SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For decades, people in the US have been given a song and dance by the telecoms about how tax cuts, surcharges, and a long list of other expenses are necessary for telecoms to "invest" in infrastructure. The concessions are granted again and again, but the investments are never actually made. In all, US taxpayers have paid $400 Billion in taxes and Internet surcharges for fiber optic upgrades that never happened.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Americans Taxed $400 Billion For Fiber Optic Internet That Doesn’t Exist
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 220 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @08:48PM (50 children)
Baka
Take away government and big business just directly does what it wants. Consumers obviously are driven to the cheapest product and it is already clear that tracking violations by big businesses hardly affects consumer choices.
How many lights do you see?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:20PM (43 children)
I dispute your notion that government keeps big business in check.
After all, government is itself a monopoly—and not just a market monopoly that came to power through providing a voluntary service, but rather a monopoly that was founded in violent imposition of its will.
If anything, Big Business has kept government in check.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @09:35PM (42 children)
Even though you're a moronic troll, I'll bite. You're a jackass and, although I doubt you actually believe what you're saying, have no idea what a violently imposed government *really* looks like.
Please tell me how exactly it was that the U.S. government was violently imposed?
Were there armed thugs pointing muskets at James Madison's head, telling him what should go into the Constitution?
Were there armed thugs at the Constitutional Convention forcing the delegates to sign the document they forced Madison to write?
Were there armed thugs at the polling places watching each voter as they placed their ballot, killing or maiming them if they tried to vote against ratification?
Were there armed thugs in both houses of Congress threatening death and/or bodily harm if they did not pass the various amendments to the Constitution?
Were there armed thugs in every statehouse threatening death and/or bodily harm if they did not approve the various amendments to the Constitution?
Were there armed thugs present at polling places in each U.S. territory as it voted on whether or not to seek statehood, murdering or maiming anyone who voted against statehood?
If the answer to these questions is "no," then we do not, in fact, have a government that is a violently-imposed monopoly.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @09:42PM (36 children)
The government says "You have to pay for this", and you have no choice but to comply.
No other organization has that power.
Indeed, that's what distinguishes an organization as a "government": It can throw you into a cage (or worse) for not buying its services.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @09:54PM (27 children)
And who gave the government that power? We (the collective, over the past ~240 years, we) did.
And we can take it away too. You have no grasp of history, nor do you have an understanding of how our government is supposed to work.
Once again, if you don't like how our system of government operates, work to change it (ooh! ooh! please try to do so violently and die in the street like dog you are) or go somewhere else. I hear tell that things may be pretty much like you want in the South Pacific, thanks to these guys [seasteading.org]. Why don't you head over there now.
You certainly won't be missed here.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:06PM (1 child)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:41PM
Trollee troll troll troll troll troll troll, trolllololol lolol lol lol.
I wish you a trolly christmas I wish you a trolly christmas, may you die in a guuuuuutter when the doctor says "but no insurance"
For we are in a free market, we are in a freeee maaarket, we ARE IN A FREEEEE MARKET so suck it and dieeeee.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @10:40PM (8 children)
Don't you like the people who in one breath proclaim one thing and then in another breath says something completely different [soylentnews.org]?
Looks like you're among the FUD spreaders. A rational person with the latter viewpoint would be saying, "I want to change things too maybe we can join forces", not slapping down dissenters because they aren't goodthink. Bonus internet points for mocking people for naivety while playing a childish game of "heads I win, tails you lose".
You know, if you don't like how our system of government operates, then maybe you ought to work to change it rather than mocking others for wanting nearly the same things you want.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 04 2017, @11:36PM (7 children)
You're right. I should have said that. Oh, wait. I did [soylentnews.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @11:56PM (6 children)
Perhaps you'll join us in that effort someday, right?
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:19AM (5 children)
I'm just devastated by your disapproval, Khallow. Once I've had a chance to stop sobbing, I'll write an apology to the Internet.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:42PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
When dealing with people suggesting a move into a dystopian post-apocalypse type world then yeah, you'll get a lot of irritation and short tempers. The world evolved out from under the thumb of the warlords that gained power when there was relative anarchy and the strongest group could dominate.
Big Business has successfully implemented a coup on the US government, putting in legislation piece by piece that slowly gave them near total power. We were warned about this, and there are multiple countries with better versions of democracy than the US, but now we have some brain washed leftovers from the Big Biz Propaganda Wars who have taken the "free market" mantra to an insane extreme. This idea of "but we should compromise and extend the olive branch" was something that liberals have been trying to do for a long time. Hard core conservatives have developed the strategy of using this behavior to their advantage by simply being bull headed pigs who force concessions and then bully their way into some more.
