"It's too complicated and expensive for government to perform mass data collection & tracking if they have to deal with thousands of small mom-&-pop ISPs."
Yes, that's why the push for regulatory barriers happened in the first place. I'm not saying it *will* be undone, just that it *could* be.
Why is it not possible to break the monopolies? Just stop treating ISPs as utilities, lower the artificial barriers to entry, and we'll have an explosion of local ISPs just like we had back in the old days, before we erected a regulatory wall to stop mom-and-pop internet providers and force us into these monopolies.
This is a common misconception - frogs don't stay in boiling water, even if it's heated slowly. The only time that a frog will not jump out of even a slowly-heated pot is when the sides are too steep. I guess frogs are smarter than humans, in a lot of ways.
Yes, so they can put in 30 or 40 500k flash ads that change hourly so you can't cache them. Great idea! I have a better one: How about they provide the service that they're getting paid to provide? If they can't do it, maybe they should have thought about that before they went and offered it.
Where did the railroads go before government subsidies and intervention? Where the money was.
Why do you need them to go elsewhere? What good is a railroad track to nowhere? Amtrak cannot stay in the black precisely because they don't go where the money is. Is it your contention that constantly bailing out a company because it doesn't follow good business practice anymore is good practice? That's what you get when the government over-regulates an industry.
There is little chance you'd be in a position to start a business without the support of the government
Only because the government regulates and controls everything so tightly. Government did not come before business. King is not the world's oldest profession. Governments would like you to believe that they are essential...however there have been plenty of times in history when people have lived productive lives with no government in sight...even if one existed in name. *MY* business will never be started because of governmental intervention. Governments tend to reward large corporations at the expense of small businesses, and I cannot start a large corporation. Remove the disincentives and you would get a larger number of businesses starting up...like we had before the prevailing corporatist/strong central gov't winds began to blow.
Now, governments may have PAVED roads first...but the roads they paved by and large existed before they were paved and were largely broken in by (in the USA) stagecoach traffic, cattle drives, and settlers. Not government. Even with paved roads and highways, private enterprise built a lot of roads. From http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/transport/how.html:
"Often the responsibility for building a road was passed from the state and federal government to private turnpike companies. Hence, the "turnpike" or toll road: once a company had bid for and built a road, it owned the rights of passage on it."
Hmm, seems like private industry to me...only now, we pay taxes to pay for roads, and then we STILL have to pay tolls to use them. Great improvement. How do people outside municipal or county land have paved roads and/or driveways? Simple. They pay to have them paved. There is NOTHING that our government does that could not be privatized. Not that everything necessarily SHOULD be, but it all COULD be. Then, we might actually have some sort of legal recourse in cases of abuse. It might be tough, but you can fight a company in court and win, at least in theory. You can't even bring suit against the government in many cases, and even if you do, you are asking an employee of the government to be fair in mediating a dispute between you and his/her employer. Yeah, that sounds like it will go well. Finally, private enterprise is responsible for all the products and services which make up our GDP. What does the government actually produce besides debt?
Yes, and some businessmen take subsidies or "get out of tax free" cards or other bribes from the government.
Right, which is one reason I'm for smaller, limited government. I think we're in agreement here that this is bad and should not be encouraged, which is what happens when you encourage the growth of governmental power.
Come back when all the milk and sugar and tobacco subsidies are gone (not to be picking on farmers, I'm sure other industries are as corrupt), when businesses won't accept government bribes to build their factories in a particular place, when private sports team owners don't get the government to pay for their stadiums, when trucking companies don't escape having to pay for the wear and tear their rigs make on the highways.
These are all examples of the problem with expecting government to take care of everything for you. It can't, and all you get by believing it can is surprised when everything crumbles around you.
It's true people game the system
Which is why having fewer systems to game is desirable. It doesn't matter what the system is or why it is in place - people will try to game it if it is there.
(most places these days don't have "food stamps", they have cards like debit cards, so gaming that one is a bit harder)
Texas has those. (I live in Texas.) People get around it very easily. How does it work? Easy as pie is how it works! They get their card filled up for the month, someone takes it and goes to the store and buys whatever they want in allowed items, then pays the supposed beneficiary half to two-thirds the amount in cash. I've never seen anyone using one of these cards have their ID checked. Ever. But if they did scrupulous ID checks, it wouldn't matter, because the person whose name is on the card is involved in the scam and could easily go in with whoever and make the purchase. There's essentially no way to get around this problem.
