Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:there was a time in the early 1990s (Score 1) 254

The second amendment recognizes that an armed population is harder to dominate by a central authority. This is as true today as it was then, and just as important. The right to bear arms is not for the purposes of hunting or other recreational activities. It is a check against tyranny. History has shown power to be a corrupting force, so preventing the concentration of power should be the goal of any civilization interested in longevity.

Ending the private ownership of weapons should be considered carefully. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to gain. The loss of this particular freedom would make it considerably easier to lose the rest of them. What safety is worth that cost?

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 4, Insightful) 891

The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.

As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 2, Insightful) 891

Individual behavior that has a societal cost should be fair game for targeted taxes. In many cases I think that allowing someone the freedom to engage in the costly behavior while asking them to compensate society for the privilege is preferable to an outright ban on the behavior.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye