And the "law" can only compel discovery of what's on the USB drive (you encrypted it, right?) that's in the safe deposit box if they already know there's relevant evidence on it. They can't just fish for it.
Fraud and bribery are fairly easy to define. Admittedly, there are definitely a number of good examples where gray areas exist. I don't think a legal system is possible where that's not the case though, at least not within the bounds of our current capabilities as humans.
Then write your Congresscritter to urge them to amend the Commerce Clause. The alternative is to further erode the legitimacy of the document that is supposed to provide the foundation of all national protections.
What shows the hypocrisy of the "income" tax (not capital gains or other investment income) is made explicitly clear by the taxes on bartering service for another service. Both parties are considered to have made income on the deal even though nothing is exchanged but time.
The IRS considers time to be worth a market rate only when it increases taxes. Time can never be considered worth anything as a means to show cost that decreases tax rates.
Well, aside from the technicality that Amazon has a physical presence in the state.
This is the real issue that needs to be legally determined. People arguing about how states should be able to tax anything entering their borders in any way they like need to go back to school to learn basic US civics.
You actually can, but the services on each must comply with the state in which they reside. I know this for an absolute fact, because there's a strip club that straddles the Idaho/Washington border about 40 miles from my house that is operated in exactly this manner.
It most certainly did, but nobody involved in this discussion was there to see it so it's glossed over as irrelevant.
Even if it didn't produce a paradigm shift, the appropriate mechanisms haven't been legally changed to have two analogous systems treated differently from a tax perspective. They ARE, in fact, analogous, which means that the court rulings determining the former was covered under the Commerce Clause also apply equally to the latter.
This requires a national-level legal change in order to be done. The people advocating anything less are actually advocating the very system that protects them from many kinds of legal abuse. It's short-sighted and naive to believe otherwise. Advocate change that preserves the system which protects you, not change that undermines it. It may be harder, but doing things the right way frequently is.
That's all fine and well to espouse an opinion in support of paying taxes at the point of delivery, but it will require either Congressional approval or a Constitutional amendment. That's the reality of the situation.
Either use the process or come out and say you'd like it to be ignored to get what you want. We'll be better off either way if people would just pick one, instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
If that were actually legally the case, any state could prohibit imports from other states simply by raising taxes to an unpayable level on those items.
Many people don't realize it, but this even extends to transactions inside a state made by a citizen of a state that does not have sales taxes. A citizen of Oregon, shopping in another state, can have the sales taxes on purchases made within that other state simply by filling out an exemption form. In practice this is not done because it's a hassle, except for big-ticket items.
Yes, it's a vague word. I should have used "force or fraud," rather than referring to the wording of the person who posted the original comment. In the context, that would be all that is criminal.
With an understanding of what "liberty" means classically, it is relatively easily deduced what "crime" means in that context. I sometimes forget many people are incapable of logical extrapolation, due to a poor understanding of the basic concepts that underpin many discussions.
The contract just proves FedEx believes A > B. It does not prove B is a negative number. Even if B is a negative number, it does not prove FedEx would decline to subsidize B through the profit of other routes.
That was pretty much the CYA line in my post. I may well be wrong about the profitability of providing universal coverage sans a USPS contract, but I still doubt they'd decline to service unprofitable locations should they no longer have the USPS contract option. After all, they deliver to BFE locations in much of the world, many of those surely at a loss.
It was hardly some of the worst treatment of the poor seen in a long time (see the practices of most of the rest of the world up to, and including, that period). That's not to say it was desirable, but the point is to try and keep the good parts while mitigating the flaws. People swing too far in their efforts to mitigate the flaws, and frequently throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Various systems of thought have things that work at one level but fail at another. Unfortunately, most people can't see past huge, deeply-held biases they have, and so reject any ideology that conflicts with how they think ALL levels of society and government should work.
I couldn't agree more. Any concept of idealogical purity is usually a recipe for disaster.
Rejecting something out-of-hand simply because it is advocated by an otherwise completely untrustworthy source is the hallmark of a short-sighted person. Given the right opportunities, such people are usually quite dangerous when allowed even a small measure of authority.
No, it means you won't be stopped from using your available resources to accomplish your goals (with the usual caveats regarding realism in what is obtainable legally), not that you start with the same footing.
Life isn't fair. Attempting to make it so (or acting as if it is) in all areas is a fool's errand.
Preventing criminal exploitation is the single most important playing field to level. Leveling others usually involves actively engaging in some level of criminal exploitation.
Slashdot Mirror
For the really paranoid, you could even use it to back up via radio link to Mars, once they install the first data center there.
And the "law" can only compel discovery of what's on the USB drive (you encrypted it, right?) that's in the safe deposit box if they already know there's relevant evidence on it. They can't just fish for it.
Nope, they need to be laser-powered over fiber. Freakin' laser beams!
So, does that mean there's actually a 1:3000 chance that someone on Earth will be struck? :)
Fraud and bribery are fairly easy to define. Admittedly, there are definitely a number of good examples where gray areas exist. I don't think a legal system is possible where that's not the case though, at least not within the bounds of our current capabilities as humans.
