That was the point of the 9th and 10th amendments. Unfortunately, they are now largely ignored and the government takes the position that unenumerated rights do not exist.
The feared outcome of including the Bill of Rights has come to pass, though it would likely have come to pass sooner without the Bill of Rights.
A civilian assault rifle is not equipped for automatic fire, and such weapons have been banned outright for a very long time. Only people trolling or completely ignorant of the subject at hand will use such a definition when talking about a modern rifle ban.
Assuming you hit them, it should actually work out just fine. Grenade launchers need a long enough flight path to arm, otherwise they don't explode. At knife-fight distance, the impact will kill them (hopefully) and the grenade will not have enough time to arm (so no explosion).
Since I'm unaware of any currently unregulated industries or privatized government functions, feel free to enlighten me.
You seem to be arguing that I'm defending free markets as being functional, whereas I specifically said the thrust of my statement had no bearing on whether they work or not. If you are not under the misconception that I am defending them, I apologize for assuming that. The only thing I'm arguing against is the contention that the US has had free markets. The last time there was anything resembling a free market economy was very early in the history of the country. Having industries that are largely (or even completely) unregulated in the midst of an economy where everything else has some sort of regulation can't be a case for free market economics unless you're really trying to split hairs to have your way. In a mixed economic model there are going to be a multitude of ways to manipulate the system to get ahead, not to mention the likelihood that there are political deals going down to help those with inside access bilk the system for all its worth.
As for the causes of the Great Depression, the "amongst other factors" is a pretty important thing to skip over so quickly. Massive consumer debt was a major contributing factor (one of the relatively few largely undisputed causes), and the economic policies of the federal government were not deregulatory in nature but simply bad regulation. As it is, there is still no agreement on exactly which policies actually were the principle causes of the Great Depression, and unless you have some stunning insight which has yet to be discussed in economics, you're not going to be able to sway that particular argument to your side. There is enough evidence for multiple theories to have existed this entire time without significant consensus being reached on any of them. Any claim to the contrary is disingenuous at best. Since it appears your entire argument that free markets "done blowed up" (or, in fact, existed at all) is the '29 crash and the Great Depression, it seems like you don't have any evidence at all that has anything resembling broad support in economic circles.
As an aside, unless you're talking about a swing to the political polar opposite as a result of complete failure, free markets would not result in fascism. However, it doesn't seem as if you meant it that way, since you included neo-feudalism (which could certainly have a case made for it) right next to fascism.
Government existing solely for the benefit of the people (ideally, since there has never been one that existed that actually lived up to the "solely" part) is not the same as government existing to take from some to give to others. It exists to protect rights. The rights of everyone. Not just the rights of the less fortunate, nor the rights of the more fortunate. This is an ideal, and obviously the government in the US fails in regards to both at times, as one group is frequently helped at the expense of another for political purposes. The largest groups helped are formed of those who should not even have rights: corporations.
I have no annual income, since I am currently undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. I would, however, be more than willing to contribute to the charitable organizations that have helped with my treatment upon being able to work again.
And I wasn't aware that socialized medical systems in places like Sweden were in some sort of collapse.
You obviously failed to understand the nature of the statement that this references. Perhaps you should go back and read it again. I'll give you a hint: "more" and "cycle" are key words.
Perhaps you should read more carefully in general before becoming hostile and defensive. It's seriously unbecoming.
I am fully capable of admitting that a stable, reasonably (there's a slippery definition with some folks, particularly those advocating "more") comprehensive medical system is possible. One that is controlled entirely by politicians? Not likely with the politicians that are elected in the US. There are other options, one of which I've discussed elsewhere in the comments here.
In a system where government is more beholden to those it is supposed to serve such programs will last longer if carefully monitored and not continually expanded. People who can actually do math (politicians frequently fail here) can make cases for unsustainable programs and have a chance of convincing enough people that something can be stopped or curtailed. That doesn't work in the current political climate in the US. There is rarely anything approaching political accountability for important issues.
Socialized medicine might not be the best answer, but it is one possible solution. Anybody defending the current system in the US needs their head examined (ho, ho, irony!).
Finally, someone who actually understands that socialized medicine isn't necessarily The One True Solution!
I also agree that anyone defending the current system needs to have their head examined, but I'd also say that any one who says nationalized healthcare is the only way to go should also have their head examined. Having healthcare run by the same people who brought us the draft, VA hospitals, and FEMA is absolutely terrifying.
