Unless you found a way to go around entropy, you can't claim that all or even most things are subsidised by government and it is somehow a sustainable model.
Economics isn't physics. It's well known that, in economics, concepts such as conservation of value don't exist. Hell, the entire field pretty much is devoted to that.
That's why we have trade. It's literally producing value from thin air.
Further, the value of a subsidy and the cost of a subsidy are not the same. Look at roads. The cost to the government is high, but they subsidize a huge number of businesses, and provide huge calue to them.
Heck, even accepting your implicit premise that subsidies are giveaways, the money goes somewhere: There's no reason that a country couldn't function if 1/3 of people worked in the private sector, and were taxed with no subsidies, 1/3 dug ditches for a government wage, and the last 1/3 filled in those same ditches for a government wage. Not my ideal society, but you've made a strong claim that is impossible. Defend that position
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
I would say the EPA and Clean Air/Clean Water acts were major changes. The WPA, Social Security, the TVA all were fundamental shifts. Hell, getting off the gold standard was huge.
Getting rid of the monarchy, getting rid of slavery, votes for women, civil rights, whatever. None of these happen through people simply going through the motions of voting.
I must point out that on the state level, all these happened without protest in the early-adoption states. Well, except getting rid of the monarchy. Hell, women had the right to vote in some states in the 1700's, long before slavery was abnolished in those states. Slavery was peacefully abolished in 1/2 the union without violence or protests. And civil rights came about in some areas (e.g. the military) quickly and painlessly.
Again, so what? And who decides what is "critical"? I don't think the power grid is critical because the folks who really need the power have backups. So, what business is it is of our spy agency if Walmart can keep their lights on? My local hospital has multiple backup generators and so does my local Air Force base/NAS.
And the really important places in the US have anti-aircraft weapons. But I'm still glad the Air Force has part of it's missions to keep [insert scariest foreign group] from dropping bombs on my house.
Critical does not necessarily mean it causes massive deaths immediately. It can be as simple as making sure that munitions plants can remain open, or food riots don't break out because there is suddenly no refrigeration.
You don't have to insist on 100% safety to object to unsafe things.
Unpatched Windows XP has more security holes than a patched Windows 7 machine. Yet you wouldn't suggest that because Windows 7 has security holes, you may as well be running unpatched XP.
(You can replace Windows 7 with Linux or OS X if you prefer.)
What "perverse incentive"?.. Trading faster is just another advantage and it is logical to take that to the extreme, such as is done with HFT. Nothing perverse about it.
There is an incentive to trade faster. This incentive does not align with the stated goals of the marketplace (to discover the market value of something and trade goods at that value.) "Perverse incentive" is a technical term for when an organization or individual provides an incentive that does not incentivize what they think it does/what furthers their goals.
You also misunderstand the point I made, thinking it somehow relates to fraud. Theoretically, the market is set up (and the SEC ensures it does) so that using publicly available information in ways to predict the financial health of companies is rewarded. However, HFT introduces a deadweight loss on the system, reducing the incentives for the person/company to seek out opportunities in the stock market.
The total reward for shorting Enron remains the same- the HFTs made money- therefore it must have come at the expense of the other party to make money: the one who shorted Enron.
It's funny how Slashdot, which is so against computer-automated HFT, is equally in favor of the self-driving cars... Anything can be automated and scaled up, including disasters.
One, driving cars produces value. Self-driving cars therefore automate a socially beneficial activity. Arbitrage benefits society only when it helps builds markets, otherwise it only benefits the arbitragers. And HFT is arbitrage where a market already exists.
Or, to use a different analogy, it's why I can be in favor of automating tellers at a bank, but not automating the bank robbers.
Those low latency traders have to work hard to gain their modest market advantage. And that is as it should be.
Who cares if they worked hard? Life isn't first grade and you don't get an "A" for effort.
Perverse incentives are bad. HFT adds no value. Therefore things that incentivize removal of latency (short-term goals) at the expense of say, detecting and shorting the next Enron or pumping dollars into a promising startup or trading your less risk-loving dollars for a VC's so he can invest in the next startup actively hurt society.
