Okay, well to bring us back onto the topic, what we're talking about is how government action can lead the way toward economic success. We're not talking about how perhaps, in theory, some weak version of products could possibly have been developed eventually. We're talking about reality, and how about in real reality government action opens up enormous economic opportunities which otherwise wouldn't have been found.
LOL. Dude, "fruit" and "vegetable" don't have the strict definitions, as you imply they do. There is no definition for those words common to science as well as law as well as society. Check out the Venn diagram on the Wiki page for "vegetable".
Whether or not kids should be eating more tomatoes is a question I'm willing to debate, but I'm not willing to concede some dumb talking point about how a tomato should be legally classified. Only deeply misinformed people try to make that talking point. It's a meaningless thing to debate.
Really? Why? Debt can be wiped out trivially. Print the money, absorb the inflation, debt gone. Or, more realistically, print a tiny bit of money, absorb the tiny bit of inflation, debt shrinks to historical levels. You can't print your way out of CO2 emissions.
I personally hope we can get sustained, predictable levels of inflation up to about 4% this coming decade. At 4%, I'd be actually making money on my mortgage, because I am sure my wages will increase apace with inflation.
1) is a good point. You have to show damages, although sometimes you can get away with hypothetical damages. 2) is not a good point. Nothing is 100% accepted. Nothing. Try to name something, anything, which is 100% accepted. Go ahead, try. AGW is 96% accepted among climate scientists, which is pretty good all things considered. 3) could be a good point sometimes, but not in this case, in which the entity being sued does have a provable direct impact on the thing you are suing about.
Yes, of course that's what it is: people are wrongly tired of "big government" and other imaginary nonsense telling them "how to live" and other imaginary nonsense. That's our whole point, people should stop being wrong about imaginary nonsense. It's exhausting that people insist on continuing to be wrong about imaginary nonsense.
Sort of, sort of not. Suing the government is suing yourself, which usually you can't do. If you want to change the direction of a democracy, then you vote. That is the justification today for not allowing you to sue the government. (In the past, before modern democracy, the justification was that the King was the law.)
So many people say "the government did this" or "the government did that". That's useful shorthand, but ultimately meaningless. "The government" doesn't "do" anything. People do things. To say "the government did something dumb" is to say "a majority of my countrymen appointed a leader which did something dumb".
All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Those people don't produce. Those people are leaches syphoning off the labor value of everyone else. They are the "takers" in the "makers/takers" equation. The makers are working on assembly lines and down in mines. They do add some value to the economy but nowhere near what they take out of it.
That experiment was the time period we are talking about, the time with the great economy. That's exactly what we're talking about. The nation went from zero income taxes, to brackets in the 80%s or 90%s, and the economy expanded rapidly. Do I think that's causative? No, I think there is no relationship. Rather I mean, I think there is little to no impact of high taxes on the economy, and the high taxes are an indication of a strong economy.
So, again, "the people duly vote for what they've been told they want or need" is an equal statement to "a majority of your countrymen, possessing a wide and deep wisdom well beyond that of your single little perspective, collectively weighed the same issues you did and came to a consensus, which you and your single little perspective don't like". Boo hoo.
The whole point is that democratic actions have legitimacy. In order to deny that, one must deny the independent thought of the citizenry -- which you have in fact done. Yeah, mmm hmmm, we're all sheep, but you J'raxis are truly awake.
I'm not following you. How can you be "greedy to have (things)" without being "greedy to have (other peoples' things)"? Where do you think things come from?
Greedy Wall Street people want money. Where do you think money comes from? It comes quite literally from the labor of poor people (all people, of course). Greedy rich guy wants money from poor people; poor people want pretty much the same thing. You can call that equal, if you want to ignore the fact that only one of those parties is executing on the greed.
If his money didn't come from society ("us"), then where do you think it came from? Of course it's society's ("our") money, that's how economies work. Do you think he mined the dollar bills out of an asteroid? The deal is, when society transfers some money to you, society snips off a little bit to pay for public goods.
I would say "if you don't like it, get out", but that retort doesn't sound so good on this story.
It's news for nerds, not news for you, some guy who can't even be bothered to sign up for an account on a website he claims to care enough about to complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, well to bring us back onto the topic, what we're talking about is how government action can lead the way toward economic success. We're not talking about how perhaps, in theory, some weak version of products could possibly have been developed eventually. We're talking about reality, and how about in real reality government action opens up enormous economic opportunities which otherwise wouldn't have been found.
LOL. Dude, "fruit" and "vegetable" don't have the strict definitions, as you imply they do. There is no definition for those words common to science as well as law as well as society. Check out the Venn diagram on the Wiki page for "vegetable".
Whether or not kids should be eating more tomatoes is a question I'm willing to debate, but I'm not willing to concede some dumb talking point about how a tomato should be legally classified. Only deeply misinformed people try to make that talking point. It's a meaningless thing to debate.
