[sillysaurus3]

This kind of thing seems to be one reason America is still the best place to start a business.

I'm saying that in order to spark a debate and challenge that belief. Would anyone please list some actions taken by the US government which is similar in nature to the takeover illustrated here?

It seems very similar to what happened in the middle ages. Before the rise of the merchant class, specifically the ability to defend themselves, bullies stepped in and took what they wanted. Pg went into some detail about that in one of his essays about wealth. The phrase "if you let the nerds keep their lunch money, you rule the world" comes to mind. Might that be changing? Is Russia harming itself by taking these actions? What ways might this action backfire against them? Or is this a new model for how governments should treat corporations that dare challenge their authority?

EDIT: I really didn't mean to start a flamewar. My apologies. I was hoping to get people's thoughts on whether governments of the future are going to do this kind of thing more and more (including the US). I should have led with that rather than cheerleading America.

EDIT2: I would again like to stress the international nature of this threat. This type of governmental action is something that seems likely to eventually threaten us all, regardless of where we're located. As such, the best thing to do would be to discuss possible ways of protecting ourselves.

I would also like to apologize for accidentally insulting everyone who lives in places other than America. Phrasing my comment the way I did was a boneheaded thing to do. It currently reads like an elaborate form of trolling, as if I'm snubbing non-Americans. But in fact I'm just poor with the pen and in reality meant to debate the merits of starting companies in various countries, and to call attention to this international threat. I'm quite sorry for how it sounded. In the meantime, can anyone think of ways of protecting ourselves from centralized government action against businesses?

[mtrimpe]

Most people don't realise that Russia is a brutal petro-chemical dictatorship in economical decline which is clamping down hard on human rights, freedom of the press and radicalising its population through propaganda.

I've been following the Crimea conflict very closely (which almost certainly is also what caused Pavel's departure) and the seriousness of the situation is heavily underestimated by the world.

The Russian economy is heavily dependent on gas exports, and both income from - and production of gas is declining. A small elite has been massively siphoning off wealth from those natural resources and is desperate to stay in control.

Given the situation they (rightfully) fear being overthrown and to prevent that they've started 'restoring Russia to it's former glory,' appealing to traditional family values by introducing anti-gay laws, introducing laws against protesting, laws against criticising Russia, shutting down independent media and distributing propaganda from the remaining station which gets ever more removed from reality by the day.

It is in that context that the VKontakte departure must be seen, and therefore it's difficult to make direct comparisons between Russia and the US: they are truly orders of magnitude apart right now.

P.S. It is important to keep in mind that you could also argue that something similar happened in the US with the NSA scandals but in the US none of the CEOs chose to resign.

[insuffi]

The seriousness of the conflict depends on where you get your information, sadly.

The situation geopolitically seems pretty simple, in broad strokes. Too bad there's unfounded scaremongering on both sides(or should I say 3 or 4 sides).

[mtrimpe]

It more seems that the seriousness of the conflict depends on whether you see this as an isolated incident (which just happens to be the worst violation of territorial integrity in Europe since WWII) or as yet another indicator that the exact same social dynamics that led us to WWII in the first place are intensifying significantly.

I'm curious as to what your take on this is then though ...

[camus2]

   which just happens to be the worst violation of 
   territorial integrity in Europe since WWII

sure,but it's not like Kosovo ever happened... oh wait,NATO was on board with this...

[mtrimpe]

In Kosovo there was active, widespread genocide going on. Absolutely nothing of such kind was happening in Crimea.

Additionally the Kosovo constitution offered room for secession and it's secession was consequently recognized by the vast majority of the international community.

The votes on the UN council as to the legality of Russia's actions [1] say enough, but Huffinton Post wrote a fairly comprehensive article [2] about the topic.

P.S. If you plan to link to the RT counter-piece [3] just let me know and I'll list all the factual inaccuracies for you.

[1] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/u...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/crimea-is-not...

[3] http://rt.com/news/kosovo-crimea-referendum-recognition-441/

[vasac]

Lies, lies, lies...

