Who are talking to? The people, who donated all their lunch monies to help Obama get reelected — so his Administration can defend this law from the EFF, and demand backdoors in personal electronics?
Nobody except moronic, hyper-partisan fuckwads (on "both[1]" "sides[2]") ever argued that the First and Second Amendments were mutually-exclusive, you know!
Personally, even the few hyperpartisan fuckwards I know have never stated anything of the kind. Strawman much?
The problem, that leads many people to contrast the First and the Second Amendments, is not that they contradict each other — no one thinks so — but that we are reading them differently.
The First Amendment is read as liberally and all-encompassing, as the Jews read the prohibition to "cook lamb in the milk of its mother" — combining goat cheese with beef is Treif even though neither are sheep, and a goat can not possibly be the bull's mother. Read like this, the Amendment's right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" is understood as the right to any and all speech — including even production of pornography.
If instead we read the First Amendment the way we are told to interpret the Second, however, only the speech addressed to the government — and only for a redress of grievances — would be a right. Oh, and you'd have to go through a wait-period before opening your mouth. And you'll need a license to exercise that right too.
Will the new collections feature "Greenpeace" logo instead? Simply ending a decades-long relationship with a planet-killing KKKorporation is not enough. The healing may have begun, but they must somehow atone for the past misdeeds. Buying "green credits" is one way, giving "Greenpeace" free promotion is another...
In 2008 a pair of "New Black Panters" members were arrested for intimidating voters in Philadelphia. In due time they were sued by Bushitler's Department of Justice, which was about to win the case. Obama's Department of Justice, however, allowed the men to avoid any punishment.
I'm bringing this up to preempt any attempt to defend Obama DoJ current actions defending "Security Letters" by their "having to" defend a law. They don't have to. When they didn't feel like it, they dropped the ball and let several thugs walk free and unscathed. Today they do feel like it, they want to have this law and are earnestly defending it.
They may even win, but even if they lose, it will not be for lack of trying. Oh, and they want to keep a backdoor for themselves in your personal electronics too. Remember that if ever you have a difficulty deciding on who to vote for — a promise, that Democrats will improve your civil liberties, will be a lie.
Pick a popular torrent — like a recent release of your favorite BSD or Linux distro — and start downloading (without any limits on your client side, of course). Watch the bandwidth. With a large number of peers, your measurement will be insulated from the oddities of any particular connection.
Communities taking care of their own has been a feature of civil life for centuries.
Only volunterely. Out of respect for older relatives or otherwise well-known folks, rather than total strangers or, worse, people whom you'd consider rather disapprovable.
The modern welfare state is about 150 years old
Thank you for the independent confirmation.
Mandatory charity, funneled through a church, has been with us for a long, long time.
Tithe collected by the various faith organizations was either voluntary (for charity), or used for the needs of the religious establishment itself. Various religions encourage charity, but none collect it at gun point (as the taxes are collected).
In any case, the US broke away with the tradition of government-affiliated religions in 18th century — and it is usually viewed as a good thing and, indeed, a sign of a civil society, rather than the opposite.
Idea that we live together in groups, is that group offers benefits to a person
That may be a fine idea — for some. Those, who prefer to not belong to any group — for whatever reason, rational or otherwise — shall not be coerced into one. Not in a society, that considers itself free (whether that also means "civil" or not).
And to say that the principle, by which groups take care of individuals that are unable to do so by themselves, exists only for the last 100 years is in the very least extremely narrow in definition.
Yes, the narrow definition of forced charity. Though personal and organized charity existed for centuries, the idea, that it should be funded by taxes (which are, by definition, collected at the point of a weapon), is fresh... And disgusting.
And I have to say that so far I have only ever heard people complain about these systems when they were healthy. Pretty much never, when they had to go into a complicated surgery.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Certain "complicated surgeries" may not even be available to certain kinds of patients under government-provided health-care.
