I'm torn on whether housing should be exempt. More than any of the others, housing can run from basic to extravagent. I mean, even the very rich don't dress in French fashions and dine on caviar every day - but they do tend to spend a whole lot more money on their houses than a person "needs" to. Everybody needs a house, but a $50k house will keep the rain off your head just like a $5M house. Maybe the first $AVERAGE_HOUSE_PRICE_IN_COUNTY would be exempt?
Any way you slice it, taxes are too high. Income taxes (especially since employer withholding) have allowed the government to grow far beyond its Constitutional bounds. When you can essentially give yourself as much money as you want (by increasing the rates) without anybody really noticing (because you don't see the money anyway) what incentive is there for restraint? Spend spend spend! I think the best we can do right now is to make taxation more apparent. Just eliminating withholding (wasn't that supposed to be a WWII measure anyway?) would help. Maybe people would start to see big government for the drag on the economy that it is, and start to question what they are really getting for all that money.
We could also go back to paying for the federal government entirely with excises and duties on imports, like we used to before 1913. Cutting the federal budget to about 5% of its current level would be interesting.
True, this would probably be a more fair form of "sales tax" but it's also more complex.
Hmm, so if I can just repackage an existing product and convince ignorant people to buy it from me at a higher price, can I avoid charging the tax because I haven't added any real value? I could add the 10% (or whatever) tax and pocket it for myself. *grin* Of course, if value is measured simply by the price you charge, I guess this wouldn't work.
Sorry, I have to disagree strongly. Private ownership of property is a hallmark of a free society. I don't believe it should be discouraged by taxation. You'd end up with a nation of poor renters trying to get by in life by avoiding tax, with most property concentrated in the hands of a few power barons. It's hard to get rich if you can't afford wealth-producing property.
Furthermore, a property tax would just be another form of "the poor" (who hold equal electoral power) trying to soak the rich, just as they do under an income tax system. Tyranny of the majority - if 51% of the people can shift the entire tax burden to the other 49%, they probably will, but just because a majority is happy doesn't make it right.
I don't think sales tax is great, either. No tax is. But by making the true cost of government extremely apparent to everyone, not just property owners, maybe everyone would petition for the return of limited government.
Agreed. I've read A1S8 of the Constitution and cannot find authority for the Congress to legislate on educational matters nor create an executive department to administer same.
You want a less intrusive government and you switched from Republican to Democrat? Good grief! There are otheralternatives that still advocate small government, you know.
How about we abolish income tax. Replace it with a sales tax. No automatic withholding to create an interest-free loan to the gov't. It becomes very apparent to consumers how much drag gov't imposes on the economy. Tax is collected at the point of sale, in the state the transaction was made in. (Food, clothing, and medicine exempted, because it's not right to be taxed just for being alive.) What could be simpler?
The UN wants to regulate everything. It's the nature of humanity to want to control things (including each other), so when you get a bunch of them together, call them "government" and give them power, why should we expect otherwise? If the UN can push through legislation-by-treaty (e.g. LOST - Law Of the Sea Treaty) that will ensure it a cash flow that's not dependent on the goodwill of member states, it will pretty much get its wish. Giving the UN control of the internet would be disastrous for free speech and commerce.
Any proactive step is going to be an abridgment of freedom. I don't believe you should restrict someone's liberty until proven he individually has abused his liberties (i.e. guilty of a crime). I don't believe harming everyone a little (by removing freedom) to offset a great harm to a few is justifiable. When someone does wrong, whack 'em hard enough that they'll never do it again, and maybe the example will deter others. No, retribution will never undo the wrong, but neither can you legislate evil away - bad things will always happen. Legislation is itself evil, and a more insidious one, because laws almost invariably impose restrictions, perhaps innocuous taken by themselves, but eventually intolerable when taken together. Taking away my gun isn't going to bring back a dead girl, or save her in the first place, and no such scattershot attack on "guns" will ever do so. If you want to stop a criminal element, go after the criminals. Every tool ever invented has a legitimate purpose, and it's not right to restrict tools just because some people might misuse them.
