Modern Warfare 2 will be played mainly by 16-30 year olds.
Those born between 1975 and 2001 are an exception. Before that, killing civilians in Vietnam was the norm. Before that, it was Korea, then Germany, then there was another exceptional period, then Germany again.
I'm ok with that, provided short and long term capital gains taxes rates are commensurate with income tax and income tax rates are adjusted so that such an arrangement becomes revenue neutral while not affecting people who never had capital gains to begin with.
A much more libertarian version of the US would be possible, while still providing some protections against discrimination
Fair enough.
The problem I have with libertarianism is that it, by and large, is an extremist philosophy. You very rarely hear about how the US could stand to be a little more libertarian - except from civil libertarians. This extremism permeates the movement from the teabagging, race bating bottom that blithely quotes Thomas Jefferson regarding the tree of liberty all the way to the top's downright radical view that we should End the Fed.
If I'm understanding you correctly what you really what is the Goldwater/Rockefeller era republican party - and while my politics don't swing that way, it's not a desire I can begrudge anyone for holding.
Certainly food for thought, but consider we're not too far removed from restaurants hanging shingles reading: "Whites Only."
You have a hard time making the case that it's fraud when the conditions are advertised. Whether the social conditions of today would prevent us from backsliding is an open question, but one I'd rather not test.
Any political philosophy can be said to enable any activity that it views as outside the purview of governmental regulation. Libertarianism is most susceptible to this criticism because it views government's role to be extraordinarily narrow.
If you could argue that libertarians do not consider government to have a role in regulating criminal violence, then you could say that libertarians enabled terrorism. I personally don't consider libertarianism to go that far.
Now, just because a political philosophy argues that there should be constraints on the government when it regulates an activity does not mean it is abdicating it's regulatory responsibility, therefore it is not enabling the action.
Libertarians and liberals alike believe in due process and the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is they limit the government's regulatory authority, but they do not enable terrorism, by declaring that the government will not - under any circumstances - engage in criminal investigation.
But if US history has taught us anything it's that prejudice thrives in the absence of governmental regulation. The restaurateur may be a dick, but if he refuses to hire black waters, the blacks in the community have a reduced ability to succeed which feeds a downward spiral.
I don't think socialism isn't a dirty word, it's just been co-oped by the far right in the US. We cannot live without a stable social system - and that necessarily entails some redistribution of property through taxation.
Now, if you want to argue that liberalism is inseparable from communism, I'd have to beg to differ - we can recognize that property rights aren't absolute without throwing them out all together.
Try as you might, you'll never separate libertarianism from racism.
Even if a libertarian isn't personally racist, they see things like the civil rights act and the fair housing act (and the associated enforcement costs) as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables racism.
Not the greatest income. The greatest income equality.
From 1950-1970 not only did GDP grow rapidly due primarily to European post WWII rebuilding but real worker income - which has fallen for the last nine years and been flat since 1980 - kept up and even outpaced the GDP. There are many reasons for this including the GI Bill, but the single biggest factor is that this was the golden age of the labor movement.
Also, Europe didn't have to repay the money associated Mashal Plan, it was grants, not loans - we learned our lesson from Versailles.
The US has been heading in the right direction more or less continuously since it's founding.
I have a hard time with the argument that the period containing woman's suffrage, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the fair housing act, Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut is a step back from the Jim Crow/Great Depression era.
If you're worried about turning into serfs, it's worth noting the period with greatest income equality in history was the three decades following WWII. I'd place the most substantial step back from a liberty perspective since the period immediately following reconstruction to the time when the oligarchy really started to emerge in the '80s.
Not even the founders agreed on how the US federal government was originally designed. During Washington's presidency the first two political parties diverged over disagreement on this very issue (also over foreign policy related to England and France.) The federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, thought the federal government had broad powers, and the democratic republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson focused on state's rights. Ultimately Jefferson lost.
Do you really think the US worked better when only landowning whites were allowed to vote, slavery was legal, and the second president signed the alien and sedition acts?
I guess that's all a small price to pay for not getting your internet cut off...
Signing a petition makes you an activist - activists have power through what they do in public - which makes them public figures. If you're not comfortable being an activist, wait for the activists to gather enough public support so you can vote on it anonymously.
