I thought about that approach but ended up rejecting it on the grounds that I think it, like our current system, places an undue burden on small/starting businesses, and in light of recent activities, I think it is a bad idea to allow the IRS to continue being involved in the process at any level other than simply what is spent. Let them stay in payroll systems and you're still going to have the government dictating how and in what programs one may place the funds they have earmarked for retirement.
That's at the beginning of the sentence. Are you using big-L Libertarian, as in the party, or small-L libertarian, as in the political philosophy? There is such a large difference between the two that I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I used a small-L quite on purpose.
Nonprofit status in general is a tax dodge. It's one of the many reasons people use them. The real question is, why haven't we switched to a consumption tax to divest the IRS's ability to actually abuse their power to this extent?
Google Voice is what it is. It's not a replacement for your phone, and it's not a real instant messaging platform. It won't get support from vendors until Google decides what kind of beast it is, or what it will be merged with.
google+, hangouts, google wave, google reader's lost social functions, and so on...there's no reason to develop for it because nobody knows what its future holds, including both its existence and its compatibility with whatever features they build it on.
They probably know that people with libertarian/anti-authoritarian views gravitate towards such things, much like how they tend also to support groups like the EFF. To the federal government, that's not much better than being a member of Al Qaeda...
The sheer quantity of fallacies you're using is simply astounding. That's a pointless quagmire I'm simply not going to wade into. I'm going to have to simply dismiss you without rebuttal and let the posts speak for themselves.
Nonsense. Going to prison for reporting that the government is flagrantly violating the rights of its citizens under its own law is pointless, particularly when the process involved would likely be outside the public eye. The whole point Snowden's information release was to bring information to the public eye was to expose the corruption going on in secret. Only a fool would recognize that corruption going on in secret behind the guise of "national security" and then just hand himself over to the government to do as they please with him in secret.
The difference between Snowden's situation and, say, Martin Luther King, is that Dr. King could enjoy the protections afforded in a public, on-the-record environment in his legal proceedings. Snowden, on the other hand, would basically disappear with no public record.
I do care about the history of codebreaking, but it doesn't mean i'm going to trust the NSA to tell me the truth about it. Which is why I'm focusing more on their fourth amendment violations instead. And, of course, the potential repercussions the same violations are liable to have on our rights to free association, since apparently we can now be surveiled on the grounds of where a friend of a friend of a friend ordered pizza from that may have had a foreign national working there.
i've been saying it since 9/11. there's literally no such thing. It's a red herring, always has been. A way of conveniently labeling people to brand them as enemies. This is just one example in a long line of examples.
That's how it works these days. I've been uncomfortable with it ever since I was on a bus in early 2001 (pre-9/11) in the Phoenix area and the Border Patrol or INS or whatever it was came through the bus asking if each of us was born in the United States. I briefly contemplated requesting a warrant and exercising my right to remain silent, but decided it would end badly.
The difficulty is going to be finding a plaintiff who can make a significant enough case to actually get it into court and take it to high enough levels without setting a bad precedent.
Icebike, I like what you're saying here, but you have to bear in mind that there is a clause in Godwin's Law that exempts certain applicable circumstances.
The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.
That said, you are 100% correct about 9/11 having nothing to do with giving up liberty for safety. That is and always has been a bad argument that far too many people have accepted at face value.
Given the scale of most modern programs' codebase, good luck actually reviewing the code meaningfully in the first place. That said, if you're really that concerned about the code matching the source, run a source-based distro like Gentoo or Funtoo. For most practical purposes, though, users find binary distributions like Debian/Ubuntu or the various Red Hat-based systems to be more effective in regards to their time.
By your logic, we shouldn't fight back against burglars, since they could be worse, raping and murdering instead of just burgling. And if they move in and take over your finances and tell you how to run your household, hey, at least they're not raping and murdering you.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought about that approach but ended up rejecting it on the grounds that I think it, like our current system, places an undue burden on small/starting businesses, and in light of recent activities, I think it is a bad idea to allow the IRS to continue being involved in the process at any level other than simply what is spent. Let them stay in payroll systems and you're still going to have the government dictating how and in what programs one may place the funds they have earmarked for retirement.
Sort of. Not at the national level, but many states do implement sales taxes, as well as local governments.
They can. But it doesn't change the fact that the IRS does as well, especially those they target.