Then write your Congresscritter to urge them to amend the Commerce Clause. The alternative is to further erode the legitimacy of the document that is supposed to provide the foundation of all national protections.
The courts need to clearly define what entails a nexus legally, but I think we'll be waiting a long time for that one.
What shows the hypocrisy of the "income" tax (not capital gains or other investment income) is made explicitly clear by the taxes on bartering service for another service. Both parties are considered to have made income on the deal even though nothing is exchanged but time.
The IRS considers time to be worth a market rate only when it increases taxes. Time can never be considered worth anything as a means to show cost that decreases tax rates.
This is probably the single-best analysis of this case posted here on /.
I'd mod you up, but have posted already.
Well, aside from the technicality that Amazon has a physical presence in the state.
This is the real issue that needs to be legally determined. People arguing about how states should be able to tax anything entering their borders in any way they like need to go back to school to learn basic US civics.
You actually can, but the services on each must comply with the state in which they reside. I know this for an absolute fact, because there's a strip club that straddles the Idaho/Washington border about 40 miles from my house that is operated in exactly this manner.
It most certainly did, but nobody involved in this discussion was there to see it so it's glossed over as irrelevant.
Even if it didn't produce a paradigm shift, the appropriate mechanisms haven't been legally changed to have two analogous systems treated differently from a tax perspective. They ARE, in fact, analogous, which means that the court rulings determining the former was covered under the Commerce Clause also apply equally to the latter.
This requires a national-level legal change in order to be done. The people advocating anything less are actually advocating the very system that protects them from many kinds of legal abuse. It's short-sighted and naive to believe otherwise. Advocate change that preserves the system which protects you, not change that undermines it. It may be harder, but doing things the right way frequently is.
That's all fine and well to espouse an opinion in support of paying taxes at the point of delivery, but it will require either Congressional approval or a Constitutional amendment. That's the reality of the situation.
Either use the process or come out and say you'd like it to be ignored to get what you want. We'll be better off either way if people would just pick one, instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
You can't just make up legal fictions to get around laws.
Welcome to the US, you must be new here. :)
(No, I don't think it's proper to do so, but it's a common use of legal fictions in practice.)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm
If that were actually legally the case, any state could prohibit imports from other states simply by raising taxes to an unpayable level on those items.
Many people don't realize it, but this even extends to transactions inside a state made by a citizen of a state that does not have sales taxes. A citizen of Oregon, shopping in another state, can have the sales taxes on purchases made within that other state simply by filling out an exemption form. In practice this is not done because it's a hassle, except for big-ticket items.
See the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm
We don't have a pure democracy either. They are perhaps the most corrupt of all pure forms of government.
You're missing the pertinent line that was the core of the response to your post: life isn't fair.
Your objection singled out the least relevant line in my post.
Yes, it's a vague word. I should have used "force or fraud," rather than referring to the wording of the person who posted the original comment. In the context, that would be all that is criminal.
With an understanding of what "liberty" means classically, it is relatively easily deduced what "crime" means in that context. I sometimes forget many people are incapable of logical extrapolation, due to a poor understanding of the basic concepts that underpin many discussions.
The contract just proves FedEx believes A > B. It does not prove B is a negative number. Even if B is a negative number, it does not prove FedEx would decline to subsidize B through the profit of other routes.
That was pretty much the CYA line in my post. I may well be wrong about the profitability of providing universal coverage sans a USPS contract, but I still doubt they'd decline to service unprofitable locations should they no longer have the USPS contract option. After all, they deliver to BFE locations in much of the world, many of those surely at a loss.
The redundant information is to protect against loss of your working set. It is operational data when on a RAID array.
A backup is a copy of data that is not a working set. Ergo, RAID is not a backup.
It was hardly some of the worst treatment of the poor seen in a long time (see the practices of most of the rest of the world up to, and including, that period). That's not to say it was desirable, but the point is to try and keep the good parts while mitigating the flaws. People swing too far in their efforts to mitigate the flaws, and frequently throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Various systems of thought have things that work at one level but fail at another. Unfortunately, most people can't see past huge, deeply-held biases they have, and so reject any ideology that conflicts with how they think ALL levels of society and government should work.
I couldn't agree more. Any concept of idealogical purity is usually a recipe for disaster.
Rejecting something out-of-hand simply because it is advocated by an otherwise completely untrustworthy source is the hallmark of a short-sighted person. Given the right opportunities, such people are usually quite dangerous when allowed even a small measure of authority.
No, it means you won't be stopped from using your available resources to accomplish your goals (with the usual caveats regarding realism in what is obtainable legally), not that you start with the same footing.
Life isn't fair. Attempting to make it so (or acting as if it is) in all areas is a fool's errand.
Preventing criminal exploitation is the single most important playing field to level. Leveling others usually involves actively engaging in some level of criminal exploitation.