Slashdot Log In
Presidential Answers, Round One
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along? dept.
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
Browne:
The question I most wanted to ask Al Gore and George Bush in the debates was, "Would you be a better person today if, for your youthful indiscretions, you had spent 10 years in prison? If not, why do presume to sentence young people to punitive sentences for doing nothing more than "experimenting" with drugs as you did?"
The War on Drugs has been every bit as successful as the War on Poverty, the War on Prostitution, and the War on Gambling - meaning it's been an absolute failure. As with other wars, the War on Drugs has bred enormous crime, corruption, and expense. I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition - with its black market, criminal gangs, drive-by shootings, bootleg drugs, and corrupt law enforcement.
I'm so committed to ending this insane war on our civil liberties, that I've promised that the very first thing I will do as President, from the Inauguration stand, is sign an unconditional pardon for all non-violent drug offenders currently serving their sentence in federal prison.
McReynolds:
The war on drugs is not only a failure, it is the wrong war. Heroin is a sad addiction but one we need to accept and allow addicts to get heroin through doctors. Marijuana, the most widely used illegal drug, is not addictive, no one has died from an overdose, it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and it should be legalized. Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale and from time to time still do.
I'm not sure of what to do about cocaine but one thing I know you don't do is send American helicopters into Colombia, and you don't spray crops in Bolivia, Peru, etc. The problem isn't there - it is here, in education and treatment. End the drug war.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
McReynolds:
As an atheist I have an interest in this topic. (Perhaps I'm a Buddhist atheist, which is not actually a contradiction, as "orthodox Buddhists" out there will understand). All faiths, from Wicca to Shinto should be protected on the same basis as Judaism, Christianity, etc. All I could do is make clear the Bill of Rights covers this, and pledge to defend the Bill of Rights, which remains a radical document which probably could not be passed into law today. Thank God we have it. I believe in it.
Browne:
Minority faiths should vote Libertarian because we're the only party that will take away the power of government to inflict one person's values on another. This not only will make those who practice minority faiths safe from those of differing values, it will also make groups like Christians feel safe from other faiths - so each will no longer feel the need to fight the other.
Specifically, I intend to do more than talk a good game - as so many politicians have. I intend to get the federal government out of everything not authorized in the Constitution, so that all anti-religious, or religious for that matter, will be eliminated automatically.
By preaching "family values," conservative politicians like Pat Buchanan and George Bush keep you on the hook - even though they are doing nothing to actually promote such values or free you from government oppression.
I want to completely repeal the Income Tax. This would better enable individuals to live by their values, and would empower parents to choose schooling for their children that supports their values.
I am the only politician in this race who refuses to pretend I know what's best for you. I don't want to be your leader, deciding everything about your life, especially who and how you worship. That's a decision for each of the 270 million "leaders" that live in our nation.
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Browne:
What deficit? Al Gore and George Bush are both claiming we don't have a deficit? Gore says that we have no deficit because Bill Clinton managed the economy so well. Bush says we have no deficit because we had Republicans in Congress.
But the deficit does exist, and the way we know is that the national debt is still increasing. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul, or more precisely the politicians are robbing your future to pay for all their wonderful programs today. The Social Security program is currently bringing in more money than it spends, and that money is being used to pay for the current operating expenses of government.
We're really the ones paying the bill. It's not the Russians, or the Martians who will end up paying the bill -- it's you and me. That money the politicians are spending is ours.
If there were a surplus, that's money were being overtaxed. If, on the other hand, there's a deficit, that's money that's a debt our children will have to pay. Deficit spending also means higher interest rates for home, auto, consumer, and college loans. You're paying one way or the other.
There is a solution, and only I am proposing it -- not Bush, Gore, or Nader. End the Income Tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. Our country became the greatest, free nation in the world without an Income Tax. But the Income Tax funds all the unconstitutional programs that exist today. If we ended the Income Tax we could finance all the constitutional functions of government such as, defense, the courts and a couple other permitted functions.
But more importantly, you would be free -- free to save, invest, or spend as you see fit.
McReynolds:
I'm not for a tax cut. I'm for higher taxes, lower for the poor (in fact a "negative income tax" for those at the poverty level, which means they would get cash back) and much higher for the wealthy. I'm for an estate tax on the very rich which would confiscate the bulk of their money at the time of death - not because they were bad people, but because vast concentrations of economic power distort the fabric of democracy.
There are many projects - from expanding Amtrak to health care - which need funding. Some of that can come from the Socialist Party's proposed 50% across the board cut in military spending.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Browne:
(no answer)
McReynolds:
First, abolish the electoral college. It discourages voting (if
you live
in Texas and are a Democrat why vote? If you live in New York and are
a
Republican, why vote?). Second, have an instant run off system for
the
President, which is how the Mayor of London was elected. It is very
simple
and "empowers" smaller parties. You would cast your ballot with, as
one
example, your top five choices. Let's suppose it was:
McReynolds #1
Nader #2
Gore #3
Bush #4
Hagelin #5
If Al Gore got enough #1 votes on the first count, he is the winner -
end of
story.
But if on the first count no one gets a majority you take the lowest
candidate (let's say it was me) and find out who my #2 choice was, so
that is
added to Nader's total.
It is possible - not likely but possible - that Nader might be #2 on
enough
ballots that he would have a majority. But probably he wouldn't and
you'd go
on down the list, transferring Nader's "second choice" to the next
candidate,
etc.
