Slashdot Mirror


Finnish Politician Suggests Embedding Chips In Citizens To Protect the Welfare State

New submitter janit writes that social benefits to Finnish citizens living outside of Finland have in recent days been the cause of controversy, and links to an article which suggests just how much of a controversy: A politician from the True Finns Party, Pasi Mäenranta, is also worried about the abuse of the benefits. He published a post on Facebook, where he suggests that all Finnish citizens leaving the country be embedded with an identification chip. Sounds like a parallel system might be a popular idea with some U.S. presidential candidates, too.

182 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. The world owes me nothing... by cb88 · · Score: 1

    So, It doesn't get to chip me. In other words over my dead body...

    1. Re:The world owes me nothing... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      This would only be for recipients of social security who go abroad. No social security = no chip. Even so, it's a disgusting idea to require the chip to receive those benefits.

      Instead I would argue that no social security benefits should be paid to people living abroad, or have those benefits adjusted automatically for local cost of living. (excepting state pensions, which should be free to spend as one pleases). Require recipients to be registered in the country and have them collect their benefits in person.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:The world owes me nothing... by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      You were on the right track with the world owes me nothing bit. However, these people are on welfare and, at least in the US, they seem to think they are entitled to welfare. I am all for more stringent requirements for people on welfare, but tagging them is a bit extreme. I would propose just dropping welfare benefits for those living abroad. How can you expect to receive welfare from a country you are not in?

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    3. Re:The world owes me nothing... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      Not being familiar with the Finnish system, this is for social welfare which I'm assuming is equivalent to welfare in the US which is paid to unemployed people that can find no other means of income.

      So if people on welfare are living abroad, why are you paying them anyways?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:The world owes me nothing... by jmd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Social Security Retirement is payable outside the USA now for citizens and other approved people (green card holders etc) who live in certain countries with agreements with the USA. This should continue. I worked and paid into Social Security Retirement as per the agreements. I would expect my money when I complete the requirements. But I don't hold my breath. Wall Street wants every penny of retirement money they can get their hands on.

      However, Social Security also has many other programs that I do not mind curtailing if the recipient lives outside of the country. Social Security Disability is one. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is another. Both are cut off if you are outside of the country over 6 months. Medicare does not cover anyone outside the USA as far as I know.

      I gotta ask.... why do you exempt state pension from the mix? If I worked for the Sate of Ohio all my life I could retire to Thailand without a loss of income? But I cannot take my a Federal pension with me?

    5. Re:The world owes me nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A bet you the boarder would be pissed if that happened.

    6. Re:The world owes me nothing... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Actually he was saying that anyone who left the country would be chipped. Supposedly it would help finding them in a disaster. Don't see how. Maybe with the identification. But it's not like they could sweep a detector over the snow or rubble and find the chip under a meter. A good search and rescue dog would find a person in that case. Besides they would have to know the person was a Finn in the first place because nobody else would have a chip.

      And it wouldn't be just for people going to live abroad. Just thinking about someone on social security. Imagine if they had a child, relative, or friend and they paid for their visit out of country. It wouldn't have to be extravagant, maybe a train ticket to Germany. Or what if they did a day trip for some cross border shopping? In both cases they would get chipped but it's not something that anyone would complain about them doing.

    7. Re:The world owes me nothing... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Instead I would argue that no social security benefits should be paid to people living abroad, or have those benefits adjusted automatically for local cost of living. (excepting state pensions, which should be free to spend as one pleases). Require recipients to be registered in the country and have them collect their benefits in person.

      And why would you argue any of that? I find it interesting how cruel people can be even when they supposedly are being generous with other peoples' money.

    8. Re:The world owes me nothing... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I think we're in agreement. What you call social security retirement is commonly called a "state pension" in Europe. It's not a pension paid to former employees of the state, but it's paid *by* the state, hence the name. . Here in the Netherlands, everyone who has lived here for 50 years gets it, even the former queen. And I think this pension should not be adjusted for cost of living if one chooses to live abroad.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:The world owes me nothing... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How much should it be adjusted up for those that live in Monaco?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:The world owes me nothing... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they are a permanent resident elsewhere, the local benefits would kick in. So cut off the payments for "unearned" SS.

  2. 2084? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess we need a second installment of 1984 as the pace of ideas from authoritarian control freaks have exceeded Orwell's wildest nightmares.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:2084? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll just end up with another batch of idiots that think it's an instruction manual.

    2. Re:2084? by L1mewater · · Score: 1
    3. Re:2084? by Lizzy_Bee · · Score: 1

      There is a very relevant line, in 'Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith', that both speaks to where we're headed as humans, as well as to the past (the rise of the pre-WWII Nazi party, and spoken by "Senator Padme Amidala..."So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." But, yes, I can see where George Orwell might be shocked at how short his future visions fell, as well as the same for Ray Bradbury ('Fahrenheit 451').

      --
      "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." -- Dr. Buckaroo Bonzai, PhD
  3. Re:He has a point by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    "Mäenranta is not worried about this being a violation of privacy, since people are already willingly tracked with smartphones, Google or Facebook."

    Slippery slope, indeed.

    Still, I'd argue that Google does not (yet) have the monopoly on legal use of force on their side.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Revelations 13:16-17:

    And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name...

    Just sayin', regardless of reality or fantasy, when your policy suggestion is basically the exact thing the devil does during the "end times," you might have a tough sell there.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Where have I heard this before... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Careful, you'll get the Rapturists all excited and checking their calenders.

    2. Re:Where have I heard this before... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Revelations 13:16-17:

      And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name...

      Just sayin', regardless of reality or fantasy, when your policy suggestion is basically the exact thing the devil does during the "end times," you might have a tough sell there.

      I'm not Christian, but I'm glad for that bit of prophesy. This type of thing is all about control. Imagine if you run afoul of the authorities and they are able to cut you off from society just by switching off your chip. It's the same reason I do not look forward to any "cashless" economy, though there are plenty of idiots who think it's a great idea. Once you have to go through an intermediary to conduct any transaction, they've got you by the balls.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:Where have I heard this before... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They said that about credit cards, which now even carry a chip.

    4. Re:Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Which is pretty sinful, IMO, thinking they can predict the end.

      Matthew 24:36:

      "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Where have I heard this before... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell, I don't like the idea of a cashless economy because it's dependent on too many active systems that all have to work for it to work. A simple power outage could prevent people from purchasing emergency supplies from their local grocery store, which could otherwise take cash, and could even go so far as to tabulate sales tax by hand or with the store's retail supply of battery-operated handheld calculators.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a lot of wisdom in the Bible, and other early church writings. Throw out the magic and it's the collection of stories about human nature and conflict written down over thousands of years by the people who had to figure out how human society can and should work. We take that knowledge for granted today, but these people had to figure it out for themselves. And people haven't changed that much.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize my VISA card was embedded in my skin by the state. TIL...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Where have I heard this before... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      http://www.christianmediaresea...

      This was actually a big part of the public mind way back when. Hell, Koreans still print that people who suffocated in their sleep happened to be next to an electric fan at the time....

    9. Re:Where have I heard this before... by juanfgs · · Score: 1

      So if we got one guy saying "Tomorrow the world will end" the judgement day will never come?

    10. Re:Where have I heard this before... by c · · Score: 1

      Just sayin', regardless of reality or fantasy, when your policy suggestion is basically the exact thing the devil does during the "end times," you might have a tough sell there.

      The obvious question being, how relevant is this particular bit of mythology to Finnish society? I don't have any strong insight into this... I understand that they're predominantly Christian, but I'd also expect that nations with a heavy socialist bent wouldn't be quite as ready to call their government an agent of the devil. How does the typical Finn interpret this particular passage of the bible?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:Where have I heard this before... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      To be honest, if the Devil does it and God doesn't, I rather side with The Devil. But that is just a personal preference (that will be downvoted by people who disagree with how I think.)

      This is a good point. If you've read your Bible, you see that God does a lot more horrible things to people than the Devil does.

      There is good reason to wonder about the other side of the story.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Where have I heard this before... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I may just have to rewatch Dogma this week.

