I do not, actually, but there may be better explanations for his disappearance — and that of other conveniences, than the evil elite's plot to remove the services we like without lowering the prices on what's left. The milkman, for example, was killed by a combination of increased mobility of the customers (who can all go to a supermarket, when they please), and government regulations concerning both keeping of the cows and processing the milk. You just can't do it any more — not on a small scale. Even when people try to do it as a co-op (such as to have milk to processed a certain way), the government fights them tooth-and-nail.
Yes, some rather expensive cars include rather expensive insurance.
The car being overall expensive, will increase its insurance cost, yes. But I was talking about another aspect — an otherwise inexpensive machine with "overly" powerful engine will cost more to insure. People are buying them anyway... Point is, different models do cost slightly different to insure — which cars, that are easier to fix costing less, for example.
Auto insurance compete a lot on branding and somewhat on extras, but a lot less on price/service than they would have you believe.
That depends on the state. Collectivist places like Massachusetts dictate, what insurance is to cost — leaving the companies to compete on the service-quality only. In other places you may be able to get a different quote from a different company. There is still competition and, as I said, as long as the buyers are the actual users themselves (rather than employers), we are Ok.
Guess who lobbied for the seat belt laws!
Whoever it was, they are not lobbying for the "spies" being mandatory.
The law made them compulsory. Not the insurance companies.
The premiums *never* went down.
Maybe, they did not rise as fast as inflation during those few years? Or, maybe, the belts aren't really reducing the costs for the insurers — could even be the opposite, in fact. If you die on the spot, that's a tragedy, but it is relatively cheap for the insurers. On the other hand, if the belt saved your life, but now you need expensive treatment...
No, it is not. There was even a lawsuit filed against this requirement. It survived only because the government contented, the requirement was, actually, a tax... Thus giving new life to the argument, that "taxation is slavery".
Tomorrow, rate hikes will consume the entire discount and without the discount will be barely affordable at all
Do you have examples from history to back up this prediction?
The day after, the rate penalty for not using the device will be unaffordable to most motorists
There are already insurance penalties for certain kinds of cars — such as those with very powerful engines. People are still buying them — willing to pay extra. Others buy the cars designed to fit just under the limit.
Your predictions are too gloomy.. As long as auto-insurance companies compete with each other and sell directly to car-owners (rather than through employers), we are fine...
But you know, it's okay because they get a discount and it's not the government doing it (*eyeroll*).
As long as it is not compulsory (which it would be, if government did it), it really may be Ok — for some people.
then I realize that the rest of us will get dinged for NOT opting-in, so damnit, stop that you idiots!
Then the rates will be slightly higher for all — with people willing to trade privacy for a discount subsidizing those like you (and me), who are not. Why do you think, such an outcome it is fair or desirable?
Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.
Other than abortions, I can't think of a freedom, Conservatives are try to remove. And even that one comes from a (mistaken but sincere) belief, that fetus is a human being no less worthy of the State's protection from killing than any other citizen — a respectable opinion, even if you disagree with it.
And even if Conservatives prevail and manage to outlaw abortions, I'll be able to pay for a trip to Canada, should my daughter ever needs the procedure. But, if obamas are allowed to continue ravaging the country, in 10 more years we'll all be so poor, having a free abortion clinic next door will be of little consolation.
If I am hit by your acquaintance while they are giving you that free lift, their private insurance will cover my medical bills for as long as needed.
No, actually. Auto insurance policies have caps on them — $1mln is very common for private cars. Rich people are encouraged to pay for additional coverage (so as not to loose their house to a litigious victim), but it is not mandatory.
If I am hit by an Uber driver, well who knows how much insurance they have
The "who knows" argument — also known as spreading FUD...
Uber covers them for $1Million
Yep, that same $1 million....
there is no guarantee that when you get into that Uber car you are actually insured at all.
Nor is your acquaintance guaranteeing you, his insurance has not been canceled last week...
Oh for fuck's sake, what does liberal have to do with communism?
Modern American Illiberals advocate bigger government role in the citizenry's every day lives. The bigger government needs higher taxes to support it, so, of course, taxes go up and up. Socialism/Communism aren't a binary (yes or no), they are gradual and can be measured — the measure is the percentage of GDP, that comes from spending by the government. Between Federal, State, and local governments nation-wide today, our percentage already exceeds 50%. Which means, the fate of over half of the monies spent by Americans is decided not by themselves, but by the politicians they elect.