For example, right now we have prominent government officials arguing, it is "anti-social" to live beyond 75. If the matters were left up to such people — and some matters are already up to them — some patients will be referred to the "End of Life Counseling" instead of those "complicated surgeries" you were talking about. Because what is merely labeled "unethical" now, may become outright illegal in the next generation.
Even if we stipulate, that that's better for "a society as a whole", it is not better for the individual involved — unless the choice is theirs rather that of some death panel. And I really do prefer a society, where an Individual — with all his faults and occasional irrationality — is valued above the (Glorious) Collective.
I can assure you that have private insurance in no way means you are avoiding subsidizing others
Sure. Some of that subsidizing is enforced by the government, which prohibits insurers from "discriminating" on a variety of factors and mandates coverage of certain elective procedures (like gender changes).
But even besides that there are other things affecting the costs for the insurer, which it may not even know about (drug or alcohol abuse) and thus has to spread the costs evenly among higher and lower insured alike. True.
But, as long as the insurers compete with each other, there is a hope. When the Illiberal's goal of "single payer" insurance is achieved, there will be no competition...
Because you pay for it whether they die in the streets, default on treatment they can't afford, or get free healthcare.
Disposing of a corpse found on a street would cost less than a thousand dollars — even with a modicum of dignity due a total stranger. Curing him is likely to cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands.
It's cheaper for everyone to pay a little bit of money to get healthcare and ensure everyone's covered.
That's a rather questionable assertion. The second a consumer of services becomes distinct from the payer, costs rise and fraudflourishes.
Imagine government deciding, having a cell phone is "a basic human right" (hardly far-fetched — some counties have already declared Internet access to be such a right, to loud approvals by your kind). With tax-payers paying for new phones, would anyone eligible for such subsidy settle for less than the latest and most loaded model? Would the manufacturers even make the lower-speced devices without having to compete (for some buyers) on the price?
But stipulating for a second, that you are right and it is cheaper, that is not what I asked about. I didn't ask, whether or not it is economically beneficial — the conversation was about such forced charity being a marking of a "civil society". Or not...
One of the things of a civil society is and has to be the fact that it will take care of those who cannot care for themselves
Nonsense. The tax-payer funded welfare state is a very recent invention — just over 100 years old. Are you claiming, ours — or British, or French, or Dutch — society was not "civil" in the 19th century? Are the Chinese — for all their problems — not "civil" today?
Otherwise we can go back to living in our own individual caves.
Humanity lived out of the caves for about ten thousand years before it invented this phenomenon of mandatory charity...
Actually you can go bankrupt even with Health Insurance in the US, any idea what a 20% co-pay on a bone marrow stem cell transplant runs?
Whatever it costs, someone has to pay for it. That someone may be you because you the procedure, some charity out of the goodness of their hearts, or the taxpayers — forced to pay for it at the IRS' implicit gunpoint.
I don't understand, how an otherwise moral and upstanding person can honestly prefer the third option...
Let's see one built. Heck, let's see several built — by competing private concerns funded by the investors' own monies. Then we can discuss their relative merits and make fun of predictions, that it is "highly unlikely" for humans of 2035 to be able to generate five times the amount of electricity we generated in 2010.
that like to scapegoat all of their problems on minorities and foreigners too.
Nevertheless, such "scapegoating" — however unfair it may (or may not) be — is part of the "life satisfaction" and contributes to the index being discussed.
But I only listed it as one of the examples of what might explain the US dragging behind Sweden in "life satisfaction". For another example, the cited Economist article notes, part of the index is trust in public institutions — something, Americans are (and always have been) notoriously "bad" at. Perhaps, for hereditary reasons — it was this distrust that drove many of us and/or our ancestors to move to this continent in the first place.
Either way, the cited index boils down a large variety of factors to a single figure for each country. Like benchmarking computers, operating systems, or web-servers, comparing such single figures to each other is usually meaningless. Using the difference to argue for a single aspect — such as higher taxes — is outright stupid.
You can't, because economics isn't a science, it's philosophy with a lot of dodgy math, and inherent assumptions, which may or may not hold true.