This means that if you voted for a Socialist Party candidate you weren't helping elect Bush. Also means if you voted for the Libertarian candidate you wouldn't be helping elect Gore.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that our current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
McReynolds:
I'm not going to dodge - I'll admit I have not studied this enough to know where I stand. I certainly am against the monstrous profits going to studio chiefs, but I also want to make damn sure that poor writers are ripped off. Have to pass on this one./i>
McReynolds:
Browne:
I believe the marketplace will develop ways of protecting intellectual property if the government stays out of it. Witness the way software companies send you trial programs that automatically go dead after 30 days. Similar innovations will be found to protect other kinds of intellectual property. No, they won't be perfect, but they will work a lot better than laws written by politicians and enforced by bureaucrats.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
Browne:
No one should prevent you from encrypting anything you want, and the government should have no access to your encrypted messages, unless you want it to.
I favor a total absence of export controls. They are not used for national security. They are used to favor those with access to political power and to harm the competitors of those with access to political power.
McReynolds:
While I doubt any form of encryption can defy decoding I think people have a right to use it, the government is wrong to try to block its use or prevent its transfer to other countries.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
McReynolds:
Obviously they have reason to be concerned! At two levels. First, workers in this country see their jobs floating to other countries were trade unions and environmental protections are weak, wages are low, and thus profits are higher. To have a level playing field we should support the international organization of working people, so that workers in Korea or Thailand can fight for protection, increase their wages, and force the capitalist investors to settle for a lower profit. The struggle is to increase labor's share of the pie. As a socialist I am very strongly for that.
The problem is, however, much deeper. Captialist modes of production, unless controlled by strong state intervention (or unless placed under social ownership within a democratic society) exploit the resources of the world without any concern except for profit. Biggest and best example - the Tobacco Corporations, who have known for decades they were selling death, but found it profitable. The forests of Brazil are being destroyed because it is profitable. Cars instead of railroads are produced because it is profitable. The environment is threatened by industrialization and technology - but very much more so when those processes are carried out by profit-driven global corporations which are more powerful than almost any nation state.
Browne:
The greatest guarantor of peace isn't a strong military or an international organization. It is free trade among countries. When people can buy and sell freely with people in another country, they have a good reason to discourage their leaders from going to war with that country. This interdependence is a far more reliable guarantor of peace than foreign aid, arms sales, and treaties.
Winston Churchill put it very well back in 1903: . . the fact that this great trade exists between nations binds them together in spite of themselves, and has in the last thirty years done more to preserve the peace of the world than all the Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Secretaries and Colonial Secretaries put together. When a government excludes other countries from sources of raw materials or from markets for their wares, it undermines the economic motives for maintaining peace.
Lost Jobs?
Free trade doesn't cost jobs, it improves them. Money spent on foreign products doesn't disappear from the American economy. It's true that an American company loses a sale when an American buys a Japanese car. And if it loses enough sales to foreign competitors, it will stop hiring for a while--or even lay people off (just as it would if it lost sales to an American competitor). But the total number of American jobs doesn't decline, because the money spent abroad will come back here in one form or another.
When an American buys a foreign car (or any other foreign product), the foreign seller receives dollars. He (or some other foreigner to whom he trades the dollars) will use the money to buy an American product. Or he'll buy an American investment--which also puts the money into circulation in America. Or he'll leave it in a bank--which will lend it to someone who will spend it in America. One way or another, the money creates jobs somewhere in the American economy. When a foreign industry outsells an American industry, the lost American jobs are highly visible. But the new American jobs aren't so easy to see, because they're spread out over many different industries. So politicians can score points railing against foreign competitors--even though their arguments have no basis in reality.
Trade Aggression?
Politicians describe foreign trade as though it were a war between countries--with winners and losers. Here, for example, is a statement by one of the 1996 presidential candidates: The Japanese in the last 25 years have bought 400,000 American cars and sold us 40 million. Now if that is not trade aggression, I don't know what is. You've got to wake up and start defending the national interest of the United States and of American workers, American businesses, and American auto workers.
But every one of those 40 million Japanese cars was bought by an American who wanted it. Providing what someone wants isn't aggression. Barring Japanese companies from selling cars in America is forcibly preventing Americans from getting what they want--which is aggression. And if someone thinks Japanese sales here are aggression, what are American sales in Japan? Here are a few areas in which U.S. companies "aggressed" rather aggressively in 1994: Was this trade aggression? Should American companies be forcibly prevented from selling products they can make better than foreign companies?
Most politicians miss the whole point of international trade. It isn't a game or a battle or a war. Each transaction benefits both sides. To quote Winston Churchill again: . . both the selling and the buying of these things were profitable to us; that what we sold, we sold at a good profit, for a natural and sufficient return; that what we bought, we bought because we thought it worth our while to buy, and thought we could turn it to advantage. And in this way commerce is utterly different from war, so that the ideas and the phraseology of the one should never be applied to the other; for in war both sides lose whoever wins the victory, but the transactions of trade, like the quality of mercy, are twice blessed, and confer a benefit on both parties.
