Interesting you pick that example, AC. Rosa Parks didn't do her thing until 1955, a whole whopping 10 years after the end of "DUBYA DUBYA TWO". So no, you were most certainly NOT the land of the free in any remote sense back then.
That's not the corporations' doing. That's the doing of a state... One can and always will abuse you. And the other can only abuse you in the presence of a state.
Perhaps the real question to be asked is why are the majority of politicians rich? Are they rich because they are politicians (and in public office), or are they in public office because they are rich? Both explanations disturb me, so I'm hoping someone has a third option.
Sometimes I really wander why such questions are not being asked by the populace more often.
And you somehow believe that government intervention is the only way that the people with few resources will get access to basic things such as education/books? Do you not factor in voluntary charity? Or is forcible "charity" via taxation the only way you think a problem such as this can be solved? Either people want to help the unfortunate, or you force them to. Can you show me a third alternative?
Also, you somehow assume that these people "need" schoolbooks? Or education for that matter. And that somehow the rest of us "have" to pay for it? This misunderstanding between us is precisely the reason why taxation should not be the way to solve such problems. Those who wish to solve the problem, should expend their own resources to solve it.
Assuming it was true, though. What did you expect would happen? You expected the free-market to come in and provide books for a minor profit why? Charity? Of course not. The private companies came in and starting charging what they wanted. This is the norm and expectation of the free-market. But we're already assuming that they were charging a whole lot more than what it took to produce those books. Did you ever consider that maybe those books actually cost that much to produce? And up until now tax-money was being used to subsidize them via the government printing press? Even without me knowing the facts, there are many things we can consider without making hasty moral judgments. Unlike what you did, which is to come up with some sort of commentary about how the "free-market" is evil because it wants to make a profit.
The difference is that now the cost of the books is being shifted to exactly the people that use them. The school children and their parents. And as such the market is free of government interference.
On a side note. If you're such a smart-ass, why don't you open up a printing press in australia and under-cut those "evil free-market" companies. That's how the free market works and uses prices to propagate the value of goods and services. I'm sure you'll make a whole lot of money, if it weren't for silly immigration laws.
And you think that people which are "too dumb and destructive" are going to be somehow "controlled" in another political system? What most people fail to consider, is that somehow these magical political systems are insulated from the people you speak of. On the contrary, those people become part of the political system and leverage the power we've given that system in order to indulge in their "dumb and destructive" behavior, often with the implied moral sanction of the rest of us.
If you don't believe me, just go ahead and ask yourself why most laws need to be "sold" and "marketed" to the public without any studies or peer-verifiable proof. And why none of those laws/policies are then examined after the fact to determine whether they achieved the goals they were put into place for, and subsequently repelled.
You can preach "checks and balances" all you want to me in response. But until such a time as all politicians are held accountable for their words, actions and laws they sanction, you are merely spouting pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And you sound like a race-baiter. Seriously... Were you even remotely willing to read and understand what the guy was trying to say? Or were you just egging to jump on any remote-reference to something you don't like? Perhaps you jumped on the jew reference because you don't like what he's saying, and your only way of reconciling it in your mind is by attacking a trivial ambiguity in his comment?
You, and people like you, say that every time there is an election.
It's like an abusive relationship: "But this time it'll be different. He's changed now, he won't hurt me anymore. I know he can change, just if I love him a little more, then he'll change and love me back. Yesterday while he was beating me, I could see a tear in his eye. That must mean he loves me, I know it's somewhere in him... The last time I took him back, I didn't bake the cookies the right way and so he beat me. Today I'll make the cookies just the way he wants it, and we'll change together. Yes, we can, we can change!"
Really now, get over yourself, and quit fucking things up for the rest of us because you can't say no to an abusive relationship.
Just google "unregulated taxi" and you'll quickly realize the prevailing opinion being spouted about this topic. Too many people talk about this topic without any evidence, or even any consideration for the lack of evidence. I just read this really funny one from someone who professes to being a manager at a taxi company. I could hardly stomach it:
Big bucks lobbying
With public relations and lobbying efforts fueled by hundreds of millions of Wall Street dollars, these new app companies want to pummel the taxicab industry and its regulators. With both out of the way, they’ll be free to put anybody behind the wheel, pick up only the best-paying passengers, pay no fees to cities and earn unlimited profits for their investors. Welcome to taxicab deregulation.
