Election Day 2012

[DGFone]

About crime: Call me a defeatist, but until we reach the thermal Heat-Death of the universe, where nothing basically exists because the entire universe will be identical, we will not have equality. While life still exists on Earth, there will never be equality, and there will be crime with humans. I know it doesn't take itself seriously, but there is one thing Team Fortress 2 got right (in Meet the Sniper): "As long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is going to want someone else dead."

Az: If I can implement gun laws on everyone (which I cant, Woeler), they would be this: When you are born, you start off with a clean slate. You can buy whichever gun you want as long as you have the funds. If you want a nuke, you will need to create everything yourself. Corporations will not be able to claim "individual rights" - i.e. companies will not be able to pool their resources to gather armies. If you want to own 'cool guns' and shoot full auto at a wooden target, I don't see why you can't. As long as you can afford it.

However, the moment you mess up even once, you will be highly restricted on what kind of firearms you can have. Say, after one crime, you can only have single-shot, large and heavy rifles that are inconvenient to hide. Mess up a second time, and you can't own a gun. If you get shot, that's your problem. But you can relax in knowing that the person who shot you won't be able to shoot anymore.

Reg: Yes, it is possible to cross the U.S. in 5 hours. But despite that, the states are still very much different. California did not get struck by Sandy, for instance. New York doesn't have to worry about Earthquakes. California has sales tax. Montana doesn't. We are very divided.

[Azdgari]

Well, I guess that's why you can't make gun laws.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]California has sales tax. Montana doesn't. We are very divided.[/quote]

But, my question is: why?

Why are we divided? I can't think of any reason for it anymore. It made sense at first, because we started off as individual colonies. In 1776, gathering all the leaders for each colony in one place was a huge hassle, so they needed to be able to make their own laws.

Now, we're talking about all this stuff in near real-time, and we live 2500 miles away. I don't even have to leave my house. It's so easy to communicate between states, there's no reason to have them. We have geographical differences, but that's it.

Sure, you didn't get hurricane Sandy, but it would take a day, at most, to visit the NY/NJ area and see what actually happened, assuming seeing pictures of it on the internet or news isn't good enough. We know what goes on in the rest of the world now, and as a result, we can make laws that would work best for everyone, no matter what part of the world they live in. It's not like I don't know what an earthquake is. I've been in one. I've been in a hurricane too. I haven't been in a tornado, but I've seen what they can do. Do we need different building codes and regulations in different areas? Absolutely! But most of which should be generalized. Because you never know, maybe California will get a hurricane one day. Maybe I'll get an earthquake on the east coast too.

Standardization is good. You are also an engineering student, so you should know that. Imagine if the power grid in each state is different. Imagine what things would be like if kitchen appliances bought in California didn't work where I live? That would just be stupid, wouldn't it? Since people travel often, it's good to keep things consistent. Electricity works in just the same way across the world, so there's no reason to go around playing with voltage levels in different states.

Laws that work in New York are going to work in San Diego too, right? There's no reason for one state to have the death penalty, and one not to. There's no reason for some states to have drunk driving a felony, whereas in others it's only a misdemeanor. Really, I don't even care. I just want consistency. If something is unlawful at point A, shouldn't it be unlawful at point B too?

We need to be united, and like it or not, we already sort of are. And I would like to believe that in a few hundred years from now, we won't even have countries. We will be a single race, a single culture. It will be called humanity. We will likely speak a new language, which is a combination of English, Spanish, and Chinese, and the political system will likely resemble the UN. Our units of measurement will all be metric.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="DGFone"]California has sales tax. Montana doesn't. We are very divided.[/quote]

But, my question is: why?
[/quote]

This is what simple research answers, and here is 'why': Here in California, people own a lot of material property, and buy a lot of things. In Montana, people own a lot of land, seeing as many of them are farmers. It only makes sense for Montana to have a high land tax (which California doesn't) and no sales tax. In California, you want to tax trade, because there is a lot of it, but you won't get a lot of tax income if you tax land.

So while me call ourselves the "United States" and are all connected, the way we live is still very different, and in the end, taxes are determined by the way we live.

[Regulus]

Those are state taxes, which support the state governments that we (as far as I've thought about this) don't need.

We have federal income tax. There's no reason to have sales tax, or any other state tax. It is unnecessary, overcomplicated, and redundant.

[DGFone]

Don't need a state government? LOL!

By all seriousness, if we removed the state governments, the federal one will have to take up the burden. There is 0 ways that it will be able to properly address all the states' needs, so at best, all it will do...

is reinstate the state government.

[Regulus]

I'm being serious. What do the state governments do that the federal government could not, other than over-complicate the entire process?

[DGFone]

Make what the federal government would over-complicate beyond all belief a little less over-complicated. It is not Washington D.C.'s business to worry about Small Town, Mississippi. Mississippi can take of that.

You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.

[Dark Huntress]

[quote="DGFone"]You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.[/quote]
Exactly! If you let the government take care of and support you, what are you going to do when they can't? It's unlikely you're going to go get a job and work then...you don't know a good work ethic.
Also, you don't need to be in debt to the government-you're basically forfeiting your freedom.

[KentuckyWildcat]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="KentuckyWildcat"]To me, it isn't fair to take away from people who have earned more in order to prop up those who haven't. Such a system discourages innovation and hard work because individuals lack any incentive. [/quote]

[youtube]/u6XAPnuFjJc[/youtube]

We are humans. We do not need an external reward to desire to improve. It is what we do, naturally.

Anyone who is only doing something to make a quick dollar isn't putting out a quality product anyway. We've all experienced that.

[quote="KentuckyWildcat"]Before you assume that I'm completely callous, I do firmly believe in charity. I just don't think that the government should mandate a redistribution of wealth.[/quote]

Then what do you believe a government should do? If a government should not help to support its people, it exists instead to ______.

Please, help me out here. I really don't understand that.[/quote]

Hmm. Interesting video and studies. I honestly wasn't aware of that, so kudos for showing it to me. While I'll have to keep thinking about it, my gut reaction is that while it is very intriguing from the standpoint of building a corporation, I'm not sure if it would exactly translate to government mandated socialism or not, at least not without drastic changes to more than just the tax code.

I thought it was key to note that the video advocated paying employees just enough that they aren't worried about money. Currently, the education required to enter cutting-edge fields like engineering and medicine is extensive and very expensive, so the amount of money that these people need in order to not worry about it would necessarily be higher. Also, I wonder what the study would show if you are essentially working for a greater reward, but having part of it taken from you and given to someone else because that's a bit of a different situation in my opinion. Finally, it didn't really address whether or not many people would choose the more complex mental tasks over simple mechanical work if everything paid equally let alone whether people would work at all if the government ensures that even those who don't work are completely equal to those who do like several others seem to be advocating on this thread.


As for what I think the government is for, I think it is primarily to provide internal structure and order as well as defense from outside threats. I think those who advocate for more government support of the disadvantaged truly mean well. I just don't believe that a mandatory government redistribution program is the best means to accomplish the goal.