If I wanted to support a stranger financially, I'd do it. And, maybe, I already do.
By spending my taxes on such support, the government forces me — at the point of a weapon implicitly behind every tax-collection — to support more people, than I would support on my own volition.
That's government overreach — a manifestation of tyranny — and should be denounced as such. Like "meatless meatballs", "compulsory charity" is a self-contradictory term.
If I could have a dollar for every time an "insightful" post on Slashdot — since the times of Napster — lectured the audience, that it is not theft, if the victim still has his copy of whatever is allegedly "stolen"...
In his book "Friday", Robert Heinlein predicted (in 1982) The California Confederacy voting to grant a Bachelor degree to every citizen graduating high school.
Because someone observed "that Californians with college degrees earned more than those with high school diplomas alone".
There, fixed the headline for ya'll: "Crime is Costing Humanity Trillions". The amount of effort and materials we have to put into locks, fences, safes, etc. is mind-boggling. And, in addition to those expenses, the law-enforcement efforts — in the US alone — are estimated as $280 billion per year.
Remember this, when someone tries to romanticize criminals (such as with "Godfather").
Ok, so there is a multitude of criteria. And yet, for some reason, you wouldn't give even one example... Your argument was:
Society as a whole greatly benefits from having reliable and affordable electrical service.
I can replace the words "electrical service" with just about anything: "clothing", "kitchen appliances", "automobiles", "news-media" — and the statement will still be true. So, if you don't want to nationalize TV-stations, you must offer some criteria. Why is it Ok, in your opinion, to trample the rights of owners of Consolidated Edison, but not those of Ford or CNBC?
You also continue to ignore my question regarding the primate of Collective over the Individual. Your earlier statement: "your feelings aren't as important as the rest of society's needs," — is just a poor paraphrasing of the (in)famous collectivist slogan: "The common interest before self-interest".
Do you still share the above sentiment?
I have no interest in that
Oh, yes, you do. It is just that you realized, you lost the argument — that you either have to take back the collectivist nonsense, or endorse the mass-murder and/or economic devastation that inevitably follow from adopting it in earnest.
I think that utilities, including electrical service, and Internet service, are better as government regulated entities
If you can't — and we've already established that you cannot — identify what puts some service-providers into this class, but not all of them, then your "thinking" on this matter is irrational and undisciplined, and thus unworthy of mention.
Just a few posts earlier you condescended to advise me to "read" and to "think" — you even took a stab at my (presumed) reading list — and yet, are yourself unable to substantiate your own convictions nor explain the glaring self-inconsistency in your point of view...
Destroying it may be too much — and will stink, if the attempt (successful or not) becomes known. Discrediting is far more subtle and easier to deny, yet achieves the same goal. Oh, and it also allows a few people with advance knowledge to make a tidy profit...
Of course, I have no proof, but it is obvious, there is motive and there is capability...
For some things, competition is good. For some things, nationalization is good
You are yet to identify the criteria — everything you said about nationalizing the Internet-service provision also applies to everything else.
Plus, I would still like a clarification on whether you still subscribe to the principle of "The common interest before self-interest". You certainly did subscribe to it 2 hours ago — has that changed?
Discrediting an alternative currency, which the government can not control, to protect their own fiat papers is the motive. As for the means — recall the NSA buying computing power by the acres...
Because the nationalization made us less free — someone seeking to pursue happiness by creating an electricity-generation plant, is effectively barred from doing it by these fascist regulations. That should be a good enough reason for anyone with principles.
For those, whose principles aren't so solid, the words: "The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus," — provide additional explanation.
We've surrendered a liberty (of running and profiting from this kind of business) in exchange of safety (against a non-existent threat), and, as foretold, ended up with neither.
(Given your propensity for name-calling, I'm unlikely to continue this conversation.)
So, Canada just does not want unlucky immigrants...
That said, I'm shocked, shocked to find out, the most adorable country in the world accepts only about 10% of the immigrants seeking to enter (legally)...
It will be limited to those "engaged in economic activity" — like GDPR and the entire "right to be forgotten" concept. There will be people welcome this intervention and lamenting, once again, "why the US can't be more like Europe".
Insert the cautionary tale beginning with the "when they came for corporations I did not object, because I do not have a corporation" here...
I don't recall a lot of people being okay with Obama's drone policy.
Of course, you don't — passive acquiescence is not memorable. So, please, cite anything by NYTimes or Washington Post denouncing Obama for the far graver offense of killing suspects, that's more passionate than this, or this, or this...
Heck, not only was he not denounced, his side praised him for killing Osama bin Laden, instead of arresting him... Online and IRL, Left were taunting "RethugliKKKans" with: "who is tougher on terrorism now?"
The only guy objecting was this maverick. Every single other "progressive" is a hypocrite...
so-called 51% attacks are a well-known and dangerous cryptocurrency attack vector.
It is a an attack vector, and it threatens far more than cryptocurrencies... What if 51% of voters decide, for example, that a tiny minority of the population ought to be enslaved again? Or that an even tinier minority have "too much" money?
Slashdot Mirror
If I wanted to support a stranger financially, I'd do it. And, maybe, I already do.
By spending my taxes on such support, the government forces me — at the point of a weapon implicitly behind every tax-collection — to support more people, than I would support on my own volition.
That's government overreach — a manifestation of tyranny — and should be denounced as such. Like "meatless meatballs", "compulsory charity" is a self-contradictory term.
Found a Californian...
Well, you've already admitted — in an unguarded moment of levity — that it is not better. Now you are back to the party line...
No, I neither agree nor disagree with it. I do not know.
