Well, too bad that I am a native of a socialist welfare society up in the northern Europe so the buzzword "Communism" doesn't work for me. I've seen how a welfare society works well and I'm happy to pay a 48% income tax.
How is that fair?
You seem to be under the impression that all the tax money goes to people who refuse to work (which is perfectly OK in my book, too). That's plain wrong.
The bulk of a society's tax money goes into strategic infrastructure ventures such as railroads, roads and air-traffic as well as general welfare meaning healthcare, rescue services, public defence (courts) and education. I'm sure you can appreciate these. Only a minority goes to projects you describe.
When you see it in this light, it's perfectly fair.
I don't see how denying transportation, health care, legal representation or security just because you can't afford to pay for is anything else than barbaric. The society's primary function is to protect the weak. Actually, if you can afford all the services of the society why don't you leave it? No taxes but no services. Have fun hiring your own cops, fire-department and so on.
anyone who excels at something is immediately beaten down
I'm European, a native of a Scandinavian country although I travel a lot around EU with my work these days. I am internationally recognized in my field of science and well off. I'm happy to pay 48% of my salary as a tax. I'm doing just fine with what's left.
The people who gripe the most about getting "beaten down" seem to have an idea that they should be allowed to get as filthy rich as they can at the expense of the others ("well, if they can't/choose not to compete with me they deserve to be poor"). That's just plain wrong. Wealth must be shared. Freeloaders are a minority, after all. The bulk of the tax money goes to health care, public transportation and general infrastructure.
On the other hand there was a recent study, which I think was on Slashdot as well, that pointed out that the scientific brilliance of men wanes if they get married.
Ok, whatever. You'll see things differently when you grow up and move out of your parent's place.
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
*cough* so the single parent families are screwed, then?
You'd be surprised how much irrational ill-will there is towards single parents, mothers in particular, even in the highly educated, nominally liberal and well-off classes of the society.
Even today a woman who breaks up with her husband and gets the custody of the children is a pariah. It doesn't matter if her husband was a no-good drunk or a drug addict. She still shouldn't have broken up the family and by golly she should be punished for it. I have heard my friends with university education and generally liberal worldview spout such misogynist crap about single mothers that I could hardly believe it: "They're not fit mothers because they left their man. Let them manage on their own. No support from the society."
Its PC to elevate the idiots and lazy a$$'s to the average persons status thereby letting them reproduce and completely f()king over evolution and survival of the fittest.
Giving these PEOPLE a chance is moral and morality is something that makes us human and not just animals.
It's rather sad that you think that the humankind should conform to the "evolution and survival of the fittest". We're well beyond that with all the advances in medicine and the invention of laws. Once we master space colonization and genetical manipulation we'll finally be able to take full control over our own destiny. Survival of the fittest is a relic: evolution crawls towards imperfection.
"Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy... heh heh... At the bottom of ah... some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided."
The box would have to be read in front of the judge, never before, and be verified by an independant 3rd party for me to trust that the police didn't tamper with the information.
I am going slow enough compared to the regular traffic that I am a HAZARD.
Oh, come on!
"If I don't carry an illegal gun, then I'm a HAZARD because I can't respond to the other people who break the law by carrying a gun and who might pull one on me or my friends".
Breaking the law just because everybody else is doing it is just a recipe for disaster.
You know there is an error in the reading of your speedometer. As an engineer, I tend to be conservative and therefore I typically estimate the error as 10%. Therefore, a proper worst-case scenario speed would be 59. If you get ticketed for that, THEN you'd have a complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, EU's Galileo-project is not on hold but active particularly now that the Chinese wish to become partners in it.
A perfect tool for producing ediocre text.
US military did squat to protect us in the WWII or in the Cold War.
It was just refreshing to have another, completely unexpected point of view presented to me so suddenly.
Now that you mention the fascists' valid predictions, I'd be happy to hear more about them.
That was definition of nothingness I felt comfortable with as a physicist.
