That may be but I'll tell you what, the government doesn't either. So now what? Shall we complain incessantly about the failure of corporations and governments or shall we take personal responsibility for our own country?
Then every current corporation is currently guilty of fraud on a massive scale because they strictly limit the amount of information about their product.
That may be, but the burden is on you or your elected officials to substantiate the claim and hold them accountable. We are all afforded the same rights of due process of law.
No, I simply think that libertarians use naive reasoning in their logic using the assumption that corporations are benevolent
No honest Libertarian ever said corporations are all inherently benevolent or malign. That's intellectually dishonest. Corporations are however mostly focused on self interest, as we all are. Be honest, the change you want is based on your own self interest. You want to tip the scales in your favor. There is no noble moral crusade there. You are merely representing a different different competing interest from your subjective perspective. What we are all doing is trying to find compromise among all these competing interests. How's big government working in that regard? Please supply evidence for your claim.
Milton Friedman even said the Free Market Enterprise system is far from perfect and we should endeavor to make it better. He challenged critics to present a better system. To my knowledge, no one has ever done so.
Uhh... what do you call regulation?
There has always been some amount of regulation in free market economics, Milton Friedman even acknowledged this. Watch the video about the Ford Pinto. A liberal calls for the Ford Pinto to be recalled. Milton Friedman argues let the consumer decide whether they want to take the risk and that what's at issue is whether the producer adequately discloses all the information to allow the consumer to make an informed choice. Not doing so is fraud. If no consumers choose the product, the market has sorted out the problem. Having laws against things like fraud is a form of regulation. You'd like to think Libertarians are anarchists or support completely unregulated Capitalism but that's simply not true. That's just misinformation and demagoguery.
...it's a game. It always has been, always will be. Most it is common sense math. If you want to get more advanced, read about Economic Game Theory. There are winners and losers. It's not a non-zero sum game. The winners are the ones who know best how to play the game to their advantage much like the old game of Monopoly. If you don't try to win, you're guaranteed to lose.
Life has always been a game of competition. Competition for resources, competition for mates and now with free market economics, it's competition for resources in the form of monetary value. Same as it always was.
I'm not touting marxism, I'm just pointing out that capitalism isn't good everywhere like you seem to think it is.
Milton Friedman even said the Free Market Enterprise system is far from perfect and we should endeavor to make it better. He challenged critics to present a better system. To my knowledge, no one has ever done so.
"They" are out to get us, and "we" must be vigilant and get them first . ..
Point me to a time in human history where tribalism wasn't a pervasive source of conflict. After you answer that question, explain how we are to arrive in that world Utopian state where we have solved that problem. If you can do it successfully and get the world to adopt it, you will win a Nobel Prize. Good luck!
Being twice as likely to die doesn't provide a lot of meaningful information
Oh being twice as likely to die sooner isn't the worst of it all. You will be in a world of chronic pain towards the end of it in the form of arthritis and tight, shortened muscles. This will prevent you from sleeping. That's not even counting the issues from internal organs that will be exacerbated. I'd rather be active to have a lot less pain. It's not about living longer necessarily. I'm hoping when I go it will be sudden so I'm not aware of it rather than being in chronic pain and agony.
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
Confirmation bias. You obviously have no formal education in moral and ethical philosophy. It's a waste of my time to attempt to have an educated discussion with you. Try David Hume.
You have a steady job, buy a phone. Lose the job, can't find another, manage to get food stamps. Voila, you have a phone and welfare.
And this is such a large market segment that we should capitalize on it by writing mobile apps to people who can afford to buy them because they don't have a job and can't afford to buy food? Seems legit.
I worked at a grocery store checkout for 10 years, and the overwhelming majority of people using EBT did not appear to be gaming the system.
Don't let it change your world-view though.... stay woke.
Please do describe your profiling method in great detail. I'm sure it's very accurate. Perhaps you should supply it to Federal and State governments to use it as a means to differentiate between the gamers and non-gamers.
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it.
