An argument consists of premises and conclusions. Regarding your first point, I neither set that forth as a premise nor did I conclude that from the premises I did set forth. Reading comprehension fail. Let me clarify: I provided a list of other acts which are generally despised by society yet which are "human nature". My goal was not to equate these acts with caring and providing for one's own family, but instead to serve as a counterexample to your implied claim that acts which are "human nature" must necessarily be "right" or "good".
Your second point, as defensively worded as it is, leads to an interesting discussion. It's true (although not necessarily true, I suppose) that every child is a burden to society, at least at some times (paricularly during the early phases of life). However, to say that every child is nothing but a burden to society isn't exactly accurate either, as numerous counterexamples to this claim can be easily identified (say, Isaac Newton, or Haile Selassie I). Either way, this isn't a claim that I made, so I feel no need to defend it as such. I didn't single out your child in particular, but that should be apparent to anyone that reads what I wrote.
Your third point does not logically follow from anything I said myself. I didn't make any claims as to what anyone "should" do. I didn't say the world "should" be fair (although I do think that it would be generally better for humans if it were fair), I merely pointed out that your approach is not fair. You're unfairly biased in your daughter's favor, and you can't offer a single logical argument in support of your position. I'm not saying that no such argument can be made, only that if there is, you haven't made it.
Again, I reiterate the point that your argument stems from emotion, not logic. I encourage you to reflect on your beliefs in the context of rational logic, and write back after you've done so. Don't you think that the emotional need to support one's family, lacking any basis in reason, is fascinating?
Yes, I did. You care about others, just not as much as you do about your own. Of course you're right, this is human nature. Much like fucking anything that moves, taking that juicy steak from the cripple, or killing anything that seems like it might one day pose a threat to you. Personally, I think that appeals to human nature are a bit played out, as the kids say.
You made a conscious decision to have kids knowing full well that you'd be raising them at the expense of the rest of the human race. That you'd be helping your daughter pay for college, but not helping some other little girl get a hot meal. Of course, you could've decided to do the truly selfless thing and not have kids, so that you could be a better human, so that your little girl wouldn't distract you from the rest of the world. But no, human nature stopped you from being selfless, and you were powerless to resist. Woe is you.
Your daughter is not special. She is one of billions of people suffering through this world. I'll pay for her college just as soon as I can pay for everyone's college, because I don't believe that preferential treatment is fair, by definition. Your entire argument stems from emotion (and appeals to "human nature") and lacks any substance of logic. Don't be offended by the allegations of greed. After all, it's just human nature.
While we're on this "fuck the republicrats" sidebar, I'd like to take this opportunity to spam you about WOLF-PAC.
I found out about them here on slashdot, and I've been supporting their efforts ever since.
The idea is to do an end-run around the federal legislature and get a supermajority of state legislators to agree to campaign finance reform. Undo Citizens United and a whole slew of other "money in politics" problems by threatening to get another amendment tacked onto our federal constitution.
In the past, even the threat of such a possibility has caused the federal legislature to act. It's actually not as loony of an idea as it initially sounds. I highly recommend you look into WOLF-PAC, if you haven't already. And yes, they should've picked a less-silly name.
This country needs more critical thinkers involved in the political process. That's a problem because usually critical thinkers know better than to get involved in this shit. However, that may be a luxury that we can't much longer afford.
Taxing income taxes you for generating wealth. It penalizes you for creating value.
Bull. Shit.
Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off. Note, ripping people off is not the same thing as generating wealth.
There's nothing stopping people from providing goods and services for no profit, and hence not paying a cent in taxes.
You can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $2 of finished goods (the market can bear it!), turning a $1 profit, and paying taxes on that $1 profit.
Or you can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $1 of finished goods (at cost, below market rate), turning no profit, and paying no taxes.
In either case, the same amount of wealth (indeed, the same end product) is generated. However, in one case, there is no tax paid. Therefore, it necessarily follows that income tax is independent of generation of wealth.
If you're bothered by taxes, simply opt to avoid profit. But, you see, the problem isn't that you have to pay taxes. The problem is your unbridled greed.
That you classify this as throwing your vote away is sad.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the fact that gaining even small numbers of votes helps candidates with future fundrainsing efforts, public campaign financing, etc.
Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that meaningful political shifts in this country tend to coincide with third parties gaining the attention of the electorate.
Perhaps it's news to you that the only way to throw away your vote in this country is to vote for the democrats or the republicans who don't need your vote to split the win between the two of them anyway.
You've got it backwards, my friend. Voting third party is the only way to make your vote count.
If you make $50K a year, you are in the 25% Federal bracket,and if you are in California another 9.3%, then don't forget social security and medicare - 7.65%, and if you go thru the trouble of being self employed, you get to pay that twice, or 15.3%... OK you're right. It is ONLY 49.6% tax, for a self employed person in California
I see, the 25% tax bracket is for all income $0-50K/year? I take it you're not an accountant.
Your numbers are bullshit, they don't even account for standard deductions or any other factors that run counter to your message, but what really gets me is that you use the word "bracket" without even understanding what it means. I get the idea: you're a loudly ignorant about things you talk about as a typical member of the tea party.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
That's a sadly greedy way to go through life. I understand that "fuck you, I got mine" is a popular motto today, but seriously, have you no shame?
Why is there a 7% sales tax on any retail transaction!!! That income has been taxed already.
Why is there an annual tax on any developed property!!! That income has been taxed already.
Money gets taxed whenever it moves around. I can sell you a shoe, and you'll pay sales tax on it. You can sell me that same shoe back, and I'll pay sales tax on it. We'll be paying sales tax on that shoe for as long as we keep exchanging it.
When you inherit money, you haven't been taxed on that transaction yet. Not until you pay the estate tax, that is. But maybe you're right. Maybe it's a gross violation of our code of ethics. After all, why penalize someone just for dying! Indeed, to get around this "death tax", you should merely transfer your wealth to your heirs prior to your death. That way you won't have to worry about the tax impact.
Dislaimer: sarcasm; the wealth transfer is taxed either way.
That's too bad. You should've voted for an independent or third-party candidate. I didn't throw my vote away; I voted for Jill Stein.
If you don't live in a swing state and you've been voting for the republicrats, you've been throwing your vote away. Wake up and help us flush these shits down the toilet.
Getting money out of unemployment is like getting blood from a turnip.
I've been unemployed for extended periods several times in my life. However, I've yet to collect a single red cent from those bastards.
First they told me I didn't work for my employer for long enough. Laid off after five and a half months, tough cookies.
Then they told me I hadn't been working enough hours per week. If you only need 30 hours a week to make sufficient pay, you're not worthy.
Then they told me that self-employment doesn't count as employment. If you have the audacity to do contract work, well, fuck you.
I've been working more than 40 hours a week for my current employer for almost five years now. I'm just praying that they'll let me go so that I can finally get some of my unemployment insurance money back. On principle. Fuckers.
I have an LLC that I started up a little over a year ago. You know what would help me? Higher taxes.
Higher taxes that fund a single-payer system, so that I didn't need to pay for my employees' health insurance.
I've never understood how lower taxes are supposed to help startups. Taxes are paid on profit. If you're being taxed, you're making profit. I've never heard of someone giving up on their business because of taxes. Ever.
How about instead of "giving" healthcare to the government to manage, we simply establish a PO Box in DC that all medical practitioners can send their invoices to. The PO Box can be checked daily, checks written, then sent out.
This wouldn't have any impact on softdrinks or being fat or any other unhealthy habits "they" don't want you to do. It wouldn't give "them" any control of your medicine, or anything of that sort. The only difference would be where medical bills are sent.
I suppose that wouldn't work though. Because socialism, right?
A 16kHz signal is sinusoidal. That's what "16kHz signal" means.
A 16kHz square wave consists of infinitely many harmonics of infinitely high frequency. I didn't say a 32kHz sampling rate was sufficient to capture the a signal of infinitely many infinitely high frequencies.
24-bit @ 192kHz beats 16-bit @ 44.1kHz. You're sampling more frequently, and each sample is of greater precision. I'm not sure how you could argue the opposite.
Whether or not there's an audible differrence, well, that's another story. I don't suffer from audiophilia because I go to concerts, shoot guns, and otherwise damage my hearing regularly. I highly recommend this approach; it's a lot cheaper than solid gold digital audio cables.
Also, Nyquist and Shannon suggest that a 44.1kHz sampling rate is more than sufficient to faithfully reproduce a 16kHz signal with no aliasing, as your sampling rate need only be strictly greater than 32kHz. Any sampling rate above this threshhold will reproduce the sampled signal the same: perfectly.