The only proactive step I can think of actually working is mandatory gun education classes. If kids knew the dangers of guns, knew how to safely handle them, you'd tear down the mystique and fear surrounding them. In most states I believe that junior hunting licenses require proof of passing a gun safety class, just like getting a driving permit or license before adulthood requires proof of passing a driving class. But since it is easier to get a gun without intending to hunt than it is to get a car without intending to drive, maybe schools should teach gun safety to everyone.
You've already know the answer: responsibility. Can government teach everyone to be responsible? The idea is ludicrous. America is facing a national crisis where nobody wants to be responsible for his/her own actions, much less the actions of youngsters they're raising. Without creating a police state in which absolutely everything is monitored all the time, this cannot be achieved.
We need to practice self-restraint and personal responsibility. I do not want government restraining me or claiming responsibility for me because a few people cannot deal with their own lives adequately. That's not freedom. I cherish freedom more than the cage called "safety".
That's why you don't hear "meaningful solutions" from the pro-gun crowd: the solution is obvious. It's just not one that can be legislated and enforced by government. It starts at home, in the community, in the churches. Teach kids to be ethical moral people with a respect for life, using common sense to comprehend the repercussions of their actions.
But America as a culture is devaluing morals, and devaluing life. It's not surprising that kids shoot at each other; it's a natural consequence of the loss of moral fiber in the country. Fifty years ago the biggest problem in schools was talking loud in the halls and chewing gum in classrooms. But now we've taken out any kind of moral instruction (someone might *gasp* mention God or the bible) and replaced it with moral relativity (I'm ok, you're ok, whatever goes) and removed effective discipline to the point where teachers fear the students and lawsuits from their parents.
I'll be responsible with my freedom and teach my children to be also, but I can't help it (nor should I be punished by a curtailment of my liberties) if someone else doesn't and the system breaks down. The old line "if it saves one child it's worth it" is a joke and you know it...otherwise you'd be advocating the elimination of automobiles, swimming pools, and bubble gum.
Freedom is risk. Life is risk. Take responsibility for your own and move on - don't try to micromanage everyone else's.
Since black women are more likely to seek abortion [...], keeping it safe and legal is certainly of great benefit to blacks.
All it means is that black babies are killed at a higher rate than others. A very effective type of eugenics program aimed at eliminating the black race, if you want to look at it that way.
More kids die in traffic accidents or by drowning than those killed by accidentally playing with daddy's gun. Let's ban cars and water.
Dude...accidents happen. It's part of life. Life comes with no guarantees of safety.
Nothing you can do will prevent criminals from acquiring guns. All your legislation can do is make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves from those that wish them harm. Yeah, my lawfully owned gun might be stolen and then used to hurt someone...but if you make all guns unlawful then I guarantee you that more innocent people will be hurt.
I don't have much faith in anyone except Reps. Paul and Tancredo. They're pretty good. (A record of 2 out of 535 isn't so good though.) Maybe I oughtta run for Congress.
It has always surprised me that so many blacks are Democrats, when Democrat-backed abortion and gun policies have disproportionately harmed blacks. It's like cooperating in your own demise.
Good grief...stop watching so much TV. I've lived 31 years in "yankeeland" and have never been within 500 miles of one of your supposed daily park bloodbaths. They don't exist. What does exist, though never reported in the mainstream press, is the many many defensive uses of guns - many of which involve only the brandishing (not firing) of the weapon. Bloodbaths are "good news" - scaring off a two-legged predator isn't.
And people kill people. People have been killing other people long before guns existed, and if guns are ever completely eliminated from the planet they will continue killing others. A person serious about killing someone else will simply pick the best tool for doing so, which is most often a gun these days. But you know the best thing about guns? They're easy for anyone to use, including the smaller and weaker members of the population. They don't have to be the most likely victims any longer. Women don't have to live in fear of rapists. The elderly/infirm don't have to live in fear of thieves. Gays don't have to live in fear of bashers. Jews don't have to live in fear of anti-semites. I'd say a society that can make the weak innocent victims as powerful as the strong merciless aggressors is a very enlightened one!
Scenario 1: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You pull your gun in defense. Two guns. Fair chance.
Scenario 2: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You have no weapon for defense. One gun. You are robbed and perhaps harmed, maybe even killed.
Explain to me how fewer guns, or legislation aimed at same, "is always a good thing" again? I see a glaring flaw in your reasoning.
