Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 459

I thought that this was a great idea when I first read about it. As a dues-paying, card-carrying big-L Libertarian, I have long believed that even if we don't win any seats, that when the difference in votes between the D and the R are fewer than L, that both the Democrats and the Republicans will start to try to co-opt our voters- and our IDEAS.

However, I didn't sign up for the project, because I'm not moving to New Hampshire. I'm sure it's a delightful place, but I lived in Bath, Maine for 4 years and I've had enough of the snow and cold weather. Now I live near Sacramento, CA, and the snow here is perfect; it's OVER THERE, on the mountaintops where it is pretty, and not down here in my driveway.

Comment Re:For the last time... (Score 1) 490

I _DO_ know who my Representative and Senators are, and even though they don't read them, I email them regularly with what I want them to do. If you cannot be bothered to know who your representatives are, then you are a major contributor to the problem.

Yes, low taxes are a solution. Solution to what? Wasteful spending, crony capitalism, and fraud.

Your thoughts on emigration and "Somalia" are completely fact-free, similar to you keeping tabs on your government representatives. As for the United States, I did invest 21 years of my life to protect the US and the Constitution, and I still consider myself bound to those oaths I took "... to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...." I do not intend to see that investment in years and sweat wasted.

Comment Re:Why not direct democracy? (Score 1) 490

As I said, the 16th and 17th Amendments greatly reduced the Constitutional protections. The Federal government and the States were intended to be in some tension; each protective of its own powers. The States were protected from the whims of the Feds because the State governments appointed the Senators, and a Senator who is beholden to his State isn't going to cut state powers. And the income tax completely removed all of the fiscal constraints on the Federal government.

An interesting sidenote; during the debates about the approval of an income tax, one proposal would have placed a limit of 10% on the Federal income tax. This proposal was defeated because nobody wanted to ever suggest that it might get that high.

Comment Re:Why not direct democracy? (Score 1) 490

I've got a great idea; get 38 states to pass laws demanding a new Constitutional Convention, and then get yourself appointed to the Convention to rewrite the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution isn't to make government easy or convenient or practical. The purpose of the Constitution is to make it as difficult as possible for wannabe-tyrants to grab enough power to rule over the people who would rather be LEFT ALONE. Passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments (income tax and direct election of Senators) gutted most of the protection that we're supposed to have.

Comment Re:For the last time... (Score 1) 490

No, people don't tune in all the time to see their representatives in action.

In fact, most people can't be bothered to read the columns in the newspapers that show how each of the reps voted. And come the next election, the reps LIE about what they voted for.

You want REAL governmental reform? The problem is that tax day, April 15, is almost exactly 6 months away from Election Day. When the taxes come due, people don't remember who they voted for, and come election day, they've forgotten much of the pain of paying their income taxes. Move Election Day to the April 16, and you'll see some REAL governmental reform.

Comment SF Has Already Been There (Score 1) 295

"it's a good idea to start debating these issues now."

You mean that every SF writer in the last 70 years has been writing in vain because pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals haven't bothered to READ it?

Besides, it's baloney. Whoever pays for the rockets is going to want SOME return on their investment, and any Mars colony will certainly require support from Earth, at least at first. Saying "Any Mars colony should be independent from its founding" is a sneaky way of trying to eliminate any Mars colony attempt. I haven't bothered to check, but I predict that Jacob Haqq-Misra is a communist who is trying to prevent any capitalistic attempt to found such a colony.

Comment Re:surprised? (Score 3, Interesting) 247

In the United States, the Constitution was written to put three branches of government IN CONFLICT with each other, so that no one - nor even any two - branches of government can become destructive of liberty. But we don't use it as written any more, and many of the "progressive" elements of the early 1900s have conspired to rip down the barriers.

The first was the 17th Amendment, allowing direct election of Senators. The Senate was DESIGNED to be the body that represented the STATES interests, while the House was directly elected. The 17th Amendment allowed for the Federal Government to tramp on the responsibilities and rights of the States. The 16th Amendment allowing for an income tax (introduced earlier, but passed with the 17th in 1913) allowed the Federal Government to grow rapidly.

Comment We Elected Our Own Jailers (Score 1) 247

"Since the ruling class is usually safe from terrorists, and in bed with criminals, I’m guessing that “political opponents” will get the most spying."

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit...

For government, terrorism just makes them look bad - but political opposition can remove them from power. That's why encryption hysteria ALWAYS is about protecting government from the citizens. We need to stop electing lefty governmental flunkies like Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and start to reduce the size and power of government. The Democrats and the "mainstream" Republicans are in this together, against "We, the People". We need to elect small government conservatives and Libertarians, not communists, socialists and progressives.

Comment Re:What law would you add/change? (Score 1) 83

Robert Heinlein, in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", suggested differing standards to pass a new law or repeal an existing one. A new law should require 2/3 support, while repeal should require only 1/3.

Alternatively, here in the United States, all laws are supposed to abide by our Constitution. Require that all proposed laws should explicitly state the provision of the Constitution that authorizes such a law. In the case of drug laws, for example, no such provision exists. We had to have a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol; why wasn't a similar amendment necessary to ban drugs?

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell

Working...