Indeed, you do not need nuclear-tipped ICBMs to have a well regulated militia. Good thing the 2nd amendment doesn't say that the right to bear only arms that are required for a well regulated militia is protected. Not having access to them, on the other hand, literally infringes on my right to keep and bear them, regardless of the fact that other arms are accessible. The amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear some arms.
If a law reads "the right to move about shall not be infringed", and another law says "you can't move west", then the laws are in conflict, even though there are no laws prohibiting movement to the north, south, or east. That's what infringe means. To limit, to restrict. Not to eliminate outright.
Additionally, I see you getting hung up on the well-regulated militia part, as so many people do. Well, I'm assuming you're a fluent speaker of English. You may notice that the law, as written, doesn't state that the arms are for the sole purpose of enabling the formation of a militia. It doesn't state that a militia may bear arms. It states two things: one, that a militia is necessary, and two, that people have a right to bear arms. These are two independent claims, and the validity of one has no bearing on the other. That is, had the text of the amendment instead read "The sky is red, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", people would still have a right to bear arms, and this right could not legally be infringed. Even if it is factually true that a standing army is the way to go, and that a well-regulated militia is not necessary for security, the people's right to bear arms is still protected (although perhaps for no good reason).
Certainly my interpretation of this sentence is not that every mouthbreathing red-neck should own an ICBM.
See, that's precisely the problem. Your "interpretation". Your interpretation is at odds with the text of the law. The law, as written, guarantees unlimited and unrestricted access to arms for all people under the US's jurisdiction. I think we can both agree that this is not a good idea. Where we differ is in our response to this; where you prefer to simply apply a reasonable interpretation, I prefer to change the law to reflect what we actually want for society, in writing. Your preferred approach is much easier, as it only requires a majority of SCOTUS justices to agree, whereas mine would require a supermajority in Congress. Of course, the intent of the founders was that any changes to the constitution would require a supermajority in Congress, not just a majority in the SCOTUS. The process for changing the constitution is clearly defined, and simply "interpreting" our way to a desired outcome is little more than an end-run around one of the protective mechanisms in our government.
Certainly my interpretation of this sentence is not that every mouthbreathing red-neck should own an ICBM.
Today, we're glad that the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd in a way that keeps nukes out of the hands of Joe Sixpack. Tomorrow, we might not be so glad that the SCOTUS can interpret the 1st in a way that keeps unrest silenced. While I hope this isn't something we really need to worry about today, consider this for a moment. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what laws mean. If tomorrow they decided to interpret the first amendment to mean that everyone is entitled to lollipops, but that any undesireable speech is punishable by death, what recourse would we have? I don't mean to suggest that this is likely to happen; I'm merely pointing out that our government was designed specifically to prevent this from even being possible, yet today this is exactly where we find ourselves. A SCOTUS that can rewrite any law on the books by interpreting it to mean whatever it is that they want, that can interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall only slightly be infringed". Today, we find that what they want is generally what society wants. However, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that this continues to be the case.
P.S. "well-regulated" is synonymous with "well-armed" or "well-equiped" in this context, not that it's relevant to anything else I've said.
I had an answer. You take all the money, and they end up poor - and the poor are no better off, either.
The top 20% of Americans own between 88.9% and 95.6% of the wealth in this country. That means that the bottom 80% own between 4.4% and 11.1% of the wealth. Redistributing the wealth from the top 20% to the remainder of the population would result in a 7- to 18-fold increase in the wealth of the bottom 80%. Most would agree that a 7- to 18-fold increase in one's wealth leaves one "better off". Even redistribution of wealth from only the top 1% would result in an average increase in wealth of 53% for the bottom 99%, which most people would also agree is significant. Your argument is baseless, and your allegation that any redistributed wealth would be insufficient makes no sense.
Ben Franklin must have been amazed by the riches attained by the sub-Saharan Africans, since so little was being done for them during his life.
Slashdot Mirror
Touche.
Money in politics is a problem. An uneducated and ignorant population is the problem.
Can you blame people for trying to tackle the "easier" problems first?