That is Socialism creeping up, which I refer to as Communism-lite and its proponents, who defile the proud name of Liberals by their invalid claims to the name — commies-lite. But the differences between Socialism and Communism are slight — indeed, per Karl Marx himself, the former leads to the latter — they are both Collectivist regimes, emphasizing the (Glorious) Collective over a (greedy) Individual. "It takes a village" — right?
Are you trying to convince anyone that Stalin was a liberal?
Oh, it all changes, once the "liberal" gets to actual power. As Lenin was explaining in his writing, for example, "we use bourgeois's freedom of press to further our cause, but, once we prevail, the freedom should be curtailed". Look at Obama — NSA's roles expanding, TSA ever more obnoxious, IRS is used to suppress opposition, while Capitalism is being sabotaged by regulations and politically-motivated prosecutions. That he is not using the outright violence of Stalin, is because his country — and its traditions — aren't Russia-like...
But let's not get hung-up on Stalin, who (along with Hitler — another Collectivist), got so much negative press, that speaking fondly of them arouses nothing by (well-deserved) ridicule. How about Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez? Both are idols to American Illiberals — even though they turned their respective countries into shitholes. And Che Guevara — every Illiberal has a T-shirt with his likeness in their closet.
Here is a quiz for you — can your recognize the person behind each quote?
NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT YOU. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A TEMPORARY INCONVENIENCE TO THE RICH ELITE
I know, I know. It is time to expropriate the unearned wealth of the rich and redistribute it among the (obviously more deserving) masses — both toiling and idle alike.
Only it has been tried before...
SEE YOU ALL IN HELL
Well, there is a chance, I'll see you earlier — on the 18th floor... Be sure to have your/. monicker showing on your nametag, when serving cappuccinos, isoTaime...
They served vastly different regimes. Mitrokhin betrayed Communists — followers of the deadliest school of thought known to humanity so far (even Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism was but a distant second). Wherever Communism is attempted in earnest — USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia — the result is always mass-murder followed by economic misery and total absence of the human rights for the survivors.
Snowden betrayed America. Whatever problems — genuine and imaginary — you may have with the USA, USSR (and modern Russia) are far worse.
That's the difference — even if the actual betrayals are similar. But all of this is empty rhetoric for people, who sincerely equate Joseph McCarthy with Lavrenty Beria, so I'm not holding much hope here...
If everyone loses their jobs, who will be able to buy the products?
If nobody can find work, that means, there is no work to do. Which is just awesome, if that's because robots are doing everything. The means of production will, finally, be able to satisfy all demand...
If the car that crippled you was operated by an employee of a cab company, it might mean that a legal settlement would be reached such that you'd spend the rest of your life at your house with inhouse nurse care.
And it would be even better, if the taxis are all government-owned — in which case you'll get a truly gold-plated care, will you not? Heck, some of the poor may choose to stand on busy intersections just for that reason — would not that be terrific?
Do I hear a proposal to nationalize all transportation? And, better yet, all other corporations? Bigger is better, is not it?
Insurance rates are based on risk. Are you claiming that a car that is on the road all day long
A car may be on the road all day long for many different reasons. It makes sense for annual mileage to affect the cost of insurance — indeed, it is already factored in usually.
Singling out "commercial use" does not make sense.
Which means the answer is not banning abortion, but banning the racism that leads to the financial inequity.
"Banning racism"... That's a good one. You can't ban thoughts — not yet, anyway. At most, you can prohibit some manifestations of those thoughts...
More importantly, though, racism is not the reason. Oh, it does exist, but that's not the reason for the Blacks' poverty. You see, Asians are targets of racism too — in America. Jews were targets of racism in Europe for centuries — and remain in certain places. Yet, neither of those two groups are worse off, on average, than the surrounding population at large. In fact, they tend to be better off — despite the racism.
I don't know, what the actual reason's are — may be, it is all of the condescending efforts to "help" Blacks (such as via affirmative action), that are holding them down. I am not sure. But racism is not it.
Sure, they make you swear to tell the truth, but actually doing so is usually not so great an idea.
Well, now that you've posted your incendiary speech on a public forum, you may as well repeat it in court. Or do you believe in that "Anonymous" nonsense? Of course not...
the decision for that should be made by the mother. Which eliminates everything that is morally wrong with eugenics.
