Kerry's Record On Electronic And Civil Rights 328
An anonymous reader writes "John Kerry lambastes John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, positioning himself as a crusader for civil liberties. The question is, how much substance is there to his rhetoric? This article was an eye-opener to me, in evaluating just that. Slashdotters tending to be passionate about the Patriot Act, encryption, and electronic monitoring - subjects this article tackles with respect to Kerry."
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
As an example take a Toyota factory in Ohio the US would tax the domesitic subsidiary of Toyota for the profits from the cars built in the factory and Japan would not. If Ford were to do the same thing in Osaka, however, the US would tax income both from cars exported to Japan and cars built in Japan. This puts Ford at a bit of a disadvantage to Toyota, and lots of companies lobbied hard for the tax break to equalize them. Now you know a bit more about the "outsourcing tax break."
And then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And then what?
Maybe if you're really, really, lucky, your candidate will gain popular support
A third party president! How exciting!
And then what?
The two major parties are going to start nipping at the heels of your platform, reorganizing their own positions to eat into your party's base. You'll have to compromise, build coalitions, to remain in power. Eventually, the political coalition-building will tip to the point where one of the three parties is no longer viable.
And, voila, after all your hard work, after all those votes that sacrificed immediate advantage for the long-term hopes, you're right back where you started: two parties, both of them sprawling coalitions that don't really please anybody all that much, but please about half the population juuuust enough.
Even if you win, you lose.
This already happened once. Back in the 1850s, the Democrats and the Whigs where the two major parties. A third party came along, got their candidate elected, chaos ensued, and within five years, the Whigs were defunct, with the political boundaries redrawn, but only two parties left. That third party was the Republicans.
Yes, ponder that: the Republicans were once a third party.
The problem is, you can't escape Duverger's law [wikipedia.org]: as long as we have plurality votes, we'll only have two viable parties, except in times of extreme political chaos.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As a US citizen you have to pay taxes on money you earned no matter where it was earned. Now there are a few things that subtract from the amount you have to pay the US tax office.
1) If the US has an agreement with the opposing country you can subtract a portion of what you paid that country from the US taxes. 2) This is the primary benifit. If you are out of the US(your primary residence is not in the US) for 330 days of the tax year you get a deduction of up to $80,000 (can be a little higher depending on housing costs). So Bush's tax breaks do apply if you do still make enough money.
So where you really start cleaning up on money as a US citizen is by working in a country that does not have income taxes. You then get all the regular deductions plus the $80,000 and getting to keep an additional 35% of your income is really,really nice.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in a no-way-in-hell-are-we-a-swing-state. We don't even get TV ads. I plan on voting Libertarian. Sure, it won't change things (at least not WRT the President), but IMO if enough people do that, it'll cause the party to look and see that they're losing people due to some of the more extremist positions.
Heck, Nader/Badnarik/etc can still change things. In a swing state, 5% of the vote would send it to the other candidate. That affects opinions and policies, if only because "otherwise we won't win".
Re:place your bets! (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish that were true, but it isn't.
While it is true that if most people voted for Nader or Cobb or Badnarik, or whoever, that person would win, but the system is designed in such a way (either intentionally or not) that it makes it harder for a third party candidate to win, even if that person would win based on everyone voting their true preference.
just as assuredly as Kerry would win if you vote for him or Bush if you vote for him. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want. It's not as if Bush/Kerry is going to pay more attention to what you say since you voted for him - he'll just be laughing all the way to the White House.
You are right, but that illustrates my point. In order to vote for the "spoiler" (which is to say, of the three people, you would have voted for your #2 choice, but instead are voting for #1), you have to accept the possibility that your vote will have the effect of actually helping your last choice pick win the election.
In essence, you are no longer voting for President, you are voting against President. If choices 2 and 3 are so similar that you don't mind the getting choice 3, or if the polls are so overwhelming for one of the candidates, then chosing your #1 pick can make sense, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are actually voting for President. To do so helps justify and reinforce the system.
