I love those people that can't understand why we still don't use the metric measuring system, as they drive on the "wrong" side of their cars and their roads.
Uh? Only Brits, Japanese and Australians drive on left (oh, maybe they do it in New Zealand, too, dunno). Not canadians.
No. In republics you elect representives, in democracies you vote directly.
Alright, that is a debatable, but the point you're making is good. Though, in effect you know what these representatives are going to vote for before you vote them in power. And to make the point again, US constitution is not the source to get the definition of democracy. Theory of politics is a science far older than that (see the Greeks or Magna Charta, for examples).
If, for some reason, the popular majority wants to plow down poor people's houses because "we don't like them" (i.e., they're ugly), that is
not sufficient; we recognize all people equally.
And if majority wants to keep slaves, you do so until the majority decides otherwise? Sorry, history is not on the side of your argument.
If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
True. That's why it would have been even more important to get all the candidates, eg. Nader, in the TV debates for more questioning. And that's not enough, democracy means you have to get involved and seek actively for the answers in order to be able to make enlightened decisions. Even if you're only choosing a representative for yourself. That's where the low vote turnout in modern democracies (like the US and Finland likewise, although we are not even near you in that department, yet) worries me.
Uh, US constitution does not decide what is democracy, it's just a collection of laws. Laws not is use anywhere but in the US. Democracy is just that: direct chance for people to decide what happens. If they want tyranny for the next four years, be it. As long as they are able to change the rule later, it is democracy.
Go read your political theory basics (I mean something little more than your high school bull, go check the local Uni library or something).
Basically, he seems to advocate big government, telling people what they can and cannot have, and divvying up the proceeds.
Really, how can this be seen as a bad thing? Some sort of totalitarism is needed anyway to get the world functional/ecological/fair (or whatever term suits you best). Conservatism and its children like extreme capitalism and such need to get the boot, and to get there we need some sort of educated oligarchy to rule (this is where Nader and Biafra come to mind as possible candidates from the US). And as people have grown comfrotably numb with the luxuries of life by now, the rule ought to be harsh. If it ain't what you'd like to happen, so what? I don't care, nor should anybody else with a health view of the state of the world.
And if you don't see that I'm just fscking with you, even better.
There's nothing unconventional or new about Nader's economics.
For the US, there is.
The EU has been languishing under those same policies for decades.
Eh, maybe in rhetorics, but in practise I found it very much not so. The EU has some good points in it's doings, but it still fails on many major issues, like with the IMF or putting too much weight on free trade (inside the Union, atleast).
I understand you woudn't want to see every wacko who happened to start his little party bringing his message on TV
In Finland we do have every fscking candidate in TV debates (which was something the few major parties tried to change last spring but rightfully failed), and (again, IMHO) so far it has been a very good practise. Many really important issues have come to circulate after these debates, some of which never would have come out if there had been only three major candidates talking bullshit.
Of course, to be able to run for presidency in Finland, you have to have a registered party [1] behind you or some 10000 (?) individual voters backing you up. Of course, to be useful limitation for the seriousness of a candidate the latter number should be scaled according to the population.
[1] Partys in Finland are automatically registered when they have representatives in the parliament or for four years after failing to get there. Some fixed number of signatures (like 5000 or so) need to be collected in order to re-register a party.
Bollocks. It's called democracy. In such systems people vote for representatives amongst them, and those chosen to be in power do have the mandate from the people to rule and pass laws according to their campaign agenda.
So, if Nader in his campaign says he'd introduce new taxes on harmful things (by his own standards) should he win, everyone knows it before the voting takes place. And if he still gets the majority of the votes, then so be it - majority of the people has seen it right to let him pass those laws. The minority (including you, Tonto) can only grudge and wait for the next elections to try to change the situation. That, my friend, is how democracy works.
If I lived in the US, I'd certainly vote for Nader. All his comments above and most of the material on his web pages seem very reasonal and just. That itself is something of a miracle in the politics, where people mostly try to please voters with empty mumbo-jumbo and carefull statements having little or nothing in substance. But as it generally goes when the money is on the line, sanity has nothing to do with the electoral behaviour of the masses (and it's not their fault, it's the prevailing system that corrupts the media).
And if it weren't that we already elected an even more perfect president in Finland this year, I'd welcome Nader here as well.