Almost all. For full fairness, the father should have a say too — if he is on the hook for 18-21 years of child support, he ought to be able to weight-in on whether to abort, for example.
And then, of course, there is the uncomfortable truth, that fetuses of a certain race are aborted much more often, than others. Something, the noisiest defenders of the procedure's legality — had they been self-consistent in their thought — would've called evidence of racism...
Well, if it is the frequency, that concerns you, then, perhaps, you may wish to require additional qualifications from those, who travel more than a certain amount of kilometers per year — regardless of their reasons for doing it. But singling out people, who are trying to make a living — that's not fair and there is no justification for it.
If you want to take a paying passenger then you need a transport pilot license.
That it is so currently is not in itself evidence, that that's, how things ought to be... Why should I need a government's permission to earn money doing, what I am allowed to do for free?
The license is there to (among other things) show that you have that experience.
The experience comes from driving — not from driving for hire. A young driver, who passes the test for "commercial" license is still much less experienced, that a middle-aged one — even though the latter has never taken money for giving somebody a ride.
Bottom line is, business is viewed by everyone with suspicion — and that's why governments world-wide impose unfair and uncalled-for regulations on them. Especially the democratic governments, because business-owners, however beneficial they may be to the society and however large their taxes may be, still have only one vote. It has gotten so bizarre in the last 50 years or so, that people can post nonsense like "you need permission to be making money" — and aren't escorted to a mental institution after saying it...
Oh, wow! An upset Illiberal. With a fellow upset Illiberal downmodding me, while upmodding his brethren. You two dimwits. There is not The Right to be telling me, what to think. I am telling them instead. Feeling better? You found the nest, congratulations. What are you two pathetic little commies-lite going to do about it? Stare at your Che Guevara portraits for inspiration?
Share you little agenda-points with me to confirm my accusation? What? Why am I supposed to listen, to what your kind "actually thinks" — are you so sure, you have a modicum of original thought in there, that it is worth noting — and posting on/.?
If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them
Whoa! Wait a minute — you don't have to murder anyone (unless you need a scapegoat to explain your regime's failures to your citizens). You can simply discourage (or outright block) them from procreating.
Organizations like "Planned Parenthood" were created for that exact purpose — and I'm quoting from their founder — "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". Not that you'd find this bit of info on the organization's Wikipedia page...
You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
The rest of us have to share the roads with these "taxis" as well.
You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.
The rules for getting a bus driving license and a heavy truck driving license are the virtually the same
May be, but that's not, what we are discussing here.
One reason mentioned in those cases is that you for example have to have the wherewithal to be able to stand up to a pissed off customer when you deem conditions to be unsafe
The wherewithal comes simply from experience — not from a license.
DailyKos? Seriously? You should've used "Pravda" newspaper... Sorry, I don't take any of that seriously — not that there is much to take. Not accepting Obama's birthplace at facevalue is not racist, no sir — the whole thing about his birth certificate was fishy. And that he ended up posting a scan of notarized copy — rather than original keeps it suspect.
And where Kos claim, that National Review provides "bullhorn to racists" — that is simply an empty accusation.
links within them pointing out these very prominent Republicans doing this stuff.
Doing what stuff? Instead of posting a link to some links to empty accusations, why don't you pick two or three, that you can defend?
Or are you going to try to redefine racism again?
"Again"? I've always defined it as sincerely held belief, that certain race(s) is (are) superior to other(s).
Slashdot Mirror
I do not, actually, but there may be better explanations for his disappearance — and that of other conveniences, than the evil elite's plot to remove the services we like without lowering the prices on what's left. The milkman, for example, was killed by a combination of increased mobility of the customers (who can all go to a supermarket, when they please), and government regulations concerning both keeping of the cows and processing the milk. You just can't do it any more — not on a small scale. Even when people try to do it as a co-op (such as to have milk to processed a certain way), the government fights them tooth-and-nail.
The car being overall expensive, will increase its insurance cost, yes. But I was talking about another aspect — an otherwise inexpensive machine with "overly" powerful engine will cost more to insure. People are buying them anyway... Point is, different models do cost slightly different to insure — which cars, that are easier to fix costing less, for example.
That depends on the state. Collectivist places like Massachusetts dictate, what insurance is to cost — leaving the companies to compete on the service-quality only. In other places you may be able to get a different quote from a different company. There is still competition and, as I said, as long as the buyers are the actual users themselves (rather than employers), we are Ok.