Awesome... Well, if that's so — and the better way to run things is not only unknown, but unknowable (like the ways and means of a deity), then there is nothing to talk about either and none of the rest of your rant matter any more than does mine.
But, if we can discuss mere beliefs for a second, I'll propose, that our American system is based on belief in freedom. Unlike, say, China or Russia, who may be using Capitalist methods because (they believe) they are more efficient, the US uses (or used) them, because they aren't infringing individual liberties (as much). For example, in USSR not working was a crime, while in the US you are free to stare at your navel all day. And though most people choose to work in the US too, it is their choice, and we tend to view forced employment as slavery...
That our approach also tends to provide for a wealthier society (or so we believe) is just gravy on top.
And if you want to change from Bob to Alice, you have to pay huge sums of money to connect to the different infrastructure
Right, whereas with the current scheme of things, I can not switch at all... I don't think, that's better.
I am saying some things are natural monopolies
Natural monopolies are a myth. Or so someone believes, at least. But it is not merely a belief either — Tokyo has competing subway lines. Why can't New York City have such?
How do you deal with a manufacturer who doesn't fix bugs in a reasonable time frame?
Here are your choices:
Complain to BBB or outright sue them.
Lobby your elected officials to pressure existing regulatory authorities to withdraw their certification. If no such certification is currently required, the bureaucrats will be happy to introduce it for you (and for themselves).
Throw out their equipment and buy from a competitor
I tend to prefer the third option, although I've registered my displeasure on BBB on a few occasions too.
It's been more than two years (on a three-year subscription that I can't terminate early)
You may not be able to stop paying for the contract (be sure your next one is better worded, though), but you can stop using the service — as soon as you find a replacement...
Its quality-of-life index links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys—how happy people say they are—to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries. Being rich helps more than anything else, but it is not all that counts; things like crime, trust in public institutions and the health of family life matter too. In all, the index takes 11 statistically significant indicators into account. They are a mixed bunch: some are fixed factors, such as geography; others change only very slowly over time (demography, many social and cultural characteristics); and some factors depend on policies and the state of the world economy.
Now, what's left is to determine, that the 7.38 vs. 8.02 difference is thanks to, rather than despite of their taxes being higher — rather than, say, those demography, social and cultural characteristics. They do "celebrate diversity" there too nowadays, but the bulk of the population remains of "original" stock.
A better question to ask is when was the last time you flipped a light switch but power was out because of a rolling blackout
Never. When my power is out, it is because the government-sanctioned monopoly keeps using the decrepit electric poles to deliver power to my house. The method fails, whenever there is any significant snow — or even strong wind.
If I had a choice, I would've picked a competitor, who'd run their cables underground, but I don't have a choice...
due to energy market manipulation by private parties.
Those were flaws of the privatization process — a one time cost to pay for the earlier mistake of believing the myth of "natural monopolies".
Slashdot Mirror
Like they haven't been warned by the Clinton Administration demanding the even worse kind of backdoor — they have...
You misspelled "KKKorporations".
Personally, even the few hyperpartisan fuckwards I know have never stated anything of the kind. Strawman much?
The problem, that leads many people to contrast the First and the Second Amendments, is not that they contradict each other — no one thinks so — but that we are reading them differently.
The First Amendment is read as liberally and all-encompassing, as the Jews read the prohibition to "cook lamb in the milk of its mother" — combining goat cheese with beef is Treif even though neither are sheep, and a goat can not possibly be the bull's mother. Read like this, the Amendment's right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" is understood as the right to any and all speech — including even production of pornography.
If instead we read the First Amendment the way we are told to interpret the Second, however, only the speech addressed to the government — and only for a redress of grievances — would be a right. Oh, and you'd have to go through a wait-period before opening your mouth. And you'll need a license to exercise that right too.
Citation, please? Enumerate two or three such cases — should not be difficult to do, if it really happens "a lot"... I'll wait. Thank you!
Will the new collections feature "Greenpeace" logo instead? Simply ending a decades-long relationship with a planet-killing KKKorporation is not enough. The healing may have begun, but they must somehow atone for the past misdeeds. Buying "green credits" is one way, giving "Greenpeace" free promotion is another...