At one point, the majority in this country thought it right to enslave another race. At one point, a majority in this country thought women shouldn't vote. At one point, a majority thought seperate but equal really was...
And now the majority of you think capitalism and unlimited corporate freedom is right. Still very much wrong, but yeah, you eventually might be moving to right direction (a socially responsible society), but very slowly indeed.
Economists at my school have told me that Nader's financial plans are a joke.
This in itself is good enough reason to vote Nader. The economics taught in schools/universities etc. have always been mostly just repeating the fiscal mantra of the prevailing system. To really change the course into something better, you have to do something unconventional and new.
And IMHO, Nader's economics sound pretty reasonal anyway.
Umh, nice try, but I'm not talking about myself. The taxes I pay help other people, too - those poor sods who couldn't offer the real cost of medical care or university studies. Those people you let to rot in ghettos, my friend.
Your model ain't working. Or how many of the presidential candidates have you seen in televised debates?
In one or two party systems like in China or US (both of where I have visited) or UK (where I've lived, too) the ruling parties have too much power, which enables them to diss democratic ways in decision making. No party should be able to get even close to 50% of voting power. Diversity and co-operation are the roots for real democracy.
I don't want to sound rude, but have you ever studied large scale economics? Inflation of prices will occur in all economic models, but a government with sound politics will be able to keep it in check. And by no means would the citizen wage be fixed - it should of course follow the inflation curve and raise (or lessen) accordingly.
Yeah, governing the relationship of inflation and wages ain't really following Machiavelli's ideas, but then again, that's something no sane economy shouldn't do anyway.
Heh. So if your goverment decides that 68% should be just about right for people like you , would you still feel "dandy fine" ?
I am involved in politics, so I am part of the process. I elected some of those in charge, so I decide (not some anonymous governmental demon).
But to answer your question: I believe in democracy - if majority of the people would like to raise the tax level it should be done. And I know, I'd still be left whistling happily with more than enough dough.
But I guess it's hard to see things like this if you don't live in a democracy (which any two party system really ain't).
has anyone noticed that people become socialists after they realize that they will never make any money?
I make a good money. I pay 48% of my income as taxes. I do it happily, 'cause it goes to good things, like free lifelong medical care, free schooling (all universities in Finland are free for all) and welfare for those less lucky. I do it even though we don't have a socialistic government or regime. I do it because I care.
Call me commie if you will, but I will make more than enough money still.
AFAIK the only problem with the American system (and even more-so the European systems) is that those who have made good decisions are forced to shoulder the burden of those who haven't.
And you think it's somehow wrong?
Ever heard of humanity? Something all religions preach. Something even I as an atheist endorse. I've made some fine decisions in my life, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't feel that it's my responsibility to happily pay half of my income (as taxes) to take some burden off the less lucky. And I do it. Voluntarily (as I could leave for some less taxing country as well).
I pay 48% of my (pretty good) income to support, amongst other things, welfare. And it's fine for me. Welfare, free medical care, free universities, etc. are IMHO all good things in life (which are too few anyway).
Actually, one example of a working model for negative taxing is the so called 'citizen wage', a non-taxable minimum wage paid to all citizens, whether they work or not. Say, something like the $5000 a year (about the minumum to survive). After that, your real paycheck would of course be paid on top of it if you'd be able to work. So no loss of income if you work, as every penny counts as an increase.
So how could that be financed? Easily: the wage people are getting would be taxed not by flat rate but by the common progressive meter - the more you earn, the more you pay taxes. That way, the richer would compensate the society more and the wealth would distribute more evenly. This also allows the free medical care, schooling and other basic services for everyone regardless of background.
Sadly though, the model is yet to be realized exactly like this anywhere.
And before you ask the obvious, I get taxed 48% (yes, almost half) of my income (which is pretty good I must say), and I think it's just dandy fine.
Just be upfront with ousrselves - it should be "Save the Humans", not "Save the Plant".
For fuck's sake, why?
Repeat after me: humans are not important, the ecosystem is. The latter will win, and that's ok. In fact, we should speed the development by not breeding anymore. Or to be more extreme, hastening the end voluntarily.
Figure skaters, actresses, musicians, cheerleaders, all possess qualities which will lend themselves to additional fertility.
