yes it passed regulation before 1900, but most of the enforcement came after, a law is just a piece of paper until it's enforced. And its the enforcement that costs money.
The government shouldn't get into the area of determining what people "need".
Yes they should.
Food, shelter, low-value clothing and medical products should be taxed less, additionally the governemnt should have the ability to reduce taxes on something to encourage consumtion, for example colledge tuiton, or job-retraining.
By creating a flat tax the governement loses some of its ability to fine-tune the economy. for better or for worse.
The federal goverment did verly liite during those 140 years too, the biggest governemnt agency(in terms of employees) was the post office, when the governement got bigger it needed more taxes to sustian it.
In view of the programs(well some of them) funds its still for the best. How would you feel with no national police orginization(not a reduced force, none, absolutly no cross border investigations), no social security, no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, no CDC, and absolutly no national regulation agianst corporations?
This is the federal governemnt we're talking about. It will just run up a bigger deficit if cutting is too painful(like eliminating a subsidy for swimming pool construction in a senator hometown). It this point the government cannot effectivly eliminate the debt with either a) sacrificing essential services or B) increasing revenue.
In addition, putting money into play, via spending, is one of the keys to spending.
I believe the correct phrase is In addition, putting money into play, via spending, is one of the keys to stimulating the national economy.
Also a higher luxury tax would work well to enhance the sliding sale, items woth more than 1000 USD, an not nessesary for survival(e.g. houses, wheelchairs...) would be taxed more than cheaper goods.
I think the simplest way to do this would just to make all data annonymous, that is no one can log into the system and look and data which passed muster.
Also, at this point, the IRS is only using government databases, which seems fine to me, if you give them the data, you might as well let them use it. However the problem at this point is their not telling us about it. Every form the IRS can review should be marked.
Businesses CANNOT do this! For example, you want into Macy's and the manager stops you to get your fingerprints, you can say "screw that" and walk out. But do that at customs and you're thrown in jail. Business cannot make you do anything if you don't want to.
This happened only becuase of government regulation. Look at the "company" towns in the 1880s-1930s If you want to work there you must go to their store, live in their houses, if you don't your fired. Without government regulation there is nothing to prevent this from happening agian. If you want to buy food, and the manager asks for your finger print and/or photo, If you say "screw this" you will lose your job and,possibly, get blacklisted.
Without government regulation( including regulation of monopolies)there is nothing to stop microsoft from using its market share to leverage hardware requirements into new prossessors, there is nothing to stop the RIAA from retliating agianst filesharers. The only reason the government has more power is that it cost money to run the government and it doesn't turn a profit.
As for military power the only reason corporation don't here is that there is a working police/government apparatus. There have been instances of corporation(particularly oil) using mercenaries or security firms, mostly in regions where there isn't alot of oversight. Agian the only reason they don't here is becuase someone is already doing it.
The solution is to take back the power we the citizens gave them. Only vote for candidates who promise to reduce the power of government in all areas.
Unfortunately in today's society there is a third group mucking around, business. Big Government evolved to meet the challenges of Big Business and the rise of the class war between labor and "capital" in the early twentieth century.
It is here for a reason.
The government at least pretends to care about the people, large scale corporation are just focused on profit.
I prefer the evil I have some measure of control over.
Fortunatly internal passports will never occur, it's directly prohibited in the constitution,however they will probably institute mandatory GPS systems for all vehicles and just have troopers stationed at the state borders...
There is no way you can argue that parents aren't responsible for the way their own children are raised
They can be responsible for theer child without watching them every hour of every day. as I said before their is nothing inherently wrong with daycare, its just that you believe that its better to raise your child by your self.
Depending on the family that may very well be true, however just becuase its better does not make the other option bad.
It would nice if you could however in our society it is very difficult to provide for a family without 2 incomes, and its beeter to feed clothe, and educate your child and send them to day-care, rather than riasing them your self and skimping on the rest.
there is a diffrence between a baby-siter and a day-care center, one which you refuse to reconize, a good, small daycare center is fine, there is nothing magical about your family members which makes them good child-rearers, while a day care provider needs to be good at it in order to stay in buisness. And besides if you go to a center for 3-4 years a child will have just as strong an emotional bond with a baby-sitter.