So let's start at the top with the big ticket offenders and work our way down.
How about we stop feeding in to a system which is so easy to game? Why do we want a strong central government when there are so many regional differences in this country? Why not give the power back to state and local governments so that if you don't like the policies, you actually have a chance to move somewhere else without expatriating? How about we limit the abuses of the ENTIRE system instead of just a few big-ticket offenders? The offenders aren't the underlying problem - people will always try to game the system. The system is the problem. Let's get rid of it.
So government and taxes came before business? You are wrong. Let's look at it this way: Businesses can and have survived without governments. The reverse is not true.
But let's examine your basic premise for a moment. Who built the railroads? The government? Nope. The railroad companies. Who built the first roads? The government? Nope, stagecoach companies and other private businesses. Who built the oil pipelines? Who built the steel processing plants? Who provided the country with electricity? Who built the factories? Government? Nope. The government did not drive the move to specialized service jobs - the industrial revolution did. Time and time again private businesses build something, the government comes in and takes control of it either outright or through regulatory powers, and then claims to be necessary to the thing's existence. It's total BS. We ran better with no strong central government than we have run with one. Yet for some reason, the solution to this problem is a stronger central government? That's like treating alcoholics by giving them free, unlimited booze. It's retarded.
Oh, really? Exactly how does a business operate without: - Use of public roads (shipping, etc.)
Depends on the business. Also, assumes that the Federal government is responsible for all public roads, which is nonsense.
- Use of public utilities
By using private utilities - like in many states.
- Use of land (including right-of-ways)
Not all land is government land - how do businesses work with private property now? By buying or renting or leasing it. Not hard.
- Use of government services
Like what, getting bailed out after behaving incredibly financially irresponsibly? I don't know how businesses should function without that, but I want them to.
- Use of the general public as labor - Use of the general public as customers
Is the general public property of government?
And we're not even touching things like political incentives, enjoying the benefits of having a large military to keep other countries from simply taking their revenue.
Yes, because that's what our large military is used for...
The government secures trade deals that allow businesses to stay competitive, and negotiates treaties so that local business trademarks and technology are stolen elsewhere.
They secure deals that regulate small companies out of business to help large ones. This is not desirable in the long run.
To sum it up, quite frankly businesses owe EVERYTHING to government. Citizens can exist even without a government, corporations can not.
Corporations aren't the only types of businesses.
Just for the record, I really could NOT care LESS about small places cheating the tax-man. Really, there just isn't any give-a-shit in me when a Mom & Pop store squeezes an extra couple of bucks out of Uncle Sam. What DOES bother me, is when I see multi-billion dollar companies (like our local public electric company) have 7 YEARS of completely UNPAID back taxes. Or airlines getting bailed out from bankruptcy, etc.
If something is in theory not objectionable for one group, it should be unobjectionable for all groups, in theory. Large corporations could not get the benefits without the government mugging people through the income tax. Note that I am NOT against taxes - merely against the current tax structure. Income taxes are wrong and are directly analogous to muggings. Excise taxes, import/export taxes, and user fees MAY be wrong, but income taxes ARE wrong. Period.
For most of our country's history, we were able to easily pay for our government with excise taxes, import/export taxes, and user fee taxes. This is not a "society without taxes", it's a "society without a direct income tax." We did not require direct income tax, and indeed fought a war against Britain over a 2% direct income tax. Why were we able to do this? Because people demanded that the government present a balanced budget. This is no longer a requirement, and thus mission creep has caused the "need" for direct income tax. Also, the line item in our national budget for 'we don't know where the money went' is HUGE. Why would I want to give money to an entity which is going to lose or waste it? Just as when I am mugged, my money is lost and there is no benefit to me or society. Unless you can come up with a societal benefit from waste and fraud and plain misconduct to the tune of billions PER YEAR.
Educated work force, power, phone, a military to avoid invasions, and a government to support free trade.
Yes these are very expensive
You mean they WOULD BE very expensive if we had ANY of them.
and roads cost A TON of money.
And aren't even a major part of what tax money goes to, and 0% of the income tax goes to roads.
The government pays verizon to put in your phone lines and subsidizes them to a certain extent.
