I agree with Rand. It's the duty of the CEO and other executives at any company to maximize return on investment for their shareholders. If Apple executives were to voluntarily increase their tax payments - thereby decreasing profits - they would not be properly executing their office and duties. This is especially true when their competitors choose to maintain the legal advantage.
The entire hearing is a farce and should have been reversed: citizens of the US grilling legislators about why they implemented tax laws so poorly that exploitation of loopholes is common practice. I think many of us have suspicions as to why this is the case.
1. Government does actually know how the Internet works
2. Makes this attempt, knows it will fail
3. Waits until somebody blows themselves - or somebody else - up with a poorly made, 3D printed gun
4. Government points to failed attempt, argues it does not have the necessary power it needs to prevent these tragedies
5. Government passes bill expanding its power
6. Rinse, repeat
Of course my use of "government" here incorrectly suggests a single entity with a plan. Obviously it does really work that way, but bureaucracies sometimes remind me of organisms with memories, immune systems and, above all, a desire to grow.
It would happen if there was enough demand for it, just like the first power plant, the first radio, the first car, the first steam engine, etc.
None of these items were developed in a vacuum; it's almost impossible to separate private and public contributions once you start talking about education and the public safety/infrastructure that created the right environment, but I don't think it's fair to imply SpaceX would never have happened without NASA or other public research. History, at least, has presented some counterexamples.
I got Dr. Sbaitso with my Creative sound card when I was little. I remember asking him all these questions about sex, then printing out the conversation. Then I panicked, thinking my parents would see it, and tore the papers up and hid them in our basement. Good times.
You're asking for more government intervention because of the poor results from the first intervention. If the government didn't bail out the banks in the first place, most of these banks would have been broken up and their assets sold off during bankruptcy. Many of those executives who made big bucks running their companies into the ground would have been out of a job.
You could even go one step back: if the government and its central bank didn't subsidize risk through low interest rates, incentives to lend to people who were massive credit risks, and so on, we may not have had the housing bubble - at least at that scale - to begin with.
Let's go back even further to the easy money .com bubble and the resulting collapse which "excused" the artificially low interest rates mentioned above...
Instead of focusing on more intervention, how about we argue for fixing the real problem: let the market work, end these artificial interest rates, and stop debasing the currency.
I do believe governments and central banks would like to suppress its use, though I wouldn't claim that's the only reason it isn't used in transactions today. It's in their interests to suppress its use because it's one way to spend more than they take in as revenue by issuing new currency. I think we're seeing the results of that globally today.
As to gold being impractical for use in everyday transactions, I don't think that's true anymore. You can look at companies like Goldmoney for a real world example of what is possible. Any trusted third party can hold the physical gold, while allowing electronic transactions of said gold in whatever increments, without any physical exchange taking place. In fact, this is generally how the dollar worked before it went off the gold standard.
I'm not sure why you think fiat money is better. The history of fiat money has been one of short lifespans and dramatic failures, while gold's history of use as money spans over 6,000 years.
> Every financial asset you own, whether it is paper money or a number in a bank account, is somebody else's liability.
Gold is a form of money with no counterparty risk; if I own gold it's nobody's liability.
One complication is that some central bankers and governments try to suppress gold being used as money through enforcement of fiat money monopolies at gunpoint...
Edit: I am incorrect in saying gold is a financial asset.
I'll add one more reason I don't think we're in a gold bubble: as long as countries around the world continue devaluing their currencies, the nominal price of gold will continue to rise. While it's possible that the inflation-adjusted price of gold could fall, I can't imagine that happening in an environment where fiat currencies globally are being debased. I should say that this isn't just true for gold, but for any hard asset that hasn't seen an explosion of supply (like apartments in Nevada or China for example).
When central banks worldwide stop printing and start raising interest rates, that's when I'll start scrutinizing further accumulation...
I'd actually disagree. The constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the federal government. Many (most?) modern federal programs, departments, and laws aren't _explicitly_ listed. The government has gotten around this limitation by claiming that the constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, which can be interpreted as narrowly or widely as you like. Up till now, the courts have allowed this wider interpretation.
I think it's every citizen's right - even duty - to be questioning these things rather than leaving it to some "Constitutional expert".
I'd encourage the original poster to drop the loaded term "ObamaCare" and instead explain why he believes the health care bill is not allowed under the interstate commerce clause. In my opinion, it isn't a very difficult thing to argue.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if PayPal supported the law. Many regulations protect large, established players by raising the cost of entry for new market participants. PayPal can afford to post this bond, but many bootstrapped start-ups probably can't. This is just one of the ways regulation _can_ increase the price of products and services; they decrease competition, allowing established players to raise prices.
I didn't down vote, but I don't think the issue isn't as black and white as you're suggesting. Let me offer an alternative possibility:
The "bad guys" fail to act on this information and instead a group of newly informed (politicians|non-profit watchdogs|citizens|concerned corporations|supranational organizations) affect some change that reduces our reliance on such a small number of facilities.
Without this leak, a lot of very influential "good guys" might not know this danger even existed.
My point is that the "bad guys successfully act on this information" scenario is only one of many, not all of them bad.
In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others.
Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page.
The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population.
Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.
I thought about immortality, but I suspect you'd fail to enlist the (massive) religious populations of Earth since you'd be competing directly with their existing power structure and investment.
It's odd to think that it's already a saturated market.
I think hostile aliens are a specific example of a more general unifier: non-human common enemies. This might include hostile AI (think SkyNet), solar radiation, or perhaps even a terrestrial worldwide pandemic (bacterial or viral).
I think that enemies you can see and anthropomorphise are more powerful, however, so I imagine a humanoid alien or terminator would be a better unifier than an invisible bacteria or global warming, even though all could be considered a common threat to humanity.
Many years ago when I attended First Aid/CPR training from the American Red Cross, I was told that you can actually get in serious trouble for performing CPR without a valid license. They explained that it's quite common to break ribs while performing chest compressions and these broken ribs can puncture a lung. If the individual you're helping only had a very weak pulse that you missed, you might have just made things a lot worse, perhaps even killing them.
I was told having an active AMR license legally protects you from any such accidents - especially since you are obliged to assist - but if you're untrained and unlicensed you could be held responsible (manslaughter?). Is this still the case?
It's possible that Manning's actions would cost lives. It's also possible that Manning's actions would save lives, perhaps by aborting pending military actions.
Actual metrics are impossible to calculate, but we should acknowledge that both possibilities exist.
I also think it's useful to consider that you can betray a nation or government, but net a positive for the world as a whole. Many people believe that the US government has overused classification of documents which could prove embarrassing to those in positions of power. Perhaps people like Manning act as a natural counterweight, ensuring that those in power never believe that their actions will remain secret for eternity; someday, some loudmouth kid might spew your secrets to the world.
The entire hearing is a farce and should have been reversed: citizens of the US grilling legislators about why they implemented tax laws so poorly that exploitation of loopholes is common practice. I think many of us have suspicions as to why this is the case.