I'm glad they used the word "free" there. Because that is exactly what this whole conversation boils down to. No matter how well-intentioned regulation is, it only serves to affect the market and reduce freedom. For every thing I'm "protected" from, I have my freedom reduced.
Another sad thing about it, is that the person I quoted above is sincerely convinced of his opinion. It's completely ingrained into his beliefs, and our political system has enabled his fallacious and emotional reasoning to be cemented into his beliefs. Every time we pander to groups such as that, we reinforce and give credence to their ills.
I see the point you're trying to make. But, seriously, what is the _fucking_ point to elect a leader if he can't do diddly against congress? Sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it at the same time.
Let me be the first to say: "Screw You, buddy." Why should the "burden" be on me to change a law? Why is the burden not on the state/politician to prove to me that this law is beneficial and/or effective to everyone in society? Hmm? Instead, they're given pretty much all the power to create laws, by virtue of us "voting" for them.
And instead of a proof/study-driven law making process, we get all these "feel good" laws that are marketed to us with blatantly vague descriptions such as "free", "just", "justice", "diversity" and the big one "fair". And then assholes like you turn around and say: "Well gee, buddy, if you don't like these laws perhaps you should campaign and petition to have them changed."
I may be quite anti-statist and libertarian, but I just don't understand how anyone can preach fairness to me when the entire law-making system is so one sided. And that goes doubly so for anti-competitive and protectionist laws such as the ones protecting unions and special interest groups.
You could say the same of Trayvon. The only reason George's "motives" and "choices" are being blamed and criticized is because he survived. Trayvon made equally bad choices, and all the evidence pointed to him being the one that physically assaulted a man. Following someone around a neighbourhood, and calling the cops on them, are legal actions that do not violate a person's safety. Assault, however, is.
I don't know about you, but for me "choices" and "motives" go out the window if me or my loved ones' life is in danger. To say that somehow George was not justified in defending himself AFTER the fight broke out and he was about to probably be killed, is pure asinine drama-baiting.
The real sad part about all this is that people are fast becoming scared to protect themselves. It's been an ongoing and disturbing trend. At the end of the day, that's just how they'd like you. They want you scared, scared and defenseless. Because they know that now they are magically the only ones that are allowed to protect you without fear of demonization by the public, or criminal persecution by the state.
Are you implying his motive for going against you was purely in defense of his "friend"? Typical drama misdirection, or some sort of psychological denial on your part, perhaps? Maybe you should take some of your own advice and work your way up to understanding a thing or two about conversation and debate.
Actually, in many cases, the poor pay LESS taxes proportionate to their income due to lower income brackets mandating lower taxes. All in the name of something people keep yapping on about "fairness", yet I and the rest of the middle class never get that benefit. You don't see me complaining about how I pay more proportionately for necessities than the rich do. The sooner you realize that you're drawing an arbitrary line dictated by your own parental-government-induced guilt, the sooner we'll all be better off, especially the poor.
Yes, you're damn right I'm bitter. I live in a country where less than 20% of the population pays income taxes.
Good look trying to burst his socialist bubble; ain't gonna happen. People with his sort of mindset will never listen to reason, no matter how good or convincingly you present it.
Let the OP call it "Linuks" all he wants... And it's his right, as long as I see linux users saying things such as "windoze", or as the GP said "windowz". Cheap jabs like that are really childish... If you want to say something like that, use the real words, like a grown up.
Damn hipsters and nu-age hippies, get off my lawn!
Don't pay attention to him... he's a "pro-foodie" troll that's been trolling this article. Pretty much derailing the convo from hacking/booking/reservation into some sort of pro-food-face-stuffing hippie-fest.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting you pick that example, AC. Rosa Parks didn't do her thing until 1955, a whole whopping 10 years after the end of "DUBYA DUBYA TWO". So no, you were most certainly NOT the land of the free in any remote sense back then.
Ahh, nationalism... That and any sort of group-think. That sort of thinking is exactly why we can't have nice things as a society.
