Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Anonymous Hack

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 9:26pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Well, that's the thing. Saying, that can't be legal because I think it's wrong isn't really valid. That's like saying, I don't like religion, therefore, we won't allow it anymore. Doesn't matter for the people who do like it, the minority don't, so, now it's gone.

Are you aware of these?
Full faith and credit clause is the section of the constitution that states that legal agreements in one state have to be accepted in others, such as driver's licenses and marriage certificates.

Of course that doesn't apply to most things, but still.

And what do you mean when there's conflict over drugs?

And I was wrong, The Articles of Confederation said state trumps federal, probably the anti-federalists purposed that hah.

The constitution says federal trumps state.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 9:35pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

Well, that's the thing. Saying, that can't be legal because I think it's wrong isn't really valid. That's like saying, I don't like religion, therefore, we won't allow it anymore. Doesn't matter for the people who do like it, the minority don't, so, now it's gone.

The catch here is, not everyone thinks like that. Not everyone who would no longer have a strong government would stick to the principles you follow.

And what do you mean when there's conflict over drugs?

What drugs are and are not a danger to other people? Or would you go by a case by case basis? I don't agree that more dangerous drugs, such as PCP, should be legal because of the danger they pose to not only oneself but others. Who determines what is and is not legal?

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 9:47pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

I think every drug should be legal, possibly. Except ones like Meth, or PCP. Meth I'm not so sure on, it seems more dangerous making it than anything.

PCP is just out the question. It's bathsalts, pretty much, I think. MPVDs.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 9:51pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

I think every drug should be legal, possibly. Except ones like Meth, or PCP. Meth I'm not so sure on, it seems more dangerous making it than anything.

Yes, well, drugs aside.

The problems with what you're suggesting, in both the income tax kill and near complete lack of governmental control, is that people don't play nice. They don't play by the rules, they don't play fair, they don't do what's good for themselves or others, they don't really give a **** one way or the other, unless they're told they have to. Of course, not everyone is like this, but a great deal are. I could see what you're proposing working in a small scale setting, but like the other side of the spectrum, large scale it doesn't work out.

Now, baaaaaaack to the topic.

What does Anonymous really want? All I've heard in regards to their goals is complete freedom of information on the internet.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 10:00pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

That's what they want. All these acts coming in from the government like CISPA and SOPA threaten it. And the possibility of the internet being restricted in the future, or very pricey. When bad things happen to internet figures or major sites, they attack. Like when Co-Founder of Megaupload was arrested on tons of counts.

Most recently, the co-founder of Reddit. Anon says the government killed him. I don't think they mean the government actually killed him, but drove him to kill himself.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 10:38pm

tegan190

tegan190

614 posts

I think every drug should be legal, possibly. Except ones like Meth, or PCP. Meth I'm not so sure on, it seems more dangerous making it than anything.

PCP is just out the question. It's bathsalts, pretty much, I think. MPVDs.

I agree that marijuana should be legalized, but it's insane and completely unnecessary for any other drugs to be legalized. Especially hard drugs like cocaine or heroin. The reason why there's a bill to legalize marijuana is because it has relatively harmless negative effects and many good effects, as for other drugs, they destroy the body. Legalizing things like that won't be any different for the addicts already on them, they'll attract people who wouldn't be able to obtain those drugs normally and turn them into addicts, for what? A bit of extra tax revenue?

Anyways, this isn't what the threads about.

 

Posted Jan 29, '13 at 12:44am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

I would be okay with people being allowed to take even the heavy drugs like heroin or PCP. Provided they read or are read to a waiver informing them of the consequences, provide written consent and have no one dependent on them. They would also be required to be locked up and monitored for the duration of the drugs effect on them.

 

Posted Jan 29, '13 at 1:26am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

I do want taxes, I don't want Income taxes. There quite a few countries I believe that don't pay taxes.

UAE - Dependent on oil tax, and a tiny country.

Qatar - Same, plus they pay a tax for their welfare system.

Oman - Dependent on oil export tax too, plus a falt 6.5% tax on income for social security.

Kuwait - Another oil state. Kuwaiti nationals must contribute 7.5 percent of their salary for social security benefits.

Cayman Islands - Need I say more?

Bahrain - Oil. For social security benefits, citizens contribute 7 percent of their total income to the government.

Bermuda - Per capita income nears 97,000, 20% are foreigners, and most of the economy is based on off shore financing.

Bahamas - Another rich Caribbean Island based on financing.

Need I explain why these countries buck the trend of having income tax? They're all nations with tiny populations, are rich in oil, and or are dependent on foreign investment to a high degree.  Anyone can see why the rest of the world can't follow this trend.

