Or we could get a bunch of people together, decide this shit in advance. Maybe call it government.
One of whose responsibilities will be an education system that teaches you to read and understand English so you don't keep hearing that whooshing sound when trying to argue.
1. We live in a free society. That means new ideas don't need to go through the town hall filter before being implemented.
2. Oregon. No the "occupiers" aren't in the right. But without digging in more deeply, I'm not going to assume that a government reg from a hundred years ago has (or had)the kind of popular mandate you automatically assume it does.
So in your world, the money should come to you and you have no obligation to put in any effort to better your station in life? I'll grant you that that's a little beyond three-year-old thinking. Maybe four-year-old.
Societies don't treat anyone like anything. Societies don't have volition and responsibility the way individual people have volition and responsibility. Maybe that'll change in the future when we're all Borgified into one hive mind with a single Benevolent Queen to tell us what's what, but until then, we're all individuals and we all have dignity, agency, and responsibility for our own choices in life, and it's morally wrong to deny or degrade those, no matter how warm and fuzzy your motivation is.
Round up the homeless you say? OK. If you've ever seen or dealt with the homeless in any way beyond reading about them in the news, you'll know that almost all of them are on the street because they have mental disabilities that have nothing to do with their income. You could tax everyone at 99% and give it to the homeless but they'll still be on the street pissing themselves because they need to be institutionalized (which I'm OK with paying for out of a tax hike) instead of subsidized.
Nice memory you got there. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote because the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate at the time. Now you could make the valid point that since Liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican senator who campaigned and won on a platform of stopping Obamacare in its tracks* and was about to take his seat and kill that supermajority, Republicans "screwed it up" by forcing the Democrats to rush it to a vote and pass it. But that's a very very very tenuous way of blaming use for your incompetence at consensusbuilding and legislating in general.
*I know this because I voted for the man for precisely that reason.
Your proposal is rejected on the grounds that you didn't understand my post, are putting words in my mouth, and are being a jackass. Saying people don't deserve what they didn't earn is a world and a half away from wishing them ill.
Telling others what to do isn't right or wrong, it's a tool of a policy that's right or wrong. Let's see if I can illustrate with an example or two.
Telling people what gods to worship: wrong.
Telling people not to slash their neighbors' tires: right.
Telling people not to use their cars to make money: wrong.
Tellling people that they have to have insurance for their business when offering services to the general public: right.
Does that help?
And all of those things are what adults call "considerations" that need to, um, considered, when making a major life choice like changing jobs or moving far away.
Typically, one at least contacts a prospective employer and glances at real estate listings before selling ones possessions and buying a one-way ticket to The Big City.
You call it inhumane, I call it sad but natural. Outside of a very few cases of sheer bad luck, I have yet to encounter a sad story that doesn't involve bad decisionmaking at some point leading up to it. Government isn't there to insulate you from the consequences of your own decisions, good or bad.
It's also not natural to live in constructed shelters, have written language, or live past 30, in historical terms, that is. I think I'll take my way over yours.
Glad you feel qualified to reach into my brain and tell the whole world what's really in there. We could use more people like you to tell use what it is that we really think. But until that glorious day arrives, we have to make do with speaking for ourselves and continuing to point out that the US is built on preserving the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, which in practical terms means that if we want to completely make over our country into a socialist worker's paradise, we'd need near complete consensus to do so, not just a case of enough of the people some of the time to ramrod it through.
Quite. It's called the real world, where you're either employed, unemployed and supported by someone who is, unemployed and not supported by someone who is, or independently wealthy.
Ah. So in my world of low regulation, the rich and powerful will prevent us from earning money to support ourselves, whereas in your world, the self-righteous and well-connected will make policies that prevent use from earning money to support ourselves. Glad we cleared that up.
I actually do think it's OK. I did it. My parents did it, and so did half of my extended family, and nearly all of my wife's family. My friends did it. My co-workers did it. Aforementioned immigrants do it.
Do I think it would be nice to have that cushy job and stay close to roots? Of course. But there's really something much, much, much more wrong with a large number of job openings in City X and a large number of unemployed in City Y refusing to take them.
Semantics. Taxi driving implies a 100% commitment to driving a taxi all day, every day. This lets you as both driver or passenger be more flexible. You can work it like a taxi job, or you can work it like a ride share if you turn it on just during those times where you have somewhere to go already and can find a paying customer to take some of the cost off. You can't operate that way if you're driving a real taxi.
Well, you can vote for officials who'll impose an insurance minimum on ride-sharing companies, but that's really beside the point since we were talking about the driver's liability in the event of a crash and not the passenger's. Try to follow along.
I a problem with telling people how much time they are or are not allowed to spend doing something for no reason other than to satisfy one person's idea of how things should be.
H1B programs, Mexican and Central American immigrants (both legal and not) coming to work the fields of California and the poultry factories of Oklahoma, unfilled openings for skilled machinists and welders in "rust belt" places like central Massachusetts, ads for entry-level and non-entry-level software and non-software engineers on the subway in Boston and NYC. At some point oil will pick up in North Dakota again, maybe next year, almost certainly within the next ten.
There's work for everyone at any level if you're willing to look for it and work for it, so to speak. Back in the day, people would move cross-country without a thought to look for work in the gold rush, or the land rush, or the oil boom in Texas and LA. Now the people doing the loudest complaining about the lack of work seem to be the ones who want a high-paying job and they want it ten minutes from the same house their grandparents lived in.
Of course I blame evil corporations for this development.
Slashdot Mirror
Adults understand the difference between dying of black lung at 40 and driving a car all day at 70.
Or we could get a bunch of people together, decide this shit in advance. Maybe call it government.
One of whose responsibilities will be an education system that teaches you to read and understand English so you don't keep hearing that whooshing sound when trying to argue.
