When I have to JUSTIFY my presence to a peace officer, it goes beyond simply identifying myself.
I agree wholeheartedly. No law would justify this treatment, and I'm certain that any court would agree that you are not obligated to tell the police officer anything beyond furnishing your required ID (when driving).
Otherwise, all bets are off. Granted, the cop could still ASK what you are up to, and if you raise his suspicious, he is perfectly within the law to decide if it gives him probable cause to perform further search. However, you are in no way required to tell him anything about what you are up to, and if you are committing some illeagal act it would be in your best interests to decline further conversation. If he tried to compel you to give him more information, he would be violating the freedom of assembly as well as your right to not self-incriminate.
It really does have nothing to do with accountability.
It does only so far as ensuring that people who are driving on roads meet the leagal minimums (carry appropriate drivers ID, have insurance, registration). Anything further is off the table.
The law states that I have the right to enjoy public roads unmolested so long as I abide by the law.
The law, in most states, says that you have many obligations to meet if you are going to drive responsibly on public roads. The police have the responsibility to enforce these. Everything else is off the table.
For some reason now, the rules have changed.
No, I don't think so. I think that the police, if they were well-coordinated and smart, could set up strategic ID checks at times and places where they think wanted criminals are going to be transiting. This would be a good use of tax dollars. A poor use of tax dollars would be a static ID checkpoint that is well known to all. But that doesn't make it illeagal or unconstitutional.
I'm going to assume you're doing something midway between trolling and playing devils advocate.
I really do think that it is reasonable for the government to perform random ID checks on public highways. I guess I didn't realize how extreme this position was compared to Slashdot mainstream.
I don't believe slashdot is the type of forum to allow a meaningful response to the point you're making. If anything, I think it's sad to watch some of these people try.
I've been on Slashdot awhile now (since late 90's). I've read comments on and off, and occasionally responded. I guess I thought that people who supposedly use computers regularly would be interested in learning true facts and making reasonable arguments.
The more I use computers, the more I'm coming to realize that humans cannot interact with each other through text without alot of disclipline. It seems to me, that people tend to read all kinds of slogans and ideologies into the words they are reading, and then respond half-cocked without thinking. I've been guilty of the same thing myself, but this is the first time I've started a thread like this on Slashdot.
I'm really surprised at the degree that my original comments caused people to discount my American patriotism. I'm not advocating internal passports, nor am I advocating the elimination of personal privacy.
All I'm suggesting is that people be held to a higher standard of accountability when they are using public resources. I think that perhaps this is what people are really against.
In my opinion, an ID check is in the interests of society. I can see how someone could see it differently.
I agree, the level of argument on Slashdot is rather poor. It seems full of random 15 year old hax0rs who failed US History class.
But I do think that the police stopping you, at all, when they have no probable cause, is harassment in and of itself.
I understand that Marbury vs. Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court invented their right of judicial review. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but since we have 200 years of jurisprudence that effect, it seems to be here to stay. You could make a Constitutional argument that it is unreasonable to randomly perform ID checks. The current powers-that-be disagree. I do think that there are dangers with internal passports, but I said at no time that the ID check should inquire into your travels.
Merely inspecting cars to see that they posses the documentation required by law is not unreasonable, in my opinion. It would be unreasonable for people's right to free assembly to be limited in any way by these checks. (I assume this is what you are implicitly arguing against when you mention the dangers of internal passports.)
LIke it or not, it is the case that we are required to have ID when we drive. I'm merely stating that it is just for the government to enforce this rule. Everything else is off the table.
I wasn't using hard numbers, but my argument was not based on fallacy. Here's my argument in logical declarations.
1.) Some criminals have been taken off the streets with ID checks. (Fairly indisputable. Do research if you don't believe me)
2.) ID checks are a minor inconvienience for many people. (You might disagree here)
3.) Engineering trade-offs are a valid and just means of governance (I'm merely asserting that)
4.) The trade-off of a minor inconvience for many people is worth the apprehenion of a few criminals.