Well, actually not. The body of a a figure skater, Hollywood actress or cheerleader in most cases is not suitable for heavy child production. To be able to withstand the labor of multiple pregnansies and survive (atleast in extreme conditions we are talking about) the women should be build, eh differently. Wide hips are a must. Large utero and strong bone structure as well. Your average top mother for next generation would look much more like a weight-liftress from Romania than, say Natalie Portman.
What about Debian? What about all the other Linux distros that run on sparc?
Exactly. As far as I have seen, Debian on Sparc is much more flexible than RedHat. And yes, I have run both, Debian being the one that's still installed.
Both the NetBSD and OpenBSD ports to the Sparc architecture are quite good.
That is partly true. Performance with *BSD's is a (tiny) bit better than with Linux, but neither of them support SMP on Sparc. Although I personally run OpenBSD on my gateway SparcStation, I consider the inability to upgrade into SMP machine a major flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh? Only Brits, Japanese and Australians drive on left (oh, maybe they do it in New Zealand, too, dunno). Not canadians.
______________
Well, it's so nice to know my theory of the literacy rate in the US gets even more backing. :-)
______________
Alright, that is a debatable, but the point you're making is good. Though, in effect you know what these representatives are going to vote for before you vote them in power. And to make the point again, US constitution is not the source to get the definition of democracy. Theory of politics is a science far older than that (see the Greeks or Magna Charta, for examples).
If, for some reason, the popular majority wants to plow down poor people's houses because "we don't like them" (i.e., they're ugly), that is not sufficient; we recognize all people equally.
And if majority wants to keep slaves, you do so until the majority decides otherwise? Sorry, history is not on the side of your argument.
If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
True. That's why it would have been even more important to get all the candidates, eg. Nader, in the TV debates for more questioning. And that's not enough, democracy means you have to get involved and seek actively for the answers in order to be able to make enlightened decisions. Even if you're only choosing a representative for yourself. That's where the low vote turnout in modern democracies (like the US and Finland likewise, although we are not even near you in that department, yet) worries me.
______________
Just that. Majority vote decides in democracy. But you knew that, didn't you? :-)
______________
Uh, US constitution does not decide what is democracy, it's just a collection of laws. Laws not is use anywhere but in the US. Democracy is just that: direct chance for people to decide what happens. If they want tyranny for the next four years, be it. As long as they are able to change the rule later, it is democracy.
Go read your political theory basics (I mean something little more than your high school bull, go check the local Uni library or something).
______________
Really, how can this be seen as a bad thing? Some sort of totalitarism is needed anyway to get the world functional/ecological/fair (or whatever term suits you best). Conservatism and its children like extreme capitalism and such need to get the boot, and to get there we need some sort of educated oligarchy to rule (this is where Nader and Biafra come to mind as possible candidates from the US). And as people have grown comfrotably numb with the luxuries of life by now, the rule ought to be harsh. If it ain't what you'd like to happen, so what? I don't care, nor should anybody else with a health view of the state of the world.
And if you don't see that I'm just fscking with you, even better.
______________
For the US, there is.
The EU has been languishing under those same policies for decades.
Eh, maybe in rhetorics, but in practise I found it very much not so. The EU has some good points in it's doings, but it still fails on many major issues, like with the IMF or putting too much weight on free trade (inside the Union, atleast).
______________
In Finland we do have every fscking candidate in TV debates (which was something the few major parties tried to change last spring but rightfully failed), and (again, IMHO) so far it has been a very good practise. Many really important issues have come to circulate after these debates, some of which never would have come out if there had been only three major candidates talking bullshit.
Of course, to be able to run for presidency in Finland, you have to have a registered party [1] behind you or some 10000 (?) individual voters backing you up. Of course, to be useful limitation for the seriousness of a candidate the latter number should be scaled according to the population.
[1] Partys in Finland are automatically registered when they have representatives in the parliament or for four years after failing to get there. Some fixed number of signatures (like 5000 or so) need to be collected in order to re-register a party.
______________
Well, yes. And for starters, you shouldn't have children anyway. Breeding is extremely irresponsible ecologically.
______________
Bollocks. It's called democracy. In such systems people vote for representatives amongst them, and those chosen to be in power do have the mandate from the people to rule and pass laws according to their campaign agenda.
So, if Nader in his campaign says he'd introduce new taxes on harmful things (by his own standards) should he win, everyone knows it before the voting takes place. And if he still gets the majority of the votes, then so be it - majority of the people has seen it right to let him pass those laws. The minority (including you, Tonto) can only grudge and wait for the next elections to try to change the situation. That, my friend, is how democracy works.
