one of those issues, not via organizations like the EPA but by mediating disputes between the states on such matters. They wouldn't necessarily need to sue, but there would need to be some kind of mediation system.
As for drinking laws, you will garner now sympathy from me on this. There have always, and will likely always be a problem, if you can call it a problem, with teens sneaking accross the border to buy beer where the drinking age is lower. Drinking laws, from age to legal limits, are still set at the state level.
The wellfare problem is actually pretty easy to work out. The system will bring itself into a natural equilibrium, assumming all states are willing to pay at least something out. If state A is offering better benefits than state B, the poor will move from state B to state A which has the effect of simultaneously increasing the burden on state A and decreasing the burden on state B. This means that state B now has more to offer and state A has less. If too many people move, the balance shifts entirely so that B is more attractive to the poor than A and the flow reverses. Eventually a near equilibrium will be reached.
I don't believe in 'privatized public education' either. Its an oxymoron. I do believe, however, that perhaps management and accounting techniques as well as competition from the private sector may increase the efficiency and quality of public schools. Just so you know where I stand, I do believe that vouchers for private education are an option if, and only if, the public schools within a district are unable to do the job.
Say what you will about the imperfections of our current system, but I still believe that its better than any other system currently in use.
Here here!!
Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is my duty to help those who are less fortunate than myself. However, I also believe that it should be up to me to decide who those people are and how much help they need.
I agree with your assessment of self-improvement. I also beleive that there is a difference between being unfortunate and being unmotivated.
crap
OK, not much of an argument in that comment, but lets run with it anyway.
First a disclaimer. I am a nice guy. I am not mean. For the sake of intellectual curiosity and discussion answer me this: if I run out of money treating my cancer, does government have the right to force you to pay for? If so, from where does this mandate originate? Finally, is there such thing as mandated morality?
Run with it.
The "Anonymous Coward" reply to this is mine. Using someone else's machine, forgot to login.
Sorry
My hat's off to the first logically constructed retort on this thread.
I will concede that my comment must be flamebait given that it has indeed attracted flames. I should have said that the replies to my comment were more flame-worthy than the comment itself.
At last an ally. For a second there I thought you were going to be another flame I would have to put out.
Thanks again.
And I think it's depressing that 23 year-olds who obviously haven't spent much time in the real world can be so self-righteous about their selfishness.
OK, now that you've taken a stand on the issue how about backing up your opinion with some sort of argument. I refer you to my previous repsonse regarding the role of federal government and charity. Or are you in this for the cheap shots?
"Make no mistake, you're getting monosyllabic responses because anybody capable of responding more logically and reasonably to your points can see very clearly that it won't change your mind."
What gives you that impression? I would be willing to bet that you couldn't guess my political affilliation and thereby could gauge neither the firmness of those positions nor their origins.
As for the "flamebait" crack is concerned, I'd say you've got your signs reversed. IMHO, I seem to be attracting flamebait rather than producing it.
Nice retort.
Its depressing to see how quickly even this site's otherwise intelligent readers can transition from a discussion of ideology, philosophy and history to one based on immaterial criticisms with fewer sylables than a Sylvester Stalone film.
What is it about politics that drives people to forsake reason in favor of vitriol and fact in favor of belief. It appears that even the nerds are not immune to it.
How unfortunate.
"I assume you didn't benefit from a public education, that you travel over your own roads on your own property, and don't use any government facilities in any way. That way, your pathetically self-righteous stand would at least be conscientious."
Let's get something straight, I never said that I had a problem with the federal government. I said that I have a problem with responsiblity for federal funding being out of alignment responsibility for federal spending. Put more simply, I have a problem with the fact that control over the government and funding of the government come from two different sources. Put even simpler, a minority of voters provide the majority of funding (percentage wise). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that voting should be in any way tied to tax returns. I do, however, believe that taxation (as a percentage of income, or spending, or however you wish to assess it) needs to be equal for those who pay them. Put exceedingly (probably overly) simple, the only fair tax is a flat tax.
I will concede that I did not clearly spell out my opinion on what role the federal government has. I do believe that the federal government has a place. That place falls in line with a Jeffersonian states-rights ideology. The job of the federal government is to do those things which the states, as independent entities, cannot do. This means that the federal government is responsible national defense, interstate commerce (including roads), and providing an ultimate court of appeals which makes rulings based solely upon the subject of constitutionality. It does have few other responsibilities (foriegn relations, management of collective endeavors, etc.) but these are relatively minor in the grander scheme of things and in now way provides for such things as the Department of Energy, HUD, etc. All other responsibilities, including education, drug policy, etc., fall under the perview of the states.
As for Texas, I suggest that you study your history a little closer. The Texas state constitution (approved by the U.S. Congress) does provide the Republic of Texas with right to sever itself into two independant entities, one of shich would no longer be a member of the union. That's why its called the Republic of Texas rather than the State of Texas. A for the federal government enforcing Texas unity, I wouldn't be suprised if they did, but that makes it neither legal for right.
Think before you speak.
"you, or someone you love ... will need the help of some collective group of "
That's what family is for. I have no problem helping people. I do not, however, believe it is the governments place to dicate the types of people and to what degree I must help them.
There is a difference between taxes and charity. Charity is a "good act" because it is, by its very nature, voluntary and thereby requires that the source of charity desire to do "good". Taxes can never be a good act because they are, by their very nature, compensatory and require no intention, "good" or otherwise, on the part of the individual responsible for them.
