Actually, it sounds like YOU do not know what either word means. Socialism and fascism are variants on the same principle. If you study history you will discover that all fascists started out as socialists. In socialism, the government takes ownership "socially critical" industries and runs them according to what the government thinks is best. In fascism, the government leaves those industries owned by private individuals, as long as those individuals run them according to what the government tells them is best. There is no difference for the average citizen.
What you are missing is that the same logic used by the article to claim that cellphone use while driving is dangerous based on the statistics the article use applies to the data about the number of traffic accidents. The article used the fact that in 21% of accidents the driver was talking on the cellphone to conclude that talking on the cellphone caused 21% of accidents. I can use the fact that as cellphone use has increased, accidents have decreased to conclude that cellphone use reduces accidents. The fact is that in neither case are other contributing factors accounted for.
I am sorry, but there is no problem for the Republican Party to find its identity on this. The only reason you think there is is because you base your opinion of the Republican Party on what Democrats say about it.
I will admit that it is much harder for Republicans to decide their position on this than for Democrats. Republicans are, for the most part, trying to decide which side is the right side, based on their principles. Not everyone is going to agree on the answer. On the other hand, it is fairly easy for the Democrats to decide, since for them the only question is, "Which side will give us more power?"
just that they don't try as much to pitch themselves as ideological hardliners, and so the left isn't caught in these contortions as much.
Um, you do remember the feminists who said that a sexual relationship between a CEO and a corporate intern could NEVER be consensual who then defended Bill Clinton because his relationship with Monica Lewinski was consensual?
More importantly, you seemed to have missed the fact that Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rick Perry are all Republicans. Chris Christie has never taken an anti-regulatory stance on anything. The two Republicans who are mentioned in the article as taking Tesla's side (or at least saying that it has merit) are also the two Republicans who have taken stances in the past opposing excessive regulation. SO, when two out of the three FAIL to support the regulations which protect their "buddies", how do you conclude that Republicans want a regulatory environment that "favors their buddies"?
Actually, the third world approach is that taken by the Democratic Party, have so MANY regulations that no one can possibly be in compliance with them all, so that the only way to do business is to pay bribes.
I won't argue about your "Case 1", because, while I think it is flawed, it has a certain merit. However your "Case 2" is a pure strawman. The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad. The Republican stance is that regulation is often bad and has often been introduced to "solve" problems created by previously existing regulations.
The governors will talk about how good Tesla is but their day job is still governor and that office is under the thumb of the National Automotive Dealers Association who could easily contribute to their rivals.
Rick Perry is not running for re-election and the campaign for his replacement is under way. So, he is not "under the thumb" of the National Automotive Dealers Association, since a threat fro them to contribute to his rivals is not really much of a threat. Based on previous contributions to national campaigns, Rick Perry is more interested in setting himself up for what he perceives as the stronger national position on this issue. I am pretty sure that Chris Christie is statutorily barred from seeking another term as governor of New Jersey.
I do agree that states should not have laws preventing direct sales of automobiles.
We would much rather pay the cost of having younger workers make the mistakes the older workers learned to avoid. This is the problem we see repeatedly. Younger workers buy into the "Oh look, new, shiny!" Older workers look at this "new" idea and say, "Didn't we try that 5 years ago? and 5 years before that? It didn't work either of those times either."
Yes, but as far as I know, Pielke has never claimed that others do not have standing to question his conclusions because they do not have credentials in his field. Whereas these climatologists have.
I am sorry, but climatologists are claiming that modern structures and forecasting should reduce costs. Why? For example, the more modern structure of automobiles intentionally increases the cost of fixing an automobile involved in a crash. The design change is intended to decrease the chance of serious injury to the passengers, but it is accepted that this means that repairing the automobile will cost more.
When the climatologists make this claim, they are operating outside of their area of expertise. By doing so, they are being hypocrites, since these are the same people who have rejected much of the criticism of the theory of AGW because the people presenting it are not "climatologists".
The response was that he was disregarding the fact that modern structures and forecasting should reduce costs,...
