How To Fix America.
Deus_Ex_Machina
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Three amendments FTW.</div> 1. No one that's ever attended law school should ever be allowed to hold any public office. Lawyers stand to benefit the most from government corruption, and obviously already do, so get them out of the government.
2. Pick a number, say 17%, and that's the most that the entire tax burden on any individual can be. Put it right there in the constitution. You still won't get anything of any real use from the government that they wouldn't still provide, but with all the money you save you'll buy yourself more stuff.
3. You may do whatever you like so long as you don't directly harm someone else or infringe on their ability to do whatever they like while doing it.
2. Pick a number, say 17%, and that's the most that the entire tax burden on any individual can be. Put it right there in the constitution. You still won't get anything of any real use from the government that they wouldn't still provide, but with all the money you save you'll buy yourself more stuff.
3. You may do whatever you like so long as you don't directly harm someone else or infringe on their ability to do whatever they like while doing it.
Comments
2. Agrees
3. Agrees
Can a police officer arrest people? If he does, he infringes on their right to do whatever they want. (Unless I mis-read it.)
Supreme court justices?
Oh, at at least 70% of the present congress holds law degrees. If you're going to MAKE the law, you should probably KNOW the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Pick a number, say 17%, and that's the most that the entire tax burden on any individual can be. Put it right there in the constitution. You still won't get anything of any real use from the government that they wouldn't still provide, but with all the money you save you'll buy yourself more stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only people this would benifit would be the super-rich, a flat tax idea is nothing new. The only noticeable difference in taxation would be for people that make over 100k a year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. You may do whatever you like so long as you don't directly harm someone else or infringe on their ability to do whatever they like while doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no legal basis for this. You already have the first amendment, you don't need much else.
Supreme court justices?
Oh, at at least 70% of the present congress holds law degrees. If you're going to MAKE the law, you should probably KNOW the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Pick a number, say 17%, and that's the most that the entire tax burden on any individual can be. Put it right there in the constitution. You still won't get anything of any real use from the government that they wouldn't still provide, but with all the money you save you'll buy yourself more stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only people this would benifit would be the super-rich, a flat tax idea is nothing new. The only noticeable difference in taxation would be for people that make over 100k a year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. You may do whatever you like so long as you don't directly harm someone else or infringe on their ability to do whatever they like while doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no legal basis for this. You already have the first amendment, you don't need much else. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To bad our legal system works about as well as our countries foreign policy
What the hell do you need hand gernades for?
Yea but that’s the thing, maybe you won't hurt anyone but someone else might.
A box full of grenades could kill a lot of people before someone stops the person doing it.
Then people would wonder "why was this nut job allowed to get grenades anyway?"
This will naturally lead to the banning of grenades for civilians...but thanks to the wonderful invention known as "common sense" we can tell its just best grenades are illegal for civilians.
I fully support the 2nd amendment but "right to bear arms" does not mean you can start hording a small armies worth of weapons. Without certain laws the country would just collapse into warlordism.
Yea but that’s the thing, maybe you won't hurt anyone but someone else might.
A box full of grenades could kill a lot of people before someone stops the person doing it.
Then people would wonder "why was this nut job allowed to get grenades anyway?"
This will naturally lead to the banning of grenades for civilians...but thanks to the wonderful invention known as "common sense" we can tell its just best grenades are illegal for civilians.
I fully support the 2nd amendment but "right to bear arms" does not mean you can start hording a small armies worth of weapons. Without certain laws the country would just collapse into warlordism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you make that sound like a bad thing?
Yea but that’s the thing, maybe you won't hurt anyone but someone else might.
A box full of grenades could kill a lot of people before someone stops the person doing it.
Then people would wonder "why was this nut job allowed to get grenades anyway?"
This will naturally lead to the banning of grenades for civilians...but thanks to the wonderful invention known as "common sense" we can tell its just best grenades are illegal for civilians.
I fully support the 2nd amendment but "right to bear arms" does not mean you can start hording a small armies worth of weapons. Without certain laws the country would just collapse into warlordism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its just easier to supress a revolution if people can't have weapons, and apparently nobody cares.
