Java 2, SDK 1.5 what is that? Is it version 2 or NOT?
It gets worse... it is actually called Java 5 (SDK 1.5) now. Java 2 started with SDK 1.2. Not sure why they don't just start calling it by one or the other.
Actually, it has nothing to do with HDTV, and nothing to do with what you supposed, either. The cable monopoly absolutely does have competition! They have to compete with the satellite providers, especially in terms of HD content and seamless PVR integration.
I have TW cable in the southeast, and they provide an excellent service. I get HD channels for all these: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, WB, PBS, Showtime, HBO, Discovery, and some optional premium channels (InHD, InHD2, etc). It costs me about $7 a month extra to get their PVR, which while it doesn't have as nice a UI as TiVo, is completely integrated with the cable service and is easy to use. (Plus has the benefit of not decoding and re-encoding the digital cable TV channels, similar to the benefits of DirecTiVo.)
Typically most on Slashdot love your books, but are not happy with your endings, citing how they often come to a very swift, and some may say, abrupt, conclusion.
Do you feel this is an accurate portrayal of your books' endings, and would you like to address this issue?
With an RFID tag broadcasting my info, you remove that choice from me.
You are assuming an awful lot about how the RFID tag will work. You are assuming that this thing is going to be broadcasting RFID quite some distance, measured in feet it sounds like.
In reality, there are RFID tags which require a reader to be within very close proximity of the tag for it to work at all. Measured in inches.
While it is possible for someone to surrepticiously be that close to my ass, I don't see the threat as it is being blown out of proportion on slashdot (as usual).
- Applying for a job? - Applying for a loan or bank account? - Writing a check or using a credit card? - Getting into a bar or purchasing alcohol or gambling or any other activity with an age requirement?
Driver's licenses are the only uniform photo ID issued in the US. To imply they are only for the purpose of driving implies you are either under 18 and unable to take advantage of most other uses for ID, or you are sitting at home much too often.
Re:Let's honor James Doohan, aka "Scotty".
on
Win the X-Prize Cup
·
· Score: 1
Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".
I think there are plenty more ACTUAL ENGINEERS that would deserve the honor before an actor playing an engineer. But beyond that, the more obvious choice than Scotty would be Gene Roddenberry.
Because you're a "working person" too. And I don't recall him saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us." But I do remember Bush making a comment along those lines a number of times.
Well, Bush was talking about countries that are not clearly against terrorism, so your comment here is ignorant bullshit. And if the green party is for wealth redistribution, as it sounds as if they are, then they are absolutely working against me.
There are those that are less fortunate, and they don't get the tax breaks, or health care, or steady work, or minimum wage in some cases.
"Successful", "Highly ingenuitive" are terms reserved for companies like Wal-mart and Haliburton, who don't give a sh!t about the "working people" or the less fortunate.
They're the ones who get a say, not you, not minimum wage over there. They're the ones who get to influence decision.
1. You can only get tax breaks when you pay taxes. Those really less fortunate are not paying any taxes. However, they are STILL getting money through TAX CREDITS. (That's a euphemism for "money taken from someone else that earned it.")
2. I don't believe in minimum wages dictated by governments. If a company is not offering you enough money, work for someone else. This may or may not require you getting off your lazy ass and improving your skill sets to a desirable level. Tough shit if you're lazy.
Maybe you should change your handle from "That's Unpossible" to "Clueless, self-important white collar ass who's so obviously just out of school on his first job otherwise he wouldn't be so painfully ignorant and opinionated"
I've been out of school and working for the same employer for 10 years now. I have been able to stay with this employer because of my advanced skillset and willingness to adapt to the market instead of lazily asking for hand outs and relying on big brother to take care of me.
The point was that the outrageously-rich person has no place bitching about not getting government assistance to help him... be rich, I guess.
How the hell is this "a point" at all? Please show me one rich person looking for government assistance? Rich people, and non-rich people (like me) simply want the government to get their fucking hands out of our pockets!