Punishing the Innocent
But what about American companies that are shut out by foreign governments? Just as the sale of foreign goods in this country blesses both buyers and sellers, a foreign government that prevents its citizens from buying American goods injures both the would-be buyer and seller. But our government's response to such wasteful policies is to double the harm by imitating them. If the Japanese government interferes with American car companies, our government wants to forcibly reduce the number of Japanese cars sold here. But why should American car-buyers be punished for the sins of the Japanese government? The politicians don't address that point because they don't care about the American buyer. But if pressed for an answer, they'd probably say it's the only way to pressure the Japanese government to open its trade doors. Hurting innocent people in order to make someone else bend to one's will is the tactic of a terrorist. Governments have been using this tactic for centur ies--which it why there still are so many trade barriers.
Again, Winston Churchill in 1903 had something to say to those today who believe we can open foreign markets by closing our own: There's a feeling that England has only to retaliate and foreign tariff walls will immediately collapse. But all the great nations of the world are Protectionist; they have been for 100 years past, and perhaps for many years before that, endeavoring by every dodge of reciprocity or negotiation to force each other to reduce their tariffs in each other's respective interests. Where have they come to? Have they reached Free Trade? On the contrary, their tariffs have risen higher and higher, and at this moment Free-trade England, which does nothing, Free-trade England, with masterly inactivity, occupies in regard to the nations of the world so far as tariffs are concerned, a position of advantage to which few of the Protectionist countries have attained and which none of them has surpassed.
With virtually no tariffs of its own, England had become the world's leading exporter--while governments that used trade barriers to jockey for advantage did more harm than good to their own exporters. Too bad England eventually fell off the Free Trade wagon.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Browne:
In 1983 Ronald Reagan made the most sensible military suggestion of the past 50 years -- that America should have protection against a missile attack. Unfortunately, he assigned the job to the Department of Defense, and now -- 17 years later -- we are no closer to being protected than we were then. The only thing the government should do is post a reward -- $25, or even $50 billion -- to be given to the first private company that can demonstrate a working, functioning, fool-proof missile defense system. Not a prototype, not a plan -- but the actual system.
Perhaps a properly functioning system could deal with "global threats from space" though that wouldn't be our first or primary objectives.
McReynolds:
An interesting idea. If this can be totally separate from the crackpot idea of a Star Wars program, and made an international program under the United Nations I would favor it.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
McReynolds:
This nation doesn't have to have a "mission". The United States is an exceptional country in many ways, and certainly unique. But one problem we have is this damn "need" for a mission. Finland doesn't have a "mission". China doesn't have a "mission". Costa Rica doesn't have a "mission". Beware of missionaries! Build a good and decent country, compassionate, democratic, heading toward socialism, and make time to sniff the roses on the way. We don't need a "mission".
Browne:
This question concerns me. I have no national mission in mind and no broad plan to herd you into, as if this was the Fatherland. You're an American. That means you have a rich history handed down to you from men who risked, and in some cases lost, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in the pursuit of liberty.
Not only would I not increase scientific funding in the budget, I'd end it altogether because the truth is government doesn't work. It doesn't keep our streets safe, educate our children or provide a secure retirement. It doesn't aid progress, it hinders it. Government is politics, not progress. Government is bureaucracy, inefficiency, and brute force. It is the least desirable, least effective and least likely to succeed means of getting anything accomplished.
What is my vision for you? I want you to be free -- you and every other American. You should be free to live your life as you see fit, not as Al Gore, George Bush or Ralph Nader see fit. I want you to be able to spend, to save, or to invest all the money you earn. I want you to be responsible for your life. And if you choose to watch TV and use the Internet all day, that's ok with me, so long as the rest of us aren't required to subsidize your lifestyle choice.
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:2)
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:2)
I too am a Libertarian. However, this statement is incorrect. Libertarians do not and should not accept taxpayer money to fund campaigns. In fact, this year Harry qualified for over $1 million in federal matching funds, but TURNED IT DOWN.
It would be hypocritical to speak about binding federal government to its constitutional limits while simultaneously taking political welfare money from the hands of the taxpayers.
Re:Government funding of science and the arts (Score:3)
So am I.
>That being said, even though I have some libertarian tendencies I think that Browne's plan to end all government scientific funding is foolish. The reason: basic research is one of the best investments you can make. It is almost guaranteed to pay off.
All the more reason that private individuals can (and do) invest in an umbrella corporation. It pools the resources and spreads the risk.
>Some corporate funding of research has worked well in the past (Bell Labs?), but it just doesn't seem to be feasable today.
Yeah, there would be no way that a private company could even attempt to map the human genome.
>Investing in basic scientific research is just too long term for most corporations.
Those that don't, die. Those that do, have a chance at prosperity. Capitalism is messy. Change is constant.
>Never mind "five year plans" or even retirement times for top executives, you may not be able to fund enough projects to have any statistical confidence that any but the most applied of research programs may pay off for you. And the payoffs may be something unexpected, which you will have trouble reaping the benefits of anyway.
Like the transistor, the IC, the sticky note? If it is useful, benefits will be reaped. If not by you, then by someone else. You can then go to work for them to do more research.
But... (Score:2)
Libertarians: Huh? (Score:5)
If not for the income tax, where will the money come from? National Sales Tax? Propery taxes? What? Are there other "necessary" projects that would be funded this way? If so, how will those get money?
Finally a voice of reason (Score:3)
As always, please redirect all flames to
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:4)
From pornography.
No, hold on a sec. I'm serious.
Be realistic here. Yes we're talking a hypothetical situation of a libertarian-controlled federal government, but we're still responsible to make it "hard" poly-sci-fi. Just one element of fantasy - the rest has to be plausible.
