Actually, that would probably be harmless - you're ingesting it, not inhaling it. In any case, I never said to do that.
Also, inhaling minute amounts of asbestos would be harmless; inhaling too much over long periods is bad though. If it's kept wet, it would be much safer, however we'll never know what possible advances can be made with it because it's been made illegal.
I think in all of these cases, it depends on you showing evidence that you reasonably tried to prevent any rights violations from occurring. You may still have to pay damages, depending on the severity of your negligence (e.g. if the tree that fell was one for which you had sawed almost completely through the trunk, and then let it sit there waiting for the slightest breeze to push it over). If you planted your garden on your property boundary, and then flooded it in pesticide without putting underground boundaries/drainage in place, you should likewise be seen as negligent if damages occurred on the neighbor's property.
Which is it? What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
The same can be said for any chemical, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market.
So if I'm on a desert island, I'm not allowed to try to make fire with plant oils, because there's no government around to tell me it's ok? Nonsense. Regulations such as this are unjustifiable rights violations. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue for compensation and they will be forced to stop, but you cannot justify your "preemptive lawsuit".
If by "another DDT", you mean, "another intergovernmental ban on a harmless product with great potential due to pressure from environmental hysteria, then I agree with you.
So, I assume you're an award winning economist, then?
Nope. What does that have to do with anything?
Because most of *them* disagree quite strongly with your supposition, so I can only assume you have credentials to back up your, frankly, absurd suggestion.
This is what we call an appeal to authority - an indication of your indifference to the issue and willingness to defer judgment to others regardless of the content and rationale behind their conclusions.
So, that would put Bush and Obama and McCain in the same lot?
Yes. They are all pragmatists. They have no concern for individual rights or principles, unless it happens to be politically profitable to claim otherwise. Convenience is their only guide.
You want real change? Remove the corporate veil of protection for all companies, so the next time they declare bankruptcy, they lose everything.
You missed the part that said I was being sarcastic. I agree with you completely.
Like the Great Depression, the depression to come will have only one party to blame for its severity: government "bailout". The only rational thing to do was nothing.
They are both pragmatists, not interested in principles or individual rights, doing whatever will get them by for another few days or weeks. They are indistinguishable.
Why are you against better healthcare for less money?
False dichotomy. I am for better healthcare for less money. But I am also for sustainable healthcare, and individual rights above all. You are for convenience. You would trade your rights, the rights of your friends/family/neighbors, for cheap healthcare now, with no regard for the long-term sustainability of such a system, and obviously with no regard for inalienable rights.
I doubt there is much thought given to that statement...
At the very least, it shows that their primary concern is their self-interest, as should be the only concern of everyone.
including any of the associated ramifications (basic research funding, medical research funding, etc...).
False dilemma. I am for reducing taxes as well as removing the government-enforced hindrances that make research so costly and difficult to perform and fund. In addition, with more free money to work with, donations should increase to relevant foundations. Also, if you believe certain research should get funding, feel free to donate your own money and encourage your friends/family/neighbors to do the same, but don't force everyone to do it for some arbitrary "common good" that just happens to align with your ideas.
Generally, I think taxpayers want lower taxes for personal reasons, i.e. to keep more money for themselves.
As they rightly should. There is no "right to the sweat of another person's brow" (to steal a line from Bioshock).
Well that explains it. You support small government because it's "proper".
I could explain it in much more detail than this, if you'd like. You could also read the Constitution, early Founding Fathers, and Locke, for further guidance.
And anyone who disagrees with you is automatically giving everyone a free lunch and destroying bridges.
They are violating rights, yes.
Did you ever think about the consequences of your ideology? Like, what might happen if someone were batty enough to go out and implement it?
You've characterized it as "batty" but have not shown that your characterization is correct. Either provide an actual argument, rationale, or evidence to support your claim, or drop the label.
Because smaller government for the sake of smaller government
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
Hmm... I was just going to write in "None of the above", but I guess it's just as good to write in someone who actually proposed legislation to dismantle the Federal Reserve.