I'm done with compromise unless I see value in it. The free market troll that loves to shitpost around here refuses to address the problems with the anarchist model and just says "competition will sort everything out through consumer choice". It is so naive as to be laughable, yet people continually engage the topic since the AC won't log in to a user account. Few people want to see our system completely torn down and rebuilt, there are simply a few big adjustments needed to lose the abusive loopholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:07AM
That's totalitarianism and/or chaos. Anarchy is the state in which there is no ruler lording it over other people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:43AM
Sure, they have. And I bought Bezos's nose for a billion dollars.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday December 05 2017, @07:02PM
You have such an appropriate sig right now
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:42PM (6 children)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:11PM (5 children)
Oh man, it sure sucks being ahead of the curve huh? You must be one of the most autistic people here, incapable of understanding something as basic as human beings making laws against something most don't like.
When you realize there is something wrong with the world it can be very hard to then deal with that reality. We are all idealistic to some degree, and the world will let us down repeatedly. You need to get your shit together if you ever want to be more than an internet troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:29PM (4 children)
That was a long-winded way to say that you have nothing to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:29PM (3 children)
Autistic confirmed!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 04 2017, @11:57PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)
Based on your previous postings and the sheer amount of time you spend defending this AC troll I'm going to guess you ARE the troll. Don't want people to realize how wacko the Khallow person is? Doesn't matter if you aren't the AC anyway, your defense of them puts you in the same position. You need to educate yourself some more, maybe grow up some.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:41AM
Which AC troll? There have been quite a few so far. And since when does spending, oh a few minutes to catch up on the thread, count as "sheer amount of time"? And if you're going to spin a tale about me, why not give me something like a stunning physique and cake? Not a urinal cake either. Something good like velvet cake.
I'll note that your post has the vice of being longer than saying "I have nothing to say" without saying anything more. That was kind of the point of the last four or so replies.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:38PM
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:50AM
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and their never will be One World Government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:43AM (6 children)
The Founders of America tried to create a restricted government; the whole point of the Constitution was not to create or grant rights to The People, but rather to restrict the government.
Nowadays, what is there that the Government doesn't stick its tendrils in?
They promised Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but you cannot even grow a single certain plant in your own home, or eat part of it in a brownie after a long day at work.
Your government is a fraud; your government is a bait and switch.
If you're going to give the Men-with-Guns a mandate, it better be very well defined, very restricted, and easy to monitor; their mandate should be only to ensure that The People are able to interact on voluntary terms, according to well defined, well negotiated agreements in advance of their interaction—not during their interaction, and definitely not after their interaction.
Disputes can be adjudicated in court, and such case law can be refined by legislation; the only time "legislators" should be doing anything should be when there is a matter of interaction between individuals that cannot be solved by existing rules. Thus, this precludes the right of the government to allocate resources—the government should not be allowed to allocate resources, other than to the Men-with-Guns for the sole purpose of implementing their role as referees.
And guess what?
The market can handle that role, too; the best Separation of Powers is competition within the market—that's why there never has been and there never will be One World Government.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:06AM (5 children)
If you earnestly support the position you espouse, then you will serve it best by not spamming the same post over and over.
Rephrase your argument. Listen to the objections of the detractors and address their points using your tested fundamentals.
When you spam, you annoy even those who agree with the content of your spam. (I'm assuming the same person is spamming this, and not a different troll spamming to make the original AC look bad.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:25AM (4 children)
That comment in question was being censored by downmods. So, I reposted it.
The comment in question is perfectly rational and well formulated—even a person who disagrees can see that it adds to the conversation. Yet, people just downmod it, without even responding in the nice fashion that you so desire.
So, no.
I'll keep reposting people's comments as long as the downmods keep spamming us all with their worthless downmods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:34AM (3 children)
Don't. You're being foolish. Lots of people read at -1 and lots of those have mod points. There is no "censorship".
I modded up your first comment. I did not mod up your copy-pasta. If you keep spamming, I won't mod up any of your spams at all, including the first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:16PM (2 children)
The downmodders don't even have the courtesy to leave the comment's pitiful subject line visible; marking it "-1" means that only "Comment below threshold" shows up for many people. Fuck that noise. And, fuck you.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:43PM
Your first comment has, at the time I write this, been modded 5 times:
Moderation +1
Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=5
Overall, I think it's been treated quite fairly. I disagree with the redundant mod, since this was the first of the identical posts; when I'm done writing I'll throw on an "under-rated" to balance.
Meanwhile, I believe you and I have discussed the topic of multiple posts before:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18751&page=1&cid=487278 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=18751&page=1&cid=487295 [soylentnews.org]
Or, perhaps it would be a discussion if you had responded; since you largely corrected the troublesome behavior I assumed you had at least read my posts and gotten the message.