It's true that you are throwing away your vote (for President) if you vote for Badnarik (because you know he can't win), or if you vote for Kerry or Bush, but really don't like your choice (because you are then no longer voting for who you really want for President). If you make either compromise, then the real battle should be for election reform, to enable a system where a vote for your ideal candidate and your "strategic" vote don't have to be at odds.
Nader tried to build a third party, but a three party system is unstable in the way our elections function. You'll inevitably end up with two parties again (even if they aren't the original two parties). He is doing a great service (as did Perot in '92) in making it far more difficult to believe the system currently serves the people. Perhaps through their, others, and our own, efforts, we'll move to a more democratic Presidential election, and for once have real choice.
PS You want Condorcet, not IRV.
Probably. IRV was just an example.
Re:And then what? (Score:3, Interesting)
> sacrificed immediate advantage for the long-term hopes, you're right
> back where you started: two parties, both of them sprawling coalitions
> that don't really please anybody all that much, but please about half
> the population juuuust enough.
Yes, but they won't be the SAME two parties. Not just the names will change, scramble things up badly and the new parties that emerge will not resemble the ones that exist now. Who knows how the new parties would coalese, much would depend on just what sort of third party manages to break out, they will accrete similarly aligned groups from both parties as they grow, leaving the remains to band together to fight the new party.
Right now we are locked into a Socialism & the Nanny State vs Capitalism & Moralistic Daddy State battle but, for example, if the Greens emerged as the new Party to beat the primary battle of ideas in American politics would take on a decidedly more environmentalist focus. Of course the existing battle would still continue, only more muted. Most Socialists are Green, and most hard core Greens are Socialist so at first glance it would appear little had changed. But under a Green vs Industry & Property Rights matchup the major issues would tend to reduce the position of big labor, possibly even pushing them to the 'other' camp. (See the first glimerings of this in the ANWAR dispute with some labor leaders in support of drilling as a pure jobs issue.)
On the other hand, if the Libertarians ascended they would acrete in a large chunk of the free market Republicans and that portion of the Democrats who still espouse Civil Rights as an individual concern (as opposed to the race baiters and demogogs who push the false religion of group rights). This would leave the rump end of both existing parties to make common cause somehow. So moral crusading socialists vs Libertarians?
Point being that even if a we ended up with two parties again, fighting for a third party is a worthwhile goal because even if you 'lose' in the sense of not keeping three parties or even keeping your new party 100% pure to its original goals, you CAN drasticaly change the politcal landscape. See what happened when the Republicans emerged for a good example.
Re:Gun nuts get a F on Constitutional Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Now down to the Constitution. In no other place in the Constitution, will you find any qualifiers for an enumerated right. Only in the preamble of the Constitution will you find that. The reason is obvious. It describes exactly WHY the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. It is because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. In other words, the qualifier is a description of why I may keep and bear arms. And furthermore that this right shall not be infringed upon. Gun control is infringement on that right.
If you were to ponder that the word 'regulated' means that the Federal government can legislate negatively on that right, it not only becomes unconstitutional (based on Amendment X, another popularly ignored amendment) but it also doesn't make sense. Because a right is unequivocal. A right can also never belong to a group of people because outside the military, groups are arbitrary in size and scope. At what point does a community become a village or a town? If you still need some sort of convincing, I refer you to Federalist 26 which covers the Militia. In fact, it is so that the Founding Fathers wanted to have inspectors to ensure that all citizens were armed and in good standing. Hence 'regulated'.
Now, why is Kerry dangerous as POTUS? Because he will be able to appoint at least one, probably more SCOTUS justices. These, he has already mentioned will have to pass a test to match some of his liberal ideals. One of these would likely be gun control measures. The last case the SCOTUS ruled on in terms of the Second Amendment, was United States vs Miller in 1939. The outcome was that the particular firearm used by Miller, a sawn-off shotgun, did not qualify as a military rifle and thus served no obvious purpose in the militia and that such a firearm is therefor NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
In other words, an AK47 or an M16 would be quite appropriate and protected under the Second Amendment. Wheras a deer rifle is not protected.