Why is the myelin deteriorating? Has this deterioration been observed for the last couple centuries, or is it a recent occurrence? Are people known to have had such neural disorders (I'm guessing Alzheimer's is an example) long ago?
So instead of the term diebold catching on as a perjorative, we're going to have to say something like "Damn, Hewlett
Packard has pulled a real Pratt & Whitney, Otis Elevator and Sikorsky Aircraft on the public!"
Not necessarily. I've no problem with voluntary taxation. Do you think that a toll road where you pay for your driving directly is any different from a road paid for through your taxes? The only difference is the your rights have only be upheld in one of these situations.
Ahh, so instead of companies willingly funding this research, we have the government stealing money at gunpoint from its own citizens. And you call that less evil?
"The term "cancer sticks" was first used in the 1800's."
What is your source for this? The first source listed in OED for "cancer stick" is from 1959. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says it's from the 1950s. Google Books shows nothing to support your claim either.
Except you need to read the article to realize that the actual situation has no relation to your analysis. They are not using cell phones. The people phoning in tips have the cell phones, and the Taliban doesn't want them phoning in tips while they're doing their raids.
*POOF* (your insight, disappearing in a puff of smoke)
"Do you deny that we have corresponding obligations to the society at large that ensures those rights as best as it is able, which ironically necessitates to some degree the curtailment of said rights?"
Yes, I do, to the extent of the current system's waste. The proper role of the government is to uphold the rights of its citizens through the police, military, and courts... and that's it. Taxation should be limited only to those services. Ideally, taxation would be voluntary, and people would and should be willing to support the system which protects them. I would voluntarily help support such a system, and would even avoid giving my services or money to people who admittedly refuse to volunteer their support for that system. This current system of forced payment to bloated services unrelated to supporting rights has the negative effect of turning people against their own government. People hate the government, and distrust politicians. I can't see that happening in a voluntarily-supported system of individuals championing our rights. Would you agree or disagree?
"You don't like paying taxes, fine"
No, I'm fine with paying taxes if they are limited to supporting my rights and the rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. Were it a voluntary taxation system, I would gladly hand over my money for these services simply because I may need them in the future, just as I pay health and car insurance in case of emergencies. I think for now, striving to reduce the current forced-taxation system to the roles for which it was created is the best option. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the wrong direction.
"find some place with a social contract that either allows you to freeload"
It is the current system that allows people to freeload and be unproductive. The only way politicians get elected anymore is to promise the public that they will get some cut of other people's income, whether it is through "tax rebates" funded by deficit spending (ie, "get free money now at the expense of having to give it back later"), or increased welfare or medical benefits, or the latest craze, publicly-funded healthcare, which is sure to send the debt into overdrive.
"or doesn't provide any services."
Why must you pay the government for services that can ideally be provided at lesser expense directly to you by competing individuals within your own community. Not only do you keep your money more local that way (thus directly seeing the benefits of your own productivity in every aspect of your life), but you will keep the cost reduced for everyone, thus permitting those with lower income to be able to afford such services. Best of all, it is not immoral and does not violate yours or your family's rights.
"You won't find one in any functional society. Go figure."
Any society which does not uphold the rights of its citizens first and foremost is by definition dysfunctional and immoral. That you should find more or fewer such societies at a given time in the world does not necessarily say anything except about the number of power-hungry vultures and freeloaders that are thriving at that time.
"Justice holds a balance for a reason, and it's not just because the ancient Greeks hadn't invented the digital scale yet."
The scales of justice are for weighing the support for and against a specific case of rights-violation. All of the other symbols depicted reference the requirement that justice be blind to bias or prejudice, and judge a case objectively without regard for an individual's social or political class, strengths, or weaknesses (blindfold); and that the case be judged entirely on reason, regardless of the outcome (double-edged sword). If you meant something else by your statement, please clarify.
Here's a nice quote from a famous fictional man regarding Justice:
"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men
I'm fine with my bills. I'm even fine with a voluntary taxation system. I think if someone wants to donate their money to a cause, they should be free to do so. What I am not fine with is the plurality taking away my fundamental rights. Do you deny that we have such rights? Individual rights are the fundamental moral principle when men deal with one another. The majority may not --morally -- trample the rights of the minority or the individual. Democracy, to the extent it is good, is only good as good as its ability to protect individual rights.
Try refusing to pay taxes and see how fast they whip out the weapons. Just because they're gentle about it at first doesn't means it's any less forced.