If I wanted you to have my money, I'd listen to your appeal, or that of the charity you go to, and make a decision based on its own merits. I don't find that letting the government manage anything to do with money is EVER a good idea, let alone my money.
As someone who recently had their job outsourced, screw Gates!
It wasn't YOUR job, it was your employer's job.
If you are having trouble finding work now, you may need to move or update your set of skills to make yourself more valuable. It sucks, but outsourcing simply makes things cost cheaper in the U.S., saving you money, and moves menial tasks to others so that U.S. workers can take control of more complex jobs that cannot be outsourced.
I don't know anyone that thinks caffeine + alcohol gives you MORE of a boost than regular caffeine. It just gives you more of a boost than drinking vodka with non-caffeinated beverages, like tonic water.
I don't want socialism, I don't wanna steal the wealth from rich people. I'm just saying that people who live their lives in the pursuit of money should take a good look around (outside their estate), and at the very least stop whining for more ways the government can let them have MORE money.
"LET THEM HAVE"??? It isn't the government's money in the first place!
And if heavier tax burdens on the rich truly only affected the assholes that don't care about anyone else, I may concede your point (such as it is). However, please realize the vast majority of people, rich or not, have a conscience. I know it makes it easier to take more of their money if you think of rich people as being evil, but it just isn't true.
Coming from someone who has never looked at escalating tax brackets, no doubt.
You should be happy that you don't need a government program to have a decent quality of living
The people in the fucking programs don't NEED a government program. SOME of them legitimately need help. Help that can be provided by private charities. The rest are lazy, milking the system, because it is there to be milked.
And this is only one type of spending problem with the government. Then you get into the stupidity of pork barrel programs.
The rest of your post is pure lunacy. No rich person is claiming they need government help. However, they would like the government to stop taking the money they EARNED and wasting it.
IP laws such as copyright or patents give "ingenuity" a tangible value. Otherwise you'd have to use your "ingenuity" all the time to earn your money. Without such laws, any "great idea" you have can be used by anyone else. That doesn't give it much value, does it?
Ever heard of a service-oriented company? Now imagine a successful one.
Assuming that your company isn't based on a protected "great idea", then unless you are the one solely responsible for its success (which seems unlikely due to the fact that someone will buy the company), then that means the company can run perfectly well without you. So why should you get the millions when you're not doing the work?
Well this is not the case, but let's say it was. I created the company. The company is successful. I wrote the software that makes it work so great. You don't have the software in your hands, so even if there was no copyright, you'd still have to write it yourself. If I am bought out for millions, it is because my company is profitable, and the investment in my company is "worth it" to the entity buying my company.
So I don't understand where the entitlement of "millions of dollars" comes from. People aren't going to buy your "hard work" or "intelligence" because it's not worth anything to them once you're gone. And if your "ingenuity" isn't protected by IP laws, then others can duplicate this.
Who says they can? Ever heard of SKILL? Perhaps I am the best at what I do, and my work cannot be duplicated? Even in your "no copyrights" socialist fantasy land, you may be able to see how this thinking is flawed?
So why again should you be paid "many millions"?
It's called the free market. My company will be bought out for whatever the market will bear. You might do well to read more about this idea.
You're making the flawed assumption that capital is more valuable than labor.
Clearly, I have shown this can be true.
Without labor, capital is worthless.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Capital is defined as "wealth in the form of money or property." By its very definition, it is not worth it, because other people want it and are willing to pay for it.
Labor is also worth something. I don't really see how it fits into the point I was originally making, nor the grande point you were trying to make.
At the very least, capital and labor should benefit equally from the success derived from their combination.
In fantasy land, that sounds great. In the real world, we'll let the FREE market decide what is worth what. That is the fairest way.
She will be able to buy still more real estate and build more hotels. She will be able to branch out into other financial ventures if she or her handlers want to. Her options are basically limitless.
Now, let me ask you: did she EARN that ability?