The people who don't pay taxes and benefit from my tax money are an insignificant minority. I don't have a problem keeping them up.
That was an insightful observation. Truly a gem on Slashdot. I hope you get modded up for it.
I read the parent's post, agreed with it fully and then, as a socialist, got slapped in the face by yours. Again, an excellent observation.
Well, too bad that I am a native of a socialist welfare society up in the northern Europe so the buzzword "Communism" doesn't work for me. I've seen how a welfare society works well and I'm happy to pay a 48% income tax.
How is that fair?
You seem to be under the impression that all the tax money goes to people who refuse to work (which is perfectly OK in my book, too). That's plain wrong.
The bulk of a society's tax money goes into strategic infrastructure ventures such as railroads, roads and air-traffic as well as general welfare meaning healthcare, rescue services, public defence (courts) and education. I'm sure you can appreciate these. Only a minority goes to projects you describe.
When you see it in this light, it's perfectly fair.
I don't see how denying transportation, health care, legal representation or security just because you can't afford to pay for is anything else than barbaric. The society's primary function is to protect the weak. Actually, if you can afford all the services of the society why don't you leave it? No taxes but no services. Have fun hiring your own cops, fire-department and so on.
I'm European, a native of a Scandinavian country although I travel a lot around EU with my work these days. I am internationally recognized in my field of science and well off. I'm happy to pay 48% of my salary as a tax. I'm doing just fine with what's left.
The people who gripe the most about getting "beaten down" seem to have an idea that they should be allowed to get as filthy rich as they can at the expense of the others ("well, if they can't/choose not to compete with me they deserve to be poor"). That's just plain wrong. Wealth must be shared. Freeloaders are a minority, after all. The bulk of the tax money goes to health care, public transportation and general infrastructure.
What's your gripe? Can't get filthy rich? Oh, boy, I wish I had that kind of problems.
On the other hand there was a recent study, which I think was on Slashdot as well, that pointed out that the scientific brilliance of men wanes if they get married.
Ok, whatever. You'll see things differently when you grow up and move out of your parent's place.
You'd be surprised how much irrational ill-will there is towards single parents, mothers in particular, even in the highly educated, nominally liberal and well-off classes of the society.
Even today a woman who breaks up with her husband and gets the custody of the children is a pariah. It doesn't matter if her husband was a no-good drunk or a drug addict. She still shouldn't have broken up the family and by golly she should be punished for it. I have heard my friends with university education and generally liberal worldview spout such misogynist crap about single mothers that I could hardly believe it: "They're not fit mothers because they left their man. Let them manage on their own. No support from the society."
Giving these PEOPLE a chance is moral and morality is something that makes us human and not just animals.
It's rather sad that you think that the humankind should conform to the "evolution and survival of the fittest". We're well beyond that with all the advances in medicine and the invention of laws. Once we master space colonization and genetical manipulation we'll finally be able to take full control over our own destiny. Survival of the fittest is a relic: evolution crawls towards imperfection.
"Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy... heh heh... At the bottom of ah... some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided."
Nothingness is something you can never, under any conditions interact with.
I thought the classificatons ran only up to 9.
Please, stop hurting my inner child! Think more positively.
Which most people are not.
Anyway, care to link to this "common knowledge"?
So, you think speeding is your inalienable right? What a load of bollocks...
Yet, you'd trust the ballistic experts on a gun?
Oh, come on!
"If I don't carry an illegal gun, then I'm a HAZARD because I can't respond to the other people who break the law by carrying a gun and who might pull one on me or my friends".
Breaking the law just because everybody else is doing it is just a recipe for disaster.
You know there is an error in the reading of your speedometer. As an engineer, I tend to be conservative and therefore I typically estimate the error as 10%. Therefore, a proper worst-case scenario speed would be 59. If you get ticketed for that, THEN you'd have a complaint.
You don't have to drive. It's a privilege, not a right.
What business did you have driving at 63 in 65 zone?