Whoever it was, they are not lobbying for the "spies" being mandatory.
The law made them compulsory. Not the insurance companies.
Maybe, they did not rise as fast as inflation during those few years? Or, maybe, the belts aren't really reducing the costs for the insurers — could even be the opposite, in fact. If you die on the spot, that's a tragedy, but it is relatively cheap for the insurers. On the other hand, if the belt saved your life, but now you need expensive treatment...
No, it is not. There was even a lawsuit filed against this requirement. It survived only because the government contented, the requirement was, actually, a tax... Thus giving new life to the argument, that "taxation is slavery".
Do you have examples from history to back up this prediction?
There are already insurance penalties for certain kinds of cars — such as those with very powerful engines. People are still buying them — willing to pay extra. Others buy the cars designed to fit just under the limit.
Your predictions are too gloomy.. As long as auto-insurance companies compete with each other and sell directly to car-owners (rather than through employers), we are fine...
Why? You aren't told not to eat ice-cream... You are just discouraged from it. So, why are you cursing?
As long as it is not compulsory (which it would be, if government did it), it really may be Ok — for some people.
Then the rates will be slightly higher for all — with people willing to trade privacy for a discount subsidizing those like you (and me), who are not. Why do you think, such an outcome it is fair or desirable?
Other than abortions, I can't think of a freedom, Conservatives are try to remove. And even that one comes from a (mistaken but sincere) belief, that fetus is a human being no less worthy of the State's protection from killing than any other citizen — a respectable opinion, even if you disagree with it.
And even if Conservatives prevail and manage to outlaw abortions, I'll be able to pay for a trip to Canada, should my daughter ever needs the procedure. But, if obamas are allowed to continue ravaging the country, in 10 more years we'll all be so poor, having a free abortion clinic next door will be of little consolation.
No, actually. Auto insurance policies have caps on them — $1mln is very common for private cars. Rich people are encouraged to pay for additional coverage (so as not to loose their house to a litigious victim), but it is not mandatory.
The "who knows" argument — also known as spreading FUD ...
Yep, that same $1 million....
Nor is your acquaintance guaranteeing you, his insurance has not been canceled last week...
Modern American Illiberals advocate bigger government role in the citizenry's every day lives. The bigger government needs higher taxes to support it, so, of course, taxes go up and up. Socialism/Communism aren't a binary (yes or no), they are gradual and can be measured — the measure is the percentage of GDP, that comes from spending by the government. Between Federal, State, and local governments nation-wide today, our percentage already exceeds 50%. Which means, the fate of over half of the monies spent by Americans is decided not by themselves, but by the politicians they elect.
That is Socialism creeping up, which I refer to as Communism-lite and its proponents, who defile the proud name of Liberals by their invalid claims to the name — commies-lite. But the differences between Socialism and Communism are slight — indeed, per Karl Marx himself, the former leads to the latter — they are both Collectivist regimes, emphasizing the (Glorious) Collective over a (greedy) Individual. "It takes a village" — right?
Oh, it all changes, once the "liberal" gets to actual power. As Lenin was explaining in his writing, for example, "we use bourgeois's freedom of press to further our cause, but, once we prevail, the freedom should be curtailed". Look at Obama — NSA's roles expanding, TSA ever more obnoxious, IRS is used to suppress opposition, while Capitalism is being sabotaged by regulations and politically-motivated prosecutions. That he is not using the outright violence of Stalin, is because his country — and its traditions — aren't Russia-like...
But let's not get hung-up on Stalin, who (along with Hitler — another Collectivist), got so much negative press, that speaking fondly of them arouses nothing by (well-deserved) ridicule. How about Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez? Both are idols to American Illiberals — even though they turned their respective countries into shitholes. And Che Guevara — every Illiberal has a T-shirt with his likeness in their closet.
Here is a quiz for you — can your recognize the person behind each quote?
I know, I know. It is time to expropriate the unearned wealth of the rich and redistribute it among the (obviously more deserving) masses — both toiling and idle alike.
Only it has been tried before...
Well, there is a chance, I'll see you earlier — on the 18th floor... Be sure to have your /. monicker showing on your nametag, when serving cappuccinos, isoTaime...