Oblivion was amazing... It really surprised me. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed the really really nice musical score that they made for it?
That's not the corporations' doing. That's the doing of a state... One can and always will abuse you. And the other can only abuse you in the presence of a state.
Price controls never work. Economics 101.
Not to mention it's downright immoral to deny voluntary association.
Another statist thief leaves in anger because he doesn't have any leg to stand on. Good day.
Perhaps the real question to be asked is why are the majority of politicians rich? Are they rich because they are politicians (and in public office), or are they in public office because they are rich? Both explanations disturb me, so I'm hoping someone has a third option.
Sometimes I really wander why such questions are not being asked by the populace more often.
And you somehow believe that government intervention is the only way that the people with few resources will get access to basic things such as education/books? Do you not factor in voluntary charity? Or is forcible "charity" via taxation the only way you think a problem such as this can be solved? Either people want to help the unfortunate, or you force them to. Can you show me a third alternative?
Also, you somehow assume that these people "need" schoolbooks? Or education for that matter. And that somehow the rest of us "have" to pay for it? This misunderstanding between us is precisely the reason why taxation should not be the way to solve such problems. Those who wish to solve the problem, should expend their own resources to solve it.
[Citation Required]
Assuming it was true, though. What did you expect would happen? You expected the free-market to come in and provide books for a minor profit why? Charity? Of course not. The private companies came in and starting charging what they wanted. This is the norm and expectation of the free-market. But we're already assuming that they were charging a whole lot more than what it took to produce those books. Did you ever consider that maybe those books actually cost that much to produce? And up until now tax-money was being used to subsidize them via the government printing press? Even without me knowing the facts, there are many things we can consider without making hasty moral judgments. Unlike what you did, which is to come up with some sort of commentary about how the "free-market" is evil because it wants to make a profit.
The difference is that now the cost of the books is being shifted to exactly the people that use them. The school children and their parents. And as such the market is free of government interference.
On a side note. If you're such a smart-ass, why don't you open up a printing press in australia and under-cut those "evil free-market" companies. That's how the free market works and uses prices to propagate the value of goods and services. I'm sure you'll make a whole lot of money, if it weren't for silly immigration laws.
And you think that people which are "too dumb and destructive" are going to be somehow "controlled" in another political system? What most people fail to consider, is that somehow these magical political systems are insulated from the people you speak of. On the contrary, those people become part of the political system and leverage the power we've given that system in order to indulge in their "dumb and destructive" behavior, often with the implied moral sanction of the rest of us.
If you don't believe me, just go ahead and ask yourself why most laws need to be "sold" and "marketed" to the public without any studies or peer-verifiable proof. And why none of those laws/policies are then examined after the fact to determine whether they achieved the goals they were put into place for, and subsequently repelled.
You can preach "checks and balances" all you want to me in response. But until such a time as all politicians are held accountable for their words, actions and laws they sanction, you are merely spouting pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
And you sound like a race-baiter. Seriously... Were you even remotely willing to read and understand what the guy was trying to say? Or were you just egging to jump on any remote-reference to something you don't like? Perhaps you jumped on the jew reference because you don't like what he's saying, and your only way of reconciling it in your mind is by attacking a trivial ambiguity in his comment?
You, and people like you, say that every time there is an election.
It's like an abusive relationship: "But this time it'll be different. He's changed now, he won't hurt me anymore. I know he can change, just if I love him a little more, then he'll change and love me back. Yesterday while he was beating me, I could see a tear in his eye. That must mean he loves me, I know it's somewhere in him... The last time I took him back, I didn't bake the cookies the right way and so he beat me. Today I'll make the cookies just the way he wants it, and we'll change together. Yes, we can, we can change!"
Really now, get over yourself, and quit fucking things up for the rest of us because you can't say no to an abusive relationship.
Just google "unregulated taxi" and you'll quickly realize the prevailing opinion being spouted about this topic. Too many people talk about this topic without any evidence, or even any consideration for the lack of evidence. I just read this really funny one from someone who professes to being a manager at a taxi company. I could hardly stomach it:
Big bucks lobbying
With public relations and lobbying efforts fueled by hundreds of millions of Wall Street dollars, these new app companies want to pummel the taxicab industry and its regulators. With both out of the way, they’ll be free to put anybody behind the wheel, pick up only the best-paying passengers, pay no fees to cities and earn unlimited profits for their investors. Welcome to taxicab deregulation.