    13. Re:Where have I heard this before... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I remember shopping when the power went out and the store handed out flashlights and calculators to the cashiers. That was back when everything had price tags.
      Last time I was shopping and the power went out, the cash registers kept working but went down one by one as the server started screwing up, gotta love Windows and the fact that they obviously hadn't tested enough.
      Even if the system hadn't started crashing, they only have so much time on their UPS and first thing they did was stop new customers from entering the store.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re:Where have I heard this before... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You're kind of idealising biblical societies there though - sure they worked, you can make almost anything work if you believe hard enough, but that doesn't make them optimal. Still, it's true that the bible contains quite a bit of actual history.

    15. Re:Where have I heard this before... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      To be honest, if the Devil does it and God doesn't, I rather side with The Devil. But that is just a personal preference (that will be downvoted by people who disagree with how I think.)

      This is a good point. If you've read your Bible, you see that God does a lot more horrible things to people than the Devil does.

      There is good reason to wonder about the other side of the story.

      What are you talking about? So you are now blaming god for the actions of man?

      You atheists are hilarious. The devil destroyed our relationship with god and each other.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    16. Re:Where have I heard this before... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Those things came to pass when the Romans destroyed the second temple.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Where have I heard this before... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Such as:

      Never cut your hair.

      Never wear cloths made of more than one fiber.

      Never have a man answer to a woman.

      Don't go near a woman on the rag until she stops bleeding and has been to the ritual bath.

      Why do god botherers cherry pick the few rules that turned out to be good ideas and ignore all the others?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Where have I heard this before... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? So you are now blaming god for the actions of man?

      Well, He created us in his image, didn't he? So yeah, it's on Him.

      You atheists are hilarious.

      I'm not an atheist.

      The devil destroyed our relationship with god and each other.

      Yes, by eating an apple and having sex. What a childish and limited view of God you have. Big Voice In The Sky who will destroy His relationship with you if you happen to do what He created you to do. That's what you get for basing your entire understanding of God on second and third-hand sources.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Where have I heard this before... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not if we put it on their left hand.

    20. Re:Where have I heard this before... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the Son of God is God, how can the Son not know?

      That seems to break the Trinity.

      What's funny is that nearly every generation has thought theirs to be the last for millenia. The disciples thought the second-coming would be within their life times. Repeat for another 100 generations.

      More recently, people thought the world would end through nukes, AI, global warming, disasters, zombies, or any of a variety of other things. But every generation hates their kids and every generation thinks they are last.

    21. Re:Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      50% of those are pretty good.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    22. Re:Where have I heard this before... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You're asking for logic from religion? Really?
      The post you're replying to says only the father knows. The trinity relation is: The son is not the father. The father is not the holy ghost. The holy ghost is not the son. The son is god. The father is god. The holy ghost is god.

      Thus does Christianity deny the transitive property of equality. It would be more fun if they also denied the reflexive property, but perhaps that would be too much for even a religious mind.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    23. Re:Where have I heard this before... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      There is controversy as to whether the number is 666 or 616.

      Your body will likely reject it as a foreign object at some point and will flush it out soon thereafter.

      The RFID chip will be inserted under your skin, likely in a place where you can't remove it without a surgeon, who will be subject to severe government punishment if he does so. If it's not in your digestive tract, it's not going to be flushed out.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:Where have I heard this before... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm not asking anything of religion. Just pointing out a gap and seeing if it's as obvious to others as it seemed to me.

      The Son is God. God is all knowing. The Son doesn't know when Armageddon is. I don't care if it doesn't make sense. Just making sure my understanding is correct (or if not correct, at least logical).

    25. Re:Where have I heard this before... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's part of the "mystery of faith." Here's an apologetic. Scroll down to "Reason and Supernatural Mystery."

      You've heard this same line of thought before in scientific contexts and probably agreed with it. For instance, you'll hear an astronomer offer a solution to the Fermi Paradox, that the alien activity is going on right in front of our faces (cosmically) but we can't comprehend it, any more than an ant understands that its hill is next to an interstate highway.

      Or wave/particle duality. How can something be both a particle and a wave? You can get a glimpse of an idea (but this is only a metaphor to help understanding. There is no intuition in quantum mechanics). Take a cylinder and place it between a light source and the wall, and point one of the round surfaces at the light. Now look at the wall. What do you see? A circle. Now rotate the cylinder 90 degree on its axis. Now look at the wall. What do you see? A rectangle. So which is it? A circle, or a rectangle? It's both and neither, much like the way the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one God, but distinct from each other.

      Our vision of God is like a dim view of a more perfect geometry.

      So, you're right. It is a gap in our understanding, but it's not because we're too dumb to understand that. We're very well aware of it. But we recognize that there are things we do not understand, and things we can probably never understand, in the same way an ant will never understand us.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    26. Re:Where have I heard this before... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? So you are now blaming god for the actions of man?

      Well, He created us in his image, didn't he? So yeah, it's on Him.

      You atheists are hilarious.

      I'm not an atheist.

      The devil destroyed our relationship with god and each other.

      Yes, by eating an apple and having sex. What a childish and limited view of God you have. Big Voice In The Sky who will destroy His relationship with you if you happen to do what He created you to do. That's what you get for basing your entire understanding of God on second and third-hand sources.

      The irony of your statements are delicious. The manuscripts of the new testament are close enough to the generation of people who would have witnessed the events that we should conclude that the first copies were written down within a decade or two from those events either by the witnesses themselves or by a scribe transcribing their testimonies. We also have the epistle letters to the churches written by the apostles themselves to congregations around asia minor. Name any other faith where manuscripts exist from within a century of the events described let alone decades. The epistle letters again where written within a decade of the start of the church.

      The reason why I say the irony is delicious is that you seem to have missed the fundamental theme of the bible where we are called to approach god as his children. That requires you to not approach god like this "Hi God, this is George here and I think I have most of my stuff under control myself and I just need a favour from you....". God is not our butler, our next door neighbour we borrow garden tool from or anything else like that. The fact that we can approach god as his children is a gift of grace.

      The bible account does not specifically call the fruit out as an apple and sex in the garden is something that you have interpreted. The account seems to indicate that they suddenly became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves not that they jumped each others bones. They were hiding from God when he came into the garden looking for them. They were in a state of shock.

      You see, they had lost their innocence and they realized that they broke the one rule that god had given them and that brought them shame. That act of broken trust caused a rift between man and god that god himself had to come down to fix.

      I think you need to go back and reread the bible. It is a story about the creator trying to have a relationship with his creation like a father tries to have a relationship with his prodigal son.

      The story of the prodigal son illustrates how God feels about us.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    27. Re:Where have I heard this before... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The manuscripts of the new testament are close enough to the generation of people who would have witnessed the events that we should conclude that the first copies were written down within a decade or two from those events either by the witnesses themselves or by a scribe transcribing their testimonies. We also have the epistle letters to the churches written by the apostles themselves to congregations around asia minor.

      Paul was not an apostle.

      The reason why I say the irony is delicious is that you seem to have missed the fundamental theme of the bible where we are called to approach god as his children.

      Again, you're using second and third hand sources. Is "close enough" really close enough for you to base your entire understanding of your god?

      The bible account does not specifically call the fruit out as an apple and sex in the garden is something that you have interpreted. The account seems to indicate that they suddenly became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves not that they jumped each others bones. They were hiding from God when he came into the garden looking for them. They were in a state of shock.

      That account isn't just second hand, but at best 30th-hand. How many generations passed between Adam and Eve and the first written accounts?

      I think you need to go back and reread the bible. It is a story about the creator trying to have a relationship with his creation like a father tries to have a relationship with his prodigal son.

      At least you admit to basing your entire understanding of a higher power on a "story".

      The story of the prodigal son illustrates how God feels about us.

      Not a story...a "parable". Written by a Greek physician who was no where near Jesus. The parable appears only in Luke, and Luke was a disciple of Paul, who himself was nowhere near Jesus or the apostles. So Luke is at best maybe four times removed from any of the things he wrote about. Is that "close enough" for you to base your entire understanding of your deity?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Social problem, technological solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're smarter than that, Finland.

    1. Re:Social problem, technological solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Wasn't this the country which suggested calling emergency services if an Uber car is met?

  6. WHICH candidates? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> (ID chipping) might be a popular idea with some U.S. presidential candidates, too

    Do you have something to back that up? Did the Clintons go on the record back in the Hillarycare days on this or something?

    1. Re:WHICH candidates? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Which party enacts policies that place more government control over people's lives? Answer this and you'll have the answer to your own question.

