Your Top 5 Policies

[ghoulslime]

1. Reestablish true democracy in the USA - one person, one vote.
2. 10 % Maximum Flat Tax on every man, women, child, and organization that makes money - no exemptions, no loop holes. (If a government cannot operate on this amount, then it is probably the wrong kind of government.)
3. Tax all religious organizations as the sleazy businesses and political organizations that they are.
4. Outlaw the present criminal for-profit military and prison rackets.
5. End all vice laws and other legislation of morality.

[Irreligious]

Kate wrote

Brilliant, Kate!

[Rhinoqulous]

My 5, hmmmm, let me think.

1) An amendment overturning the 1886 ruling declaring corporations person-hood and having equal rights under the 14th amendment.
2) Complete overhaul of campaign finance laws, probably with the elimination of Super PAC's. Laws requiring full transparency of where every dollar of a political campaign comes from. With #1 this would eliminate the notion of money=speech.
3) A new Telecommunications Act that would establish Net Neutrality and reform some sections of the 1996 Telecommunications act, particularly Titles 3 and 5 (laws regarding station ownership and obscenity). The 1996 act has had the opposite effect intended, instead of increasing competition broadcast ownership has been increasingly monopolized decreasing competition and limiting consumer choice.
4) Overhauling of the health care system to be a system closer to that of Canada's. Universal Health Care is something this country really needs.
5) (This is from my GF) Nationalization of Animal Cruelty Laws. Currently animal cruelty is covered by state laws, and some states are lacking in their laws (or have no laws regarding animal cruelty altogether, such as WY).

I'd also reform drug laws (end the war on drugs, legalize many recreational drugs and tax the hell out of them), and end all legal status of marriage. Marriage would become a religious ceremony with no legal standing, civil unions with no discrimination regarding sexuality would be the only thing with legal standing.

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

Wow. Nasty, nasty. Could it be that someone is building a little 70 year copyright fortress around his every belch?

I'm not to worried about Falkvinge. Old men trying to attain imortality by throw the young under the bus is never attractive and he's doing a good job telling it like it is.

My rights usually get signed away "throughout the universe" (that is an actual phrase from a contract), and I'm trying to get them to change it to "polyverse" for larfs.

Let me know when Libertopia has "property" clearly defined so we can start building law schools, police academies, and prisons to accommodate the surge in employment.

Who nasty? You nasty is who.

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Let me know when Libertopia has "property" clearly defined so we can start building law schools, police academies, and prisons to accommodate the surge in employment.

I've already addressed the property law questions a couple of times. It would be irrational for me to assume that explaining them again would be heard.

It might interest you to know that the EFF also thinks that the child porn issue is a contrivance.

It's too bad your buddies at ICE were shutting down domains earlier this year without explanation. It really put torrentfreak on the map.

[ubs]

Rhinoqulous wrote

1) An amendment overturning the 1886 ruling declaring corporations person-hood and having equal rights under the 14th amendment.

I agree with this, but you know that they use this one to justify the taxing of corporations. Eliminating it comes at a cost.

[Rhinoqulous]

ubs wrote

I agree with this, but you know that they use this one to justify the taxing of corporations. Eliminating it comes at a cost.

They use it for HOW they tax corporations. It simplifies the tax code by having them treated as persons. Prior to this ruling corporations were taxed as "legal entities", I'm sure something can be figured out.

[Sternwallow]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Nationalization of Animal Cruelty Laws. Currently animal cruelty is covered by state laws, and some states are lacking in their laws (or have no laws regarding animal cruelty altogether, such as WY).

I understand that, broadly speaking, you wish for the active prevention of cruelty to animals.

I'm taking "animals" to mean creatures with nervous systems and pain sensors, and "cruelty" to be general unnecessary suffering.

If you are an atheist and do not believe in any spiritual/supernatural realm, why do you take a position that there is any special distinction between tormenting a rock, a bacterial colony, a snail, a bunny or a bear?

I'm not arguing against your position, just seeking your rational basis for it.

[Rhinoqulous]

Sternwallow wrote

If you are an atheist and do not believe in any spiritual/supernatural realm, why do you take a position that there is any special distinction between tormenting a rock, a bacterial colony, a snail, a bunny or a bear?

I'm not arguing against your position, just seeking your rational basis for it.