What expertise do climatologists bring to this part of the discussion? This is not a question of climatology but of economics. The guys criticizing Pielke are out of their area of expertise on this.
Except of course for the fact that these are supposed climatology experts arguing economics. Which of course has been one of the problems with this debate all along. We have people who dismiss others' criticism of their own work because those others are not climatologists tell us what the economic and political fallout of not following their advice will be...and try to tell us to ignore what those who are experts in politics and economics say because they are not climatologists.
Absolutely, especially considering that there is some evidence that, in many cases, society would be better off if certain crimes were punished with a harsh punishment that is over quickly.
Since I do not recall seeing articles about her citing harassment, I don't understand why it is such a big deal that she isn't doing so any longer.
OK, I read the summary and realize the headline is inaccurate. What they meant to write was, " Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits, Citing Harassment" rather than the headline they did write. All I have to say is, "Commas, learn to use them."
It's funny how people bitch about the Koch brothers while ignoring the 58 people and groups who spend MORE money to influence politics (the majority of which donate to Democratic Party campaigns).
So, because one thing happened (the Megaupload.com situation) which you think was an injustice (and I am inclined to agree with you, but I have not studied the situation closely enough to be positive that you are) you think it is a good idea to set up control of the Internet so that more countries have the ability to do similar things (and things that are probably even greater infringements of freedom of speech and justice).
Why does a newspaper get protections that I don't? And don't quote "freedom of the press" since that means everyone has the freedom to publish, not that there is some institution called "the press" that gets special freedom.
Ah, so countries where the per capita income is less than 1/10th that of the U.S. are good examples of what people in the U.S. would be willing to buy if the government did not force them to only buy safer cars? You do realize that in India and China the choice for most people is either buy one of those "death traps" or be unable to afford a car at all?
Or in other words, you believe that the people of India and China would be better off if their cars were too expensive for most of them to have a car.
They started doing it before the SARS "epidemic". I remember them talking about how the swine flu epidemic in 1976 was going to be like the 1918 flu pandemic because we were "due". It was just a matter of time til another flu pandemic like the one in 1918 happened.
If the law cannot keep up, what makes it possible for a statutory agency to do so? I would argue that the statutory agencies do no better at keeping up than the legislature would.
Further, I did not say that I support the right of the government to invent and enforce arbitrary regulations. I believe that if the regulations were created in the laws, they would be less arbitrary.
Ah yes, another person who is convinced that ALL laws and regulations are good and anyone who opposes ANY laws or regulations must oppose ALL laws and regulations. The problem I have is, if we live in a world where we can depend on government bureaucrats to ONLY implement good regulations, why do we need any regulations?
I understand, you want the government to be your Daddy because you do not believe in your ability to take care of yourself. Or maybe it is just that you think you will be one of the people that gets to decide what other people may and may not do. Your link is to an analysis of England in the Victorian era. I do not know a lot about the same era in the U.S., but I do know that England had long ceased to be anything vaguely libertarian by the 1800s. So, using it as proof that libertarian ideas can't work is silly. Can you give similar examples of food adulteration in the U.S.?
Of course, all of your arguments are based on the assumption that I am a libertarian. I made a very specific statement. I said that I believe that if the government had not mandated safety standards for cars, they would be as safe, or safer and they would be less expensive. You use food safety in England as evidence that I am wrong.
Ah, I understand, you do not see any difference between laws and regulations. You see there are laws which say that you cannot use another company's trademark without their permission (UL is a trademark). The law, as written by the legislature, specifically says this. On the other hand, a regulation is written by an administrative department.
It is amazing to me that that when someone says that we have too many regulations people like you think they are saying we should not have any laws.
Oh, that's right if it wasn't for government regulations, no one would know how to recognize a safe electrical appliance from an unsafe one...No, wait, they could just look for the UL (Underwriters' Laboratory) mark. You see, it is possible to have safety standards without government regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it sounds like YOU do not know what either word means. Socialism and fascism are variants on the same principle. If you study history you will discover that all fascists started out as socialists. In socialism, the government takes ownership "socially critical" industries and runs them according to what the government thinks is best. In fascism, the government leaves those industries owned by private individuals, as long as those individuals run them according to what the government tells them is best. There is no difference for the average citizen.