In Kosovo there wasn't widespread genocide, especially not before NATO started dropping bombs - by far biggest atrocities (not genocide) started after March 24, 1999.

Also you conveniently forgot those guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army#Status_a... - local Russians in Crimea didn't pull anything remotely similar and I guess that they could if they wanted to provoke conflict.

And if you plan to put some more lies about Kosovo I'll be glad to educate you more.

[insuffi]

Oh boy.

I think you're somewhat over-exaggerating the situation. Yes, Russia has not been the most subtle in taking over Crimea, but I can say without a doubt that any of the major superpowers would do the same if a country nearby were to experience a coup d'etat. Especially if that country was strategically important.

While not technically legal, Crimea really is mostly comprised of Russians and has had a special legal status for ages. A 97% vote does not surprise me. Russians in other eastern european countries also reminisce of the "good old times".

I think much of the backlash is due to Russia being projected as the stereotypical evil commie.

I really don't want to venture into conspiracy theory territory, since that would probably hurt my credibility, but I would not be surprised to see the EU and US behind this as a means of trying to cut Russia off from the outside world(after inviting Ukraine into the EU failed). Don't forget the opposition has strong ties with the U.S.

This might be of interest to you. http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-protests-carefully-orch...

Globalresearch is a credible think tank.

[mtrimpe]

OK. It's pretty clear that you've been heavily exposed to a single perspective of the situation.

There is no way in hell 97% of the population voted in favor with 80+% turnout; especially given that 30+% of the population is Tatar or Ukrainian. Based on leaked reports to the Kremlin the real turnout is estimated at a bit over 30%.

Regardless; the referendum was literally held at gunpoint after all Ukrainian news had been shut off and Russian television showed massive fascists uprising and murder in Kiev, which heavily scared the population and did make a large portion of the population believe they were being rescued.

Thus, even if the results were true, it still would not have been a valid referendum.

As for the protests, based on direct sources from real people the protests were organize by just that: real everyday people.

Once again though; the regime was not overthrown by the protesters, but by Yanukovich losing moral authority after ordering shooting of civilians.

If you want to argue the snipers were also a false flag operation then you'd indeed be well into conspiracy nut territory; but I can also point you to videos of Ukrainian snipers assembling if you want.

Global Research also doesn't have that good of a reputation. In [1] it explicitly mentions one of it's main reality warping effects comes from a heavy reliance on Russia Today material.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

[insuffi]

I'm sorry, but YOU are the one who is heavily exposed to a single perspective. Keep watching your CNN.

I myself am from eastern europe and have first hand witnessed russian attitude towards post soviet satellite countries. Don't teach me what I know.

Literally almost everything you say is wrong. Referendum was not held at gunpoint. I've seen western sources use that phrase, so I know where you got it from.

It is a valid referendum because Crimea has a weird legal status, look up Autonomous republic of Crimea.

No, the protest most certainly was not organized by real everyday people. Strategically taking over buildings is not what real everyday people do.

I do want to argue that the situation with snipers was not one sided. Some sources say they shot at both, rioters* and the police.

Notice how I use the term rioters - that was not a protest.

P.S. I have no reason to be biased since I don't generally like Russians, especially the ones that stayed in satellite countries after the fall of the Soviet union. They have a habit of not learning the language and not respecting the host country.

P.S.S Learn fucking Russian, so that you can get both sides of the picture, not just biased rehashes of reuters/cnn/msnbc.

[guard-of-terra]

I don't have statistics but my colleague went to watch the referendum and 80% turnout is what he witnessed. Of course it was just one area of Simferopol.

http://breqwas.livejournal.com/301901.html in russian

[johnnydoebk]

>> I've been following the Crimea conflict very closely (which almost certainly is also what caused Pavel's departure) Reference is needed.

[mtrimpe]

It says it in the article. Navalny was making statements condemning the Crimea annexation and giving advice on how best to apply economic sanction to the Kremlin-elite surrounding Putin.

After the US followed his advice Navalny even tweeted that he was packing his bags for jail because "someone was going to have to pay for [those sanctions]".