I don't have a local phone line. Why am I paying for this, then? Shouldn't people who have phone lines pay for them, and people who don't have phone lines NOT pay for them? Oh, right, that would make sense.
It costs $7,000 per year on average for each school aged child to stay in school. Multiple that by 12?
And look at the WONDERFUL education they get for it. Why do we spend more per child than almost every other country but produce far less-educated graduates? And you want to keep supporting this why? Oh, because you've a public school education.
Without electricity, roads, and a workforce that can read and write you are screwed if you own a business.
Government isn't necessary to any of these. Government does not produce things. Private businesses produce things.
Yes taxes are a necessary evil
Begging the question of what KIND of taxes, though. You're assuming that a direct income tax is a necessary evil, when in fact our country survived most of its history without one, falsifying that assumption.
and anyone who uses governmental services needs to pay and corporations need to.
Why not privatize most of them, then? That way, the people who use them will pay for them and the people who don't use them will not pay for them, just like with most things in our life. You wouldn't want money taken out of your check to pay for someone else's Starbucks lattes, right? At least I hope you wouldn't. Don't want government to have so much influence over private business and ability to help corporations screw people over? Hint: the solution is not MORE government influence.
I am conservative myself on this issue but realize its unrealistic to have businesses have a free ride when they use government the most.
This is the fundamental problem. The more government presence, the more regulation, the more byzantine the laws, the better off large companies are and the worse off small companies are. The answer is not more money and power to government, but less. Not more government presence, but less. Not more government micro-management, but less. Look at it this way: The government cannot manage the money they get well enough to avoid a huge deficit. Therefore, we should not keep giving money to the government. Your boss does not give you a raise simply because you've already spent your year's salary in May. That's what we keep doing for the government.
Cheating on taxes is just greed.
Taxes are just greed.
How is it greedy to want to keep the money you worked for? How is that possibly greedy? Wanting to get free money...now THAT is greedy.
People on welfare (Social Security) do go out to eat.
Yes, and some trade food stamps for cash to buy liquor and some fake disabilities and lots of other things that people who are dependent upon others for their survival shouldn't do. There are also people who barely use the system - taking just enough to survive until they can get off it. They sacrifice their own food so their kids can eat. The point is there's a huge gamut of people using this "government money" - and the person coughing it up has NO CONTROL over which type of person receives the benefit. I don't want someone who is taking money from me to survive to be out at restaurants ordering food. That's what people with disposable income do, people who have extra money to waste. But I very much do want to help support those who are actively working to better their situation. The problem is that I can't trust the government to make sure those people get my money. People in this country are extremely giving of the money they have left even after the government takes their share. There is NO valid reason to suppose that these extremely giving people would turn callous and cruel if they had 35% more of the money THEY EARNED. Then, the people who actually worked for the money they're giving away can choose who receives the benefits of their largesse, at least in part. But then we probably wouldn't end up with expensive marine biology research centers in Idaho or farmers getting paid to ruin our economy by growing corn for ethanol, etc. If taxes were 1%, maybe I'd support them, but I'm with the Founding Fathers on this one. You remember them, the guys who fought a whole war and started a whole new country over a raise from 1% to 2% direct income tax. We routinely pay 35-40%, and what kind of return do we get? Negligible. Screw that.
My problem is not with the poster's choice to seek advice. My problem was with the forum chosen and the phrasing of the submission. As I've said before, if you take career advice from strangers on an internet forum, you deserve whatever happens. It's like asking for health advice on an MMO forum.
because sometimes its just nice to hear other people confirm what you are thinking already. Also assuming that just because you are capable of having an ethical dilemma you are also capable of seeing every single option in said ethical dilemma is pure arrogance.
Echo chambers aren't useful unless you like the sound of your own voice. The opinions of random internet forum posters should NOT inform your own for things as important as your career. If you follow career advice from random internet forum posters, you deserve whatever damage to your career which ensues. Also, I did not say that anyone capable of perceiving ANY ethical dilemma should be capable of seeing every option. Just *this* one. So your attempt to strawman me has failed. Please try again. I eagerly await your reply.
Yes, and anyone intelligent enough to have this problem should also realize that it's probably not a bad idea to ask others if they have had experiences with similar situations. I'm guessing you're in no danger having to deal with that.