Of course not. She also didn't EARN the money in the first place. THAT is the person that earned the right to give his family that lifestyle. Who are you to come in and try to take that away? Where do you get that right?
Did the medieval princes and princesses EARN their right to the thrones they inherited?
I don't know what a discussion of monarchies has to do with the discussion of capitalism.
Did George W. EARN his right to run multiple failed ventures before his (failed, in many people's opinions) presidency?
I really don't follow your point here.
Your argument about wealth breaks down when you take into account 'old money,'
It sure doesn't. "Old money," is just money that was earned and INVESTED. Bill Gate's great grandchildren will be old money when they're around, and yet Bill Gates has also contributed billions of dollars to charity, and his family lineage will likely continue that to a lesser extent. Just because you don't like how someone obtained their money doesn't give you the right to take it away.
regardless of what you have been led to believe, YOU will NEVER be a part of that old money elite. Nor will I, or anyone else that isn't born into it.
Really? So your contention is that a person cannot go from rags to riches in America? From dirt poor to a billionaire? How many examples would you like me to list to refute this idiocy? 5, 10, 100, examples? I could do it, but why waste our time? And that is just for billionaires. How many people have gone from dirt poor to upper class in America? From dirt poor to millionaires? This is the land of opportunity, and it didn't get that way by succumbing to socialism.
Just because someone inherited money from someone who earned it doesn't mean you can take it from them for your own purpose. You are spitting on the hard work and ingenuity of the person that originally earned it.
And whether you choose to belive it or not, old money is slowly, anonymously, buying up more and more control of our country.
I don't know what you mean by control, but if you are making an argument against the corporate lobbying of Congress, then you are preaching to the converted. If the government was doing what the constitution mandated, and no more, the companies wouldn't bother lobbying Congress, because there would be nothing earned from it. It is only in this system of high taxes, high spending, and huge pork and social programs that companies are even able to get their claws into the government.
One final comment about the socialist idea that rich people can have their money taken away by the tyranny of the majority: I would hate to live in a country where there is no reward for risk, hard work, ingenuity, and even pure, dumb luck. Because that road leads to sloth and laziness. When people don't have an incentive to contribute, the contributions descend into nothingness.
Why do you think America is one of the richest countries on Earth?
No. I said, "it is WRONG to take from someone and give to someone else." I have no problem with paying some taxes so that the government can do its constitutionally mandated job of protecting the country from attack, upholding the rule of law, etc.
Taxes used for almost everything else is pure theft.
Don't forget to add "... and due to laws that are favorable to me being able to do this" to your laundry list.
Only the natural laws of property ownership allow me to sell something I own. Or do you think no one owns anything in this world? For that, I cannot help you.
If you can sell your company to someone else, that means someone else can do what you did.
Absolutely. That is the beauty of the free market. Another person that puts forth the effort can do what I did, but there is value in that effort and ingenuity, reflected in the profit of the sale of my company. It has nothing to do with any laws.
You may have figured out how to do something differently before others, but you rely on a set of laws that prevent others from doing the same exact thing as you (stifling competition).
I rely on no such laws. I have competitors (though not as successful). I have customers with different needs that may go elsewhere. There is competition in my industry, and my company does nothing to stifle competition, other than to strive to make the best product available.
So your success is not simply due to your "ingenuity, skill, hard work, and intelligence". It is also due to "an economic system that allows me to stop my competitors".
Please explain how our economic system allows me to stop my competitors?
So, there you go. Even though I am personally not poor, I think you can hardly support a party that would advocate primarily helping the rich, without simply being a selfish bastard.
I see you have succumbed to the rhetoric of class warfare. It is not about "helping the rich," it is about not stealing the property of one person to give to another person. That is inherently wrong. No matter how you may try to justify it in your mind for "the public good," it is WRONG to take from someone and give to someone else. There are enough charitable people in the world, where if they could keep their money, would use it wisely and charitably.