Not everyone in this country is a libertarian. If we elect Browne (fantasy element), there are going to be conservatives and moralists who are going to howl bloody murder that things like child porn and drugs are no longer prosecuted (logical repercussion). How do you shut them up?
One answer is to tax the hell out of it: huge tax margins that make people think twice before abusing the stuff. Sure it's a regressive tax, but it's also a vice - in no way are cigarettes, pot, booze, or Natalie Portman naked and petrified necessary for existance. They're luxuries.
And (I have to get this off my chest) never forget that socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, and any other 'ism' are ideals and that in practice, government is going to be a compromise between them. You're never going to have a purely libertarian government, despite what the Libertarian Party promotes. It seems that a lot of people forget this. Until Libertarians, Socialists, and other third party men-on-a-mission admit this to themselves and the voters, they don't have a chance in hell of getting elected.
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:3)
Eliminating the income tax would cut the federal income immediately to around a trillion dollars a year.
That's before the massive increase in income from excise taxes etc. that would follow in the wake of the massive growth of the economy that would occur as 270 million people suddenly had double their old effective income.
A trillion dollars a year is plenty to fund the Constitutionally-permissible functions of government, such as defense.
-
None (Score:3)
Re:My Flamebait Opinion (Score:3)
That being said, Bush's tax cut obviously is not nearly as large as those historical cuts, so we probably wouldn't see such a tremendous jump. Though I'm voting for Bush, I disagree with his tax cuts because I think there is _some_ danger of it overheating the economy (not because I think it means we're going to have to make drastic cuts in expenditures).
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong, I voted for Browne in '96. And while I still consider myself a libertaian on social issues such as religion, war on some-drugs, etc, I have come to believe that their economic policy would turn this country into a shithole. The already disturbing amount of power that corporations would wield would increase dramatically. Pollution would increase. Poverty would increase (almost certainly increasing crime at the same time.) This would not be a pretty place to live.
The only part of this theory that doesn't fit is the almost total lack of donations the Libertarians get from large corporations. You would think their pro-business stance would get them millions in corporate donations, but that isn't happening. You can argue it's because they are a small party, but the money that corporations have available could create a viable third pary out of thin air. My main theory is that more large corporations believe that they are much better off with government regulation than without. Let's face it, the government spends trillions of dollars, large amounts of which are used to buy things from corporations. How many defense contractors would even exist if the budget was cut drastically? How many billions would the telecommunications giants lose if the goverment actually got smaller? In many industries, government regulation greatly increases the barrier to entry, decreasing competition and increasing corporate profits. All the rules and regulations also make the marketplace more stable. Changes get slowed down, which helps multi-nationals keep pace. Companies don't want no regulations. They want regulations which benefit them and hurt their competetors. For that matter, companies don't like competetion. Oh sure, they claim they do, but that's only when they are not the dominant player in a market. Once a company is dominant, it wants to be a monopoly since that allows for the highest profits.
How about a poll that asks a better question: (Score:3)
"Of the 216 candidates for President, who would you prefer the winner to be?"
I bet the numbers for Nader would be alot higher. Maybe even higher than for Gore.
If people started to realize that it was Gore who was taking the votes away from Nader, and not the other way around, things might be very different.
(Same might apply for Browne or Buchannon vs Bush)
Socialism Economics (Score:3)
McReynolds I'm not for a tax cut. I'm for higher taxes, lower for the poor (in fact a "negative income tax" for those at the poverty level, which means they would get cash back) and much higher for the wealthy
Looking at this statement, he supports giving additional money to people who are at the poverty level. Let's say I make $10,000/year. Under his plan, I would get perhaps $5,000/year from a "negative tax" to bring me up to some pre-set standard.
Now, let's say that I get a raise. I am now making $15,000/year. Now I am no longer at the poverty line, so I do not get nearly as much of a "negative tax" as before. Let's say that I only get $1,000 now.
Before I was making $15,000/year after taxes. I worked my ass off to get a raise and now I make $16,000/year. That is a marginal tax of 80%! I would have been much happier to not work as hard and stay at $15,000 than to work myself to the bone for a measly $1,000.
Don't be fooled by Socialist economics. They will do nothing but keep the poor poor.
But what about the rich, they say. McReynolds is for much higher taxes for the rich and almost complete estate tax at death. The argument goes that then we will have sooo much money to give back to the poor.
I call BS
If I have a couple million dollars in the bank, I can afford lawyers and accountants. In fact, I can afford lawyers and accountants in multiple countries. See where I am going with this? If the US starts to tax people's assets at death, the rich will simply displace the assets into non-taxables. Whether that be fixed capital (buildings, land, machines) or foreign assets, if you are rich, you can afford to move your money around. In fact, if you spend a couple of months of the year outside of the US, you don't pay taxes. You could live on Euros or Loonies paid to you through a bank account in Switzerland for which you have a VISA check card.
Do you think the poor or middle-income families in America can do this? Not a chance. They are stuck here with their mid-level mediocrity enforced by the income tax/gift tax/estate tax and everything else that McReynolds wants to institute in his Socialist utopia.
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:5)
The Bell System.