While you are correct about consulting people, *intelligent* people consult those whom they know, or those whose credentials they can verify. Asking a bunch of random strangers on the internet about what you should do in an employment situation is stupid. As are you. Also, your mom. And, you're a poopie-head.
"Hey Slashdot, look how cool and ethical I am! I have problems with how my company is doing something and I want to "ask" about it even though all of the relevant options are obvious! This is so everyone will know how awesome I am because I don't believe in patents!"
I mean, cool or whatever, but did you really think you were going to get any other answer than, "What's worth more, your job, or your beliefs about software patents?"
Surely anyone intelligent enough to HAVE this dilemma should be able to map out the various options and likely outcomes. At least, just as well as anyone on slashdot can.
I'd rather they didn't even bother him about it. If he blows up his house, well, he should have been more careful. Now, it's possible that he might set his house on fire, sure. However, that might actually not be so bad. For one thing, the average rate of house fires has dropped so low that many firefighters have been reduced to low-grade emt duty (like ferrying people to the hospital in an ambulance because they don't want to take a cab/walk/whatever). There simply aren't that many fires to fight. We're in danger of safing ourselves right out of having firefighters.
However that's really secondary to the main point, which is that neither firefighters nor police actually have the right to tell him what to do in his own home. Whether they do it without the right is another story...but a man's home is his castle and as long as he is not directly interfering with someone's life, liberty, or property, he's fine. What *might* happen doesn't count. Only what actually DOES happen. Which, up to this point, in this man's home, was nothing bad.
Every year, some people abuse pets (as you alluded to above). This means that all pet owners are abusive, by government logic. Therefore, we should make the owning of pets illegal, because a small subsection of pet owners intentionally abuse their pets. Also, some people abuse children. Therefore...yes, it's absurd, isn't it? You shouldn't treat people as criminals until they actually do something wrong.
If you don't know what the answer IS, how do you know what it isn't? What if science is actually a sentient entity which yearns for freedom even as do some of its followers? What if America really is...nah, that one's just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's too complicated and expensive for government to perform mass data collection & tracking if they have to deal with thousands of small mom-&-pop ISPs."
Yes, that's why the push for regulatory barriers happened in the first place. I'm not saying it *will* be undone, just that it *could* be.
Why is it not possible to break the monopolies? Just stop treating ISPs as utilities, lower the artificial barriers to entry, and we'll have an explosion of local ISPs just like we had back in the old days, before we erected a regulatory wall to stop mom-and-pop internet providers and force us into these monopolies.
This is a common misconception - frogs don't stay in boiling water, even if it's heated slowly. The only time that a frog will not jump out of even a slowly-heated pot is when the sides are too steep. I guess frogs are smarter than humans, in a lot of ways.
Depends on what the balloon is made out of, now doesn't it? Where is the video of you performing this experiment, btw? Pics or it didn't happen.
They will in vacuum. Helium is lighter than air. It is not an anti-gravity gas.
Yes, so they can put in 30 or 40 500k flash ads that change hourly so you can't cache them. Great idea! I have a better one: How about they provide the service that they're getting paid to provide? If they can't do it, maybe they should have thought about that before they went and offered it.
Yes. Yes it is.
I hate rhetorical questions.
One other thing in the mugger's favor is that the mugger doesn't interfere with how you earn the money he steals.
True, however one point in the government's favor is that they leave a tiny bit for you to squeeze by on. Usually.
Where did the railroads go before government subsidies and intervention? Where the money was.
Why do you need them to go elsewhere? What good is a railroad track to nowhere? Amtrak cannot stay in the black precisely because they don't go where the money is. Is it your contention that constantly bailing out a company because it doesn't follow good business practice anymore is good practice? That's what you get when the government over-regulates an industry.
There is little chance you'd be in a position to start a business without the support of the government
Only because the government regulates and controls everything so tightly. Government did not come before business. King is not the world's oldest profession. Governments would like you to believe that they are essential...however there have been plenty of times in history when people have lived productive lives with no government in sight...even if one existed in name. *MY* business will never be started because of governmental intervention. Governments tend to reward large corporations at the expense of small businesses, and I cannot start a large corporation. Remove the disincentives and you would get a larger number of businesses starting up...like we had before the prevailing corporatist/strong central gov't winds began to blow.