If you want to talk about fairness and equity, why should I have to pay for the cheaters who abuse the system? It is indeed a fairness and equity problem but what you seem to be suggesting is that we get out scales and weigh the cost of cheaters vs. the cost of those truly in need. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that those "truly in need" outweigh the "cheaters" but have supplied no evidence for that claim. By the way, what is the litmus test for that anyway? You seem to be taking the position of some type of utilitarian morality and ethics. If we applied this to murder, you wouldn't think what you're thinking. It's okay that we allow one murderer to get away will killing an entire family so long as we stop at least twice as many.
If you want to have a more interesting conversation, let's frame it in the context of the highly academic discussion of ethics and morality that has gone back at least to ancient Greek civilization. You seem to think the problem is trivial. If that is the case, why have we grappled with this for thousands of years?
This, of course, does not happen. It is a made-up story with the cynical intent to make middle-class people hate poor people.
I have seen this happen. There was a women that worked with my ex-wife who was not married but had a domestic partner. The domestic partner bought a brand new 5 bedroom house and this women and her kids lived there. She drew on every single social program they could including EBT. She drove a newer Durango to the store to use EBT. Yes, it does happen. People game the system. In addition to this anecdote, I have several white trash family members who engage in similar gaming. I can call them white trash because they are my family and we both know they are. They have no problems proudly admitting it either and emphasizing how they are justified in doing what they're doing because everything is corrupt and this and that. They consider it social justice.
There is an endless variety of apps designed to manage life for the upper middle class, but most low-income Americans don't benefit from the same time-saving hacks
Let me get this straight, you need EBT because you can't afford food but you can afford a smart phone? Anyone else see the problem with this?
My major plan is to build our social insurances on top of a universal social security. This improves the financial position of all households, most-importantly the lowest-income households. When you do the computation for necessary aid, you're starting from a higher annual income, so the amount of necessary aid is smaller.
Can these apps provide deal tracking and budgeting from cash for lower-income households without EBT services?
Great idea except where do you get sustainable funding for it?
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
I wish I had mod points for you. This also testifies to how excellent the education system is for these folks.
We'll have more insight into why Jupiter has so many storms and be able to terraform it! Or we could just say the nature of the universe is chaotic which is what the evidence suggests and get over it. I'm reminded of the Bad Religion song "Better off Dead":
I'm sorry about the sun
How could I know that you would burn?
And I'm sorry about the moon
How could I know that you'd disapprove?
And I'll never make the same mistake
The next time I create the universe
I'll make sure we communicate at length
Oh yeah
Anyone who exists is lucky to exist and be aware of it. We are only here for a short time and for that we should be thankful. I'm tired of hearing incessant complaining about life not meeting people's expectations.
The text says `make no law` not `shall guarantee`
big difference. The amendment says what congress cannot do.
It makes no difference. You are quoting doctrines of the United States of America. Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Do you not understand what a country is and how laws made by those countries do not apply to other countries unless there is some sort of treaty between those countries or some mutual adoption of a some type of convention?
1. As previous comments reminded you, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - not reserved purely for US citizens.
Show me the document that codifies this right and that the entire world agreed with it. If that's not the origin of said human right, please describe in more detail the origin. Just saying X exists doesn't make it so.
speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?
Here's the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you point out where it says "soil" or "citizen"? Can you also explain how such restrictions are consistent with the phrase "no law"?
Can you explain how one country would guarantee these rights in other countries for non-citizens of said country especially ones where they have laws that are not congruent with these principles? Nice try. It probably sounded good in your head as an abstract idea. In reality, when it comes to world affairs we only have the United Nations and not everyone is a member.
4. If a language is popular, you can get a job writing code in it.
Let's state this more clearly: if a language is popular [in the business universe and has a proven track record of having money making applications written in it], you can get a job writing code in it. ftfy
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations don't give a shit about people.
That may be but I'll tell you what, the government doesn't either. So now what? Shall we complain incessantly about the failure of corporations and governments or shall we take personal responsibility for our own country?
Then every current corporation is currently guilty of fraud on a massive scale because they strictly limit the amount of information about their product.