I'm not making any attribution errors. I'm fully aware that I'm not quoting any specific statistics, because I do not feel they are relevant. You might disagree with my conclusion, but that's because you might dispute the fact that the ID check is a minor inconvience.
The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.
I agree. I am mainly arguing against the (in my opinion) extreme view that the government has no right to ask you what you are up to while you are in public.
I'm not advocating the widespread use of this tool - but it certainly has come in useful in the past.
And never do you seem to realize that if people have to give up their rights just to work or travel then they aren't free at all! Dumb shits like you are the ones who will be the death of America.
I thought America was based on submission to the rule of law, in the hopes that the Courts, who are either elected or appointed by elected officals, could provide due process.
You seem to be advocating the kind of freedom to do whatever the hell you want whenever you want to do it. In China and North Korea, the State already has this "freedom". The people do not. In America, we try to reach a reasonable compromise. Advocating anarchy in the face of reasonable restrictions to freeom in the interest of all involved is not very reasonable.
Yes, the process sucks and is imperfect. I thought that was what free society is really all about - "I'm willing to give up some freedoms so everyone can be reasonablely free"
First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.
Well, it is relevant if you consider that you would not have to submit to government regulation of your behaviour on the highway if you owned all of it. The fact that the government built it means that it is public property. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to perform ID checks on public highways.
This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.
While I'm not sure if there is any regulation with reguard to that fact, I do agree that the government has to right to archive this information. However, I do not believe that the government has its act together well enough to perform this feat.
What's next.....presumed guilty until proven innocent? Randmon stops is JUST that in a lessor form.
I think that is a bit alarmist. I'm not advocating that ID checks be put on every street. I'm just saying that they might occasionally catch criminals, especially in suspicious areas (IE, 100 miles from the border). The cost to the public of a few extra minutes at an ID check is well worth the potential benefit of taking wanted criminals off the streets.
"Why? It has always been a right up till now....worked pretty good so far.
The Why? part is because there is a potential payoff to having id checks in place - you have to admit that at least a few criminals who are wanted have been caught by them.
The rest of your statement is false, do some checking into the Supreme Court rulings in this matter. They have ruled that is not "unreasonable search" to randomly ID people.
You can assert that you have this right. That does not make it true.
So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!
Yes, you could make that case. However, given the fact that all states require car registration, and ID checks have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, you would have a tough time with any court case on that argument.
So, according the Supreme Court, by their interpretation of the Constitution, you do not have the right to travel around anonymously. This is because the Fourth Amendment is protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure, and a few minute stop to check ID is almost certianly not "unreasonable".
Look, I'm all for freedom and liberty, but that does not mean that people should be able to travel freely and anonymously using my tax dollars.
I'm not advocating for the Stalinization of American, I'm merely trying to point out the potential usefulness of random traffic stops as a law enforcement tool.
If there was a serial killer who was caught because he was pulled over for an ID check in your neighbourhood, would you curse the police for robbing his anonymity?
it's arguable that stopping me just to take a look-see at my ID is unreasonable.
If you make that argument, you must also say that you do not believe that people should submit to even minor inspections while the use a public resource. I'm sure that there are at least a few hundred people who are wanted that are picked up by the police in the matter.
Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?
Only the depreciation in value can be deducted from taxes, and that only at specific rates. On the other hand, all lease costs may be deducted as business expenses.
That's true, but in the owning case, you OWN the equipment. What if a miracle technology is discovered that renders your PC worthless? In the leasing case, you owe 7500 no matter what, but if you own the equipment, you can at least try to dump it on the market before the price drops too much. Plus, if you can re-use the equipment elsewhere in your organization after the 3 year period, it makes alot more sense to own rather than lease.
The trouble is, the decision between the two is much more dependent on the management of the company and the stability of the business plan. It seems to me that the best route to go is the one that your accountants are more familiar with filling out the tax forms on.
Go build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.