In 2008 a pair of "New Black Panters" members were arrested for intimidating voters in Philadelphia. In due time they were sued by Bushitler's Department of Justice, which was about to win the case. Obama's Department of Justice, however, allowed the men to avoid any punishment.
I'm bringing this up to preempt any attempt to defend Obama DoJ current actions defending "Security Letters" by their "having to" defend a law. They don't have to. When they didn't feel like it, they dropped the ball and let several thugs walk free and unscathed. Today they do feel like it, they want to have this law and are earnestly defending it.
They may even win, but even if they lose, it will not be for lack of trying. Oh, and they want to keep a backdoor for themselves in your personal electronics too. Remember that if ever you have a difficulty deciding on who to vote for — a promise, that Democrats will improve your civil liberties, will be a lie.
Pick a popular torrent — like a recent release of your favorite BSD or Linux distro — and start downloading (without any limits on your client side, of course). Watch the bandwidth. With a large number of peers, your measurement will be insulated from the oddities of any particular connection.
Only volunterely. Out of respect for older relatives or otherwise well-known folks, rather than total strangers or, worse, people whom you'd consider rather disapprovable.
Thank you for the independent confirmation.
Tithe collected by the various faith organizations was either voluntary (for charity), or used for the needs of the religious establishment itself. Various religions encourage charity, but none collect it at gun point (as the taxes are collected).
In any case, the US broke away with the tradition of government-affiliated religions in 18th century — and it is usually viewed as a good thing and, indeed, a sign of a civil society, rather than the opposite.
That may be a fine idea — for some. Those, who prefer to not belong to any group — for whatever reason, rational or otherwise — shall not be coerced into one. Not in a society, that considers itself free (whether that also means "civil" or not).
Yes, the narrow definition of forced charity. Though personal and organized charity existed for centuries, the idea, that it should be funded by taxes (which are, by definition, collected at the point of a weapon), is fresh... And disgusting.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Certain "complicated surgeries" may not even be available to certain kinds of patients under government-provided health-care.
For example, right now we have prominent government officials arguing, it is "anti-social" to live beyond 75. If the matters were left up to such people — and some matters are already up to them — some patients will be referred to the "End of Life Counseling" instead of those "complicated surgeries" you were talking about. Because what is merely labeled "unethical" now, may become outright illegal in the next generation.
Even if we stipulate, that that's better for "a society as a whole", it is not better for the individual involved — unless the choice is theirs rather that of some death panel. And I really do prefer a society, where an Individual — with all his faults and occasional irrationality — is valued above the (Glorious) Collective.
Sure. Some of that subsidizing is enforced by the government, which prohibits insurers from "discriminating" on a variety of factors and mandates coverage of certain elective procedures (like gender changes).
But even besides that there are other things affecting the costs for the insurer, which it may not even know about (drug or alcohol abuse) and thus has to spread the costs evenly among higher and lower insured alike. True.
But, as long as the insurers compete with each other, there is a hope. When the Illiberal's goal of "single payer" insurance is achieved, there will be no competition...
Disposing of a corpse found on a street would cost less than a thousand dollars — even with a modicum of dignity due a total stranger. Curing him is likely to cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands.
That's a rather questionable assertion. The second a consumer of services becomes distinct from the payer, costs rise and fraud flourishes.
Imagine government deciding, having a cell phone is "a basic human right" (hardly far-fetched — some counties have already declared Internet access to be such a right, to loud approvals by your kind). With tax-payers paying for new phones, would anyone eligible for such subsidy settle for less than the latest and most loaded model? Would the manufacturers even make the lower-speced devices without having to compete (for some buyers) on the price?
But stipulating for a second, that you are right and it is cheaper, that is not what I asked about. I didn't ask, whether or not it is economically beneficial — the conversation was about such forced charity being a marking of a "civil society". Or not...