It reminds me of my girlfriend's niece who's 4 years old, talking about how great life is in Ponyland, where "nobody ever has to work!" I started joking that Ponyland is unsustainable, and her niece changed it so that "everyone has to work all the time in Ponyland."
Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem! Make bad decisions that lead to failure? Glad to help! Want a free lunch? Here you go! Short-sighted? Your vision's fine - it's the long-sighted that need glasses!
The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You don't need an expert to build a bridge - the labor force is the one that does all the work, after all.
[/sarcasm]
I would no sooner vote for McCain, either. They both would sooner hang your rights in effigy than make a promise that reality says can be kept.
The company was not being stopped from laying fiber.
That is not what we are talking about. Yes, that company was not stopped, because they had already laid down other lines. But any other companies would be stopped without sufficient government interference. Thus the monopoly is enforced.
It was the people who asked the city to lay fiber.
Yes but for it to become profitable requires a high enough demand in the region, not just some people in one city.
And again, I'll say the city asked them to lay fiber.
Thus maintaining the monopoly and keeping costs high, profitability low, and hindering the development of economies of scale. Rather than request a specific company lay fiber, they should remove all restrictions hindering companies from laying fiber, and persuade other cities in the region to do the same. This is the only way such a service could move toward the ideal of being cheap, efficient, reliable, and beneficial to all customers in the long run.
And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Of course the company laughed - fiber is not yet profitable, and it won't be until people want it, when internet video becomes dominant, for example. Again I say, ask your city if you can lay fiber, cable, telephone, or other lines in the ground around streets.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, fast turnaround time. I only submitted this minutes ago.
The true middle man, Keyser Soze, gets off scot free.
So I should start taking asbestos supplements?
Actually, that would probably be harmless - you're ingesting it, not inhaling it. In any case, I never said to do that.
Also, inhaling minute amounts of asbestos would be harmless; inhaling too much over long periods is bad though. If it's kept wet, it would be much safer, however we'll never know what possible advances can be made with it because it's been made illegal.
I think in all of these cases, it depends on you showing evidence that you reasonably tried to prevent any rights violations from occurring. You may still have to pay damages, depending on the severity of your negligence (e.g. if the tree that fell was one for which you had sawed almost completely through the trunk, and then let it sit there waiting for the slightest breeze to push it over). If you planted your garden on your property boundary, and then flooded it in pesticide without putting underground boundaries/drainage in place, you should likewise be seen as negligent if damages occurred on the neighbor's property.
It's not harmless... it's harmless to people...
Which is it? What you're not realizing is that anything can be harmful, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
it is hardly harmless.
The same can be said for any chemical, even water. The important thing is not the composition, but the dose. You can overdose on anything, but everything can be useful in the right dose. What I am advocating is the removal of emotionalism from the environmental agenda, and a move back towards science. The fact that people have overdosed their land on chemical X never implies that chemical X should be banned for use in any dose by anyone.
They simply need to be regulated as their own chemicals, as all existing chemicals are before they reach the market.
So if I'm on a desert island, I'm not allowed to try to make fire with plant oils, because there's no government around to tell me it's ok? Nonsense. Regulations such as this are unjustifiable rights violations. If someone pollutes your property, you can sue for compensation and they will be forced to stop, but you cannot justify your "preemptive lawsuit".
This could turn into another DDT
If by "another DDT", you mean, "another intergovernmental ban on a harmless product with great potential due to pressure from environmental hysteria, then I agree with you.
So, I assume you're an award winning economist, then?
Nope. What does that have to do with anything?
Because most of *them* disagree quite strongly with your supposition, so I can only assume you have credentials to back up your, frankly, absurd suggestion.
This is what we call an appeal to authority - an indication of your indifference to the issue and willingness to defer judgment to others regardless of the content and rationale behind their conclusions.
So, that would put Bush and Obama and McCain in the same lot?
Yes. They are all pragmatists. They have no concern for individual rights or principles, unless it happens to be politically profitable to claim otherwise. Convenience is their only guide.
You want real change? Remove the corporate veil of protection for all companies, so the next time they declare bankruptcy, they lose everything.