You can't control "guns" with legislation; you can only attempt to control people. Which people will attempt to flout the laws? The ones most likely to hurt someone else by doing so. Which people will most likely obey? The decent person who will be left defenseless as a result. There's a reason Colt had a model named Peacemaker that many called the Equalizer. (Think about it.) One has to look no further than the District of High Murder Rate, ahem, Columbia, to see how well gun control works.
I know that gun control supporters are mostly well-intentioned people. But they're naively idealistic, too. You may desire a criminal-disarmament law, but be realistic - gun control laws only disarm innocent victims. The average hard-working joe has too much to lose by being caught with an illegal item, so he will comply, to his own disadvantage. The average no-good crook has too much to gain by not having a gun, so he will not comply, to his (increased) advantage (since everyone else is now disarmed).
Also, the most important reason for an armed citizenry is to keep government in check. Far more people were killed by government actions (often by their own government) during the 20th century than by crime. Any tyrant will seek to remove the means of effective revolt from his subjects. Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Yup. Always remember that government is a necessary evil. As such, it should be kept as small as possible - no larger than is absolutely necessary to do the job. Oh, and it likes to define more and more things as "government responsibility" so that it can grow. Beware of that, too. They key to personal liberty is personal responsibility. Jealously guard both.
Correct. But wasn't Discovery parked in the Jupiter/Io L1 at the beginning of 2010? It must have been using some station-keeping thrusters governed by a secondary (HAL was offline) computer.
That's what I was going to say. I've never heard of a comp sci class where the school didn't supply the hardware/software resources to get assignments done. It might have been more convenient if the students had their own resources, but it certainly wasn't required.
If a blank referer field causes a site to malfunction, it's broken. Several popular browsers allow you to not send referer, after all. Orbitz should use some kind of real authentication (even simple cookies) instead.
Duverger's Law is exactly why we need to start using Condorcet voting, so that voters have a real choice. In a democratic republic, the people deserve no less.
Slashdot Mirror
Good for you, Irish! :)
I'm torn on whether housing should be exempt. More than any of the others, housing can run from basic to extravagent. I mean, even the very rich don't dress in French fashions and dine on caviar every day - but they do tend to spend a whole lot more money on their houses than a person "needs" to. Everybody needs a house, but a $50k house will keep the rain off your head just like a $5M house. Maybe the first $AVERAGE_HOUSE_PRICE_IN_COUNTY would be exempt?
Any way you slice it, taxes are too high. Income taxes (especially since employer withholding) have allowed the government to grow far beyond its Constitutional bounds. When you can essentially give yourself as much money as you want (by increasing the rates) without anybody really noticing (because you don't see the money anyway) what incentive is there for restraint? Spend spend spend! I think the best we can do right now is to make taxation more apparent. Just eliminating withholding (wasn't that supposed to be a WWII measure anyway?) would help. Maybe people would start to see big government for the drag on the economy that it is, and start to question what they are really getting for all that money.
We could also go back to paying for the federal government entirely with excises and duties on imports, like we used to before 1913. Cutting the federal budget to about 5% of its current level would be interesting.
True, this would probably be a more fair form of "sales tax" but it's also more complex.
Hmm, so if I can just repackage an existing product and convince ignorant people to buy it from me at a higher price, can I avoid charging the tax because I haven't added any real value? I could add the 10% (or whatever) tax and pocket it for myself. *grin* Of course, if value is measured simply by the price you charge, I guess this wouldn't work.
Sorry, I have to disagree strongly. Private ownership of property is a hallmark of a free society. I don't believe it should be discouraged by taxation. You'd end up with a nation of poor renters trying to get by in life by avoiding tax, with most property concentrated in the hands of a few power barons. It's hard to get rich if you can't afford wealth-producing property.
Furthermore, a property tax would just be another form of "the poor" (who hold equal electoral power) trying to soak the rich, just as they do under an income tax system. Tyranny of the majority - if 51% of the people can shift the entire tax burden to the other 49%, they probably will, but just because a majority is happy doesn't make it right.
I don't think sales tax is great, either. No tax is. But by making the true cost of government extremely apparent to everyone, not just property owners, maybe everyone would petition for the return of limited government.