What you are missing is that the same logic used by the article to claim that cellphone use while driving is dangerous based on the statistics the article use applies to the data about the number of traffic accidents. The article used the fact that in 21% of accidents the driver was talking on the cellphone to conclude that talking on the cellphone caused 21% of accidents. I can use the fact that as cellphone use has increased, accidents have decreased to conclude that cellphone use reduces accidents. The fact is that in neither case are other contributing factors accounted for.
I am sorry, but there is no problem for the Republican Party to find its identity on this. The only reason you think there is is because you base your opinion of the Republican Party on what Democrats say about it.
I will admit that it is much harder for Republicans to decide their position on this than for Democrats. Republicans are, for the most part, trying to decide which side is the right side, based on their principles. Not everyone is going to agree on the answer. On the other hand, it is fairly easy for the Democrats to decide, since for them the only question is, "Which side will give us more power?"
just that they don't try as much to pitch themselves as ideological hardliners, and so the left isn't caught in these contortions as much.
Um, you do remember the feminists who said that a sexual relationship between a CEO and a corporate intern could NEVER be consensual who then defended Bill Clinton because his relationship with Monica Lewinski was consensual?
More importantly, you seemed to have missed the fact that Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rick Perry are all Republicans. Chris Christie has never taken an anti-regulatory stance on anything. The two Republicans who are mentioned in the article as taking Tesla's side (or at least saying that it has merit) are also the two Republicans who have taken stances in the past opposing excessive regulation. SO, when two out of the three FAIL to support the regulations which protect their "buddies", how do you conclude that Republicans want a regulatory environment that "favors their buddies"?
Actually, the third world approach is that taken by the Democratic Party, have so MANY regulations that no one can possibly be in compliance with them all, so that the only way to do business is to pay bribes.
I won't argue about your "Case 1", because, while I think it is flawed, it has a certain merit. However your "Case 2" is a pure strawman. The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad. The Republican stance is that regulation is often bad and has often been introduced to "solve" problems created by previously existing regulations.
The governors will talk about how good Tesla is but their day job is still governor and that office is under the thumb of the National Automotive Dealers Association who could easily contribute to their rivals.
Rick Perry is not running for re-election and the campaign for his replacement is under way. So, he is not "under the thumb" of the National Automotive Dealers Association, since a threat fro them to contribute to his rivals is not really much of a threat. Based on previous contributions to national campaigns, Rick Perry is more interested in setting himself up for what he perceives as the stronger national position on this issue. I am pretty sure that Chris Christie is statutorily barred from seeking another term as governor of New Jersey.
I do agree that states should not have laws preventing direct sales of automobiles.
We would much rather pay the cost of having younger workers make the mistakes the older workers learned to avoid. This is the problem we see repeatedly. Younger workers buy into the "Oh look, new, shiny!" Older workers look at this "new" idea and say, "Didn't we try that 5 years ago? and 5 years before that? It didn't work either of those times either."
Yes, but as far as I know, Pielke has never claimed that others do not have standing to question his conclusions because they do not have credentials in his field. Whereas these climatologists have.
It may or may not be, but what makes climatologists people to trust on this? They are speaking outside of their area of expertise
I am sorry, but climatologists are claiming that modern structures and forecasting should reduce costs. Why? For example, the more modern structure of automobiles intentionally increases the cost of fixing an automobile involved in a crash. The design change is intended to decrease the chance of serious injury to the passengers, but it is accepted that this means that repairing the automobile will cost more.
When the climatologists make this claim, they are operating outside of their area of expertise. By doing so, they are being hypocrites, since these are the same people who have rejected much of the criticism of the theory of AGW because the people presenting it are not "climatologists".
The response was that he was disregarding the fact that modern structures and forecasting should reduce costs,...
