Lets assume that it is legal. To coin a phrase "What difference does it make!!!!!!"
Money is just a convenient shorthand.
Yup, but you still haven't made any case that it is any business of government to take money from one person to give to another, under threat of a gun. The thing people like yourself are missing, is that government at its best is mutual consent, and at worst is tyranny. You're making the argument tyrants make, and not liberty.
A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live.
A good place to start is to realize that we already have a large number of programs that provide services to do just that. Are there gaps, I'm sure, but lets not assume for a second that these things do not exist at all, like you just did. And the moment we provide these things, then suddenly the debate changes from a bed and food to something else more than "food, water, shelter" to now include luxury items like "internet is a right" (don't even try to debate this, it is happening already)
The message is "everybody is worth something, regardless of whether or not you are capable of 'meaningful work'. Mentally ill people, physically disabled people, etc.
I've seen perfectly capable people not doing anything meaningful, and people who are completely disabled doing meaningful work. People are worth what they provide to society. Even mentally ill and handicapped people can contribute, and often do more than people who should be doing more but aren't. To me, it is the whole "content of character" thing.
The value of meaningful work != the monetary value.
Agreed. Which is why I chose those words;)
Seriously though, Mr. Libertarian, go fucking live on an island. If you want to say 'I got mine, fuck off' so badly, GTFO.
You have, in a single sentence, proven you don't care if people take from you, so I suggest that you leave the keys to your car (you didn't build that), and the doors to your house unlocked, so that the less fortunate can have everything you work hard for. The thing about strawman arguments is that they cut both ways. Oh, and you forgot to mention Somalia, so please turn in your liberal card at your next chapter meeting.
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises that they hate, are the very ones generating huge revenue for their Big Government programs.
Short version: They want to kill the golden goose, because they don't think the distribution of golden eggs is "fair".
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Standard Income tax deductions) and many of those are using "Tax Credits" (EIC) as well, but they don't call those subsidies. Finally, the most interesting thing about "Big Oil" isn't that they get subsidies, credits and what not, opposed by the left. No, the most interesting thing about Big Oil is how much taxes are paid to government, direct and indirectly, by Big Oil. The government makes way more money on Big Oil than Big Oil does.
It is like all the taxes already paid doesn't count or something. Get a real grip on taxes, and you'll realize that Big Government is out biggest problem, not Big Oil or Big Pharma, or Big Agra or....
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money? The problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money.
4) You are delusional, because you're trying to impose your beliefs as facts. You believe that making certain changes will have nothing but positive results, and are simply not looking for anything negative that will happen.
Personally, I think it is very harmful to the human soul when society says to them "you're so useless, we'll pay you to not work so you will go away and we can ignore you". I am not proposing "make work programs", I'm proposing that we instill upon all, the value of meaningful work.
How do you continue to believe that intelligence and ability is not significantly genetic despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Because Political Correctness says so. This statement, while likely true, would be deemed racist and bigoted if you actually started to quantify it by any specific means.
This is only true if the group is Corporations (no free speech) but other groups get full and extra protection (Unions) because "workers" are more important than "owners".
You don't need a lot of regulation, just enough to remove bottle necks from competition. If somebody screws their customers a competitor will grab them, the system regulates itself.
Exactly my point. Regulations typically stifle competition, preventing others from joining the marketplace. Infrastructure has no competition, it is build once, upgrade/repair/replace every 10 - 20 years (as needed) and go forward. Moving the competition from the home to the COLO facility (or renting last mile in your case) makes competition viable at the home because they are competing before the last mile.
I'm trying to get people to realize that understanding where the problem actually lies, and solving that problem requires less overall effort than trying to find a finely nuanced regulation that works (but never does work right). Competition solves a multitude of problems.
1) There is no competition on the last mile, therefore there is no competition for service. 2) Removing the non-competition for the last mile and putting it into a local COLO actually creates competition, just not on the last mile. 3) There doesn't need to be regulation to solve the problem.
There it is, typical Liberalism. Responding to every fucking problem with "more regulation" rather than actually solving the real problem. Regulations are the problem, and creating more regulations doesn't solve anything, it just creates more problems. Do you realize that the local Cable Monopoly is "regulation", created to solve a non-problem by local government because someone said "there ought to be a law". And now that we are stuck with the problem, your solution is "more regulation"?!?
Frankly, if internet service were mandated as a common utility, that might be a useful change.
No, it wouldn't be. Because once government gets its hands on regulating the internet in ways that you agree, it gives them tacit permission to regulate it in ways you might not agree. Leave it the fuck alone.
IF you really want to fix the Internet, and fix Net Neutrality, fix the last mile issue.
Right now I have a choice of the following Comcast Cable, AT&T DSL, or Wireless Internet. Comcast has the higher speeds, DSL is unusable where I am located, and wireless is too flaky. Comcast has no real competition on delivery.
