I should be glad that we have technology to replace the BING for people who can't "fucking" see. How about just anouncing the floor number before the elevator stops?
33 floors, 33 bings?
Or 33 floors, no bings, and "You've arrived at 17."
You're right, I'm glad I'm not blind, those bings would still drive me nuts.
Way back in the day I used to do some IT work for a company that made elevator buttons for the big elevator companies. It was one of the oddest companies you had ever seen.
I used to ask them why the basic "up/down" button was never replaced with a better control system -- you could request the floor you wanted to go to on the outside of the elevator instead of the inside. Sure it would cost more (needing buttons at every floor) but you could prioritize the elevator's path, saving money and time in the long run.
They told me it would never happen -- elevators would always be as they were. I guess he was mostly right, since it is now 10 years later and we still have up/down buttons, long waits, and no real efficiency in destination planning. I actually used to consider about once a year writing a paper on sorting the elevator destinations real time based on where people were and where they would be heading.
I'm surprised it finally happened.
A few things I wish elevators had (some jokingly just out of frustration):
1. On/off toggle. The idiot that hits the call button ten times would only toggle the button on and off 5 times. Let him wait, I hate the clicking sound.
2. On/off toggle in the elevator. Have you had the kid hit 10 buttons? I have. Many times. Have you had some idiot hit a few buttons by accident? I get it every week. Not that I'm in a rush, but come on, think before you hit a button.
3. Early elevator arrival notification. Tell me which elevator will be the one I'll be entering. I've been in some buildings where I'll miss 3 elevators because they don't notify you which one to wait by. Maybe they do this to prevent people from crowding the doors, but I'd rather people learn etiquette than have the crazy rushes you see in some Chicago lobbies.
4. VIP floor access. Pay $1 and get to your floor immediately.
5. BING muting. Have you been in these elevators that have to BING at every floor, even when you're going to the 33rd from the 1st? Yeesh, give me a mute button.
6. Free spray deodarant in each elevator. Talk about needing to teach people etiquette.
I fear that the keyboard will be rickety. I like the gaming keys, but Internet keys? Come on, have you ever seen anyone really use those?
My favorite keyboards are designed specifically for typing. Gaming works fine with what I have -- as long as the keyboard is heavy, doesn't have pieces to move around, and feels good on the finger. The old Compaq notebook keyboards were some of my favorite "mini" keyboards, but I like a full sized full weight keyboard that is one solid piece.
I don't think this keyboard will be more than a flash in the pan -- easy come easy go. Gamers are used to the keyboard as it is laid out, and I don't think anyone wants to deal with swapping parts out when they want to get a quick game on. I sometimes pop into Action Quake 2 for 10 minutes and pop back out to write an article or an e-mail.
More clutter, more stuff to lose, more stuff to break, more things to wiggle around? I'll pass.
Oh, I guess it makes more sense to charge both (or all) candidates to air right?
If you decide you don't like a particular opinion, and you own the radio station, I guess you could work hard to prevent someone from speaking. You're in control of those airwaves. On the other hand, if the money is big enough, would you really say no? It is easy to say you wouldn't accept advertising dollars from someone you didn't agree with, but try it when the money is really offered. Our minds change when we think of what we can do with the dollars offered to us. Everyone has a price for everything.
Mostly what they do is limit our freedoms and take our money.
Which is why it is of vast importance to do the following:
1. Revoke all campaign finance laws and let people talk with their moneys. 2. Turn over all debate committees to anyone who is on the ballot. 3. Let anyone get on the ballot who wants to. Right now ballot access is near impossible for anyone but the 2 big parties. 4. Decrease the power of Congress and the Executive branch to the Constitutional limits, and return the Senate vote to the States, not the people. Democratically elected Senators is one of the worst changes to the Constitution in history.
Someone needs to decide which side of the road we drive on, and standardize that across states.
Really? I don't see why. Insurance companies can set these guidelines very easily -- and likely would if States and the feds did not. There is no need to "regulate" something is that is regulated by industry.
Someone needs to fine and keep businesses from being greedy and treating their employees or the environment.
Let the local governments regulate the environment. The federal and state governments are some of the worst polluters in history. As for employees, NO. Business regulations create unemployment -- minimum wage laws make it hard for minorities and kids to earn experience in a given trade, OSHA and ADA laws create barriers to hiring people with special needs. An employer hires an employee at the value that the employee provides the employer. If an employer takes advantage of an employee, someone else will hire the employee away. I know, I've hired all my employees out from under competitors, and then was very competitive in keeping them. No one ever quits working for me.
What if a terrorist decides to do that instead of going through the hassle of the airport?
Why would a terrorist attack a nation that is peaceful, has open borders with no trade restrictions, and doesn't murder tens of thousands of people a year? Our country would not be a target if we returned to the days when we were friends to everyone and hated no one.
The airlines don't put you through crap. Up until the 70s, the airlines let anyone carry a gun on the plane -- try hijacking a plane where half the passengers are armed.
Our government in the past 20 years has created laws in order to try to fix problems created by previous laws. In 10 years or less, most readers here will be unemployed, wishing they listened. We sow debt and anger with the world, we'll reap unemployment and hatred in the near future. This is our government doing it on our behalf. I don't vote, they don't do it in my name.
UNLIMITED?? Surely you are opposed to foreign money in campaigns?
Why? I welcome all money, foreign or local.
If the power of Congress is severely limited and the balance of powers is truely checked, foreign financing would have zero effect.
What we have today is not campaign finance reform, it's imcumbent protection racketeering.
How?
If one of the two parties wants to get their voice heard, they have thousands of donators able to pay the cap. Third parties historically relied on fewer supporters giving more money each. With caps per business or individual, third parties have no voice. Campaign finance is speech!
Properly dispersed (exactly ONE in every district), a very small minority of obstructionists could put the entire country in jeopardy.
Ahh! Good point!
You might argue that this wouldn't be in the personal best interests of such spoilers and thus such an event is impossible or at least unlikely. However, this would be short-sighted. What about agents or sympathizers of a foreign power or even a rival district? What about the few malevolent people who revel in the misery of others
Right, I understand. So take it further. Us 1000 in the community called the 4th District of the Town of Gurnee in the County of Lake in the State of Illinois in the US want a law fixing potholes. Some GNAA-head decides to vote against it. I'm cool with it. I believe this gives us an opportunity to propose an additional part of the Unanimocracy Constitution -- secession. Any number of people can seceed from any organization above it without prejudice. If 999 of the community disagree with the 1, we can seceed (as long as we offer the 1 an outlet thoroughfare out of the community maybe?), they can seceed from the 1 and form another?
Lets be honest, a unanimocracy is an academic novelty, and that's putting it kindly.
Maybe, but the debate offers something different I think.
First of all, consumers are only as powerful if they're informed about the market.
This is a myth that I've spoken of regularly here. It is NOT needed for a free market, and in fact it is counterintuitive to a competitive marketplace. There are no consumers or producers in a barter -- both parties of an exchange are profiting from the exchange. Both have to have secrets or the exchange can't be mutually profitable. The "consumer" party must hide how much cash it has available and how badly it wants a given product or service. The "producer" party must hide how much profit it has available and what the demand of that product or service is. Both parties believe they're exiting the exchange ahead of what they had entering into it. The "consumer" gives up money that is worth less than the product or service. The "producer" gives up a product or service that is worth less than the money. Mutual profit!