"Do you vote? if you do, you have opted-in to the system where a plurality of voters pick representatives who determine government policy. Or you don't vote, because you feel that the system is a terrible, violent, mess that oppresses you. You have freedom of movement, so you should travel to a place where such awful things as apportioning a piece of your money for joint efforts doesn't happen."
Are you suggesting I am not allowed to complain about the current system in the hopes to sway public attitude? That is precisely what my original post was meant as. I will remain and I will complain, and I will continue to wonder at this desire to force everyone to be brought to the point where they have to give up their life and move to another country to avoid prison, simply for exercising certain inalienable rights.
If gangs started roaming around your neighborhood stealing your property, and you called the police to describe the situation, what would you do if the police said, "move if you don't like it." Now what if it was the police doing the theft. Now what if it was the government doing the theft, and they had written laws to make their theft legal? In every situation, your rights are being violated, regardless of how much they dress it up.
"It's not like they're part of the public that becomes more or less willing support funding for NSF or NASA grants, for instance."
Don't get me wrong, I think the insights from Hubble have been great, but saying that people are willing to fund NASA when the funding is obtained at gunpoint is not convincing. Now if taxation were voluntary, I might believe it. As it stands, I was born, and to survive, I need to work, but in the current system, 10 hours out of 40 a week are worked at gunpoint, and the fruits of my labor are sent to an abyss out of my control. Why am I punished for being born?
"would there be an audible lag time for calls like this?"
Nope, the article says any lag time would fall either below 20 or above 20,000 Hz. If you were trying to talk to fido, he might notice a delay, however.
I hate to be a pestiferous virago and contradict your amative mien, but in my opinion the aberrant misspelling of said "word of the day" was not copacetic. It may be ineffectual, but some day I hope to overcome this perdurable ennui...
And when the entire class does not give a sh*t about even going to school, the ones with potential get nowhere and become demotivated. Switch to private education and help those who want to be helped; stop teaching the attitude that progress requires no effort from those meant to progress.
"Think about your private insurance company and how helpful they were the last time you called."
If you are unhappy with your insurance you can switch. There are plenty of choices, either large companies or small local companies. Now if government disconnected itself from money, companies would not have the ability to manipulate people the way they currently and so easily can. The problems you are likely speaking of are a result of just such a manipulation.
"I don't know about you, but I willingly work 10 hours of my week for public police, fire, and roads."
So we are in agreement that voluntary taxation is fine. Now what about forced taxation? You willingly demand everyone else to hand over 10 hours of their week for your services, when you could be paying a private company for the exact same services? What right do you have to demand this of others or endorse a government that does so?
"Not least because private organizations of that type would cost me 20 hours a week and make me sign a waiver and wait on hold with my insurance company for pre-authorization before they started hosing my burning house down."
If you could cite an example of this among the fire brigades of the past, or among currently existing fire brigades, I would accept it as a possibility. Has it not occurred to you that those papers you are signing, and those delays you are experiencing, are a direct result of government intervention and control? Try reading those papers sometime.
"it just really is better than the alternatives."
You're assuming that the present examples of "the alternatives" are somehow examples separated from government. Government is wasteful, corrupt, mis-managed, true, and it shows in private industry.
"I'd actually rather work the extra two hours of a day for my country & have more money in my pocket."
And that would be your choice. So we are in agreement that voluntary taxation is alright. Now what about forced taxation?
"Libertarianism is an interesting model, but until some first world country adopts it, I'm not sure how you can claim that the understanding adopted by successful countries is "flawed.""
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
"Every first world nation funds science & the only way for the US to remain defensively and economically competitive is to do the same."
On what rationale is this catastrophic prediction based?
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds sort of like the huge heart disease death "epidemic" that occurred when they added heart disease as a choice for cause of death.
Why is the myelin deteriorating? Has this deterioration been observed for the last couple centuries, or is it a recent occurrence? Are people known to have had such neural disorders (I'm guessing Alzheimer's is an example) long ago?
So instead of the term diebold catching on as a perjorative, we're going to have to say something like "Damn, Hewlett Packard has pulled a real Pratt & Whitney, Otis Elevator and Sikorsky Aircraft on the public!"
To clarify, only the first 9 songs are available for free. The rest are still available a price well below what you could get anywhere legal.