The whole idea for petitions for ballot initiatives is to determine if there is sufficient public support for an issue before it goes to the ballot. You don't want every issue that some guy thinks is a good idea to be voted on or you might as well not have a representative democracy, and you end up with the mess California is in. The theory is that if an issue has anywhere near 50% support it shouldn't be a problem to find a certain number of people who will stand up publicly and declare their support. If you can't find enough people who care strongly enough about an issue to put their name on the line, it's either not a cause worthy enough to become law, or it's mundane enough that the normal legislative process should handle it.
One final caveat, petitions and ballot initiatives - especially ones that amend state constitutions, make it substantially easier for democracy to devolve into "three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Basic human rights should never be put to a vote.
Take a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's a really important and interesting decision that lays out when the right to free speech ends and becomes illegal threat making.
Basically, the speaker has to have reason to believe that their speech will result in "imminent lawless action" for it to not be protected.
I know that slashdot really absorbed Orwell's lesson vis-a-vis thoughtcrime, and I also know that this is veering dangerously off topic, but hate crime legislation doesn't punish you for thinking bad things. It doesn't even punish you for thinking bad things while you commit a crime.
It is possible to commit a crime to "send a message." In such a case, there is more than one victim. First there's the person who was directly attacked, and then and there is the community the message was intended for. It therefore follows that violence meant to intimidate and supress an entire community should be more severely punished than simple assult directed at a single individual. That said, not every crime against a minority group is a hate crime, not even every racially motivated assault is a hate crime. District attorneys may be overzealous in applying the hate crime label, but ultimately it's up to a jury of your peers to decide if the charge is appropriate.
Hate crime legislation doesn't limit your ability to think, it limits your ability to communicate your thoughts through action. In that sense it's more akin to a limitation of your first amendment rights similar to prohibitions on making threats.
Slashdot Mirror
None of that is true.
Modern Warfare 2 will be played mainly by 16-30 year olds.
Those born between 1975 and 2001 are an exception. Before that, killing civilians in Vietnam was the norm. Before that, it was Korea, then Germany, then there was another exceptional period, then Germany again.
I don't have a huge problem with reading from LCDs, but it is easier on the eyes to use reflected light than back light.
I'm ok with that, provided short and long term capital gains taxes rates are commensurate with income tax and income tax rates are adjusted so that such an arrangement becomes revenue neutral while not affecting people who never had capital gains to begin with.
Fair enough.
The problem I have with libertarianism is that it, by and large, is an extremist philosophy. You very rarely hear about how the US could stand to be a little more libertarian - except from civil libertarians. This extremism permeates the movement from the teabagging, race bating bottom that blithely quotes Thomas Jefferson regarding the tree of liberty all the way to the top's downright radical view that we should End the Fed.
If I'm understanding you correctly what you really what is the Goldwater/Rockefeller era republican party - and while my politics don't swing that way, it's not a desire I can begrudge anyone for holding.
Certainly food for thought, but consider we're not too far removed from restaurants hanging shingles reading: "Whites Only."
You have a hard time making the case that it's fraud when the conditions are advertised. Whether the social conditions of today would prevent us from backsliding is an open question, but one I'd rather not test.
Any political philosophy can be said to enable any activity that it views as outside the purview of governmental regulation. Libertarianism is most susceptible to this criticism because it views government's role to be extraordinarily narrow.
If you could argue that libertarians do not consider government to have a role in regulating criminal violence, then you could say that libertarians enabled terrorism. I personally don't consider libertarianism to go that far.
Now, just because a political philosophy argues that there should be constraints on the government when it regulates an activity does not mean it is abdicating it's regulatory responsibility, therefore it is not enabling the action.
Libertarians and liberals alike believe in due process and the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is they limit the government's regulatory authority, but they do not enable terrorism, by declaring that the government will not - under any circumstances - engage in criminal investigation.
There may not be one, but not eliminating racism is different from enabling it.
race awareness isn't racism.
absolutely.
But if US history has taught us anything it's that prejudice thrives in the absence of governmental regulation. The restaurateur may be a dick, but if he refuses to hire black waters, the blacks in the community have a reduced ability to succeed which feeds a downward spiral.