This doesn't have to be the case, and, in fact, most assuredly wouldn't be the case if the company in question either owned or had agreements with major media companies
Would copyright exist in a unanimocracy? I doubt it would exist as it does today, leaving the major media companies in a much less powerful form -- definitely not a cartel.
Secondly, the power of consumers is largely diminished in an unhealthy market (ex. a monopoly). Without a strong government, what entity would correct these unhealthy markets?
In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.
Why not? Such disclosure is a fundamental to a healthy, free market.
As I showed before, this is untrue.
More information about the inner workings of public companies would empower consumers and reduce corruption
I disagree. Corruption in a free market only increases the cost of doing business as the company performing the corruption must continue to hide the fraud. Fraudulent providers wouldn't last long, unless they were given a monopoly to use government force (by high regulatory standards, tariffs or protectionism, or other government manipulations).
That's an awfully large sweeping statement. As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.
Which is why I love capitalism -- everyone has a chance at competing. In cartel mercantilism (what the US is), there are very high costs to entering many markets.
Look no further than the trolls and GNAA idiots on Slashdot for the reason why. A properly dispersed, obstructionist minority could send the entire system in to a paralysis.
Not in a unanimocracy, actually. The GNAA idiot in your community can do whatever he wants on his property, but he can't get everyone in your community to agree with his practice. The same is true for the nut job that wants Social Security -- he could continue to bring the bill to the election, but if the community doesn't want to throw moeny into a pot to be spent willy-nilly, the law won't pass. Try revoking failed social security today. Can't be done, even if 51% of the people hate it. I bet in reality far more than 51% of Americans hate Social Security.
I'm no expert, but I would pin the problem on a few specific things such as: the lack of congressional term limits (and the rise of professional politicians), the emergence of telecommunications media, the lack of transparency and accountability within public corporations, and the lack of more stringent restrictions on campaign contributions.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
The problem with our government is their unlimited power. The money came after the corrupt people came after the power was set up in an unlimited fashion.
I want unlimited campaign finance -- let anyone give money to anyone. To me, spending money is how I can express myself. If you let unlimited money come in, third parties would have a bigger voice and you could use money to vote in the free market. How do you control unlimited finance? By having completely limited power in office. If the Congress was restricted to their Constitutionally limited power (VERY limited powers), no one would want to bribe them with any amount of campaign finance -- they have no power to help others financially.
All the things you ask for are tyrannical and prevent me from doing what I want to do. You have no reason to deal with public companies -- stop buying from them if they lie about their books or their products. Don't force them to disclose anything. Also stop funding them with taxpayer dollars or taxpayer-granted monopolies such as copyright, patents and other monopolist powers that should never be granted in the first place.
Interesting link about unanimocracy. It demonstrated quite illuminatingly why I am suspicious of armchair libertarians. There was a nice post in the previous thread about
Eventually I think you'll be convinced:)
So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal.
Only on his property. Would you enter the property of someone who believes murder is legal? Maybe he could get together with a few hundred nutjobs and make an entire community with legal murder.
Or reach a balance between playing well with other states and punishing their guilty (who may've fled to another state?)
That's between the States to decide (and the people in the end). Of course people will flee crimes -- it happens every day. This is why we need a market solution to dealing with people such as a public moderation and feedback system (or multiple competitive systems). If someone rips people off on eBay, they won't be able to trade in the future. Right now, people trust zero feedback sellers and buyers, but give it time, zero feedback will be the equivalent to -15 feedback. The same would be true with moderation systems in a free market.
How will unpopular but economically vital laws get passed, or will unanimocracy be condemned to populist policies forever?
Like what? I don't know if any law is economically vital. If it is, it will get passed upon sunsetting.
*any* proposition be brought to the ballot (good for DDoSing the electoral system) or will it require a certain number of signatures (like Switzerland)?
I don't see why not. This would be the best form of superdemocracy anyway. Bring a bill to your community group -- let's call it 4th District Gurnee, IL (where I live, FYI). If the 4th District accepts your bill into law, they can push it to the next level. If that level accepts it (next year's election?) push it to the next level and so on and so on. By the time you have it at the Federal level, you'll test it well enough to see if you want to reintroduce it at the 6 year mark at the local level.
How will you deal with absent/ill voters, or voters who screw up their ballot somehow?
Full response voting records. When you vote online, you get a public record number assigned to your anonymous vote (along with a 4 digit private pin). That number is instantly posted in the "YES" or "NO" column for you to verify it made it there. Once it is there, you enter your private 4 digit pin, and you flag the public record number with your own 4 digit public code. The website is updated to reflect the public record number and your 4 digit public code. This is a two-way verification that your vote was accepted and in the correct place. Not every will want to verify it, but if they do, the opportunity to check your vote is there, forever and anonymous.
And I'd rather have lobbying done by people I know are professional lobbyists, rather than in the shadows. Kinda like I agree with how most European countries have legalized prostitution because it's better to accept and regulate a very human vice than drive it underground.
And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.
Good. The federal government was never meant to serve the people anything, it was meant to protect the rights of the people from tyranny. The States or the People themselves were meant to serve (see 9th and 10th Amendments as well as the text of the Constitution).
The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States.
The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service. The Income tax is unconstitutional in every way because it is different for each person. An income tax that was equal to everyone (in dollars) would likely be OK. Of course, considering our budget was US$2.3 trillion and we have about 150 million taxpayers (estimated?), every taxpayer would have to pay around US$15,000 per year I believe. My math could be off, but this is the only way we could have a "Constitutional" tax, and even then I don't believe they are allotted to have an income tax.
The Federal government had no power to perform many "duties" we now accept: FDA, USDA, FEC, SEC, IRS, FEMA, DOT, OSHA, FCC, FAA, EPA, BATF and so on and so on. Constitutionally all of these agencies are illegal.
You are saying that the people who tax us get a lot more out of those $3/hr than we do (in your example, 1*10^9 per hour), so they can afford to cheat us out of even more money?
Sort of. I'm actually not saying $3 per hour, but $3 per year. $3 per year to you (the taxpayer) means $1 billion per year to the crony receiving the entitlement that the tax pays for. You won't work hard to get rid of the $3 per hour tax (will you call your representative every day?) but they will work hard to get the $1 billion entitlement (they'll not only call the representative every day but they'll wine and dine them).
What I do NOT get is how this applies to democracy, or DRM.
Democracy without limit is terrible. If 50%+1 can vote to take all the wealth of 50%-1, it is ok. The US constitution was supposed to give the central government VERY LIMITED power -- the power to do basically nothing.
1. In democracy, if the government does not give us our $3's worth, they get voted out.
They don't. By the time their power is abused, they've created the laws to keep them in office. In the US we have "campaign finance reform" laws that were written specifically to keep incumbents in office and keep third parties out of elections.
2. With DRM'ed records, if the consumer does not get his $15's worth, they buy elsewhere. I moved away from the Napster last year, to iTunes: arguably, I pay much more, but I get to do all the things I want/need to the music I buy, legally.
Legally but not in a market-driven way. In a free market, there is no way a CD (or music) would cost $1. By producing copyright that exists nearly forever, you're pay $1 for songs that should have been public domain 14 years ago. Beatles? All public domain. Disney movies? All public domain. Brazil (one of my favorite movies)? Public domain. Copyright is a monopoly used by the content cartels to keep you paying, over and over and over and over and over and over (Movie theater once, movie theater twice, Cable TV release, VHS release, LaserDisc release, DVD release, iTunes release).
