As I said, why should Europe be grateful to the US for their involvement in the world wars? Their involvement in WW1 (in which there were no 'good' sided - all sides were fighting out of foolish pride and greed) was one of the causes of WW2. And their involvement in WW2 helped their ally Stalin to take over half of Europe. So at most the US might expect the UK and France to be grateful - the rest of Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of both wars.
The guy who came to power in what was left of Germany after you interfered in WWI? And after you 'saved' us, you left half of Europe under control of your ally Stalin, who was if anything even worse then Hitler.
Who did you save Europe from in WWI/II? Germany, Austria and Russia are all part of Europe, so all you did was interfere in our family feud (the rulers of the states fighting were all related).
Evolutionary forces aren't constants. They depend on the environment. My guess is that being an atheist used to be a serious impediment to survival ("BURN THE UNBELIEVER"). Trusting into science could also be detrimental in the times when bleeding was the 'scientific' way of curing illnesses, rather then just praying and trusting your deity to cure you.
Now we have laws to protect people with different beliefs and medicine has advanced enough that it's more likely to cure you then kill you. So being an atheist might be becoming a good survival trait for the individual as well as society.
The problem is that the US is more interested in maintaining capitalism then they are in maintaining democracy. Just look at how many governments were toppled as soon as they tried to do something socialist. And who were they replaced with? Mostly capitalist dictators. So don't write about the fight for the soul of the planet. Is a fight for the wallet of the planet.
Just the opposite. The ants often switch jobs when they age and do not specialize in a single job.
And if you think about it, it must be a pretty good strategy for the hive. Send the old ants on the dangerous jobs - even if they die you haven't lost a worker with a long and productive life in front of them.
So what is the alternative? In most class action lawsuits the damages to each plaintiff are small. So they have the choice of either joining the class and getting a few bucks (let's say X bucks), or suing on their own and getting 2*X, but having to pay their lawyers 100*X.
Sure class action lawyers rip of their clients, but let's try to fix that, instead of fighting against the whole concept of class action. A good first step could be requiring the lawyers to be paid in the same manner as their clients - if they manage to negotiate a 10$ discount on the next purchase as compensation for their clients, then the lawyers should also be paid in discount vouchers.
But does that make it a crime to know someone has that much cash and not report it? As I understand it the law doesn't even define the person holding the money as the criminal - just makes him prove the money is his if he wants to keep it.
Sure if the police found so much money they would probably have confiscated it. But that does not make carrying the money a crime. The drug dealer could get the money back once he proved that he got it legally (yeah right).
So the compartment maker could only suspect (strongly suspect, based on the dealer's reputation) that crimes were going to be committed. But does that make him and accomplice?
Let's say you own a small business. One day your neighbor (who has a reputation) comes to you and offers to buy it. Is it illegal to sell it, just because you suspect he's going to use it to launder money?
Is having large amounts of cash proof of drug dealing? If it is, then why didn't the police just get him to testify that he saw the money and lock away the evil drug dealer with that?
The problem here is that while he strongly suspected his customer was a drug dealer/smuggler, he didn't actually have any proof of it. And 'took part of the profits' implies he got a certain % of the drug dealers profits, rather then just a simple payment for each installation/repair.
So should a person be punished for doing business with someone that they suspect is a criminal? Is there a law to that effect? And should a person be punished for being paid with money that has been obtained through a crime, even if that person did not commit that crime or even have specific knowledge of it?
But what makes the addicts with children any different then alcoholics with children? Both should be monitored and their children taken away if it turns out their homes aren't safe. Why treat drugs differently from alcohol? Tradition?
Would there be so many meth addicts if 'better' drugs were easy and cheap to get? Right now the addicts don't have much of a choice in which drug they're going to abuse. But if all drugs were legal, there would be a race between providers in who can provide the best high at the lowest cost (while avoiding lawsuits due to side effects). So while there would be just as many addicts as there are now, they would likely be able to function better in society.
Sure, but not the abuses of patents that we see now. If they want a new patent then develop a new drug. Don't just tweak the old one and demand a new monopoly on it.
The law forces people to accept dollars for things like repayment of debt or taxes. So you'll be able to use them for at least that. With bitcoin there is no such guarantee.
What are the rules about what is considered proof in this debate? If religious text are accepted, then I guess you could pick any creation myth and say it proves that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, why should Europe be grateful to the US for their involvement in the world wars? Their involvement in WW1 (in which there were no 'good' sided - all sides were fighting out of foolish pride and greed) was one of the causes of WW2. And their involvement in WW2 helped their ally Stalin to take over half of Europe. So at most the US might expect the UK and France to be grateful - the rest of Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of both wars.
The guy who came to power in what was left of Germany after you interfered in WWI? And after you 'saved' us, you left half of Europe under control of your ally Stalin, who was if anything even worse then Hitler.
