A subpoena may not be issued to collect evidence for a pending case or to help a prosecutor prepare a case for trial.
Neither may a subpoena be issued to collect evidence unrelated to the case.
Such subpoenas would be unreasonable.
Trolling? I asked for you to demonstrate something other than a warrant and you responded with a warrant, albeit one known principally by another legal term.
A subpoena is a warrant to procure testimony, which may not be issued but by a court of law on the standing of sworn testimony describing the person(s) and things (the subject of testimony sought by the court) to be seized.
There would be no other lawful way to seize a person for testimony. It is a warrant.
Subpoenas are subject to the same procedure and limits as the 4th Amendment provides for warrants.
For the purposes of this argument, subpoenas have the same scope and limits as a warrant has, but merely for different purposes. Subpoenas do not give the government an end-run around 4th Amendment, but must be supported by the same standards as warrants are.
Umm, does the process for issuing a subpoena look anything like that for a warrant?
For example, is it issued on the authority of a court of law? After evidence is submitted showing the legal reasoning for the issuing of said subpoena? For the purpose of hearing testimony concerning a particular real or perceived contest of law currently being reviewed in that court?
How do you get from that to justifying warrantless, legally unsupervised raids on data at large? I really don't see any connection.
you say it's 'your data'. How so? I agree it *should* be, but it isn't in the current legal system.
If my current location is unknown to the government, do they have any right to obtain that information without a warrant?
Yes, that information may belong to another party which may divulge that information, which I may generally have no legal right to demand that they shield that information. But the assumption that the government may intrude on this relationship at will to impose it's demands, whether justified by time or distance, is simply unconstitutional. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this information is CLASSIFIED with respect to government accessibility. No warrant, no data.
Or does my right to the right of my privacy from the warrantless intrusion of government expire upon the passing of a moment? Does that data become declassified, given time or distance? I don't think so.
Uh, show me anything that says you can't be identified to a position at a specific time? It's simply not there.
Show me anything that says that the government may demand testimony from someone regarding my position at any time, without a warrant? Is there anything?
Because your personal data (the information which may indicate the position of your PERSON at a particular time and place) is constitutionally unprotected when it's possessed by a non-person entity? It's suddenly impersonal data?
My right to be secure in my person (which extends to every time and place of my being, past, present and future) and effects is not violated by means of wresting that information unconstitutionally from a business? How is that not two offenses against the law?
If the information sought were regarding that third- non-person "entity", or the business, would they have any right to demand the release of that data without a warrant?
And how can they require you to keep records for their purposes? Isn't it against your 5th Amendment rights to compel you to record or give any testimony? When you make any accounting to the government you are potentially incriminating yourself. The "pre-crime" aspect of this does not in any way change the implications of what it means to be secure in my person.
There is a narrow gap between this reasoning, and reasoning which gives them access to all your data held by third-party "entities". They can have all your passwords, too, with this wave of the hand.
How about those things in your house that would be perfectly functional if not for a little stupid broken piece of plastic?
No need to throw away a printer just because one of the paper feed gears stripped a tooth or broke. I can think of about a dozen things I've thrown out over the years, totaling several hundred dollars to replace, that I wouldn't have had to if I could print a piece for a few bucks.
Yeah, it doesn't quite add up to savings if I ran my own 3d printer, but the benefit isn't exactly low.
You can refurbish your own stuff instead of throwing it in a landfill.
I don't think CO2 is really that significant of a cause in AGW.
How much warming does a slab of concrete or asphalt make, as opposed to the land being covered by green vegetation?
You can turn your cars off, or switch fuels, but these deserts of concrete will warm the earth far more and longer than your carbon-based fuels will burn.
I feel like you and many others are missing the point: This isn't about supply and demand.
1. These areas are in an official State of Emergency. The rules of business are what the State says they are. 2. Price gouging is its own social harm. It is exploitative and creates massive inequities during a crisis
/Price gouging isn't illegal in all 50 States. Check your local laws.
It's ALL about supply and demand. Your price gouging argument is about a lack of supply in SAVINGS.