The next step is things like Kerry telling people they "have a right to health care." Health care is provided by skilled workers. Does this mean you have a right to use their skills, without their consent? We are approaching a slippery, socialistic slope.
Our society has agreed that we want certain government services that the citizens will contribute to. We have decided that we want roads and fire stations and not having people dying in the streets when they are too old to work anymore, and we have to pay for those things somehow. That payment system is called taxation.
If you take 10 thousand dollars in taxes from a "working" person, you are likely to impact their ability to keep their home or pay for their medical care--critical human needs.
If you take that amount or larger from a wealthy person, their human needs remain untouched--only their ability to purchase additional luxuries or status enhancing items (elaborate home, premium car, home theater, etc.) is threatened.
Unfortunately for your worldview, people with money do more than buy luxury or status items. They invest their money -- allowing people to get loans they need. They create businesses -- allowing people to be employed and earn money. They send their kids to the best schools -- because they EARNED the ability to do so. They create scholarships and fund private charities -- because they have the means to do so. They support their extended families and friends -- so those people don't have to suckle at the public teat.
It seems to me that is a significant difference, especially when you are approaching the question in terms of what is fair or moral, as the poster was.
How is it fair or moral to take the property of one person, under threat of force, and give it to someone else?
Good points, but I still insist that the society should provide a modest income to everyone (a citizen's salary, so to speak) - even if you admit you're just a lazy son-of-a-bitch who doesn't feel like working. I've got such a friend. He just doesn't feel like having a job, but is perfectly OK with his minimal dole. I'm perfectly OK with that, too.
This is because you are a socialist. That is fine, however your idealogy is not popular in America, and if this is the kind of support the Greens have, they will NEVER win a role in American politics.
Hey, wake up already! It's OK to be lazy (the truly lazy will always be in a minority), stupid, sick, handicapped and politically conscious and to be supported by tax money. It's the primary function of a society to guarantee the welfare of the weak - not to guarantee free trade or maximum profit for you "winners". Where on earth do you get the idea that society must support the lazy/stupid/ignorant? Society will support those that deserve to be helped and require it. The sick, handicapped, even the unlucky. You are right. It's ok to be lazy. But you must live with that responsibility, not thrust it upon others.
Secondly, the libertarians aren't interested in "guaranteeing" maximum profit for anyone. They are interested in getting the government out of the way of EVERYONE.
For Democrats, Greens are the party which champions what Democrats used to: support for working people and people of color and protection of the environment.
What exactly are "working people?"
To me, the implication here is that a person with a shitty, manual-labor job is a "working person," but, e.g., a highly successful, obscenely rich, white-collar worker is not. The implication is because someone is rich, they must not have earned it, they don't REALLY "work" for it, and therefore it is OK if we take more of it to help out "the working people."
Am I way off base here? Why use such a loaded term as "working people."
I am a programmer, I make a nice living. Am I a working person? How much money do I have to start making a year before I'm not considered "a working person" by the Green party?
If I sell my company and earn many millions of dollars due to my ingenuity, skill, hard work, and intelligence, I no longer have to work. Yet I earned the money fair-and-square. I am no longer a "working person," does that mean the Green Party is now against me?
Ralph Nader is registering 1 percent in the polls. He is more worthy of being in the debates than these two clowns.
1. Ralph Nader is a flagrant self-promoter. He is more interested in selling books than in being President. He has name-brand recognition because he has put himself out there so often, and because of his book Unsafe at Any Speed.
2. Compare the number of stats where Nader is on the ballot, versus Badnarik. If electability is what you want to use to decide who gets to debate, I think Badnarik gets in before Nader.
Run for President, or convince someone you admire to run for President.
That fact that you didn't even consider this option -- or worse, think it is an absurd idea -- is a sad reflection on our current politicians-for-life trend.
Slashdot Mirror
Java 2, SDK 1.5 what is that? Is it version 2 or NOT?