The only problem is when the SEC gets involved and undoes transactions to protect the automated traders from the massive losses incurred by their incorrect valuation.
I daresay that the problem is that the SEC is not getting involved and undoing transactions, and thus protecting the automated traders's massive gains by dubious methods.
Ironically, a large publisher was behind the app. You'd think they, dealing with IP all day as a business, and choosing the name, they could have foreseen the problem.
Progress: we now execute people for consuming whiskey. This is better.
Stupid pedantic point, but it is better than the original state when people were killed just cause. But, in case you didn't notice, only one western country tried outlawing alcohol, and it lasted like 15 years. Then it was undone because it was a stupid idea.
And notice how stonings, etc. don't happen anymore in western countries. In fact, you brought that up just because it's shocking and we don't do it anymore.
It went: Stone Everyone->Stone people over little things->Stone people over alcohol->Stone no-one
False, we have a lot of cool lights.
Yeah, but Edison didn't. I'm not saying that people weren't wrong about fire, I'm saying Edison didn't prove them wrong.
But it still holds that people were saying "fire makes light", and later discovered "non-fire makes light". Totally different concept. Non-market forces work better. Everyone else noticed this. Maybe a revolutionary way of using market forces would work. So... what would that revolutionary way be?
And seriously, you just seem to move the goal-posts around like crazy. You say you need laboratories of democracy; fine. All you need to do is provide health care for all - poor and those with preexisting conditions. You can go single-payer. You can have private companies compete.
But there is no way you can have people with pre-existing conditions able to sign up if they can just sign up when they get sick without making insurance a meaningless concept. I mean, the market failure there is self-apparent... people with pre-existing conditions drive up the cost of insurance, which drives up the price, which drives out the people getting the least benefit- the healthiest, which drives up the per-person cost, which drives up the per-person price...
It's why buying insurance in bulk is such a good deal.
You gave zero numbers but a logical statement with no substantiation; I'll make up numbers to show that statement could indeed be false....Oops. Logic.
I didn't bother to read your made up numbers. Cause I wasn't making a magic fairy tale hypothetical world argument. I wasn't basing things on logic... I used real numbers and math
Current Cali debt < 700b. Current Cali income taxes > 375b. Current Cali budget from feds < 100b. It's simple math. You projected a lot of things, but the truth is that California's entire state budget could come from the federal government , the federal government could assume all of California's debt, and still turn a profit after a decade... even ignoring state income tax
Every civilized, educated person also knows that fire is required for light. Does that mean Edison was doing it wrong?
Hey, I'm fine with someone saying conventional wisdom is wrong. But you have the direction confused. Everyone started with a system like ours. Then, slowly, one by one, they converted over to the system.
Also, people weren't crazy wrong. Extreme heat was required. Edison discovered that a proper filament being heated, and in an oxygen-free environment, could provide light without catching fire. It was a brilliant evolution of thought. Much like moving to a state-run health care system.
Basic one is false dilemma: you're assuming either socialized healthcare or privatized healthcare is "correct" or "better," but really it's in implementation.
I'm assuming that the implementation of a socialized healthcare system is better than the implementation of a privatized healthcare system, because, all other things being equal, it is.
Just like I'm assuming that the implementation of a retirement plan of diversified assets is better than the implementation of a retirement plan of buying tons of lottery tickets. And I do that in spite of the fact that the lottery ticket implementation could be better. Could be way better.
I don't expect an implementation of private health care to be better. It meets tons of definitions for market failure: uninformed consumers, inability to shop around, inelastic demand... in fact, healthcare and insurance are two of the three textbook examples of market breakdown (the other being utilities).
But we have 50 healthcare systems where one is better than another, and the states can more easily adjust their healthcare systems to eliminate and avoid deficiencies and to utilize better strategies as they experiment to correct their problems or recognize useful implementations in the other states.
But that's the case under the new federal regulations. It just sets some ground rules (which you don't seem offended by, because you ignored them when I brought them up), and some goals. Each state is encouraged to "do whatever" to meet those goals.