My Solution: Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility. Bring Fiber to each home (one time bond build out) and have several providers offer service out of the COLO. Net Neutrality issues go away, you can pay for exactly what you want/need. Bandwidth issues become points for competition, "We've Peered with Netflix so SUPERHD videos now available!"
We do not need new laws to fix this, we need better understanding of how to build competition into the marketplace, rather than build in regulations that only serve the vested interests who can afford politicians.
They cannot arbitrarily change the contract, then claim you voided it by not agreeing to it. Accrued vacation is property of the employee, as accounted for by the employer. Any reasonable lawyer should be able to get it, and legal fees.
"because if something isn't spelled out clearly to a 4th grade reading level then people will do it wrong."
People will still do it wrong, even if you build all the instructions for 4th grader. The problem with people is that they are people (Myself included).
Every Single Failure I've seen is based on YACC (Yet Another Communication Channel). It is just a distraction from the job. It is either too noisy or a ghost town.
Lets look at IM: when faced with using Hangouts, Lync, Skype, and GOTOMEETINGs, it is confusing for average people when or which to use. Redundant choices doesn't make things better. More options doesn't mean better options, or even better results.
Having run several labs with PLATO in classrooms across our district, it is no surprise that they closed their doors in 2006. They pretty much priced themselves out of the market for schools that didn't have discretionary budgets of $40K in licensing. While it might seem reasonable in a world flush with money, I can assure you that there was no way could spend half a million dollars to get every school a lab.
We stopped using it when XP came out simply because it was too expensive to upgrade from the crappy version that ran on Win98 but wouldn't run on XP. It was great when we had a grant that funded it, but grants run dry, and normal school budgets suck.
Regulation doesn't mean "Control via government laws and edicts" in the 2nd Amendment. It means "well formed" and the SCOTUS decisions through the years have clearly indicated all able bodied men are to be considered the Militia.
If you want MHO, it means that EVERY able bodied man should be armed, according to his own conscience, and the government should fear its rightful masters, the citizens. The moment the government ceases to be afraid of its citizens, is the moment tyranny has already formed.
"Calibration" Issues are not a conspiracy theory. When on screen choices switch to a candidate you don't want, while you're in the booth, there is a problem. I would say, BIG problem. Once an electronic ballot is cast, there is no way to verify it actually gets counted the way it was cast. And there is no backup.
FYI, the ACA will fail because of the actual law. The Republicans can simply let it fail by actually enforcing the whole of the law, as is. The biggest threat to the ACA is the ACA subsidies for states that do not have their own exchanges, or specifically, the fact that there is no such provision in the law itself. The ACA is so great, that Obama and the (D)s have delayed it as much as possible because to implement it fully, on time, would have been the disaster we all know it is going to be.
But the liberal's love of Dictatorships is undeniable, with people saying Obama should rule as a one man government (Gwyneth Paltrow) and simply bypass the courts and Legislatures.
But since I am neither (D) nor (R), I cannot hope in the (R) letting failures be failures. No, the (R)s will try to "fix" the Obamacare, when they should simply let it fail, utterly and completely.
Europe is about 1/2 the size of the US. Wyoming was an example, not the totality of "wilderness" states. Montana is bigger than all of Sweden, and 1/8th the population. The problem with comparing Europe with the USA, is that one cannot usually make comparisons that make sense. The point being, is that one cannot make "one size fits all" laws for Rural areas that work in Dense cities or visa versa.
I don't see why those laws wouldn't work well in the US. I can see why they wouldn't be implemented with all the gun nuts around, but there is no reason to why they wouldn't work.
Gun control works, and also allows for dictators to arise. In the 230 years of our country's existence, we haven't had a single dictator. How has Europe fared in the same period? You anti gun nuts are simply ignoring the fact that a well armed population is not capable of being ruled by dictators.
Which would explain the Obamacare architect saying that the American people are stupid. Liberals are elites who think they know better than everyone else, what is good for everyone, except themselves. Hence, you have Al Gore running around screaming (often literally) about global warming while living in a mansion that exceeds the average person's yearly carbon footprint every month. But he is okay, because he buys carbon offsets from himself.
Slashdot Mirror
How did they get that money in the first place?
Lets assume that it is legal. To coin a phrase "What difference does it make!!!!!!"
Money is just a convenient shorthand.
Yup, but you still haven't made any case that it is any business of government to take money from one person to give to another, under threat of a gun. The thing people like yourself are missing, is that government at its best is mutual consent, and at worst is tyranny. You're making the argument tyrants make, and not liberty.
A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live.
