2 ms·

So it's perfectly okay for the government to play the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and other nonsense games, but here it is "emblematic of how annoying nerd

So it's perfectly okay for the government to play the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and other nonsense games, but here it is "emblematic of how annoying nerds like us are when it comes to public policy"? I also really don't think a goddamn website stands in the way of affordable universal health care. Implement a Weberian bureaucracy and have it run on good old paper and mail, that is how its done everywhere else, and by the looks of this IT disaster we'd come out on top, jobs and everything!

tptacek 13y ago
No, and yes.
magicalist 13y ago
Are you going to be paying taxes this year? I don't know who people think pays for the NSA, but its the money we pay in taxes every year. I encourage all americans on here who will owe taxes for 2013 to take a stand and stop paying taxes until the FISC is dissolved as a matter of principle. It's ridiculous the number of HN members ready to cast the first stone because they judge someone else's leverage to be sufficient that they should be taking a stand. It's the exact same phenomenon that gives us zero approval for congress yet astronomical rates of incumbency every election. If you aren't willing to withhold tax payments, clearly you at least recognize there is some line at which you can actively support a government that is engaged in something very wrong because the benefit of not doing so would be tiny compared to the harm. Now imagine that instead of funding a tiny, tiny portion of the government, your support would instead be helping millions of people to find insurance coverage. - We cannot allow our rights to be ignored. - There are millions of people forgoing medical treatment every day because they don't have insurance. - There are thousands of people going into personal bankruptcy every day because they don't have insurance. Luckily we can work on fixing more than one thing at once. The idea that we should ignore one until the other is fixed is ludicrous, and I would argue a net immoral act if put into practice.
- dnautics 13y ago
  > If you aren't willing to withhold tax payments, clearly you at least recognize there is some line at which you can actively support a government that is engaged in something very wrong because the benefit of not doing so would be tiny compared to the harm. You don't think that someone might be unwilling to break the law for a cause because prison isn't such a nice place?
  - jl6 13y ago
    You could always defund the government by giving your taxable income to charity. But I expect most people think they deserve their income more than the government doesn't deserve it.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      it's not just a matter of desserts. Unlike corporations, which are taxed on a profit basis (i.e. income less costs), individuals are taxed on an income basis. So if you give 100% of your income to charity, there is nothing left for food, shelter, etc.
      - jl6 13y ago
        Don't give 100% away, just give the taxable part away. Don't most countries have a personal tax-free allowance?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

tptacek 13y ago

No, and yes.

magicalist 13y ago

Are you going to be paying taxes this year? I don't know who people think pays for the NSA, but its the money we pay in taxes every year. I encourage all americans on here who will owe taxes for 2013 to take a stand and stop paying taxes until the FISC is dissolved as a matter of principle. It's ridiculous the number of HN members ready to cast the first stone because they judge someone else's leverage to be sufficient that they should be taking a stand. It's the exact same phenomenon that gives us zero approval for congress yet astronomical rates of incumbency every election. If you aren't willing to withhold tax payments, clearly you at least recognize there is some line at which you can actively support a government that is engaged in something very wrong because the benefit of not doing so would be tiny compared to the harm. Now imagine that instead of funding a tiny, tiny portion of the government, your support would instead be helping millions of people to find insurance coverage. - We cannot allow our rights to be ignored. - There are millions of people forgoing medical treatment every day because they don't have insurance. - There are thousands of people going into personal bankruptcy every day because they don't have insurance. Luckily we can work on fixing more than one thing at once. The idea that we should ignore one until the other is fixed is ludicrous, and I would argue a net immoral act if put into practice.

dnautics 13y ago
> If you aren't willing to withhold tax payments, clearly you at least recognize there is some line at which you can actively support a government that is engaged in something very wrong because the benefit of not doing so would be tiny compared to the harm. You don't think that someone might be unwilling to break the law for a cause because prison isn't such a nice place?
- jl6 13y ago
  You could always defund the government by giving your taxable income to charity. But I expect most people think they deserve their income more than the government doesn't deserve it.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    it's not just a matter of desserts. Unlike corporations, which are taxed on a profit basis (i.e. income less costs), individuals are taxed on an income basis. So if you give 100% of your income to charity, there is nothing left for food, shelter, etc.
    - jl6 13y ago
      Don't give 100% away, just give the taxable part away. Don't most countries have a personal tax-free allowance?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]