Agreed. I've read A1S8 of the Constitution and cannot find authority for the Congress to legislate on educational matters nor create an executive department to administer same.
How'd you get modded Troll for that?
Couldn't agree more. Let's abolish the Dept of Ed. It's not Constitutional anyway.
You want a less intrusive government and you switched from Republican to Democrat? Good grief! There are other alternatives that still advocate small government, you know.
How about we abolish income tax. Replace it with a sales tax. No automatic withholding to create an interest-free loan to the gov't. It becomes very apparent to consumers how much drag gov't imposes on the economy. Tax is collected at the point of sale, in the state the transaction was made in. (Food, clothing, and medicine exempted, because it's not right to be taxed just for being alive.) What could be simpler?
The UN wants to regulate everything. It's the nature of humanity to want to control things (including each other), so when you get a bunch of them together, call them "government" and give them power, why should we expect otherwise? If the UN can push through legislation-by-treaty (e.g. LOST - Law Of the Sea Treaty) that will ensure it a cash flow that's not dependent on the goodwill of member states, it will pretty much get its wish. Giving the UN control of the internet would be disastrous for free speech and commerce.
Any proactive step is going to be an abridgment of freedom. I don't believe you should restrict someone's liberty until proven he individually has abused his liberties (i.e. guilty of a crime). I don't believe harming everyone a little (by removing freedom) to offset a great harm to a few is justifiable. When someone does wrong, whack 'em hard enough that they'll never do it again, and maybe the example will deter others. No, retribution will never undo the wrong, but neither can you legislate evil away - bad things will always happen. Legislation is itself evil, and a more insidious one, because laws almost invariably impose restrictions, perhaps innocuous taken by themselves, but eventually intolerable when taken together. Taking away my gun isn't going to bring back a dead girl, or save her in the first place, and no such scattershot attack on "guns" will ever do so. If you want to stop a criminal element, go after the criminals. Every tool ever invented has a legitimate purpose, and it's not right to restrict tools just because some people might misuse them.
The only proactive step I can think of actually working is mandatory gun education classes. If kids knew the dangers of guns, knew how to safely handle them, you'd tear down the mystique and fear surrounding them. In most states I believe that junior hunting licenses require proof of passing a gun safety class, just like getting a driving permit or license before adulthood requires proof of passing a driving class. But since it is easier to get a gun without intending to hunt than it is to get a car without intending to drive, maybe schools should teach gun safety to everyone.
If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.
Go ahead and deny reality and common sense all you want. Doesn't change the facts.
You've already know the answer: responsibility. Can government teach everyone to be responsible? The idea is ludicrous. America is facing a national crisis where nobody wants to be responsible for his/her own actions, much less the actions of youngsters they're raising. Without creating a police state in which absolutely everything is monitored all the time, this cannot be achieved.
We need to practice self-restraint and personal responsibility. I do not want government restraining me or claiming responsibility for me because a few people cannot deal with their own lives adequately. That's not freedom. I cherish freedom more than the cage called "safety".
That's why you don't hear "meaningful solutions" from the pro-gun crowd: the solution is obvious. It's just not one that can be legislated and enforced by government. It starts at home, in the community, in the churches. Teach kids to be ethical moral people with a respect for life, using common sense to comprehend the repercussions of their actions.
But America as a culture is devaluing morals, and devaluing life. It's not surprising that kids shoot at each other; it's a natural consequence of the loss of moral fiber in the country. Fifty years ago the biggest problem in schools was talking loud in the halls and chewing gum in classrooms. But now we've taken out any kind of moral instruction (someone might *gasp* mention God or the bible) and replaced it with moral relativity (I'm ok, you're ok, whatever goes) and removed effective discipline to the point where teachers fear the students and lawsuits from their parents.
I'll be responsible with my freedom and teach my children to be also, but I can't help it (nor should I be punished by a curtailment of my liberties) if someone else doesn't and the system breaks down. The old line "if it saves one child it's worth it" is a joke and you know it...otherwise you'd be advocating the elimination of automobiles, swimming pools, and bubble gum.
Freedom is risk. Life is risk. Take responsibility for your own and move on - don't try to micromanage everyone else's.
All it means is that black babies are killed at a higher rate than others. A very effective type of eugenics program aimed at eliminating the black race, if you want to look at it that way.