Now, governments may have PAVED roads first...but the roads they paved by and large existed before they were paved and were largely broken in by (in the USA) stagecoach traffic, cattle drives, and settlers. Not government. Even with paved roads and highways, private enterprise built a lot of roads. From http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/transport/how.html:
Hmm, seems like private industry to me...only now, we pay taxes to pay for roads, and then we STILL have to pay tolls to use them. Great improvement. How do people outside municipal or county land have paved roads and/or driveways? Simple. They pay to have them paved. There is NOTHING that our government does that could not be privatized. Not that everything necessarily SHOULD be, but it all COULD be. Then, we might actually have some sort of legal recourse in cases of abuse. It might be tough, but you can fight a company in court and win, at least in theory. You can't even bring suit against the government in many cases, and even if you do, you are asking an employee of the government to be fair in mediating a dispute between you and his/her employer. Yeah, that sounds like it will go well.
Finally, private enterprise is responsible for all the products and services which make up our GDP. What does the government actually produce besides debt?
Yes, and some businessmen take subsidies or "get out of tax free" cards or other bribes from the government.
Right, which is one reason I'm for smaller, limited government. I think we're in agreement here that this is bad and should not be encouraged, which is what happens when you encourage the growth of governmental power.
Come back when all the milk and sugar and tobacco subsidies are gone (not to be picking on farmers, I'm sure other industries are as corrupt), when businesses won't accept government bribes to build their factories in a particular place, when private sports team owners don't get the government to pay for their stadiums, when trucking companies don't escape having to pay for the wear and tear their rigs make on the highways.
These are all examples of the problem with expecting government to take care of everything for you. It can't, and all you get by believing it can is surprised when everything crumbles around you.
It's true people game the system
Which is why having fewer systems to game is desirable. It doesn't matter what the system is or why it is in place - people will try to game it if it is there.
(most places these days don't have "food stamps", they have cards like debit cards, so gaming that one is a bit harder)
Texas has those. (I live in Texas.) People get around it very easily. How does it work? Easy as pie is how it works! They get their card filled up for the month, someone takes it and goes to the store and buys whatever they want in allowed items, then pays the supposed beneficiary half to two-thirds the amount in cash. I've never seen anyone using one of these cards have their ID checked. Ever. But if they did scrupulous ID checks, it wouldn't matter, because the person whose name is on the card is involved in the scam and could easily go in with whoever and make the purchase. There's essentially no way to get around this problem.
So let's start at the top with the big ticket offenders and work our way down.
How about we stop feeding in to a system which is so easy to game? Why do we want a strong central government when there are so many regional differences in this country? Why not give the power back to state and local governments so that if you don't like the policies, you actually have a chance to move somewhere else without expatriating? How about we limit the abuses of the ENTIRE system instead of just a few big-ticket offenders? The offenders aren't the underlying problem - people will always try to game the system. The system is the problem. Let's get rid of it.
So government and taxes came before business? You are wrong. Let's look at it this way: Businesses can and have survived without governments. The reverse is not true.
But let's examine your basic premise for a moment. Who built the railroads? The government? Nope. The railroad companies. Who built the first roads? The government? Nope, stagecoach companies and other private businesses. Who built the oil pipelines? Who built the steel processing plants? Who provided the country with electricity? Who built the factories? Government? Nope. The government did not drive the move to specialized service jobs - the industrial revolution did. Time and time again private businesses build something, the government comes in and takes control of it either outright or through regulatory powers, and then claims to be necessary to the thing's existence. It's total BS. We ran better with no strong central government than we have run with one. Yet for some reason, the solution to this problem is a stronger central government? That's like treating alcoholics by giving them free, unlimited booze. It's retarded.
Oh, really? Exactly how does a business operate without:
- Use of public roads (shipping, etc.)
Depends on the business. Also, assumes that the Federal government is responsible for all public roads, which is nonsense.
- Use of public utilities
By using private utilities - like in many states.
- Use of land (including right-of-ways)
Not all land is government land - how do businesses work with private property now? By buying or renting or leasing it. Not hard.
- Use of government services
Like what, getting bailed out after behaving incredibly financially irresponsibly? I don't know how businesses should function without that, but I want them to.
- Use of the general public as labor
- Use of the general public as customers
Is the general public property of government?
And we're not even touching things like political incentives, enjoying the benefits of having a large military to keep other countries from simply taking their revenue.
Yes, because that's what our large military is used for...