Personally, I support the FairTax proposal, which has mechanisms to alleviate the impact it would have on those of lesser means.
That's at the beginning of the sentence. Are you using big-L Libertarian, as in the party, or small-L libertarian, as in the political philosophy? There is such a large difference between the two that I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I used a small-L quite on purpose.
Nonprofit status in general is a tax dodge. It's one of the many reasons people use them. The real question is, why haven't we switched to a consumption tax to divest the IRS's ability to actually abuse their power to this extent?
Google Voice is what it is. It's not a replacement for your phone, and it's not a real instant messaging platform. It won't get support from vendors until Google decides what kind of beast it is, or what it will be merged with.
google+, hangouts, google wave, google reader's lost social functions, and so on...there's no reason to develop for it because nobody knows what its future holds, including both its existence and its compatibility with whatever features they build it on.
They probably know that people with libertarian/anti-authoritarian views gravitate towards such things, much like how they tend also to support groups like the EFF. To the federal government, that's not much better than being a member of Al Qaeda...
I can assure them with confidence that the NSA knows which rock they live under.
The sheer quantity of fallacies you're using is simply astounding. That's a pointless quagmire I'm simply not going to wade into. I'm going to have to simply dismiss you without rebuttal and let the posts speak for themselves.
the funny thing about symbolic language is that it's vital for people to examine it and call bullshit on it when necessary.
Nonsense. Going to prison for reporting that the government is flagrantly violating the rights of its citizens under its own law is pointless, particularly when the process involved would likely be outside the public eye. The whole point Snowden's information release was to bring information to the public eye was to expose the corruption going on in secret. Only a fool would recognize that corruption going on in secret behind the guise of "national security" and then just hand himself over to the government to do as they please with him in secret.
The difference between Snowden's situation and, say, Martin Luther King, is that Dr. King could enjoy the protections afforded in a public, on-the-record environment in his legal proceedings. Snowden, on the other hand, would basically disappear with no public record.
...you should see the laundry list of constitutional violations that the NSA should be charged with. And that's just the ones that have been leaked.
I do care about the history of codebreaking, but it doesn't mean i'm going to trust the NSA to tell me the truth about it. Which is why I'm focusing more on their fourth amendment violations instead. And, of course, the potential repercussions the same violations are liable to have on our rights to free association, since apparently we can now be surveiled on the grounds of where a friend of a friend of a friend ordered pizza from that may have had a foreign national working there.
i've been saying it since 9/11. there's literally no such thing. It's a red herring, always has been. A way of conveniently labeling people to brand them as enemies. This is just one example in a long line of examples.
We certainly do have our disagreements. I think the UN should be abolished, and you think they should be more powerful.
That's how it works these days. I've been uncomfortable with it ever since I was on a bus in early 2001 (pre-9/11) in the Phoenix area and the Border Patrol or INS or whatever it was came through the bus asking if each of us was born in the United States. I briefly contemplated requesting a warrant and exercising my right to remain silent, but decided it would end badly.
The difficulty is going to be finding a plaintiff who can make a significant enough case to actually get it into court and take it to high enough levels without setting a bad precedent.
That said, you are 100% correct about 9/11 having nothing to do with giving up liberty for safety. That is and always has been a bad argument that far too many people have accepted at face value.
...to kill all the lawyers, I think we should make an exception for Mr, Kaplitt.
No, I've got a GBA and a DS, like any good Pokétard. Doesn't mean I've bought more than a small number of cartridges in the past few years.
Cartridge sales are extremely low, but that has nothing to do with PS3/4 or the Xbox family.
See, that's fine and well. But that's not what OP was referring to, nor is it what I was addressing.
So now you're arguing that the UN are like militarized police? I'm not sure you're helping your argument if you are trying to disagree with me.
Given the scale of most modern programs' codebase, good luck actually reviewing the code meaningfully in the first place. That said, if you're really that concerned about the code matching the source, run a source-based distro like Gentoo or Funtoo. For most practical purposes, though, users find binary distributions like Debian/Ubuntu or the various Red Hat-based systems to be more effective in regards to their time.
By your logic, we shouldn't fight back against burglars, since they could be worse, raping and murdering instead of just burgling. And if they move in and take over your finances and tell you how to run your household, hey, at least they're not raping and murdering you.