Copyright in a limited fashion (7+7 years) is still evil in my mind, but I'll accept it. Copyright in an unlimited fashion (what is it now, 70 years beyond the creators death?) is completely evil.
When you and 300 million other people pay $3 per year out of your pockets for a specific tax, you don't care. But 300 million x $3 = $1 billion. That $1 billion likely went to a lobbyist who worked that entire year just to receive that $1 billion entitlement.
The corruption in government comes from their unlimited ability to give a lobbyist $1 billion for a project. No single taxpayer will care that they paid $3 of that $1 billion, and no single taxpayer will work to decrease his taxes by $3. But still, $3 of your taxes went to paying someone $1 billion.
One of my neighbors is the local drug dealer. He sells a product to people who want it. My kids, when I have them, will understand what he does and I will also do my best to keep them away from drugs (and alcohol until they are ready).
My brother-in-law had MS. He used cannibis to control his pain and keep his appetite high. When he finally ended up in his last years, he transitioned to controlled opiates -- he was still productive up until his end.
I don't believe cocaine is bad, either. The war on drugs is what caused crack cocaine to exist -- I don't believe we'd see drugs so readily available and addictive without a profit incentive behind it.
There is no need to make the assumption that the moon is made out of rock or out of cheese. It does not matter one bit. There is no need to make the assumption that the earth is round or flat, it does not matter to me one bit. As long as the person who takes me to the other end of the earth knows what shape it is, and has succeeded in the past (and never failed), I don't need to know the outcome.
There is no need to know if we're running out of oil or if we're not. The people that drill the oil know more -- if they knew of a real shortage, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply. These are families that have existed for 150 years drilling oil and want to make sure their grandchildren continue to be in the family business. If we were truly running out of it, it wouldn't be US$64 a barrel, it would be US$6000 per barrel.
The market provides us with all the assumptions we need to know in ANY trade.
I was limited in posting (I met my 30 posts in 4 hours maximum) so I couldn't reply. Sorry.
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to add a little input. I think total unanimity is going too far. There WILL be some jackass who votes 'NO' on "No Murder." So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal. Do you propose that everyone always move away from this fellow, or is he one of the first legally sanctioned murders?
This is a good thing! First of all, a federal government should NEVER set the murder guidelines. This allows communities to. Would you live or travel to a community that allows murder? No. But some people would. That's fine.
Would you live in a community that allows abortion of a fetus? Would you live in a community that makes abortion illegal? Would you live in a community that gives the parent the right to kill any child of theirs under the age of 18?
All these questions push to the fact that we can base on communal standards on what we believe in. If you don't agree, get everyone else to change their opinions or move to where everyone agrees with you. If you don't care about murder too much, you can live anywhere that sets the most basic standard that you agree with. If you have very high beliefs about murder, you can live anywhere that sets the most basic standard that you agree with!
So based on this statement, the most rational course of action is to assume that one day the oil will go dry
No, the most rational course of action is to assume nothing. Assumptions without any basis don't make it with me. My assumptions are based on my being able to see with my own eyes to set those assumptions one way or another.
I can't see oil wells with my own eyes, and I can't see poverty in countries I haven't been two. I won't assume in either situation. I also won't assume about poverty in California (I live in Chicagoland) and I won't assume there is oil in Kansas.
What do I do? I give my assumptions over to the market. Yes, the market helps me form assumptions, and it should help you, too. I don't trust scientists that I don't know. The market lets me ignore them.
If those who own the oil fields were fearing a future without oil, they'd be holding on to it and selling it for more than they are. Oil is not peaking, as the price has not gone out of control, in fact it has been rising in cost below inflation. This means there is much more oil out there. The market provides me with my assumption.
To continue with my market-driven comparison, since I don't see poverty in California, I don't want to help anyone out there. I don't need to. I see poverty in my town, and this is where I want to be of assistance. I can not only directly help people in my town, but when they are out of poverty they can help me and others. Sending money to far off lands like Ethiopia and California and Milwaukee is crazy -- I can't prove that the money is helping. The market helps me here by providing me with another assumption: my money is better suited for the local poor.
See how the market provides? It provides by giving me the facts I need based on the price of a good. Oil isn't outrageously priced, therefore there is enough oil. On the other hand, starfuit is really expensive this year. There must be a shortage.
If I offered you US$3 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?
If I offered you US$1,000,000,000 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?
This is the problem with taxation if the spenders can spend money on anything. A lobbyist will work hard to get US$1 billion for himself. A taxpayer won't think twice about paying US$3 a year. 300,000,000 taxpayers paying UX$3 each = US$1billion.
Money is not the problem, power is. We gave the central government too much power, so those who wanted power run for office. If we took the power away, money wouldn't be an issue. No power to control means no reason to be corrupt.
Spends money to me is expression: it shouldn't be controlled. If Congress was severely limited in power, infinite money in bribes would get the briber nothing.
Campaign finance laws do nothing but keep incumbents in office. Want to fix the system? Abolish the FEC and return the central government to its Constitutional limits.
Thanks. I believe the word democracy is the worst villain in tyranny. The founding fathers likely believed it to be the case, but they were unable to battle off the big government founding fathers entirely. Hamilton and Clay were the enemies of the People, Jefferson and Washington were the enemies of the State. In the end, we're living in a world that Hamilton and Clay would have loved.
What happens if their income changes? Without a structured program, people can fall between the cracks.
Insurance. I am way overinsured. I don't use health insurance to pay for non-emergencies (I prepay in cash for medical service and get a huge discount for every provider, every clinic).
Can't afford insurance? Go take a look at how much even the poorest people pay in sales tax and hidden regulatory costs. When I ran retail stores, as much as 40% of the cost of goods sold was regulatory fees and government overhead.
My friend with CP has a church too, but they pay her little more than lip service. Not everyone is lucky enough to be a part of a community that will help support them (note: help support, not support outright).
That sucks. I work hard to get non-believers to help out a local church rather than national charities, even if they don't believe in the cause of Christ, there are still many churches who will happily work with non-Christians in their causes. Even my church has benefactors who are not Christian, but have involvement in the causes we support.
The real problem with charity is that most of us (probably you as well) pay over 50% of our income to government at every level. When you're paying more than half of your labor to support others, it is hard to have anything left to give.
Or are they just more examples of those that we shouldn't help and leave to their own fate?
I'll help each one individually if they ask for help. With government subsidizing their every sinful move, I doubt they'll ask. Yet I know I'm paying for it both ways. If I can help them get off welfare and become productive, someone else will get more of my tax dollars. That's sad.
Do I want to see people suffer? Not a chance. But we all have free will (whether you're a believer or not). Some people will continue to make bad choices -- I just don't want to subsidize these choices. Will it be likely that these 6 will have 6 more criminal bastards each? Possibly. If not, we'll end up paying for their irresponsibility. Again, that's sad and wrong.
Fair enough, but what about the municipal roads that go from my doorstep to the highway? Do I have to pay for them all? I use far less than 10% of all the roads around here. What if I sell my car and go without one for a year? Am I exempt from road upkeep for that year? What if I borrow a friend's car during that?