Nonsense. The tax-payer funded welfare state is a very recent invention — just over 100 years old. Are you claiming, ours — or British, or French, or Dutch — society was not "civil" in the 19th century? Are the Chinese — for all their problems — not "civil" today?
Humanity lived out of the caves for about ten thousand years before it invented this phenomenon of mandatory charity...
Whatever it costs, someone has to pay for it. That someone may be you because you the procedure, some charity out of the goodness of their hearts, or the taxpayers — forced to pay for it at the IRS' implicit gunpoint.
I don't understand, how an otherwise moral and upstanding person can honestly prefer the third option...
Why do you consider it a marking of civil society, that requires people to pay for other people's mistakes? Not encourages, mind you, but requires?
Are they thanking us for all the fish?.. I'm worried now...
Being "free" (paid by taxes) does not automatically make anything superior. Do you have any proof to support the claim of superiority?
That a person who chose to not buy health insurance goes bankrupt when he gets sick, is hardly grounds for mandating such insurance for everyone.
Believing, the higher taxes are the best way to pay for those services is moronic indeed.
Let's see one built. Heck, let's see several built — by competing private concerns funded by the investors' own monies. Then we can discuss their relative merits and make fun of predictions, that it is "highly unlikely" for humans of 2035 to be able to generate five times the amount of electricity we generated in 2010.
Nevertheless, such "scapegoating" — however unfair it may (or may not) be — is part of the "life satisfaction" and contributes to the index being discussed.
But I only listed it as one of the examples of what might explain the US dragging behind Sweden in "life satisfaction". For another example, the cited Economist article notes, part of the index is trust in public institutions — something, Americans are (and always have been) notoriously "bad" at. Perhaps, for hereditary reasons — it was this distrust that drove many of us and/or our ancestors to move to this continent in the first place.
Either way, the cited index boils down a large variety of factors to a single figure for each country. Like benchmarking computers, operating systems, or web-servers, comparing such single figures to each other is usually meaningless. Using the difference to argue for a single aspect — such as higher taxes — is outright stupid.
Natural monopoly is a myth. A very handy myth for the governments to perpetuate, of course, but a myth nonetheless.
Awesome... Well, if that's so — and the better way to run things is not only unknown, but unknowable (like the ways and means of a deity), then there is nothing to talk about either and none of the rest of your rant matter any more than does mine.
But, if we can discuss mere beliefs for a second, I'll propose, that our American system is based on belief in freedom. Unlike, say, China or Russia, who may be using Capitalist methods because (they believe) they are more efficient, the US uses (or used) them, because they aren't infringing individual liberties (as much). For example, in USSR not working was a crime , while in the US you are free to stare at your navel all day. And though most people choose to work in the US too, it is their choice, and we tend to view forced employment as slavery...
That our approach also tends to provide for a wealthier society (or so we believe) is just gravy on top.
Right, whereas with the current scheme of things, I can not switch at all... I don't think, that's better.
Natural monopolies are a myth. Or so someone believes, at least. But it is not merely a belief either — Tokyo has competing subway lines. Why can't New York City have such?
Fortunately, no such companies exist — not in the security-appliance market, so let's not get off-topic, shall we?
Here are your choices:
I tend to prefer the third option, although I've registered my displeasure on BBB on a few occasions too.
You may not be able to stop paying for the contract (be sure your next one is better worded, though), but you can stop using the service — as soon as you find a replacement...
Now, what's left is to determine, that the 7.38 vs. 8.02 difference is thanks to, rather than despite of their taxes being higher — rather than, say, those demography, social and cultural characteristics. They do "celebrate diversity" there too nowadays, but the bulk of the population remains of "original" stock.
Never. When my power is out, it is because the government-sanctioned monopoly keeps using the decrepit electric poles to deliver power to my house. The method fails, whenever there is any significant snow — or even strong wind.
If I had a choice, I would've picked a competitor, who'd run their cables underground, but I don't have a choice...
Those were flaws of the privatization process — a one time cost to pay for the earlier mistake of believing the myth of "natural monopolies".
Citation needed.