A good place to start is to realize that we already have a large number of programs that provide services to do just that. Are there gaps, I'm sure, but lets not assume for a second that these things do not exist at all, like you just did. And the moment we provide these things, then suddenly the debate changes from a bed and food to something else more than "food, water, shelter" to now include luxury items like "internet is a right" (don't even try to debate this, it is happening already)
The message is "everybody is worth something, regardless of whether or not you are capable of 'meaningful work'. Mentally ill people, physically disabled people, etc.
I've seen perfectly capable people not doing anything meaningful, and people who are completely disabled doing meaningful work. People are worth what they provide to society. Even mentally ill and handicapped people can contribute, and often do more than people who should be doing more but aren't. To me, it is the whole "content of character" thing.
The value of meaningful work != the monetary value.
Agreed. Which is why I chose those words ;)
Seriously though, Mr. Libertarian, go fucking live on an island. If you want to say 'I got mine, fuck off' so badly, GTFO.
You have, in a single sentence, proven you don't care if people take from you, so I suggest that you leave the keys to your car (you didn't build that), and the doors to your house unlocked, so that the less fortunate can have everything you work hard for. The thing about strawman arguments is that they cut both ways. Oh, and you forgot to mention Somalia, so please turn in your liberal card at your next chapter meeting.
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises that they hate, are the very ones generating huge revenue for their Big Government programs.
Short version: They want to kill the golden goose, because they don't think the distribution of golden eggs is "fair".
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Standard Income tax deductions) and many of those are using "Tax Credits" (EIC) as well, but they don't call those subsidies. Finally, the most interesting thing about "Big Oil" isn't that they get subsidies, credits and what not, opposed by the left. No, the most interesting thing about Big Oil is how much taxes are paid to government, direct and indirectly, by Big Oil. The government makes way more money on Big Oil than Big Oil does.
It is like all the taxes already paid doesn't count or something. Get a real grip on taxes, and you'll realize that Big Government is out biggest problem, not Big Oil or Big Pharma, or Big Agra or ....
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money? The problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money.
4) You are delusional, because you're trying to impose your beliefs as facts. You believe that making certain changes will have nothing but positive results, and are simply not looking for anything negative that will happen.
Personally, I think it is very harmful to the human soul when society says to them "you're so useless, we'll pay you to not work so you will go away and we can ignore you". I am not proposing "make work programs", I'm proposing that we instill upon all, the value of meaningful work.
How do you continue to believe that intelligence and ability is not significantly genetic despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Because Political Correctness says so. This statement, while likely true, would be deemed racist and bigoted if you actually started to quantify it by any specific means.
This is only true if the group is Corporations (no free speech) but other groups get full and extra protection (Unions) because "workers" are more important than "owners".
You don't need a lot of regulation, just enough to remove bottle necks from competition. If somebody screws their customers a competitor will grab them, the system regulates itself.
Exactly my point. Regulations typically stifle competition, preventing others from joining the marketplace. Infrastructure has no competition, it is build once, upgrade/repair/replace every 10 - 20 years (as needed) and go forward. Moving the competition from the home to the COLO facility (or renting last mile in your case) makes competition viable at the home because they are competing before the last mile.
I'm trying to get people to realize that understanding where the problem actually lies, and solving that problem requires less overall effort than trying to find a finely nuanced regulation that works (but never does work right). Competition solves a multitude of problems.
1) There is no competition on the last mile, therefore there is no competition for service.
2) Removing the non-competition for the last mile and putting it into a local COLO actually creates competition, just not on the last mile.
3) There doesn't need to be regulation to solve the problem.
There it is, typical Liberalism. Responding to every fucking problem with "more regulation" rather than actually solving the real problem. Regulations are the problem, and creating more regulations doesn't solve anything, it just creates more problems. Do you realize that the local Cable Monopoly is "regulation", created to solve a non-problem by local government because someone said "there ought to be a law". And now that we are stuck with the problem, your solution is "more regulation"?!?
Frankly, if internet service were mandated as a common utility, that might be a useful change.
No, it wouldn't be. Because once government gets its hands on regulating the internet in ways that you agree, it gives them tacit permission to regulate it in ways you might not agree. Leave it the fuck alone.
IF you really want to fix the Internet, and fix Net Neutrality, fix the last mile issue.
Right now I have a choice of the following Comcast Cable, AT&T DSL, or Wireless Internet. Comcast has the higher speeds, DSL is unusable where I am located, and wireless is too flaky. Comcast has no real competition on delivery.
My Solution: Upgrade the Municipality to FIOS service to a COLO facility. Bring Fiber to each home (one time bond build out) and have several providers offer service out of the COLO. Net Neutrality issues go away, you can pay for exactly what you want/need. Bandwidth issues become points for competition, "We've Peered with Netflix so SUPERHD videos now available!"