I've looked into libertarian, anarchist and even socialist road programs. I believe that the libertarian/anarchist one makes sense and can be done.
First, road ways as necessary. In my community (I live on a circle drive, consider it a dead end) we pay for our own roads within the community up to the public roadway. The public roadway can be funded between communities by business co-ops. Would they? If the businesses want customers, I'd say definitely. Roadways can also be paid for by competitive toll road companies. It would require an entirely new way of thinking though.
What would toll road companies provide? First, they'd provide roadways -- which could be VERY expensive to build into some communities. This requires users willing to pay to use these roadways. I believe you'd see co-op'd drives like you see co-op'd railways now (and you even see co-oped cell networks used between competitive cell phone companies). Using a wireless transponder, you can pay per mile. Roadways can be subsidized by billboard advertising as well, and might even be subsidized by mass transit companies. Toll road companies could provide motivation-pricing (more expensive as traffic goes up) and can also provide roadside assistance and ride share options. Who knows. The only way to tell would be to try it.
Around here, you get free health care (more or less). If it was priced based on usage, the people who need health care the most wouldn't get it. The people who need health care are usually the elderly or the injured. Neither are making money.
Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office...
Big business comes directly out of the democratic process. Whenever you give 51% of the people control over the individual's freedom, you can expect there to be abuse.
Our country was never intended to be democratic -- our Congress and our Executive branches were to be strictly limited in scope and in power. They had no ability to abuse the individual just because the voting majority said to.
I don't trust democracy. It doesn't surprise me that laws are written to help the elite few at the expense of the many. If I offered you US$1 billion if you worked 40 hours a week for 2 years, would you take it? If I told you I'd put a gun to your head and take US$3 out of your pocket a year for 2 years, would you fight it?
US$3 per person x 300 million people = US$1 billion. A lobbiest that works 40 hours a week has reason to fight for his billion, while you have little reason to fight against giving up US$3 for him.
I've been very interested in the world of anonymous information sharing -- possibly as a replacement for the normal IP-based Internet. Maybe someone out there can answer a few questions:
1. What are the theories behind simple anonymous sharing of data? (I know there are newer versions of P2P beyond Torrent that allow for a third party mediator between two anonymous parties. This seems like a start to making a truly free-speech undernet.)
2. Is it possible to completely diversify the Internet away from IP-based hosting to a new swarm-network of anonymous users all hosting little pieces of various forms of information? 2b. Is anyone working on this swarm idea?
3. As information becomes more accessible, will the need for information privacy be important? 3b. Is it more important to create a totally anonymous information sharing network than it is to work on harder to break encryption schemes?
Yet we spend billions (trillions?) on going to war and there are tons of defense contractors licking their chops every day. Doesn't it amaze you that these are the same companies that develop all the weapons to kill one another?
I'd love to see a day when the populations of the world arm themselves and say no to the elite warmongering imperialists. This is nothing directed solely at Bush, Clinton and every other president, PM and world leader in 60 years has had war ambitions (war is the health of the State and all).
I think we should de-finance defense completely, by threat of personal arms. I'd rather see my money going to guys like Gates and Jobs and other bazillionaires, who can then get together and compete to be the first geek in space.
Make orbit, not war! Just don't do it publicly funded:)
Now, scale that up. Assume that all petrochemical products increase drastically in price suddenly, caused by a decline in world oil production.
This is the great thing about supply and demand -- even in cartels does competition offer the consumer an advantage (eventually).
The OPEC crisis fell apart due to non-OPEC (and even some OPEC) countries finding a way to increase their income. If OPEC decided to double oil prices, the smaller oil companies might sell it for 10% over "cheapest" price. This would cause OPEC to then go a little under those guys, hence competition starts the cycle.
I believe the oil producers have the best sense of what they have in the ground. Why would they sell cheap if they felt they were running out? Even today at US$64 per barrel oil is cheap. The dollar has been inflated almost 20% in 2.5 years, but the price of oil is barely 20% higher.
The value of the dollar be damned, your imports stop when it becomes too expensive to move goods from the pennies per hour labour force to the dollars per hour labour force. I could go on, but this is the same thing that Peak Oil people have been saying all along: The economy depends on petrochemicals on all levels.
The global economy does, yes. I'm a retail store owner (actually, ex-, I recently closed all my stores). The global economy was great for consumers but very hard on US store owners (we're really regulated heavily). Once oil prices go up, you'll see more ma and pa stores open back up, which can actually help the local economies. People will always want to make money -- we'll find ways to do it. If it isn't on more toys and cars, we'll see more theater companies or comedy studios. People will always want entertainment, and we'll find ways to provide it.
I admire your honesty. I often find myself juggling these sort of pragmatic thoughts alongside the idealistic ones. Let me try to explain by example:
I'm only honest because I'm not afraid of the outcome. Chances are you and I will never interact "in real life," so even if you disagreed with me, it wouldn't matter. Those who know my opinions and interact with me know that I am one of the most giving people you'll meet -- if you work for it in some way. I hate the term altruism, I profit by the good feeling that I get out of providing people with help.
So, what do you do in this situation? Without functional speech and/or motor skills, there is basically nothing she can offer the labour market. Does this make her lazy? Should wealth be redistributed to her? If so, what makes her special over others in the community? If not, what do you think should happen to her?
Great question. My wife was adopted by a nice family who also adopted a baby who was the product of a rapist and a mentally retarded girl in a hospital. The baby grew up with terrible retardation. He's 27 now, with the mind of a 2 year old and the body of an adult male. He's a handful. My wife's siblings (3 who were not retarded) didn't want to take care of him. I met my wife and knew I'd have to, and I offered to acquire him in case the mother died. We watch him 3 days a week, and he's a chore, but he's also a gift.
Right now, in my church, there are 3 other families who have adopted retarded babies or children that "no one wanted." There are 2 other families who attempted to but the courts wouldn't allow it.
Are there charities for those who need help? 100% yes. We have a business in Deerfield, Illinois called Opportunity, Inc. Their slogan is "The Handi-capable hands" and they employee those who can do something. One friend of ours is a paraplegic (no legs). He couldn't work for almost 10 years -- no one would hire him. Now he makes almost US$20,000 from his home as an online customer service agent. The Internet is providing work for people who could never work before.
I give more than 10% of my income to my church, and I watch their spending like a hawk. I want to see the needy get help, IF they are t
I've not spent much time on the issue of space -- I do want to go, and I will pay almost anything to do so in my lifetime.
My question is -- why do all these innovations come from governments? Are there regulations or requirements that prevent private investment into the new inventions?
Space tourism will be a huge business. Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.
I just can't see why a country has to pay for space research. India is gaining wealth, does that mean taxing the new business owners to go to space? How about stopping that, and letting these new business owners be the ones who want to go to space and fund it themselves?
For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?
"I've kiboshed before, and I will kibosh again." -- Crazy Joe Davola
Slashdot Mirror
I should be glad that we have technology to replace the BING for people who can't "fucking" see. How about just anouncing the floor number before the elevator stops?
33 floors, 33 bings?
Or 33 floors, no bings, and "You've arrived at 17."
You're right, I'm glad I'm not blind, those bings would still drive me nuts.
Way back in the day I used to do some IT work for a company that made elevator buttons for the big elevator companies. It was one of the oddest companies you had ever seen.