Just beacuse someones grandpaperents don't take care of them as a child does not mean that the kid will never see them, or form a bond with them.
there is nothing wrong with the concept of daycare, any more than there is with the concept of stay at home parents.
If it is done well, it works well, if you can find a good daycare provider(buisness or person), then it is very possible that they can do a better job of raising a child than a first-time parent, becuase they have seen it all already, they know approximatly the child behavioral range and are experinced at dealing with it.
The concept of day care has been around for a while, even before public education, their is nothing wrong with the principle, just some fucked-up nuclear family bullshit spewed out in response to a rapidly changing society.
When a dog kills someone, they are put down, no trial, no rights.
When a human kills someone they are (ideally)arrested put to trial and convicted, then punished (killed or imprisoned).
When a gang kills someone, the police try the individuals that did it, and the rest keep going.
When a corporation kills people they are often sued, pay some money and keep going.
Businesses are not treated like groups of people; legally speaking (in the US) they are treated as individuals, removing their employees from liability of their actions. If they were treated like a group of people, I would call them that, but they aren't and so we must deal with them differently.
I don't want their money, but I want them to lose some power and allow other people an equal say in how their lives should be run.
all these elements HAVE existed--at the "beginning" of the universe, whatever that means post-relativity--just after the big bang. The reason they do not exist now is that they are unstable.
It doesn't matter if they are completely stable, just stable enough to use, something which breaksdown over a thousand years is still useable.
I'm no physicist, but I think the instability is a direct result of the size of the element. The bigger they get, the more radioactive
More or less, but when you start looking at alot of these big elements you realize we don't know all that much about them, and so maybe one of these will turn out to be stable, as the article mentioned( although in very bad terms) there are certian numbers of particles which appear more stable, although we don't reaaly know right now, we're still smashing things together to see if something neat happens.
Boycotts work when you know you can force a government into changeing their ways, not as a general norm. If you look at South Africa, the boycott there was effective, it sent a clear message and provided a clear incentive for change.
I agree with you that the time is not right for a boycott now, but if the government backslides(the whole 'two steps forewrd, one step back' thing)
Then a large-scale boycott would be just the thing.
Yes it denies the citizens of said country the benefits of globalization, but it does more damage to the regime, people can recover, but governments often cant...
Slashdot Mirror
Certain things come with the territory.
yes it passed regulation before 1900, but most of the enforcement came after, a law is just a piece of paper until it's enforced. And its the enforcement that costs money.
Food, shelter, low-value clothing and medical products should be taxed less, additionally the governemnt should have the ability to reduce taxes on something to encourage consumtion, for example colledge tuiton, or job-retraining.
By creating a flat tax the governement loses some of its ability to fine-tune the economy. for better or for worse.
In view of the programs(well some of them) funds its still for the best. How would you feel with no national police orginization(not a reduced force, none, absolutly no cross border investigations), no social security, no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, no CDC, and absolutly no national regulation agianst corporations?
This is the federal governemnt we're talking about. It will just run up a bigger deficit if cutting is too painful(like eliminating a subsidy for swimming pool construction in a senator hometown). It this point the government cannot effectivly eliminate the debt with either a) sacrificing essential services or B) increasing revenue.
I believe the correct phrase is In addition, putting money into play, via spending, is one of the keys to stimulating the national economy.
Also a higher luxury tax would work well to enhance the sliding sale, items woth more than 1000 USD, an not nessesary for survival(e.g. houses, wheelchairs...) would be taxed more than cheaper goods.
Also, at this point, the IRS is only using government databases, which seems fine to me, if you give them the data, you might as well let them use it. However the problem at this point is their not telling us about it. Every form the IRS can review should be marked.
pure water is not conductive, its the mineral impurities which make it so conductive.
This happened only becuase of government regulation. Look at the "company" towns in the 1880s-1930s If you want to work there you must go to their store, live in their houses, if you don't your fired. Without government regulation there is nothing to prevent this from happening agian. If you want to buy food, and the manager asks for your finger print and/or photo, If you say "screw this" you will lose your job and,possibly, get blacklisted.
