For frost, yes a scraper is more effective. But it won't do anything for the inevitable fogging that will occur when you breathe in the vehicle. You shouldn't drive a vehicle that isn't warmed up in the winter time even if you have scraped the ice off the windows. It's not good for your engine, and your engine doesn't run as efficiently until it is warm.
The 17th Amendment was a mistake... Worst decision ever. The founding fathers already gave the people a voice in the legislature, the House of Representatives! DUH! Why the hell did anyone think it was a good idea to have the other half of the legislature be another voice of the people and a horribly unbalanced one at that? Repeal the 17th Amendment and maybe states rights will start to mean something again.
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That is why intellectual property should last long enough for recoup development costs plus enough incentive to encourage the creation of new inventions/ideas. That was the whole point of copyright in the first place.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Intellectual property rights are only put in place to encourage the creation of new creations, not to form an exclusive monopoly for the life of a corporation which in fact discourages and prevents the progress of science and useful arts.
They are so good at siphoning profits that they have learned how to siphon debt. Not making enough profit to buy off your political donors? Just give them money that doesn't exist! I mean shit, you can print it, why not?
Thank you for providing an obvious reasonable doubt and the real reason why Zimmerman was not convicted of the charges. There is no evidence that proves that isn't what happened. Thus the acquittal.
Except: 1) we aren't capturing emissions from those power plants, so your analogy would be comparing if people peed in their own lawn it probably wouldn't do much damage since the pollution is so spread out vs everyone getting together and peeing in one field, killing everything from the concentration. 2) the majority of emissions are water vapor and CO2. Soot and other combustion byproducts are taken care of pretty well in modern cars by emissions systems. Pending some unquestionable evidence that the H20 or CO2 is causing significant local harm, it's not that much of a health risk in the US anymore.
The highest percentage since they kept data maybe. How many people lived harvest to harvest if they managed to survive that long a century ago? What got them out of agrarian poverty was not government or charity, it was the free market and the opportunities it created. Those that live paycheck to paycheck are not living that way because they are desperate, they are living that way because they don't know how to manage money. Not that the government is setting a good example for them, I'd throw a party if the government could live paycheck to paycheck. They are the ones saying "more debt is better for the budget". And what do you know, between them acting that way and encouraging others to do the same, we had a debt bubble. A debt bubble the Fed is insistent upon re-inflating. Maybe the next bubble will be college education which the government tries to sell everyone on and instead is the LEADING CAUSE of debt and living paycheck to paycheck in young people.
You are still stuck on this monopoly and single provider idea... People would not starve when a charity fails. Multiple charities exist simultaneously. Every day I am hit up for donations to all kinds of private charities. I decide whether my donation would be better used by the American Red Cross or United Way or Habitat for Humanity, etc. The market is quick to respond to demand (yes, there is a demand for helping those in need). Government is not.
How do you determine need? What if the person living in the street is there by choice? It sounds horrible, but some people would rather be drunk in the street instead of sober and in a shelter.
I did address your issue by stating that OSHA equivalent benefits could be provided by the free market if the consumers and workers demand it. Wages will increase if the consumers and workers demand it. You can't force demand. You can only force government. And if we could change government easily we would. However, I'm fairly certain that most governments make it difficult and expensive to expatriate and gain new citizenship, or do people illegally immigrate because it's so easy to change governments?
Typical liberal response is to assume anyone who disagrees is one of those damn republicans. I don't happen to be a republican. I'm one of those even worse libertarians who doesn't make any damn sense applying freedom across the board. The standard of living IS increasing. You have to choose where you spend your money on the items I mentioned failing to realize that 50 years ago, you didn't have that choice, few of those items existed and they weren't as useful back then. People coming into the library to use a computer wouldn't have that opportunity 10-20 years ago. Are they really worse off because they can't afford an iPad and use it at home?
You know what's a monopoly? Government. They are doing a pretty damn good job of capturing surplus. They are so damn good, they are capturing future surplus by creating debt. If private monopolies come up, they don't have any government power to prevent competition. In the current situation, the government provides legal framework to protect the big players at the expense of the small business. How is that working out?
