If Kennedy hadn't been shot, there's a good chance the Moon landing wouldn't have happened. Kennedy became a martyr and the Moon shot became a monument to him.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Revolts often don't result in improvements and some people seem to like totalitarianism, as long as it is their totalitarianism. I guess with the GDR, it was fallout from what was happening in the USSR.
East Germany, Poland, and a good chunk of Europe all revolted with little to no bloodshed
Which is more what I was thinking of. But you are right, often lots of hunting rifles, which are generally better in an armed revolt and government caches to raid, so some restrictions on firearm ownership don't matter when it comes to a revolt. Hand guns and such are more important for personal protection.
Sounds to me more like abolishing the board of directors. All these idealized systems have problems in the real world. Socialist things like co-ops still end up with someone running things even if in theory the whole community gets a vote and it's a shared effort.
Libertarian was originally a socialist construct. Look up socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist. Here, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=soci... or https://duckduckgo.com/?q=libe.... Now it is just as impractical as any political philosophy that ignores the authoritarians, but still to claim that libertarian-ism is a right wing thing is weird as the right means by definition supporting the aristocracy, or today, the rich From wiki,
Libertarian socialism (or socialist libertarianism)[1] is a group of anti-authoritarian[2] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects the conception of socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy.[3]
Libertarian socialism is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism,[4][5] and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[6] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[7] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10]
It often rejects the state itself,[7] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[12][13]
All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14][15] and voluntary human relationships[16] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] As such, libertarian socialism seeks to distinguish itself from both Leninism/Bolshevism and social democracy.[25][26]
They both pushed right wing societal values such as attacking and even killing homosexuals, certain races and such, as well as governance by those with merit . At that when Stalin took charge, a lot of what is usually considered leftist in America was prosecuted. He even believed in capitalism, as long as the government was the capitalist running industry. Like most successful capitalists, he did hate the free market, as that means competition. Neither one believed in the people and especially having the regular people involved in governance through democracy and neither made any moves in the direction of communism, which has as one of its basic tenants to not have government. People are complex and can not be simply divided up into the right wing and left wing.
Luckily America would never have things like no-fly lists, border searches all over the country, millions of people imprisoned or political crimes such as possessing a prohibited plant. It would also never have internal intelligence agencies or police forces that are very military in nature and tools.
Unluckily, starting with the whiskey rebellion, having a well armed population doesn't seemed to have helped. Even the one success I can think of in Athens Georgia, they actually broke into the government armory rather then use their own guns. Has there ever been a success story of the people overthrowing a repressive government? The American Revolution was (colonial) government vs (overseas) government and still needed help from one of the major powers of the day. It has also failed in one other way, mainly removing the need for a standing army, which at the time was considered a major enabler of tyranny.
Mostly true, though there is a lot of hatred between the various sects. There's also parts of Africa where the armed population seems more interested in killing their neighbours then overthrowing their repressive governments. While there are lots of reasons to allow people to be armed, overthrowing better armed governments doesn't seem like one of them in today's world, and even in the past it has seldom helped. Part of the well armed population usually likes the government, and the government, besides being better equipped, is usually better organized.
Well, somehow the Soviet block (E. Europe) seems to have successfully changed their repressive governments without guns while in the middle east where guns are common, it seems to be a shit show.
Nimbyism, regulations, and lawsuits seem to make most all power generation more expensive or impossible. Pipelines, dams, power lines, wind farms, fracking. Then there are the costs from lack of regulation. 100's of millions to fix the dam down the road because they didn't bother connecting it to bedrock when built for example. Cleanup costs from companies that shutdown as soon as profits dropped and cleanup was needed is a huge cost in the oil industry. Unregulated nuclear is scary. Cost cutting, companies that shutdown as soon as problems appear and such, all leaving the tax payers on the hook.
Don't have big donors here in Canada (some Provinces still might). Only real people (citizens I believe) allowed to donate with donations limited to about $1200 (tied to inflation) Federally and at least in my Province so that helps.
Just have to move to the next town/State/Province to get away from the electric company. Have to move to somewhere like China to get away from Amazon and it is not easy to move to China.
Around here, they like private public partnerships. Private company builds roads (actually usually bridges+roads), public guarantees financing and profits. So it is private companies building the toll roads. The exceptions happen with the roads that the rich use, no tolls to the upscale ski hills.
I'd rather get my services from my democratically elected government then a corporate monopoly/duopoly as the government has a clear motivation to provide high quality service to get my vote. The company with no competition has no incentive.
The problem is money. Refugees need to be housed, clothed, fed, given medical care etc while waiting for their refugee claim to be handled, and there's a large backlog of claims due to shortage of money. Then if their claim is accepted, they then need to be supported for about another year until they become productive members of society. There's only so much money, so the number of refugees that can be handled at once is limited.