[johnnydoebk]

News about Pavel's departure appeared long before the conflict you're talking about. So these two events are not connected.

[mtrimpe]

News about Pavel's departure started appearing ever since the hostile takeover well over a year ago. His actual departure was today which makes it very much possible, if not likely, that it was connected to recent events which undoubtedly resulted in additional pressure against his ideologies.

[noteworthy]

His list of reasons has been building up for years.

Russia in 2012 passed a law allowing censorship of 'pirate websites' and has been heavily abused. Vk has been making licensing deals with Sony and other labels. Pavel is a Libertarian and is against making the website 'corporate' (like facebook, motivated by money not freedom).

Both the Ukraine, arguments with shareholders and copyright pressure are recent. Putting them together he probably saw a restricted future with VK and now he has Telegram to fallback on, he now sees it an opportunity to quit.

However, Telegram has stated it will never charge or have ads, so my theory is he will be making more websites in the future, hopefully he will make websites which embrace his Libertarian ideals.

[gtirloni]

So the US government is taking orders from the founder of a social network in Russia. I wonder how Obama is going to explain that now. Totally busted.

[mtrimpe]

Navalny is a Russian opposition leader. The founder of VKontakte is Pavel.

[gtirloni]

My bad for mixing the names. While I don't have any objection to the argument that the US is working with support of the Russian opposition (and vice-versa), I think it's far fetched to think he will be held personally responsible for any sanctions that are brought upon Russia.

What I'm seeing here from Latin America is that very few people think these supposed sactions will have any impact. There are articles circulating in the media that it might actually be would for LA and Russia relationship.

[myth_drannon]

replace "Russia" with "US" and "petro-chemical" with "military-industrial complex" or "financial" and your whole comment still makes sense as well

[mtrimpe]

Except that the US isn't in a steep decline. The US doesn't start invasions and pretends it's someone else's military. The US doesn't cancel leases for pro-Snowden news outlets. The US doesn't send protesters against election-fraud away for 5 years. The US doesn't introduce laws making it illegal to support gays in public. The US doesn't forcefully remove protesters against a potential war at first sight; even if they're just raising white protest flags.

The dynamics might be similar, if not universal, but the order of magnitude is truly different.

[pkinsky]

>The US doesn't start invasions and pretends it's someone else's military.

Drone strikes come to mind. Didn't the US claim that bombings in Yemen where the work of the local government?

That said, the order of magnitude is indeed different.

[smsm42]

US didn't occupy Yemen and claim it's "local self-defense forces" and then rushed through a fake referendum to make Yemen part of the US, last time I checked. So I'm not sure what is here to compare. Each major country has intelligence and clandestine operations which are not publicly acknowledged, but it's different between cloak-and-dagger stuff and occupying a part of neighboring country and trying to present it as if they did it to themselves.

[myth_drannon]

Actually all you described US does it as well. It's just Russian elites are less sophisticated and are more brutish. The process you see in Russia now, was done many years ago in US. For example why would you cancel leases of news outlets if you have complete and absolute control on MSM? Behind all that gold and glitter is the same nastiness and hate for the common man.

[camus2]

You mister read that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

and then do more search on the internet about how USA are basically forcing everybody to buy oil in $$.

At least russia doesnt force other nations to trade gaz in rubs.

So yeah,russia is evil , but USA are even more evil.

EDIT:

downvote me all you want it's not just a conspiracy theory,that's a fact,but since we are on a pro american board, i did not expect anything else but downvotes.

There is a reason why USA invaded Irak or Libya,and it had nothing to do with promoting democracry.

It was about the fear of USA seeing Iraki and Libyan leaders trade their oil in something else than dollars.

And when the world revolts against this made up,military backed dollar domination, USA will fail hard. Because the dollar is backed by nothing but fear.

[skolos]

The article refers to "petrodollar warfare hypothesis". It doesn't provide any proof. In particular it doesn't prove any of the "forcing" that you refer to.