I'm glad they used the word "free" there. Because that is exactly what this whole conversation boils down to. No matter how well-intentioned regulation is, it only serves to affect the market and reduce freedom. For every thing I'm "protected" from, I have my freedom reduced.
Another sad thing about it, is that the person I quoted above is sincerely convinced of his opinion. It's completely ingrained into his beliefs, and our political system has enabled his fallacious and emotional reasoning to be cemented into his beliefs. Every time we pander to groups such as that, we reinforce and give credence to their ills.
I see the point you're trying to make. But, seriously, what is the _fucking_ point to elect a leader if he can't do diddly against congress? Sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it at the same time.
Let me be the first to say: "Screw You, buddy." Why should the "burden" be on me to change a law? Why is the burden not on the state/politician to prove to me that this law is beneficial and/or effective to everyone in society? Hmm? Instead, they're given pretty much all the power to create laws, by virtue of us "voting" for them.
And instead of a proof/study-driven law making process, we get all these "feel good" laws that are marketed to us with blatantly vague descriptions such as "free", "just", "justice", "diversity" and the big one "fair". And then assholes like you turn around and say: "Well gee, buddy, if you don't like these laws perhaps you should campaign and petition to have them changed."
I may be quite anti-statist and libertarian, but I just don't understand how anyone can preach fairness to me when the entire law-making system is so one sided. And that goes doubly so for anti-competitive and protectionist laws such as the ones protecting unions and special interest groups.
You could say the same of Trayvon. The only reason George's "motives" and "choices" are being blamed and criticized is because he survived. Trayvon made equally bad choices, and all the evidence pointed to him being the one that physically assaulted a man. Following someone around a neighbourhood, and calling the cops on them, are legal actions that do not violate a person's safety. Assault, however, is.
I don't know about you, but for me "choices" and "motives" go out the window if me or my loved ones' life is in danger. To say that somehow George was not justified in defending himself AFTER the fight broke out and he was about to probably be killed, is pure asinine drama-baiting.
The real sad part about all this is that people are fast becoming scared to protect themselves. It's been an ongoing and disturbing trend. At the end of the day, that's just how they'd like you. They want you scared, scared and defenseless. Because they know that now they are magically the only ones that are allowed to protect you without fear of demonization by the public, or criminal persecution by the state.
Are you implying his motive for going against you was purely in defense of his "friend"? Typical drama misdirection, or some sort of psychological denial on your part, perhaps? Maybe you should take some of your own advice and work your way up to understanding a thing or two about conversation and debate.
You remind me of that South Park episode... "Smug Alert".
Actually, in many cases, the poor pay LESS taxes proportionate to their income due to lower income brackets mandating lower taxes. All in the name of something people keep yapping on about "fairness", yet I and the rest of the middle class never get that benefit. You don't see me complaining about how I pay more proportionately for necessities than the rich do. The sooner you realize that you're drawing an arbitrary line dictated by your own parental-government-induced guilt, the sooner we'll all be better off, especially the poor.
Yes, you're damn right I'm bitter. I live in a country where less than 20% of the population pays income taxes.
Good look trying to burst his socialist bubble; ain't gonna happen. People with his sort of mindset will never listen to reason, no matter how good or convincingly you present it.
A while back Sid Meier created a program that generated music.
linkie
Or if you want to hear one of the pieces it created go here.
From a "twitter" user... Didn't know hipsters use linux.
Let the OP call it "Linuks" all he wants... And it's his right, as long as I see linux users saying things such as "windoze", or as the GP said "windowz". Cheap jabs like that are really childish... If you want to say something like that, use the real words, like a grown up.
Damn hipsters and nu-age hippies, get off my lawn!
Don't pay attention to him... he's a "pro-foodie" troll that's been trolling this article. Pretty much derailing the convo from hacking/booking/reservation into some sort of pro-food-face-stuffing hippie-fest.
Congratulations for completely DERAILING this particular subtree of the conversation.