You would have no argument if money were not scarce, and the market cannot function if you pretend that money is not scarce.
The gas station needs a new generator to operate while power is out in the area? They found one on craigslist. It was prohibitively expensive, and it's available precisely because of that. The owner sees it as an opportunity to serve his community and potentially come out ahead, but it's a gamble. Why should you shortchange him on his service? Now they can continue operating and sell you gas, albeit for a considerable markup due to the need to recoup the investment on the generator during a short emergency stint which could be resolved in a day or so.
Or, just sit this one out. Let people figure it out on their own.
You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier.
And in many cases that is correct. It's the good old American tradition of hitting people when they are desperate and will pay anything, right up there with claim salting and medicine shows.
In all the analyzation about pricing supply and demand, I haven't seen a single comment about the nature of money and it's function in serving this purpose.
What is money? It's a liquid asset. Why do we keep a liquid asset? For the uncertainty of what you may need or want to acquire in the future. What happens when you don't have enough liquid assets? Adapt. Aside from fighting each other, that's what we do best. We can survive, if we make good decisions.
Having a reserve of liquid assets is one of those ways we PLAN for survival. But should the market be bent for your benefit if you failed to plan for surviving? No. That affects everyone else and their ability to utilize the market to solve their problems.
And money has a supply and a demand, as well.
In an emergency situation, the need to acquire or hold excess liquidity is suspended, and the VALUE OF MONEY takes a temporary tumble in relation to the need for scarce products and services to relieve the emergency situation.
Anti-price gouging laws is straight up price fixing, and it's immoral. It practically guarantees scarcity, because everyone knows that the money isn't actually worth much under the given conditions. Most people will treat $8/gallon gas with a lot more caution than $4/gallon gas.
Your first sentence talks about a bunch of material crap, and your second sentence talks about a "richer life".
Right. Material crap. That's what wealth is all about. The allure of wealth is NOT the money, but all the material crap it can buy.
House - Yep I have a small condo, shelter does improve my life. They had houses 40 years ago though, so I'm not sure what we are comparing here.
Home ownership is higher than it was 40 years ago.
Car - Sort of - I drive my company car, about 90% of my use of the thing is work related. I hate driving but there are times it is useful. Cars existed 40 years ago.
Car ownership is higher than it was 40 years ago.
Big Screen TV - I own an old CRT I inherited from an old roommate that left, I never use it (I have no or satellite service, nor even an antenna to plug into it). Obviously I don't think much of TV making life "richer".
Neither do I. But most people I know spend several hours a day in front of one. I assume they find it adds value to their lives.
State-of-the-art game system - I do own a Wii, its been broken for the last several months. I haven't bothered to fix it because I honestly don't miss it. Apparently it didn't really contribute much to having a richer life.
Again, several people I know spend their spare time on one. If it's not contributing to their lives then they're crazy/stupid to be wasting their lives on it. But it's there, for those of us who find that it does add value to their existence.
PC or Laptop - Computers and specifically the Internet are the one thing I'll give you that made a huge difference in quality of life.
So you finally recognized something of great wealth? You wouldn't have that, certainly not as inexpensively, except that the wealthy provided capital investment for innovation with the vision in mind to market it to the masses. In the exchange, they have grown more wealthy as you bought a product that they produced, and you have grown more wealthy for having such a product. A free trade, and all free (and honest) trade is to the benefit of all the parties involved. And that is the gist of my rant against the above post, which suggested that economic activity can benefit the wealthy alone. Except through means of deceit, a free economy cannot benefit the wealthy alone.
Anything else? Cell phones did eliminate a lot of old frustrations. Looking around my home I don't see much of anything else noteworthy, certainly nothing that didn't exist 40 years ago.
Improvements to windows and insulation to keep homes warmer in winter and cooler in summer. And it's not all in your home. Cheaper food from advancements in farming. GPS. I'm sure there's many more.