If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.
I think that this is the case with our leagal system now. Granted, there are many flaws and imperfections, but I do not think that there is much evidence that Americans are being spyed upon in some evil fashion.
Hopefully it will stay that way. It's hard for me to believe that such a bad idea could be carried very far in the government without some good cop finding out about it and reporting it to someone who would care.
Is it so obvious that we're safer because our neighbors' VOIP conversations are being tapped?
Isn't it a bit narcissistic to think that the FBI, CIA, and NSA give a shit about you or your neighbor?
The government is not very competent at accomplishing its ends with its huge budget. Why do you think the government would be competent at accomplishing evil?
Maybe you are admitting that human nature is such that government employees would be tempted to do evil. This is a concern, and those who do such should be held to account for it. It seems a tenuous leap to reject the whole idea of using good tools to punish criminals.
Re:Security with a stick does not work...
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 1
And over the past 20 years, under republican control, we have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
Umm, Republicans have only been in control for the past 10 years or so really. And even then, there was that guy named Bill Clinton...
We have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
John, statements like this give me sad humor. Name one right we don't have that our grandparents did. Oh, and the right to eat in a restaurant without "Colored People" doesn't count.
I guess the quote from my professor is a little out of context. He only said that about morons who tried to argue against rationalism. He was quite the opposite of a hippie womynist.
Yeah, the military does dumbass stuff. So do most people, most of the time. I'm just saying, there is a tradition of accountability there that is stronger that most other organizations.
Note that big defense contractors are the scum of the earth, but they sub out to good guys too.
Personally, I'm of the belief that education and educational applications - such as invention, or innovative teaching and learning - in addition to practical humanitarian applications should drive technological innovation.
Um, is this technology not being research by Georgia Tech? Granted, they are seeking military funding, but does that make their invention somehow more evil?
If they military wanted to fund research into the production of highly nutritious high-caloric food for cheap, would you be against it because the military paid for it?
Yes, the military might use invention X for Seemingly Evil Use Y. Are you asserting that the thieving UN/random humanitarian organization is on moral high ground? Most respectable humanitarian organizations spend their budgets on operational use - they are not in the business of funding new technology. Nor would their patrons be happy about diverting funds that way. It seems to me that it is a good idea that the government is stimulating technology development through basic research, even if it is under the auspices of military funding.
You are a troll, AC, but your post made me laugh out loud.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom" as my philosophy professor used to say in those matters..
You know, the reason that the military are the ones who adopt this technology and move it forward is not just because they are well funded (they are), but it is also because the military is an organization that is accountable to itself and its leadership.
If more humanist organizations had such strong and transparent chains of command, they might do well as early adopters of technology as well.
I'm a man of science, I too want to figure out how things work by experimenting with the nature of things. But I wouldn't want to leave the impression that HAARP is pure science and nothing more, when it does appear to have profound military applications which, if misused, could seriously fuck up the world.
Being a man of science, you might know that the sun outputs an overwhelming amount of energy. From: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/EH015 We find this figure:
The solar intensity at the Earth's orbit is approximately 1353 watts/meter^2.
This is a huge amount of energy. When the HAARP project is at full power, even with the megawatts of radiated power it will generate, will be unable to match this power density.
The sun could have a few major flares simultaneously and humanity would be endangered.
Walmarts are in fact a great benefit to society. Walmart alone accounts for the fact that our economy has not seen much more inflation that it otherwise would.
Ask any economist about how efficient markets help the distrubution of resources. In fact, they help create wealth that otherwise would not exist.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. For example, I might be able to start a business using items I buy at walmart, and if those items are cheap enough, I can turn a profit and grow my business. If those items were too expensive for me to turn a profit, then I can't create a business.
Slashdot Mirror
When I have to JUSTIFY my presence to a peace officer, it goes beyond simply identifying myself.
I agree wholeheartedly. No law would justify this treatment, and I'm certain that any court would agree that you are not obligated to tell the police officer anything beyond furnishing your required ID (when driving).