You'll get no argument here.
I don't think socialism isn't a dirty word, it's just been co-oped by the far right in the US. We cannot live without a stable social system - and that necessarily entails some redistribution of property through taxation.
Now, if you want to argue that liberalism is inseparable from communism, I'd have to beg to differ - we can recognize that property rights aren't absolute without throwing them out all together.
Standard oil.
DuPont.
Try as you might, you'll never separate libertarianism from racism.
Even if a libertarian isn't personally racist, they see things like the civil rights act and the fair housing act (and the associated enforcement costs) as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables racism.
But that's ok, because no one understands libertarianism, libertarians least of all.
Not the greatest income. The greatest income equality.
From 1950-1970 not only did GDP grow rapidly due primarily to European post WWII rebuilding but real worker income - which has fallen for the last nine years and been flat since 1980 - kept up and even outpaced the GDP. There are many reasons for this including the GI Bill, but the single biggest factor is that this was the golden age of the labor movement.
Also, Europe didn't have to repay the money associated Mashal Plan, it was grants, not loans - we learned our lesson from Versailles.
The US has been heading in the right direction more or less continuously since it's founding.
I have a hard time with the argument that the period containing woman's suffrage, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the fair housing act, Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut is a step back from the Jim Crow/Great Depression era.
If you're worried about turning into serfs, it's worth noting the period with greatest income equality in history was the three decades following WWII. I'd place the most substantial step back from a liberty perspective since the period immediately following reconstruction to the time when the oligarchy really started to emerge in the '80s.
How about laws related to "promoting the general welfare"?
Not even the founders agreed on how the US federal government was originally designed. During Washington's presidency the first two political parties diverged over disagreement on this very issue (also over foreign policy related to England and France.) The federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, thought the federal government had broad powers, and the democratic republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson focused on state's rights. Ultimately Jefferson lost.
eventually.
Yeah, you and Timothy McVeigh...
Do you really think the US worked better when only landowning whites were allowed to vote, slavery was legal, and the second president signed the alien and sedition acts?
I guess that's all a small price to pay for not getting your internet cut off...
Signing a petition makes you an activist - activists have power through what they do in public - which makes them public figures. If you're not comfortable being an activist, wait for the activists to gather enough public support so you can vote on it anonymously.
you know...
The visitors logs for congressional offices is a public record, right?
The whole idea for petitions for ballot initiatives is to determine if there is sufficient public support for an issue before it goes to the ballot. You don't want every issue that some guy thinks is a good idea to be voted on or you might as well not have a representative democracy, and you end up with the mess California is in. The theory is that if an issue has anywhere near 50% support it shouldn't be a problem to find a certain number of people who will stand up publicly and declare their support. If you can't find enough people who care strongly enough about an issue to put their name on the line, it's either not a cause worthy enough to become law, or it's mundane enough that the normal legislative process should handle it.
One final caveat, petitions and ballot initiatives - especially ones that amend state constitutions, make it substantially easier for democracy to devolve into "three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Basic human rights should never be put to a vote.
Take a look at Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's a really important and interesting decision that lays out when the right to free speech ends and becomes illegal threat making.
Basically, the speaker has to have reason to believe that their speech will result in "imminent lawless action" for it to not be protected.
I know that slashdot really absorbed Orwell's lesson vis-a-vis thoughtcrime, and I also know that this is veering dangerously off topic, but hate crime legislation doesn't punish you for thinking bad things. It doesn't even punish you for thinking bad things while you commit a crime.
It is possible to commit a crime to "send a message." In such a case, there is more than one victim. First there's the person who was directly attacked, and then and there is the community the message was intended for. It therefore follows that violence meant to intimidate and supress an entire community should be more severely punished than simple assult directed at a single individual. That said, not every crime against a minority group is a hate crime, not even every racially motivated assault is a hate crime. District attorneys may be overzealous in applying the hate crime label, but ultimately it's up to a jury of your peers to decide if the charge is appropriate.
Hate crime legislation doesn't limit your ability to think, it limits your ability to communicate your thoughts through action. In that sense it's more akin to a limitation of your first amendment rights similar to prohibitions on making threats.
abortion isn't a public health issue.