Really? Why? Debt can be wiped out trivially. Print the money, absorb the inflation, debt gone. Or, more realistically, print a tiny bit of money, absorb the tiny bit of inflation, debt shrinks to historical levels. You can't print your way out of CO2 emissions.
I personally hope we can get sustained, predictable levels of inflation up to about 4% this coming decade. At 4%, I'd be actually making money on my mortgage, because I am sure my wages will increase apace with inflation.
1) is a good point. You have to show damages, although sometimes you can get away with hypothetical damages.
2) is not a good point. Nothing is 100% accepted. Nothing. Try to name something, anything, which is 100% accepted. Go ahead, try. AGW is 96% accepted among climate scientists, which is pretty good all things considered.
3) could be a good point sometimes, but not in this case, in which the entity being sued does have a provable direct impact on the thing you are suing about.
LOL. Funny stuff, bro.
You're right. It is censorship. Appropriate, measured, reasonable censorship.
Yes, of course that's what it is: people are wrongly tired of "big government" and other imaginary nonsense telling them "how to live" and other imaginary nonsense. That's our whole point, people should stop being wrong about imaginary nonsense. It's exhausting that people insist on continuing to be wrong about imaginary nonsense.
Sort of, sort of not. Suing the government is suing yourself, which usually you can't do. If you want to change the direction of a democracy, then you vote. That is the justification today for not allowing you to sue the government. (In the past, before modern democracy, the justification was that the King was the law.)
So many people say "the government did this" or "the government did that". That's useful shorthand, but ultimately meaningless. "The government" doesn't "do" anything. People do things. To say "the government did something dumb" is to say "a majority of my countrymen appointed a leader which did something dumb".
Oh awesome are we just inventing scenarios to fit our preconceptions now? Sweet let me try.
Scenario 1) do nothing. Result $11ty Billion in hole results in 1B deaths
Scenario 2) Social engineering in the form of, say, a tax, just like so many other taxes. Result $3 million in net costs plus a free unicorn.
Holy shit! Given my scenarios it is super duper clear that we should pass that tax right away!
All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Acid rain isn't killing the forests.
Also, your spelling needs work. Turn on the spell checker in your browser for some easy help with that.
Brutal downmod.
I have to say, I think that's a substandard attempt at trolling. If you browse at -1 you'll learn how to do it from much better examples.
Good one. Thanks for the education.
That example, by the way, came directly from a talk I just saw by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
DARPA invented the internet as ARPANET. Is this fact in question now? Do the small-government ideologues now also deny the pedigree of the Internet?
Those people don't produce. Those people are leaches syphoning off the labor value of everyone else. They are the "takers" in the "makers/takers" equation. The makers are working on assembly lines and down in mines. They do add some value to the economy but nowhere near what they take out of it.
Perhaps. Or, as in my examples, directly and specifically traced back to a certain government program.
That experiment was the time period we are talking about, the time with the great economy. That's exactly what we're talking about. The nation went from zero income taxes, to brackets in the 80%s or 90%s, and the economy expanded rapidly. Do I think that's causative? No, I think there is no relationship. Rather I mean, I think there is little to no impact of high taxes on the economy, and the high taxes are an indication of a strong economy.
So, again, "the people duly vote for what they've been told they want or need" is an equal statement to "a majority of your countrymen, possessing a wide and deep wisdom well beyond that of your single little perspective, collectively weighed the same issues you did and came to a consensus, which you and your single little perspective don't like". Boo hoo.
The whole point is that democratic actions have legitimacy. In order to deny that, one must deny the independent thought of the citizenry -- which you have in fact done. Yeah, mmm hmmm, we're all sheep, but you J'raxis are truly awake.
I'm not following you. How can you be "greedy to have (things)" without being "greedy to have (other peoples' things)"? Where do you think things come from?
Greedy Wall Street people want money. Where do you think money comes from? It comes quite literally from the labor of poor people (all people, of course). Greedy rich guy wants money from poor people; poor people want pretty much the same thing. You can call that equal, if you want to ignore the fact that only one of those parties is executing on the greed.
So, if taxes cause companies to move away, then why aren't all corporations based in Afghanistan? Why are't all billionaires citizens of Singapore?
If his money didn't come from society ("us"), then where do you think it came from? Of course it's society's ("our") money, that's how economies work. Do you think he mined the dollar bills out of an asteroid? The deal is, when society transfers some money to you, society snips off a little bit to pay for public goods.
I would say "if you don't like it, get out", but that retort doesn't sound so good on this story.
It's news for nerds, not news for you, some guy who can't even be bothered to sign up for an account on a website he claims to care enough about to complain about.
My next what?
Yeah, not to mention that his enormously valuable company employs extremely few people.