The main problem in life is that we work too much and thus can't enjoy any of the stuff we have (whether 40 year old tech or new). That is why we are miserable all the damn time and hate our lives. But the way society is set up, its either work yourself to death and be constantly miserable, or be out of work and eventually starve to death in the streets. Why isn't the march of technology moving our work week towards 20 hours (or less)?
The answer is that it is more efficient to work one person for 40 hours than to work two people 20 hours each.
And why is efficiency so important? Because that's what sends maximized profits to the rich shareholders at the top.
Why? Did the work week get longer in the last 40 years? Or do you think you should earn the same working 20 hours as you would if you worked 40 hours? If you want to work only 20 hours, there are a few part-time jobs out there.
Efficiency is important, because someone will find out a way to do something cheaper, and you have to compete with that. Cheaper does mean more profits, and more dough to line the pocket
Right. My point was that we've been brought up and told all of our lives that the authority of the government is from the consent of the governed. And it may have followed that very closely, for a few years after the war of independence. Slowly, that principle has been whittled away. Even though it's still praised in tongue, it has been displaced with violence by some of the very same people who give it praise.
I just want to make sure that the people who advocate the government usurping authority understand that this is merely authority through violence, and it may at any time be used against them. Either from their own government or from invading armies. If it's justified within the nation, it is justified without.
Until I take it from you b/c I have a bigger army. What's that, the government should prevent that from happening? So you think government should provide the services YOU want (protect your property and wealth), of course by taxing people. But government definitely shouldn't provide any services to anyone else that you disapprove of, b/c then taxation is theft.
Taxation is the assertion that my body, my labor and the product of it, are not my own. It is slavery.
So you justify using the government army to take from me to protect me from another army, and if I resist, the government will rough me up and take what I have? Sounds an awful lot like a protection racket. Why can't I afford to protect my own wealth in my own way?
Do you mean an invasion? Ever read the second amendment? That's what is vital to the security of the free state.
Except everyone's portion ISN'T getting larger. Proportionally, the middle class's portion is getting smaller, and the super-rich's portion is getting larger.
Once again, your metric is wrong. You're measuring in money, which is not the source of wealth. Production is. Doesn't the middle class have more products for living a good life than they did 10 years ago?
How long do we have to wait until we complain about this? Until their larger portion has grown to 75% of the pie? 80%? 90%? As long as the rest of us has a subsistence level of existence (which not everyone does now)?
Several years ago, my family and I (3 of us) spent about a year living on food budget that was about the equivalent of a single cell phone plan or extended cable service. And we weren't too bad off. Your modern middle-class meal is like the banquet of a king would be centuries ago. It's not necessary, and neither is the cell phone or the cable service, which even many of your POOR families enjoy at least one of these. We are a long way from subsistence living in the US.
I wouldn't hesitate to give to a good charity that addressed these issues, if they were real.
Why is it that anyone that feels our current system is unfair must be a lazy slob that simply can't compete? Maybe I feel the system is unfair and that simply working harder to make sure I get mine would be contributing to a system that, again, I disapprove of. Maybe any system that has some people living in luxury while others literally die for lack of resources strikes me as immoral.
Because most of you spend dozens of hours a week in front of the boob tube, playing video games, social networking and doing other unproductive things with your free time rather than educating yourself or finding more ways to enrich your lives.
As for your assertion that capitalism is responsible for the overall better lifestyle (some) people enjoy, that's laughable. Technology has improved our lifestyle. Capitalism has supported some technological development, sometimes it has inhibited it. Government has supported some technological development, government has inhibited some.
Capitalism is an economic model which is defined by private ownership and investment. A capital venture would be investment money finding a promising new product or idea to develop. It's in the interest of the capitalist to find projects to develop. About the only time it would inhibit development would be if you have competing products. If an idea has it's own merit and the entrepreneur is determined, it will find enough capital investment to overcome competition trying to put it down. It cannot be stopped, except by lacking marketability or government regulations and control. And through capital success, you are given innovation. The best ideas that can be bought are at your fingertips, because there's personal gain in bringing that product to you. Take away that private ownership and you'll not see anything like the product growth we've seen in the last 100 years.