Not necessarily. I've no problem with voluntary taxation. Do you think that a toll road where you pay for your driving directly is any different from a road paid for through your taxes? The only difference is the your rights have only be upheld in one of these situations.
Ahh, so instead of companies willingly funding this research, we have the government stealing money at gunpoint from its own citizens. And you call that less evil?
"The term "cancer sticks" was first used in the 1800's."
What is your source for this? The first source listed in OED for "cancer stick" is from 1959. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says it's from the 1950s. Google Books shows nothing to support your claim either.
Stuff that's 2 years old...
"Filmed Feb 2006; Posted Feb 2007"
Except you need to read the article to realize that the actual situation has no relation to your analysis. They are not using cell phones. The people phoning in tips have the cell phones, and the Taliban doesn't want them phoning in tips while they're doing their raids.
*POOF* (your insight, disappearing in a puff of smoke)
It's interesting that a compound normally used in dyes is now being use to prevent stains.
How long until Amazon OS is released?
"Do you deny that we have corresponding obligations to the society at large that ensures those rights as best as it is able, which ironically necessitates to some degree the curtailment of said rights?"
Yes, I do, to the extent of the current system's waste. The proper role of the government is to uphold the rights of its citizens through the police, military, and courts... and that's it. Taxation should be limited only to those services. Ideally, taxation would be voluntary, and people would and should be willing to support the system which protects them. I would voluntarily help support such a system, and would even avoid giving my services or money to people who admittedly refuse to volunteer their support for that system. This current system of forced payment to bloated services unrelated to supporting rights has the negative effect of turning people against their own government. People hate the government, and distrust politicians. I can't see that happening in a voluntarily-supported system of individuals championing our rights. Would you agree or disagree?
"You don't like paying taxes, fine"
No, I'm fine with paying taxes if they are limited to supporting my rights and the rights of my neighbors and fellow citizens. Were it a voluntary taxation system, I would gladly hand over my money for these services simply because I may need them in the future, just as I pay health and car insurance in case of emergencies. I think for now, striving to reduce the current forced-taxation system to the roles for which it was created is the best option. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the wrong direction.
"find some place with a social contract that either allows you to freeload"
It is the current system that allows people to freeload and be unproductive. The only way politicians get elected anymore is to promise the public that they will get some cut of other people's income, whether it is through "tax rebates" funded by deficit spending (ie, "get free money now at the expense of having to give it back later"), or increased welfare or medical benefits, or the latest craze, publicly-funded healthcare, which is sure to send the debt into overdrive.
"or doesn't provide any services."
Why must you pay the government for services that can ideally be provided at lesser expense directly to you by competing individuals within your own community. Not only do you keep your money more local that way (thus directly seeing the benefits of your own productivity in every aspect of your life), but you will keep the cost reduced for everyone, thus permitting those with lower income to be able to afford such services. Best of all, it is not immoral and does not violate yours or your family's rights.
"You won't find one in any functional society. Go figure."
Any society which does not uphold the rights of its citizens first and foremost is by definition dysfunctional and immoral. That you should find more or fewer such societies at a given time in the world does not necessarily say anything except about the number of power-hungry vultures and freeloaders that are thriving at that time.
"Justice holds a balance for a reason, and it's not just because the ancient Greeks hadn't invented the digital scale yet."
The scales of justice are for weighing the support for and against a specific case of rights-violation. All of the other symbols depicted reference the requirement that justice be blind to bias or prejudice, and judge a case objectively without regard for an individual's social or political class, strengths, or weaknesses (blindfold); and that the case be judged entirely on reason, regardless of the outcome (double-edged sword). If you meant something else by your statement, please clarify.
Here's a nice quote from a famous fictional man regarding Justice:
"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men
"You just don't like to pay your bills."
I'm fine with my bills. I'm even fine with a voluntary taxation system. I think if someone wants to donate their money to a cause, they should be free to do so. What I am not fine with is the plurality taking away my fundamental rights. Do you deny that we have such rights? Individual rights are the fundamental moral principle when men deal with one another. The majority may not --morally -- trample the rights of the minority or the individual. Democracy, to the extent it is good, is only good as good as its ability to protect individual rights.
"Gunpoint. Right."
Try refusing to pay taxes and see how fast they whip out the weapons. Just because they're gentle about it at first doesn't means it's any less forced.