Yea but that’s the thing, maybe you won't hurt anyone but someone else might.
A box full of grenades could kill a lot of people before someone stops the person doing it.
Then people would wonder "why was this nut job allowed to get grenades anyway?"
This will naturally lead to the banning of grenades for civilians...but thanks to the wonderful invention known as "common sense" we can tell its just best grenades are illegal for civilians.
I fully support the 2nd amendment but "right to bear arms" does not mean you can start hording a small armies worth of weapons. Without certain laws the country would just collapse into warlordism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its just easier to supress a revolution if people can't have weapons, and apparently nobody cares. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. That's why it's written into the constitution that you're allowed to have them, and why it's legal for anyone 18 or over to go to their local gun shop and purchase a shotgun or rifle.
You make it sound like just because I can't have a howitzer in my back yard, Uncle Sam is oppressing me. Get a grip.
1. That makes sence, let someone like yourself hold office, like a Judge! Woohoo!
2. Sounds good doesn't it? How old are you?
3. Sure, and if we could trust people, that would be fine. How are you supposed to know someoned intentions when buying a grenade? I can't possibly think on any other laws that if broken don't effect somebody either. You do heroin, you may not think that effects anyone else, but say you have kids? Mommy/Daddy does it, I guess that's ok too! Which effectivly ruins their lives too. If you can point out a law that if broken does not effect somebody else, please point it out.
Ideally, minus #1, good ideas, just not realistic ones, or ones that make economic/sociologic sence.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My grandpa fished with some sort of a home-made little bomb once when he was a kid. They were only little bait-fish (no idea what they're called in English), but I still found it hilarious when my mom told me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This is stupid. Why do you say lawyers stand to benefit the most from government corruption? Why not the defense industry? Why not agribusiness? Why not telecomm companies? Why not the mafia? Why not pharmaceutical companies? Why not drug dealers?
Corrupt government officials can help out whoever they want to help out.
Plus, it's better not to make laws that assume government corruption. If you are worried about corruption, then make laws that prevent corruption, not laws that compensate for corruption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Pick a number, say 17%, and that's the most that the entire tax burden on any individual can be. Put it right there in the constitution. You still won't get anything of any real use from the government that they wouldn't still provide, but with all the money you save you'll buy yourself more stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flat taxes are very bad. Here is why (these are hypothetical numbers to illustrate a point, I know no one makes $1000 a year in the US):
Everyone has a flat %17 tax rate.
Person A makes $1000 a year.
Person B makes $10000 a year.
Person A has to spend $900 in order to keep himself alive. That means he is overbudget by 7% ($70) of his income every year, if he lives at a subsistence level.
Person B spends $2000 a year for the necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care). He has 63% ($6300) of his income to spend on whatever else he wants.
The rich lose very little with a flat tax, but the poor lose a lot.
Plus, 17% is nothing. You couldn't run a government with that, if you want to have the kind of services that you expect from the government (police, firemen, schools, post offices, national defence, etc). If you don't think that the government should provide these sort of things, then you're wrong. These are the sort of essential services that are needed to keep society together. The government has a huge interest in making sure these services are provided. The have to be provided in places where private entities couldn't make a profit, so the government would have to provide them in these areas, or pay private entities to provide them for us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. You may do whatever you like so long as you don't directly harm someone else or infringe on their ability to do whatever they like while doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the old victimless crime argument. I agree with it for the most part.
Waaay too simple and plain, and even though I'd like for it to be this way, many people would not be fine with this.
Ever wonder why there are so many laws and rules? They are all needed to keep our society together and intact. Without them, those with common sense and decency will make their own rules based on morals and follow them, while those lacking the aforementioned qualities will abuse the system, knowingly or not.
Flat taxes are very bad. Here is why (these are hypothetical numbers to illustrate a point, I know no one makes $1000 a year in the US):
Everyone has a flat %17 tax rate.
Person A makes $1000 a year.
Person B makes $10000 a year.