Seems nothing like tyranny to me.
______________
And if it weren't that we already elected an even more perfect president in Finland this year, I'd welcome Nader here as well.
______________
And now the majority of you think capitalism and unlimited corporate freedom is right. Still very much wrong, but yeah, you eventually might be moving to right direction (a socially responsible society), but very slowly indeed.
______________
Get your terminology right: it's socialist bull, not communist.
And even though I work hard and earn a good money, I find it very reasonal and agreeable bull, but YMMV, etc.
______________
This in itself is good enough reason to vote Nader. The economics taught in schools/universities etc. have always been mostly just repeating the fiscal mantra of the prevailing system. To really change the course into something better, you have to do something unconventional and new.
And IMHO, Nader's economics sound pretty reasonal anyway.
______________
Umh, nice try, but I'm not talking about myself. The taxes I pay help other people, too - those poor sods who couldn't offer the real cost of medical care or university studies. Those people you let to rot in ghettos, my friend.
______________
In one or two party systems like in China or US (both of where I have visited) or UK (where I've lived, too) the ruling parties have too much power, which enables them to diss democratic ways in decision making. No party should be able to get even close to 50% of voting power. Diversity and co-operation are the roots for real democracy.
All IMHO, of course.
______________
Yeah, governing the relationship of inflation and wages ain't really following Machiavelli's ideas, but then again, that's something no sane economy shouldn't do anyway.
______________
I am involved in politics, so I am part of the process. I elected some of those in charge, so I decide (not some anonymous governmental demon).
But to answer your question: I believe in democracy - if majority of the people would like to raise the tax level it should be done. And I know, I'd still be left whistling happily with more than enough dough.
But I guess it's hard to see things like this if you don't live in a democracy (which any two party system really ain't).
______________
I make a good money. I pay 48% of my income as taxes. I do it happily, 'cause it goes to good things, like free lifelong medical care, free schooling (all universities in Finland are free for all) and welfare for those less lucky. I do it even though we don't have a socialistic government or regime. I do it because I care.
Call me commie if you will, but I will make more than enough money still.
______________
And you think it's somehow wrong?
Ever heard of humanity? Something all religions preach. Something even I as an atheist endorse. I've made some fine decisions in my life, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't feel that it's my responsibility to happily pay half of my income (as taxes) to take some burden off the less lucky. And I do it. Voluntarily (as I could leave for some less taxing country as well).
______________
I pay 48% of my (pretty good) income to support, amongst other things, welfare. And it's fine for me. Welfare, free medical care, free universities, etc. are IMHO all good things in life (which are too few anyway).
______________
So how could that be financed? Easily: the wage people are getting would be taxed not by flat rate but by the common progressive meter - the more you earn, the more you pay taxes. That way, the richer would compensate the society more and the wealth would distribute more evenly. This also allows the free medical care, schooling and other basic services for everyone regardless of background.
Sadly though, the model is yet to be realized exactly like this anywhere.
And before you ask the obvious, I get taxed 48% (yes, almost half) of my income (which is pretty good I must say), and I think it's just dandy fine.
______________
For fuck's sake, why?
Repeat after me: humans are not important, the ecosystem is. The latter will win, and that's ok. In fact, we should speed the development by not breeding anymore. Or to be more extreme, hastening the end voluntarily.
Click to learn.
______________
Well, actually not. The body of a a figure skater, Hollywood actress or cheerleader in most cases is not suitable for heavy child production. To be able to withstand the labor of multiple pregnansies and survive (atleast in extreme conditions we are talking about) the women should be build, eh differently. Wide hips are a must. Large utero and strong bone structure as well. Your average top mother for next generation would look much more like a weight-liftress from Romania than, say Natalie Portman.
______________
Exactly. As far as I have seen, Debian on Sparc is much more flexible than RedHat. And yes, I have run both, Debian being the one that's still installed.
Both the NetBSD and OpenBSD ports to the Sparc architecture are quite good.
That is partly true. Performance with *BSD's is a (tiny) bit better than with Linux, but neither of them support SMP on Sparc. Although I personally run OpenBSD on my gateway SparcStation, I consider the inability to upgrade into SMP machine a major flaw.
______________