Yes, we can. Information is the ultimate currency and weapon in human endeavors. The Russians stole some of ours and used it to undermine our most important institution. This goes beyond the law, which is a set of rules states setup for how internal actors can behave, and goes to issues of sovereignty. This is one of the largest rapes of sovereignty ever. Not because they changed or didn't change the result, but because they tried to so by violating our digital security. This was a successful digital invasion and the loss of control over information to us was massive.
Now that they know they can do it and morons in our country will even defend them for it, they're going to do it more, and more. It won't stop with the DNC.
We're being digitally invaded and the hoi polloi, usually so hot to beat someone with a stick, are quite pleased with everything. It's shocking. Can we get back to American ass-kicking mode and fuck these authoritarian rubes? A war is on, brother.
Not doing anything is often a tough decision. I wouldn't say sanctions accomplish nothing, however, even if you're right I would say sanctions are often used to get the public to accept that we've made the tough decision not to respond with physical aggression. It's often the right decision, and rarely popular.
They illegally acquired access to Podesta's emails and other DNC IP. Then they broadcast it to the world. Information is the most powerful commodity and control of it is critical. The point is not whether we lost the election or not, but that a foreign state is attempting to control information by robbing internal campaign information and releasing it to the public. We need to get beyond this agitprop response about democrats whining about the election and get into ass-kicking American mode because we are being digitally invaded and it's not going to stop (nor did it start) with the DNC.
The US is not the Ukraine. Only fools think that we should cede control over which truths to reveal to foreign nations.
We already knew that before the hacks. Compared to the GOP, the DNC is only gently screwing us. Russia asymmetrically exposed the bullshit, and that's a problem. Information wars have been going on for some time and are more important.
This same argument is being used to try to suggest all the rural people should move to cities because it's now too difficult for most people to run a small family farm and earn a reasonable income.
There's just few places left for unskilled labor to go and get reasonable jobs and housing.
I was born in Texas and I think the southern people were the real winners of the civil war because the confederacy lost.
The counterclaim to the argument that use taxes on networks (like highways) will be passed on to those that indirectly benefit is that the indirect benefits are not just based on getting goods to markets.
Roads are used to get to hospitals, schools, and the like, which means you're now heavily taxing investment behavior (not ideal).
Roads are used to help reduce food insecurity by making it cheaper to get access to food and to distribute a variety around to various places. Lower food insecurity in a population has indirect benefits for everyone. Less crime tops the list. How is a use tax passed on to the safer citizen? Not to mention that social investment in individuals tends to bear fruit that everyone eats. Your teachers might be happier and teach your kids better, your neighbors might invent more, your doctors might save more lives, your service workers might give better service, etc. In each of these cases, use taxes will not necessarily be passed onto you.
Consumption taxes are naturally anti-progressive, in the sense that they hit the poorest the hardest since the wealthier you are the less your income tends to be used for consumption. This results in widening inequality, as the gravity well of poverty gets suckier. Dramatic inequality of wealth is widely regarded as a social ill by economists and sociologists.
Our success is interconnected. You do not have to use highways or to even consume goods or services brought to you by highways in order to benefit from their existence. The wealth generating nature of them is better spread by a general income tax than by a use tax. The latter is a way to hurt the poor which in turn degrades our entire society because success is interconnected.
The original point was that the user had not received any federal benefits. The counterpoint was that he had (highways, judges, military protection, the internet). Your point addresses a point that nobody made.
Regarding the internet being invented faster, my understanding is that these prohibitions you're talking about were based on who could use arpanet. They did not prohibit companies from building their own data networks.
Regarding ISS benefits see https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... . They're not going to list two benefits I think we have from ISS: They give (some of) us hope for the future, and it brings us closer to spreading our civilization to other planets some day.
There is such a thing as predictive modeling. Maybe the word "predict" bothers you somehow, yet the computer may have understood there was likely to be a crash before it happened. Maybe it only understood that it was a good time to brake. Giving probability to a future possibility sounds like prediction to me.
You seem to be wrong. You might say massively wrong.