So far, the fairest tax system we've found is the income tax. It has one drawback though--it slightly decreases certain incentives which is not optimal.

I've had this idea in my head now, and I figure that telling it to people is a good idea. What we do is, instead of taxing income, we tax accumulated wealth. The biggest problem with this idea, of course, is the calculation of the number(also a problem with the income tax system). For this system, though, I think we could make a lot of the forms one-time-use only or something.

Comments? Questions? Suggestions for improvement?

I just made a long post refuting some hollow claim about Objectivism, and I felt it was good enough that it should be preserved in a journal entry. I'd also like further comments on it. (The title won't become clear until the end of the rant though)

If it weren't for people who help other people, I probably would be in a much worse place than I am in right now. Several of my teachers have said that I am the smartest person they have ever known, and I'm not even making this up. But I have Asperger's Syndrome and it has lead to me being almost entirely emotionally inept. Things like this are the standard for smart people--one switch on, one switch off. Supporters of individual fanaticism like the majority of the Objectivist movement is predicated on the belief in a superman who is perfect everywhere and the false dichotomy between "the projection of an ideal man" and a man whose main goal is leeching off of society. Thinking in ones and zeroes may work when programming circuits but that's not how it works with people. There is no "ideal man" and most of those whom the Randian society sees as leeches aren't. Belief in the "ideal man" is just as illogical as belief in the Second Coming, but I can forgive the latter as it was invented in the Roman society when the nature of reality was not as well-defined as it was in the twentieth century when Rand lived.
Objectivism may be based off of logical reasoning from assumed premises, but all the reasoning in the world is for naught when it's based on false principles. The majority of Objectivists tend to ignore their weaknesses, considering that if they acknowledged both their weaknesses and Objectivism then they'd have to admit that they are a leech on society. Which leads to them considering those who are strong in their weaknesses as the leeches on society. This leads to the false belief in "I should only care about myself" and the delusions Objectivists get of being the intellectual equivalent of Superman. In other words, belief in Objectivist reality is like believing in Superman reality. Superman may make for a decent story but all-powerful people like Superman only exist in the comic books. No, wait, Superman used his powers to help people who obviously don't deserve to be helped because otherwise they'd be able to fly away from certain death themselves. And then there's Kryptonite which requires other people to oh my god help him. No wait, the Objectivist hero barely even makes a good story(only insomuch as Chuck Norris facts make a good story) considering that most Superman stories are chock full of kryptonite because of how boring and unrealistic somebody with absolutely no weaknesses is.

I made a post on Red_Foreman's journal and he responded with

this journal is rated NC-17. Come back when you hit puberty.

Puberty doesn't start at 17 unless you're a really late bloomer. It usually starts around eleven for girls and thirteen for boys. I'm sixteen, by the way, so I'm just gonna laugh at you as I have already hit puberty. If I really wanted to I could just fire up one of the alternate accounts I got when I was trying to get the millionth account and post with that.

So, in conclusion, repeat the line "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" sixteen times and end it with "Motherfucker", and that's my response to your ridiculous little move. (I've had that song running through my head since I bought that album with the iTunes card I got for Christmas. 100 points to whomever can name the album in question.)

because if they were editors they would select a story based off of the single criterion of that being the person's first submission.