My point was — and remains — that diversity can not by itself be the goal of an educational institution.
If I could have a dollar for every time an "insightful" post on Slashdot — since the times of Napster — lectured the audience, that it is not theft, if the victim still has his copy of whatever is allegedly "stolen"...
Viva la employee-protections, mate!
In his book "Friday", Robert Heinlein predicted (in 1982) The California Confederacy voting to grant a Bachelor degree to every citizen graduating high school.
Because someone observed "that Californians with college degrees earned more than those with high school diplomas alone".
An educational institution's goal is — or ought to be — education.
Whether SAT and other scores help that or not, "diversity" certainly does not. It is a completely bogus goal to pursue.
Bullshit. And off-topic — what I said about crime-fighting efforts in the USSR is still true regardless of why I admire Capitalism.
This is even further too is off-topic.
Oh, wow, yet another irrelevant topic...
Oh, wow, name-calling... An admission of an argument lost...
This is bullshit, of course, but I'm not arguing with you any more.
I grew up in the USSR. There were far more locks, fences, and armed guards than in the land of Capitalism.
So, take your anti-Americanism, shove it up your ass, and move to Venezuela...
There, fixed the headline for ya'll: "Crime is Costing Humanity Trillions". The amount of effort and materials we have to put into locks, fences, safes, etc. is mind-boggling. And, in addition to those expenses, the law-enforcement efforts — in the US alone — are estimated as $280 billion per year.
Remember this, when someone tries to romanticize criminals (such as with "Godfather").
Ok, so there is a multitude of criteria. And yet, for some reason, you wouldn't give even one example... Your argument was:
I can replace the words "electrical service" with just about anything: "clothing", "kitchen appliances", "automobiles", "news-media" — and the statement will still be true. So, if you don't want to nationalize TV-stations, you must offer some criteria. Why is it Ok, in your opinion, to trample the rights of owners of Consolidated Edison, but not those of Ford or CNBC?
You also continue to ignore my question regarding the primate of Collective over the Individual. Your earlier statement: "your feelings aren't as important as the rest of society's needs," — is just a poor paraphrasing of the (in)famous collectivist slogan: "The common interest before self-interest".
Do you still share the above sentiment?
Oh, yes, you do. It is just that you realized, you lost the argument — that you either have to take back the collectivist nonsense, or endorse the mass-murder and/or economic devastation that inevitably follow from adopting it in earnest.
If you can't — and we've already established that you cannot — identify what puts some service-providers into this class, but not all of them, then your "thinking" on this matter is irrational and undisciplined, and thus unworthy of mention.
Just a few posts earlier you condescended to advise me to "read" and to "think" — you even took a stab at my (presumed) reading list — and yet, are yourself unable to substantiate your own convictions nor explain the glaring self-inconsistency in your point of view...
Destroying it may be too much — and will stink, if the attempt (successful or not) becomes known. Discrediting is far more subtle and easier to deny, yet achieves the same goal. Oh, and it also allows a few people with advance knowledge to make a tidy profit...
Of course, I have no proof, but it is obvious, there is motive and there is capability...
You are yet to identify the criteria — everything you said about nationalizing the Internet-service provision also applies to everything else.
Plus, I would still like a clarification on whether you still subscribe to the principle of "The common interest before self-interest". You certainly did subscribe to it 2 hours ago — has that changed?
The Great Simoleon Caper — written in 1995 (!) — is a cautionary tale...
Discrediting an alternative currency, which the government can not control, to protect their own fiat papers is the motive. As for the means — recall the NSA buying computing power by the acres...
That's an argument for nationalizing everything: food-production, house-cleaning, television and other media, automobiles...
So, you subscribe to the principle of: "The common interest before self-interest"?
Because the nationalization made us less free — someone seeking to pursue happiness by creating an electricity-generation plant, is effectively barred from doing it by these fascist regulations. That should be a good enough reason for anyone with principles.
For those, whose principles aren't so solid, the words: "The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus," — provide additional explanation.
We've surrendered a liberty (of running and profiting from this kind of business) in exchange of safety (against a non-existent threat), and, as foretold, ended up with neither.
(Given your propensity for name-calling, I'm unlikely to continue this conversation.)
No, we need electrical utilities deregulated like our ISPs are. The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus.
"Regulation" is what's keeping the current monopolies monopolies in the first place.
So, Canada just does not want unlucky immigrants...
That said, I'm shocked, shocked to find out, the most adorable country in the world accepts only about 10% of the immigrants seeking to enter (legally)...
It will be limited to those "engaged in economic activity" — like GDPR and the entire "right to be forgotten" concept. There will be people welcome this intervention and lamenting, once again, "why the US can't be more like Europe".
Insert the cautionary tale beginning with the "when they came for corporations I did not object, because I do not have a corporation" here...
Of course, you don't — passive acquiescence is not memorable. So, please, cite anything by NYTimes or Washington Post denouncing Obama for the far graver offense of killing suspects, that's more passionate than this, or this, or this...
Heck, not only was he not denounced, his side praised him for killing Osama bin Laden, instead of arresting him... Online and IRL, Left were taunting "RethugliKKKans" with: "who is tougher on terrorism now?"
The only guy objecting was this maverick. Every single other "progressive" is a hypocrite...
It is a an attack vector, and it threatens far more than cryptocurrencies... What if 51% of voters decide, for example, that a tiny minority of the population ought to be enslaved again? Or that an even tinier minority have "too much" money?
That's an argument against the very concept of "classified information".
But, as long as we have that concept in our laws, those laws better be enforced...