That may be, but the burden is on you or your elected officials to substantiate the claim and hold them accountable. We are all afforded the same rights of due process of law.
No, I simply think that libertarians use naive reasoning in their logic using the assumption that corporations are benevolent
No honest Libertarian ever said corporations are all inherently benevolent or malign. That's intellectually dishonest. Corporations are however mostly focused on self interest, as we all are. Be honest, the change you want is based on your own self interest. You want to tip the scales in your favor. There is no noble moral crusade there. You are merely representing a different different competing interest from your subjective perspective. What we are all doing is trying to find compromise among all these competing interests. How's big government working in that regard? Please supply evidence for your claim.
Milton Friedman even said the Free Market Enterprise system is far from perfect and we should endeavor to make it better. He challenged critics to present a better system. To my knowledge, no one has ever done so.
Uhh... what do you call regulation?
There has always been some amount of regulation in free market economics, Milton Friedman even acknowledged this. Watch the video about the Ford Pinto. A liberal calls for the Ford Pinto to be recalled. Milton Friedman argues let the consumer decide whether they want to take the risk and that what's at issue is whether the producer adequately discloses all the information to allow the consumer to make an informed choice. Not doing so is fraud. If no consumers choose the product, the market has sorted out the problem. Having laws against things like fraud is a form of regulation. You'd like to think Libertarians are anarchists or support completely unregulated Capitalism but that's simply not true. That's just misinformation and demagoguery.
...it's a game. It always has been, always will be. Most it is common sense math. If you want to get more advanced, read about Economic Game Theory. There are winners and losers. It's not a non-zero sum game. The winners are the ones who know best how to play the game to their advantage much like the old game of Monopoly. If you don't try to win, you're guaranteed to lose.
Life has always been a game of competition. Competition for resources, competition for mates and now with free market economics, it's competition for resources in the form of monetary value. Same as it always was.
I'm not touting marxism, I'm just pointing out that capitalism isn't good everywhere like you seem to think it is.
Milton Friedman even said the Free Market Enterprise system is far from perfect and we should endeavor to make it better. He challenged critics to present a better system. To my knowledge, no one has ever done so.
This is why I use Linux
You do realize what OS the Bat Computer runs right?
No -- Microsoft has upgraded from bugs to bats. It's full of bats now.
"They" are out to get us, and "we" must be vigilant and get them first . . .
Point me to a time in human history where tribalism wasn't a pervasive source of conflict. After you answer that question, explain how we are to arrive in that world Utopian state where we have solved that problem. If you can do it successfully and get the world to adopt it, you will win a Nobel Prize. Good luck!
It's official. Google published it and they are always right. Spaces are better than tabs! :P
Being twice as likely to die doesn't provide a lot of meaningful information
Oh being twice as likely to die sooner isn't the worst of it all. You will be in a world of chronic pain towards the end of it in the form of arthritis and tight, shortened muscles. This will prevent you from sleeping. That's not even counting the issues from internal organs that will be exacerbated. I'd rather be active to have a lot less pain. It's not about living longer necessarily. I'm hoping when I go it will be sudden so I'm not aware of it rather than being in chronic pain and agony.
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
Confirmation bias. You obviously have no formal education in moral and ethical philosophy. It's a waste of my time to attempt to have an educated discussion with you. Try David Hume.
WTF do you eat that you spend less than $100 on food for 3 every month
Ramen and peanut butter. The college diet of champions. Maybe we should put them on EBT too?
You have a steady job, buy a phone. Lose the job, can't find another, manage to get food stamps. Voila, you have a phone and welfare.
And this is such a large market segment that we should capitalize on it by writing mobile apps to people who can afford to buy them because they don't have a job and can't afford to buy food? Seems legit.
I worked at a grocery store checkout for 10 years, and the overwhelming majority of people using EBT did not appear to be gaming the system.
Don't let it change your world-view though.... stay woke.
Please do describe your profiling method in great detail. I'm sure it's very accurate. Perhaps you should supply it to Federal and State governments to use it as a means to differentiate between the gamers and non-gamers.