Taxes? When did I mention taxes in my roles of government. Ok, maybe it needs some funding, but why would you assume that the funding method we use now makes any sense at all? Taxes are a net drain on resources and should be a small as possible. They should also be fair and not regressive. In addition, simple rules and non-discriminatory taxes reduce avoidance. A simple fair-tax style consumption tax would remove all of your tax issues from the equation.
Your responses for A and C neglect the fact that private charities rely on voluntary contributions and if they give out too much money to fraud and dependents they go away and new charities that more efficiently allocate resources will gain the contributions that the bureaucratic charity lost. Government charitable programs don't go away, they just spend into debt.
B) Who gets to determine how much charity is enough? A central authority gets to decide how humanitarian people should be? It gets even more complicated since everyone is not a tax payer, so the central authority decides a small percentage of the population are the only ones responsible for charity and everyone else gets a free pass.
D) Grow up? You mean people aren't extremely upset about the funding of planned parenthood? If it were all funded by private donations instead of public funding, people who opposed at least can't complain about their money being spent to provide charity they don't support. Instead you think religious people should be forced to fund things against their religion?
Are you saying that you'd prefer that yacht makers and gold plated doggie bowl makers aren't deserving of a job? What makes you think you get to decide what defines "best" in terms of resource use. Someone obviously decided that a 70 foot yacht or a gold plated doggie bowl was worth more than the amount of money they spent on it. Compare that with any government organization and see if the average tax payer thinks that we get more value from it than we pay for...
Yes I did mean the Heritage Foundation and if you don't like their methodology, how about the Fraser Institute? Same 5 countries at the top... Or do you have a better index of economic freedom? I mean other than the Pulled Out Of gestalt_n_pepper's Ass Index...
Both of your examples reference fraud. In a free market, it doesn't mean that there are no regulations. A free market does require regulation, specifically regulations that protect private property, prevent fraud, and protect the lives of citizens. In other words, don't steal, don't lie, and don't kill. Pretty simple regulations.
Aside from that, the general trend may be upward in a free market, but there are outliers as you point out (those that fail due to poor luck). Those in a truly free market are aided by private charitable organizations. Even in a free market there is a value in helping others. Just because a free market exists doesn't mean that humanity doesn't exist. People share enjoyment of making other people happy. Empathy still exists. You can see this in our current market as the rich create foundations to help alleviate poverty and solve other societal problems.
The problem with the current system is by making charity a public program and forcing involuntary contributions is that you A) cannot control failed charity that causes dependency and is full of fraud, B) you create a system where people assume that their forced charity is enough and that they don't need to contribute otherwise, C) Charitable resources are often mis-allocated to programs that have little benefit, D) people can have resentment over their involuntary contributions being spent on programs they don't agree with.
Voluntary mutual exchange is the only form of trade which is moral for anything else relies on force which is an inherent form of slavery.
Income disparity exists because there are limited resources and a free market will tend to move resources to the location where they can be more efficiently utilized. That is why you see people who know how to invest and create wealth gain increasingly more wealth and those that make poor decisions and invest poorly tend the opposite. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach people how to create wealth and manage resources wisely than take resources from those that use it efficiently and move it to where it is wasted?
Funny, Pakistan (121), Somalia (n/a), Mexico (50), the USA (10) and China (136) are not at the top of the list of economic freedom according to Heritage. Or did you just pull out of your ass countries and say they have unregulated capitalism?
The REAL countries with economic freedom are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Not places you typically think of poverty.
The race to the bottom is the bottom's race to the middle.
You missed his point. There are more poor people in the US than in any point in history because we have been continually raising the cutoff to what we consider "poor". Poor people today are likely to have a car, a fridge, a cell phone, a flat screen TV, air conditioning, etc. The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving. Wages may be declining, but standard of living is still increasing.
Slashdot Mirror
For frost, yes a scraper is more effective. But it won't do anything for the inevitable fogging that will occur when you breathe in the vehicle. You shouldn't drive a vehicle that isn't warmed up in the winter time even if you have scraped the ice off the windows. It's not good for your engine, and your engine doesn't run as efficiently until it is warm.
The 17th Amendment was a mistake... Worst decision ever. The founding fathers already gave the people a voice in the legislature, the House of Representatives! DUH! Why the hell did anyone think it was a good idea to have the other half of the legislature be another voice of the people and a horribly unbalanced one at that? Repeal the 17th Amendment and maybe states rights will start to mean something again.
