Bullshit. I tried installing the latest Ubuntu on my machine the other day and it doesn't seem to like my motherboard. At least I think it's my motherboard. Or my BIOS. Or something. Anyway you are clearly lying. Oh and if you do manage to get it installed, you are left to search for drivers and utilities and to edit conf files for even the most basic functions like say multi-monitor support whereas with windows this is maybe 3 mouse clicks away.
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
Even setting the balance of government powers vs individual rights aside, the problem is that there's no such encryption. If it has a backdoor, it's vulnerable. For example, if it has an extra "NSA key" that can be used to decrypt it, then that key will be leaked eventually (Snowden is a living proof of that0, and at that point all existing data is vulnerable.
What he is asking is to compromise security below any acceptable standard for the sake of his convenience. The only correct answer here is, "fuck off". There's no balance to discuss.
Can you quote that right? Because all I see in the 4th Amendment is that they're not allowed to arrest or search unless it is reasonable; it doesn't say anything about being granted a right to search things successfully.
So far as I can see, 4A is not relevant to this discussion at all. It does not grant people the right to be completely secure from any search (as it specifically excludes reasonable ones), nor does it grant the government the right to force people to make said search easier.
Unless the method violated someone else's rights
I fail to see that rights are not violated for the accused irrespective of any others who may also be violated.
[...] or violated an inconsequential rule or regulation.
Rules and regulations of any import are ALWAYS considered inconsequential by those who choose to ignore them.
Yes, I am. Not all illegal methods of collecting evidence violate the rights of the accused against unconstitutional searches and seizures.
I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence against the accused if he can show the independent source
Not in dispute.
Parallel construction: hey, I'll admit I had to look that one up. But if the government can find an independent source of evidence to convict the bad guy that doesn't involve illegally-collected evidence, then they haven't violated his rights (at least as to the crime charged). [emphasis mine]
Are you SURE you are a lawyer? If so, you must not be a very good one. They most certainly HAVE violated his rights regardless if evidence is admitted.
Why not just tax capital gains at a flat rate (higher than what it is today, that is)? It's inherently progressive at the lower scale of the spectrum (generally, the higher up you go, the more income people derive from capital gains, and the less from employment and other income), and then eventually flatline somewhere in the "insanely rich" territory. And by its nature, it's much easier to track than regular income or sales.
I would argue that it is, actually, an inherent flaw in the concept, because the spending/income ratio tends to diminish as income increases. In other words, no matter where you draw the line, it'll always be regressive (in terms of both income and wealth) for people above that line.
Why wouldn't he, with the proposed scheme? Proportional to income, his consumption is significantly less than mine - most of his income is immediately invested into stocks and such. On the other hand, I'm earning (and spending) too much to significantly benefit from the "consumption allowance". The end result is that he is paying less, but because the money has to come from somewhere, this means that I'm paying more.
Yes, he does. So why would I want him to be paying even less at my expense?
Here is a chart from FairTax FAQ. It should be self-explanatory.
There's one simple and obvious problem with FairTax: it results in a progressive taxation system, true, but it rebalances it in favor of the rich by offloading some of what they are currently paying to the middle class (and especially high middle class) - this is evident from the graphs in their FAQ when they explain how it is progressive.
Now tell me - why, as someone who is middle class, should I support it if it means I'll be paying more, and my boss' boss' boss will be paying less?