I'd bet more of those people die of their first heart attack than make it to the point where they get the triple bypass. Also, transplants are a limited commodity, so people are ranked according to their other conditions in terms of who gets the kidney first. Those who are healthy otherwise will be preferentially chosen over those with other medical problems, leading the unhealthy lifestylers to die more frequently while waiting for a transplant. All money savers if you're interested in the healthy/unhealthy lifestyle debate.
Personally, I have no problem with a shorter lifespan population in the US. It's called natural selection.
People demand it because they tend to be knee-jerk and media-driven. Nobody talks about anything but whether to socialize medicine or not, so most people will pick a side based on whether they are fundamentally entitlement-driven or not.
My solution would be for individual States that have insurance companies chartered under their laws cap executive pay and corporate profit-taking, or perhaps require insurance companies to incorporate strictly as non-profit entities entirely. Then again, I'd also like to see corporations stripped of rights, since they are not actually people. They exist at the whim of individual States, and so all activities they engage in are privileges, not rights.
You want limited liability, you play by the rules that grant you that limited liability. Otherwise, you go into business yourself and assume all liability. Corporations today have it both ways, and that is a large part of the US's problems in the economic and political arenas.
That's what charities are for. Governments have no morals and no sense of decency, since they are only an artificial framework. The people who make up "government" may have morals and a sense of decency, but their power is derived purely from the ability to apply institutionalized force to achieve their ends. When that force is used to abrogate the rights of one to lift another up, there can be no morality or decency in the act.
As for "utopia," that is the endgame of socialism whether socialists are willing/able to accept that fact or not. Once one program is in place, there will always be more that they want to do to lift up those who cannot or will not do so themselves. The cycle won't end until either the systems collapse under their own sheer weight or utopia is achieved (or there are not enough socialists left to push one of those things forward to the endgame). Guess which is more likely to happen?
Aye, whether free markets work or not, it just shows poor argumentation skills to bash free market economics simply because of how the US markets work. US markets are not in any way, shape, or form "free markets."
What no one seems to want to tell people is that we have a surplus of funding that had been built up decades ago, and which is expected to run dry in around 2020ish. At that point, the program will still be at break-even.
I have to laugh when I see this, as it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how SS taxes are spent and what the SS Trust Fund really is.
SS taxes go into general revenue, and the amount necessary to pay for current benefits is spent by the SSA. The surplus SS taxes are spent in that fiscal year, with non-marketable Treasury Bonds being placed into the Trust Fund in place of that cash. The bonds held in trust cannot be sold to private investors, so it is not just the interest on those bonds that the federal government has to cover when they are redeemed but the entire face value. How does the federal government cover the cost of them? The same way it covers the cost of everything: public borrowing, increased taxes, or decreased spending.
The very second those bonds need to be redeemed, the federal government has to come up with the entirety of the money from some other source. They are not assets, they are simply IOUs that the government has written to itself. They are no more assets than if you spend $100 and write and IOU to yourself for $100. That IOU is worth nothing, because you have to procur the $100 from some other source at the time of redemption.
Another way to say it simply is: There effectively is no Trust Fund
That's why Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates is probably the most outside-the-box MMO currently in existence. Players get good because they develop skills, rather than using grind-for-experience techniques.
The PATRIOT ACT cannot be read front to back and make any sense. It is a conglomeration of changes to existing statutes for the most part, so reading it without the context of the numerous laws it changes would render it unintelligible.
If covert = cowardly, then anyone fighting against a more powerful group using the most effective means possible is cowardly. Guerrillas rarely care about being called cowards though, because the only options in a fight between hugely unequal groups is to be a guerrilla or to be annihilated.
This is a bit short-sighted. While learning information about other cultures is a plus, it's hard to get enough exposure to a culture you don't belong to that you learn a majority of the subtle cultural cues that those immersed in that culture pick up.
Knowing about a culture you do not live in and being able to pick up on a majority of jokes or subtle statements that are derived from that culture are two different things. Those silly French, not learning about Calvin Kleins and their impact on US culture. For shame!
Frankly, I tend to immediately discount statements that use the term "u" as the product of someone who is uneducated. If you were educated in the slightest in the English language, use it. Showing ignorance while attempting to correct someone who was not incorrect makes you look... bad... to say the least.
