Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Where one party rules

One of the more diabolical schemes in the history of the United States is still in process as the Republican Party decided to ignore a nominee for the Supreme Court made by President Obama, so they could try to install a presumably more malleable one. And that is one of the things on their agenda under President Trump who has nominated someone.

And with one party over all three branches of the US Government many may take it for granted that they will not seek to check each other. Though the system was designed with the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch supposedly doing that to protect the American people.

The pursuit of one party rule in the United States fascinates me, especially as we can see problems with it notably in one country, China. And am not someone who talks China in the negative as believe the country has done much to modernize, and people have a right to their government. And the people of China have a Communist government which unapologetically has one party.

However, it must be accepted that it is hard for a single party to critique itself, and provide checks and balances.

That the United States is facing a constant attempt for one party rule in the modern era is rather puzzling and a cynical electorate seems to take for granted that our politicians have a certain level of corruptness. I, however, do not find it acceptable.

That the Supreme Court is being undermined with one of the one party schemes is a case in point, where small-minded partisans care not for their country, but for a mindless pursuit of an agenda of a segment.

Who knows where this attack on legal authority in the United States will lead. But we can be certain that those engaging in it, do not care.

They're too busy crafting schemes to get through while they have the one party dominance that they clearly believe removes the checks and balances carefully put into the system.

And as critical as I am of Republicans am not at all confident in Democrats either. After all, they seem to operate with the same ideas in mind trying to gain one party dominance for themselves, and the American people have to deal with the see-saw of partisans who seem to have lost concern for their country as a whole, working to divvy it up to advantage in the moment.

Where will it lead? How can we be sure?

When our political leadership is dominated by people who seem to crave a political model from China as to dominance of one party, how could anyone know?

I'm sure even China gets confused.

We Americans deserve the system that was envisioned where the three branches of government do not go into collusion with each other routinely, but vigorously defend the rights of ALL Americans, always.


James Harris

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Paying attention is where capitalism lost

To me capitalism is another one of those words where people use it a lot without being careful with its definition, where many think of large scale capitalism, like with massive corporations but is broader than that and give my own explanation. However there IS an area where I think big scale capitalism clearly lost, which is in directing attention as the web took over.

Information distribution in the past on a large scale involved a lot of capital, like for a major newspaper or a television station. It STILL requires large scale capital in those areas, yet here I am on a blog, with the potential to talk to people all over the globe, without needing all that.

And I think we're finally seeing now how far that can go. Where for instance social media can empower all kinds of people to reach lots of others, where also in politics can see that doesn't have to be for the good of the people, as some demagogue can destabilize society too.

The new tools of information distribution do not care, but then again I don't think the big capitalist who wielded so much control in the past over distribution of information cared either. But their monetary motivation is not shared by the web.

What's fascinating to me is that a lot of people got things wrong early about how easier information distribution might work, assuming it would turn all humans into thieves who would quit paying for information they could take! Which to me was so wacky. It also I think betrayed a dismal opinion of the human species.

Those who think thievery is a typical human behavior of most probably say more about themselves than their fellow humans, am sure.

It can still take money to distribute information, yes. But potentially in our times information distribution often can be done with little to not cost to the producer.

The web does cost money but who pays for the web is remarkably not discussed much in our times.

Today the reality of information distribution is a spectrum, where yes, there is still immense capital involved, say, in a major studio release, but also you can have lightweight players with limited capital who can compete equally and even crush such competition.

And fans do still pay to support those who provide content they love--if you give them a way.

So yeah, big capitalism lost when it comes to paying attention. Many in our times can go for quite some time ignoring much that is still pushed at them through major capitalist systems. And capitalism in general also lost as conceivably a person could go to the library and get on free computers and change the world with their creative efforts.

Seems worth mentioning to me. And there is an irony in a world where lots of people can move things that STILL at least in my country people seem stuck with chasing after those with wealth first. Where I guess there is social inertia involved.

However am confident that in time more and more people will learn to look best when it comes to their attention as society learns better.


James Harris

Friday, February 10, 2017

Uniform taxation proposal for web entities

The question of taxing activity on the web has been deferred for quite some time but as someone who has thought about gaining revenue on a global scale will admit am very interested in a uniform solution so have ideas for one.

To me the simplest solution is to have a global body tasked with gathering taxes at a globally decided percentage of revenue per user, or per transaction above flexible minimums which nations could set. So a web entity would simply report same to that body which would also collect those taxes and then distribute to nations.

Nations then would be tasked with further distribution, like here in the US down to the state level, where the state might then distribute down to the local level.

There is still some big data in there so that enough information is available for that to happen, but other than sharing that data the web entity has a simplified taxation position, and can be protected from worrying about granular distribution.

So the web entity would see only one taxing authority. That global taxing authority would only see nations for distribution. And then those nations would worry about the rest.

Some might wonder why such a system would be best but in my case for example am lucky enough to have a product in over 100 countries which is an open source software product so don't and won't have to worry about taxes, as is freely shared! That's cool and feel lucky is an option. Open source is one of the greatest things that thankfully arrived with the rise of the web.

But producing something for profit is daunting enough a prospect that will admit I'd just as soon not worry about lots of things, especially how could one handle just the taxes from a few nations let alone over 100?

The web by easing distribution means that web entities that are relatively small companies could potentially sell valuable products on large scales but be incapable of handling vastly different taxation rules. And even large corporations am sure find that burdensome though guess some may be facing it now. But nations just want the money, right?

Having globally agreed upon taxation levels could facilitate collection of tax revenue while removing impulse to cheat, facilitate business creation so a small company anywhere in the world could potentially handle worldwide product sales, and leave up to nations to still work through how they wish the money to further distribute.

These ideas are just some that occur to me pondering things, without claims of expertise with it noted am looking at my own interests in potentially having a company with a global product which operates for profit with the belief that in time there will be widespread taxation. It should not be construed as a claim of expertise in any related area. Nor do I claim it is the best solution or that it will lead to a solution as am simply putting forward ideas. If these ideas have been shared by others already, great!

Am not currently looking at anything on this subject though so as far as I know am putting out ideas that are products of my creativity, but I read a lot from all over. Besides the concept is simple enough I'd be surprised if not similar to ideas out there.

These ideas I consider open source, freely given to the world for its use, or can just be ignored. Benefit to me if used greatly outweigh any other so would make no further claims against anyone who used them. And further do not even ask for attribution back to myself.

Well that was fun. And yeah am NO expert in legal things, so I have to guess at things to handle potential areas where yeah, someone might get excited when there is no reason. These are just some ideas occurred to me today I wanted to share, and they are freely given.


James Harris