The point I hope you internalize is that here we have a certain culture, which I think matches your definition of that word: [soylentnews.org]
Sure, there are guidelines, [soylentnews.org] but this herd of cats is a pretty individualistic bunch. Our use of moderation is part of that culture, and if the way we use it offends you so much then perhaps this isn't the forum for you. If you're willing to rein in your behavior to stay within our cultural norms I think you'd fit in fine here; your posts are frequently marked as "interesting" or "insightful" (in this case, both!), so don't take the troll mods personally.
Here's a question for you, which you can discuss in a reply or just think about on your own, at your discretion:
What is the appropriate reaction of an individual when they find themselves in a place where the culture disagrees with the individual's preferred lifestyle?
a) act however they want, regardless of cultural norms, and face the consequences, possibly leading a rebellion against the powers-that-be
b) moderate the most divergent of their behaviors and participate as a culturally-acceptable eccentric, possibly trying to change the system from within
c) leave and find someplace more suitable to their tastes
I have my own opinions on this, and consider it a necessary thought exercise for every adolescent who is attempting to integrate into the society they're born in. I'm genuinely interested in your thought on the matter in general, and also as they specifically apply to the question of posting on an internet forum.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @11:49PM
It's me again, the above AC who posted with a request for you to stop spamming.
It's obvious that you care about both your posts' content AND the consideration of other SN readers/modders. Your posts DO contain solid reasoning and sound logic, and many of my own AC comments mirror yours in substance. You're not some lone voice crying out in the wilderness, and your unique contributions are seen and appreciated (as evidenced by the modding now visible on your first copy of the post you later spammed). Yes, there are ... thuggish crazy people with mod points here at SN; there are also plenty of people who CHANGE THE DEFAULT DISPLAY BEHAVIOR to read at -1, something which is trivial to do if you were to either make an account and set your preferences, or do what I normally do and use the drop-down boxes beneath the freakin' summary.
Your actions illustrate why there is a -1, Spam mod, which is supposed to do Bad Things to people who, you know, post actual spam. Your copy-pasting the same comment over and over again is exactly that: spam. Even as someone who is inclined to be your ideological ally, if you continue your spammy behavior, I'll start dropping -1,Spam mods on your copy-pasted comments in spite of my agreement with their contents. I won't be the only one, either, as evidenced by the PROPER -1,Redundant mods someone else already properly assigned to your above spammy posts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 04 2017, @11:42PM (4 children)
Why, but you can immigrate!
There are a number of places in this world where the govt doesn't have power to impose these things.
Even the violence there is totally privatized; try them maybe you will like them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:51PM (3 children)
A warlord and his men constitute an organization that "can throw you into a cage (or worse) for not buying its services."
So, as the other poster states, what you incorrectly call "private" is actually a government.
Whether a warlord, a monarch, or a constitutional democracy, it's all the same: Government. There is "do-as-I-say" mandate rather than "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:15AM (2 children)
Yes, but it's a private entity.
And I'm afraid the only society were the violence or threat of violence is kept to minimum is a society where all the people have been subjected to violence only once - as in 'lobotomized at birth'.
In any other conditions, the poster just tries to sell an utopia no different than 'pure communism' or 'religious bliss' (as in 'generalized Buddhist Nirvana') - not gonna happen no matter how s/he peddles it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:49AM (1 child)
What this naive poster is really advocating is Anarcho-capitalism [wikipedia.org].
Which is right up there with communism in its naivete about human nature. They're lovely ideas that can't be implemented as long as humans are involved.
It is amusing that these folks are so strident about it. I look forward to seeing how things work out in French Polynesia [seasteading.org]. I wish those folks all the luck in the world, but I won't hold my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:48AM
Feeling of (my) guts: gift economy [wikipedia.org] has better chances to happen in real world than communism/anarcho-capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:26AM (1 child)
Apart from the MAFIAA?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:29AM
It's just that the Mafia has a much smaller, more variable jurisdiction than Uncle Sam.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:54PM
You know why no other organisation has that power? Because the government runs a police force, prisons, and a legal system that prevents anyone else from doing that. You might look at the history of the various East India Companies for a look at what happens when that isn't the case. Another poster pointed to the Mafia as another counter example: the only reason that their business model is not more widespread is that the government uses the power delegated to it to break up organisations that attempt it and lock up the individuals involved.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:08AM (4 children)
You should read your history. From the violent thugs (one name that stands out was a man named Lynch) who drove anyone who disagreed with the revolution out of the country to the armed thugs that showed up at State legislative buildings to make sure certain amendments were passed to the armed thugs that made sure certain people couldn't vote (and we're not even talking about the armed thugs who stole the land to begin with). There has been a certain amount of violent thuggery that went into the US of A.