You missed the part that said I was being sarcastic. I agree with you completely.
Glad to be of service. :)
Like the Great Depression, the depression to come will have only one party to blame for its severity: government "bailout". The only rational thing to do was nothing.
They are both pragmatists, not interested in principles or individual rights, doing whatever will get them by for another few days or weeks. They are indistinguishable.
Says who?
Me.
Why are you against better healthcare for less money?
False dichotomy. I am for better healthcare for less money. But I am also for sustainable healthcare, and individual rights above all. You are for convenience. You would trade your rights, the rights of your friends/family/neighbors, for cheap healthcare now, with no regard for the long-term sustainability of such a system, and obviously with no regard for inalienable rights.
The rest of your post consists of further false dichotomies.
I doubt there is much thought given to that statement...
At the very least, it shows that their primary concern is their self-interest, as should be the only concern of everyone.
including any of the associated ramifications (basic research funding, medical research funding, etc...).
False dilemma. I am for reducing taxes as well as removing the government-enforced hindrances that make research so costly and difficult to perform and fund. In addition, with more free money to work with, donations should increase to relevant foundations. Also, if you believe certain research should get funding, feel free to donate your own money and encourage your friends/family/neighbors to do the same, but don't force everyone to do it for some arbitrary "common good" that just happens to align with your ideas. Generally, I think taxpayers want lower taxes for personal reasons, i.e. to keep more money for themselves.
As they rightly should. There is no "right to the sweat of another person's brow" (to steal a line from Bioshock).
Well that explains it. You support small government because it's "proper".
I could explain it in much more detail than this, if you'd like. You could also read the Constitution, early Founding Fathers, and Locke, for further guidance.
And anyone who disagrees with you is automatically giving everyone a free lunch and destroying bridges.
They are violating rights, yes.
Did you ever think about the consequences of your ideology? Like, what might happen if someone were batty enough to go out and implement it?
You've characterized it as "batty" but have not shown that your characterization is correct. Either provide an actual argument, rationale, or evidence to support your claim, or drop the label.
Because smaller government for the sake of smaller government
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
"Actually, I do RTFA" - but you don't read my whole comment.
This presumes that one would want to subject themselves to a public hanging of rights in effigy.
I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul
Hmm... I was just going to write in "None of the above", but I guess it's just as good to write in someone who actually proposed legislation to dismantle the Federal Reserve.
It reminds me of my girlfriend's niece who's 4 years old, talking about how great life is in Ponyland, where "nobody ever has to work!" I started joking that Ponyland is unsustainable, and her niece changed it so that "everyone has to work all the time in Ponyland."
Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem! Make bad decisions that lead to failure? Glad to help! Want a free lunch? Here you go! Short-sighted? Your vision's fine - it's the long-sighted that need glasses!
The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You don't need an expert to build a bridge - the labor force is the one that does all the work, after all.
[/sarcasm]
I would no sooner vote for McCain, either. They both would sooner hang your rights in effigy than make a promise that reality says can be kept.
The company was not being stopped from laying fiber.
That is not what we are talking about. Yes, that company was not stopped, because they had already laid down other lines. But any other companies would be stopped without sufficient government interference. Thus the monopoly is enforced.
It was the people who asked the city to lay fiber.
Yes but for it to become profitable requires a high enough demand in the region, not just some people in one city.
And again, I'll say the city asked them to lay fiber.
Thus maintaining the monopoly and keeping costs high, profitability low, and hindering the development of economies of scale. Rather than request a specific company lay fiber, they should remove all restrictions hindering companies from laying fiber, and persuade other cities in the region to do the same. This is the only way such a service could move toward the ideal of being cheap, efficient, reliable, and beneficial to all customers in the long run.
But how much of this is RIAA/MPAA-run robots searching for song/movie names?
And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Of course the company laughed - fiber is not yet profitable, and it won't be until people want it, when internet video becomes dominant, for example. Again I say, ask your city if you can lay fiber, cable, telephone, or other lines in the ground around streets.