The bigger complaint I've heard is that, since the states don't want to innovate, they are all paying to implement the same infrastructure as opposed to sharing.
Which as I said is an example of poor implementation. The state is forcing me to buy things from robber barons who now are going to try to convince the state they need to overcharge people while the state spends money making a valiant effort to stop the robber barons from overcharging people too much.
Yup, I'd prefer a single-payer system too. Oh wait, I can just move to Vermont where there are no insurance companies and there is single-payer.
Exactly what I want is for the states to be allowed to opt-out of the whole thing entirely, and to not be prevented from going their own direction with their own plans.
They cannot opt out. They have to reach certain goals, and are given some limitations. But they have a ton of freedom.
Frankly, I'm kinda pissed they didn't just put a single-payer system into place... let people pay for whatever they want on the side, and be done with it.
Texas didn't get any help from the Federal Government in the 80s; they got money from taxpayers in various states. Instead of a few tens of millions of people in Texas having a bad time, hundreds of millions of people in the US had a bad time
Of course Texas got help from the federal government. And of course the same amount of pain was spread among 100 million people instead of 10 million. So each person suffered 1/10 as much. (Actually, due to feedback loops, the total pain also lessened.) That seems like a good thing.
And of course, Texas, which recovered from help with the aid of the federal government is now going to help New Jersey, just like it once helped New Orleans.
Variations do to random chance are bad for everyone. Esp. business. Hence the trillion dollar industry of ameliorating chance, via insurance, derivatives, etc.
Karl Marx had an idea about that... if you bring down an economy hard enough, it's unlivable; the only way to 'save' it is to move to total communism
Do you honestly think that there is a communist plot? Or that it would still harkin back to 100+ year old tactics.
Well if California goes bankrupt, the US Federal Government can't help much, but probably will try anyway; the strain on the US economy will collapse it, and then what?
Well, the total California debt is half of what they pay annually in income taxes to the US government. Just income taxes. So, you know, it's something where the feds could absorb the debt and still have a net positive after three years.
We're coupled together like that. So is Europe.
Europe isn't coupled like we are. When Texas had trouble in the 80's, everyone pitched in, and the crisis was halted before it spread. When Greece had trouble, there was no shared European sacrifice. That pain then spread to other countries. Even Spain, which was running surpluses up until Greece started fucking up, got into trouble.
Also if you move to Germany you get Germancare. If you move to Canada you get Canadacare. The US was one of the last places with a private healthcare system that's not a third world country
So, two questions: Isn't that a sign that we might be doing it wrong. Second, all you're doing is pushing the problem down one level. What happens once the 50th state passes a healthcare law you don't like: counties should be independent!
Also, leaving aside the very real economic analysis that shows health care is pretty much a textbook case of a free-market failure (see also, utilities), it's still private. You're just forced to participate. You still get to choose blue cross, or kasier or whatever.
All of it. They got it wrong and they got it wrong across the whole god damn country; at least if all 50 states implemented healthcare systems they'd have the opportunity to do different things, and if one sucked you could move to the next state or that state could rewrite its healthcare laws.
But, they are doing exactly what you want. Mass. pioneered a program. It looked good, so it got promoted up to a national one. But the national mandate has a strong state-by-state process. Vermont thought they could improve on it with a single-payer system, so they're doing that.
I'm hardpressed to say that the national elements of the law (people must pay towards healthcare, and as a result cannot be denied healthcare... due diligence is required upfront instead of retroactively, etc.) are in any way in dispute or location specific.
You keep saying things like "If you don't like Obamacare, you can't just move to Vermont". You seem to ignore that you could move to Canada, or Germany, or whatever. I posit that the only reason moving from one state to another seems so easy is because of the centralized government.
Fact is, states are far more likely to vary in economic fortune, than be continuously a drag on the country... in the 80's Texas needed a lot of help from the federal government, and now they give back.
Conquest is immoral and doesn't provide any legitimate claim. I hope you stand with me in opposing it.