From the horse and cart to space tourism in such a short period of history, brought to you by none else but capitalism.
Why did you bring banks into the conversation? I thought it was about the wealthy. Are the wealthy all banks?
Banks are only empowered through government usurping authority. Government is complicit in this symbiotic relationship. Proposing a greater tax on the rich is a distraction from the real problems, such as fiat money and fractional reserve banking. You know that banks are out to own the world, so why is your answer to demand that the rich give you a better life? You have been fooled into class warfare when you should be finding out what inequality perpetuates this growing divide. You are treating a symptom, calling wealth inequality, when the real inequality is a fundamental part of the system and not the product of it. Fractional-reserve banking.
Compound interest is not a ponzi scheme. You are not promised any return for paying interest. It's just the hip word of the week you decided to misapply. And it is sustainable, provided bankruptcy. But then you mention inflation as part of this equation, and I have to wonder why you think that does anything but lesson the burden of that debt. A "modest" inflation rate of 2-4%, which itself is compounded, will effectively drop your 6% home loan to a real rate of 2-4%.
The part that's not sustainable is growth. Which social security is entirely dependent on. So yes, SS is a ponzi scheme.
You must have missed the part where you own a house and/or a car, a cell phone, a big screen TV, a state-of-the-art game system, a PC or laptop, and so on. You don't count yourself as having a richer life than people did 40 years ago? Wealth is not money. Capitalism is responsible for these developments.
I never said that the rich aren't getting a larger portion of the pie. I said that the pie is (has been) growing and everyone's portion is larger.
I'm saying you're using the wrong metric. You measure in dollars, I measure in richness of life.
At it's core, capitalism is that you own your own labor and your own product (if you produce something). Screwing other people over is what happens when the government gets involved, as in a free market you would exchange your money for goods and services that you find the greatest benefit in obtaining. If you're screwed over in free capitalism then you've screwed yourself over.
Stop wasting your time with television and video games and make something out of yourself. Did the wealthy obtain their wealth while they played video games and watched the boob tube a combined 20 hours a week? I gave up television and video games years ago and I'm working hard to make my own wealth, and I'll be damned if I let some lazy bastard with an entitlement complex demands I share because I have taken an unfair advantage.
Do you know what it means if you think you can all authorize government to tax me for my wealth? It means you are asserting that violence is the foundation of authority.
What kind of world do you live in where the rich are not a subset of the people?
It wouldn't be possible unless the people are bound to the purchase of products and services against their own interests. You know, government mandates and government spending.
Is there such a thing as economic growth where only the rich benefit? What do they do, collaborate to give services to and manufacture products only for each other? How then could they collectively increase their wealth? Only if wealth is not exclusively measured in money.
This is an illusion based on the notion that money is wealth. The people have less money and the rich have more, therefore, the rich are wealthier and the people are poorer. Never mind that every single cent that the people spend, some of which goes to the rich, is deemed by themselves to be in their own interests, causing them to benefit from the exchange of money for products and services. Never mind that the value of money is intangible and unrealized, and it enriches no one's life until it is exchanged for goods and services, which are the real things that enrich lives.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they were unreasonable, per se.
http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/97jan02.htm
A subpoena may not be issued to collect evidence for a pending case or to help a prosecutor prepare a case for trial.
Neither may a subpoena be issued to collect evidence unrelated to the case.
Such subpoenas would be unreasonable.
Trolling? I asked for you to demonstrate something other than a warrant and you responded with a warrant, albeit one known principally by another legal term.
A subpoena is a warrant to procure testimony, which may not be issued but by a court of law on the standing of sworn testimony describing the person(s) and things (the subject of testimony sought by the court) to be seized.
There would be no other lawful way to seize a person for testimony. It is a warrant.
Subpoenas are subject to the same procedure and limits as the 4th Amendment provides for warrants.
For the purposes of this argument, subpoenas have the same scope and limits as a warrant has, but merely for different purposes. Subpoenas do not give the government an end-run around 4th Amendment, but must be supported by the same standards as warrants are.