Plain Old Telephone Service was developed at Bell Labs, funded entirely by American Telephone and Telegraph, nary a dime of Uncle Sam's money. (The things they did develop for the government were add-ons, like encryption and wiretap devices and such.) The ubiquitous telephone, the sine qua non of business the world over, was developed by a company who then was broken up by the American government not once but twice.... IMHO the latest time, happening even as we speak, the result of the sheer weight of government regulation, forcing old "T" to break itself up along regulatory lines.
Actually, I just thought of another one... the commodity PC. It can be argued that there were various levels of involvement and interference, but the bottom line is that once the court system told the Patent Orifice to STICK IT and let the cloners reverse engineer, the market went ballistic, thus enabling Linus....
Oh, jeeze. UNIX, for Seldon's sake.
And one more, for good measure. The Internet. Yeah, it was *invented* by DARPA... but it wasn't until they killed funding for NSFNet and the various commercial network companies came to the fore that the Web made like unto a mushroom cloud....
So, there, Mr. AC, the telephone, the PC, Unix, and the Internet as we know it. All those things that are absolutely necessary for business today were either done sans government, or enabled by government getting the hell out the way.
That's why I'm voting Libertarian.
--
"See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too." -- Linus Torvalds
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:3)
-B
Not that socialist boy has a chance anyway.. (Score:3)
Heh, yeah, the "higher taxes" thing worked oh-so-well for Mondale in '84. You think they'd learn....
McReynolds on Minority Religions. (Score:5)
"Thank God we have it."
I love it when atheists say "Thank God"
Government as a business (Score:3)
"Guilty - the choice of a new generation"
Re:Huh? (Score:5)
We're building the most expensive mile of road in human history up here in Boston because we're an old city that's maxed out on cars. About half of the people who commute in Boston take public transit. Public transit may not be the most luxurious way to travel, but if we eliminated transit this very expensive project would be utterly overwhelmed. I'd shudder to think what New York would be like with out the subway.
As far as Amtrak is concerned, we've already maxed out air travel capacity. That's why there are so many delays at Newark -- the airlines are scheduling half again as many flights there as the airport can handle. Almost every other major airport has the same problem but to a lesser degree. And don't forget the feeder systems -- the airport car routes that are routinely congested.
On the other hand, I can take the new Accela train from Boston to Manhattan in three hours -- less time than flying when you factor in the delays due to an overloaded air system (not to mention the delay in getting from Queens downtown). I get of at Penn station and walk a hundred yards to the subway which whisks me anywhere I want to go in minutes. Plus, on the train I get half again the leg room and seat width, and an outlet to plug my laptop into. I get tons of work done because it is comfortable enough to work on the train.
Build roads or transit? It makes sense to put your money where the greatest marginal increase in commuter capacity will be achieved. You can't double the road capacity in a place like Boston (or LA for that matter), but you could increase the amount of trains and busses relatively cheaply, making public transit faster and more convenient.
That's how the private sector optimizes its profits -- by putting money where the greatest marginal benefit exists. It makes no sense to bash this rational strategy because of an ideological bias for roads over transit, and then conclude that government is "inefficient".
Huh? (Score:3)
Geek grrl in training
***********************************************
A recent poll tells why the people of New Hampshire are supporting George Bush. 40% like my foreign policy, 40% support my economic policy, and 20% believe I make a good premium beer. - George Bush campaigning in 1988
this is democracy (Score:5)
When George Washington was elected president, I bet that more than half the population had never so much as seen a picture of him. Who can guess how many knew anything significant about his ideas, aspirations, or plans for the presidency? He happened to be the General of the Continental forces during the revolutionary war, but from what I've read, he wasn't even very good at that.
Fast forward to now. Anyone who has a computer (and between home, school, the library, and work, who doesn't) can post a question that the presidential candidates will read and respond to, and if it's good enough (judged not by the media, not by campaign spokespeople, not by some faceless beaurocrat, but by your peers). You could be a 12 year old student or a senior citizen, of any race--a handle doesn't discriminate.
It's amazing how the Internet is bringing democracy to a level the world has never seen. Kudos to
--
Straw Man! (Score:3)
No, seriously, who the hell moderated this up? There are various arguments you can make against Socialism, but this geezer has picked numbers out of the air. If anyone ever decided to implement a 'negative income tax' for the poor, it would be a sliding scale, not a cut-off point at some poverty level made up by HerbieTMac. By making up arguments like this, you just make yourself look stupid.
And 'Socialist utopia'? Is that meant to be an insult? Presumably you think a utopia would be capitalist, yes? Does anyone think in 200 years time we will still be living in a capitalist society (serious question)?
---
does he stand by his previous misstatements? (Score:5)
McReynolds : I also want to make damn sure that poor writers are ripped off.
Damn! Sign me up!!!!
McReynolds and drug use... (Score:3)
At first, this statement shocked me ("WHAAT! A candidate admitting to casual marijuana use? The nerve!") - but as I thought about it, I liked his honesty. This is one trait you have to admire, even if you don't agree with anything else the man says: He was being honest.
This in itself is something we rarely see in normal, everyday individuals, let alone politicians...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
This is what the rich do..... (Score:3)
Personal disclosure: I make a living by helping rich people lower their estate taxes.
Here is my little exposé on how the rich avoid paying the full estate tax. The rich already displace their assets and as a result, pay less in estate taxes. The estate tax is largely an "avoidable tax." With proper estate planning, you can avoid getting taxed up the wazoo after you pass away. If you were rich, what would you rather do...spend a few grand in legal and professional fees to preserve most of your estate or pay the full estate tax? This can be done with various types of trusts and charitable donations.