Otherwise, all bets are off. Granted, the cop could still ASK what you are up to, and if you raise his suspicious, he is perfectly within the law to decide if it gives him probable cause to perform further search. However, you are in no way required to tell him anything about what you are up to, and if you are committing some illeagal act it would be in your best interests to decline further conversation. If he tried to compel you to give him more information, he would be violating the freedom of assembly as well as your right to not self-incriminate.
It really does have nothing to do with accountability.
It does only so far as ensuring that people who are driving on roads meet the leagal minimums (carry appropriate drivers ID, have insurance, registration). Anything further is off the table.
The law states that I have the right to enjoy public roads unmolested so long as I abide by the law.
The law, in most states, says that you have many obligations to meet if you are going to drive responsibly on public roads. The police have the responsibility to enforce these. Everything else is off the table.
For some reason now, the rules have changed.
No, I don't think so. I think that the police, if they were well-coordinated and smart, could set up strategic ID checks at times and places where they think wanted criminals are going to be transiting.
This would be a good use of tax dollars. A poor use of tax dollars would be a static ID checkpoint that is well known to all. But that doesn't make it illeagal or unconstitutional.
I'm going to assume you're doing something midway between trolling and playing devils advocate.
I really do think that it is reasonable for the government to perform random ID checks on public highways. I guess I didn't realize how extreme this position was compared to Slashdot mainstream.
I don't believe slashdot is the type of forum to allow a meaningful response to the point you're making. If anything, I think it's sad to watch some of these people try.
I've been on Slashdot awhile now (since late 90's). I've read comments on and off, and occasionally responded. I guess I thought that people who supposedly use computers regularly would be interested in learning true facts and making reasonable arguments.
The more I use computers, the more I'm coming to realize that humans cannot interact with each other through text without alot of disclipline. It seems to me, that people tend to read all kinds of slogans and ideologies into the words they are reading, and then respond half-cocked without thinking. I've been guilty of the same thing myself, but this is the first time I've started a thread like this on Slashdot.
I'm really surprised at the degree that my original comments caused people to discount my American patriotism. I'm not advocating internal passports, nor am I advocating the elimination of personal privacy.
All I'm suggesting is that people be held to a higher standard of accountability when they are using public resources. I think that perhaps this is what people are really against.
Honestly, I agree, there is a line there.
In my opinion, an ID check is in the interests of society. I can see how someone could see it differently.
I agree, the level of argument on Slashdot is rather poor. It seems full of random 15 year old hax0rs who failed US History class.
But I do think that the police stopping you, at all, when they have no probable cause, is harassment in and of itself.
I understand that Marbury vs. Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court invented their right of judicial review. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but since we have 200 years of jurisprudence that effect, it seems to be here to stay. You could make a Constitutional argument that it is unreasonable to randomly perform ID checks. The current powers-that-be disagree. I do think that there are dangers with internal passports, but I said at no time that the ID check should inquire into your travels.
Merely inspecting cars to see that they posses the documentation required by law is not unreasonable, in my opinion. It would be unreasonable for people's right to free assembly to be limited in any way by these checks. (I assume this is what you are implicitly arguing against when you mention the dangers of internal passports.)
LIke it or not, it is the case that we are required to have ID when we drive. I'm merely stating that it is just for the government to enforce this rule. Everything else is off the table.
I wasn't using hard numbers, but my argument was not based on fallacy. Here's my argument in logical declarations.
1.) Some criminals have been taken off the streets with ID checks. (Fairly indisputable. Do research if you don't believe me)
2.) ID checks are a minor inconvienience for many people. (You might disagree here)
3.) Engineering trade-offs are a valid and just means of governance (I'm merely asserting that)
4.) The trade-off of a minor inconvience for many people is worth the apprehenion of a few criminals.