Umm... okay then, you have no legitimate claim to your land. Please return it to the Mexican family we stole it from. Seriously, how else do you explain the "initial acquisition" of Locke's philosophy.
That's an inalienable right
Abandoning your citizenship? Sure. But certainly I can sell you some but not all rights to land? I mean, utility right-of-ways, or whatnot. How is that different from saying, this land does not have the right to secede.
You are a tyrant.
Not really. If you try to steal, I'll oppose it. Or would you be a tyrant if I came into your house, I started sleeping in your living room and you wanted to kick me out.
It is my land. I paid for it and bought it from its owner.
Read your deed. And the state laws that automatically applied limitations to your land. Likely you don't have mineral rights, certainly your 49rights terminate at some depth and some height. There are a priori governmental rights to repurchase your land in the case of eminent domain.
The government does not own our land any more than it owns our bodies. It doesn't own any of our property
That hardly seems like a tenable statement. While I would contend that the government certainly can limit your rights in both cases, your property was acquired from someone, who.... chain of ownership later... acquired it from the government who acquired it via right of conquest from some other group.
Hence, retained rights.
I'll make you a deal: you guys stay off my land, and I'll stay out of your lives
If it was 100% your land, sure. But, again, retained rights. And one of the rights you did not acquire with your land was the right to secede. Now, if you wanna go form a new government somewhere else, and bring some M-16s and create your own country, I wish you luck. (Note, if you try to do so on the land you currently inhabit, you're trying to appropriate by force property rights currently belonging to my government, and I will care.)
It's fine with me if the rest of you live under whatever system you like, but I don't think you should be allowed to get your way at the expense of the rest of us.
Then why don't you get off our land? I mean, the owners of the land you are currently on decided to join the United States. Property was deed out, but some rights were retained.
Maybe one day we'll see stats that make people think: maybe these two assholes aren't our only option. Maybe one day we'll stop worshipping the constitution, burn it, and become 50 separate countries with our own currency and economic robustness
What advantage would dissolving the union have?
Also, if there was less state-autonomy, the two party system would take a giant hit. A 60% majority in a state can use that power to allocate it's electoral votes in mass, as opposed to proportionally (as well as gerrymander to keep a 75% majority in the legislature and in the US House.) So the other 40% of the votes go to their party.
) I want to send a message in the strongest possible way that the two-party system is broken, and the strongest way I can think to do so is with my vote.
Do you mean that the strongest way you can think of for a generic person, or for you specifically. Cause there are far stronger ways to do so. Leaving aside treason/armed rebellion, all you're left with is: Donating money. Signing petitions to get people on ballots/into debates. Appearing at rallies. Calling people/going door to door. Volunteering with the campaign.
Unions are for supporting interchangeable employees. Devlopers have very specific skill sets. Generally speaking, most high end professions don't have unions: doctors, lawyers, engineers.
Except for AMA, ABA, and NSPE, you're exactly right.
And those totally interchangeable cogs, like screenwriters, actors, and professional athletes all have unions as well.
With the union, we get paid the same. When it's time for a raise, we get the same.
Except for the fact that you're totally wrong, you're exactly right. Unions may do something this stupid but it goes against experiecne. But the fact is, when unions represent people of vastly disparate skills and values, they increase the income of the top performers at the cost of the mediocre ones.
What example you ask? Look at the player's unions for professional sports. They have minimum wages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but somehow superstars still get their checks.
I mean, you could form a shitty union. But you could also not.
Well, with metric tons of cash, and no access to ILM in the basement,he could easily make sensitive, low-budget art films. Or sensitive high-budget art films that are works of love and lose 90% of his investment.
Not having ILM or LucasFilms around is going to be the best thing that happened to all future George Lucas movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Economics isn't physics. It's well known that, in economics, concepts such as conservation of value don't exist. Hell, the entire field pretty much is devoted to that.
That's why we have trade. It's literally producing value from thin air.
Further, the value of a subsidy and the cost of a subsidy are not the same. Look at roads. The cost to the government is high, but they subsidize a huge number of businesses, and provide huge calue to them.