      So, both of them?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:WHICH candidates? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Well, all of them except the Libertarians and Anarchists. And I'm not sure I believe those two actually exist.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:WHICH candidates? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Correct. We have a winner.

    4. Re:WHICH candidates? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Absurd overreach. An ID card need not have any appreciable cost. Poll taxes and the like have already been ruled out. Try again.

    5. Re:WHICH candidates? by dywolf · · Score: 2

      You must be talking about Republicans.

      You know, the ones who keep trying to dictate the lives of those who receive public benefits, telling them which food to buy ('they bought expensive meat!"), controlling their sex lives ("stop having so many kids....but don't contraception or get an abortion!"), and telling them how they don't deserve a minimum wage ("you don't deserve to live outside of poverty and out of the street!! but you stould still get an education you cant afford and pick yourself up by your bootstraps!"), trying to keep them voting ("a day off to vote? this isn't a democracy!"), and so forth.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:WHICH candidates? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which party enacts policies that place more government control over people's lives?

      There was one senator who voted against the Patriot Act, and it was not a Republican.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:WHICH candidates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So tell me which party voted 100% to compel Americans to buy a contract from private companies under penalty of fines? Which party voted 100% against this? Which party lied their ass off about the results it would have? If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It will not add a thin dime to the deficit. The average family will save $2,500 per year. There are no death panels. Etc. Is this ringing any bells? Which party is illegally regulating CO2 as a pollutant? Anyone who believes there is a spit of difference between the two major parties is delusional. This is why conservatives are in open rebellion against the establishment republicans.

    8. Re:WHICH candidates? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you're right it shouldn't.
      that hasn't stopped them though.

      you and those like you seem totally unaware that even a 25$ fee for a drivers license can be out of people's reach.

      they also rather conveniently tend to ignore the hidden costs of obtaining such ID, such as taking the day off (days they frequently either don't get, and cant afford to take without pay), bussing across town (my experience being Atlanta, where they oh so conveniently have been shutting down both state ID issuers and polling places in or near the poorer neighborhoods, requiring travel clear cross town (which means either multiple bus changes and a couple hours each way, or at least one incident of being pulled over for a totally random fishing expedition I mean investigatory stop that never seems to happen to other 'certain' folks)), or in some places even across a significant portion of the state (west texas comes to mind).

      it's only an overreach if you're ignorant of the trouble getting these ID's can pose for people. which means it's not an overreach at all.

      it bears repeating: the fact that proving someone's ID in order to vote is tends to be a burden on low income voters and minorities, and almost no one else, is not a bug, but a wholly intended feature of these laws.

      if these people actually wanted voter ID for ID sake, and no other ulterior purpose, ID's would be completely free, and obtainable by and thru the mail, or similar method. (ignoring for the moment that voter registration cards are already typically obtainable via mail, and really, is all the proof of unique identity that should be required any way)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:WHICH candidates? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Here in Canada the Conservatives passed the "Fair Elections Act" which mandates official ID with your current address on it. $75 for my wife who has lots of official ID but not with her address (previously she'd just show a bill with her name and address). This also disenfranchises people without a numbered address such as natives on their reservations, students who are living somewhere for a few years while attending university and others.
      They also used the act to take away much of Elections Canada investigative powers for fraud such as the robot calls they previously got busted for, going over spending limits that they keep getting busted for and changed a few other things so they can subvert our attempt at election financial reform, putting the costs on the taxpayer as the right loves to do while trumpeting that they don't.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:WHICH candidates? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      So the Democrats don't want to tell me I can't have a firearm, that I must have health insurance, that I can or can't do business with Cuba or Iran... You see? It's both major parties that are statist and controlling. They just keep people divided over which parts of your life they want to control more. If you want less control over your life exercised by the state, try the Libertarians.

    11. Re:WHICH candidates? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      Yes, Feinstein just wants to tax your firearms, not ban them completely. Keep telling yourself that.

    12. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      exactly, thank you

      republican efforts to disenfranchise the poor shows who and what they really stand for, and it's not the american people

      soon enough though enough of the old assholes will die off, and not even gerrymandering will save them

      in the 2014 midterms we see a "celebration" of republicans taking many congressional seats, and hand wringing about how and why democrats don't vote in the midterms

      funny thing is though, millions of more democrats voted in the midterms than republicans. but they were all concentrated in democratic districts. only gerrymandering saved the republicans

      it gets to the point though that no matter how crazy and convoluted you draw the districts, no insane shape will preserve that precious 51% majority

      gerrymandering and disenfranchising poor voters is all the ideologically bankrupt party has left on their side

      simple demographic inevitability points to their long term decline

      soon enough though they will abandon their ignorant social conservative wedge issues and act like they were always the republican party of women's reproductive rights and gay marriage and marijuana legalization and reigning in police abuse of minorities and gun control. memory is short in politics

      necessity will force the republican party of the future to abandon all the ignorant screeching of the republicans of today

      tick tock, tick tock

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, that is the ignorant propaganda they use to sell their poor-hating initiative. nicely regurgitated, good little partisan tool

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:WHICH candidates? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      For completeness, in the House there were 66 Nay votes. 59 were from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, and 4 others.

    15. Re:WHICH candidates? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If your take away from that is that one (probably your) party is better than the other and not that they're both incredibly shit, you're kidding yourself as much as the person you're responding to.

    16. Re:WHICH candidates? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      If illegals voted 80% for Rs, the Ds would seal the border tomorrow.

    17. Re:WHICH candidates? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I kinda feel that people who owe their livelihood to the people do have to justify it. If you're going to expect citizens to pay for a welfare state, they'll have to follow the rules. If they don't want to, they can take care of themselves like the rest of us have the liberty to do.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:WHICH candidates? by hendrips · · Score: 2

      Most of Europe requires photo ID to vote, or require documentation that would be needed to get a photo ID. I know Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland all require photo ID or similar documentation to vote. I somehow doubt that all of these countries have fallen victim to a nefarious Republican plot to disenfranchise the poor. Only in the U.S. is it controversial to require an ID to vote.

    19. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      illegals voting has never, ever been a problem that ever swayed any contest ever. it's a completely made up issue. so republicans can fake the fear, to push for laws that restrict poor people from voting

      but keep on with your ignorant hysteria. you are the republican party: dumb and angry about stupid fears

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:WHICH candidates? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US but in Ontario if you don't want a driver's license then you can get a photo ID from the provincial government for $35 that is valid for five years. You still have to go and get your picture taken but you don't have to write the first test and then take the practical driving tests which means that you don't need access to a car.

    21. Re:WHICH candidates? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...good little partisan tool

      Oh do tell!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:WHICH candidates? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Don't be a moron. State IDs are free. At least the last one I had was. And leave your silly partisanship at home!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the id cards are a lot more time and money than just $5 bucks

      you can't just make shit up, that makes your opinion invalid

      it's an impediment to the poor, the Republicans know that. the Republicans are trying to keep the poor from voting

      voter fraud by illegals has never, never been an issue in any election ever in the USA

      it's just made up crap fearmongering hysteria to hurt real Americans. but since Republican ideology just boils down to "rich? we love you! you can do no wrong! poor? hurry up and die you piece of shit" then it tracks

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    24. Re:WHICH candidates? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      OK, then maybe you can tell us why BHO is so intent on enabling illegal immigration. It couldn't be to solve the problems of teenage unemployment, prison overcrowding, or crime. In your response, please clarify why you think it is that BHO sues states that pass immigration laws identical to federal laws, refuses to enforce federal laws, has pulled ICE off large swaths of the border, and refuses to prosecute sanctuary cities.

    25. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      http://today.law.harvard.edu/w...

      as for your #2, that's ignorant hate. you imagine the motivations of people you dislike. you're the problem, to arrogantly assume that, makes you a worse kind of person than what you describe

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    26. Re:WHICH candidates? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Typical Alinskyite. Responds to serious questions with ridicule. See Rule #5. Fail.

    27. Re:WHICH candidates? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, that is just the noisy Libertarians. Most of as quite sane (though we may smoke weed). The ashamed Republicans have taken over the party. Most of us believe in moderation and that Ayn Rand was a moron.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:WHICH candidates? by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      No, you are the moron if you think borders don't matter. You hide behind cynicism and ridicule as if they make you sound intelligent. They don't. You sound childish. Grow up.