Actually "intellectual" property rights exist to encourage new ideas. At least that's what they were supposed to be...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That is why intellectual property should last long enough for recoup development costs plus enough incentive to encourage the creation of new inventions/ideas. That was the whole point of copyright in the first place.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Intellectual property rights are only put in place to encourage the creation of new creations, not to form an exclusive monopoly for the life of a corporation which in fact discourages and prevents the progress of science and useful arts.
They are so good at siphoning profits that they have learned how to siphon debt. Not making enough profit to buy off your political donors? Just give them money that doesn't exist! I mean shit, you can print it, why not?
Yes, installing a new cross country underground tube should be no problem at all to get done right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Oh wait...
Thank you for providing an obvious reasonable doubt and the real reason why Zimmerman was not convicted of the charges. There is no evidence that proves that isn't what happened. Thus the acquittal.
That's called an anecdote. I'm sure there are plenty of other people in tons of different legal climates that haven't been robbed in 32 years.
The prosecution changing the charge was not from murder to manslaughter, but from second degree murder to third degree murder. Manslaughter was always a potential charge and the judge rightly upheld that, but did not allow the third degree charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593306-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-jury-wont-weigh-lesser-offense-of-third-degree-felony-murder-judge-rules/
I know there are obligatory XKCD links for Slashdot articles, but I was expecting this one... http://xkcd.com/605/
Browse at 1, problem solved. Replying to the post only attracts extra attention to it.
http://everything2.com/title/expatriation+tax
Yeah, except for that huge chunk of change Uncle Sam wants before he lets you leave.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/10/flywheel-hybrid-system-for-premium-vehicles/
There are flywheel systems that are purely mechanical and don't use electricity for transmission or storage of energy at all.
They can be, there are several race cars out there that use flywheels for energy storage. But electric is definitely the most practical.
Except:
1) we aren't capturing emissions from those power plants, so your analogy would be comparing if people peed in their own lawn it probably wouldn't do much damage since the pollution is so spread out vs everyone getting together and peeing in one field, killing everything from the concentration.
2) the majority of emissions are water vapor and CO2. Soot and other combustion byproducts are taken care of pretty well in modern cars by emissions systems. Pending some unquestionable evidence that the H20 or CO2 is causing significant local harm, it's not that much of a health risk in the US anymore.
The highest percentage since they kept data maybe. How many people lived harvest to harvest if they managed to survive that long a century ago? What got them out of agrarian poverty was not government or charity, it was the free market and the opportunities it created. Those that live paycheck to paycheck are not living that way because they are desperate, they are living that way because they don't know how to manage money. Not that the government is setting a good example for them, I'd throw a party if the government could live paycheck to paycheck. They are the ones saying "more debt is better for the budget". And what do you know, between them acting that way and encouraging others to do the same, we had a debt bubble. A debt bubble the Fed is insistent upon re-inflating. Maybe the next bubble will be college education which the government tries to sell everyone on and instead is the LEADING CAUSE of debt and living paycheck to paycheck in young people.
You are still stuck on this monopoly and single provider idea... People would not starve when a charity fails. Multiple charities exist simultaneously. Every day I am hit up for donations to all kinds of private charities. I decide whether my donation would be better used by the American Red Cross or United Way or Habitat for Humanity, etc. The market is quick to respond to demand (yes, there is a demand for helping those in need). Government is not.
How do you determine need? What if the person living in the street is there by choice? It sounds horrible, but some people would rather be drunk in the street instead of sober and in a shelter.
I did address your issue by stating that OSHA equivalent benefits could be provided by the free market if the consumers and workers demand it. Wages will increase if the consumers and workers demand it. You can't force demand. You can only force government. And if we could change government easily we would. However, I'm fairly certain that most governments make it difficult and expensive to expatriate and gain new citizenship, or do people illegally immigrate because it's so easy to change governments?
Typical liberal response is to assume anyone who disagrees is one of those damn republicans. I don't happen to be a republican. I'm one of those even worse libertarians who doesn't make any damn sense applying freedom across the board. The standard of living IS increasing. You have to choose where you spend your money on the items I mentioned failing to realize that 50 years ago, you didn't have that choice, few of those items existed and they weren't as useful back then. People coming into the library to use a computer wouldn't have that opportunity 10-20 years ago. Are they really worse off because they can't afford an iPad and use it at home?