As taxes increase and the capacity for charity decreases as a function of a decrease in available resources, the total "good", both potential and actual, within a community decreases. This is the root of the moral failure of communism. While everyone would agree that sharing is "good" thing, mandatory sharing is, at best, a "neutral" thing. In a society where all sharing is mandatory there is no capacity for "good" resulting from charity remaining. This leaves the society with no moral core and thereby no mandate by which it can require moral behavior, and we all know where that leads.
I recommend that in the future you think and what the birds are saying to you before you regurgitate it into a publis forum.
There is currently no frontier on this planet, much less in this country. This bothers me. In times past, people like me, when they grew sick of people like you, had somewhere to go. People went to the frontier to create new communities for themselves when no existing community was suitable for them. Well Junior, there are communities which I find suitable enough to live in.
This country is on an inexorable path towards socialism. The majority of citizens become increasingly lazy and demand more and more goods and services be provided to them. Paying for these goods, obviously, falls to the taxpayer. The majority of taxes are payed by a minority of citizens (people demonized by Gore and Nader) who happen to earn the most money. Now, I'm only 23 but according to the Liberal definition, I am rich. I am not rich. I am single. I work hard. I am intelligent. I am good at what I do. I have no problem with charging a premium for my services. I am, and likely will be until I die, a slave of the "common citizen." After less than two years in the workplace the "citizens" are already helping themselves to 35% (federal only) of everything I earn, as though they had anything to do with it.
This brings me to the frontier problem. Where can I go to escape enslavement. Europe is socialist. Canada is Europe, so is Australia. The US is becoming Europe. TV in Asia sucks. Africa maybe? Maybe not, too many wars.
So, where can people like me go to form a "more perfect union"? Maybe we just take over this little operation. Then again, the state of Texas still has the right to split into two parts, one remaining a part of the US, the other becoming an independant nation. I hate Texas, but anything's better than this dump.
be seeing you,
Doc
Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games.
Holy cow! These guys really are smart. I think they must have been talking to my mom.
Maybe I'm just an anarchist at heart, but something about this call for external regulation be it by the government or any other exclusive group, scares me. It smacks of the early days of radio and the formation of the FCC.
Radio and the Internet trace their origins back to their original "invention" and use as media for the military. Radio and the Internet both grew into playgrounds for the savvy individuals as hardware and know-how became more accessible. Radio and the Internet both began to attract a larger audience as hardware became cheaper and know-how became less integral to the end user experience. Radio and Internet became the focal point for social concerns over decency. In radio's case this took the form of the "7 words". The Internet had its Communications Decency Act.
Soon after widespread use of radio began, the FCC was formed to regulate who had the power to transmit. Soon, only the privileged few who could afford government license had the right to transmit to the general public. (True HAM radio and CB are the exception, but neither reach the majority of radio listeners.)
The Internet has yet to evolve to the point where government license is necessary to provide content over it, but it is the next step in its development. Allowing the government any stake in the Internet is too much as it gets their foot in the door. Once they can enforce social contracts on the Internet, who's to say what we will need them to enforce next?
The origins and paths of both the Internet and radio are strikingly similar. If we (the Internet community in general) aren't careful, the destination could be the same as well.
Be seeing you.
JG
You know, the anarchists, no really they're anarchists, who started the WTO riots are based in Oregon.
It would be interesting to see if they are the ones getting the FBI's attention. If they did it, then they have to be one of the coolest anarchist groups I've ever seen in the US. Then again, if they didn't, the FBI may use it as an opportunity to get the people they couldn't after the WTO riot.
be seeing you,
doc
I'm no MS advocate. In fact, narry a day goes buy that I don't wish evil thhings of MS and all of its employees.
However, I must say that I have been using Win2K for about a month now and I have had fewer OS related problems with the out-of-the-box version of this OS than I had with the patched and upgraded versions of NT 4 and 98.
This means one of two things, either 98 and NT had far more "bugs" which is entirely possible, or, the 65,000 "bugs" are so minor and unnoticable on the user end that they may as well not be there. For example, they may consider redundant interrupt requests on startup a bug, but this happens so quickly and has no effect once the system has started. They may also consider problems with the provided drivers to be "bugs" as well and, though I hate to say it, these kinds of bugs cannot always be blamed on MS as many of these drivers are provided by the hardware companies. For example, I know for a fact that there are problems with the Initio SCSI controller driver provided with the OS.
So, despite the abundance of "bugs" in the Win2K OS, I'll still take it over 98 or NT 4.
All this talk of MS OSes is making me sick.
LINUX ROCKS!!!!
That's better.
be seeing you,
doc
I find it interesting, to no end, that a column concerning flaming and its inevitable and necessary existence on the Internet while at the same time chides what are agreeably some of the stupidest flames still attracts fire.
Tell me something, what could one say without attracting flames?
An obvious choice might be something clearly geeky, like "Linux Rules!!!" However, try it and you're sure to get massive feedback from the BSD freaks.
Hell, now I'm going to feedback from the BSD freaks.
So, what could I or anyone say in an online forum that would not attract fire?
If MTV preserves its "Real World" legacy through an apocalypse, what's the point of causing one in the first place?
About 25% of online orders I have made have been delivered on time, but in the wrong quantities. CDW routinely sends me twice what I ordered, while only billing me for what I asked for. A friend of mine bought a computer at Onsale, paid for one computer, was delivered three computers. At this rate, they'll fix the problems or go out of business.