The government secures trade deals that allow businesses to stay competitive, and negotiates treaties so that local business trademarks and technology are stolen elsewhere.
They secure deals that regulate small companies out of business to help large ones. This is not desirable in the long run.
To sum it up, quite frankly businesses owe EVERYTHING to government. Citizens can exist even without a government, corporations can not.
Corporations aren't the only types of businesses.
Just for the record, I really could NOT care LESS about small places cheating the tax-man. Really, there just isn't any give-a-shit in me when a Mom & Pop store squeezes an extra couple of bucks out of Uncle Sam. What DOES bother me, is when I see multi-billion dollar companies (like our local public electric company) have 7 YEARS of completely UNPAID back taxes. Or airlines getting bailed out from bankruptcy, etc.
If something is in theory not objectionable for one group, it should be unobjectionable for all groups, in theory. Large corporations could not get the benefits without the government mugging people through the income tax. Note that I am NOT against taxes - merely against the current tax structure. Income taxes are wrong and are directly analogous to muggings. Excise taxes, import/export taxes, and user fees MAY be wrong, but income taxes ARE wrong. Period.
For most of our country's history, we were able to easily pay for our government with excise taxes, import/export taxes, and user fee taxes. This is not a "society without taxes", it's a "society without a direct income tax." We did not require direct income tax, and indeed fought a war against Britain over a 2% direct income tax. Why were we able to do this? Because people demanded that the government present a balanced budget. This is no longer a requirement, and thus mission creep has caused the "need" for direct income tax. Also, the line item in our national budget for 'we don't know where the money went' is HUGE. Why would I want to give money to an entity which is going to lose or waste it? Just as when I am mugged, my money is lost and there is no benefit to me or society. Unless you can come up with a societal benefit from waste and fraud and plain misconduct to the tune of billions PER YEAR.
Educated work force, power, phone, a military to avoid invasions, and a government to support free trade.
Yes these are very expensive
You mean they WOULD BE very expensive if we had ANY of them.
and roads cost A TON of money.
And aren't even a major part of what tax money goes to, and 0% of the income tax goes to roads.
The government pays verizon to put in your phone lines and subsidizes them to a certain extent.
I don't have a local phone line. Why am I paying for this, then? Shouldn't people who have phone lines pay for them, and people who don't have phone lines NOT pay for them? Oh, right, that would make sense.
It costs $7,000 per year on average for each school aged child to stay in school. Multiple that by 12?
And look at the WONDERFUL education they get for it. Why do we spend more per child than almost every other country but produce far less-educated graduates? And you want to keep supporting this why? Oh, because you've a public school education.
Without electricity, roads, and a workforce that can read and write you are screwed if you own a business.
Government isn't necessary to any of these. Government does not produce things. Private businesses produce things.
Yes taxes are a necessary evil
Begging the question of what KIND of taxes, though. You're assuming that a direct income tax is a necessary evil, when in fact our country survived most of its history without one, falsifying that assumption.
and anyone who uses governmental services needs to pay and corporations need to.
Why not privatize most of them, then? That way, the people who use them will pay for them and the people who don't use them will not pay for them, just like with most things in our life. You wouldn't want money taken out of your check to pay for someone else's Starbucks lattes, right? At least I hope you wouldn't. Don't want government to have so much influence over private business and ability to help corporations screw people over? Hint: the solution is not MORE government influence.
I am conservative myself on this issue but realize its unrealistic to have businesses have a free ride when they use government the most.
This is the fundamental problem. The more government presence, the more regulation, the more byzantine the laws, the better off large companies are and the worse off small companies are. The answer is not more money and power to government, but less. Not more government presence, but less. Not more government micro-management, but less. Look at it this way: The government cannot manage the money they get well enough to avoid a huge deficit. Therefore, we should not keep giving money to the government. Your boss does not give you a raise simply because you've already spent your year's salary in May. That's what we keep doing for the government.
Cheating on taxes is just greed. Taxes are just greed. How is it greedy to want to keep the money you worked for? How is that possibly greedy? Wanting to get free money...now THAT is greedy.
People on welfare (Social Security) do go out to eat.