Who did you save Europe from in WWI/II? Germany, Austria and Russia are all part of Europe, so all you did was interfere in our family feud (the rulers of the states fighting were all related).
Evolutionary forces aren't constants. They depend on the environment. My guess is that being an atheist used to be a serious impediment to survival ("BURN THE UNBELIEVER"). Trusting into science could also be detrimental in the times when bleeding was the 'scientific' way of curing illnesses, rather then just praying and trusting your deity to cure you.
Now we have laws to protect people with different beliefs and medicine has advanced enough that it's more likely to cure you then kill you. So being an atheist might be becoming a good survival trait for the individual as well as society.
Well amend your constitution then. Remove the prohibition of 'no cruel and unusual punishment' and you can start feeding your prisoners to rats.
The problem is that the US is more interested in maintaining capitalism then they are in maintaining democracy. Just look at how many governments were toppled as soon as they tried to do something socialist. And who were they replaced with? Mostly capitalist dictators. So don't write about the fight for the soul of the planet. Is a fight for the wallet of the planet.
Just the opposite. The ants often switch jobs when they age and do not specialize in a single job.
And if you think about it, it must be a pretty good strategy for the hive. Send the old ants on the dangerous jobs - even if they die you haven't lost a worker with a long and productive life in front of them.
Doesn't that just mean the bus network sucks? Why isn't there a stop right next to the stadium/shopping center?
So what is the alternative? In most class action lawsuits the damages to each plaintiff are small. So they have the choice of either joining the class and getting a few bucks (let's say X bucks), or suing on their own and getting 2*X, but having to pay their lawyers 100*X.
Sure class action lawyers rip of their clients, but let's try to fix that, instead of fighting against the whole concept of class action. A good first step could be requiring the lawyers to be paid in the same manner as their clients - if they manage to negotiate a 10$ discount on the next purchase as compensation for their clients, then the lawyers should also be paid in discount vouchers.
But does that make it a crime to know someone has that much cash and not report it? As I understand it the law doesn't even define the person holding the money as the criminal - just makes him prove the money is his if he wants to keep it.
Sure if the police found so much money they would probably have confiscated it. But that does not make carrying the money a crime. The drug dealer could get the money back once he proved that he got it legally (yeah right).
So the compartment maker could only suspect (strongly suspect, based on the dealer's reputation) that crimes were going to be committed. But does that make him and accomplice?
Let's say you own a small business. One day your neighbor (who has a reputation) comes to you and offers to buy it. Is it illegal to sell it, just because you suspect he's going to use it to launder money?
Does money equal crime? Is it illegal to hide that much money (in a car or in your house)? Should safe makers/installers also go to jail?
If the guy had seen drugs then sure, he should be locked up for installing the second compartment.
Is having large amounts of cash proof of drug dealing? If it is, then why didn't the police just get him to testify that he saw the money and lock away the evil drug dealer with that?
The problem here is that while he strongly suspected his customer was a drug dealer/smuggler, he didn't actually have any proof of it. And 'took part of the profits' implies he got a certain % of the drug dealers profits, rather then just a simple payment for each installation/repair.
So should a person be punished for doing business with someone that they suspect is a criminal? Is there a law to that effect? And should a person be punished for being paid with money that has been obtained through a crime, even if that person did not commit that crime or even have specific knowledge of it?
But what makes the addicts with children any different then alcoholics with children? Both should be monitored and their children taken away if it turns out their homes aren't safe. Why treat drugs differently from alcohol? Tradition?
Would there be so many meth addicts if 'better' drugs were easy and cheap to get? Right now the addicts don't have much of a choice in which drug they're going to abuse. But if all drugs were legal, there would be a race between providers in who can provide the best high at the lowest cost (while avoiding lawsuits due to side effects). So while there would be just as many addicts as there are now, they would likely be able to function better in society.
Don't forget to arrest the car manufacturers. After all, most drugs are transported by cars/vans/trucks.
Sure, but not the abuses of patents that we see now. If they want a new patent then develop a new drug. Don't just tweak the old one and demand a new monopoly on it.
The law forces people to accept dollars for things like repayment of debt or taxes. So you'll be able to use them for at least that. With bitcoin there is no such guarantee.
But which part of that strategy is fraud?
What if you also intend to use it to reduce the amount of taxes you have to pay? Would that make it OK?
What fraud? If gambling with other people's money is a crime, then half of Wallstreet should be in prison.
But it all belongs to Blizzard.
So crate a corporation to do the borrowing for you. If the price goes up, just let the company go bankrupt.
What are the rules about what is considered proof in this debate? If religious text are accepted, then I guess you could pick any creation myth and say it proves that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.