It seems that a key tenet of authoritarianism is the assumption that privacy is not legitimate.

Without the information provided by putting that into practice, it would be much more difficult to micromanage daily life. An income tax in particular is a control freak's wet dream: it provides both carrots and sticks that can be used to manipulate behavior. Unlike impersonal excise taxes or sales taxes, where the only relevant information is a dollar amount, an income tax inherently requires getting to know the mundane details of a person's life. You have to know who they are, what they do, what they've been up to lately, and you need invasive powers to make sure they aren't cheating or otherwise lying to you.

There is a reason why the Constitution had to be amended to allow for an income tax. As far as I know, that reason wasn't because the Founding Fathers never heard of such a concept.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

What I don't understand is this idea that the Fourth Amendment applies to one communications channel (say, postal mail) but not other communications channels (e-mail) that achieve the same transfer of information. I say the burden of proof is on those who assert this. What's the rationale here?

Sadly, taxes have had no real relationship to the government's need for revenue (spending, interest on dets) for a very long time now. I don't think that necessarily argues against your idea, but it does complicate it.

Most of the unreasonable bullshit comes from trying to make a crime out of things that are not crimes (what consenting adults do). It leads to laws that would be unenforcable without this police-state mentality. Rather than admit that such laws are inherently flawed, and repeal them, the government would rather expand its powers.

Yes, and it was a lament.

But really, how much rapid progress would you have expected from an organization which believed (at the time) that an effective way to spread the love of Jesus was torturing people to death? I mean, I've read the Bible and the words of Christ -- I couldn't find "hold an Inquisition" or "torture your neighbor" anywhere in it.

Then I submit that they were not really so willing to accept new cosmological theories.

The correct way is according to the evidence. The correct schedule is according to when advancements are made and new evidence is discovered. Anything else is unwillingness and refusal.

Jeopardy... I never did understand how "Popular Culture" belonged with things like History, Astronomy, and the like. Because people who learn about astrophysics are truly concerned about what Snookie is up to these days? I say leave that kind of information where it belongs: among the small-minded.

Seemed like a poorly-executed ratings grab to me.

Having to take them is not the same as being limited by them.

Someone who really understands the subject matter can pass a standardized test on that subject. But someone who was only taught to the test may have difficulty actually practically applying what they were taught. (The bureaucrats that were mentioned earlier and the politics involved with the school system are certainly not helping things either).

The shortcomings of rote memorization become apparent once someone who learned that way has to think abstractly and apply what they know to a real-world problem. Abstract reasoning is important, too. It just doesn't fit the "cog in a corporate machine" philosophy for which most public schools prepare their students. There is a reason why the politicians and other power elites don't usually send their children to public schools.

It does make sense that people who want to be lazy about one thing that's relatively easy to do correctly might also be lazy (or procrastinate) on other things that are easy to understand, such as due dates.

We increasingly live in a society where avoiding the slightest effort anytime one can get away with it is viewed as some kind of luxury lifestyle. If these people wind up paying more, not to punish them but because they genuinely are bad risks, that's fine with me.

Furthermore, you haven't contributed anything of value to this thread. So then, did you have a point or are you merely trying to disrupt other people's discussion?

If you're not satisfied with his answer, I can provide another for you. I don't think you really need to have this explained to you. I think you just wanted a simple, lazy, effortless slam-dunk "victory" so you can congratulate yourself for ending the thread. Continuing...

For one, mentioning Nazi Germany is perfectly valid when the topic is government power and how it incrementally escalates beyond control. It's just a fact that forcing gun owners to register their firearms made it a simple matter for Hitler's government to confiscate them. It's also a fact that dictators commonly take guns away from law-abiding citizens prior to becoming despotic. Most (all, I hope) people don't want to live under a brutal dictatorship, dictators know this, therefore dictators want the citizens to be as helpless and powerless as possible.

From Wikipedia:
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.

"Genocide, eugenics, racial superiority ..." would reasonably include how a government becomes powerful enough to implement such horrifying policies.

Also from Wikipedia:
This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.

That would apply to you.

The US wants to have a heavy influence (which is a form of power) over the rest of the world. It also tends to act like the world's police.

Maybe, just maybe, increased power, influence, and prestige actually should come with increased responsibility and scrutiny.

It's not necessarily "anti-US" sentiment.

If we still keep failing to learn from history (continue using fiat currencies for one example*) then it really would make you feel hopeless.


* All of them, without exception, have ended with hyperinflation. Perhaps we think we're special?

That's not what some are pretending.

They're pretending that the emotional feel-good sentiment of saying "but but don't blame victim!" and the sense of superiority they get from feeling like you're a bad guy for having done so, is more important than the facts of the matter. It's the position of the faint-hearted who cannot cope with reality anytime that reality is even slightly unpleasant. They seldom dispute the facts of the matter or suggest alternatives because they are generally not interested in solving the problem. They just want to look good and feel better about themselves. Ergo, when you suggest adults should learn the most basic precautions, they view it as an opportunity to twist your words into evil, dirty, sinister victim-blaming.

When people like this make important decisions, you get the bankrupt nation we know today. But at least everyone feels good and pats themselves on the back right up until it all collapses. That's what matters, right?

Let's not do this with computer security.

I appreciate the succinct, eloquent manner in which you stated that.

I may just quote you on it (with attribution of course) the next time discussion degrades into another one of these weak "but languages evolve over time" bullshit episodes.

Of course, "languages evolve over time" is almost always code for "I can't be bothered to learn to do things correctly, besides everyone is a winner and no one is ever wrong or mistaken if they just weasel out of admitting it". Perhaps that phrase has been used legitimately by someone who is not too prideful/weak-hearted to admit error, but I've never personally witnessed it.