You know what's a monopoly? Government. They are doing a pretty damn good job of capturing surplus. They are so damn good, they are capturing future surplus by creating debt. If private monopolies come up, they don't have any government power to prevent competition. In the current situation, the government provides legal framework to protect the big players at the expense of the small business. How is that working out?
Taxes? When did I mention taxes in my roles of government. Ok, maybe it needs some funding, but why would you assume that the funding method we use now makes any sense at all? Taxes are a net drain on resources and should be a small as possible. They should also be fair and not regressive. In addition, simple rules and non-discriminatory taxes reduce avoidance. A simple fair-tax style consumption tax would remove all of your tax issues from the equation.
Your responses for A and C neglect the fact that private charities rely on voluntary contributions and if they give out too much money to fraud and dependents they go away and new charities that more efficiently allocate resources will gain the contributions that the bureaucratic charity lost. Government charitable programs don't go away, they just spend into debt.
B) Who gets to determine how much charity is enough? A central authority gets to decide how humanitarian people should be? It gets even more complicated since everyone is not a tax payer, so the central authority decides a small percentage of the population are the only ones responsible for charity and everyone else gets a free pass.
D) Grow up? You mean people aren't extremely upset about the funding of planned parenthood? If it were all funded by private donations instead of public funding, people who opposed at least can't complain about their money being spent to provide charity they don't support. Instead you think religious people should be forced to fund things against their religion?
Are you saying that you'd prefer that yacht makers and gold plated doggie bowl makers aren't deserving of a job? What makes you think you get to decide what defines "best" in terms of resource use. Someone obviously decided that a 70 foot yacht or a gold plated doggie bowl was worth more than the amount of money they spent on it. Compare that with any government organization and see if the average tax payer thinks that we get more value from it than we pay for...
Yes I did mean the Heritage Foundation and if you don't like their methodology, how about the Fraser Institute? Same 5 countries at the top... Or do you have a better index of economic freedom? I mean other than the Pulled Out Of gestalt_n_pepper's Ass Index...
Both of your examples reference fraud. In a free market, it doesn't mean that there are no regulations. A free market does require regulation, specifically regulations that protect private property, prevent fraud, and protect the lives of citizens. In other words, don't steal, don't lie, and don't kill. Pretty simple regulations.
Aside from that, the general trend may be upward in a free market, but there are outliers as you point out (those that fail due to poor luck). Those in a truly free market are aided by private charitable organizations. Even in a free market there is a value in helping others. Just because a free market exists doesn't mean that humanity doesn't exist. People share enjoyment of making other people happy. Empathy still exists. You can see this in our current market as the rich create foundations to help alleviate poverty and solve other societal problems.
The problem with the current system is by making charity a public program and forcing involuntary contributions is that you A) cannot control failed charity that causes dependency and is full of fraud, B) you create a system where people assume that their forced charity is enough and that they don't need to contribute otherwise, C) Charitable resources are often mis-allocated to programs that have little benefit, D) people can have resentment over their involuntary contributions being spent on programs they don't agree with.
Voluntary mutual exchange is the only form of trade which is moral for anything else relies on force which is an inherent form of slavery.
Income disparity exists because there are limited resources and a free market will tend to move resources to the location where they can be more efficiently utilized. That is why you see people who know how to invest and create wealth gain increasingly more wealth and those that make poor decisions and invest poorly tend the opposite. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach people how to create wealth and manage resources wisely than take resources from those that use it efficiently and move it to where it is wasted?
Funny, Pakistan (121), Somalia (n/a), Mexico (50), the USA (10) and China (136) are not at the top of the list of economic freedom according to Heritage. Or did you just pull out of your ass countries and say they have unregulated capitalism?
The REAL countries with economic freedom are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. Not places you typically think of poverty.
The race to the bottom is the bottom's race to the middle.
You missed his point. There are more poor people in the US than in any point in history because we have been continually raising the cutoff to what we consider "poor". Poor people today are likely to have a car, a fridge, a cell phone, a flat screen TV, air conditioning, etc. The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving. Wages may be declining, but standard of living is still increasing.