Is that clear yet?
Umm, does the process for issuing a subpoena look anything like that for a warrant?
For example, is it issued on the authority of a court of law? After evidence is submitted showing the legal reasoning for the issuing of said subpoena? For the purpose of hearing testimony concerning a particular real or perceived contest of law currently being reviewed in that court?
How do you get from that to justifying warrantless, legally unsupervised raids on data at large? I really don't see any connection.
you say it's 'your data'. How so? I agree it *should* be, but it isn't in the current legal system.
If my current location is unknown to the government, do they have any right to obtain that information without a warrant?
Yes, that information may belong to another party which may divulge that information, which I may generally have no legal right to demand that they shield that information. But the assumption that the government may intrude on this relationship at will to impose it's demands, whether justified by time or distance, is simply unconstitutional. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this information is CLASSIFIED with respect to government accessibility. No warrant, no data.
Or does my right to the right of my privacy from the warrantless intrusion of government expire upon the passing of a moment? Does that data become declassified, given time or distance? I don't think so.
Uh, show me anything that says you can't be identified to a position at a specific time? It's simply not there.
Show me anything that says that the government may demand testimony from someone regarding my position at any time, without a warrant? Is there anything?
It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.
Intent has nothing to do with whether something ins helpful or harmful.
Reality often makes a fool of a man, even if he has the greatest of intentions.
The best practice is just to avoid folly. And this is folly.
This amounts to obstructing a peaceful, technologically advanced means of assembling to conduct regular, private business.
A legal barrier on finding mutually beneficial agreements and conducting speedy business in the information age?
We need to stop legislating disagreements. No prosperity or growth will come out of legislated disagreements, only more division and poverty.
They hate us for our freedoms.
Because your personal data (the information which may indicate the position of your PERSON at a particular time and place) is constitutionally unprotected when it's possessed by a non-person entity? It's suddenly impersonal data?
My right to be secure in my person (which extends to every time and place of my being, past, present and future) and effects is not violated by means of wresting that information unconstitutionally from a business? How is that not two offenses against the law?
If the information sought were regarding that third- non-person "entity", or the business, would they have any right to demand the release of that data without a warrant?
And how can they require you to keep records for their purposes? Isn't it against your 5th Amendment rights to compel you to record or give any testimony? When you make any accounting to the government you are potentially incriminating yourself. The "pre-crime" aspect of this does not in any way change the implications of what it means to be secure in my person.
There is a narrow gap between this reasoning, and reasoning which gives them access to all your data held by third-party "entities". They can have all your passwords, too, with this wave of the hand.
All your base are belong to U.S.
Profit is not limited to monetary terms.
The currency of the state is law and power. The more control they get, the more they thrive.
Meh... planned obsolescence?
How about those things in your house that would be perfectly functional if not for a little stupid broken piece of plastic?
No need to throw away a printer just because one of the paper feed gears stripped a tooth or broke. I can think of about a dozen things I've thrown out over the years, totaling several hundred dollars to replace, that I wouldn't have had to if I could print a piece for a few bucks.
Yeah, it doesn't quite add up to savings if I ran my own 3d printer, but the benefit isn't exactly low.
You can refurbish your own stuff instead of throwing it in a landfill.
Exactly how do you fight an idea with a gun? Imaginary bullets?
Make the idea unlawful. Then you can use all the guns you want to kill the idea.
I don't think CO2 is really that significant of a cause in AGW.
Who are you, and why should we care what you think?
I'm enjerth.
Why should you care what I think? That's a very good question, especially for starting polite threads of conversation.
So let me turn this around for a moment to consider that question...
No, I got nothing. I don't care what you think, so you can go ahead and give your two shits or less about what I think.
I don't think CO2 is really that significant of a cause in AGW.
How much warming does a slab of concrete or asphalt make, as opposed to the land being covered by green vegetation?
You can turn your cars off, or switch fuels, but these deserts of concrete will warm the earth far more and longer than your carbon-based fuels will burn.
Needs are not artificial.
I feel like you and many others are missing the point: This isn't about supply and demand.