Heck, even accepting your implicit premise that subsidies are giveaways, the money goes somewhere: There's no reason that a country couldn't function if 1/3 of people worked in the private sector, and were taxed with no subsidies, 1/3 dug ditches for a government wage, and the last 1/3 filled in those same ditches for a government wage. Not my ideal society, but you've made a strong claim that is impossible. Defend that position
I would say the EPA and Clean Air/Clean Water acts were major changes. The WPA, Social Security, the TVA all were fundamental shifts. Hell, getting off the gold standard was huge.
I must point out that on the state level, all these happened without protest in the early-adoption states. Well, except getting rid of the monarchy. Hell, women had the right to vote in some states in the 1700's, long before slavery was abnolished in those states. Slavery was peacefully abolished in 1/2 the union without violence or protests. And civil rights came about in some areas (e.g. the military) quickly and painlessly.
And the really important places in the US have anti-aircraft weapons. But I'm still glad the Air Force has part of it's missions to keep [insert scariest foreign group] from dropping bombs on my house.
Critical does not necessarily mean it causes massive deaths immediately. It can be as simple as making sure that munitions plants can remain open, or food riots don't break out because there is suddenly no refrigeration.
You don't have to insist on 100% safety to object to unsafe things.
Unpatched Windows XP has more security holes than a patched Windows 7 machine. Yet you wouldn't suggest that because Windows 7 has security holes, you may as well be running unpatched XP.
(You can replace Windows 7 with Linux or OS X if you prefer.)
You completly misunderstand.
There is an incentive to trade faster. This incentive does not align with the stated goals of the marketplace (to discover the market value of something and trade goods at that value.) "Perverse incentive" is a technical term for when an organization or individual provides an incentive that does not incentivize what they think it does/what furthers their goals.
You also misunderstand the point I made, thinking it somehow relates to fraud. Theoretically, the market is set up (and the SEC ensures it does) so that using publicly available information in ways to predict the financial health of companies is rewarded. However, HFT introduces a deadweight loss on the system, reducing the incentives for the person/company to seek out opportunities in the stock market.
The total reward for shorting Enron remains the same- the HFTs made money- therefore it must have come at the expense of the other party to make money: the one who shorted Enron.
One, driving cars produces value. Self-driving cars therefore automate a socially beneficial activity. Arbitrage benefits society only when it helps builds markets, otherwise it only benefits the arbitragers. And HFT is arbitrage where a market already exists.
Or, to use a different analogy, it's why I can be in favor of automating tellers at a bank, but not automating the bank robbers.
Who cares if they worked hard? Life isn't first grade and you don't get an "A" for effort.
Perverse incentives are bad. HFT adds no value. Therefore things that incentivize removal of latency (short-term goals) at the expense of say, detecting and shorting the next Enron or pumping dollars into a promising startup or trading your less risk-loving dollars for a VC's so he can invest in the next startup actively hurt society.
I daresay that the problem is that the SEC is not getting involved and undoing transactions, and thus protecting the automated traders's massive gains by dubious methods.
Yeah, the exact same trademark.
Ironically, a large publisher was behind the app. You'd think they, dealing with IP all day as a business, and choosing the name, they could have foreseen the problem.
As an affected developer (actually from 3 years ago), I can tell you that it is a worldwide removal.
Stupid pedantic point, but it is better than the original state when people were killed just cause. But, in case you didn't notice, only one western country tried outlawing alcohol, and it lasted like 15 years. Then it was undone because it was a stupid idea.
And notice how stonings, etc. don't happen anymore in western countries. In fact, you brought that up just because it's shocking and we don't do it anymore.
It went: Stone Everyone->Stone people over little things->Stone people over alcohol->Stone no-one
Yeah, but Edison didn't. I'm not saying that people weren't wrong about fire, I'm saying Edison didn't prove them wrong.
But it still holds that people were saying "fire makes light", and later discovered "non-fire makes light". Totally different concept. Non-market forces work better. Everyone else noticed this. Maybe a revolutionary way of using market forces would work. So... what would that revolutionary way be?
