With housing, government would be able to build a lot of it. But how would the free market landlords/builders compete with it? If the cost difference between a government provided 20m^2 apartment and a private 20.5m^2 apartment is a few hundred dollars a month, few people will choose to move. The same would be true with food.
The only solution I see is if the government is willing to provide an apartment/food OR provide the money for them - in this case a person that has a bit of extra income can use it to supplement their regular choices, rather than having to 'give up' everything that the government provides and be left entirely on their own.
But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?
If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$. The same will be true for medical care and food - the cheapest provider will be picked. And the people relying on these services won't have the ability to work a few hours a month to afford something better - if they want an upgrade they have to the entire expense on their own.
On the other hand, giving them money and letting them make their own choices means that the providers still need to compete on both price and performance and upgrades are not an enormous cliff, just a slope.
There will be some people that spend all the money on alcohol and drugs, but that is their choice - just stop preventing them from commiting their slow suicide with charity.
But in this case, the 'cost' will be a one time thing - not a marginal cost increase of the service. So if they increase the price, they will lose money since their market share will decrease - they will still need to pay the settlement amount regardless of the number of new services they sell.
All poverty is caused and could be eliminated by eliminating irresponsible behavior. Unfortunately, most of this behavior isn't by the poor people. Decisions spanning from local financing of schools to law enforcement behavior (ensuring poorer education and lack of respect for the system in poor neighborhoods) make it very difficult (and in some cases impossible) for a person from a poor background to succeed. In fact, just an average level of irresponsibility from a poor person will make sure they stay poor, while an extremely irresponsible lifestyle from someone born rich will barely have an effect on their prospects.
But do the amber alerts do anything if there are too many of them?
If you receive a few per day, virtually any kid you see is probably going to match at least a couple of the reports you got in the last week. Should you report every case of a kid crying to the police as a possible sighting? After all, there was an amber alert.
And get shot for failing to promptly follow orders.
And that doesn't even consider the panic a person must be feeling when they are suddenly the target of a large number of guns, spotlights and shouting - I'm sure they can calmly asses the situation to determine the correct speed at which the shouted orders should be followed.
If I remember correctly, some of the officers actually complained about how much trouble they had to go to to give everyone that wanted to serve the opportunity. How many useless jobs they had to invent to enable every incompetent person to earn their franchise.
So if your mother, sister and brother run out of the building, you'd want the police to shoot them? Since they surely didn't take the time to try and determine if the person at the door was a criminal or a victim.
Does anyone know if laws about dealing with stolen property have ever been applied to bitcoin? Since the stolen coins are now in a single, known wallet wouldn't anyone that is ever paid using those coins be guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property?
A monopolistic ISP can still throttle everything it can't identify. They can slow everything they can't positively identify as someone who is paying their extortion money. And their reputation does not matter if there is no effective competition. Are their customers going to go without internet access?
You still didn't explain why throttling would be a problem. The ISP doesn't need to know who you are trying to communicate with to throttle the communication. They can just throttle everything EXCEPT the things they can identify and have been 'compensated' for.
Why woudn't throttling this be practical? If the ISPs are free to throttle everything else, and they don't mind their customers suffering, why would they stop at a VPN, especially a VPN that is meant to stop throttling. In fact they can throttle it much more than any other type of content, since it just means that the users will stop using it and switch back to accessing their content directly.
Slashdot Mirror
The residents were allowed to buy those homes - they were not told that they can get these homes for free, or get other homes for full price.
Healthcare is not what I'm worried about.
With housing, government would be able to build a lot of it. But how would the free market landlords/builders compete with it? If the cost difference between a government provided 20m^2 apartment and a private 20.5m^2 apartment is a few hundred dollars a month, few people will choose to move. The same would be true with food.
The only solution I see is if the government is willing to provide an apartment/food OR provide the money for them - in this case a person that has a bit of extra income can use it to supplement their regular choices, rather than having to 'give up' everything that the government provides and be left entirely on their own.
But who will evaluate the housing/care/food provided?
If everyone has a guaranteed room, you can be sure that the government will be quite happy to pay 10$ a month to Hovel Towers to provide them, although a much better room could be rended for 11$.