1. These areas are in an official State of Emergency. The rules of business are what the State says they are.
2. Price gouging is its own social harm. It is exploitative and creates massive inequities during a crisis
/Price gouging isn't illegal in all 50 States. Check your local laws.
It's ALL about supply and demand. Your price gouging argument is about a lack of supply in SAVINGS.
You would have no argument if money were not scarce, and the market cannot function if you pretend that money is not scarce.
The gas station needs a new generator to operate while power is out in the area? They found one on craigslist. It was prohibitively expensive, and it's available precisely because of that. The owner sees it as an opportunity to serve his community and potentially come out ahead, but it's a gamble. Why should you shortchange him on his service? Now they can continue operating and sell you gas, albeit for a considerable markup due to the need to recoup the investment on the generator during a short emergency stint which could be resolved in a day or so.
Or, just sit this one out. Let people figure it out on their own.
And in many cases that is correct. It's the good old American tradition of hitting people when they are desperate and will pay anything, right up there with claim salting and medicine shows.
In all the analyzation about pricing supply and demand, I haven't seen a single comment about the nature of money and it's function in serving this purpose.
What is money? It's a liquid asset.
Why do we keep a liquid asset? For the uncertainty of what you may need or want to acquire in the future.
What happens when you don't have enough liquid assets? Adapt. Aside from fighting each other, that's what we do best. We can survive, if we make good decisions.
Having a reserve of liquid assets is one of those ways we PLAN for survival. But should the market be bent for your benefit if you failed to plan for surviving? No. That affects everyone else and their ability to utilize the market to solve their problems.
And money has a supply and a demand, as well.
In an emergency situation, the need to acquire or hold excess liquidity is suspended, and the VALUE OF MONEY takes a temporary tumble in relation to the need for scarce products and services to relieve the emergency situation.
Anti-price gouging laws is straight up price fixing, and it's immoral. It practically guarantees scarcity, because everyone knows that the money isn't actually worth much under the given conditions. Most people will treat $8/gallon gas with a lot more caution than $4/gallon gas.
Money doesn't fix problems. The market does.
How much could you accomplish if your 5 year old kid controlled 85% of your budget and you only controlled 15%?
You forgot that the 5-year-olds elect 6-year-olds to control that last 15%, leaving adults with no control.
Unfortunately, as can be seen by TFA, anti-vaxxing doesn't affect only its adepts but also innocent people around them. Too bad.
Are you suggesting that "it's adepts" are not "innocent people", too?
Did they find a battle axe in his possession? If not, it was probably metaphorical.
Moron.
They invented universal Velcro?
Your first sentence talks about a bunch of material crap, and your second sentence talks about a "richer life".
Right. Material crap. That's what wealth is all about. The allure of wealth is NOT the money, but all the material crap it can buy.
House - Yep I have a small condo, shelter does improve my life. They had houses 40 years ago though, so I'm not sure what we are comparing here.
Home ownership is higher than it was 40 years ago.
Car - Sort of - I drive my company car, about 90% of my use of the thing is work related. I hate driving but there are times it is useful. Cars existed 40 years ago.
Car ownership is higher than it was 40 years ago.
Big Screen TV - I own an old CRT I inherited from an old roommate that left, I never use it (I have no or satellite service, nor even an antenna to plug into it). Obviously I don't think much of TV making life "richer".
Neither do I. But most people I know spend several hours a day in front of one. I assume they find it adds value to their lives.
State-of-the-art game system - I do own a Wii, its been broken for the last several months. I haven't bothered to fix it because I honestly don't miss it. Apparently it didn't really contribute much to having a richer life.
Again, several people I know spend their spare time on one. If it's not contributing to their lives then they're crazy/stupid to be wasting their lives on it. But it's there, for those of us who find that it does add value to their existence.
PC or Laptop - Computers and specifically the Internet are the one thing I'll give you that made a huge difference in quality of life.