Another *very* popular form of estate planning is the family limited partnership, or FLP. The IRS and the tax courts have "blessed" the use of FLPs for many years. An FLP is a legal entity, in the same sense that a corporation or limited liability company is. To reduce your estate/gift tax liability, you transfer the legal ownership of your assets (stock portfolio, real estate, etc.) to the FLP. In exchange for your capital contribution, you receive a limited partnership interest. You can almost think of it as a private mutual fund...but unlike a mutual fund, the number of ownership units are finite. Instead of gifting your assets outright to your family members, or dying with full, direct ownership of your assets, you are now gifting/dying with interests in a privately-held partnership. Let me emphasize this...with an FLP, you do not own the underlying assets...you own an ownership interest in the FLP...it's just like owning stock.
At this point, you may be thinking..."hey, this FLP is just a shell." However, all FLPs that are used in estate/gift tax planning have serious restrictions placed upon them. The FLP agreement places restrictions upon the owners of interests in FLPs. Specifically, a minority interest (non-controlling) owner has no ability whatsoever to control the underlying assets...they cannot determine how the assets are to be invested and they may not receive a return of or withdraw their capital. The only thing they usually receive is a cash distribution from any income that the FLP may generate. In addition, it is very difficult to sell your interest. Usually, the FLP agreement states that you can only sell your interest with the sole consent of the general (managing) partner, or you may only sell your interest to other family members, who may not want to buy your share.
For all of the above purposes, an ownership position in an FLP is worth less to an investor than owning the assets directly. With an FLP, you have lack of control of the underlying assets and sometimes lack of marketability. It is my job to determine the value of FLPs. Not surprisingly, the value of the total FLP itself is worth less than the value of its individual underlying assets. Look at it this way...what has more value to you...100 shares of Andover.net that you own directly, or a noncontrolling interest in a partnership that owns 100 shares of Andover.net. Common sense would dictate that you would demand a discount from the net asset value of the partnership interest due to lack of control concerns. In the public marketplace, the exact same thing happens with closed-end investment funds...If you look at the prices of closed-end funds in Baron's, you will see the net asset value per share column and the market price column. The net asset value is the total value of the underlying assets and the market price is what people actually pay for a share of the closed-end fund. In every case, the market price is less than the net asset value.
So, in the case of an FLP, the gift/estate tax liability is lowered because you're starting with a lower value to base the tax on. IE, Instead of being taxed on $100, you're being taxed on, say, $60 - $75. And it's not really a dirty, underhanded trick...if I had a large estate, I'd want to protect some of it, too.
Also, I would like to note that the estate tax is only payable by people with assets greater than ~$1e6. However, it affects us all...the estate tax is one of the fastest growing revenue streams in the US today. The government is receiving that money and is getting used to *spending* it. If the estate tax was eliminated (almost happened if Clinton didn't veto it), that tax burden would get pushed down to the middle and lower economic classes. Let me put it to you in a
Re:Socialism Economics (Score:3)
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:3)
I don't see how that's true. They were selling the stuff for $1/acre and still own 31% of it.
The government was able to survive without income tax because its powers were limited, and it did a lot less.
________________________________________
Re:McReynolds (Score:3)
Actually, his plan to increase inheritance taxes is a good one, and pro-capitalist at that. Unearned wealth is massively non-capitalist, and tends to create a priviledged and self-sustaining aristocracy, as seen in Europe. The Libertarians would do well to adopt that plank of the Socialist party platform: unearned wealth bad!
________________________________________
McReynolds (Score:3)
His Socialist views surely are going to get little more than attacked and razzed by the majority on this site. Personally, though I like some of his ideas, and do believe that some decently intelligent people running the gov't with the best interests of the public (and not just themselves like today's politicnas) in mind can do some things better than any money/greed driven could ever do. Mind you, not ALL things better, just some of them.
---
Re:Socialism (Score:3)
Cold war/anti-communism (and socialism by extention) mentality that they tried to entrench in us. See, they're the enemy, they do things differently, and their way is wrong, which is why we're fighting them. Or something like that.
And I think there's also a lot of that protestant work ethic in this country, where you are defined by your work and how hard to work at it, and you get your rewards in life based on that work - so financial success means you're a hard worker, and lack of success means you're lazy and a leech. (See just about any anti-welfare tirade for more evidence of this) Of course, bad luck and bad situation don't come into play in it...
I'll be honest, I think a lot of it is selfishness; the "I earned it, it's all mine" attitude. That having some of your money taken away for some "service" that is hard to quantify seems to be unfair. And the richer you are, the more you pay for these "services" that people would rather pay "on their own" instead of to the government - of course, never mind the people who can't pay for it on their own for whatever reason.
---
Re:Socialism (Score:4)
The only selfishness I see comes from the socialists who believe they are entitled to forcibly take the products of other people's labor because they "need" it more. Capitalists want to make money by providing products and services that other people want. Socialists want to take money that others have made under threat of violence. This is where the previously mentioned 100 million dead victims of socialist governments come in.
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:4)
If not for the income tax, where will the money come from? National Sales Tax? Propery taxes? What? Are there other "necessary" projects that would be funded this way? If so, how will those get money?
The same place it came from in the first 120 years of the country's existence, before we had an income tax.