I used to ask them why the basic "up/down" button was never replaced with a better control system -- you could request the floor you wanted to go to on the outside of the elevator instead of the inside. Sure it would cost more (needing buttons at every floor) but you could prioritize the elevator's path, saving money and time in the long run.
They told me it would never happen -- elevators would always be as they were. I guess he was mostly right, since it is now 10 years later and we still have up/down buttons, long waits, and no real efficiency in destination planning. I actually used to consider about once a year writing a paper on sorting the elevator destinations real time based on where people were and where they would be heading.
I'm surprised it finally happened.
A few things I wish elevators had (some jokingly just out of frustration):
1. On/off toggle. The idiot that hits the call button ten times would only toggle the button on and off 5 times. Let him wait, I hate the clicking sound.
2. On/off toggle in the elevator. Have you had the kid hit 10 buttons? I have. Many times. Have you had some idiot hit a few buttons by accident? I get it every week. Not that I'm in a rush, but come on, think before you hit a button.
3. Early elevator arrival notification. Tell me which elevator will be the one I'll be entering. I've been in some buildings where I'll miss 3 elevators because they don't notify you which one to wait by. Maybe they do this to prevent people from crowding the doors, but I'd rather people learn etiquette than have the crazy rushes you see in some Chicago lobbies.
4. VIP floor access. Pay $1 and get to your floor immediately.
5. BING muting. Have you been in these elevators that have to BING at every floor, even when you're going to the 33rd from the 1st? Yeesh, give me a mute button.
6. Free spray deodarant in each elevator. Talk about needing to teach people etiquette.
It was either this article or a Beatles-Beatles article!
I fear that the keyboard will be rickety. I like the gaming keys, but Internet keys? Come on, have you ever seen anyone really use those?
My favorite keyboards are designed specifically for typing. Gaming works fine with what I have -- as long as the keyboard is heavy, doesn't have pieces to move around, and feels good on the finger. The old Compaq notebook keyboards were some of my favorite "mini" keyboards, but I like a full sized full weight keyboard that is one solid piece.
I don't think this keyboard will be more than a flash in the pan -- easy come easy go. Gamers are used to the keyboard as it is laid out, and I don't think anyone wants to deal with swapping parts out when they want to get a quick game on. I sometimes pop into Action Quake 2 for 10 minutes and pop back out to write an article or an e-mail.
More clutter, more stuff to lose, more stuff to break, more things to wiggle around? I'll pass.
Oh, I guess it makes more sense to charge both (or all) candidates to air right?
If you decide you don't like a particular opinion, and you own the radio station, I guess you could work hard to prevent someone from speaking. You're in control of those airwaves. On the other hand, if the money is big enough, would you really say no? It is easy to say you wouldn't accept advertising dollars from someone you didn't agree with, but try it when the money is really offered. Our minds change when we think of what we can do with the dollars offered to us. Everyone has a price for everything.
Mostly what they do is limit our freedoms and take our money.
Which is why it is of vast importance to do the following:
1. Revoke all campaign finance laws and let people talk with their moneys.
2. Turn over all debate committees to anyone who is on the ballot.
3. Let anyone get on the ballot who wants to. Right now ballot access is near impossible for anyone but the 2 big parties.
4. Decrease the power of Congress and the Executive branch to the Constitutional limits, and return the Senate vote to the States, not the people. Democratically elected Senators is one of the worst changes to the Constitution in history.
Someone needs to decide which side of the road we drive on, and standardize that across states.
Really? I don't see why. Insurance companies can set these guidelines very easily -- and likely would if States and the feds did not. There is no need to "regulate" something is that is regulated by industry.
Someone needs to fine and keep businesses from being greedy and treating their employees or the environment.
Let the local governments regulate the environment. The federal and state governments are some of the worst polluters in history. As for employees, NO. Business regulations create unemployment -- minimum wage laws make it hard for minorities and kids to earn experience in a given trade, OSHA and ADA laws create barriers to hiring people with special needs. An employer hires an employee at the value that the employee provides the employer. If an employer takes advantage of an employee, someone else will hire the employee away. I know, I've hired all my employees out from under competitors, and then was very competitive in keeping them. No one ever quits working for me.
What if a terrorist decides to do that instead of going through the hassle of the airport?
Why would a terrorist attack a nation that is peaceful, has open borders with no trade restrictions, and doesn't murder tens of thousands of people a year? Our country would not be a target if we returned to the days when we were friends to everyone and hated no one.
The airlines don't put you through crap. Up until the 70s, the airlines let anyone carry a gun on the plane -- try hijacking a plane where half the passengers are armed.
Our government in the past 20 years has created laws in order to try to fix problems created by previous laws. In 10 years or less, most readers here will be unemployed, wishing they listened. We sow debt and anger with the world, we'll reap unemployment and hatred in the near future. This is our government doing it on our behalf. I don't vote, they don't do it in my name.
UNLIMITED?? Surely you are opposed to foreign money in campaigns?
Why? I welcome all money, foreign or local.
If the power of Congress is severely limited and the balance of powers is truely checked, foreign financing would have zero effect.
What we have today is not campaign finance reform, it's imcumbent protection racketeering.
How?
If one of the two parties wants to get their voice heard, they have thousands of donators able to pay the cap. Third parties historically relied on fewer supporters giving more money each. With caps per business or individual, third parties have no voice. Campaign finance is speech!
Properly dispersed (exactly ONE in every district), a very small minority of obstructionists could put the entire country in jeopardy.
Ahh! Good point!
You might argue that this wouldn't be in the personal best interests of such spoilers and thus such an event is impossible or at least unlikely. However, this would be short-sighted. What about agents or sympathizers of a foreign power or even a rival district? What about the few malevolent people who revel in the misery of others
Right, I understand. So take it further. Us 1000 in the community called the 4th District of the Town of Gurnee in the County of Lake in the State of Illinois in the US want a law fixing potholes. Some GNAA-head decides to vote against it. I'm cool with it. I believe this gives us an opportunity to propose an additional part of the Unanimocracy Constitution -- secession. Any number of people can seceed from any organization above it without prejudice. If 999 of the community disagree with the 1, we can seceed (as long as we offer the 1 an outlet thoroughfare out of the community maybe?), they can seceed from the 1 and form another?
Lets be honest, a unanimocracy is an academic novelty, and that's putting it kindly.
Maybe, but the debate offers something different I think.
First of all, consumers are only as powerful if they're informed about the market.
This is a myth that I've spoken of regularly here. It is NOT needed for a free market, and in fact it is counterintuitive to a competitive marketplace. There are no consumers or producers in a barter -- both parties of an exchange are profiting from the exchange. Both have to have secrets or the exchange can't be mutually profitable. The "consumer" party must hide how much cash it has available and how badly it wants a given product or service. The "producer" party must hide how much profit it has available and what the demand of that product or service is. Both parties believe they're exiting the exchange ahead of what they had entering into it. The "consumer" gives up money that is worth less than the product or service. The "producer" gives up a product or service that is worth less than the money. Mutual profit!
This doesn't have to be the case, and, in fact, most assuredly wouldn't be the case if the company in question either owned or had agreements with major media companies
Would copyright exist in a unanimocracy? I doubt it would exist as it does today, leaving the major media companies in a much less powerful form -- definitely not a cartel.
Secondly, the power of consumers is largely diminished in an unhealthy market (ex. a monopoly). Without a strong government, what entity would correct these unhealthy markets?