So you finally recognized something of great wealth? You wouldn't have that, certainly not as inexpensively, except that the wealthy provided capital investment for innovation with the vision in mind to market it to the masses. In the exchange, they have grown more wealthy as you bought a product that they produced, and you have grown more wealthy for having such a product. A free trade, and all free (and honest) trade is to the benefit of all the parties involved. And that is the gist of my rant against the above post, which suggested that economic activity can benefit the wealthy alone. Except through means of deceit, a free economy cannot benefit the wealthy alone.
Anything else? Cell phones did eliminate a lot of old frustrations. Looking around my home I don't see much of anything else noteworthy, certainly nothing that didn't exist 40 years ago.
Improvements to windows and insulation to keep homes warmer in winter and cooler in summer. And it's not all in your home. Cheaper food from advancements in farming. GPS. I'm sure there's many more.
The main problem in life is that we work too much and thus can't enjoy any of the stuff we have (whether 40 year old tech or new). That is why we are miserable all the damn time and hate our lives. But the way society is set up, its either work yourself to death and be constantly miserable, or be out of work and eventually starve to death in the streets. Why isn't the march of technology moving our work week towards 20 hours (or less)?
The answer is that it is more efficient to work one person for 40 hours than to work two people 20 hours each.
And why is efficiency so important? Because that's what sends maximized profits to the rich shareholders at the top.
Why? Did the work week get longer in the last 40 years? Or do you think you should earn the same working 20 hours as you would if you worked 40 hours? If you want to work only 20 hours, there are a few part-time jobs out there.
Efficiency is important, because someone will find out a way to do something cheaper, and you have to compete with that. Cheaper does mean more profits, and more dough to line the pocket
Right. My point was that we've been brought up and told all of our lives that the authority of the government is from the consent of the governed. And it may have followed that very closely, for a few years after the war of independence. Slowly, that principle has been whittled away. Even though it's still praised in tongue, it has been displaced with violence by some of the very same people who give it praise.
I just want to make sure that the people who advocate the government usurping authority understand that this is merely authority through violence, and it may at any time be used against them. Either from their own government or from invading armies. If it's justified within the nation, it is justified without.
Any superior violence is a superior authority.
Until I take it from you b/c I have a bigger army. What's that, the government should prevent that from happening? So you think government should provide the services YOU want (protect your property and wealth), of course by taxing people. But government definitely shouldn't provide any services to anyone else that you disapprove of, b/c then taxation is theft.
Taxation is the assertion that my body, my labor and the product of it, are not my own. It is slavery.
So you justify using the government army to take from me to protect me from another army, and if I resist, the government will rough me up and take what I have? Sounds an awful lot like a protection racket. Why can't I afford to protect my own wealth in my own way?
Do you mean an invasion? Ever read the second amendment? That's what is vital to the security of the free state.
Except everyone's portion ISN'T getting larger. Proportionally, the middle class's portion is getting smaller, and the super-rich's portion is getting larger.
Once again, your metric is wrong. You're measuring in money, which is not the source of wealth. Production is. Doesn't the middle class have more products for living a good life than they did 10 years ago?
How long do we have to wait until we complain about this? Until their larger portion has grown to 75% of the pie? 80%? 90%? As long as the rest of us has a subsistence level of existence (which not everyone does now)?
Several years ago, my family and I (3 of us) spent about a year living on food budget that was about the equivalent of a single cell phone plan or extended cable service. And we weren't too bad off. Your modern middle-class meal is like the banquet of a king would be centuries ago. It's not necessary, and neither is the cell phone or the cable service, which even many of your POOR families enjoy at least one of these. We are a long way from subsistence living in the US.
I wouldn't hesitate to give to a good charity that addressed these issues, if they were real.
Why is it that anyone that feels our current system is unfair must be a lazy slob that simply can't compete? Maybe I feel the system is unfair and that simply working harder to make sure I get mine would be contributing to a system that, again, I disapprove of. Maybe any system that has some people living in luxury while others literally die for lack of resources strikes me as immoral.
Because most of you spend dozens of hours a week in front of the boob tube, playing video games, social networking and doing other unproductive things with your free time rather than educating yourself or finding more ways to enrich your lives.