The federal budget is $1.9 trillion. I have no idea how many zeros that is. Of that, about half comes from income taxes, and the other half is from tariffs and excise taxes.
--
Re:Wicca is *not* a religion (Score:3)
Einstein was an atheist, but he believed that humans have a common religious feeling, as if there were a "religion gland". He "saw god" through his work studying the universe itself. Other people see god in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the music of John Coltrane, or the rituals that are passed on to them by their parents. But where people see god and what they choose to do about it is their business, as long as they don't harm the person or property of another person.
Or, we could just send in the FBI or ATF with tanks and grenade launchers. How those people sleep with themselves at night is beyond me. It seems like you blame Koresh for Waco, though. Bizarre. Why was the ATF even there in the first place? They said Koresh was a Drug Lord with a meth lab and a stockpile of automatic weapons. Once it came out that there was no lab and no drugs, Koresh was recast as a Cult Leader. As long as he's a Menace to Society, I guess it's OK to roll up a tank and kill him.
> It's nothing more than a cult based around a
> liberal interpretation of witchcraft.
What do you call raising the dead, healing the sick with a touch, being conceived without intercourse, and having armies of winged helpers at your beck and call? Or parting the Red Sea, flaming hailstorms, and solor eclipses on command? That is some magical shit. You can piss on Christianity or Judaism with the same line you used on Wicca.
Confidence in our military == NULL (Score:3)
I am a geek in the military (education benefits), and I have to say that I take exception to two things said by these candidates.
McReynolds suggested he would give no tax cut, but more fairly distribute taxes (and tax breaks) amoung the different earning classes. I admire this. But he also proposes cutting military spending by HALF.
This is the worst idea I've seen yet. It is true that we are not at war, but as history will prove, you *always* have to be prepared for the slightest chance of conflict and maintain a realistic image of strong national defense. As it is right now, the US military is not even receiving close to what it needs to support our missions and excersises. Training, in particular, is in desparate peril. The Air Force (for example), is below 2/3 the size of what it was in the mid-80's and due to Operations Tempo, we are deploying twice far more, and in general, doing twice as much. All services right now are suffering large, looming retention problems and cutting member's benefits to make up for cut spending will be a direct blow to what they are trying to accomplish.
Later on, Browne noted that the nation has no global missle defense system in place. That is true, only to a very minor extent. First of all, we do have many monitoring stations and satellites to watch what other countries military forces are doing, missle-wise. If we get attacked, we may not be able to prevent it, but we know who did it and can decide what to do about it. In other words, no country in their right mind *knows* that they can get away with sending a missle towards us and expect no Americal missles to come back at them.
Second, the Air Force does have such a program underway. It's called the Airborne Laser program. Basically, it's a very high-powered laser system built into a 747 that's capable of detecting and shooting down enemy missles right over the country of origin. The prototype is still being built, but plans are for several of the planes to be in the air by late 2004. So far, everything is ahead of schedule and no roadblocks, apart from the work yet to be done, have presented themselves.
(A link to the official Airborne Laser [airbornelaser.com] page.)
If anyone would like to debate me on these two issues, I will more than gladly prove you wrong.
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:3)
Income tax came into being on Februaury 3, 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Ammendment. Prior to that, taxes were levied based upon property owned. This included personal items in addition to real estate.
The only reason we have such a high tax burden today is due to social programs and the huge cost associated with a huge federal government. I will conceed that it will not be an absolute drop in the total amount you pay in federal tax because the states will have levy taxes to make up for lost federal funding and to institue program the federal government cut. But in the end, there will still be more money to go around and we have the added benefit of more direct control of our money as it stays in the state.
Synopsis of Political Party Platforms (Score:3)
Re:McReynolds on Minority Religions. (Score:3)
"Thank God we have it."
I love it when atheists say "Thank God" :)
They wanna give props to make sure they're not *too* condemned when they die.
Without a doubt... (Score:3)
These are two of the most historically ignorant people I have ever seen quoted in print.
I no longer feel guilty about voting for Gore or Bush. Either choice is a genius compared to these loons.
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:3)
The Federal income tax was first deployed within the lifetime of people who will be voting in this election, and within the lifetime of people holding office in the Senate.
The income tax as we know it was invented by Napoleon to wage war, and all income tax has been, essentialy, a military funding measure.
In America the Federal income tax did'nt come into being until 1913, just in time for WWI, and corporate income tax generated far more revenues than the personal until after WWII.
Of government not bent on waging war has little, or no, need of a personal income tax at all.
Huh? (Score:4)
There are many projects - from expanding Amtrak
I'm guessing that he is advocating public transportation by train. If so, he won't be getting my vote.
Sincerely,
John Rocker - Atlanta Braves
Re:Libertarians: Huh? (Score:3)
I sort of wonder about this: A lot of people complain that the poor get hit harder by taxes than the rich. What do you think eliminating income tax would do? Essentially, what you have is a tax on the money you spend (sales tax, tarriffs, payment for government services, etc all end up inflating the amount of money you pay.) However, those at the poverty line tend to spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich. Suddenly, you have the same effect as the graduated income tax, but those who make the least money pay the largest percentage. And you think this is a good idea?
Re:Browne is pretty sharp (Score:5)
Sometimes, to change the system, you have to be a part of the system.