It gets worse... it is actually called Java 5 (SDK 1.5) now. Java 2 started with SDK 1.2. Not sure why they don't just start calling it by one or the other.
Actually, it has nothing to do with HDTV, and nothing to do with what you supposed, either.
The cable monopoly absolutely does have competition! They have to compete with the satellite providers, especially in terms of HD content and seamless PVR integration.
I have TW cable in the southeast, and they provide an excellent service. I get HD channels for all these: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, WB, PBS, Showtime, HBO, Discovery, and some optional premium channels (InHD, InHD2, etc). It costs me about $7 a month extra to get their PVR, which while it doesn't have as nice a UI as TiVo, is completely integrated with the cable service and is easy to use. (Plus has the benefit of not decoding and re-encoding the digital cable TV channels, similar to the benefits of DirecTiVo.)
Typically most on Slashdot love your books, but are not happy with your endings, citing how they often come to a very swift, and some may say, abrupt, conclusion.
Do you feel this is an accurate portrayal of your books' endings, and would you like to address this issue?
For brevity, I will cut this question short.
I don't consider AOL buying a company I like "good."
This means AOL is still 83.3% evil.
With an RFID tag broadcasting my info, you remove that choice from me.
You are assuming an awful lot about how the RFID tag will work. You are assuming that this thing is going to be broadcasting RFID quite some distance, measured in feet it sounds like.
In reality, there are RFID tags which require a reader to be within very close proximity of the tag for it to work at all. Measured in inches.
While it is possible for someone to surrepticiously be that close to my ass, I don't see the threat as it is being blown out of proportion on slashdot (as usual).
Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.
IKWYM!
Please... this is absurd.
What exactly do you do when you are:
- Applying for a job?
- Applying for a loan or bank account?
- Writing a check or using a credit card?
- Getting into a bar or purchasing alcohol or gambling or any other activity with an age requirement?
Driver's licenses are the only uniform photo ID issued in the US. To imply they are only for the purpose of driving implies you are either under 18 and unable to take advantage of most other uses for ID, or you are sitting at home much too often.
Let's try to honor James Doohan by rename the "X-Prize" to the "Doohan Prize".
I think there are plenty more ACTUAL ENGINEERS that would deserve the honor before an actor playing an engineer. But beyond that, the more obvious choice than Scotty would be Gene Roddenberry.
Because you're a "working person" too. And I don't recall him saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us." But I do remember Bush making a comment along those lines a number of times.
Well, Bush was talking about countries that are not clearly against terrorism, so your comment here is ignorant bullshit. And if the green party is for wealth redistribution, as it sounds as if they are, then they are absolutely working against me.
There are those that are less fortunate, and they don't get the tax breaks, or health care, or steady work, or minimum wage in some cases.
"Successful", "Highly ingenuitive" are terms reserved for companies like Wal-mart and Haliburton, who don't give a sh!t about the "working people" or the less fortunate.
They're the ones who get a say, not you, not minimum wage over there. They're the ones who get to influence decision.
1. You can only get tax breaks when you pay taxes. Those really less fortunate are not paying any taxes. However, they are STILL getting money through TAX CREDITS. (That's a euphemism for "money taken from someone else that earned it.")
2. I don't believe in minimum wages dictated by governments. If a company is not offering you enough money, work for someone else. This may or may not require you getting off your lazy ass and improving your skill sets to a desirable level. Tough shit if you're lazy.
Maybe you should change your handle from "That's Unpossible" to "Clueless, self-important white collar ass who's so obviously just out of school on his first job otherwise he wouldn't be so painfully ignorant and opinionated"
I've been out of school and working for the same employer for 10 years now. I have been able to stay with this employer because of my advanced skillset and willingness to adapt to the market instead of lazily asking for hand outs and relying on big brother to take care of me.
The point was that the outrageously-rich person has no place bitching about not getting government assistance to help him... be rich, I guess.