Some of the thuggery was by the government of the day and some was by the private enterprises of the day and the stupid AC really needs to read up on the Pinkerton Detective Agency.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 05 2017, @07:22AM (2 children)
Interesting.
I'd like some citations and references if you don't mind.
Please note that I'm not dismissing your points with a [citation needed] because I'm too lazy to make a cogent argument, I'm genuinely interested.
It doesn't surprise me that some folks were pretty adamant (and in some cases, violent) about the necessity for the states being *united* as a country, and for a whole passel of reasons:
1. The blood and treasure (especially the blood) expended in deflating British zeal for retaining the colonies that eventually became the United States;
2. The still present threat of British invasion and subjugation of some or all the former colonies;
3. The crushing debt incurred prosecuting the war;
4. Many other, often quite personal, reasons as well.
I'd say that Hamilton was pretty rabid about ratifying the Constitution, given his full-throated and often prickly arguments for ratifying it in the Federalist Papers. And others were just as rabid in their opposition.
I'd venture to guess that much (perhaps most) of the violence was directed at Loyalists (even just suspected ones), their families and their property.
Human nature hasn't changed in the last 250 years (or in the last 10,000, for that matter), and people with poor impulse control (and remember, as a group, we drank *heavily* back then too) likely went too far, as some still do.
I'd be *very* surprised that the Confederation government would (or even *could*) call out troops to force *anyone* to do *anything*, especially since they were flat broke, and the several states weren't all that excited about funding them, leaving aside the crushing war debt.
In any case, as I said, I'd appreciate references to published works that discuss the violence you mention, as well as any other quality works that focus on the period between 1783 and 1791.
Perhaps "stupid AC" will decide to educate him or herself with any references you provide as well. But I won't hold my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:42AM (1 child)
Well most of the revolutionary violence was over by the time the Constitution was being discussed. And you're right in that most of the violence was against the Tories (the conservative party of the day and we still call the members of the various conservative parties Tories around here as well as in the UK) and later the Loyalists.
A couple of examples, including one published in 1781 and the other by PBS, http://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/rebellion/text2/oliverloyalistsviolence.pdf [americainclass.org] and http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/popup_stampact.html [pbs.org] which focuses more on the tar and feathering. Don't know if you've ever accidentally had boiling pitch touch your skin, it burns.
A bit on the governments actions against the loyalists, http://archives.gnb.ca/Exhibits/FortHavoc/html/NYLoyalism.aspx?culture=en-CA#linkChap3 [archives.gnb.ca]
As for troops forcing State legislatures to pass amendments, that was after the civil war when the Reconstruction Acts were passed putting some of the southern States governments under military control. There is also the question about Congress passing the amendments without 2 senators from each State. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:55AM
Thank you very much for the references!
It's much appreciated.
I'll check out the links and will probably respond if you'd like to continue our discussion, assuming my chronic CRS Syndrome [onlineslangdictionary.com] isn't too bad. Getting old sucks, but it's definitely (at least for now, better than the alternative) :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:41AM
See the AC comments here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:25PM (5 children)
Consumers flock to the cheapest option because companies decouple cost from quality as well as the fact that an increasing number of people aren't making enough to afford a decent lifestyle without cost cutting like that.
If we'd stop giving money to the rich via government handouts, the poor would have more money with which to buy things. At that point, we can start to consider whether or not people are willing to pay for quality. But, considering that right now the most expensive products aren't necessarily any different from the cheaper ones, it's hard to see a reason to buy more expensive when the quality is the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @11:14PM (2 children)
Getting a rebate of a few hundred dollars (at MOST) would not mean shit for the average family. It'd be nice, but not a world changing event that allows them to work less, educate more, and pay more for stuff. You fail basic everything, try again.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Scrutinizer on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:15AM (1 child)
A typical productive USian hands over no less than HALF of their production to government, easily calculable by percentages of income, FICA, sales, and property taxes, along with a great many "fees".
If "costs of compliance" are added to that total, as well they should, being the cost in time and labor to do the work to comply with government demands above and beyond simple taxation, the total cost to the productive USian who buys goods and services inside the US is approximately 88% of their entire productivity.
Your government, working so very hard for you, and at such a bargain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:26AM
Can't argue against it - must mod down!
(Score: 4, Touché) by Justin Case on Monday December 04 2017, @11:16PM (1 child)
If we'd stop giving money to the governments, they wouldn't have it to give to the corps.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 05 2017, @06:20AM
Well that's really worked in America, every tax cut has resulted in less money being given to the corps as the American government would never borrow or print money. And they really wouldn't give away land, right a ways through your yard and various other goods.
They'd never fight another country to support some banana growers either.