New Mars Forums

When you really get down to it, we aren't supposed to have any income tax in the US. That's right, read the Constitution. Then along comes the 16th amendment, a "law" to allow a damn illegal thing! It's intent was to punish robber barons, but now we all get screwed. Tax cuts aren't the problem, federal spending is. We should cut all income tax for every American. (Yes, even the "wealthiest 1 percent)"

Extreme? I don't think so.

Just based on my own personal experience, alot of neo-nazis genuinely believe they are being completely rational. Of course others just like the comraderie, drinking, and pissing people off.

great quote. I'll file that away. One of these days I'll get around to reading "Prometheus Rising" as well.

Okay. Let's just accept that every politician is a politically motivated pig involved in some manner of corruption. It's a requirement for getting enough support to get oneself elected.
I'm not a big fan of the Bush administartion, but a Gore administration would be no better. Yes, I know Josh will disagree with me here, but it doesn't change the facts.

Anyone interested in joining me in a coup somehwere in South America? We'll keep the political piggery to a minimum, at least until the foreign corporations come looking for a tax haven

The key is to get rid of racism without resorting to racism. This requires changing people's attitudes. It's difficult and time-consuming. Current efforts (ie quotas) actually perpetuate racism, which is what it seems Cal has been getting at.

It seems we're finding a surprisingly large expanse of common ground here.

Of course, even if the public was well informed and actually gave that information an objective evaluation I'd be opposed to mandatory voting. Unless a "none of the above" option was available, a majority for which would result in a requirement for new elections with new candidates.

Nah, not even then. If someone doesn't want their voice to be heard, who are we to make them speak up for themselves.

Damn right. And now for some disagreement...

Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, was the result of propaganda. Now, let's assume we have direct democracy and therefore no rich plutocrats. How is the general population less susceptible to propaganda than these "plutocrats?" I know alot of people who vote based solely on campaign ads, it's really a sad state of affairs. The less informed someone is, the more susceptible they are to propaganda. There are a hell of a lot of ignorant people out there.

If they actually examined those facts. Most people don't. They decide what they think is right, remember only the facts that support it, and proceed from there. People that vote straight party tickets are particularly prone to this, I've found.

I'll probably regret saying this tomorrow, but I'm in a particularly irate mood with regards to the state of our nation right now so what the hell: The majority usually doesn't know what it wants. The masses act on feeling, not reason. By and large, raw majority rule leads to either chaos or tyranny.

Americans like to believe that we're different; that unlike every other people in history, we are all equal and therefore equally fit to make decisions regarding the governing of a civilized state. It's simply not true. A republic, with institutions to moderate the raw and fleeting desires of the majority, is a noble approach to government. A true, direct democracy is a horrible idea. Many would like to see us move more in that direction, and slowly we have been. It will not end well.

Individual liberty and majority rule are not synonomous. They can often be in opposition to one another. Freedom depends on the whims of the majority being moderated by the concerns of the minority. True democracy does not provide this.

In short, yes.

I'm sure some of you out there have read this already, but if not check it out.

Terraforming Mars Quickly

Brute force, very accelerated, and highly traumatic terraforming. Very un-Red. As a "space imperialist" (to borrow Nova's term) I must admit a certain attraction to the concept.

That works if the intent is to go to war. Unfortunately, it complicates diplomatic efforts. It's like walking up to someone in a bar and threatening to kick their ass, then trying to talk them down when they get ready to fight.

Perhaps a non-belligerance treaty of some sort is in order. We leave them to their own affairs as long as they shut down their nuclear program. The implication being that if they don't comply with the treaty, we will move against them. We simply agree to guarantee the sovereignty of North and South Korea. If nothing else, it buys some time.

Good to see your still there! We had a some bad reception for a moment, everything went to static. Bit of scare for second there.

Excellent point. Now here's another one for everyone to chew over. It's going to meander a bit, so bear with me.

Korea is probably just trying to get a bribe, and they know that if they nuke us or our allies they have a very good chance of being destroyed.
Most likely, they won't do anything if we just ignore them.  But that's probably not a policy we want to adopt (even though it would be a good idea at times)
Now, there's alot of opposition to action against North Korea mainly for political reasons and against building a missile defense mainly for financial reasons. Going to war without a clear justification could be bad for many elected officials and building an unproven missile defense that will cost billions of dollars and will likely never be needed will use up money that could go to other things.
Maybe the cheapest thing to do, both financially and politically, is just to take the hit.  If the Norks nuke us, then we respond with the full support of the international community.  Of course that results in substantial loss of life and no politician would ever suggest such a thing.

Much more complex than Iraq, isn't it. What we need to do is find a way to make it in North Korea's interests to do what we want without sending the message that we'll negotiate with every third-rate dictator that can scrape together a nuclear bomb.
When I have a clean and simple solution, I'll let you know

Incidentally, Nork is not the prefered nomenclature. North Korean communist, please