Without government regulation( including regulation of monopolies)there is nothing to stop microsoft from using its market share to leverage hardware requirements into new prossessors, there is nothing to stop the RIAA from retliating agianst filesharers. The only reason the government has more power is that it cost money to run the government and it doesn't turn a profit.
As for military power the only reason corporation don't here is that there is a working police/government apparatus. There have been instances of corporation(particularly oil) using mercenaries or security firms, mostly in regions where there isn't alot of oversight. Agian the only reason they don't here is becuase someone is already doing it.
no problem, also, consider packing homebaked cookies and lable them, 'to the TSA', let them try t figure out whats going on then...
lots of random metal junk in your suitcases, bolts, wire, a few batteries, nothing illegal but enough to cause some havoc at security.
Unfortunately in today's society there is a third group mucking around, business. Big Government evolved to meet the challenges of Big Business and the rise of the class war between labor and "capital" in the early twentieth century.
It is here for a reason.
The government at least pretends to care about the people, large scale corporation are just focused on profit.
I prefer the evil I have some measure of control over.
Fortunatly internal passports will never occur, it's directly prohibited in the constitution,however they will probably institute mandatory GPS systems for all vehicles and just have troopers stationed at the state borders...
becuase we're dealing with NASA and everthing is a bit more expensive, I thik we can change the old duct tape/WD-40 addage to velcro and KY jelly...
it may also be becuase of aol and such... the really stupid ones don't even open explorer.
the data is on a comercially avilible flash card, it couldn't be that hard too switch it.
However, if the machine is flawed, does erasing others votes by destroying the machine make it any better?
They can be responsible for theer child without watching them every hour of every day. as I said before their is nothing inherently wrong with daycare, its just that you believe that its better to raise your child by your self. Depending on the family that may very well be true, however just becuase its better does not make the other option bad.
It would nice if you could however in our society it is very difficult to provide for a family without 2 incomes, and its beeter to feed clothe, and educate your child and send them to day-care, rather than riasing them your self and skimping on the rest.
Just beacuse someones grandpaperents don't take care of them as a child does not mean that the kid will never see them, or form a bond with them.
A)Better with children
B)Have values closer to your own, and
C)Are generally less screwed up.
If it is done well, it works well, if you can find a good daycare provider(buisness or person), then it is very possible that they can do a better job of raising a child than a first-time parent, becuase they have seen it all already, they know approximatly the child behavioral range and are experinced at dealing with it.
The concept of day care has been around for a while, even before public education, their is nothing wrong with the principle, just some fucked-up nuclear family bullshit spewed out in response to a rapidly changing society.
When a dog kills someone, they are put down, no trial, no rights. When a human kills someone they are (ideally)arrested put to trial and convicted, then punished (killed or imprisoned). When a gang kills someone, the police try the individuals that did it, and the rest keep going. When a corporation kills people they are often sued, pay some money and keep going. Businesses are not treated like groups of people; legally speaking (in the US) they are treated as individuals, removing their employees from liability of their actions. If they were treated like a group of people, I would call them that, but they aren't and so we must deal with them differently. I don't want their money, but I want them to lose some power and allow other people an equal say in how their lives should be run.
"What is that noise that sounds like a machinegun shooting a kitty?
That is the bad noise, It happens when you are screwing too fast and not pushing hard enough. If you make the bad noise we will shoot yout kitty"
You got to love the techie bible.
It doesn't matter if they are completely stable, just stable enough to use, something which breaksdown over a thousand years is still useable.
I'm no physicist, but I think the instability is a direct result of the size of the element. The bigger they get, the more radioactive
More or less, but when you start looking at alot of these big elements you realize we don't know all that much about them, and so maybe one of these will turn out to be stable, as the article mentioned( although in very bad terms) there are certian numbers of particles which appear more stable, although we don't reaaly know right now, we're still smashing things together to see if something neat happens.
Boycotts work when you know you can force a government into changeing their ways, not as a general norm. If you look at South Africa, the boycott there was effective, it sent a clear message and provided a clear incentive for change. I agree with you that the time is not right for a boycott now, but if the government backslides(the whole 'two steps forewrd, one step back' thing) Then a large-scale boycott would be just the thing. Yes it denies the citizens of said country the benefits of globalization, but it does more damage to the regime, people can recover, but governments often cant...