An argument consists of premises and conclusions. Regarding your first point, I neither set that forth as a premise nor did I conclude that from the premises I did set forth. Reading comprehension fail. Let me clarify: I provided a list of other acts which are generally despised by society yet which are "human nature". My goal was not to equate these acts with caring and providing for one's own family, but instead to serve as a counterexample to your implied claim that acts which are "human nature" must necessarily be "right" or "good".
Your second point, as defensively worded as it is, leads to an interesting discussion. It's true (although not necessarily true, I suppose) that every child is a burden to society, at least at some times (paricularly during the early phases of life). However, to say that every child is nothing but a burden to society isn't exactly accurate either, as numerous counterexamples to this claim can be easily identified (say, Isaac Newton, or Haile Selassie I). Either way, this isn't a claim that I made, so I feel no need to defend it as such. I didn't single out your child in particular, but that should be apparent to anyone that reads what I wrote.
Your third point does not logically follow from anything I said myself. I didn't make any claims as to what anyone "should" do. I didn't say the world "should" be fair (although I do think that it would be generally better for humans if it were fair), I merely pointed out that your approach is not fair. You're unfairly biased in your daughter's favor, and you can't offer a single logical argument in support of your position. I'm not saying that no such argument can be made, only that if there is, you haven't made it.
Again, I reiterate the point that your argument stems from emotion, not logic. I encourage you to reflect on your beliefs in the context of rational logic, and write back after you've done so. Don't you think that the emotional need to support one's family, lacking any basis in reason, is fascinating?
And Punxatawny Phil says spring starts on another date entirely.
When did Google get demoted from the position of sole arbiter of truth?
While I personally disagree with any calendar that has "midsummers eve" falling on the night before the "official" start of summer, who am I to argue?
Google Has Spoken. Spring starts on the 20th this year.
Yes, I did. You care about others, just not as much as you do about your own. Of course you're right, this is human nature. Much like fucking anything that moves, taking that juicy steak from the cripple, or killing anything that seems like it might one day pose a threat to you. Personally, I think that appeals to human nature are a bit played out, as the kids say.
You made a conscious decision to have kids knowing full well that you'd be raising them at the expense of the rest of the human race. That you'd be helping your daughter pay for college, but not helping some other little girl get a hot meal. Of course, you could've decided to do the truly selfless thing and not have kids, so that you could be a better human, so that your little girl wouldn't distract you from the rest of the world. But no, human nature stopped you from being selfless, and you were powerless to resist. Woe is you.
Your daughter is not special. She is one of billions of people suffering through this world. I'll pay for her college just as soon as I can pay for everyone's college, because I don't believe that preferential treatment is fair, by definition. Your entire argument stems from emotion (and appeals to "human nature") and lacks any substance of logic. Don't be offended by the allegations of greed. After all, it's just human nature.
While we're on this "fuck the republicrats" sidebar, I'd like to take this opportunity to spam you about WOLF-PAC.
I found out about them here on slashdot, and I've been supporting their efforts ever since.
The idea is to do an end-run around the federal legislature and get a supermajority of state legislators to agree to campaign finance reform. Undo Citizens United and a whole slew of other "money in politics" problems by threatening to get another amendment tacked onto our federal constitution.
In the past, even the threat of such a possibility has caused the federal legislature to act. It's actually not as loony of an idea as it initially sounds. I highly recommend you look into WOLF-PAC, if you haven't already. And yes, they should've picked a less-silly name.
This country needs more critical thinkers involved in the political process. That's a problem because usually critical thinkers know better than to get involved in this shit. However, that may be a luxury that we can't much longer afford.
Taxing income taxes you for generating wealth. It penalizes you for creating value.
Bull. Shit.
Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off. Note, ripping people off is not the same thing as generating wealth.
There's nothing stopping people from providing goods and services for no profit, and hence not paying a cent in taxes.
You can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $2 of finished goods (the market can bear it!), turning a $1 profit, and paying taxes on that $1 profit.
Or you can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $1 of finished goods (at cost, below market rate), turning no profit, and paying no taxes.
In either case, the same amount of wealth (indeed, the same end product) is generated. However, in one case, there is no tax paid. Therefore, it necessarily follows that income tax is independent of generation of wealth.
If you're bothered by taxes, simply opt to avoid profit. But, you see, the problem isn't that you have to pay taxes. The problem is your unbridled greed.
That you classify this as throwing your vote away is sad.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the fact that gaining even small numbers of votes helps candidates with future fundrainsing efforts, public campaign financing, etc.
Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that meaningful political shifts in this country tend to coincide with third parties gaining the attention of the electorate.
Perhaps it's news to you that the only way to throw away your vote in this country is to vote for the democrats or the republicans who don't need your vote to split the win between the two of them anyway.
You've got it backwards, my friend. Voting third party is the only way to make your vote count.
If you make $50K a year, you are in the 25% Federal bracket,and if you are in California another 9.3%, then don't forget social security and medicare - 7.65%, and if you go thru the trouble of being self employed, you get to pay that twice, or 15.3%... OK you're right. It is ONLY 49.6% tax, for a self employed person in California
I see, the 25% tax bracket is for all income $0-50K/year? I take it you're not an accountant.
Your numbers are bullshit, they don't even account for standard deductions or any other factors that run counter to your message, but what really gets me is that you use the word "bracket" without even understanding what it means. I get the idea: you're a loudly ignorant about things you talk about as a typical member of the tea party.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
That's a sadly greedy way to go through life. I understand that "fuck you, I got mine" is a popular motto today, but seriously, have you no shame?
Why is there a 7% sales tax on any retail transaction!!! That income has been taxed already. Why is there an annual tax on any developed property!!! That income has been taxed already.
Money gets taxed whenever it moves around. I can sell you a shoe, and you'll pay sales tax on it. You can sell me that same shoe back, and I'll pay sales tax on it. We'll be paying sales tax on that shoe for as long as we keep exchanging it.
When you inherit money, you haven't been taxed on that transaction yet. Not until you pay the estate tax, that is. But maybe you're right. Maybe it's a gross violation of our code of ethics. After all, why penalize someone just for dying! Indeed, to get around this "death tax", you should merely transfer your wealth to your heirs prior to your death. That way you won't have to worry about the tax impact.
Dislaimer: sarcasm; the wealth transfer is taxed either way.
That's too bad. You should've voted for an independent or third-party candidate. I didn't throw my vote away; I voted for Jill Stein.
If you don't live in a swing state and you've been voting for the republicrats, you've been throwing your vote away. Wake up and help us flush these shits down the toilet.
All these new useless users make me sick.
Pot, kettle, 1275164.
Cue the low UID battle!
Thursday, March 20
The First Day of Spring (Spring Equinox) 2014
Three days away.
Hazelnuts. They're called hazelnuts.
God damn Oregonians!
Getting money out of unemployment is like getting blood from a turnip.
I've been unemployed for extended periods several times in my life. However, I've yet to collect a single red cent from those bastards.
First they told me I didn't work for my employer for long enough. Laid off after five and a half months, tough cookies.
Then they told me I hadn't been working enough hours per week. If you only need 30 hours a week to make sufficient pay, you're not worthy.
Then they told me that self-employment doesn't count as employment. If you have the audacity to do contract work, well, fuck you.
I've been working more than 40 hours a week for my current employer for almost five years now. I'm just praying that they'll let me go so that I can finally get some of my unemployment insurance money back. On principle. Fuckers.
Do you own a startup?
I have an LLC that I started up a little over a year ago. You know what would help me? Higher taxes.
Higher taxes that fund a single-payer system, so that I didn't need to pay for my employees' health insurance.
I've never understood how lower taxes are supposed to help startups. Taxes are paid on profit. If you're being taxed, you're making profit. I've never heard of someone giving up on their business because of taxes. Ever.
How about instead of "giving" healthcare to the government to manage, we simply establish a PO Box in DC that all medical practitioners can send their invoices to. The PO Box can be checked daily, checks written, then sent out.
This wouldn't have any impact on softdrinks or being fat or any other unhealthy habits "they" don't want you to do. It wouldn't give "them" any control of your medicine, or anything of that sort. The only difference would be where medical bills are sent.
I suppose that wouldn't work though. Because socialism, right?
Any relation to Dr. Mala Trivedi?
While I myself am an audiophile at heart, I just can't see the use cases for this that makes it worth the money.
... what?
A 16kHz signal is sinusoidal. That's what "16kHz signal" means.
A 16kHz square wave consists of infinitely many harmonics of infinitely high frequency. I didn't say a 32kHz sampling rate was sufficient to capture the a signal of infinitely many infinitely high frequencies.
Well, I am, or at least I have a EE degree.