--
McReynolds & Religion (Score:3)
For those who still insist on making a big deal out of it, perhaps instead of truly being an athiest, he's actually an agnostic. He's not sure, but perhaps there's a "God" up there to thank... Or maybe he was Christian, became disenchanted, and old habits die hard?
It's really amazing... people have the chance to pick who is going to run their country, but they get razzle-dazzled by the smallest, insignificant mistakes and irregularities. They're human - try seeing them that way.
Let's be realistic here. (Score:3)
Yeah, they should be proud that they beat the mad rush of candidates flooding Roblimo's inbox with their responses.
--
Major candidate = absolute zero (Score:4)
Here in New York State, we have Hillary Clinton running for Senate against Rick Lazio, a Republican. There also a number of minor candidates, such as Mark Dunau, our Green Party candidate (native new yorker, organic farmer) as well as libertarian, independent and right-to-life candidates.
The League of Women Voters produced a nice brochure which, on one side, had procedural information about how to vote -- even the complicated stuff like how to get an absentee ballot. On the other side they have answers that Senate candidates have for three questions.
Turns out, the major parties hate the LWV, so they refused to answer the questions. You see, the LWV believes in democracy, the LWV wants people to vote, while the major candidates want you to stay home. The LWV made the critical mistake of allowing John Anderson in the 1980 presidental debates. As a result, the major parties formed the bipartisian Comission on Presidental Debates, which refused to let Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan participate. To make their pamphlet, the LWV had to copy answers to the question off the major candidate's web sites.
Starting with Carter, the Democratic party has been infiltrated by Republicans. The real role of Gore is to hide the fact that the Democratic party no longer exists. A vote for a major candidate is a vote of confidence in a political system that is deteroriating rapidly.
A Green Party activist, I'm voting for Ralph Nader. Still, I think Reynolds and Harry Browne have a lot of good things to say and would be a great choice of you believe in him. Remember that, even if you like Gore or Bush, you can do a lot more than voting. Call up your local campaign, put a sign in your lawn, volunteer to sit at a table and pass out literature. There is a lot to do every election season, and every campaign welcomes volunteers. It makes a difference, and it's one of the most fun things you can do.
i'm running for president (Score:4)
let's build a death star!
Browne is pretty sharp (Score:4)
"...(Government) doesn't aid progress, it hinders it. Government is politics, not progress. Government is bureaucracy, inefficiency, and brute force. It is the least desirable, least effective and least likely to succeed means of getting anything accomplished."
Just brilliant Mr. Browne. Only one question: Then why the heck are you in politics?
My Second Vote Was For Gore [mikegallay.com]
Government funding of science and the arts (Score:5)
Before I say anything, I should note that I'm a scientist on the public dole, so I'm biased.
That being said, even though I have some libertarian tendencies I think that Browne's plan to end all government scientific funding is foolish. The reason: basic research is one of the best investments you can make. It is almost guaranteed to pay off. The problem is, you will invest in 1,000 research programs, and only have one program pay off. That one program will pay off to more than make up the investment for the other thousand-- and you will not be able to predict which one it was back at the beginning of the research program.
Some corporate funding of research has worked well in the past (Bell Labs?), but it just doesn't seem to be feasable today. Investing in basic scientific research is just too long term for most corporations. Never mind "five year plans" or even retirement times for top executives, you may not be able to fund enough projects to have any statistical confidence that any but the most applied of research programs may pay off for you. And the payoffs may be something unexpected, which you will have trouble reaping the benefits of anyway.
Scientific research is one of those things where everybody benefits (even if they don't realize it), and it is in everyone's interest to pool their resources to fund. But how to manage that? Well, isn't that what government is? My libertarian tendencies show themselves when I think that most people talk about government in the wrong way nowadays. The "we are your children" incident from one of the Clinton debates, which wasn't disupted by any of the candidates present, was a bad sign. To many of us see government as our parents, our protectors, those people who have control over us. They are our benign keepers. Yeah, they listen to us, and via voting we get to have some input into what we want done, but in the end many people in the USA see government as a particularly nice Big Brother.
Really, it should just be our way of acting collectively. The government should *be* us. It should be the way that we, as a society, perform the things that can only be done on a whole-societal level. My differences with libertarians come in as to what some of those things are. Scientific research is definitely one. Support of the arts is another-- rich individuals, and governments, are traditionally patrons of the arts. The arts have (mostly intangible) cultural value, but (with some very obvious exceptions) not much commercial value. Do we really want to let this part of our humanity go? Or is it worth some very small fraciton of our collective resources to support this endeavor? (When I say very small fraction, just compare arts funding in any government to defense, infrastructure, and sundry entitlements.)
-Rob
Fantastic (Score:3)
Largely, I'm guessing, because despite the obsessions with writing off each other's ideologies as extremes, both fundamentally are about freedom. Libertarians for freedom through as little state intervention as possible (do I even need to say more?), socialists for using the state to promote freedom and prevent people from being restricted by other shackles such as by the behaviour of shareholder controlled corporations and the real restrictions imposed by poverty.
It's a shame that these two are not the two big parties running, with cynical people complaining they wont vote for either "because they're pretty much saying the same things", but instead we have two parties who lean more on the side of interference and allowing interference. The republicrats seem to be more obsessed with people's private lives, from sexuality issues to the information they see and say. Yet one feels it can beat the other as being "more pro-liberty" because it promotes fractionally lower taxes, or because the other would impose religion on people's lives and ability to make choices.
--