In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.
Why not? Such disclosure is a fundamental to a healthy, free market.
As I showed before, this is untrue.
More information about the inner workings of public companies would empower consumers and reduce corruption
I disagree. Corruption in a free market only increases the cost of doing business as the company performing the corruption must continue to hide the fraud. Fraudulent providers wouldn't last long, unless they were given a monopoly to use government force (by high regulatory standards, tariffs or protectionism, or other government manipulations).
Good words!
That's an awfully large sweeping statement. As China is proving day after day, there's nothing inherent about Capitalism that prevents non-democratic entities from participating--and competing well even.
Which is why I love capitalism -- everyone has a chance at competing. In cartel mercantilism (what the US is), there are very high costs to entering many markets.
Look no further than the trolls and GNAA idiots on Slashdot for the reason why. A properly dispersed, obstructionist minority could send the entire system in to a paralysis.
Not in a unanimocracy, actually. The GNAA idiot in your community can do whatever he wants on his property, but he can't get everyone in your community to agree with his practice. The same is true for the nut job that wants Social Security -- he could continue to bring the bill to the election, but if the community doesn't want to throw moeny into a pot to be spent willy-nilly, the law won't pass. Try revoking failed social security today. Can't be done, even if 51% of the people hate it. I bet in reality far more than 51% of Americans hate Social Security.
I'm no expert, but I would pin the problem on a few specific things such as: the lack of congressional term limits (and the rise of professional politicians), the emergence of telecommunications media, the lack of transparency and accountability within public corporations, and the lack of more stringent restrictions on campaign contributions.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
The problem with our government is their unlimited power. The money came after the corrupt people came after the power was set up in an unlimited fashion.
I want unlimited campaign finance -- let anyone give money to anyone. To me, spending money is how I can express myself. If you let unlimited money come in, third parties would have a bigger voice and you could use money to vote in the free market. How do you control unlimited finance? By having completely limited power in office. If the Congress was restricted to their Constitutionally limited power (VERY limited powers), no one would want to bribe them with any amount of campaign finance -- they have no power to help others financially.
All the things you ask for are tyrannical and prevent me from doing what I want to do. You have no reason to deal with public companies -- stop buying from them if they lie about their books or their products. Don't force them to disclose anything. Also stop funding them with taxpayer dollars or taxpayer-granted monopolies such as copyright, patents and other monopolist powers that should never be granted in the first place.
Interesting link about unanimocracy. It demonstrated quite illuminatingly why I am suspicious of armchair libertarians. There was a nice post in the previous thread about
:)
4 87647
o ld=-1&commentsort=3&mode=flat&cid=14487056
Eventually I think you'll be convinced
So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal.
Only on his property. Would you enter the property of someone who believes murder is legal? Maybe he could get together with a few hundred nutjobs and make an entire community with legal murder.
Read my murder post for more clarification: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174103&cid=14
Or reach a balance between playing well with other states and punishing their guilty (who may've fled to another state?)
That's between the States to decide (and the people in the end). Of course people will flee crimes -- it happens every day. This is why we need a market solution to dealing with people such as a public moderation and feedback system (or multiple competitive systems). If someone rips people off on eBay, they won't be able to trade in the future. Right now, people trust zero feedback sellers and buyers, but give it time, zero feedback will be the equivalent to -15 feedback. The same would be true with moderation systems in a free market.
How will unpopular but economically vital laws get passed, or will unanimocracy be condemned to populist policies forever?
Like what? I don't know if any law is economically vital. If it is, it will get passed upon sunsetting.
*any* proposition be brought to the ballot (good for DDoSing the electoral system) or will it require a certain number of signatures (like Switzerland)?
I don't see why not. This would be the best form of superdemocracy anyway. Bring a bill to your community group -- let's call it 4th District Gurnee, IL (where I live, FYI). If the 4th District accepts your bill into law, they can push it to the next level. If that level accepts it (next year's election?) push it to the next level and so on and so on. By the time you have it at the Federal level, you'll test it well enough to see if you want to reintroduce it at the 6 year mark at the local level.
How will you deal with absent/ill voters, or voters who screw up their ballot somehow?
Full response voting records. When you vote online, you get a public record number assigned to your anonymous vote (along with a 4 digit private pin). That number is instantly posted in the "YES" or "NO" column for you to verify it made it there. Once it is there, you enter your private 4 digit pin, and you flag the public record number with your own 4 digit public code. The website is updated to reflect the public record number and your 4 digit public code. This is a two-way verification that your vote was accepted and in the correct place. Not every will want to verify it, but if they do, the opportunity to check your vote is there, forever and anonymous.
And I'd rather have lobbying done by people I know are professional lobbyists, rather than in the shadows. Kinda like I agree with how most European countries have legalized prostitution because it's better to accept and regulate a very human vice than drive it underground.
My problem with lobbying is encompassed in this thread here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174154&thresh
Lobbyists have more reason to try to gain US$1 billion than 300 million taxpayers have to fight a US$3 cost to them.
And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.
Good. The federal government was never meant to serve the people anything, it was meant to protect the rights of the people from tyranny. The States or the People themselves were meant to serve (see 9th and 10th Amendments as well as the text of the Constitution).
The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States.
The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service. The Income tax is unconstitutional in every way because it is different for each person. An income tax that was equal to everyone (in dollars) would likely be OK. Of course, considering our budget was US$2.3 trillion and we have about 150 million taxpayers (estimated?), every taxpayer would have to pay around US$15,000 per year I believe. My math could be off, but this is the only way we could have a "Constitutional" tax, and even then I don't believe they are allotted to have an income tax.
The Federal government had no power to perform many "duties" we now accept: FDA, USDA, FEC, SEC, IRS, FEMA, DOT, OSHA, FCC, FAA, EPA, BATF and so on and so on. Constitutionally all of these agencies are illegal.
You are saying that the people who tax us get a lot more out of those $3/hr than we do (in your example, 1*10^9 per hour), so they can afford to cheat us out of even more money?
Sort of. I'm actually not saying $3 per hour, but $3 per year. $3 per year to you (the taxpayer) means $1 billion per year to the crony receiving the entitlement that the tax pays for. You won't work hard to get rid of the $3 per hour tax (will you call your representative every day?) but they will work hard to get the $1 billion entitlement (they'll not only call the representative every day but they'll wine and dine them).
What I do NOT get is how this applies to democracy, or DRM.
Democracy without limit is terrible. If 50%+1 can vote to take all the wealth of 50%-1, it is ok. The US constitution was supposed to give the central government VERY LIMITED power -- the power to do basically nothing.
1. In democracy, if the government does not give us our $3's worth, they get voted out.
They don't. By the time their power is abused, they've created the laws to keep them in office. In the US we have "campaign finance reform" laws that were written specifically to keep incumbents in office and keep third parties out of elections.
2. With DRM'ed records, if the consumer does not get his $15's worth, they buy elsewhere. I moved away from the Napster last year, to iTunes: arguably, I pay much more, but I get to do all the things I want/need to the music I buy, legally.
Legally but not in a market-driven way. In a free market, there is no way a CD (or music) would cost $1. By producing copyright that exists nearly forever, you're pay $1 for songs that should have been public domain 14 years ago. Beatles? All public domain. Disney movies? All public domain. Brazil (one of my favorite movies)? Public domain. Copyright is a monopoly used by the content cartels to keep you paying, over and over and over and over and over and over (Movie theater once, movie theater twice, Cable TV release, VHS release, LaserDisc release, DVD release, iTunes release).