24-bit @ 192kHz beats 16-bit @ 44.1kHz. You're sampling more frequently, and each sample is of greater precision. I'm not sure how you could argue the opposite.
Whether or not there's an audible differrence, well, that's another story. I don't suffer from audiophilia because I go to concerts, shoot guns, and otherwise damage my hearing regularly. I highly recommend this approach; it's a lot cheaper than solid gold digital audio cables.
Also, Nyquist and Shannon suggest that a 44.1kHz sampling rate is more than sufficient to faithfully reproduce a 16kHz signal with no aliasing, as your sampling rate need only be strictly greater than 32kHz. Any sampling rate above this threshhold will reproduce the sampled signal the same: perfectly.
If a law reads "the right to move about shall not be infringed", and another law says "you can't move west", then the laws are in conflict, even though there are no laws prohibiting movement to the north, south, or east. That's what infringe means. To limit, to restrict. Not to eliminate outright.
Additionally, I see you getting hung up on the well-regulated militia part, as so many people do. Well, I'm assuming you're a fluent speaker of English. You may notice that the law, as written, doesn't state that the arms are for the sole purpose of enabling the formation of a militia. It doesn't state that a militia may bear arms. It states two things: one, that a militia is necessary, and two, that people have a right to bear arms. These are two independent claims, and the validity of one has no bearing on the other. That is, had the text of the amendment instead read "The sky is red, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", people would still have a right to bear arms, and this right could not legally be infringed. Even if it is factually true that a standing army is the way to go, and that a well-regulated militia is not necessary for security, the people's right to bear arms is still protected (although perhaps for no good reason).
Certainly my interpretation of this sentence is not that every mouthbreathing red-neck should own an ICBM.
See, that's precisely the problem. Your "interpretation". Your interpretation is at odds with the text of the law. The law, as written, guarantees unlimited and unrestricted access to arms for all people under the US's jurisdiction. I think we can both agree that this is not a good idea. Where we differ is in our response to this; where you prefer to simply apply a reasonable interpretation, I prefer to change the law to reflect what we actually want for society, in writing. Your preferred approach is much easier, as it only requires a majority of SCOTUS justices to agree, whereas mine would require a supermajority in Congress. Of course, the intent of the founders was that any changes to the constitution would require a supermajority in Congress, not just a majority in the SCOTUS. The process for changing the constitution is clearly defined, and simply "interpreting" our way to a desired outcome is little more than an end-run around one of the protective mechanisms in our government.
Certainly my interpretation of this sentence is not that every mouthbreathing red-neck should own an ICBM.
Today, we're glad that the SCOTUS can interpret the 2nd in a way that keeps nukes out of the hands of Joe Sixpack. Tomorrow, we might not be so glad that the SCOTUS can interpret the 1st in a way that keeps unrest silenced. While I hope this isn't something we really need to worry about today, consider this for a moment. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what laws mean. If tomorrow they decided to interpret the first amendment to mean that everyone is entitled to lollipops, but that any undesireable speech is punishable by death, what recourse would we have? I don't mean to suggest that this is likely to happen; I'm merely pointing out that our government was designed specifically to prevent this from even being possible, yet today this is exactly where we find ourselves. A SCOTUS that can rewrite any law on the books by interpreting it to mean whatever it is that they want, that can interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall only slightly be infringed". Today, we find that what they want is generally what society wants. However, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that this continues to be the case.
P.S. "well-regulated" is synonymous with "well-armed" or "well-equiped" in this context, not that it's relevant to anything else I've said.
Yea, that's for people with money.
I'm just looking to live in a shack for $5. An acre is plenty for me.
I had an answer. You take all the money, and they end up poor - and the poor are no better off, either.
The top 20% of Americans own between 88.9% and 95.6% of the wealth in this country. That means that the bottom 80% own between 4.4% and 11.1% of the wealth. Redistributing the wealth from the top 20% to the remainder of the population would result in a 7- to 18-fold increase in the wealth of the bottom 80%. Most would agree that a 7- to 18-fold increase in one's wealth leaves one "better off". Even redistribution of wealth from only the top 1% would result in an average increase in wealth of 53% for the bottom 99%, which most people would also agree is significant. Your argument is baseless, and your allegation that any redistributed wealth would be insufficient makes no sense.
Ben Franklin must have been amazed by the riches attained by the sub-Saharan Africans, since so little was being done for them during his life.