How the hell is this "a point" at all? Please show me one rich person looking for government assistance? Rich people, and non-rich people (like me) simply want the government to get their fucking hands out of our pockets!
If I wanted you to have my money, I'd listen to your appeal, or that of the charity you go to, and make a decision based on its own merits. I don't find that letting the government manage anything to do with money is EVER a good idea, let alone my money.
As someone who recently had their job outsourced, screw Gates!
It wasn't YOUR job, it was your employer's job.
If you are having trouble finding work now, you may need to move or update your set of skills to make yourself more valuable. It sucks, but outsourcing simply makes things cost cheaper in the U.S., saving you money, and moves menial tasks to others so that U.S. workers can take control of more complex jobs that cannot be outsourced.
I don't know anyone that thinks caffeine + alcohol gives you MORE of a boost than regular caffeine. It just gives you more of a boost than drinking vodka with non-caffeinated beverages, like tonic water.
I don't want socialism, I don't wanna steal the wealth from rich people. I'm just saying that people who live their lives in the pursuit of money should take a good look around (outside their estate), and at the very least stop whining for more ways the government can let them have MORE money.
"LET THEM HAVE"??? It isn't the government's money in the first place!
And if heavier tax burdens on the rich truly only affected the assholes that don't care about anyone else, I may concede your point (such as it is). However, please realize the vast majority of people, rich or not, have a conscience. I know it makes it easier to take more of their money if you think of rich people as being evil, but it just isn't true.
You're not being punished for succeeding
Coming from someone who has never looked at escalating tax brackets, no doubt.
You should be happy that you don't need a government program to have a decent quality of living
The people in the fucking programs don't NEED a government program. SOME of them legitimately need help. Help that can be provided by private charities. The rest are lazy, milking the system, because it is there to be milked.
And this is only one type of spending problem with the government. Then you get into the stupidity of pork barrel programs.
The rest of your post is pure lunacy. No rich person is claiming they need government help. However, they would like the government to stop taking the money they EARNED and wasting it.
IP laws such as copyright or patents give "ingenuity" a tangible value. Otherwise you'd have to use your "ingenuity" all the time to earn your money. Without such laws, any "great idea" you have can be used by anyone else. That doesn't give it much value, does it?
Ever heard of a service-oriented company? Now imagine a successful one.
Assuming that your company isn't based on a protected "great idea", then unless you are the one solely responsible for its success (which seems unlikely due to the fact that someone will buy the company), then that means the company can run perfectly well without you. So why should you get the millions when you're not doing the work?
Well this is not the case, but let's say it was. I created the company. The company is successful. I wrote the software that makes it work so great. You don't have the software in your hands, so even if there was no copyright, you'd still have to write it yourself. If I am bought out for millions, it is because my company is profitable, and the investment in my company is "worth it" to the entity buying my company.
So I don't understand where the entitlement of "millions of dollars" comes from. People aren't going to buy your "hard work" or "intelligence" because it's not worth anything to them once you're gone. And if your "ingenuity" isn't protected by IP laws, then others can duplicate this.
Who says they can? Ever heard of SKILL? Perhaps I am the best at what I do, and my work cannot be duplicated? Even in your "no copyrights" socialist fantasy land, you may be able to see how this thinking is flawed?
So why again should you be paid "many millions"?
It's called the free market. My company will be bought out for whatever the market will bear. You might do well to read more about this idea.
You're making the flawed assumption that capital is more valuable than labor.
Clearly, I have shown this can be true.
Without labor, capital is worthless.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Capital is defined as "wealth in the form of money or property." By its very definition, it is not worth it, because other people want it and are willing to pay for it.
Labor is also worth something. I don't really see how it fits into the point I was originally making, nor the grande point you were trying to make.
At the very least, capital and labor should benefit equally from the success derived from their combination.
In fantasy land, that sounds great. In the real world, we'll let the FREE market decide what is worth what. That is the fairest way.
She will be able to buy still more real estate and build more hotels. She will be able to branch out into other financial ventures if she or her handlers want to. Her options are basically limitless.