Reality is my rational basis. I don't know where you live, but I think it's pretty obvious that rocks and bunny rabbits are distinct from each other. At least here in the United States in the year 2011, where there are no consistencies between animal cruelty laws (and seeing that you speak english I assume you actually understand what I refer to when I talk of animal cruelty laws), it would be nice to see laws like those that ban puppy mills nationalized.

[Sternwallow]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Reality is my rational basis. I don't know where you live, but I think it's pretty obvious that rocks and bunny rabbits are distinct from each other. At least here in the United States in the year 2011, where there are no consistencies between animal cruelty laws (and seeing that you speak english I assume you actually understand what I refer to when I talk of animal cruelty laws), it would be nice to see laws like those that ban puppy mills nationalized.

Yes, I agree, outlaw puppy mills.

Given that the laws do not always represent reasoned conditions, Prohibition, for instance, I think laws must be justified, not that laws ought to justify positions that have no other reason.

A case can be made that our community does not care much about, say, puppy mills, by not having that law you recommended. So community sentiment is probably not the basis for a prohibition against suffering that is in puppy mills.

So, what is the basis for your objection to puppy mills? Why does the suffering in those places repulse you; is it nothing more than instinctive empathy on your part?

[ILOVEJESUS]

I have no problem having dominion over animals, if it helps the human race it is necassary. It helps the human race to test on animals, eat them and use them. But my many pets are different, they are so squaffy squibbley squoodles.

[Sternwallow]

You make a good point that most people's discomfort over animal suffering is limited to the cute, fuzzy ones.

I know many people without pets, who can't stand the idea of sharing their living space with pets yet they are firmly opposed to deliberate torment to all varieties of squaffy squibbley squoodles. They are as unable to express a rational basis for this position as you seem to be.

If it is just individual empathy then it is just a matter of personal taste and there is insufficient justification for laws against it.

Exactly why is it your position, valid to be enforced on the rest of your community, that animal suffering matters?

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

I've already addressed the property law questions a couple of times. It would be irrational for me to assume that explaining them again would be heard.

It might interest you to know that the EFF also thinks that the child porn issue is a contrivance.

It's too bad your buddies at ICE were shutting down domains earlier this year without explanation. It really put torrentfreak on the map.

ICE started shutting domains down from late last year, with explanation, but never mind.

You can think of ICE as my buddies if it helps you focus your own position on the subject, but please stop misrepresenting my views publicly. I'm definitely sympathetic with the websites getting bulldozed by the DHS, but I also think the piracy issue is more complicated than you present. (And I would never accuse you of intentionally simplifying things in order to justify your desire to mooch steal mooch from the producers of music, film, etc, not even by apophasis. )

Thank you for the EFF link. Please compare and contrast that with the idiot Falkvinge. And for the love of dog please note that I never denied that the porn issue is a contrivance! See how easy it is to write "they are justifying censorship under the cover of preventing kiddie porn," as opposed to "They actually LOVE kiddie porn." (While you're at it, look at how Falkvinge describes Modis--he says they are against censoring Lolita-loving; now check out Modis' actual position: they are against "blocking" websites, but they are for "removing" offensive content. What we can learn from this: Falkvinge is a willful idiot.)

Re your view of "property" : I think it would be irrational for you to think that every member can follow every post of every other member in every thread -- even two emotionally attached members like ourselves. (Mafia kiss coming soon...) It's true that I think you haven't thought through the full implications of Libertopia--no doubt in part because I'm not hanging on your every word--but as long as I see ostensible defenses of theft, I'll continue to think your views are as malleable as Play-Doh, and not as tasty.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Sternwallow wrote

You make a good point that most people's discomfort over animal suffering is limited to the cute, fuzzy ones.

I know many people without pets, who can't stand the idea of sharing their living space with pets yet they are firmly opposed to deliberate torment to all varieties of squaffy squibbley squoodles. They are as unable to express a rational basis for this position as you seem to be.

If it is just individual empathy then it is just a matter of personal taste and there is insufficient justification for laws against it.

Exactly why is it your position, valid to be enforced on the rest of your community, that animal suffering matters?

The question is, why stop having dominion over animals, and not viruses & bacteria. Certain diseases are now almost extinct. Rats and squirrels are seen as pests by some for the dammage they cause, maybe we should write them strong letters to ask them to behave more socially? I don't believe in any unnecessary suffering or killing a population to exticntion without good reason. People must accept some people enjoy meat and also like beauty products, as well as cures for serious diseases. Those who do not are the minority.

[Kate]

"Good reason"
'Majority rulez'