And seriously, you just seem to move the goal-posts around like crazy. You say you need laboratories of democracy; fine. All you need to do is provide health care for all - poor and those with preexisting conditions. You can go single-payer. You can have private companies compete.
But there is no way you can have people with pre-existing conditions able to sign up if they can just sign up when they get sick without making insurance a meaningless concept. I mean, the market failure there is self-apparent... people with pre-existing conditions drive up the cost of insurance, which drives up the price, which drives out the people getting the least benefit- the healthiest, which drives up the per-person cost, which drives up the per-person price...
It's why buying insurance in bulk is such a good deal.
I didn't bother to read your made up numbers. Cause I wasn't making a magic fairy tale hypothetical world argument. I wasn't basing things on logic... I used real numbers and math
Current Cali debt < 700b. Current Cali income taxes > 375b. Current Cali budget from feds < 100b. It's simple math. You projected a lot of things, but the truth is that California's entire state budget could come from the federal government , the federal government could assume all of California's debt, and still turn a profit after a decade... even ignoring state income tax
Hey, I'm fine with someone saying conventional wisdom is wrong. But you have the direction confused. Everyone started with a system like ours. Then, slowly, one by one, they converted over to the system.
Also, people weren't crazy wrong. Extreme heat was required. Edison discovered that a proper filament being heated, and in an oxygen-free environment, could provide light without catching fire. It was a brilliant evolution of thought. Much like moving to a state-run health care system.
I'm assuming that the implementation of a socialized healthcare system is better than the implementation of a privatized healthcare system, because, all other things being equal, it is.
Just like I'm assuming that the implementation of a retirement plan of diversified assets is better than the implementation of a retirement plan of buying tons of lottery tickets. And I do that in spite of the fact that the lottery ticket implementation could be better. Could be way better.
I don't expect an implementation of private health care to be better. It meets tons of definitions for market failure: uninformed consumers, inability to shop around, inelastic demand... in fact, healthcare and insurance are two of the three textbook examples of market breakdown (the other being utilities).
But that's the case under the new federal regulations. It just sets some ground rules (which you don't seem offended by, because you ignored them when I brought them up), and some goals. Each state is encouraged to "do whatever" to meet those goals.
The bigger complaint I've heard is that, since the states don't want to innovate, they are all paying to implement the same infrastructure as opposed to sharing.
Yup, I'd prefer a single-payer system too. Oh wait, I can just move to Vermont where there are no insurance companies and there is single-payer.
They cannot opt out. They have to reach certain goals, and are given some limitations. But they have a ton of freedom.
Frankly, I'm kinda pissed they didn't just put a single-payer system into place... let people pay for whatever they want on the side, and be done with it.
Of course Texas got help from the federal government. And of course the same amount of pain was spread among 100 million people instead of 10 million. So each person suffered 1/10 as much. (Actually, due to feedback loops, the total pain also lessened.) That seems like a good thing.
And of course, Texas, which recovered from help with the aid of the federal government is now going to help New Jersey, just like it once helped New Orleans.
Variations do to random chance are bad for everyone. Esp. business. Hence the trillion dollar industry of ameliorating chance, via insurance, derivatives, etc.
Do you honestly think that there is a communist plot? Or that it would still harkin back to 100+ year old tactics.
Well, the total California debt is half of what they pay annually in income taxes to the US government. Just income taxes. So, you know, it's something where the feds could absorb the debt and still have a net positive after three years.
Europe isn't coupled like we are. When Texas had trouble in the 80's, everyone pitched in, and the crisis was halted before it spread. When Greece had trouble, there was no shared European sacrifice. That pain then spread to other countries. Even Spain, which was running surpluses up until Greece started fucking up, got into trouble.
So, two questions: Isn't that a sign that we might be doing it wrong. Second, all you're doing is pushing the problem down one level. What happens once the 50th state passes a healthcare law you don't like: counties should be independent!
Also, leaving aside the very real economic analysis that shows health care is pretty much a textbook case of a free-market failure (see also, utilities), it's still private. You're just forced to participate. You still get to choose blue cross, or kasier or whatever.