As for what public schools call the sun in the USA, it has little bearing on the scientific name for that particular body, much like many common names have little in common with their accepted ENGLISH scientific names.
You ignore what actually was involved in this. The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.
Unless the article has changed since you read it, the writing on her sweatshirt was not the "putty" in question. It was the lump of playdough that she was holding.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
The founders of the US were considered terrorists by their government (Britain) for doing exactly this.
Despite the US's vaunted "democracy (called such only by the historically illiterate)," ordinary people have no more hope of changing their government today than the founding fathers did of changing the British government in their day.
You can't vote for a candidate who will protect your rights, because all the major party candidates want to infringe on some portion of your rights. There are too many people who want what one side or the other is selling (always at someone else's expense) to allow positive change, leaving those who want real rights protection out in the cold.
If you buy 1,000 shares of stock for one penny each, and those 1,000 shares zip up to 5,000 dollars a piece, you don't owe a dime of tax (unless you receive dividends). If they drop back down to 1 cent each, and you sell, you owe tax based on the amount of money you made when converting the shares back to cash, which, in this case, would be 10.00.
Now, if those were company stock options that were part of your employment compensation and you purchase and hold them, you could be nailed by the AMT for hundreds of thousands of dollars even though you never actually see any cash from the transaction. If you exercise them with a significant gain between strike price and stock close price the same day and they later become worthless, you could be left with worthless stock AND owing the IRS more than you can ever pay back. Isn't the US government great?
Of course, anyone thinking of breaking Godwin's Law at this point should be ashamed of themselves.
Don't you mean anyone thinking of complying with Godwin's Law? Godwin's Law is only broken if this discussion ends without reference to he-who-must-not-be-named-in-order-to-break-Godwin' s-Law! XD
Slashdot Mirror
That was the point of the 9th and 10th amendments. Unfortunately, they are now largely ignored and the government takes the position that unenumerated rights do not exist.
The feared outcome of including the Bill of Rights has come to pass, though it would likely have come to pass sooner without the Bill of Rights.
As usual, the traditional definition of "assault rifle" is not the same as the legal definition. The legal definition can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon
A civilian assault rifle is not equipped for automatic fire, and such weapons have been banned outright for a very long time. Only people trolling or completely ignorant of the subject at hand will use such a definition when talking about a modern rifle ban.
The weapons under consideration during the writing of the 2nd amendment were those ordinarily used by soldiers.
An assault rifle is a common weapon in use among soldiers.
You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so?
Yes.
They are in an organization built from the ground up to produce people who will follow orders. What makes you think they wouldn't?
Assuming you hit them, it should actually work out just fine. Grenade launchers need a long enough flight path to arm, otherwise they don't explode. At knife-fight distance, the impact will kill them (hopefully) and the grenade will not have enough time to arm (so no explosion).
Since I'm unaware of any currently unregulated industries or privatized government functions, feel free to enlighten me.
You seem to be arguing that I'm defending free markets as being functional, whereas I specifically said the thrust of my statement had no bearing on whether they work or not. If you are not under the misconception that I am defending them, I apologize for assuming that. The only thing I'm arguing against is the contention that the US has had free markets. The last time there was anything resembling a free market economy was very early in the history of the country. Having industries that are largely (or even completely) unregulated in the midst of an economy where everything else has some sort of regulation can't be a case for free market economics unless you're really trying to split hairs to have your way. In a mixed economic model there are going to be a multitude of ways to manipulate the system to get ahead, not to mention the likelihood that there are political deals going down to help those with inside access bilk the system for all its worth.
As for the causes of the Great Depression, the "amongst other factors" is a pretty important thing to skip over so quickly. Massive consumer debt was a major contributing factor (one of the relatively few largely undisputed causes), and the economic policies of the federal government were not deregulatory in nature but simply bad regulation. As it is, there is still no agreement on exactly which policies actually were the principle causes of the Great Depression, and unless you have some stunning insight which has yet to be discussed in economics, you're not going to be able to sway that particular argument to your side. There is enough evidence for multiple theories to have existed this entire time without significant consensus being reached on any of them. Any claim to the contrary is disingenuous at best. Since it appears your entire argument that free markets "done blowed up" (or, in fact, existed at all) is the '29 crash and the Great Depression, it seems like you don't have any evidence at all that has anything resembling broad support in economic circles.