What expertise do climatologists bring to this part of the discussion? This is not a question of climatology but of economics. The guys criticizing Pielke are out of their area of expertise on this.
This is how science works.
Except of course for the fact that these are supposed climatology experts arguing economics. Which of course has been one of the problems with this debate all along. We have people who dismiss others' criticism of their own work because those others are not climatologists tell us what the economic and political fallout of not following their advice will be...and try to tell us to ignore what those who are experts in politics and economics say because they are not climatologists.
Absolutely, especially considering that there is some evidence that, in many cases, society would be better off if certain crimes were punished with a harsh punishment that is over quickly.
While some of the 58 donate Republican and some of the 58 split their donations, the majority spend their political money on Democrats.
Since I do not recall seeing articles about her citing harassment, I don't understand why it is such a big deal that she isn't doing so any longer.
OK, I read the summary and realize the headline is inaccurate. What they meant to write was, " Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits, Citing Harassment" rather than the headline they did write. All I have to say is, "Commas, learn to use them."
It's funny how people bitch about the Koch brothers while ignoring the 58 people and groups who spend MORE money to influence politics (the majority of which donate to Democratic Party campaigns).
So, because one thing happened (the Megaupload.com situation) which you think was an injustice (and I am inclined to agree with you, but I have not studied the situation closely enough to be positive that you are) you think it is a good idea to set up control of the Internet so that more countries have the ability to do similar things (and things that are probably even greater infringements of freedom of speech and justice).
Why does a newspaper get protections that I don't? And don't quote "freedom of the press" since that means everyone has the freedom to publish, not that there is some institution called "the press" that gets special freedom.
Ah, so countries where the per capita income is less than 1/10th that of the U.S. are good examples of what people in the U.S. would be willing to buy if the government did not force them to only buy safer cars? You do realize that in India and China the choice for most people is either buy one of those "death traps" or be unable to afford a car at all?
Or in other words, you believe that the people of India and China would be better off if their cars were too expensive for most of them to have a car.
They started doing it before the SARS "epidemic". I remember them talking about how the swine flu epidemic in 1976 was going to be like the 1918 flu pandemic because we were "due". It was just a matter of time til another flu pandemic like the one in 1918 happened.
If the law cannot keep up, what makes it possible for a statutory agency to do so? I would argue that the statutory agencies do no better at keeping up than the legislature would.
Further, I did not say that I support the right of the government to invent and enforce arbitrary regulations. I believe that if the regulations were created in the laws, they would be less arbitrary.
Ah yes, another person who is convinced that ALL laws and regulations are good and anyone who opposes ANY laws or regulations must oppose ALL laws and regulations. The problem I have is, if we live in a world where we can depend on government bureaucrats to ONLY implement good regulations, why do we need any regulations?
I understand, you want the government to be your Daddy because you do not believe in your ability to take care of yourself. Or maybe it is just that you think you will be one of the people that gets to decide what other people may and may not do. Your link is to an analysis of England in the Victorian era. I do not know a lot about the same era in the U.S., but I do know that England had long ceased to be anything vaguely libertarian by the 1800s. So, using it as proof that libertarian ideas can't work is silly. Can you give similar examples of food adulteration in the U.S.?
Of course, all of your arguments are based on the assumption that I am a libertarian. I made a very specific statement. I said that I believe that if the government had not mandated safety standards for cars, they would be as safe, or safer and they would be less expensive. You use food safety in England as evidence that I am wrong.
Ah, I understand, you do not see any difference between laws and regulations. You see there are laws which say that you cannot use another company's trademark without their permission (UL is a trademark). The law, as written by the legislature, specifically says this. On the other hand, a regulation is written by an administrative department.
It is amazing to me that that when someone says that we have too many regulations people like you think they are saying we should not have any laws.
Oh, that's right if it wasn't for government regulations, no one would know how to recognize a safe electrical appliance from an unsafe one...No, wait, they could just look for the UL (Underwriters' Laboratory) mark. You see, it is possible to have safety standards without government regulation.