Then there is politics. A Federal election coming up later this year and a right wing opposition that is using illegal immigrants (refugees) as a political point along with the deficit and the fact that after the American tax cut, we need to cut more taxes.
The raking is to cause fire breaks. Better to have small fires then large fires is the theory. The Jackpines (do Jackpines even grow in California?) still get the fire to open the cones.
Eugenics is used all the time in farm livestock, pet breeding and even breeding new strains of plants. It's ethical considerations that stop it being used. Phrenology works fine to measure things like degree of alcohol fetal syndrome a person has. Most of the problems with both are ethics and being used to push an agenda, often for political or religious reasons.
Occasionally there are big surprises. The speed of light being a constant is one example. Unexpected, first reaction is the measuring device is wrong, leading to remeasuring and even more accurate instruments to measure. Then acceptance and the need to have new theories.
Er, science did start out on the believe that god was real. Geologists for example started out with the hypothesis that the flood created a lot of geology, but the more they studied geology, the more it was obvious that various processes formed the current geology over billions of years. Biologists, started out believing in life spontaneously appearing, as created by god, and then various facts pointed to a long history of evolution forming life as we know it. Most refinements in science have eliminated the god hypothesis with about the only exception being the big bang, which is an unknown and appears to be unknowable. Working the other way, there are millions or billions of differing religions and interpretations of religions, all conflicting to one degree or another. There should be consistency if some all powerful god or gods were behind everything. Even individual religions are fragmented. Look at how many various differing Christian cults there are, especially if you include the ones that were wiped out as being heretic. Science started out looking for god and has mostly failed. God is a bad explanation anyways because it leads to turtles all the way down. The universe is complex so something even more complex must have created it is not a logical explanation as it leads to more complex turtles forever.
There no longer seems to be intelligent debate or even discussions on the likes of FB or Twitter in the same way you had it in the old days of Usenet and other public internet forums.
I think you must be looking at the past with rose coloured glasses or just stuck with a subset of Usenet. There were lots of trolls and worse, but luckily we had killfiles so it was easy to ignore them.
You did report him didn't you? People like your tobacco farmer are the ones responsible for the illegals coming to get jobs. And does America actually give benefits to illegals? Or is like here where Americans show up with fake papers and sponge of our medical system without paying into it.
Slashdot Mirror
If Kennedy hadn't been shot, there's a good chance the Moon landing wouldn't have happened. Kennedy became a martyr and the Moon shot became a monument to him.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Revolts often don't result in improvements and some people seem to like totalitarianism, as long as it is their totalitarianism.
I guess with the GDR, it was fallout from what was happening in the USSR.
As the AC above you says,
East Germany, Poland, and a good chunk of Europe all revolted with little to no bloodshed
Which is more what I was thinking of.
But you are right, often lots of hunting rifles, which are generally better in an armed revolt and government caches to raid, so some restrictions on firearm ownership don't matter when it comes to a revolt. Hand guns and such are more important for personal protection.
Sounds to me more like abolishing the board of directors. All these idealized systems have problems in the real world. Socialist things like co-ops still end up with someone running things even if in theory the whole community gets a vote and it's a shared effort.
Libertarian was originally a socialist construct. Look up socialist libertarian or libertarian socialist.
Here, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=soci... or https://duckduckgo.com/?q=libe....
Now it is just as impractical as any political philosophy that ignores the authoritarians, but still to claim that libertarian-ism is a right wing thing is weird as the right means by definition supporting the aristocracy, or today, the rich
From wiki,
They both pushed right wing societal values such as attacking and even killing homosexuals, certain races and such, as well as governance by those with merit . At that when Stalin took charge, a lot of what is usually considered leftist in America was prosecuted. He even believed in capitalism, as long as the government was the capitalist running industry. Like most successful capitalists, he did hate the free market, as that means competition.
Neither one believed in the people and especially having the regular people involved in governance through democracy and neither made any moves in the direction of communism, which has as one of its basic tenants to not have government.
People are complex and can not be simply divided up into the right wing and left wing.
Luckily America would never have things like no-fly lists, border searches all over the country, millions of people imprisoned or political crimes such as possessing a prohibited plant.
It would also never have internal intelligence agencies or police forces that are very military in nature and tools.
Unluckily, starting with the whiskey rebellion, having a well armed population doesn't seemed to have helped. Even the one success I can think of in Athens Georgia, they actually broke into the government armory rather then use their own guns.
Has there ever been a success story of the people overthrowing a repressive government? The American Revolution was (colonial) government vs (overseas) government and still needed help from one of the major powers of the day.