1. We live in a free society. That means new ideas don't need to go through the town hall filter before being implemented.
2. Oregon. No the "occupiers" aren't in the right. But without digging in more deeply, I'm not going to assume that a government reg from a hundred years ago has (or had)the kind of popular mandate you automatically assume it does.
So in your world, the money should come to you and you have no obligation to put in any effort to better your station in life? I'll grant you that that's a little beyond three-year-old thinking. Maybe four-year-old.
Societies don't treat anyone like anything. Societies don't have volition and responsibility the way individual people have volition and responsibility. Maybe that'll change in the future when we're all Borgified into one hive mind with a single Benevolent Queen to tell us what's what, but until then, we're all individuals and we all have dignity, agency, and responsibility for our own choices in life, and it's morally wrong to deny or degrade those, no matter how warm and fuzzy your motivation is.
Round up the homeless you say? OK. If you've ever seen or dealt with the homeless in any way beyond reading about them in the news, you'll know that almost all of them are on the street because they have mental disabilities that have nothing to do with their income. You could tax everyone at 99% and give it to the homeless but they'll still be on the street pissing themselves because they need to be institutionalized (which I'm OK with paying for out of a tax hike) instead of subsidized.
because the republicans fucked it up.
Nice memory you got there. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote because the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate at the time. Now you could make the valid point that since Liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican senator who campaigned and won on a platform of stopping Obamacare in its tracks* and was about to take his seat and kill that supermajority, Republicans "screwed it up" by forcing the Democrats to rush it to a vote and pass it. But that's a very very very tenuous way of blaming use for your incompetence at consensusbuilding and legislating in general.
*I know this because I voted for the man for precisely that reason.
Your proposal is rejected on the grounds that you didn't understand my post, are putting words in my mouth, and are being a jackass. Saying people don't deserve what they didn't earn is a world and a half away from wishing them ill.
Telling others what to do isn't right or wrong, it's a tool of a policy that's right or wrong. Let's see if I can illustrate with an example or two.
Telling people what gods to worship: wrong.
Telling people not to slash their neighbors' tires: right.
Telling people not to use their cars to make money: wrong.
Tellling people that they have to have insurance for their business when offering services to the general public: right.
Does that help?
Get back on your meds, friend; they're there to help you.
And all of those things are what adults call "considerations" that need to, um, considered, when making a major life choice like changing jobs or moving far away.
Typically, one at least contacts a prospective employer and glances at real estate listings before selling ones possessions and buying a one-way ticket to The Big City.
You call it inhumane, I call it sad but natural. Outside of a very few cases of sheer bad luck, I have yet to encounter a sad story that doesn't involve bad decisionmaking at some point leading up to it. Government isn't there to insulate you from the consequences of your own decisions, good or bad.
It's also not natural to live in constructed shelters, have written language, or live past 30, in historical terms, that is. I think I'll take my way over yours.
Glad you feel qualified to reach into my brain and tell the whole world what's really in there. We could use more people like you to tell use what it is that we really think. But until that glorious day arrives, we have to make do with speaking for ourselves and continuing to point out that the US is built on preserving the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, which in practical terms means that if we want to completely make over our country into a socialist worker's paradise, we'd need near complete consensus to do so, not just a case of enough of the people some of the time to ramrod it through.
All? As in complete consensus? Or 50% +1 of votes cast? Or 50% + 1 of judges hearing the case?
Interesting reality there.
Quite. It's called the real world, where you're either employed, unemployed and supported by someone who is, unemployed and not supported by someone who is, or independently wealthy.
Maybe it's a bot. If the next post is a vehement denial that it's not human, that'll be the surest clue.
Are you referring to the people who moved and got jobs or the people who demanded the jobs come to them and are collecting welfare?
Ah. So in my world of low regulation, the rich and powerful will prevent us from earning money to support ourselves, whereas in your world, the self-righteous and well-connected will make policies that prevent use from earning money to support ourselves. Glad we cleared that up.
I actually do think it's OK. I did it. My parents did it, and so did half of my extended family, and nearly all of my wife's family. My friends did it. My co-workers did it. Aforementioned immigrants do it.
Do I think it would be nice to have that cushy job and stay close to roots? Of course. But there's really something much, much, much more wrong with a large number of job openings in City X and a large number of unemployed in City Y refusing to take them.
Semantics. Taxi driving implies a 100% commitment to driving a taxi all day, every day. This lets you as both driver or passenger be more flexible. You can work it like a taxi job, or you can work it like a ride share if you turn it on just during those times where you have somewhere to go already and can find a paying customer to take some of the cost off. You can't operate that way if you're driving a real taxi.
Well, you can vote for officials who'll impose an insurance minimum on ride-sharing companies, but that's really beside the point since we were talking about the driver's liability in the event of a crash and not the passenger's. Try to follow along.
I a problem with telling people how much time they are or are not allowed to spend doing something for no reason other than to satisfy one person's idea of how things should be.
H1B programs, Mexican and Central American immigrants (both legal and not) coming to work the fields of California and the poultry factories of Oklahoma, unfilled openings for skilled machinists and welders in "rust belt" places like central Massachusetts, ads for entry-level and non-entry-level software and non-software engineers on the subway in Boston and NYC. At some point oil will pick up in North Dakota again, maybe next year, almost certainly within the next ten.
There's work for everyone at any level if you're willing to look for it and work for it, so to speak. Back in the day, people would move cross-country without a thought to look for work in the gold rush, or the land rush, or the oil boom in Texas and LA. Now the people doing the loudest complaining about the lack of work seem to be the ones who want a high-paying job and they want it ten minutes from the same house their grandparents lived in.
Of course I blame evil corporations for this development.
Is anyone else having trouble figuring out which of these ACs are trolls and which are genuinely stupid?