[paulbaumgart]

Was it ever in doubt that the USA is the best place to start a business? You have an English-speaking domestic market that accounts for 30% of the planet's GDP, huge talent pools, easy access to capital, a culture that encourages entrepreneurship, significantly above-average rule of law, strong corporate veils, and a mostly tolerable tax burden. It ain't perfect, but you can't do better anywhere else in this solar system.

[workhere-io]

Was it ever in doubt that the USA is the best place to start a business?

America is no. 14 on the list of best countries to start a business in. http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

[tptacek]

You need to be a little careful with these rankings, because they're subjective. Forbes, for instance, drastically prioritizes taxes for its rankings. The corporate tax rate in the US is higher than that of Ireland, and (as Forbes summary straightforwardly admits) that pushes the US down in the rankings.

For a startup, there are significantly more important factors to consider than the corporate tax rate, not least because most startups are managed to avoid taxable profits for the first several years of their existence (sometimes all the way up until IPO). For instance:

* The US offers at-will employment. Ireland, at the top of the list, has an Unfair Dismissal act that allows employees with a year of tenure to file claims not only if they're dismissed, but if they're "constructively" dismissed --- that is to say, if their role in the company is substantially altered in a way that allows them to claim that they're being "managed out" of the company. Constructive dismissal is a standard market clause for executives and acquirees in the US, but is certainly not a day-to-day feature of employment law.

* The World Bank Ease-of-doing-business index dings Ireland, putting them far below the US, for (among other things) the difficulty of enforcing contracts in Ireland; my tea-leaf-reading from the index's abstracted data is that you have a good certainty of enforcing a contract base in Ireland, but that the process is more time-consuming and expensive than in the US, which is ranked 50 places higher than Ireland (at #11 overall).

* Similarly, the World Bank dings Denmark (putting them 2 places below the US overall) because (among other things) it's significantly more difficult to incorporate in Denmark than in the US (where you can do it approximately as easily as ordering a non-one-click-compatible book from Amazon). Denmark also has mandatory severance of up to 6 months wages depending on tenure. 6 months wages isn't a big deal to any big company, but for a startup, it could change the calculus of when the company will need to shutter during a downswing to meet its legal obligations to employees; in the US, so long as you can make good on any current wages owed employees, you can run up until the last minute.

* Sweden, which Forbes ranks higher than the US, has intricate employment law rules that require not only a legally defensible just cause for termination, but also a good faith effort on the part of an employer to find another job for an employee even if just cause exists to fire them. Sweden also allows shareholders to personally sue directors in a variety of situations. There is no way Forbes actually believes Sweden is a better place to start a company than the US.

Here is a combination of factors that makes the US a good place to start a business:

* Extremely well-tested corporation law that makes the formation of a company, distribution of equity, resolution of disputes, and enforcement of ownership relatively predictable.

* Virtually no government interference with the formation of companies themselves, so that you could practically form a new LLC for every individual Github project you started, pay less for that than you would for hosting costs, and stand a very good chance of having those LLCs defend your interests in disputes.

* Multiple classes of corporation, convertible between each other, with some optimized for "click a button on a web page and create an LLC for my Github project", and others, not that much more expensive, that allow for multiple classes of shareholder, with the laws for those corporate forms predictable enough that hundreds of thousands of dollars of venture funding have become a standardized packaged product for promising startups (this is mind-boggling when you look at the societal infrastructure that enables it).

* A system of at-will employment that (for the most part) makes employment of workers almost risk free, so long as you don't play fast and loose with owed salary or tax withholdings.

* A tax system that is reasonably simple, not disastrously onerous, and in many ways optimized for entrepreneurs (for instance, the differing taxation schemes offered for salary versus distributions, or the ease of deducting business expenses).

* Extremely well-tested employment law that, among other things, makes it straightforward to retain 1099 contractors for one-off projects without risking their conversion into full-time employees with severance rights.

* One of the world's largest single borderless markets, such that you can start a company in Oregon and, with almost total certainty, be able to straightforwardly collect money for services (other than direct financial services, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture) from people in Florida.