    29. Re:WHICH candidates? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      And which party killed off all the other, better options besides that corporatist farce or leaving the broken corporatist farce we already had in place? Which party first rolled out such a system on the state level (in MA) almost a decade ago?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    30. Re:WHICH candidates? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      No, you are the moron if you think borders don't matter.

      where did i say that retard? can you tell the difference between the real people you are talking to and what they say, and the scary bogeymen that only exist in your head?

      of course not, you're a low iq crackpot

      herp derp herp derp

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    31. Re: WHICH candidates? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's been a very long time. I don't remember paying for my plain old state ID. I guess the service is just one of those things we let slip through. Now, proving residence, that's more fun...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    32. Re:WHICH candidates? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You broke my heart, you cheat! I thought you only trolled me!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    33. Re:WHICH candidates? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A birth certificate in your hand proves that you have a birth certificate in your hand. It doesn't prove that it's yours. Voter fraud is a severe problem and Democrats are its master practitioners.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    34. Re:WHICH candidates? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you're too fucking lazy to get a voter ID you shouldn't be voting. You also shouldn't be eating, you're a drag on humanity.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:WHICH candidates? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      voter fraud by illegals has never, never been an issue in any election ever in the USA

      I suppose it's possible that you're ignorant and naive, but it's far more likely that you're a malicious liar.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:WHICH candidates? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The phenomenon of blacks voting for Obama because he's black is already well documented.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    37. Re:WHICH candidates? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      $75 here in BC, and they've closed down most of the Motor Vehicle offices so you have to go a ways to get it. For my wife, who has good Federal ID, I have to take a day of off work to drive her ($20 in gas thanks to $1.38 a litre gas here) in to get the Provincial ID so she can vote in the election in October.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    38. Re: WHICH candidates? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Yes. #blackhandsmatter #allhandsmatter

      Firearm safety and marksmanship should be in the schools. My state made me learn to polka and square dance in physical education class. When the hell is that going to be useful?

  7. Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 1

    There are much easier ways to make the welfare system well financed and sustainable than to get a chip into people.
    This seems to be a non sequitur argument which is set to frame the political discussion in a way that it becomes a legitimate policy option.

    1. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a non sequitur argument which is set to frame the political discussion in a way that it becomes a legitimate policy option.

      Yeah, that's the idea. This type of thing will be sold as either a security measure (as in this case) or a convenience feature.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I've already developed a superior welfare system for America that would terminate poverty and permanently baseline our economic growth somewhere about where it sat during the 90s, with all that rapid growth from computers uncorking all production bottlenecks. I wonder if Finland, Norway, or some other rich countries have the economic basis to successfully implement such a system; in America, it reached cost-parity with our current system in 2013 (I projected all the way back to 1950, which is hilarious: 1.5% of our total individual and business income went to welfare back then, while my system would have cost 120%-135%; in 2013, the numbers were 17.2% and 17%).

      I don't imagine you could rubber-stamp my system across the globe, but I also can't imagine what differing risks would impact various countries. I've made my system generically stable, but I'm American and only have America as the generic model.

    3. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by fnj · · Score: 1

      Well. Are you keeping your system a secret or something? Do you want payment? Otherwise, where's the link to an exposition?

    4. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Less secret and more that people don't listen. Politicians want a token to get votes; everyone else wants humanitarian efforts--meaning they want funding backed by carbon credits or whatnot, they want to give everyone $4000 for every child they birth, and they want to pay people enough money to live *comfortably* (i.e. $20,000 per person) so that nobody has to work anymore. I've had so many arguments with people who imagine everything will go exactly the way they want, while I'm here slimming down risks and designing systems that can't possibly fail because failure only means success in a different way--or, at the absolute worst, minor butthurt as things become slightly worse due to such things as people (and businesses) not actually caring about making a profit.

      Anyway, it's just a vanilla Citizen's Dividend. The absolute simple explanation is an expansion of Social Security to cover everyone over age 18, natural-born, resident, American citizen. The total payout over a lifetime is such that saving each deposit until retirement nets you the average Social Security income for the rest of your life; more importantly, I've computed the profitable market prices for housing (rent), food, clothing, utilities, and so forth, and scaled it appropriately to the single individual. In 2013, that's actually under $600/month--it's actually *well* under $600/month, but I've scaled everything to risk coverage, padding up $224/mo rent to $300/mo, padding up $35/mo food (largely beans and rice, with chicken 2-3 days per week, plus some cheap vegetables) to $100/mo, and so forth. There's an 8% pad on top the whole lot (I would prefer 15%).

      It's entirely flat income tax funded, with a 17% fixed target. Over time, total income increases, and so it tracks inflation; but total buying power also increases (wealth increases--I'm writing an economic paper on this, which means I actually have to read up on economics), so the quality-of-life and the stability of the dividend increases for each year beyond 2013. I'm much more comfortable at the 2018 implementation timeline than I am at 2013. Obviously, some misguided plans to fund by carbon taxes will fall flat when people start mass moving to renewables--the people proposing such plans are hoping for exactly that change, yet have not considered the money needed to support the poor will vanish as their goals are met; they won't fucking listen to me.

      The target plan is all natural-born, resident, American citizens over the age of 18. This avoids a gold rush influx of immigration for free money, while ensuring anyone neither living in America (and under taxation) nor deployed in America's military is ineligible for benefits. A lot of people want to give $4,000 per child as well; this is a bad idea. To provide an income per child adequate for the welfare of the child, you must figure out what most (e.g. 99.7%) families require to raise a child to 17, and provide that. Besides the obvious ups and downs of costs during life (and hand-me-down clothes for that second and so forth child), that means the great majority of families get more money than they need--meaning popping out welfare babies is profitable. I suggest instead a risk control of simply letting states scale down their welfare systems until they're just providing food stamps, unemployment, and HUD vouchers to immigrants and families; but people are vehement about thinking of teh chlidren.

      I also want to repeal minimum wage. This plus moving OASDI to an income tax funding a dividend reduces the cost of labor dramatically: although individuals have strong negotiating power and can simply not work, they already have life and livelihood coming to them regardless; wages are additional. They can accept wages justly compensating them for their work, without first thinking about the desperation to live; these wages, often, will be smaller, but not so small as to constitute an unacceptable and unfair exchange between parties. Reducing labor costs causes the cycle of wealth to accelerate, and also slo

    5. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its probably based on a negative income tax, which I support so long as its tied with a flat tax rate.

      Key advantages include no need for minimum wage laws (the one and only exemption is a disincentive against low wages), is automatically progressive, is dead-simple, and eliminates the need for welfare programs.

      The only tunable parameters are the tax rate, the exemption amount, and the exemption rate. This of course doesnt allow politicians to reward and/or punish, so they will never support it without corrupting it with additional shit.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I never hear anyone advocating GMI or your version of it address the pathologies that come with people not having to work for a living. You don't forsee any unintended consequences/social pathologies with this plan?

    7. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you're asking if people will decide to take the easy life, the answer is the obvious yes. People chose to steal, to prostitute, and to knowingly market pseudoscientific bullshit to con people out of their money.

      All of these problems, while annoying, are minimal. Unemployment is currently 5.3%; while of course 3% deciding simply to not work will have severe economic effects, a sufficiently small number will be less likely to cause dearth of employment in whole markets. That is to say: were we faced with 5.3% unemployment, 0.3% of which is just people who are satisfied with next to nothing but survival, we wouldn't find New York, Baltimore, or San Francisco completely devoid of hirable labor, and so would only transfer jobs to people who are seeking work. If we faced 5.3% unemployment and 4% had decided that jobs are for chumps... well, we may have some trouble in the labor market.

      Predictably, people want more. I made, under unemployment income, a wage of equivalently $10.50/hr--$420 per month. Were I to take a wage of $10.75/hr working for Federal Express, I would essentially work for 40 hours per week at a wage of 25 cents--not working, I had made $10.50, and now, working, I make $10.75. While I do want more than unemployment ... I'm not working for a quarter an hour.

      By the same token, my Citizen's Dividend--not simply a guaranteed minimum income, which may draw away when you cross that minimum on your own means (e.g. if unemployment, above, would continue to pay me $2.50/hr if I got an $8/hr job at McDonalds)--keeps paying when you're Warren Buffet, with no increase or reduction. If someone were willing to pay $5/hr, well, that's $5/hr more than I have now, isn't it? Capsules and glorified hotel rooms are spartan living quarters, after all; and we all wish to live as kings, vacationing in our mountain retreats for the three-day memorial weekend once per year to demonstrate how rugged we are without actually having to live like the cretins at Sparta... or was it the Spartans at Crete?