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it.
If you want to talk about fairness and equity, why should I have to pay for the cheaters who abuse the system? It is indeed a fairness and equity problem but what you seem to be suggesting is that we get out scales and weigh the cost of cheaters vs. the cost of those truly in need. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that those "truly in need" outweigh the "cheaters" but have supplied no evidence for that claim. By the way, what is the litmus test for that anyway? You seem to be taking the position of some type of utilitarian morality and ethics. If we applied this to murder, you wouldn't think what you're thinking. It's okay that we allow one murderer to get away will killing an entire family so long as we stop at least twice as many.
If you want to have a more interesting conversation, let's frame it in the context of the highly academic discussion of ethics and morality that has gone back at least to ancient Greek civilization. You seem to think the problem is trivial. If that is the case, why have we grappled with this for thousands of years?
This, of course, does not happen. It is a made-up story with the cynical intent to make middle-class people hate poor people.
I have seen this happen. There was a women that worked with my ex-wife who was not married but had a domestic partner. The domestic partner bought a brand new 5 bedroom house and this women and her kids lived there. She drew on every single social program they could including EBT. She drove a newer Durango to the store to use EBT. Yes, it does happen. People game the system. In addition to this anecdote, I have several white trash family members who engage in similar gaming. I can call them white trash because they are my family and we both know they are. They have no problems proudly admitting it either and emphasizing how they are justified in doing what they're doing because everything is corrupt and this and that. They consider it social justice.
There is an endless variety of apps designed to manage life for the upper middle class, but most low-income Americans don't benefit from the same time-saving hacks
Let me get this straight, you need EBT because you can't afford food but you can afford a smart phone? Anyone else see the problem with this?
My major plan is to build our social insurances on top of a universal social security. This improves the financial position of all households, most-importantly the lowest-income households. When you do the computation for necessary aid, you're starting from a higher annual income, so the amount of necessary aid is smaller.
Can these apps provide deal tracking and budgeting from cash for lower-income households without EBT services?
Great idea except where do you get sustainable funding for it?
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
I wish I had mod points for you. This also testifies to how excellent the education system is for these folks.
We'll have more insight into why Jupiter has so many storms and be able to terraform it! Or we could just say the nature of the universe is chaotic which is what the evidence suggests and get over it. I'm reminded of the Bad Religion song "Better off Dead":
I'm sorry about the sun
How could I know that you would burn?
And I'm sorry about the moon
How could I know that you'd disapprove?
And I'll never make the same mistake
The next time I create the universe
I'll make sure we communicate at length
Oh yeah
Anyone who exists is lucky to exist and be aware of it. We are only here for a short time and for that we should be thankful. I'm tired of hearing incessant complaining about life not meeting people's expectations.
Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world.
That is not what is happening here. The FBI is not going after the Russians, they are going after Facebook,
All posters of anti-American propaganda via Facebook reside in the United States then?
The text says `make no law` not `shall guarantee` big difference. The amendment says what congress cannot do.
It makes no difference. You are quoting doctrines of the United States of America. Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Do you not understand what a country is and how laws made by those countries do not apply to other countries unless there is some sort of treaty between those countries or some mutual adoption of a some type of convention?
1. As previous comments reminded you, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - not reserved purely for US citizens.
Show me the document that codifies this right and that the entire world agreed with it. If that's not the origin of said human right, please describe in more detail the origin. Just saying X exists doesn't make it so.
speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?
Here's the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you point out where it says "soil" or "citizen"? Can you also explain how such restrictions are consistent with the phrase "no law"?
Can you explain how one country would guarantee these rights in other countries for non-citizens of said country especially ones where they have laws that are not congruent with these principles? Nice try. It probably sounded good in your head as an abstract idea. In reality, when it comes to world affairs we only have the United Nations and not everyone is a member.
4. If a language is popular, you can get a job writing code in it.
Let's state this more clearly: if a language is popular [in the business universe and has a proven track record of having money making applications written in it], you can get a job writing code in it. ftfy