It has also failed in one other way, mainly removing the need for a standing army, which at the time was considered a major enabler of tyranny.
Mostly true, though there is a lot of hatred between the various sects. There's also parts of Africa where the armed population seems more interested in killing their neighbours then overthrowing their repressive governments.
While there are lots of reasons to allow people to be armed, overthrowing better armed governments doesn't seem like one of them in today's world, and even in the past it has seldom helped.
Part of the well armed population usually likes the government, and the government, besides being better equipped, is usually better organized.
Well, somehow the Soviet block (E. Europe) seems to have successfully changed their repressive governments without guns while in the middle east where guns are common, it seems to be a shit show.
Nimbyism, regulations, and lawsuits seem to make most all power generation more expensive or impossible. Pipelines, dams, power lines, wind farms, fracking.
Then there are the costs from lack of regulation. 100's of millions to fix the dam down the road because they didn't bother connecting it to bedrock when built for example. Cleanup costs from companies that shutdown as soon as profits dropped and cleanup was needed is a huge cost in the oil industry.
Unregulated nuclear is scary. Cost cutting, companies that shutdown as soon as problems appear and such, all leaving the tax payers on the hook.
Don't have big donors here in Canada (some Provinces still might). Only real people (citizens I believe) allowed to donate with donations limited to about $1200 (tied to inflation) Federally and at least in my Province so that helps.
Just have to move to the next town/State/Province to get away from the electric company. Have to move to somewhere like China to get away from Amazon and it is not easy to move to China.
It's the partner, Dr. Android Linux, hoovering up all our data.
Linux could also be fairly easily replaced with one of the BSD's or such.
Around here, they like private public partnerships. Private company builds roads (actually usually bridges+roads), public guarantees financing and profits. So it is private companies building the toll roads.
The exceptions happen with the roads that the rich use, no tolls to the upscale ski hills.
True, except for Apple, Apple you can quite easily do without with little or no effect on you at all.
So far.
I'd rather get my services from my democratically elected government then a corporate monopoly/duopoly as the government has a clear motivation to provide high quality service to get my vote. The company with no competition has no incentive.
The problem is money. Refugees need to be housed, clothed, fed, given medical care etc while waiting for their refugee claim to be handled, and there's a large backlog of claims due to shortage of money. Then if their claim is accepted, they then need to be supported for about another year until they become productive members of society.
There's only so much money, so the number of refugees that can be handled at once is limited.
Then there is politics. A Federal election coming up later this year and a right wing opposition that is using illegal immigrants (refugees) as a political point along with the deficit and the fact that after the American tax cut, we need to cut more taxes.
The raking is to cause fire breaks. Better to have small fires then large fires is the theory. The Jackpines (do Jackpines even grow in California?) still get the fire to open the cones.
Eugenics is used all the time in farm livestock, pet breeding and even breeding new strains of plants. It's ethical considerations that stop it being used.
Phrenology works fine to measure things like degree of alcohol fetal syndrome a person has.
Most of the problems with both are ethics and being used to push an agenda, often for political or religious reasons.
Occasionally there are big surprises. The speed of light being a constant is one example. Unexpected, first reaction is the measuring device is wrong, leading to remeasuring and even more accurate instruments to measure. Then acceptance and the need to have new theories.
Er, science did start out on the believe that god was real. Geologists for example started out with the hypothesis that the flood created a lot of geology, but the more they studied geology, the more it was obvious that various processes formed the current geology over billions of years. Biologists, started out believing in life spontaneously appearing, as created by god, and then various facts pointed to a long history of evolution forming life as we know it. Most refinements in science have eliminated the god hypothesis with about the only exception being the big bang, which is an unknown and appears to be unknowable.
Working the other way, there are millions or billions of differing religions and interpretations of religions, all conflicting to one degree or another. There should be consistency if some all powerful god or gods were behind everything. Even individual religions are fragmented. Look at how many various differing Christian cults there are, especially if you include the ones that were wiped out as being heretic.
Science started out looking for god and has mostly failed. God is a bad explanation anyways because it leads to turtles all the way down. The universe is complex so something even more complex must have created it is not a logical explanation as it leads to more complex turtles forever.
There no longer seems to be intelligent debate or even discussions on the likes of FB or Twitter in the same way you had it in the old days of Usenet and other public internet forums.
I think you must be looking at the past with rose coloured glasses or just stuck with a subset of Usenet. There were lots of trolls and worse, but luckily we had killfiles so it was easy to ignore them.
You did report him didn't you? People like your tobacco farmer are the ones responsible for the illegals coming to get jobs.
And does America actually give benefits to illegals? Or is like here where Americans show up with fake papers and sponge of our medical system without paying into it.