I'm not making any attribution errors. I'm fully aware that I'm not quoting any specific statistics, because I do not feel they are relevant. You might disagree with my conclusion, but that's because you might dispute the fact that the ID check is a minor inconvience.
The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.
I agree. I am mainly arguing against the (in my opinion) extreme view that the government has no right to ask you what you are up to while you are in public.
I'm not advocating the widespread use of this tool - but it certainly has come in useful in the past.
And never do you seem to realize that if people have to give up their rights just to work or travel then they aren't free at all! Dumb shits like you are the ones who will be the death of America.
I thought America was based on submission to the rule of law, in the hopes that the Courts, who are either elected or appointed by elected officals, could provide due process.
You seem to be advocating the kind of freedom to do whatever the hell you want whenever you want to do it. In China and North Korea, the State already has this "freedom". The people do not. In America, we try to reach a reasonable compromise. Advocating anarchy in the face of reasonable restrictions to freeom in the interest of all involved is not very reasonable.
Yes, the process sucks and is imperfect. I thought that was what free society is really all about - "I'm willing to give up some freedoms so everyone can be reasonablely free"
No room in that for randomly stopping people just to see their ID and harass them.
Hey AC, you put in the "and harass them", not me. I totally agree that the police have no right to harass anyone.
First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.
Well, it is relevant if you consider that you would not have to submit to government regulation of your behaviour on the highway if you owned all of it. The fact that the government built it means that it is public property. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to perform ID checks on public highways.
This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.
While I'm not sure if there is any regulation with reguard to that fact, I do agree that the government has to right to archive this information. However, I do not believe that the government has its act together well enough to perform this feat.
What's next.....presumed guilty until proven innocent? Randmon stops is JUST that in a lessor form.
I think that is a bit alarmist. I'm not advocating that ID checks be put on every street. I'm just saying that they might occasionally catch criminals, especially in suspicious areas (IE, 100 miles from the border). The cost to the public of a few extra minutes at an ID check is well worth the potential benefit of taking wanted criminals off the streets.
"Why? It has always been a right up till now....worked pretty good so far.
The Why? part is because there is a potential payoff to having id checks in place - you have to admit that at least a few criminals who are wanted have been caught by them.
The rest of your statement is false, do some checking into the Supreme Court rulings in this matter. They have ruled that is not "unreasonable search" to randomly ID people.
You can assert that you have this right. That does not make it true.
So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!
Yes, you could make that case. However, given the fact that all states require car registration, and ID checks have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, you would have a tough time with any court case on that argument.
See: UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
So, according the Supreme Court, by their interpretation of the Constitution, you do not have the right to travel around anonymously. This is because the Fourth Amendment is protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure, and a few minute stop to check ID is almost certianly not "unreasonable".
Look, I'm all for freedom and liberty, but that does not mean that people should be able to travel freely and anonymously using my tax dollars.
I'm not advocating for the Stalinization of American, I'm merely trying to point out the potential usefulness of random traffic stops as a law enforcement tool.
If there was a serial killer who was caught because he was pulled over for an ID check in your neighbourhood, would you curse the police for robbing his anonymity?
it's arguable that stopping me just to take a look-see at my ID is unreasonable.
If you make that argument, you must also say that you do not believe that people should submit to even minor inspections while the use a public resource. I'm sure that there are at least a few hundred people who are wanted that are picked up by the police in the matter.
Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?
Or are you just hate the po-lice?
Accounting can depreciate it on taxes.
Only the depreciation in value can be deducted from taxes, and that only at specific rates. On the other hand, all lease costs may be deducted as business expenses.
That's true, but in the owning case, you OWN the equipment. What if a miracle technology is discovered that renders your PC worthless? In the leasing case, you owe 7500 no matter what, but if you own the equipment, you can at least try to dump it on the market before the price drops too much. Plus, if you can re-use the equipment elsewhere in your organization after the 3 year period, it makes alot more sense to own rather than lease.
The trouble is, the decision between the two is much more dependent on the management of the company and the stability of the business plan. It seems to me that the best route to go is the one that your accountants are more familiar with filling out the tax forms on.
