OT: US is a Weird Place to Live

We have to keep nuts from getting guns, and The People who know the guy are the only ones who can be trusted to judge.

Tom, I'm not really a gun owner. But I wanted to say that I like ideas like yours above. Local 'control', local responsibility.

George H.

Go ahead. Try. I'm sure you'll want to write the rest of the BoR out of it, while you're at it. On second thought, you lefties ignore the Constitution. It's a lot easier.

Impossible.

No, they can't and have no right to.

Riiiiight! Lefties like me. That's why I suggested using the amendment process.

I'm all for the Convention of States, but I don't expect them to change the BOR.

The rest of the world comes a lot closer to this ideal than the US does.

They can't be trusted to judge correctly every time, but they can do pretty well most of the time. You have the unconditional right to judge anybody y ou run into, and you can act on that judgement within fairly wide limits.

Saying whether or not they ought to be allowed to keep one or more guns in their house is perfectly permissible, but there's no legal mechanism for en forcing that opinion at the moment. The fact that Tom Del Rosso thinks that there ought to be isn't a strong recommendation, but your visceral rejecti on of the idea suggests that there might be some merit in it.

Krw isn't always wrong, but he does embrace a lot of silly ideas for very s illy reasons.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

If the rules are so complicated that the people can't compute their own taxes, how are the people able to give their consent to a system which they cannot quantify, or understand?

That seems undemocratic.

That certainly would save time, though it seems awfully intrusive, and a high price to pay in privacy to have your government monitor every trivial aspect of your life, in exchange for an easier way to pay your tax bill.

Cheers, James Arthur

We had home ownership long before the mortgage interest deduction!

But that's the left's argument: using tax policy to control people's behavior, and, redistribution in favor of . Same as the employer health insurance deduction.

The latter just encourages corporate employees to overpay--and enables insurance companies to charge more--for health insurance, since they're effectively getting a 25% discount compared to using after-tax income. A distortion.

The mortgage interest deduction favors banks (who can charge higher interest rates, since interest is deductible), and maybe home builders.

I'm not sure there's even a net benefit. Both owners and renters (through their landlords) get the benefit, which just means that other taxes have to be raised. Which fall on you, naturally, since they can't get blood from all those turnips.

It does the opposite, for similar reasons to those above.

Right now residents of high-tax states are getting a discount on their state tax bill (by deducting off their federal taxes).

If residents lost that dough to the feds, they'd press their states a lot harder to keep state taxes in check, and move if their states didn't accommodate.

Cheers, James Arthur

So, just like Rickman's ranting inarticulate quasi-right-wing friend, you know what you're against more than what you're for.

That's consistent with your stand against capitalism. You say you want the kind of soft socialism found in Europe today, but I doubt you complained that full-blown socialist Holland in the 70's wasn't capitalist enough.

I wonder why you think that, not that I care very much what you think.

The Netherlands might have been more socialist in 1970s than if was from 19

93 to 2013 when I lived there, but it had a lot natural gas money to be soc ialist with at that point, after a rather less than prosperous period.

It didn't dismantle capitalism or do anything wildly extravagant, so one ha s to wonder what you are complaining about.

I'm not in the least against capitalism, merely aware that the free market requires careful regulation to remain genuinely competitive, and to make su re that the more unscrupulous capitalists don't exploit their customers an d their employees. The Dutch have been into capitalism for longer than most , and are well aware what rent-seekers can get up to, if given half a chanc e.

They do take "policy" more seriously than English-speaking countries

but that didn't stop their policies from being bedevilled by unintended con seqences.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Homesteads, sure. They aren't making a lot of new land.

I'm all for allowing individuals to pay insurance premiums with pre-tax money (along with joining any group they want to pool their resources).

How does a 30% reduction in costs encourage them to spend more? They're still paying the 70%.

Home interest rates aren't determined by what people can afford to pay. Money has a cost. It may be that home *prices* are increased by some amount because of the mortgage interest deductibility but that goes to the homeowner when he sells. If it's suddenly eliminated, all home owners eat that premium, perhaps even collapsing the market. I don't think playing that game is a good idea. That horse is gone.

No, taxes don't have to be raised. Costs could be contained.

Huh?

Yes.

?? That was my point.

Can they vote that you have to give up your gun? If not, you could move into the area with a gun. Or do they have veto power on who moves in?

Is it majority rule or can one person black ball gun ownership?

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

You keep your license if you move within the state, same as a driver's license. The objective is not to make your current neighbors happy, but to find out if you are trusted by people who know you. Your new neighbors don't know you.

Move to another state and state law decides. They can let you keep your guns at home or in storage with the police until you get a license.

Neither. Most people wouldn't send in the form. The state can decide how many "approvals" you need.

Sounds like it has a lot of issues.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998