Person A has to spend $900 in order to keep himself alive. That means he is overbudget by 7% ($70) of his income every year, if he lives at a subsistence level.
Person B spends $2000 a year for the necessities (food, shelter, clothing, health care). He has 63% ($6300) of his income to spend on whatever else he wants.
The rich lose very little with a flat tax, but the poor lose a lot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Everybody in the US has the potential to be rich.</b> Anyone who puts work in to it can make a million dollars. If you're willing to settle for less, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Not true. To be rich, you need a few things unless you inherited your wealth:
Skill
Determination
Education
Luck
If you have a great deal of two or three of those things, then you can still become rich by compensating for the others.
If you're born poor in a bad neighborhood, then you don't have the potential to be rich, unless you have a high degree of all four of those things.
The degree of social mobility in the US is going down. See this link:
<a href='http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560' target='_blank'>http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560</a>
Here's a little snippet:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.
The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corrupt government officials can help out whoever they want to help out.
Plus, it's better not to make laws that assume government corruption. If you are worried about corruption, then make laws that prevent corruption, not laws that compensate for corruption.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you had taken 3 minutes to read the thread's entirety, you would have noticed I noted that this was meant to be sacrastic, although I suppose that was hard to pick up from "three amendments FTW". Beyond that, I agree with you, legislators should be much more strictly regulated.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The rich lose very little with a flat tax, but the poor lose a lot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I noted that I was speaking in more utpoian terms than implementing these ideas in American law today.
I know that. I was just being serious because some other people were too and also because I like a good argument.
Yeah, some good campaign finance laws would be a great start for reducing corruption in Congress.
Not true. To be rich, you need a few things unless you inherited your wealth:
Skill
Determination
Education
Luck
If you have a great deal of two or three of those things, then you can still become rich by compensating for the others.
If you're born poor in a bad neighborhood, then you don't have the potential to be rich, unless you have a high degree of all four of those things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
... All you need is determination.
One path would be to get a job and save money for school. No matter what your level of education, there's always a job you can do and there's always someone who will hire you. Then you can go to school and get a degree in whatever you want, then get a job in that field. Or you can join the military, they'll pay for your education.
And that is only ONE path to making a million dollars.
Half of the town that my friend lives in is owned by a man who never got an education past the third grade.
One path would be to get a job and save money for school. No matter what your level of education, there's always a job you can do and there's always someone who will hire you. Then you can go to school and get a degree in whatever you want, then get a job in that field. Or you can join the military, they'll pay for your education.
And that is only ONE path to making a million dollars.
Half of the town that my friend lives in is owned by a man who never got an education past the third grade. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If all you've got is determination then you won't go to a great school or get a great job or make a lot of money. Sure, you can go into the military and get into college that way, but you won't be able to be a doctor, lawyer, business executive, or whatever. You'll do OK, but you definately won't be rich. Now, if you've got a lot of luck, then you can do quite well, but that is rare.
The guy who owns half of your friend's town probably has a great deal of skill, determination, and luck.
Did you read the article I linked to?
The guy who owns half of your friend's town probably has a great deal of skill, determination, and luck.
Did you read the article I linked to? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all... If you're determined enough, then you CAN learn enough to get in to a good school. Then you can learn enough there, and you'll be able to get a good job. Skill is gained THROUGH determination.
And the military WILL send you to good schools, where you CAN learn enough to become a doctor, lawyer, business executive or whatever.
I haven't read the article yet, but I'm about to.
And the military WILL send you to good schools, where you CAN learn enough to become a doctor, lawyer, business executive or whatever. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By skill, I meant innate skill. You can't get skill through determination. I'll never be a good artist, because I don't have any innate skill for it. Intelligence is innate. You can aquire education, but you can't acquire intelligence. If you aren't smart enough to get into the good schools, then the military can't send you to them. You won't be able to get into a good school and get a good education. You'll be able to do pretty well for yourself, but you won't be rich.
My point isn't that it is impossible for people to get rich. My point is that it is hard and it is getting harder. Not everyone can become rich, no matter how hard they try.