      As to your question, then, I see people refusing to work if you try to compensate them $2/hr for hard labor. They may accept $4/hr or $6/hr or whatever to lounge around in an air conditioned room operating a cash register and smiling at idiots; they probably won't take $6/hr to do grunt labor shoveling heavy gravel across an open field in the burning hot sun for 10 hours per day, because fuck you, pay me. I see them commanding more negotiating power, but not foregoing work; thus I see the repeal of minimum wage as a way to avoid published standards of fairness (shoveling rocks is a minimum-wage job, after all... isn't minimum wage "fair"? This is one of the most powerful negotiating tactics available), driving wages closer to fair--down in many cases of light, low-stress, comfortable tasks, up in cases of strenuous and dangerous labor.

      To go further, into secondary effects, statistics claim 92% of female prostitutes protest they would get out of prostitution if only they had enough money to live and work. I don't believe this for a second; I do believe they got into prostitution due to desperate need for survival. I entreat you imagine the next generation of women without that driving need, and how it would impact their likelihood to sell themselves as a commodity. The statistics claim 40% of New York prostitutes start as children, with the average age of prostitution beginning at 14--which means a lot of 12-year-old hookers on the streets somewhere.

      The blacks need as much food as whites and asians; I'm not sure about Mexicans, since they're so small. In any case, you can't very well point at blacks and claim welfare abuse and shit when they get exactly the same monthly deposit a middle-class white man gets. Someone, once, asked me what specific steps I took to address racial inequality in my plan; I spent several long seconds confused at the

    8. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I made, under unemployment income, a wage of equivalently $10.50/hr--$420 per month.

      Per week. Holy fuck.

    9. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the least concerned of the cost of feeding people. Housing, even, probably isn't *that* bad to pay for. The problem is that income doesn't actually equate to people choosing to raise children properly. To not abuse them, do drugs while they're pregnant, make sure they go to school, and what not. I raise the point because of what my wife saw while working in a poor school district. Basic civilized behavior seems to go by the wayside for a high enough percentage of a community that already gets food and housing. When it goes by the wayside, the criminal behavior becomes incredibly expensive.

      I just see GMI as a subsidy for breeding criminality into a greater and greater portion of the population.

    10. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The problem is that income doesn't actually equate to people choosing to raise children properly. To not abuse them, do drugs while they're pregnant, make sure they go to school, and what not.

      Can't do much about that through financial policy; you need direct social policy for that.

      I just see GMI as a subsidy for breeding criminality into a greater and greater portion of the population.

      This is why I reject the prospect of paying a cash benefit for having children in your household. An EBT system doesn't relieve a parent of an expense when they have children; it provides funds to offset the new expense. Granted, the same problem arises: the EBT must allow for mismanagement (waste of food) and market fluctuations, meaning people can buy food and feed themselves *and* their kids, opening their budget a bit; and I only recognize that impact as smaller than simply forking over a cash benefit, wholly restricted to the size of the basic food costs. Still, it is no more risk than we carry now; and we must do something for the general welfare in such cases.

      The fact of the matter is people have two great imperatives: providing for themselves and providing for their children. It is an abuse to call the lawless behavior of a person whose children are starving "criminal", because what the fuck do you expect a person to do? They will do anything they can to feed themselves, to ensure their own life and safety; many persons will step in to protect children in general; and even so, a great many people will cut *other* families's children's throats by their own hands if it will protect their own starving children.

      These are fortunate facts of life, as, annoying as they may be to reason, they produce the social infrastructure which allows humans to accomplish great things. Without these impulses and imperatives, all humans would be casual criminals, ready to lie, cheat, steal, and murder at will for the simple pleasure of improving their own lot by a tiny margin. Without the impulse to form gradually stronger social groups--nations, communities, interest groups, allies, friends, and family--we would see the routine exploitation of everyone, up to and including a high incidence of fathers routinely raping their daughters (and their friends) the moment puberty sets in.

      Given that in consideration, you must recognize that pressures placed upon a person's survival or the well-being of his children breed socially destructive behavior not unlike crime, behavior which we can only labor to call crime by denying our own moral imperatives. For all your observations--which, I suspect, are confounded by many things, between circumstance and common distorted thinking--you cannot deny the effect desperation for survival of self and kin have on an individual.

    11. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by digsbo · · Score: 1

      It is an abuse to call the lawless behavior of a person whose children are starving "criminal", because what the fuck do you expect a person to do?

      I'm not talking about people stealing to buy food. That, as far as I know, doesn't happen very much. People steal to buy themselves drugs, but I'm talking about gross child abuse, negligence, or general violence in and around the home, or having additional children in a "home" that's already damaging children on a daily basis.

    12. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about people stealing to buy food. That, as far as I know, doesn't happen very much.

      I was highlighting the counterpoint, the need for welfare. With modern welfare, 49.1 million Americans still go without adequate food; we have 320 million Americans, meaning a full 15% frequently struggle to find enough to eat. This is a very real problem, the solving of which has very real benefits; your concerns are simply the supposed side-effects of solving this problem.

      I'm talking about gross child abuse, negligence, or general violence in and around the home, or having additional children in a "home" that's already damaging children on a daily basis.

      That's all stuff you can't really do much about without good, strong social policy. Back in the 50s, we still had PSAs and stuff, pushing our moral agenda on society; today, we do none of that, which means we don't show people what we think a good household looks like.

      If only the state sent out pamphlets and video and announcements on good parenting, attacking solid issues like maximizing cohesion between parents and children so your kids don't piss you off so much by acting like little motherfuckers, or improving their academic performance so their teachers stop fucking calling you all the damn time, or keeping them engaged in a positive social atmosphere so the police stop coming to your house and charging you fines, we might encourage little changes that give big effects.

      At the very least, we could make parents more self-conscious about the judgment of their peers about their parenting.

      I've been working on educational policies which should sharply reduce these problems in the next generation. I took a prior position of modifying school districts based on local need; while I don't retract that position, I think we can safely de-emphasize it, as I've determined the strategies which most help those students in the poorest districts also greatly improve the academic performance of those students in the most financially secure districts.

      Most of the stuff I'd want to implement to bring students in poor, black, inner-city ghettos would raise students in white upper-middle-class suburbs up to a higher standard, as well, most likely elevating both in total to the same level of performance--the poor by a much larger degree from where they start, of course, due to the factors you cite. I believe it's environment, and not breeding; I simply wish to transfer the advantages of a better environment to all students.

      All of this, of course, would require one to two generations to catch on. Those students already past the early grades would miss this benefit, and grow up status quo; those students entering would become the new parents, 30 years later, mixing their kids with half a generation of kids living in educationally-disadvantaged households, themselves receiving the same remedy as the new generation of parents. It won't fix everything, but it should help immensely.

      You realize, of course, that all this--the new welfare system, the new education system, and so forth--is really the most effective way to destroy America, right? Can you imagine the repercussions of a truly free population, of every human being set on the firm ground of extremely rough survival and the maximum utility of their brains? Either of those is dangerous; combine the ability to fall back to an unpleasant but survivable position with the full knowledge and skill of employing the brain as a powerful tool to its maximum potential and you have the most tactically-dangerous threat any country has ever faced. America has shaped itself around a core of exploiting the desperate and stupid; that will one day prove impossible. Forever.

    13. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by digsbo · · Score: 1

      If only the state sent out pamphlets and video and announcements on good parenting, attacking solid issues like maximizing cohesion between parents and children so your kids don't piss you off so much by acting like little motherfuckers, or improving their academic performance so their teachers stop fucking calling you all the damn time, or keeping them engaged in a positive social atmosphere so the police stop coming to your house and charging you fines, we might encourage little changes that give big effects.

      At the very least, we could make parents more self-conscious about the judgment of their peers about their parenting.

      In the current culture, it's not even permitted to plainly point out that kids from lower SES do better when they spend more time at school, but kids from higher SES don't need more school time. The code phrase in the psychological studies is "more research is needed".

      I don't know what you think of political correctness or cultural sensitivity, but when it's verboten to plainly speak the truth in psychology and the social sciences, I don't know what kind of message to make parents "more self-conscious" you think you'd be able to send - it's almost delusional to think you wouldn't be met with a cry of "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!".