Copyright in a limited fashion (7+7 years) is still evil in my mind, but I'll accept it. Copyright in an unlimited fashion (what is it now, 70 years beyond the creators death?) is completely evil.
I'm not sure if you're baiting me here :)
Ask yourself the following question:
Would you work an entire year for $3?
Would you work an entire year for $1 billion?
When you and 300 million other people pay $3 per year out of your pockets for a specific tax, you don't care. But 300 million x $3 = $1 billion. That $1 billion likely went to a lobbyist who worked that entire year just to receive that $1 billion entitlement.
The corruption in government comes from their unlimited ability to give a lobbyist $1 billion for a project. No single taxpayer will care that they paid $3 of that $1 billion, and no single taxpayer will work to decrease his taxes by $3. But still, $3 of your taxes went to paying someone $1 billion.
One of my neighbors is the local drug dealer. He sells a product to people who want it. My kids, when I have them, will understand what he does and I will also do my best to keep them away from drugs (and alcohol until they are ready).
My brother-in-law had MS. He used cannibis to control his pain and keep his appetite high. When he finally ended up in his last years, he transitioned to controlled opiates -- he was still productive up until his end.
I don't believe cocaine is bad, either. The war on drugs is what caused crack cocaine to exist -- I don't believe we'd see drugs so readily available and addictive without a profit incentive behind it.
There is no need to make the assumption that the moon is made out of rock or out of cheese. It does not matter one bit. There is no need to make the assumption that the earth is round or flat, it does not matter to me one bit. As long as the person who takes me to the other end of the earth knows what shape it is, and has succeeded in the past (and never failed), I don't need to know the outcome.
There is no need to know if we're running out of oil or if we're not. The people that drill the oil know more -- if they knew of a real shortage, they wouldn't sell it so cheaply. These are families that have existed for 150 years drilling oil and want to make sure their grandchildren continue to be in the family business. If we were truly running out of it, it wouldn't be US$64 a barrel, it would be US$6000 per barrel.
The market provides us with all the assumptions we need to know in ANY trade.
I was limited in posting (I met my 30 posts in 4 hours maximum) so I couldn't reply. Sorry.
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to add a little input. I think total unanimity is going too far. There WILL be some jackass who votes 'NO' on "No Murder." So basically, wherever this guy lives, murder is legal. Do you propose that everyone always move away from this fellow, or is he one of the first legally sanctioned murders?
This is a good thing! First of all, a federal government should NEVER set the murder guidelines. This allows communities to. Would you live or travel to a community that allows murder? No. But some people would. That's fine.
Would you live in a community that allows abortion of a fetus?
Would you live in a community that makes abortion illegal?
Would you live in a community that gives the parent the right to kill any child of theirs under the age of 18?
All these questions push to the fact that we can base on communal standards on what we believe in. If you don't agree, get everyone else to change their opinions or move to where everyone agrees with you. If you don't care about murder too much, you can live anywhere that sets the most basic standard that you agree with. If you have very high beliefs about murder, you can live anywhere that sets the most basic standard that you agree with!
See the power of unanimocracy?
Sorry for the late reply.
So based on this statement, the most rational course of action is to assume that one day the oil will go dry
No, the most rational course of action is to assume nothing. Assumptions without any basis don't make it with me. My assumptions are based on my being able to see with my own eyes to set those assumptions one way or another.
I can't see oil wells with my own eyes, and I can't see poverty in countries I haven't been two. I won't assume in either situation. I also won't assume about poverty in California (I live in Chicagoland) and I won't assume there is oil in Kansas.
What do I do? I give my assumptions over to the market. Yes, the market helps me form assumptions, and it should help you, too. I don't trust scientists that I don't know. The market lets me ignore them.
If those who own the oil fields were fearing a future without oil, they'd be holding on to it and selling it for more than they are. Oil is not peaking, as the price has not gone out of control, in fact it has been rising in cost below inflation. This means there is much more oil out there. The market provides me with my assumption.
To continue with my market-driven comparison, since I don't see poverty in California, I don't want to help anyone out there. I don't need to. I see poverty in my town, and this is where I want to be of assistance. I can not only directly help people in my town, but when they are out of poverty they can help me and others. Sending money to far off lands like Ethiopia and California and Milwaukee is crazy -- I can't prove that the money is helping. The market helps me here by providing me with another assumption: my money is better suited for the local poor.
See how the market provides? It provides by giving me the facts I need based on the price of a good. Oil isn't outrageously priced, therefore there is enough oil. On the other hand, starfuit is really expensive this year. There must be a shortage.
Clarification:
If I offered you US$3 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?
If I offered you US$1,000,000,000 to work 40 hours a week for a year, would you do it?
This is the problem with taxation if the spenders can spend money on anything. A lobbyist will work hard to get US$1 billion for himself. A taxpayer won't think twice about paying US$3 a year. 300,000,000 taxpayers paying UX$3 each = US$1billion.
Get it?
I disagree completely.
Money is not the problem, power is. We gave the central government too much power, so those who wanted power run for office. If we took the power away, money wouldn't be an issue. No power to control means no reason to be corrupt.
Spends money to me is expression: it shouldn't be controlled. If Congress was severely limited in power, infinite money in bribes would get the briber nothing.
Campaign finance laws do nothing but keep incumbents in office. Want to fix the system? Abolish the FEC and return the central government to its Constitutional limits.
Thanks. I believe the word democracy is the worst villain in tyranny. The founding fathers likely believed it to be the case, but they were unable to battle off the big government founding fathers entirely. Hamilton and Clay were the enemies of the People, Jefferson and Washington were the enemies of the State. In the end, we're living in a world that Hamilton and Clay would have loved.
What happens if their income changes? Without a structured program, people can fall between the cracks.
Insurance. I am way overinsured. I don't use health insurance to pay for non-emergencies (I prepay in cash for medical service and get a huge discount for every provider, every clinic).
Can't afford insurance? Go take a look at how much even the poorest people pay in sales tax and hidden regulatory costs. When I ran retail stores, as much as 40% of the cost of goods sold was regulatory fees and government overhead.
My friend with CP has a church too, but they pay her little more than lip service. Not everyone is lucky enough to be a part of a community that will help support them (note: help support, not support outright).
That sucks. I work hard to get non-believers to help out a local church rather than national charities, even if they don't believe in the cause of Christ, there are still many churches who will happily work with non-Christians in their causes. Even my church has benefactors who are not Christian, but have involvement in the causes we support.
The real problem with charity is that most of us (probably you as well) pay over 50% of our income to government at every level. When you're paying more than half of your labor to support others, it is hard to have anything left to give.
Or are they just more examples of those that we shouldn't help and leave to their own fate?
I'll help each one individually if they ask for help. With government subsidizing their every sinful move, I doubt they'll ask. Yet I know I'm paying for it both ways. If I can help them get off welfare and become productive, someone else will get more of my tax dollars. That's sad.
Do I want to see people suffer? Not a chance. But we all have free will (whether you're a believer or not). Some people will continue to make bad choices -- I just don't want to subsidize these choices. Will it be likely that these 6 will have 6 more criminal bastards each? Possibly. If not, we'll end up paying for their irresponsibility. Again, that's sad and wrong.