No, you'll never be a good artist because you have that attitude. If you are determined enough, you can practice and learn from others and slowly, you WILL improve.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Intelligence is innate. You can aquire education, but you can't acquire intelligence. If you aren't smart enough to get into the good schools, then the military can't send you to them. You won't be able to get into a good school and get a good education. You'll be able to do pretty well for yourself, but you won't be rich.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only reason your intelligence would hinder you is if you're retarded.
You don't need to master calculus to paint. You don't need to go to law school to be an auto mechanic. In both of these fields, there is the potential to make a lot of money, and you do NOT need to be BORN able to do it to become good at it. I'm not a very good artist. But if I sat down and started drawing right now, my drawing would surely improve. Especially if I seek the help and advice of others. Eventually, maybe I'll be talented enough to go to an art school, where my skills will improve even more. Then, after that, there are all kinds of things I can do. Eventually, I can improve my skills even more and make a name for myself in the industry. From there, I can gain even more fame and improve my skills even more.
And even if I fail at that, I'm not restricted to one thing. Maybe something I learned while drawing would be useful in another field. Then I can start learning that and try to make a name for myself there.
Almost nothing is impossible if you want it and are willing to work for it.
No, you'll never be a good artist because you have that attitude. If you are determined enough, you can practice and learn from others and slowly, you WILL improve.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Intelligence is innate. You can aquire education, but you can't acquire intelligence. If you aren't smart enough to get into the good schools, then the military can't send you to them. You won't be able to get into a good school and get a good education. You'll be able to do pretty well for yourself, but you won't be rich.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only reason your intelligence would hinder you is if you're retarded.
You don't need to master calculus to paint. You don't need to go to law school to be an auto mechanic. In both of these fields, there is the potential to make a lot of money, and you do NOT need to be BORN able to do it to become good at it. I'm not a very good artist. But if I sat down and started drawing right now, my drawing would surely improve. Especially if I seek the help and advice of others. Eventually, maybe I'll be talented enough to go to an art school, where my skills will improve even more. Then, after that, there are all kinds of things I can do. Eventually, I can improve my skills even more and make a name for myself in the industry. From there, I can gain even more fame and improve my skills even more.
And even if I fail at that, I'm not restricted to one thing. Maybe something I learned while drawing would be useful in another field. Then I can start learning that and try to make a name for myself there.
Almost nothing is impossible if you want it and are willing to work for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you don't agree that some people just don't have the innate skill to be good at a certain thing?
Let me address your examples.
There is a reason why we have the "starving artist" stereotype. To make a living as an artist, you need to be good enough to make art that people want to buy, you need the determination to keep on making the art and to continually try to sell your art, and you need enough luck for people to notice you enough to actually buy your art. To get rich through art, you need even more of all three of those things (Skill, Determination, and Luck).
Auto mechanics can make a decent wage. I see on monster.com that the highest end salary for an automechanic is about 80k a year. That's pretty good. To get there you'd need a great deal of Determination, Skill, and Experience (analogous to Education in many ways).
Not everyone can be at the very high end of these fields, however, regardless of how hard they work to get there.
You haven't disproved what I said with this paragraph. You do start at the bottom in anything you do. But you can improve, and you aren't born with a limit to your skill. Finding someone who will buy your art is only a matter of time, if you improve your skills enough. And there's no reason to stop there! Keep going, you'll find even more people willing to buy your art!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Auto mechanics can make a decent wage. I see on monster.com that the highest end salary for an automechanic is about 80k a year. That's pretty good. To get there you'd need a great deal of Determination, Skill, and Experience (analogous to Education in many ways).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill and experience are things that can be gained if you're determined enough.
Start as an auto mechanic. Then you can make a name for yourself by doing things like building custom-made cars and other things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not everyone can be at the very high end of these fields, however, regardless of how hard they work to get there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the way things are now, anyone can be at the high end of the fields because others aren't determined enough to get there. And there's still no reason why people can't pioneer new things. I once read that the average person has three million-dollar ideas a year. If you decide to go with one of these ideas, all it takes is determination. And you're not limited to ONE idea, either.