      Not that I disagree with the idea of actually telling people "Breeding and not caring for children properly is totally unacceptable." I just don't think there's much realism in thinking you're going to be allowed to A) pay for that behavior, and B) dictate social norms.

    14. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Mass-mailing can have a neutral, helpful tone that allows people to shift the focus off themselves, and judge others. That gets the speaker out of the hot seat.

      I was, mostly, citing a problem. Education systems are easier to fix, except politicians don't want to--if you go from 40% success to 85% success, you get 100% media coverage on the 15% of students failing, and their parents claiming your new education system fucked them all up.

    15. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by digsbo · · Score: 1

      You think mass-mailings are an effective way to communicate with parents who abuse or neglect their kids? Have you dealt with dysfunctional families in any clinical or direct service setting?

    16. Re:Cue to convenient policy to control the masses by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's called "propaganda" and it has a stronger preventative mechanism than effective mechanism. It weakly moves people toward whatever the propaganda indicates; new generations form habits following the propaganda more readily.

      Really, part of the problem is everyone wants a panacea for everything. Democrats r ebil, republercans r teh devilz, etc. If we just taught computers in school, all kids would become brilliant, they'd all get jobs as computer programmers, and they'd develop logical reasoning skills to save themselves from politicians. So on and so forth everyone get free college.

      Things aren't done by halves; they're done by tiny little building blocks, grains of sand that eventually form Arrakis.

  8. I'm all for chipping politicians by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    Especially US presidential candidates....

    --PM

    1. Re:I'm all for chipping politicians by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Can we connect the chips to a mild electric shocker. Each person would be able to administer a shock to a candidate, but the amount would be barely detectable. When you get enough people together, though, you could cause the candidate some major discomfort. Did Candidate X just insult all women? He's going to be feeling some serious voltage tonight!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:I'm all for chipping politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is everyone is so easily offended that anyone implanted with your shock chip would be fried in seconds.

    3. Re:I'm all for chipping politicians by TWX · · Score: 1

      Heh. OT, but I found it amusing that when Jeb Bush spoke against Donald Trump's derogatory comments, he cited women as 53% of the voters, using the number like it was a significant minority when it's actually the majority.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Which presidential candidates? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a parallel system might be a popular idea with some U.S. presidential candidates, too.

    I'm genuinely curious. I know the knee-jerk reaction is going to be "Teh Republicanz!", but I haven't heard any suggestion from any Dem or Rep that they want to introduce this. National ID cards? Sure, there are some politicians spouting that, but chipping people like dogs is a step beyond that.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  10. Moo? (is that enough o's?) by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Wait...are you implying that chips are for cows?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Moo? (is that enough o's?) by TWX · · Score: 1

      Maybe the AC that has been posting that can't bring himself to continue when reality becomes more ridiculous than this appeal to the absurd...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Moo? (is that enough o's?) by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What does it say about slashdot that a recurring offtopic post has almost become an site-local meme?

      I have an idea, but I can't think of how to describe it without invoking another meme that involves sharks and jumping over them.

    3. Re:Moo? (is that enough o's?) by TWX · · Score: 1

      Compared to so many horrible recurring spam offtopic posts the cow one is almost a breath of fresh air.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  11. Pedophiles also by Yoda222 · · Score: 3, Funny

    He is using several arguments: we could track terrorists (== people going to Syria), we could find easily people in natural catastrophes. I think he missed one of the advantages. If everyone, including children, has a gps chip, and the data about location is stored for a reasonable amount of time (let's say 50 years, but more is possible) we will be able to find possible pedophiles if a children complains, even 50 years later!

    1. Re:Pedophiles also by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 2

      This Exactly. Implant always-on tracking devices under everybody's skin because think of the children.

    2. Re:Pedophiles also by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

      Bible allows men to marry female children, including via force.

      Deuteronomy ch 22, v 28-29, hebrew.

      Ofcourse the cunt politician would be for the chips and against the pedos.

      This culture needs to be overthrown.

      What crack are you smoking? It says that if a man sleeps with a virgin and they are found out, he has to pay the family reparations, marry her and never divorce her. That implies that he is not only has to pay money as penalty but loses the right to refuse marriage to her and the right to divorce her at at later time.

      I don't think you understand the context of that scenario. Men were allowed to divorce their wives and women had few rights in that society. A divorced woman was extremely vulnerable economically.

      That guy is held accountable for that woman/girl for the rest of his life. They did not have a welfare state back then.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  12. Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom - Finland Ed. by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    While Marlin Perkins sits back in his Mutual of Omaha office, Jim Fowler is out in the helicopter shooting herds of Finns with tranquillizer darts and tagging them with chips after they collapse.

    Way to treat people like animals. Why don't we just tattoo them, and make them wear armbands? Oh wait...

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  13. True Finn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Finns Party (this is the current English name of the party!) politicians are notorious for posting stupid shit on Facebook. A few weeks ago one of their politician declared a "war on multiculturalism" on saturday wee hours and that caused a fucking massive controversy and spawned demonstrations.

    The Finns party are known for their radical stances on various subjects, so this should be considered too when evaluating these posts.

    1. Re:True Finn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A few weeks ago one of their politician declared a "war on multiculturalism" on saturday wee hours and that caused a fucking massive controversy and spawned demonstrations.

      Here is the particular post in Facebook.

    2. Re:True Finn by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      So you're saying he just wants to make sure he only has true believer followers from the pure chosen ancestry? Got it. Is there a special salute and a secret police?

  14. Oblig. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    And so it begins.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  15. Just don't give benefits to non-residents by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    My Citizen's Dividend plan has the following eligibility: all natural-born, resident, American citizens over the age of 18 receive the full Dividend.

    If you weren't born here, you don't get it. This prevents an influx of gold-digging first-generation immigrants from coming to America for the free money.

    If you aren't living in America, its territories, its military bases, its naval ships, or in active military deployment, you're not resident and you don't get shit. You left the country; we'll pay you to come back.

    Kids don't get shit, either.

    The primary risk control of the second-generation risks is a vestigial legacy welfare system: although unemployment, HUD vouchers, and food stamps mainly go away (and Social Security effectively expands), a tiny portion of those state-run welfare systems (probably consolidated into a single department, since even die hard bureaucrats aren't that ridiculous) remains running to provide welfare services to immigrants and families. This avoids paying everyone $4000 per year per child, which would have to be more money than 99% of families strictly need per child, meaning 99% of families have more spending money if they pop out welfare babies; the legacy systems hand out shit like EBT, so you can buy your kid food while we don't give you extra money for video games and drugs.

    Why pay your citizens when they're not resident? If they're not resident, you shouldn't tax them; if you're not taxing their income--that is, if they both have income *and* aren't subjected to taxation--why are you providing them benefits? I write the social contract quite fragile, so you don't get benefit even if you're taxed *if* you just moved here from elsewhere, and so you don't get benefit if you leave the reach of taxes. That's harsh for some, but stabilizes the system for the vast majority; your country isn't 1/4 first-generation immigrants and half your citizens don't live outside the country (and you wouldn't have the tax basis to pay them all a welfare benefit if they did).

    Leaving your country is a risk. You follow it when the opportunity risk is bigger than the threat risk.

    1. Re: Just don't give benefits to non-residents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am a first generation American, born in Canada, and I will explain to you how America works, since you don't seem to understand.
      A) Nobody is entitled to anything.
      B) We pay taxes -- on our world wide incomes.
      C) If we leave the country, we still pay taxes -- on income that we earn both inside and outside the country.
      D) Most "native born Americans" are lazier and less successful than most first generation immigrants.

    2. Re: Just don't give benefits to non-residents by operagost · · Score: 1

      His idea includes NOT taxing people who are not resident, AND not paying them any dividend. So that would be changed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. How does embedding a chip differ from issuing by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    a passport in terms of the security it provides for "the state"? Do you think that people won't be stealing/selling the chips to others who want to be identified as Finnish citizens? Do you think that a minor surgical procedure that can be performed in any alley is going to be more secure than a printed document?

  17. Re:He has a point by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    False assumption. If you don't use them and block everything related to them, it's really hard for them to track you.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  18. Universal ID system by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    This is just a high-tech version of a universal ID system. That is what we need to oppose since you can easily extend the concept to allow for non-invasive natural ID technologies (aka biometrics) to become the "mark". That and universal surveillance.