Yes, and some trade food stamps for cash to buy liquor and some fake disabilities and lots of other things that people who are dependent upon others for their survival shouldn't do. There are also people who barely use the system - taking just enough to survive until they can get off it. They sacrifice their own food so their kids can eat. The point is there's a huge gamut of people using this "government money" - and the person coughing it up has NO CONTROL over which type of person receives the benefit. I don't want someone who is taking money from me to survive to be out at restaurants ordering food. That's what people with disposable income do, people who have extra money to waste. But I very much do want to help support those who are actively working to better their situation. The problem is that I can't trust the government to make sure those people get my money.
People in this country are extremely giving of the money they have left even after the government takes their share. There is NO valid reason to suppose that these extremely giving people would turn callous and cruel if they had 35% more of the money THEY EARNED. Then, the people who actually worked for the money they're giving away can choose who receives the benefits of their largesse, at least in part. But then we probably wouldn't end up with expensive marine biology research centers in Idaho or farmers getting paid to ruin our economy by growing corn for ethanol, etc. If taxes were 1%, maybe I'd support them, but I'm with the Founding Fathers on this one. You remember them, the guys who fought a whole war and started a whole new country over a raise from 1% to 2% direct income tax. We routinely pay 35-40%, and what kind of return do we get? Negligible. Screw that.
Wow, a reasonable, intelligent response. (and by that I of course mean one which supports my conclusions)
Huzzah!
My mistake. I sit corrected. :)
Possibly, but I still believe my paraphrase was more accurate.
My problem is not with the poster's choice to seek advice. My problem was with the forum chosen and the phrasing of the submission. As I've said before, if you take career advice from strangers on an internet forum, you deserve whatever happens. It's like asking for health advice on an MMO forum.
because sometimes its just nice to hear other people confirm what you are thinking already. Also assuming that just because you are capable of having an ethical dilemma you are also capable of seeing every single option in said ethical dilemma is pure arrogance.
Echo chambers aren't useful unless you like the sound of your own voice. The opinions of random internet forum posters should NOT inform your own for things as important as your career. If you follow career advice from random internet forum posters, you deserve whatever damage to your career which ensues. Also, I did not say that anyone capable of perceiving ANY ethical dilemma should be capable of seeing every option. Just *this* one. So your attempt to strawman me has failed. Please try again. I eagerly await your reply.
Yes, and anyone intelligent enough to have this problem should also realize that it's probably not a bad idea to ask others if they have had experiences with similar situations. I'm guessing you're in no danger having to deal with that.
While you are correct about consulting people, *intelligent* people consult those whom they know, or those whose credentials they can verify. Asking a bunch of random strangers on the internet about what you should do in an employment situation is stupid. As are you.
Also, your mom.
And, you're a poopie-head.
"Hey Slashdot, look how cool and ethical I am! I have problems with how my company is doing something and I want to "ask" about it even though all of the relevant options are obvious! This is so everyone will know how awesome I am because I don't believe in patents!"
I mean, cool or whatever, but did you really think you were going to get any other answer than, "What's worth more, your job, or your beliefs about software patents?"
Surely anyone intelligent enough to HAVE this dilemma should be able to map out the various options and likely outcomes. At least, just as well as anyone on slashdot can.
I'd rather they didn't even bother him about it. If he blows up his house, well, he should have been more careful. Now, it's possible that he might set his house on fire, sure. However, that might actually not be so bad. For one thing, the average rate of house fires has dropped so low that many firefighters have been reduced to low-grade emt duty (like ferrying people to the hospital in an ambulance because they don't want to take a cab/walk/whatever). There simply aren't that many fires to fight. We're in danger of safing ourselves right out of having firefighters.
However that's really secondary to the main point, which is that neither firefighters nor police actually have the right to tell him what to do in his own home. Whether they do it without the right is another story...but a man's home is his castle and as long as he is not directly interfering with someone's life, liberty, or property, he's fine. What *might* happen doesn't count. Only what actually DOES happen. Which, up to this point, in this man's home, was nothing bad.
Every year, some people abuse pets (as you alluded to above). This means that all pet owners are abusive, by government logic. Therefore, we should make the owning of pets illegal, because a small subsection of pet owners intentionally abuse their pets. Also, some people abuse children. Therefore...yes, it's absurd, isn't it? You shouldn't treat people as criminals until they actually do something wrong.
If you don't know what the answer IS, how do you know what it isn't?
What if science is actually a sentient entity which yearns for freedom even as do some of its followers?
What if America really is...nah, that one's just silly.