Fair enough, but what about the municipal roads that go from my doorstep to the highway? Do I have to pay for them all? I use far less than 10% of all the roads around here. What if I sell my car and go without one for a year? Am I exempt from road upkeep for that year? What if I borrow a friend's car during that?
I've looked into libertarian, anarchist and even socialist road programs. I believe that the libertarian/anarchist one makes sense and can be done.
First, road ways as necessary. In my community (I live on a circle drive, consider it a dead end) we pay for our own roads within the community up to the public roadway. The public roadway can be funded between communities by business co-ops. Would they? If the businesses want customers, I'd say definitely. Roadways can also be paid for by competitive toll road companies. It would require an entirely new way of thinking though.
What would toll road companies provide? First, they'd provide roadways -- which could be VERY expensive to build into some communities. This requires users willing to pay to use these roadways. I believe you'd see co-op'd drives like you see co-op'd railways now (and you even see co-oped cell networks used between competitive cell phone companies). Using a wireless transponder, you can pay per mile. Roadways can be subsidized by billboard advertising as well, and might even be subsidized by mass transit companies. Toll road companies could provide motivation-pricing (more expensive as traffic goes up) and can also provide roadside assistance and ride share options. Who knows. The only way to tell would be to try it.
Around here, you get free health care (more or less). If it was priced based on usage, the people who need health care the most wouldn't get it. The people who need health care are usually the elderly or the injured. Neither are making money.
I
Given how big business has subverted the Democratic process, expect those who proposed this to be quietly removed from office...
Big business comes directly out of the democratic process. Whenever you give 51% of the people control over the individual's freedom, you can expect there to be abuse.
Our country was never intended to be democratic -- our Congress and our Executive branches were to be strictly limited in scope and in power. They had no ability to abuse the individual just because the voting majority said to.
I don't trust democracy. It doesn't surprise me that laws are written to help the elite few at the expense of the many. If I offered you US$1 billion if you worked 40 hours a week for 2 years, would you take it? If I told you I'd put a gun to your head and take US$3 out of your pocket a year for 2 years, would you fight it?
US$3 per person x 300 million people = US$1 billion. A lobbiest that works 40 hours a week has reason to fight for his billion, while you have little reason to fight against giving up US$3 for him.
Democracy is evil, support Unanimocracy!
I've been very interested in the world of anonymous information sharing -- possibly as a replacement for the normal IP-based Internet. Maybe someone out there can answer a few questions:
1. What are the theories behind simple anonymous sharing of data? (I know there are newer versions of P2P beyond Torrent that allow for a third party mediator between two anonymous parties. This seems like a start to making a truly free-speech undernet.)
2. Is it possible to completely diversify the Internet away from IP-based hosting to a new swarm-network of anonymous users all hosting little pieces of various forms of information? 2b. Is anyone working on this swarm idea?
3. As information becomes more accessible, will the need for information privacy be important? 3b. Is it more important to create a totally anonymous information sharing network than it is to work on harder to break encryption schemes?
This is true.
:)
Yet we spend billions (trillions?) on going to war and there are tons of defense contractors licking their chops every day. Doesn't it amaze you that these are the same companies that develop all the weapons to kill one another?
I'd love to see a day when the populations of the world arm themselves and say no to the elite warmongering imperialists. This is nothing directed solely at Bush, Clinton and every other president, PM and world leader in 60 years has had war ambitions (war is the health of the State and all).
I think we should de-finance defense completely, by threat of personal arms. I'd rather see my money going to guys like Gates and Jobs and other bazillionaires, who can then get together and compete to be the first geek in space.
Make orbit, not war! Just don't do it publicly funded
Now, scale that up. Assume that all petrochemical products increase drastically in price suddenly, caused by a decline in world oil production.
This is the great thing about supply and demand -- even in cartels does competition offer the consumer an advantage (eventually).
The OPEC crisis fell apart due to non-OPEC (and even some OPEC) countries finding a way to increase their income. If OPEC decided to double oil prices, the smaller oil companies might sell it for 10% over "cheapest" price. This would cause OPEC to then go a little under those guys, hence competition starts the cycle.
I believe the oil producers have the best sense of what they have in the ground. Why would they sell cheap if they felt they were running out? Even today at US$64 per barrel oil is cheap. The dollar has been inflated almost 20% in 2.5 years, but the price of oil is barely 20% higher.
The value of the dollar be damned, your imports stop when it becomes too expensive to move goods from the pennies per hour labour force to the dollars per hour labour force. I could go on, but this is the same thing that Peak Oil people have been saying all along: The economy depends on petrochemicals on all levels.
The global economy does, yes. I'm a retail store owner (actually, ex-, I recently closed all my stores). The global economy was great for consumers but very hard on US store owners (we're really regulated heavily). Once oil prices go up, you'll see more ma and pa stores open back up, which can actually help the local economies. People will always want to make money -- we'll find ways to do it. If it isn't on more toys and cars, we'll see more theater companies or comedy studios. People will always want entertainment, and we'll find ways to provide it.
I admire your honesty. I often find myself juggling these sort of pragmatic thoughts alongside the idealistic ones. Let me try to explain by example:
I'm only honest because I'm not afraid of the outcome. Chances are you and I will never interact "in real life," so even if you disagreed with me, it wouldn't matter. Those who know my opinions and interact with me know that I am one of the most giving people you'll meet -- if you work for it in some way. I hate the term altruism, I profit by the good feeling that I get out of providing people with help.
So, what do you do in this situation? Without functional speech and/or motor skills, there is basically nothing she can offer the labour market. Does this make her lazy? Should wealth be redistributed to her? If so, what makes her special over others in the community? If not, what do you think should happen to her?
Great question. My wife was adopted by a nice family who also adopted a baby who was the product of a rapist and a mentally retarded girl in a hospital. The baby grew up with terrible retardation. He's 27 now, with the mind of a 2 year old and the body of an adult male. He's a handful. My wife's siblings (3 who were not retarded) didn't want to take care of him. I met my wife and knew I'd have to, and I offered to acquire him in case the mother died. We watch him 3 days a week, and he's a chore, but he's also a gift.
Right now, in my church, there are 3 other families who have adopted retarded babies or children that "no one wanted." There are 2 other families who attempted to but the courts wouldn't allow it.
Are there charities for those who need help? 100% yes. We have a business in Deerfield, Illinois called Opportunity, Inc. Their slogan is "The Handi-capable hands" and they employee those who can do something. One friend of ours is a paraplegic (no legs). He couldn't work for almost 10 years -- no one would hire him. Now he makes almost US$20,000 from his home as an online customer service agent. The Internet is providing work for people who could never work before.
I give more than 10% of my income to my church, and I watch their spending like a hawk. I want to see the needy get help, IF they are t
I've not spent much time on the issue of space -- I do want to go, and I will pay almost anything to do so in my lifetime.
My question is -- why do all these innovations come from governments? Are there regulations or requirements that prevent private investment into the new inventions?
Space tourism will be a huge business. Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.
I just can't see why a country has to pay for space research. India is gaining wealth, does that mean taxing the new business owners to go to space? How about stopping that, and letting these new business owners be the ones who want to go to space and fund it themselves?
For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?
"I've kiboshed before, and I will kibosh again." -- Crazy Joe Davola