Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Unintended (multi-decade) consequences of private accounts 10 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Your description of the Australian private retirement accounts is interesting. It makes the intermittent US proposals to privatize social security look even more like a scam.

    Achieving socialism by other means is amusing.
    • Please note that:

      1. The government is still the welfare provider of last resort. If your super money runs out during your retirement, you move onto the standard Old Age Pension, fully funded by government. But the standard Old Age Pension is NOT a lot of money. It really is a last resort.

      2. Australia has never really had corporate pension funds like the US, or government "social security" entities. Pensions are funded out of general revenue. That is, out of normal taxes.

      3. This has all been introduced over
      • Obama's prospects look good, though it is hard to say how much that mean at this early date. Unfortunately I don't think he will be able to do anything radical, even if he wins an overwhelming victory. The separation of powers that is the basis of the American government prevents that, as it was designed to. I fear we will not solve our financial problems with any radical new ideas; I assume we will just debase our currency in the traditional way.

        • Obama's prospects look good, though it is hard to say how much that mean at this early date. Unfortunately I don't think he will be able to do anything radical, even if he wins an overwhelming victory. The separation of powers that is the basis of the American government prevents that, as it was designed to. I fear we will not solve our financial problems with any radical new ideas; I assume we will just debase our currency in the traditional way.

          Better that, than what Obama would do, which is violate our Constitution and destory our liberty.

          Not that I feel strongly about it or anything.

          • Regardless of what Obama may or may not do, we are already living under a president who is violating the Constitution and destroying our liberty.

            • Regardless of what Obama may or may not do, we are already living under a president who is violating the Constitution and destroying our liberty.

              Yes, in some ways. What really bothers me is that when Bush violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, people run around like it's the end of the world. But when a Democrat violates the Second or Tenth, they shrug their shoulders and say, "well, the Constitution is over 200 years old and it's a living document." I would ask if a little honesty and consistency is too much to ask for, but I already know the answer (not speaking of you here, since you've said nothing along these lines; just speaking generally)

              • I'll preface my comments by saying that I enjoy guns. I'm not a hunter, but a nice afternoon of target shooting is very relaxing...

                Now, just because a law is passed that limits gun ownership does not mean that the 2nd Amendment has been violated. "Well regulated" means there will be regulations. Congress can restrict the types of weapons that people can own. If you don't believe that then you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So at this point it's simply a matter of where to draw

                • just because a law is passed that limits gun ownership does not mean that the 2nd Amendment has been violated
                  Sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But when the policies have the effect of preventing people from being armed, then that IS a violation of the Second Amendment, in my self-esteemed opinion ;-).

                  I view it similarly to speech time/manner/place restrictions on speech. Any speech restrictions on time, manner, and place must (apart from being content-neutral) a. serve an important government interest, and b. that interest must be served by the regulation (apart from the speech's message); c. the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and d. there must be ample alternative means of communication that message.

                  So if you are going to restrict my guns, fine, but you better follow similar logic.

                  "Well regulated" means there will be regulations.

                  No, that is a misinterpretation. The text reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Well-regulated" applies to the militia, not to the guns.

                  Congress can restrict the types of weapons that people can own. If you don't believe that then you believe that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

                  No, that, too, is a misinterpretation, because that is not what "arms" means in the context, as this is clearly intended as an individual right, and implies personal weaponry. Granted, today, a nuclear bomb can be carried in a suitcase, but that's beside the point: there is no evidence of any kind that the intent was to allow individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction.

                  So at this point it's simply a matter of where to draw the line and different, intelligent people will disagree on where that should be. And intelligent people will recognize that serial numbers on ammunition, such as Obama proposed a week ago, are designed to prevent people from being able to keep and bear arms in any meaningful way.

                  • That clause though seems filled with contradiction.

                    It says give people arms, because you need a militia... that should be regulated.

                    So should the right to own a guns be tied to participation in a militia? Or an implicit right for them to call you up for $stuff when they need volunteers?

                    There also seems to be the problem of scale.

                    There's a natural desire to limit the guns to personal weapons, which in my view puts applies limitations like we have in Australia (with regards to types of weapons you can own, if

                    • That clause though seems filled with contradiction.

                      OK. It's not. :-)

                      It says give people arms, because you need a militia... that should be regulated.

                      So should the right to own a guns be tied to participation in a militia?

                      No. It is clear that this was just one of the many reasons the people who wrote, voted on, passed, and ratified the Amendment thought that the right to bear arms should be preserved. (Indeed, many people thought that the Second Amendment was not even necessary, because OF COURSE we have a right to bear arms!)

                      Or an implicit right for them to call you up for $stuff when they need volunteers?

                      If you mean can military service be coerced: no.

                      From a legal standpoint, it seems an ugly and inelegant law to be stuck with.

                      Eh. It doesn't matter: what matters is the final

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.