Go build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.
If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.
I think that this is the case with our leagal system now. Granted, there are many flaws and imperfections, but I do not think that there is much evidence that Americans are being spyed upon in some evil fashion.
Hopefully it will stay that way. It's hard for me to believe that such a bad idea could be carried very far in the government without some good cop finding out about it and reporting it to someone who would care.
Is it so obvious that we're safer because our neighbors' VOIP conversations are being tapped?
Isn't it a bit narcissistic to think that the FBI, CIA, and NSA give a shit about you or your neighbor?
The government is not very competent at accomplishing its ends with its huge budget. Why do you think the government would be competent at accomplishing evil?
Maybe you are admitting that human nature is such that government employees would be tempted to do evil. This is a concern, and those who do such should be held to account for it. It seems a tenuous leap to reject the whole idea of using good tools to punish criminals.
And over the past 20 years, under republican control, we have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
Umm, Republicans have only been in control for the past 10 years or so really. And even then, there was that guy named Bill Clinton...
We have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
John, statements like this give me sad humor.
Name one right we don't have that our grandparents did. Oh, and the right to eat in a restaurant without "Colored People" doesn't count.
You are right, AC.
Everyone with a low UID should be dead or old and feeble by now.
Nice.
I guess the quote from my professor is a little out of context. He only said that about morons who tried to argue against rationalism. He was quite the opposite of a hippie womynist.
Yeah, the military does dumbass stuff. So do most people, most of the time. I'm just saying, there is a tradition of accountability there that is stronger that most other organizations.
Note that big defense contractors are the scum of the earth, but they sub out to good guys too.
Um, is this technology not being research by Georgia Tech? Granted, they are seeking military funding, but does that make their invention somehow more evil?
If they military wanted to fund research into the production of highly nutritious high-caloric food for cheap, would you be against it because the military paid for it?
Yes, the military might use invention X for Seemingly Evil Use Y. Are you asserting that the thieving UN/random humanitarian organization is on moral high ground? Most respectable humanitarian organizations spend their budgets on operational use - they are not in the business of funding new technology. Nor would their patrons be happy about diverting funds that way. It seems to me that it is a good idea that the government is stimulating technology development through basic research, even if it is under the auspices of military funding.
You are a troll, AC, but your post made me laugh out loud.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom" as my philosophy professor used to say in those matters..
You know, the reason that the military are the ones who adopt this technology and move it forward is not just because they are well funded (they are), but it is also because the military is an organization that is accountable to itself and its leadership.
If more humanist organizations had such strong and transparent chains of command, they might do well as early adopters of technology as well.
I bet the CLECs would gladly run their own facilities if they LECs didn't have an effective monopoly.
It seems we are already back to the days of Ma Bell. Except this time no one is making sure they are not screwing over everyone.
I'm a man of science, I too want to figure out how things work by experimenting with the nature of things. But I wouldn't want to leave the impression that HAARP is pure science and nothing more, when it does appear to have profound military applications which, if misused, could seriously fuck up the world.
Being a man of science, you might know that the sun outputs an overwhelming amount of energy.
From: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/EH015
We find this figure:
The solar intensity at the Earth's orbit is approximately 1353 watts/meter^2.
This is a huge amount of energy. When the HAARP project is at full power, even with the megawatts of radiated power it will generate, will be unable to match this power density.
The sun could have a few major flares simultaneously and humanity would be endangered.
Walmarts are in fact a great benefit to society. Walmart alone accounts for the fact that our economy has not seen much more inflation that it otherwise would.
Ask any economist about how efficient markets help the distrubution of resources. In fact, they help create wealth that otherwise would not exist.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. For example, I might be able to start a business using items I buy at walmart, and if those items are cheap enough, I can turn a profit and grow my business. If those items were too expensive for me to turn a profit, then I can't create a business.
JOBS OUTSOURCE YOU!