Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 297

Author Topic: Occupying Wallstreet  (Read 296663 times)

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3765 on: September 11, 2012, 08:58:49 pm »

I've heard that you can report your illegal revenue to the IRS and they won't even bother reporting you because you paid your taxes and thus they no longer care about what you do. That's how single-minded they are.

Of course, it may not be true.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Lagslayer

  • Bay Watcher
  • stand-up philosopher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3766 on: September 12, 2012, 06:20:58 am »

If the revenue is illegal, can't they confiscate it? Suddenly jumps from 10% or whatever to 100%.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3767 on: September 12, 2012, 08:06:26 am »

No, the courts have ruled that income being illegal does not mean that special tax rulings such as that are applied to it. The courts have stated that if that were the intention of the tax code Congress would have created legislation for that, and they haven't.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3768 on: September 12, 2012, 08:32:43 pm »

As I've said in the past, I'm a big fan of IRV or Alternative Vote (AV) as it's known here in the UK, and actively campaigned for it in the (failed) referendum last year.

I also don't think it's an especially good idea in the US. Certainly not in isolation.

If you did a straight replacement of the current FPTP system with and AV system would see more votes for third parties, but not much actual change in their profile. You would not see many - if any - more seats won, and probably not much in the way of attention paid to the third parties in the first place.

For the USA, I'd say you want to spend more effort on growing third parties. That suggests to me one of two methods;

1) Move to a strongly proportional multi-member system. This is the only way I can imagine Green and/or Libertarians getting anywhere near the House. As Nadaka says, you would need some legal changes to make this work. My preference for such a system would be Single Transferable Vote (STV), which is just a multi-seat version of IRV/AV, and just as easy to use.

2) Move to a public finance system where parties are financially rewarded for their election performance, in partnership with a move to an AV system.

Basically you create a funding pool for elections, with a minimum amount distributed to each candidate. Candidates running for parties that entered the previous election are then eligible for more money from the pool related to the first choice votes they received in the previous election.

Actually, I'm in Australia where we have IRV, but we call it Preferential voting here. Third parties become much more important, because each party hands out "how to vote" pamphlets at the polls, with their suggested preference order. Lot's of people follow the ordering of their favorite parties (sheeple, i know), which makes minor party support strategically important, even if they don't win.

The larger parties will incorporate policies from aligned minor parties in order to secure their "preferences", e.g. they encourage their supporters to select candidates in an order which has some strategic benefit. Using that, the Greens party here for example has been able to have a good deal of influence on the Labor party's environmental policies.

Australian Parliament is bicameral, with a house of Representatives, 1 member per electorate elected by IRV and a senate which is proportional by state (multi-member basically), and uses a modified version of IRV. The senate always has a number of minor parties and independents, often holding the balance of power between the two main parties.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 08:34:32 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3769 on: September 12, 2012, 10:22:27 pm »

And don't forget that one of the larger parties is a coalition of two parties proper!
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3770 on: September 13, 2012, 10:10:03 am »

they mostly act as one party though, but with overt "Town Mouse" and "Country Mouse" factions.

palsch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3771 on: September 13, 2012, 11:26:07 am »

The larger parties will incorporate policies from aligned minor parties in order to secure their "preferences", e.g. they encourage their supporters to select candidates in an order which has some strategic benefit. Using that, the Greens party here for example has been able to have a good deal of influence on the Labor party's environmental policies.
I just don't see this happening or mattering in the USA.

In the end the polarisation and lack of third parties on the national stage will reduce every election to the binary choice of GOP or Democratic, no matter what the few marginalised third parties have to say about it. IRV/AV/PV alone doesn't do much to change that because it doesn't do much to offer those third parties actual influence or power that the major parties need to take account of.