* The host of the world's largest equities markets, so that investors in startups can plow money into companies knowing that if that company is the 1 in 20 that is going to go public, the most lucrative place for it to go public is the country of its origin.

The US is probably not the best place in the world to start a company. Forbes and the World Bank agree that Hong Kong and New Zealand are better. But running a company in New Zealand also requires you to domicile in New Zealand, which can complicate hiring, marketing, and (if you sell anything physical) channel delivery.

If we had single-payer health coverage, I think we'd be the best country to do business in.

[beagle3]

I agree with most of your points, but:

> A tax system that is reasonably simple, not disastrously onerous, and in many ways optimized for entrepreneurs (for instance, the differing taxation schemes offered for salary versus distributions, or the ease of deducting business expenses).

Is objectively wrong. The US tax code was over 71,000 pages last I checked (in 2009 or so), and that's just the federal part. I have dealt with taxes in several jurisdictions, personal and business - and the US is by far the most onerous, most complicated among them. The business part is a little simpler than the personal part, but both are batsh*t crazy when compared to a lot of other places.

The differing taxation scheme seem to be quite universal these days (I don't know if historically this wasn't the case). The rates are effectively higher in the US, though it seems if you are big enough you can use loopholes to counter that.

The VAT common in Europe is onerous at the personal level (roughly comparable to state/city sales tax, although usually higher), but is almost invisible at the business level - "VAT" stands for "Value Added Tax" - it only gets paid on the added value. If my business buys laptops and supplies them to a customer, that customer pays VAT but I do not (whereas US style sales tax gets collected twice in this case). Expenses seem to be just as easily deductible, if not easier.

Furthermore, the US is actively hostile towards anyone who does anything financially outside the US. Got a bank account outside the US? You have a lot of onerous reporting to do (FBAR/FATCA) with very steep penalties for non compliance. Your company has such an account, and you have signing rights? You are still personally liable with the same steep penalties. Onerous does not begin to describe this.

If you're already a US Tax Payer living in the US (by being a citizen or a permanent resident), the US is probably the best place for you to do business in. If you are not yet subject to the craziness that is the US Tax Code, you should factor a few tens of thousands of USD per year for proper reporting, which might make it a less desirable place.

[tptacek]

Consider businesses with a run rate of between 2-10MM USD as a group, first in the US and then in, say, Denmark or (to make it even simpler) Ireland.

Does the Danish or Ireland cohort tend to operate without the advice of tax accountants? My impression is that they do in fact tend to retain tax advisors.

The argument that the US tax system is particularly onerous is, I think, compelling only if you can demonstrate that it creates a de facto requirement for outside advisors that doesn't exist in other locales.

Otherwise, the complexity of the system (which is not what I was talking about) isn't much of an issue.

I have some experience with tax advisors, obviously, and they are not one of my big business expenditures. :)

[beagle3]

> I think, compelling only if you can demonstrate that it creates a de facto requirement for outside advisors that doesn't exist in other locales.

Optimization of taxes is a constantly changing, narrow field of expertise - and the complexity of even "simple" tax systems is such that even a cheap, mediocre tax professional will usually save you more in taxes (compared to a "layman understanding" of taxes) than they cost. In this sense, no country is simple enough to operate without a tax advisor. In fact, in Israel where I now reside, it is effectively a requirement to have a CPA prepare and sign off your tax papers, even if your business did not have a single transaction that year. However, the reporting is simple (compared to the US, anyway) such that even if you had quite a bit of transactions, your advisor can finish it in an hour.

For similar complexity, I ended up paying my US tax advisor approximately twenty times as much as my Israeli one. I pay for quality in both places, and the hourly rate of the US CPA is approximately twice as much as the Israeli one (that's true in general comparing both markets). The US one just has about ten times as much work to do.

> Otherwise, the complexity of the system (which is not what I was talking about) isn't much of an issue.

I guess a tl;dr of my point would be: In most of the world, a reasonable course of action is to make plans for business purposes and then adjust them according to tax considerations, whereas in the US the reasonable course of action is to make plans based on legal&tax considerations and then adjust them for business purposes.