1. What is your occupation?
   Student, high school, 11th grade.
2. What color are your socks right now?
   White as always.
3. What are you listening to right now?
   Audioslave's cover of The White Stripes' song "Seven Nation Army".
4. What was the last thing that you ate?
   Pizza
5. Can you drive a stick shift?
   Nope
6. If you were a crayon, what color would you be?
   I dunno. Red, I guess?
7. Last person you spoke to on the phone?
   My friend (name deleted).
8. Do you like the person who sent this to you?
   I guess so.
9. How old are you today?
   Depends on the unit of time by which you are measuring. 16 years.
10. Favorite drinks?
    Sprite, probably.
11. What is your favorite sport to watch?
    I don't watch sports.
12. Have you ever dyed your hair?
    No.
13. Pets?
    4 cats in the house.
14. Favorite food?
    Hmmm, not sure about that one. Depends, I guess.
15. What was the last movie you watched?
    Deck the Halls. Not only was it not a very good movie, the theater screwed up the aspect ratio.
16. Favorite holiday?
    Thanksgiving, yum yum.
17. What do you do to vent anger?
    Yell at people.
18. What were your favorite toys as a kid?
    Legos, probably.
19. What is your favorite: fall or spring?
    Meh, life goes on either way.
20. Hugs or kisses?
    Both. :P
21. Cherry or blueberry?
    I dunno.
22. Do you want your friends to send this back?
    It wasn't really sent.
23. Living arrangements?
    With my parents and sister (name deleted).
24. When was the last time you cried?
    God, I don't remember. I cry too much.
25. What is on the floor of your closet?
    Clothes, probably.
26. Who is the friend you have had the longest that you're sending this to?
    If you're talking about people who will read this, Sam is the first one who friended me.
27. What did you do last night?
    Pretty much nothing.

This is here if anybody wants to say anything to me so that it will be noticed by me during the 2^24 bug. (Yes, squiggleslash, I did steal this idea from you, except I don't actually have anything specific to say. :P)

I was told there was a reply to my post. I check this and it looks fine. Try getting its parent. Should be a post of mine, instead I get this. Something's up with Slashdot...

Alphabet, anyone?

The Battlestar Galactica premiere got a 1.6 rating. Last season and the season before got 2.6 ratings on premieres, and last season finale was a 1.9. Considering how heavily advertized BSG was compared to Stargate(which got a 1.5 or so for the premiere this season) the ratings will probably go down from here. It is completely obvious that the seperation of Stargate and BSG was a bad idea. And yet somehow Bonnie Hammer and Mark Stern keep their jobs.

Our government thinks it can override the Geneva Convention and the Constitution with respect to torture and habeas corpus.
In addition, Arlen Specter gets a double black mark for voting this bill in after stating that he would oppose it.

I wonder if the person who wrote this MSVS ad was trying to be ironic?

This post has two replies that show the community has grown an irrational kneejerk hatred(Sony, and before you say rootkit, that was BMG) that exceeds the power of the (mostly) rational kneejerk hatred(Microsoft). One is claiming he's a Sony shill for even claiming to dispute the holy fact that PS3 sucks. Here's my original post to him which I can't post because for some reason I'm banned:

Why, because they don't share the ZOMG HALLOWED opinion that the PS3 ZOMG TEH TOTALLY SUCKZ?
My opinions are as such:

• The Wii is going to lead the market, but not by as much as the hype predicts.
• The PS3 is going to break even. There may or may not be a PS4.
• The 360... well, let's just say that if it doesn't send Microsoft's stock price spiraling down then they'll be lucky.

The second said something about Sony shill ACs spreading FUD and lies, while said user didn't post any rebuttal of any kind, instead operating on the irrational kneejerk hatred of Sony.

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are [BALEETED] and [BALEETED] and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number [BALEETED] and your username "WilliamSChips".
GAH! I don't understand why I'm getting these messages(my last few messages haven't even been modded down)...it's annoying not being able to post on Slashdot. Any suggestions?
EDIT(because I can't even post in my own journal): Thank you aymanh, I plan on doing so.

I was searching for this particular article on the list of squiggleslash's journals for a while. Finally found it half-by-accident: So true...and yet it's a liberal media? Unfortunately "Click" was a non-obvious title.

And now that I have your attention, I'm going to talk about something completely unrelated. I stole this technique from squiggleslash who used the same headline but about OS X to talk about the plotholes in a movie he(?) didn't like. This should be interesting. I wonder how it'll play out.
And in a completely unrelated note, I'm incredibly excited about the upcoming episode of Stargate SG-1. As anyone who has watched the (US) Sci-Fi channel at all this week knows, Richard Dean Anderson is coming back for this very special occasion, and everyone who had the chance of seeing it before the rest of us(lucky bastards) have said it was really good. If you want to know what the episode is about go read spoilers at GateWorld as it has the best spoilers.