Again, it's a great (single candidate) system, but falls down when there is such a strong binary party system.
Logged

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3772 on: September 13, 2012, 11:27:13 am »

Isn't... that what we're talking about? Different systems the US could implement to mitigate the two-party system...?
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

palsch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3773 on: September 13, 2012, 11:37:26 am »

Isn't... that what we're talking about? Different systems the US could implement to mitigate the two-party system...?
Yes, and my point is that AV/IRV/PV alone wouldn't mitigate the system. That it's a great way to hold elections, but on it's own does nothing substantial to promote third parties and that supporting it for that reason is misguided. Not that there aren't other reasons to support it, but my own view of the matter is it only really comes into its own in a system that already has multiple viable parties.

Look at the post Reelya originally replied to to see my own proposals. And there is a current discussion of STV over in the election thread.
Logged

da_nang

  • Bay Watcher
  • Argonian Overlord
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3774 on: September 13, 2012, 01:42:52 pm »

Good news, everyone! Update on the NDAA.
Logged
"Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow."
Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam.
Future supplanter of humanity.

palsch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3775 on: September 13, 2012, 02:15:53 pm »

Good news, everyone! Update on the NDAA.
Don't get excited. That's not likely to last.

Everything I've seen about this suggest that the judge made some extremely perplexing mistakes and decisions.

1) While she states that, "[t]he government has not stated that such conduct ... does not fall within § 1021(b)(2)," this is only because she rejected such a statement. The government did make a narrow statement (referring only to the conduct described in the court findings) after the preliminary injunction. She only took into account the lack of a statement before that first ruling, ignoring their later (and actual) position.

2) She largely ignores DC circuit precedent. While the DC rulings are not binding on her court, they do define the current state of detention law as applicable to the AUMF. Given the government's main argument was that the current AUMF detention authority -as shaped by DC case law - is functionally identical to the NDAA detention authority, her ignoring DC court rulings is dismissing the government case by definition.

3) The few DC court rulings she does mention seem to have been read wrongly. Take this example.

4) She completely ignores the Feinstein Amendment, which states;
Quote
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Again, this was the government's position in the case, directly written into the law in question. Her dismissal of this section was without any good justification.

5) Her ruling isn't especially clear as to it's extent. The government, as policy, views AUMF and NDAA detention as functionally identical. Does striking down one and saying people can't be detained under the NDAA also mean people can't be detained under the AUMF, or does it mean that people can be detained in exactly the same (supposedly unconstitutional) manner under the previously tested and judicially described AUMF detention scheme? She doesn't address this at all.

There is more, but I'm off for booze.
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3776 on: September 15, 2012, 12:54:43 am »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3777 on: September 15, 2012, 07:37:00 am »

Hehe, "Occupy [Our Own Event]" ;)
Or maybe that's the joke. I'd be there if I was a New Yorker, anyway. It's strange that they didn't get any Big big names, though, I seem to recall a few that was sympathetic to the cause last year. Possible they didn't want them, of course.

I do hope they got permission for this one, though. Unlike protests, a completely unspontaneous, loud festival would actually be all right for the police to put down, and given the track record, I'm not sure the NYPD wouldn't jump on the chance to deliver a handful of unwarranted violence while they're at it. I'm keeping the old Ebba Grön song "We're Only In It For the Drugs" on hold.

...No, it's not about drugs, it's about the Man clamping down on the early Punk movement (,maaan). The only reference to drugs is in the first lines.
Logged
Love, scriver~

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3778 on: September 15, 2012, 11:32:21 pm »

Tom Morello's a very big name, but he's the only one I recognize.

Edit:

Remember the cop in Florida who sparked a massive debate a few months back, because he tazed a girl as she was running away and put her in a coma?  Now he's shot an innocent man, and this apparently isn't the first time.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 12:22:53 am by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Techhead

  • Bay Watcher
  • Former Minister of Technological Heads
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #3779 on: September 16, 2012, 12:29:12 am »

I thought I recognized Tom Morello, but then I realized I was thinking for Ryan Scott.

EDIT: I am so very sorry.
Logged
Engineering Dwarves' unfortunate demises since '08
WHAT?  WE DEMAND OUR FREE THINGS NOW DESPITE THE HARDSHIPS IT MAY CAUSE IN YOUR LIFE
It's like you're all trying to outdo each other in sheer useless pedantry.
Pages: 1 ... 250 251 [252] 253 254 ... 297