I agree that looking at the bottom line, it's just another business expense - I was just disagreeing with your assertion of a reasonable tax code. It is the case in the US (much more so than in Europe and other modern countries, in my experience) that where and how you incorporate, how you assign your IP, and how you time your transactions (short term/long term capital gains) can have a huge impact on your bottom line. Makes it much harder to reason about your actions, which is a non trivial (and hard to quantify) cost.

[ThomPete]

No accountants are very important also in Denmark. Danish company tax system is very very complicated. So you are correct.

[jeffasinger]

In my state (New York), there is a sales tax exemption on all goods that are intended for resale, so in your case, only the customer would pay sales tax, and you would not.

However, you have to register with the state to collect sales tax in order to be allowed to buy things without paying tax.

[paulbaumgart]

To add to your point on equities markets: Baidu went public on the NASDAQ[0], and Alibaba is considering doing the same[1].

0. http://ir.baidu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188488&p=irol-faq_pf#261...

1. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/alibaba-considers-ipo-in-us-an...

[001sky]

The US is probably not the best place in the world to start a company. Forbes and the World Bank agree that Hong Kong and New Zealand are better.

What's (also) interesting about this short-list is a strong historical British influence.

[paulbaumgart]

Ooh, another one: as the world's reserve currency, the USD gets a purchasing power boost, so it's easier to expand US->rest of world than the other direction.

[paulbaumgart]

So say some journalists. The results speak for themselves.

Edit: In case it wasn't apparent, my "ever any doubt" question was rhetorical hyperbole. Any statement, no matter how self-evident, will have some people contradicting it.

Edit2: See mtrimpe's comment below; Forbes is probably optimizing for small business in their analysis instead of startups with potential for high scalability.

[workhere-io]

In case it wasn't apparent, my "ever any doubt" question was rhetorical hyperbole. Any statement, no matter how self-evident, will have some people contradicting it.

Your argument that the US is the best place to start a business is not in any way "self-evident", and you have provided no source or proof.

So say some journalists.

Their methodology seems sound.

"We determined the Best Countries for Business by looking at 11 different factors for 134 countries. We considered property rights, innovation, taxes, technology, corruption, freedom (personal, trade and monetary), red tape, investor protection and stock market performance. Forbes leaned on research and published reports from the Central Intelligence Agency, Freedom House, Heritage Foundation, Property Rights Alliance, Transparency International, the World Bank and World Economic Forum to compile the rankings."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/03/the-b...

[tptacek]

Did you actually find their methodology? I couldn't. I read the summary of the most recent rankings, which explained why the US was so far down the list (taxes), but not the scheme by which they consolidates all the sources they used and created a rating.

Given Forbes' own editorial slant, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to look at these rankings as a simple coatrack for Forbes argument that the US corporate tax rate should be lowered.

If you could find the methodology document for Forbes ranking --- anything similar to the World Bank's ranking, which is itself not totally great, would be helpful --- I'd be grateful. This topic comes up a lot on HN.

[paulbaumgart]

They left out "size and wealth of domestic market" and "access to capital," which I suspect are the most important factors beyond a minimal level of market fairness.

It's really not self-evident that the vast majority of successful companies are started in the US?

[insuffi]

As proven time and time again, most popular does not mean "the best".(especially, considering how many people there are in the US compared to any EU nation. That'd certainly explain the "number of successful businesses".)

Do you think those people starting companies would do any worse, if we placed them in, say, Denmark?

EDIT:Or maybe Israel, which has the highest density of start ups worldwide? I'd be curious to see the per capita numbers of countries.

[rwallace]

One could argue those two factors are very important if you want to take a shot at creating the next Google or Facebook (which an unusually high percentage of people here might aspire to) and less important if you're aiming for a lifestyle business (perhaps more typical).

[tormeh]

I think "size and wealth of domestic market" and "access to capital" are the two most important ones as well. China and maybe India are going to test this hypothesis sometime within my life expectancy, I believe. Exciting times.