They served vastly different regimes. Mitrokhin betrayed Communists — followers of the deadliest school of thought known to humanity so far (even Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism was but a distant second). Wherever Communism is attempted in earnest — USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia — the result is always mass-murder followed by economic misery and total absence of the human rights for the survivors.
Snowden betrayed America. Whatever problems — genuine and imaginary — you may have with the USA, USSR (and modern Russia) are far worse.
That's the difference — even if the actual betrayals are similar. But all of this is empty rhetoric for people, who sincerely equate Joseph McCarthy with Lavrenty Beria, so I'm not holding much hope here...
If nobody can find work, that means, there is no work to do. Which is just awesome, if that's because robots are doing everything. The means of production will, finally, be able to satisfy all demand...
And it would be even better, if the taxis are all government-owned — in which case you'll get a truly gold-plated care, will you not? Heck, some of the poor may choose to stand on busy intersections just for that reason — would not that be terrific?
Do I hear a proposal to nationalize all transportation? And, better yet, all other corporations? Bigger is better, is not it?
A car may be on the road all day long for many different reasons. It makes sense for annual mileage to affect the cost of insurance — indeed, it is already factored in usually.
Singling out "commercial use" does not make sense.
If this fact does not bother you, when you are getting a free ride from an acquaintance, it should not bother you, when you are riding Uber(X).
And if it still bothers you anyway, well, just hail an "official" cab.
"Banning racism"... That's a good one. You can't ban thoughts — not yet, anyway. At most, you can prohibit some manifestations of those thoughts...
More importantly, though, racism is not the reason. Oh, it does exist, but that's not the reason for the Blacks' poverty. You see, Asians are targets of racism too — in America. Jews were targets of racism in Europe for centuries — and remain in certain places. Yet, neither of those two groups are worse off, on average, than the surrounding population at large. In fact, they tend to be better off — despite the racism.
I don't know, what the actual reason's are — may be, it is all of the condescending efforts to "help" Blacks (such as via affirmative action), that are holding them down. I am not sure. But racism is not it.
Well, now that you've posted your incendiary speech on a public forum, you may as well repeat it in court. Or do you believe in that "Anonymous" nonsense? Of course not...
Almost all. For full fairness, the father should have a say too — if he is on the hook for 18-21 years of child support, he ought to be able to weight-in on whether to abort, for example.
And then, of course, there is the uncomfortable truth, that fetuses of a certain race are aborted much more often, than others. Something, the noisiest defenders of the procedure's legality — had they been self-consistent in their thought — would've called evidence of racism...
Well, if it is the frequency, that concerns you, then, perhaps, you may wish to require additional qualifications from those, who travel more than a certain amount of kilometers per year — regardless of their reasons for doing it. But singling out people, who are trying to make a living — that's not fair and there is no justification for it.
That it is so currently is not in itself evidence, that that's, how things ought to be... Why should I need a government's permission to earn money doing, what I am allowed to do for free?
The experience comes from driving — not from driving for hire. A young driver, who passes the test for "commercial" license is still much less experienced, that a middle-aged one — even though the latter has never taken money for giving somebody a ride.
Bottom line is, business is viewed by everyone with suspicion — and that's why governments world-wide impose unfair and uncalled-for regulations on them. Especially the democratic governments, because business-owners, however beneficial they may be to the society and however large their taxes may be, still have only one vote. It has gotten so bizarre in the last 50 years or so, that people can post nonsense like "you need permission to be making money" — and aren't escorted to a mental institution after saying it...
Share you little agenda-points with me to confirm my accusation? What? Why am I supposed to listen, to what your kind "actually thinks" — are you so sure, you have a modicum of original thought in there, that it is worth noting — and posting on /.?
Whoa! Wait a minute — you don't have to murder anyone (unless you need a scapegoat to explain your regime's failures to your citizens). You can simply discourage (or outright block) them from procreating.
Organizations like "Planned Parenthood" were created for that exact purpose — and I'm quoting from their founder — "to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". Not that you'd find this bit of info on the organization's Wikipedia page...
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.
May be, but that's not, what we are discussing here.
The wherewithal comes simply from experience — not from a license.
List me three names — with proof for each...
And where Kos claim, that National Review provides "bullhorn to racists" — that is simply an empty accusation.
Doing what stuff? Instead of posting a link to some links to empty accusations, why don't you pick two or three, that you can defend?
"Again"? I've always defined it as sincerely held belief, that certain race(s) is (are) superior to other(s).