As an aside, unless you're talking about a swing to the political polar opposite as a result of complete failure, free markets would not result in fascism. However, it doesn't seem as if you meant it that way, since you included neo-feudalism (which could certainly have a case made for it) right next to fascism.
Government existing solely for the benefit of the people (ideally, since there has never been one that existed that actually lived up to the "solely" part) is not the same as government existing to take from some to give to others. It exists to protect rights. The rights of everyone. Not just the rights of the less fortunate, nor the rights of the more fortunate. This is an ideal, and obviously the government in the US fails in regards to both at times, as one group is frequently helped at the expense of another for political purposes. The largest groups helped are formed of those who should not even have rights: corporations.
I have no annual income, since I am currently undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. I would, however, be more than willing to contribute to the charitable organizations that have helped with my treatment upon being able to work again.
And I wasn't aware that socialized medical systems in places like Sweden were in some sort of collapse.
You obviously failed to understand the nature of the statement that this references. Perhaps you should go back and read it again. I'll give you a hint: "more" and "cycle" are key words.
Perhaps you should read more carefully in general before becoming hostile and defensive. It's seriously unbecoming.
I am fully capable of admitting that a stable, reasonably (there's a slippery definition with some folks, particularly those advocating "more") comprehensive medical system is possible. One that is controlled entirely by politicians? Not likely with the politicians that are elected in the US. There are other options, one of which I've discussed elsewhere in the comments here.
In a system where government is more beholden to those it is supposed to serve such programs will last longer if carefully monitored and not continually expanded. People who can actually do math (politicians frequently fail here) can make cases for unsustainable programs and have a chance of convincing enough people that something can be stopped or curtailed. That doesn't work in the current political climate in the US. There is rarely anything approaching political accountability for important issues.
Socialized medicine might not be the best answer, but it is one possible solution. Anybody defending the current system in the US needs their head examined (ho, ho, irony!).
Finally, someone who actually understands that socialized medicine isn't necessarily The One True Solution!
I also agree that anyone defending the current system needs to have their head examined, but I'd also say that any one who says nationalized healthcare is the only way to go should also have their head examined. Having healthcare run by the same people who brought us the draft, VA hospitals, and FEMA is absolutely terrifying.
I live in a city, and the next closest hospital that's not near me is downtown, about 30 minutes away.
The "30 minutes" distinction struck me as odd too. 30 minutes is nothing. If it was something like 4 hours away, that might be an issue.
I'd bet more of those people die of their first heart attack than make it to the point where they get the triple bypass. Also, transplants are a limited commodity, so people are ranked according to their other conditions in terms of who gets the kidney first. Those who are healthy otherwise will be preferentially chosen over those with other medical problems, leading the unhealthy lifestylers to die more frequently while waiting for a transplant. All money savers if you're interested in the healthy/unhealthy lifestyle debate.
Personally, I have no problem with a shorter lifespan population in the US. It's called natural selection.
People demand it because they tend to be knee-jerk and media-driven. Nobody talks about anything but whether to socialize medicine or not, so most people will pick a side based on whether they are fundamentally entitlement-driven or not.
My solution would be for individual States that have insurance companies chartered under their laws cap executive pay and corporate profit-taking, or perhaps require insurance companies to incorporate strictly as non-profit entities entirely. Then again, I'd also like to see corporations stripped of rights, since they are not actually people. They exist at the whim of individual States, and so all activities they engage in are privileges, not rights.
You want limited liability, you play by the rules that grant you that limited liability. Otherwise, you go into business yourself and assume all liability. Corporations today have it both ways, and that is a large part of the US's problems in the economic and political arenas.
That's what charities are for. Governments have no morals and no sense of decency, since they are only an artificial framework. The people who make up "government" may have morals and a sense of decency, but their power is derived purely from the ability to apply institutionalized force to achieve their ends. When that force is used to abrogate the rights of one to lift another up, there can be no morality or decency in the act.
As for "utopia," that is the endgame of socialism whether socialists are willing/able to accept that fact or not. Once one program is in place, there will always be more that they want to do to lift up those who cannot or will not do so themselves. The cycle won't end until either the systems collapse under their own sheer weight or utopia is achieved (or there are not enough socialists left to push one of those things forward to the endgame). Guess which is more likely to happen?
Aye, whether free markets work or not, it just shows poor argumentation skills to bash free market economics simply because of how the US markets work. US markets are not in any way, shape, or form "free markets."