In most countries, the state (or government) takes tax money from the people. All libertarians support cutting taxes back, and some libertarians believe the state should not take tax money at all. Libertarians think people can take care of the poor without the government. They believe that people should pay for the things that they want to use, but not have to pay for other things that they do not want. Tax evasion (refusal to pay taxes to the state) is a victimless crime. Libertarians would prefer to see taxation replaced with lotteries, user fees, and endowments.

Then don't use the roads. Or the legal system. Or expect military protection. Or in other nations, don't expect free medical care. Don't expect protection whilst doing business with foreign partners. Don't expect social security when you're down in the dumps. Tax evasion is a crime because we enjoy and take for granted so many benefits from the government that we do not realise.

 

Posted Jan 29, '13 at 3:10am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

@Carnage1995

They talk about fixing the deficit, by raising taxes. Wouldn't it help cutting down the INSANELY high defense/military budget? Wouldn't it help to not spend billions on chasing non-violent drug users and putting them in jail and tying up courts? Wouldn't it help if we didn't have a army base in every country? Wouldn't it help if we didn't join wars unless someone attacked us or is posing a threat to us?

I agree with all of these ideas about cutting defense spending, the war on drugs, and actual wars.  We spend too much on those things.  However I think you are lacking some information about the deficit.  Its easy for small-government pundits to scare people with numbers and dollar amounts that the federal government spends.  The problem is, in a nation with 311,000,000+ people, the scale of the government required is necessarily bigger than most people can comprehend.  Thats just reality.  Here is more reality: Since Obama took office, the federal goverment's revenue (as a % of GDP) has gone down several percentage points from the 17-20% that's been pretty stable for the past 60 years, to 15%.  Additionally, the "off-budget" spending has gone down as well (all this info from taxpolicycenter.org).  The  "spending problem" and "runaway govt spending" that you hear about is a myth.  Yes government spending goes up every year, but that is largely due to the population increasing and inflation.  The way to measure govt spending accurately is as a % of GDP. 

I agree that military and drug enforcement/encarceration spending should go down.  Not spending trillions on the Iraq war and the drug war would be great for our country because some of that money could have gone to schools and infrastructure.  To address your belief that education is not a federal government responsibility, I suggest a few ideas. 
1) As Thomas Jefferson noted, a democracy such as ours (goverment of the people...etc) relies on a well-informed citizenry.  This national security reason alone establishes a cause for the federal govt to maintain standards for education.  I know how much you love the founding fathers, so here is some information about how the founding fathers felt about public education (*spoiler alert*  They are in favor). 

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

"[I have] a conviction that science is important to the preservation of our republican government, and that it is also essential to its protection against foreign power." --Thomas Jefferson

2) The economy is dependent on a well-educated and skilled workforce that can adapt (through education and training) to the rapidly changing technologies and job requirements.  This creates a national interest for the federal government to assert itself in education due to the commerce clause of... (wait for it!)... the constitution!!!   
You simply cannot maintain national standards for educating your citizenry by "closing your eyes and hoping that everyone does the right thing"(which coincidentally is my argument against many libertarian ideas.)

And my last point about education: you continually site 'better students' as a reason for private schools.  What you have there is NOT cause and effect, it is self-selection bias.  Think about who attends private schools vs who attends public schools.  More affluent parents, who can afford to send their kids to private schools, have also been able to provide beneficial environments and opportunities for their children that lead them to be better prepared than children from poorer families.  This does NOT mean that children who were fortunate enough to be born of rich parents and thus attend private school are somehow inherently smarter and more gifted than children born of poorer parents. 

And here is a reality check in response to your complaints about people on welfare (since I'm assuming you are under 18 and living at home with your parents):   From what I can find, the average family on welfare gets paid $500-600/month.  My rent is $1200/month, and its nothing fancy.  But that alone is double what welfare pays....  So these people are poor as S**t!  Imagine trying to pay rent in some crappy slum, pay your utilities (gas, electric, tv, internet, water, trash, phone), buy food, transportation, clothes.....etc, much less school books, tuition, and health care.   The point is, these people are NOT living the high life, and they are NOT getting rich off of your (your parents') tax money.  At best, they are surviving, which is far better than any of the alternatives (crime and/or dying).

 

Posted Jan 30, '13 at 7:57pm

Mickeyryn

Mickeyryn

244 posts

Hmmm. Its cool how this topic evolved from Anon xD.
Lets just face it: there are alot of ppl who know how to get around the system, and there are serious gaps in it. It is never going to be perfect though, and THATS the reality check.

 
Reply to The Anonymous Hack

You must be logged in to post a reply!