Now, let me ask you: did she EARN that ability?
Of course not. She also didn't EARN the money in the first place. THAT is the person that earned the right to give his family that lifestyle. Who are you to come in and try to take that away? Where do you get that right?
Did the medieval princes and princesses EARN their right to the thrones they inherited?
I don't know what a discussion of monarchies has to do with the discussion of capitalism.
Did George W. EARN his right to run multiple failed ventures before his (failed, in many people's opinions) presidency?
I really don't follow your point here.
Your argument about wealth breaks down when you take into account 'old money,'
It sure doesn't. "Old money," is just money that was earned and INVESTED. Bill Gate's great grandchildren will be old money when they're around, and yet Bill Gates has also contributed billions of dollars to charity, and his family lineage will likely continue that to a lesser extent. Just because you don't like how someone obtained their money doesn't give you the right to take it away.
regardless of what you have been led to believe, YOU will NEVER be a part of that old money elite. Nor will I, or anyone else that isn't born into it.
Really? So your contention is that a person cannot go from rags to riches in America? From dirt poor to a billionaire? How many examples would you like me to list to refute this idiocy? 5, 10, 100, examples? I could do it, but why waste our time? And that is just for billionaires. How many people have gone from dirt poor to upper class in America? From dirt poor to millionaires? This is the land of opportunity, and it didn't get that way by succumbing to socialism.
Just because someone inherited money from someone who earned it doesn't mean you can take it from them for your own purpose. You are spitting on the hard work and ingenuity of the person that originally earned it.
And whether you choose to belive it or not, old money is slowly, anonymously, buying up more and more control of our country.
I don't know what you mean by control, but if you are making an argument against the corporate lobbying of Congress, then you are preaching to the converted. If the government was doing what the constitution mandated, and no more, the companies wouldn't bother lobbying Congress, because there would be nothing earned from it. It is only in this system of high taxes, high spending, and huge pork and social programs that companies are even able to get their claws into the government.
One final comment about the socialist idea that rich people can have their money taken away by the tyranny of the majority: I would hate to live in a country where there is no reward for risk, hard work, ingenuity, and even pure, dumb luck. Because that road leads to sloth and laziness. When people don't have an incentive to contribute, the contributions descend into nothingness.
Why do you think America is one of the richest countries on Earth?
So, basically you consider taxes to be theft?
No. I said, "it is WRONG to take from someone and give to someone else." I have no problem with paying some taxes so that the government can do its constitutionally mandated job of protecting the country from attack, upholding the rule of law, etc.
Taxes used for almost everything else is pure theft.
Don't forget to add "... and due to laws that are favorable to me being able to do this" to your laundry list.
Only the natural laws of property ownership allow me to sell something I own. Or do you think no one owns anything in this world? For that, I cannot help you.
If you can sell your company to someone else, that means someone else can do what you did.
Absolutely. That is the beauty of the free market. Another person that puts forth the effort can do what I did, but there is value in that effort and ingenuity, reflected in the profit of the sale of my company. It has nothing to do with any laws.
You may have figured out how to do something differently before others, but you rely on a set of laws that prevent others from doing the same exact thing as you (stifling competition).
I rely on no such laws. I have competitors (though not as successful). I have customers with different needs that may go elsewhere. There is competition in my industry, and my company does nothing to stifle competition, other than to strive to make the best product available.
So your success is not simply due to your "ingenuity, skill, hard work, and intelligence". It is also due to "an economic system that allows me to stop my competitors".
Please explain how our economic system allows me to stop my competitors?
So, there you go. Even though I am personally not poor, I think you can hardly support a party that would advocate primarily helping the rich, without simply being a selfish bastard.
I see you have succumbed to the rhetoric of class warfare. It is not about "helping the rich," it is about not stealing the property of one person to give to another person. That is inherently wrong. No matter how you may try to justify it in your mind for "the public good," it is WRONG to take from someone and give to someone else. There are enough charitable people in the world, where if they could keep their money, would use it wisely and charitably.