As for your assertion that capitalism is responsible for the overall better lifestyle (some) people enjoy, that's laughable. Technology has improved our lifestyle. Capitalism has supported some technological development, sometimes it has inhibited it. Government has supported some technological development, government has inhibited some.
Capitalism is an economic model which is defined by private ownership and investment. A capital venture would be investment money finding a promising new product or idea to develop. It's in the interest of the capitalist to find projects to develop. About the only time it would inhibit development would be if you have competing products. If an idea has it's own merit and the entrepreneur is determined, it will find enough capital investment to overcome competition trying to put it down. It cannot be stopped, except by lacking marketability or government regulations and control. And through capital success, you are given innovation. The best ideas that can be bought are at your fingertips, because there's personal gain in bringing that product to you. Take away that private ownership and you'll not see anything like the product growth we've seen in the last 100 years.
From the horse and cart to space tourism in such a short period of history, brought to you by none else but capitalism.
Why did you bring banks into the conversation? I thought it was about the wealthy. Are the wealthy all banks?
Banks are only empowered through government usurping authority. Government is complicit in this symbiotic relationship. Proposing a greater tax on the rich is a distraction from the real problems, such as fiat money and fractional reserve banking. You know that banks are out to own the world, so why is your answer to demand that the rich give you a better life? You have been fooled into class warfare when you should be finding out what inequality perpetuates this growing divide. You are treating a symptom, calling wealth inequality, when the real inequality is a fundamental part of the system and not the product of it. Fractional-reserve banking.
Compound interest is not a ponzi scheme. You are not promised any return for paying interest. It's just the hip word of the week you decided to misapply. And it is sustainable, provided bankruptcy. But then you mention inflation as part of this equation, and I have to wonder why you think that does anything but lesson the burden of that debt. A "modest" inflation rate of 2-4%, which itself is compounded, will effectively drop your 6% home loan to a real rate of 2-4%.
The part that's not sustainable is growth. Which social security is entirely dependent on. So yes, SS is a ponzi scheme.
You must have missed the part where you own a house and/or a car, a cell phone, a big screen TV, a state-of-the-art game system, a PC or laptop, and so on. You don't count yourself as having a richer life than people did 40 years ago? Wealth is not money. Capitalism is responsible for these developments.
I never said that the rich aren't getting a larger portion of the pie. I said that the pie is (has been) growing and everyone's portion is larger.
I'm saying you're using the wrong metric. You measure in dollars, I measure in richness of life.
At it's core, capitalism is that you own your own labor and your own product (if you produce something). Screwing other people over is what happens when the government gets involved, as in a free market you would exchange your money for goods and services that you find the greatest benefit in obtaining. If you're screwed over in free capitalism then you've screwed yourself over.
Stop wasting your time with television and video games and make something out of yourself. Did the wealthy obtain their wealth while they played video games and watched the boob tube a combined 20 hours a week? I gave up television and video games years ago and I'm working hard to make my own wealth, and I'll be damned if I let some lazy bastard with an entitlement complex demands I share because I have taken an unfair advantage.
Do you know what it means if you think you can all authorize government to tax me for my wealth? It means you are asserting that violence is the foundation of authority.
What's that supposed to mean?
What kind of world do you live in where the rich are not a subset of the people?
It wouldn't be possible unless the people are bound to the purchase of products and services against their own interests. You know, government mandates and government spending.
Is there such a thing as economic growth where only the rich benefit? What do they do, collaborate to give services to and manufacture products only for each other? How then could they collectively increase their wealth? Only if wealth is not exclusively measured in money.
This is an illusion based on the notion that money is wealth. The people have less money and the rich have more, therefore, the rich are wealthier and the people are poorer. Never mind that every single cent that the people spend, some of which goes to the rich, is deemed by themselves to be in their own interests, causing them to benefit from the exchange of money for products and services. Never mind that the value of money is intangible and unrealized, and it enriches no one's life until it is exchanged for goods and services, which are the real things that enrich lives.