What no one seems to want to tell people is that we have a surplus of funding that had been built up decades ago, and which is expected to run dry in around 2020ish. At that point, the program will still be at break-even.
I have to laugh when I see this, as it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how SS taxes are spent and what the SS Trust Fund really is.
SS taxes go into general revenue, and the amount necessary to pay for current benefits is spent by the SSA. The surplus SS taxes are spent in that fiscal year, with non-marketable Treasury Bonds being placed into the Trust Fund in place of that cash. The bonds held in trust cannot be sold to private investors, so it is not just the interest on those bonds that the federal government has to cover when they are redeemed but the entire face value. How does the federal government cover the cost of them? The same way it covers the cost of everything: public borrowing, increased taxes, or decreased spending.
The very second those bonds need to be redeemed, the federal government has to come up with the entirety of the money from some other source. They are not assets, they are simply IOUs that the government has written to itself. They are no more assets than if you spend $100 and write and IOU to yourself for $100. That IOU is worth nothing, because you have to procur the $100 from some other source at the time of redemption.
Another way to say it simply is: There effectively is no Trust Fund
That's why Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates is probably the most outside-the-box MMO currently in existence. Players get good because they develop skills, rather than using grind-for-experience techniques.
That, and it is an incredibly social game.
The PATRIOT ACT cannot be read front to back and make any sense. It is a conglomeration of changes to existing statutes for the most part, so reading it without the context of the numerous laws it changes would render it unintelligible.
The argument to "read it" is moot at best.
Easy. Slaves were defined as non-human.
If covert = cowardly, then anyone fighting against a more powerful group using the most effective means possible is cowardly. Guerrillas rarely care about being called cowards though, because the only options in a fight between hugely unequal groups is to be a guerrilla or to be annihilated.
This is a bit short-sighted. While learning information about other cultures is a plus, it's hard to get enough exposure to a culture you don't belong to that you learn a majority of the subtle cultural cues that those immersed in that culture pick up.
Knowing about a culture you do not live in and being able to pick up on a majority of jokes or subtle statements that are derived from that culture are two different things. Those silly French, not learning about Calvin Kleins and their impact on US culture. For shame!
Frankly, I tend to immediately discount statements that use the term "u" as the product of someone who is uneducated. If you were educated in the slightest in the English language, use it. Showing ignorance while attempting to correct someone who was not incorrect makes you look ... bad ... to say the least.
As for what public schools call the sun in the USA, it has little bearing on the scientific name for that particular body, much like many common names have little in common with their accepted ENGLISH scientific names.
Also, Slashdot is not 100% for people in the USA.
You ignore what actually was involved in this. The police called the paint on her sweatshirt "putty" and the simple breadboard attached to the outside of that sweatshirt a bomb.
Unless the article has changed since you read it, the writing on her sweatshirt was not the "putty" in question. It was the lump of playdough that she was holding.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
The founders of the US were considered terrorists by their government (Britain) for doing exactly this.
Despite the US's vaunted "democracy (called such only by the historically illiterate)," ordinary people have no more hope of changing their government today than the founding fathers did of changing the British government in their day.
You can't vote for a candidate who will protect your rights, because all the major party candidates want to infringe on some portion of your rights. There are too many people who want what one side or the other is selling (always at someone else's expense) to allow positive change, leaving those who want real rights protection out in the cold.
If you buy 1,000 shares of stock for one penny each, and those 1,000 shares zip up to 5,000 dollars a piece, you don't owe a dime of tax (unless you receive dividends). If they drop back down to 1 cent each, and you sell, you owe tax based on the amount of money you made when converting the shares back to cash, which, in this case, would be 10.00.
Now, if those were company stock options that were part of your employment compensation and you purchase and hold them, you could be nailed by the AMT for hundreds of thousands of dollars even though you never actually see any cash from the transaction. If you exercise them with a significant gain between strike price and stock close price the same day and they later become worthless, you could be left with worthless stock AND owing the IRS more than you can ever pay back. Isn't the US government great?
http://www.reformamt.org/stories.php
Of course, anyone thinking of breaking Godwin's Law at this point should be ashamed of themselves.
' s-Law! XD
Don't you mean anyone thinking of complying with Godwin's Law? Godwin's Law is only broken if this discussion ends without reference to he-who-must-not-be-named-in-order-to-break-Godwin
Provided it's cleaner energy than what's currently produced by corporations, this is bad how?