The next step is things like Kerry telling people they "have a right to health care." Health care is provided by skilled workers. Does this mean you have a right to use their skills, without their consent? We are approaching a slippery, socialistic slope.
Our society has agreed that we want certain government services that the citizens will contribute to. We have decided that we want roads and fire stations and not having people dying in the streets when they are too old to work anymore, and we have to pay for those things somehow. That payment system is called taxation.
If you take 10 thousand dollars in taxes from a "working" person, you are likely to impact their ability to keep their home or pay for their medical care--critical human needs.
If you take that amount or larger from a wealthy person, their human needs remain untouched--only their ability to purchase additional luxuries or status enhancing items (elaborate home, premium car, home theater, etc.) is threatened.
Unfortunately for your worldview, people with money do more than buy luxury or status items. They invest their money -- allowing people to get loans they need. They create businesses -- allowing people to be employed and earn money. They send their kids to the best schools -- because they EARNED the ability to do so. They create scholarships and fund private charities -- because they have the means to do so. They support their extended families and friends -- so those people don't have to suckle at the public teat.
It seems to me that is a significant difference, especially when you are approaching the question in terms of what is fair or moral, as the poster was.
How is it fair or moral to take the property of one person, under threat of force, and give it to someone else?
Good points, but I still insist that the society should provide a modest income to everyone (a citizen's salary, so to speak) - even if you admit you're just a lazy son-of-a-bitch who doesn't feel like working. I've got such a friend. He just doesn't feel like having a job, but is perfectly OK with his minimal dole. I'm perfectly OK with that, too.
This is because you are a socialist. That is fine, however your idealogy is not popular in America, and if this is the kind of support the Greens have, they will NEVER win a role in American politics.
Hey, wake up already! It's OK to be lazy (the truly lazy will always be in a minority), stupid, sick, handicapped and politically conscious and to be supported by tax money. It's the primary function of a society to guarantee the welfare of the weak - not to guarantee free trade or maximum profit for you "winners".
Where on earth do you get the idea that society must support the lazy/stupid/ignorant? Society will support those that deserve to be helped and require it. The sick, handicapped, even the unlucky. You are right. It's ok to be lazy. But you must live with that responsibility, not thrust it upon others.
Secondly, the libertarians aren't interested in "guaranteeing" maximum profit for anyone. They are interested in getting the government out of the way of EVERYONE.
For Democrats, Greens are the party which champions what Democrats used to: support for working people and people of color and protection of the environment.
What exactly are "working people?"
To me, the implication here is that a person with a shitty, manual-labor job is a "working person," but, e.g., a highly successful, obscenely rich, white-collar worker is not. The implication is because someone is rich, they must not have earned it, they don't REALLY "work" for it, and therefore it is OK if we take more of it to help out "the working people."
Am I way off base here? Why use such a loaded term as "working people."
I am a programmer, I make a nice living. Am I a working person? How much money do I have to start making a year before I'm not considered "a working person" by the Green party?
If I sell my company and earn many millions of dollars due to my ingenuity, skill, hard work, and intelligence, I no longer have to work. Yet I earned the money fair-and-square. I am no longer a "working person," does that mean the Green Party is now against me?
Ralph Nader is registering 1 percent in the polls. He is more worthy of being in the debates than these two clowns.
1. Ralph Nader is a flagrant self-promoter. He is more interested in selling books than in being President. He has name-brand recognition because he has put himself out there so often, and because of his book Unsafe at Any Speed.
2. Compare the number of stats where Nader is on the ballot, versus Badnarik. If electability is what you want to use to decide who gets to debate, I think Badnarik gets in before Nader.
Run for President, or convince someone you admire to run for President.
That fact that you didn't even consider this option -- or worse, think it is an absurd idea -- is a sad reflection on our current politicians-for-life trend.