But, they are doing exactly what you want. Mass. pioneered a program. It looked good, so it got promoted up to a national one. But the national mandate has a strong state-by-state process. Vermont thought they could improve on it with a single-payer system, so they're doing that.
I'm hardpressed to say that the national elements of the law (people must pay towards healthcare, and as a result cannot be denied healthcare... due diligence is required upfront instead of retroactively, etc.) are in any way in dispute or location specific.
You keep saying things like "If you don't like Obamacare, you can't just move to Vermont". You seem to ignore that you could move to Canada, or Germany, or whatever. I posit that the only reason moving from one state to another seems so easy is because of the centralized government.
Fact is, states are far more likely to vary in economic fortune, than be continuously a drag on the country... in the 80's Texas needed a lot of help from the federal government, and now they give back.
Umm... okay then, you have no legitimate claim to your land. Please return it to the Mexican family we stole it from. Seriously, how else do you explain the "initial acquisition" of Locke's philosophy.
Abandoning your citizenship? Sure. But certainly I can sell you some but not all rights to land? I mean, utility right-of-ways, or whatnot. How is that different from saying, this land does not have the right to secede.
Not really. If you try to steal, I'll oppose it. Or would you be a tyrant if I came into your house, I started sleeping in your living room and you wanted to kick me out.
Read your deed. And the state laws that automatically applied limitations to your land. Likely you don't have mineral rights, certainly your 49rights terminate at some depth and some height. There are a priori governmental rights to repurchase your land in the case of eminent domain.
That hardly seems like a tenable statement. While I would contend that the government certainly can limit your rights in both cases, your property was acquired from someone, who.... chain of ownership later... acquired it from the government who acquired it via right of conquest from some other group.
Hence, retained rights.
If it was 100% your land, sure. But, again, retained rights. And one of the rights you did not acquire with your land was the right to secede. Now, if you wanna go form a new government somewhere else, and bring some M-16s and create your own country, I wish you luck. (Note, if you try to do so on the land you currently inhabit, you're trying to appropriate by force property rights currently belonging to my government, and I will care.)
Then why don't you get off our land? I mean, the owners of the land you are currently on decided to join the United States. Property was deed out, but some rights were retained.
What advantage would dissolving the union have?
Also, if there was less state-autonomy, the two party system would take a giant hit. A 60% majority in a state can use that power to allocate it's electoral votes in mass, as opposed to proportionally (as well as gerrymander to keep a 75% majority in the legislature and in the US House.) So the other 40% of the votes go to their party.
Do you mean that the strongest way you can think of for a generic person, or for you specifically. Cause there are far stronger ways to do so. Leaving aside treason/armed rebellion, all you're left with is: Donating money. Signing petitions to get people on ballots/into debates. Appearing at rallies. Calling people/going door to door. Volunteering with the campaign.
Except for AMA, ABA, and NSPE, you're exactly right.
And those totally interchangeable cogs, like screenwriters, actors, and professional athletes all have unions as well.
Except for the fact that you're totally wrong, you're exactly right. Unions may do something this stupid but it goes against experiecne. But the fact is, when unions represent people of vastly disparate skills and values, they increase the income of the top performers at the cost of the mediocre ones.
What example you ask? Look at the player's unions for professional sports. They have minimum wages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but somehow superstars still get their checks.
I mean, you could form a shitty union. But you could also not.
I have to say, relying on Wikipedia for any current political topic, seems horrible.
That said, I believe you are correct on fact; but your methodology needed addressing.
Also, Obama did promise to overhaul health care. So did John McCain. But Obamacare is actually closer to McCain's plan than Obama's.
Why would 1366x768 be related to 720p. Isn't 720p 1280x720?
Well, with metric tons of cash, and no access to ILM in the basement,he could easily make sensitive, low-budget art films. Or sensitive high-budget art films that are works of love and lose 90% of his investment.
Not having ILM or LucasFilms around is going to be the best thing that happened to all future George Lucas movies.
Nope. In absence of parentheses, we apply the operators from right to left.
That is,the implicit parens are (m/gallons)/passengers.