[ThomPete]

Denmark is considered one of the best places to start a company, but that is based on the bureaucratic burden of starting a company.

It is a very different thing to actually scale that company to any significant size there.

The metrics used to measure these things are fundamentally flawed as they look at the institutional side of things not on the reality that is running a business and growing a company.

[workhere-io]

It is a very different thing to actually scale that company to any significant size there.

Yet, Danish companies like Lego, Carlsberg and Maersk (whose subunit Maersk Line in itself is the largest company of its kind in the world) seem to be doing fine.

[ThomPete]

they are old companies, we are talking getting it of the ground not old industries made in very different times

[NicoJuicy]

I can't believe Belgium is better for starting a business..

Paperwork takes forever (unless you earn less then 15.000 €/ year). Taxes are insanely high (highest of the world) Employees are the most expensive in the world

This list ain't correct, that's easy to see as a Belgian... Or it should be very irritating to start a business in United States.

I do believe one of the beste places is Ireland though

[for_i_in_range]

Taxes are the thing holding it back. With Obamacare, if you're in business in California making over $250k/year personally, you'll pay 53% in taxes (38% Federal, 12% State, 3% Obama).

If you're a small business owner that owns 100%, you really own 47%. You're a minority shareholder in your own company.

[danmaz74]

"30% of the planet's GDP" more like 20% actually, 25% tops

[paulbaumgart]

You're right, apologies. My number is outdated.

[shmerl]

> I'm saying that in order to spark a debate and challenge that belief. Would anyone please list some actions taken by the US government which is similar in nature to the takeover illustrated here?

Killing Lavabit for instance?

[tptacek]

The US didn't kill Lavabit, so much as Lavabit decided to start an untenable business: one in which they vouchsafed secrecy to their customers but retained the ability to compromise that secrecy.

To understand how dumb that is, consider that AOL(!) runs a popular messaging service on which thousands of people exchange secure messages using OTR-enabled clients, and AOL could not be "killed" the way Lavabit was: the DOJ can't coerce AOL into betraying OTR-protected users, because AOL simply doesn't have that ability.

The reason Lavabit did have that ability is that getting users to install software is inconvenient and drastically harms adoption. Lavabit took a shortcut, and their users shared the resulting pain.

If you review the list of countries preceding the US on the Forbes list posted upthread, you won't find too many that wouldn't have left Lavabit similarly exposed.

[shmerl]

Yes, Lavabit made a serious mistake of leaving a technical ability to compromise their users. However it doesn't change the fact that US killed it since the government wanted to have access to all users' data without any restrictions and warrants. Lavabit's mistake doesn't in any way reduce the abusive nature and unconstitutionality of that move.

[tptacek]

I'm assuming it doesn't change your mind at all that Levison cooperated with a series of unrelated preceding warrants, handing over user information, and that (as I understand it) the DOJ only demanded their expansive intrusion after Levison refused to comply in a similar fashion to a warrant apparently related to Snowden, with whose politics Levison agreed.

[shmerl]

He cooperated with warrants targeted at specific suspects. That's rather normal. He refused to cooperate with request to give them access to all users. They couldn't possibly have such warrant by considering them all suspects at once. They just told him, hand us over the keys or else. I'm not aware that he refused a targeted warrant on Snowden alone specifically. Or may be I missed that being reported somewhere.

[tptacek]

I don't think that's accurate. My understanding is that Levison was confronted with a pen/trap (metadata-only) order for mail related to the Snowden account, refused it, and was then subjected to an escalating series of demands once the DOJ had "lost faith" in his cooperation.

Orin Kerr, who is one of Andrew Aurenheimer's attorneys in his appeal of felony CFAA charges, has a good starting point for what happened in the case, here:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/14/thoughts-doj-brief-lavabits...

[pvg]

Not somewhere, pretty much everywhere.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/how-l...

I think your idea of how the case developed is fairly inaccurate.

[Edsnowden]

Totally agree with you shmerl, try using lavaboom.com, end2end encryption, zero knowledge policy and outside US jurisdiction.