We do not need new laws to fix this, we need better understanding of how to build competition into the marketplace, rather than build in regulations that only serve the vested interests who can afford politicians.
They cannot arbitrarily change the contract, then claim you voided it by not agreeing to it. Accrued vacation is property of the employee, as accounted for by the employer. Any reasonable lawyer should be able to get it, and legal fees.
IANAL, so my opinion is worthless legal advice.
"because if something isn't spelled out clearly to a 4th grade reading level then people will do it wrong."
People will still do it wrong, even if you build all the instructions for 4th grader. The problem with people is that they are people (Myself included).
Every Single Failure I've seen is based on YACC (Yet Another Communication Channel). It is just a distraction from the job. It is either too noisy or a ghost town.
Lets look at IM: when faced with using Hangouts, Lync, Skype, and GOTOMEETINGs, it is confusing for average people when or which to use. Redundant choices doesn't make things better. More options doesn't mean better options, or even better results.
We must ban CHILDREN!!!!
It wasn't niche, it was expensive. Only schools I ever saw it at, had grants that paid for it.
Having run several labs with PLATO in classrooms across our district, it is no surprise that they closed their doors in 2006. They pretty much priced themselves out of the market for schools that didn't have discretionary budgets of $40K in licensing. While it might seem reasonable in a world flush with money, I can assure you that there was no way could spend half a million dollars to get every school a lab.
We stopped using it when XP came out simply because it was too expensive to upgrade from the crappy version that ran on Win98 but wouldn't run on XP. It was great when we had a grant that funded it, but grants run dry, and normal school budgets suck.
Regulation doesn't mean "Control via government laws and edicts" in the 2nd Amendment. It means "well formed" and the SCOTUS decisions through the years have clearly indicated all able bodied men are to be considered the Militia.
If you want MHO, it means that EVERY able bodied man should be armed, according to his own conscience, and the government should fear its rightful masters, the citizens. The moment the government ceases to be afraid of its citizens, is the moment tyranny has already formed.
Oh, the "why bother resisting treasonous dictators" crowd shows up. Good job sitting on the sidelines.
"Calibration" Issues are not a conspiracy theory. When on screen choices switch to a candidate you don't want, while you're in the booth, there is a problem. I would say, BIG problem. Once an electronic ballot is cast, there is no way to verify it actually gets counted the way it was cast. And there is no backup.
Replace "guns" for "children" and see if you agree with "Correlation != causation"
You have, unwittingly, made the gun lobby's case. ;)
FYI, the ACA will fail because of the actual law. The Republicans can simply let it fail by actually enforcing the whole of the law, as is. The biggest threat to the ACA is the ACA subsidies for states that do not have their own exchanges, or specifically, the fact that there is no such provision in the law itself. The ACA is so great, that Obama and the (D)s have delayed it as much as possible because to implement it fully, on time, would have been the disaster we all know it is going to be.
But the liberal's love of Dictatorships is undeniable, with people saying Obama should rule as a one man government (Gwyneth Paltrow) and simply bypass the courts and Legislatures.
But since I am neither (D) nor (R), I cannot hope in the (R) letting failures be failures. No, the (R)s will try to "fix" the Obamacare, when they should simply let it fail, utterly and completely.
DC and Chicago are the examples you use for supporting anti-gun legislation. They are my example of why those laws don't work. Nice job. ;)
No it doesn't. But keep believing the anti gun lies.
http://efmp.amedd.army.mil/scr...
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic...
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic...
Europe is about 1/2 the size of the US. Wyoming was an example, not the totality of "wilderness" states. Montana is bigger than all of Sweden, and 1/8th the population. The problem with comparing Europe with the USA, is that one cannot usually make comparisons that make sense. The point being, is that one cannot make "one size fits all" laws for Rural areas that work in Dense cities or visa versa.
School shootings occur in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... claiming they don't is simply ignorance or wonton lies.
I don't see why those laws wouldn't work well in the US. I can see why they wouldn't be implemented with all the gun nuts around, but there is no reason to why they wouldn't work.
Gun control works, and also allows for dictators to arise. In the 230 years of our country's existence, we haven't had a single dictator. How has Europe fared in the same period? You anti gun nuts are simply ignoring the fact that a well armed population is not capable of being ruled by dictators.
Republicans can't filibuster any longer since Harry Reid changed the rules. Nice try though.
My bet is Harry Reid will be the first person crying about his own filibuster rule being "unfair" in some 40 odd days, when he loses his power.
Which would explain the Obamacare architect saying that the American people are stupid. Liberals are elites who think they know better than everyone else, what is good for everyone, except themselves. Hence, you have Al Gore running around screaming (often literally) about global warming while living in a mansion that exceeds the average person's yearly carbon footprint every month. But he is okay, because he buys carbon offsets from himself.