The same will be true for medical care and food - the cheapest provider will be picked. And the people relying on these services won't have the ability to work a few hours a month to afford something better - if they want an upgrade they have to the entire expense on their own.
On the other hand, giving them money and letting them make their own choices means that the providers still need to compete on both price and performance and upgrades are not an enormous cliff, just a slope.
There will be some people that spend all the money on alcohol and drugs, but that is their choice - just stop preventing them from commiting their slow suicide with charity.
How much land would a single 'self-sufficient' farmer require? How much could the farmer grow on that land compared to an automated farm?
Why give the person a job when more food could be grown much more easily by using automation?
Wouldn't it be better to fire the boss? After all, if they are arguing to fire a 'good' employee, their judgement is faulty and they need to leave.
But in this case, the 'cost' will be a one time thing - not a marginal cost increase of the service. So if they increase the price, they will lose money since their market share will decrease - they will still need to pay the settlement amount regardless of the number of new services they sell.
As long as the re-unification creates a democratic state, I for one would be be quite happy.
My worry is that with Trump involved he might mix up the 'good' and 'bad' Korea and give control to the North.
Do you at least get to ride on the ninja plane before they melt you?
Agreed.
All poverty is caused and could be eliminated by eliminating irresponsible behavior.
Unfortunately, most of this behavior isn't by the poor people. Decisions spanning from local financing of schools to law enforcement behavior (ensuring poorer education and lack of respect for the system in poor neighborhoods) make it very difficult (and in some cases impossible) for a person from a poor background to succeed.
In fact, just an average level of irresponsibility from a poor person will make sure they stay poor, while an extremely irresponsible lifestyle from someone born rich will barely have an effect on their prospects.
It almost sounds like all those lawsuits against various torrent sites when you think of it.
But do the amber alerts do anything if there are too many of them?
If you receive a few per day, virtually any kid you see is probably going to match at least a couple of the reports you got in the last week. Should you report every case of a kid crying to the police as a possible sighting? After all, there was an amber alert.
He was just lashing out from problems at school. The bullies should be grateful, the lower grades probably toughened them up.
And get shot for failing to promptly follow orders.
And that doesn't even consider the panic a person must be feeling when they are suddenly the target of a large number of guns, spotlights and shouting - I'm sure they can calmly asses the situation to determine the correct speed at which the shouted orders should be followed.
If I remember correctly, some of the officers actually complained about how much trouble they had to go to to give everyone that wanted to serve the opportunity. How many useless jobs they had to invent to enable every incompetent person to earn their franchise.
If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.
Manifest destiny.
Which shareholder would pay the taxes if the stock was traded 100 times in a year? Would it go by minutes/hours owned?
Would the profits be tracked by the minute as well?
So if your mother, sister and brother run out of the building, you'd want the police to shoot them? Since they surely didn't take the time to try and determine if the person at the door was a criminal or a victim.
How would detecting cancer have helped the owner to survive in the past?
You might not be able to do actual bitcoin transactions quicky, but you can trade inside the exchanges (until they collapse).
Does anyone know if laws about dealing with stolen property have ever been applied to bitcoin? Since the stolen coins are now in a single, known wallet wouldn't anyone that is ever paid using those coins be guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property?
A monopolistic ISP can still throttle everything it can't identify. They can slow everything they can't positively identify as someone who is paying their extortion money. And their reputation does not matter if there is no effective competition. Are their customers going to go without internet access?
You still didn't explain why throttling would be a problem.
The ISP doesn't need to know who you are trying to communicate with to throttle the communication. They can just throttle everything EXCEPT the things they can identify and have been 'compensated' for.
The ISP will just route all traffic 10m across the border and throttle it there.
Why woudn't throttling this be practical? If the ISPs are free to throttle everything else, and they don't mind their customers suffering, why would they stop at a VPN, especially a VPN that is meant to stop throttling. In fact they can throttle it much more than any other type of content, since it just means that the users will stop using it and switch back to accessing their content directly.
Wasn't the core of most of the drunk-rape accusations that a drunk person cannot give consent?