"Do you vote? if you do, you have opted-in to the system where a plurality of voters pick representatives who determine government policy. Or you don't vote, because you feel that the system is a terrible, violent, mess that oppresses you. You have freedom of movement, so you should travel to a place where such awful things as apportioning a piece of your money for joint efforts doesn't happen."
Are you suggesting I am not allowed to complain about the current system in the hopes to sway public attitude? That is precisely what my original post was meant as. I will remain and I will complain, and I will continue to wonder at this desire to force everyone to be brought to the point where they have to give up their life and move to another country to avoid prison, simply for exercising certain inalienable rights.
If gangs started roaming around your neighborhood stealing your property, and you called the police to describe the situation, what would you do if the police said, "move if you don't like it." Now what if it was the police doing the theft. Now what if it was the government doing the theft, and they had written laws to make their theft legal? In every situation, your rights are being violated, regardless of how much they dress it up.
"It's not like they're part of the public that becomes more or less willing support funding for NSF or NASA grants, for instance."
Don't get me wrong, I think the insights from Hubble have been great, but saying that people are willing to fund NASA when the funding is obtained at gunpoint is not convincing. Now if taxation were voluntary, I might believe it. As it stands, I was born, and to survive, I need to work, but in the current system, 10 hours out of 40 a week are worked at gunpoint, and the fruits of my labor are sent to an abyss out of my control. Why am I punished for being born?
Thank Wikipedia's source, NASA, for that one.
"Holy crap, that's a joke people"
Yeesh, with the Interesting and Insightful tags I was starting to think I had unlearned all those years of fine-tuning my sarcastic wit.
"would there be an audible lag time for calls like this?"
Nope, the article says any lag time would fall either below 20 or above 20,000 Hz. If you were trying to talk to fido, he might notice a delay, however.
Sprint isn't that bad.. I mean, I use it for everything I do online and I've ne#^%^#$&$^#&^$ NO CARRIER
With the internets, anything is possible.
I hate to be a pestiferous virago and contradict your amative mien, but in my opinion the aberrant misspelling of said "word of the day" was not copacetic. It may be ineffectual, but some day I hope to overcome this perdurable ennui...
And when the entire class does not give a sh*t about even going to school, the ones with potential get nowhere and become demotivated. Switch to private education and help those who want to be helped; stop teaching the attitude that progress requires no effort from those meant to progress.
"Think about your private insurance company and how helpful they were the last time you called."
If you are unhappy with your insurance you can switch. There are plenty of choices, either large companies or small local companies. Now if government disconnected itself from money, companies would not have the ability to manipulate people the way they currently and so easily can. The problems you are likely speaking of are a result of just such a manipulation.
"I don't know about you, but I willingly work 10 hours of my week for public police, fire, and roads."
So we are in agreement that voluntary taxation is fine. Now what about forced taxation? You willingly demand everyone else to hand over 10 hours of their week for your services, when you could be paying a private company for the exact same services? What right do you have to demand this of others or endorse a government that does so?
"Not least because private organizations of that type would cost me 20 hours a week and make me sign a waiver and wait on hold with my insurance company for pre-authorization before they started hosing my burning house down."
If you could cite an example of this among the fire brigades of the past, or among currently existing fire brigades, I would accept it as a possibility. Has it not occurred to you that those papers you are signing, and those delays you are experiencing, are a direct result of government intervention and control? Try reading those papers sometime.
"it just really is better than the alternatives."
You're assuming that the present examples of "the alternatives" are somehow examples separated from government. Government is wasteful, corrupt, mis-managed, true, and it shows in private industry.
"I'd actually rather work the extra two hours of a day for my country & have more money in my pocket."
And that would be your choice. So we are in agreement that voluntary taxation is alright. Now what about forced taxation?
"Libertarianism is an interesting model, but until some first world country adopts it, I'm not sure how you can claim that the understanding adopted by successful countries is "flawed.""
Who is advocating libertarianism?
Advances in scientific understanding can be profitable in their own right. Universities have a definite interest in attracting the best and brightest, and one way to do this is through being at the cutting edge of scientific understanding. Have a bunch of professors who are Nobel laureates is bound to be profitable, and only scientists shaping fundamental understanding are capable of getting Nobel prizes, right? Funding can be acquired through loans, tuition fees, and donation. If a specific research project gets too expensive, this can be alleviated by teaming up with multiple universities.
"Every first world nation funds science & the only way for the US to remain defensively and economically competitive is to do the same."
On what rationale is this catastrophic prediction based?