  19. Radical idea... by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we punish people who abuse the welfare system with blacklisting from it? In the US, our Office of the Inspector General for Social Security found that the Social Security Administration was committing black letter of the law violations on about 25% of the Social Security Disability payments it was awarding. That means the floor for how much corruption is 25% of all transfer payments. Send the employees involved to prison and blacklist the fraudulent recipients from receiving it, even if later they end up needing it after all. Cruel? You bet. That's a feature in dealing with welfare cheats. If they're going to cheat the current recipients who need it and the tax payers, then by God society isn't going to have a wad of cash ready for when they do need it.

    1. Re:Radical idea... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Prison? Public execution on prime time TV.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Radical idea... by Locando · · Score: 1

      Not radical, just an insistence on seeing this in purely moralistic terms without consideration for pragmatism or the possibility of alternative moral viewpoints. That said, you're advocating something that you yourself find cruel. So I don't see how you can make a moral argument for it: Couldn't you just as easily argue that the welfare cheats deserve the right to be cruel based on some arbitrary justification that only serves to obscure the actual rationale of "because I have the power to get away with it"?

  20. Re:He has a point by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that at least with smartphones he misses the point, when they were introduced the point wasn't to track the individual carrying the phone, it was to provide the individual with the ability to communicate and to use applications for productivity. Arguably some of the first smartphones from Qualcomm didn't even have data service, the productivity applications were entirely centered on the phone, and they were essentially Palm Pilots with a telephone function added to them.

    Jump to the modern phone, and you find that if people use features that allow them to "check in" from a given location, they only use that feature when they choose to use that feature. They do not state their location everywhere they go, they use it selectively, to essentially boast, or because they earn a living through online connectedness and marketing and it is to their advantage to share far too much information with the rest of us.

    As to the data communication between the handset and the carrier, that's an unfortunate necessity of the technology. The frequencies and density of users means that phones have to be tracked in order to remain in communication with them as they roam about a given area and change towers. The average cell user doesn't really understand how that technology works either, but would probably not be happy if their movements were being logged everywhere they went, an that theoretically should be privileged information between the carrier and the subscriber, as in the United States, one Federal Circuit has recently ruled.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  21. As America catches up to chip-and-pin ... by scunc · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Europe considers implementing a new chip-in-Finn system!

  22. Re:His party's description is interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So... he's saying they're National Socialist? Hm. I want to say there's been another term for that in the past, maybe something of a contraction of the two... What could it possibly be?

  23. How can related news be a troll? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    It's not like it's unreported or tinfoil hat. It's straight up relevant counter points!

    BTW, chipping isn't the right idea either.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:How can related news be a troll? by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      It really keeps me going.

      I just really like to call out people with blinders and agendas, as certain mods obviously have.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  24. I'm all for embedding chips in politicians ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2

    I'm all for embedding chips in politician to protect the state... oh, wait ...

  25. Re:He has a point by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think our education system is a laughingstock - people fall all over themselves to attend school here. Our crappy urban and rural public schools are the laughingstock.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  26. Re:It's because of immigrants by TWX · · Score: 1

    Then require the ex-pats to register with their local consulate or the nearest consulate or embassy that does business on behalf of Finland, and set up a regular appointment schedule that they have to keep in order to keep receiving benefits. Also consider the nature of the financial institutions that the government is willing to direct-deposit to, such that they have to be banks that don't work with groups like ISIS.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  27. Re:Nothibg to see here by TWX · · Score: 1

    So like Pat Buchanan? Got it.

    Buchanan was parodied here with some kind of sketch suggesting installing nonremovable collars on illegal immigrants caught crossing the border. When they would attempt to cross again the collar would explode. It sounded like someone took the idea of the collars from the inmates at the beginning of The Running Man.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  28. alternative viewpoint by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I don't believe an update is needed, because the tyrants don't have new ideas or plans. The implementation of the ideas is being closer to a reality does not make it a new idea.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  29. It already exists in the US - your SS number by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Let's face it, the Bible is allegory and the Social Security number is the number you fear. You are marked with it at birth, and though it may not appear physically on your skin, it is embeded in your mind, and written by (in) your dominant (right) hand every time you complete a business transaction. It is essentially a permanent number which identifies you and is almost impossible to change. You are taxed through it, every business is tracked by it, every significant financial transaction requires it - to buy a house, get a car, apply for government help, collect disability or retirement benefits, even to sign up for tickets to the Masters golf tournament.

    To not see that the beast has already taken over and given to embed a number in everyone is to be blind to what has already occurred. The chip isn't the problem, the chip is just a convenience. It's your participation in the entire last century of society that dooms you to hell.
     

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:It already exists in the US - your SS number by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, the Bible is allegory and the Social Security number is the number you fear. You are marked with it at birth, and though it may not appear physically on your skin, it is embeded in your mind, and written by (in) your dominant (right) hand every time you complete a business transaction. It is essentially a permanent number which identifies you and is almost impossible to change. You are taxed through it, every business is tracked by it, every significant financial transaction requires it

      KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SOCIAL SECURITY!

      Also, Social Security in the US has been around since 1935, so if it's a sign of the End TimesTM, then Somebody up there has been slacking off.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:It already exists in the US - your SS number by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Well, for those of us of a certain age :-(, our SSN does not actually identify us.Yes I know the Fed gov't now treats us as identified by our SSN, but I got mine by walking into an IRS office and requesting one. I could have gone back the next day and requested another -- but since at the time the only purpose of the SSN was to track my earnings so as to calculate my retirement payments, splitting my salary reports between 2 numbers would have been stupid.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:It already exists in the US - your SS number by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, for those of us of a certain age :-(

      You look darn good for your age, too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. I prefer Tagging and tracking politicians. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Politicians need to be tagged and monitored. Bonus points if you can build remote shock capability into the tags.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  31. This is an inevitable development by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Scandinavian welfare states evolved from the traditional communitarian cultures of these countries. Within this culture, the Lutheran moral code promotes helping each other out in time of need while stigmatizing freeloading.

    But now Europe as a whole is facing an uncontrollable, Arizona-style flood of refugees who are not part of this culture and who do not feel restrained by the Lutheran moral code. Now Finland has its first Joe Arpaio.

    1. Re:This is an inevitable development by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      That's why the "true finns party" is asking for the end of the mandatory second language in school. They think Finns don't need to speak the language of these "arizona-style flood of refugees" who have been there only for ... ever (or close) and speaks Swedish.

    2. Re:This is an inevitable development by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Insightful. It is interesting that people DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT the revenge effect of the social democracy facing immigration. It's notable how badly things are ghetto-ized in France. It's notable that the countries with the biggest cultural/ethnic supermajorities (the scandinavian countries) are also the ones with the most virulent anti-immigrant minority parties. Germany seems to be dealing better than some, but even they aren't actually doing as well welcoming immigrants as the USA. People forget that the USA has one of the top five most liberal legal immigration policies.

    3. Re:This is an inevitable development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah. This is a crackpot politician in a party of far right (as in fascism) weirdos. Very far from popular opinion in Scandinavia.

    4. Re:This is an inevitable development by ai4px · · Score: 1

      So Marko McFinn is living abroad and has an RFID chip embedded in his arm. How do the government officials in Finland know he has still got the chip and how do they know to stop his benefits? Afterall, there may not be any RFID readers in teh other country.

    5. Re:This is an inevitable development by ai4px · · Score: 1

      I was in München last fall. It looks like little arabia around Karlsplatz. I think the Germans are a little too friendly to their immigrants. Of course it doesn't help that the german birthrate has fallen below 1.8:1.

    6. Re:This is an inevitable development by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Each European country is responding to the refugee flood in its own way. A lot of them are ending up in Germany right now because the country is known as a soft touch; within Scandinavia, it's Sweden. For a time, France was the most accepting country, but since Charlie Hebdo, French enthusiasm for the invasion has palled, so right now they're all piling up in Calais, at the south tunnel entrance in hopes of crossing the Channel.

    7. Re:This is an inevitable development by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you can get that the "Finnish people using benefits to fund ISIS" are not Finns. This is just a belated attempt to control social benefits going to refugees.

    8. Re:This is an inevitable development by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that Assyrian refugees in Finland were speaking swedish (you know, the people I was speaking about, in my message). But I wanted to point out the ideas of the same party about the fact that "who cares about swedish-speaking finns, let's just forget about this", and I wanted to try to understand how you could justify this idea with the "uncontrollable, Arizona-style flood of refugees who are not part of this culture and who do not feel restrained by the Lutheran moral code".