More kids die in traffic accidents or by drowning than those killed by accidentally playing with daddy's gun. Let's ban cars and water.
Dude...accidents happen. It's part of life. Life comes with no guarantees of safety.
Nothing you can do will prevent criminals from acquiring guns. All your legislation can do is make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves from those that wish them harm. Yeah, my lawfully owned gun might be stolen and then used to hurt someone...but if you make all guns unlawful then I guarantee you that more innocent people will be hurt.
I don't have much faith in anyone except Reps. Paul and Tancredo. They're pretty good. (A record of 2 out of 535 isn't so good though.) Maybe I oughtta run for Congress.
Agreed. Gun control was the Klan's favorite law.
It has always surprised me that so many blacks are Democrats, when Democrat-backed abortion and gun policies have disproportionately harmed blacks. It's like cooperating in your own demise.
Good grief...stop watching so much TV. I've lived 31 years in "yankeeland" and have never been within 500 miles of one of your supposed daily park bloodbaths. They don't exist. What does exist, though never reported in the mainstream press, is the many many defensive uses of guns - many of which involve only the brandishing (not firing) of the weapon. Bloodbaths are "good news" - scaring off a two-legged predator isn't.
And people kill people. People have been killing other people long before guns existed, and if guns are ever completely eliminated from the planet they will continue killing others. A person serious about killing someone else will simply pick the best tool for doing so, which is most often a gun these days. But you know the best thing about guns? They're easy for anyone to use, including the smaller and weaker members of the population. They don't have to be the most likely victims any longer. Women don't have to live in fear of rapists. The elderly/infirm don't have to live in fear of thieves. Gays don't have to live in fear of bashers. Jews don't have to live in fear of anti-semites. I'd say a society that can make the weak innocent victims as powerful as the strong merciless aggressors is a very enlightened one!
Scenario 1: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You pull your gun in defense. Two guns. Fair chance.
Scenario 2: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You have no weapon for defense. One gun. You are robbed and perhaps harmed, maybe even killed.
Explain to me how fewer guns, or legislation aimed at same, "is always a good thing" again? I see a glaring flaw in your reasoning.
You can't control "guns" with legislation; you can only attempt to control people. Which people will attempt to flout the laws? The ones most likely to hurt someone else by doing so. Which people will most likely obey? The decent person who will be left defenseless as a result. There's a reason Colt had a model named Peacemaker that many called the Equalizer. (Think about it.) One has to look no further than the District of High Murder Rate, ahem, Columbia, to see how well gun control works.
I know that gun control supporters are mostly well-intentioned people. But they're naively idealistic, too. You may desire a criminal-disarmament law, but be realistic - gun control laws only disarm innocent victims. The average hard-working joe has too much to lose by being caught with an illegal item, so he will comply, to his own disadvantage. The average no-good crook has too much to gain by not having a gun, so he will not comply, to his (increased) advantage (since everyone else is now disarmed).
Also, the most important reason for an armed citizenry is to keep government in check. Far more people were killed by government actions (often by their own government) during the 20th century than by crime. Any tyrant will seek to remove the means of effective revolt from his subjects. Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Yup. Always remember that government is a necessary evil. As such, it should be kept as small as possible - no larger than is absolutely necessary to do the job. Oh, and it likes to define more and more things as "government responsibility" so that it can grow. Beware of that, too. They key to personal liberty is personal responsibility. Jealously guard both.
Correct. But wasn't Discovery parked in the Jupiter/Io L1 at the beginning of 2010? It must have been using some station-keeping thrusters governed by a secondary (HAL was offline) computer.
Telesto and Calypso share an orbit with Tethys. Helene is a Trojan in Dione's other coorbital Lagrange position.
That's what I was going to say. I've never heard of a comp sci class where the school didn't supply the hardware/software resources to get assignments done. It might have been more convenient if the students had their own resources, but it certainly wasn't required.
If a blank referer field causes a site to malfunction, it's broken. Several popular browsers allow you to not send referer, after all. Orbitz should use some kind of real authentication (even simple cookies) instead.
Duverger's Law is exactly why we need to start using Condorcet voting, so that voters have a real choice. In a democratic republic, the people deserve no less.