  32. Re:Ownership, not control by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    "Control" makes it sound almost benign. "Those selfish bastards are trying to control us." That's something you can actually relate to as a human being, even if you oppose it. After all, it happens in the workplace every day.

    Unfortunately, the reality is much less human. It's about ownership.

    I can dig that. My views on this type of thing are more extreme than I admit in public, even on this board.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  33. They wouldn't be able to do that by mpercy · · Score: 2

    Typical retail clerk, probably per store policy, in a power outage will be to say "Can't do it." Can't/won't take cash because "the computers are down". You can tote up the costs and add the tax and have exact change, but they still won't make the effort to accept it because "the computers are down".

    1. Re:They wouldn't be able to do that by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Typical retail clerk, probably per store policy, in a power outage will be to say "Can't do it." Can't/won't take cash because "the computers are down". You can tote up the costs and add the tax and have exact change, but they still won't make the effort to accept it because "the computers are down".

      Must suck to live where you do.

      With EFT systems, comms failure (lost connection) is more common than a power outage. Where I live I can still pay with cash where as the fool who puts everything on credit finds themselves putting things back.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:They wouldn't be able to do that by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've already run into that -- network was down, so the meatspace store (I've forgotten what one), which relied on some network app for all transactions cash or otherwise, could not take my money. Or anyone else's. Not Good.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  34. See his sig by mpercy · · Score: 1

    He advocating a Citizen's Dividend of 17%. 17% of what I'm not sure, but the general idea of a citizen's dividend is that profits from government own commons, like oil drilling permits and royalities, mineral rights, timber rights, should be charged and paid out to citizens directly instead of going into government's general funds.

    1. Re:See his sig by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Something like this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  35. Re: He has a point by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Finland is beginning to sound like a shithole"

    This guy belongs to a party called "True Finns". He's obviously a nazi douchebag. You have a point, though, since this party got 17.7% of the votes in the 2015 parlamentary elections, becoming the second largest one.

  36. What exactly ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... is the point?

    They want to detect Finns leaving the country at border crossings so as not to fund expatriates? Good luck with that. There are too many non monitored points one can cross the border and I doubt the RFID chips will be worth a damn once the people are out of range.

    Controlling who has access to bank accounts and from where might be a better aproach. Auto deposit of benefit checks could be cut off if the account is accessed from overseas for an extended period of time.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  37. Nope by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    To all politicians that think chipping citizens is a good idea: Fuck you.

  38. Only ONE proper response to an idea like this: by kheldan · · Score: 1

    ..and that response is: Fuck you, asshole. How about we 'embed' our collective boots in your ass, jerk? Fucking politicians, why do we even tolerate them!?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Only ONE proper response to an idea like this: by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ..and that response is: Fuck you, asshole. How about we 'embed' our collective boots in your ass, jerk? Fucking politicians, why do we even tolerate them!?

      This is a minor politician from an extremist party appealing to populist hate and fear to get their name in the papers and remain relevent. The correct response is to ignore the living fuck out of them.

      They aren't worth the time it takes to tell them to fuck off and calling them arsehole is an insult to genuine arseholes. Worse than that, it gives them the validity they desperately seek.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Only ONE proper response to an idea like this: by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure. But there are plenty of policitians and whoever else that would just love it if there was a law mandating everyone have RFID implanted in them, but they all know it's political suicide to even discuss such a thing. All it takes is one idiot willing to take the heat for the idea and maybe it opens the door to it. No thanks.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  39. Re:Ievan polkka. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    If dog can be micro-chipped without ethical problem, humans could be, too.

    Ok, so don't have a problem then if you get stripped naked, put on a leash and chain and left outside with a bowl of water and dry dog food then?

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  40. The number of The Beast by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    The first thing I thought of when I read this were the numbers that the Nazis tattooed prisoners in death camps with.

    It amazes me how a politician would think its OK to even suggest this, and how he can even still keep his job.

  41. Re:He has a point by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    No, I was not crapping on public schools. I send my own kids to public schools. Good, diverse, schools in a first-ring suburb.

    Right across the border, the funding level is several thousand dollars less per year. Not that it matters, because funding there doubled over 10 years and outcomes did not change. It's a mix of funding, corruption, sheer incompetency, and a very difficult student population. Rural schools have similar challenges. I'm not sure how we stratified into "pro" and "con" public school camps. I don't fall into either. I think it is self-evident that we need public schools to have a workable democracy. I think that relying on property taxes has led to uneven funding that is bad on even a pragmatic level. But I'm also not going to drink the Koolaid and say that the people running the show necessarily know what they are doing. Even in "good" districts, I think that much of the reason for the good performance is an easy student population. There need to be major reforms: funding and in how the schools are run and staffed. We also need to attack the source of the difficult student populations.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  42. Him first by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    After he had one implanted, we can discuss it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. What good is an RFID chip... by ai4px · · Score: 1

    If no one scans it? OK, great, put an RFID chip in a person so they can receive State welfare while living outside the State. What difference does it make? The checks are direct deposited, who verifies the person's identity when they are /outside/ the country? Seems the simple solution is to not offer welfare to citizens who choose to not live in Finland.

  44. Re:Ievan polkka. by ai4px · · Score: 1

    Some people like to be lead around on all fours with a leash. To each his own!!

  45. What would happen next? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Small boys with a predilection for building protocol droids using home robot kits and pod racing will start developing a scanner to find the embedded chips in their mother's bodies to liberate them.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  46. So who was ahead of his times? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    McVeigh complained that the Army had implanted a microchip into his buttocks so that the government could keep track of him. [Ref 1]

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  47. You can have one or the other by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You can have a welfare state
    Or
    You can have open immigration.

    You cannot have both.

    Personally, I'd be happier with open immigration and no welfare state. Just me. But everyone is addicted to the welfare so that means immigration has to be tightly controlled.

    And here someone accuses me of not being politically correct. Politically correct is frequently idiotic. You cannot have open immigration and a welfare state. I'm not even going to explain why... its self evident. And that fact that pointing out the obvious there is politically incorrect should be a wake up call to believers in political correctness that the whole framework is useless.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  48. Re:He has a point by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Still, not impossible. How do you know if the site you are going to has Google analytics built in? Cookies and webhosts tracking their usage with Google can reveal a lot more than the "just don't use them" crowd gives them credit for.

  49. Re:He has a point by swillden · · Score: 1

    Jump to the modern phone, and you find that if people use features that allow them to "check in" from a given location, they only use that feature when they choose to use that feature. They do not state their location everywhere they go, they use it selectively, to essentially boast, or because they earn a living through online connectedness and marketing and it is to their advantage to share far too much information with the rest of us.

    I have Google Location History turned on, which records everywhere I go, but I do it for other reasons which include (among others):

    So that my wife and a few other people I share my location with can find out where I am at any moment
    So when I want to know where I was and what I did a few days ago I can look it up in my Maps timeline
    So Google Now can track my location to alert me when I need to leave for appointments, etc.

    Nothing to do with boasting or marketing; it's for convenience, mine and that of my family.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  50. Re:He has a point by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    That people willingly allow themselves to be tracked much of the time does not make it okay to unwillingly force them to be tracked all of the time.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  51. Re: He has a point by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Godwin's Law! LOL. You lose, you get nothing, good day sir!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  52. Re:He has a point by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If you look at the top 75% of students we do well. Very well with our top 25%.

    But American morons are the dumbest in the world.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  53. Re:He has a point by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    It can be worked around. I haven't done this last part yet. :)

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  54. Re: He has a point by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    For every brain-dead suggestion by a politician over there, there are probably 10-50 "WTF" suggestions made by politicians here in the US. Some examples:

    "Venezuela's gun laws have reduced crime by 1000 times. Lets do a ban here."

    "All women who have miscarriages should be tried for murder or negligent homicide."

    "Roads are socialist. If you want to drive to work, pay for the road, buy a vehicle that handles potholes, or do without."

    The reason there's no links to these statements is because none of them are true.

  55. And so it begins... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    ...as prophesized

  56. Everything for the welfare state? by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

    The welfare state is not a goal of itself, or should not be. This looks like the time to start breaking down the welfare state, if this is what is needed to keep it working.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!