It is even worse than that. Not just flying and driving are considered a privilege, even the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as rights are being treated as privileges. Gun-ownership is the most obvious example — even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license. And even if the Executive branch "shall issue" such licenses, it can also withdraw (or not renew) them — without bothering with the Judiciary.
TARP was about government bailing out financial institutions. Whether ill-advised or not, there is nothing in there about the said institutions stealing billions of dollars.
Request for citation stands...
Also Google...
No, dear, that's not how it works. You make a statement, you provide evidence. And if you wish to refer to some unknown writer instead of supplying arguments yourself, you have to establish their credentials too.
Ah, so if the guy standing next to you in line shoots a gun at the ground, and the round ricochets and hits you in the femoral artery, you don't think he should be charged with a crime, since he didn't mean to kill you.
As a matter of fact, no, I do not think, he should be charged over my death. I know, he would be, but in my not-so-humble opinion, he should not be — only with the unlawful discharging of the firearm, because that was what he intended to do and the punishment should not depend on whether the bullet ricocheted into anyone or missed.
Likewise, there should be no difference between attempted and regular murder (or other crime) — the punishment for murderous intent should be the same regardless of the success. The victim dying (or surviving) later in the hospital should not affect the punishment of the perpetrator.
I firmly believe, it would be beneficial for the society, if the criminal system prosecuted the intents instead of results. It is most unfortunate, that we can not (with today's technology) reliably know the intent in all cases...
Or are you one of those...
Come, come, let's not devolve into ad hominems this early in the conversation...
Contrary to many people's (including pigs') misconception, arrest in itself is not (supposed to be) punishment. It is only justified, when the suspect may flee — and any time spent behind bars before the trial is deducted from the sentence handed down.
Given that this man is most unlikely to be sentenced to any jail-time for the alleged crime, arrest is particularly unfair in this case.
Thus, though you and I agree, that he should be punished for the transgression, there is no way to approve of the arrest.
Unless the school is having problems with people stealing electricity, and has a policy of arresting
A school can not arrest anyone — not for theft, not for jaywalking, not for rape nor murder.
Further, theft is a criminal offense and the desires of the (alleged) victim do not decide, whether or not the prosecution is commenced. Sure, the prosecution may take the victim's wishes under advisement and they would look silly in court if the supposed victim testifies for the accused, but the final decision rests with the police/prosecutor.
While it may be illegal in some municipalities, in some others it is even worse... It is racist to leave a car unlocked or otherwise cause a poor to commit a crime.
By observing a cable running from the outlet to the car? Theft — or attempted theft (if the outlet happened to be dead) is a certainty. No need to enter the vehicle...
If the outlet is on the outside wall of a building, it was not placed there to power one's tabletop lamp, but for a tool, high-powered speakers, and/or appliance of some kind — things, that could use that kind of flow (and more).
Notably, the man is not even charged (no pun) with anything but the theft of electricity, so let's not invent any new transgressions for him.
from an intellectual point of view [...] paying more taxes will also results in more disposable income.
Perhaps, "intellectual point of view" means something else where you live. The only way this is possible is for the tax-spending government to spend the taxes both wiser and with higher efficiency, than the majority of taxpayers would've spent them on their own. Although this is possible in theory — and may even have happened a few times in history — usually whatever a government does (from running a railroad to building a web-site), is done poorly. This is not a "partisan" statement — it is a widely accepted wisdom. The expression "not bad for government job" is part of vernacular. Heck, Harry Truman pointed out decades ago: "Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship."
Some things — like waging war — can not be done safely by non-government entities, because non-governmental customers ordering such services may get too tempted. But for most things, it is both fairer and more efficient to let people decide, how to spend their monies.
All I'm reading is that you haven't been anywhere.
Oh, so it is about me, huh? Alright. Having been born and raised in Ukraine (then part of the USSR), I moved to the US at the age of 20 — but not after visiting other parts of the Evil Empire: Lithuania, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, Since moving to a free(er) country, I've traveled every year for pleasure and visited — and I mean spending at least several days in each, not an airport stop-over — the following countries, some of them more than once (in no particular order):
Czech Republic
Germany
France
Spain
Israel
Australia (including Tasmania)
Costa Rica
Brazil
Canada
Mexico
St. Lucia
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Austria
Switzerland
Thailand
Japan
Botswana
Kenya
Hungary
Ecuador
In other words, I do think, I've been around more than an average human being alive today — even if I'm still missing chunks like China and India, as well as the Arab world from my personal map.
I do hope, you shall find the list satisfactory and accept my credentials and qualifications to hold an opinion. Can we go back to the topic?
I think that vast majority of people will strongly disagree with you that economic freedom is more important than, say, freedom of speech, or the right to vote.
The freedom of speech, while important, is not particularly useful, if you can't afford to publish your opinions to reach your audience (or a substantial portion thereof). Or, worse, if you can't afford the legal defense, when the government chips away at the freedom — such as by outlawing certain jokes in certain places (like airports), or "hate speech", or confining freedom of expression to "free speech zones".
As for the right to vote... Well, all Soviet citizens had it — and encouraged by the government to use it. But there was only a single candidate on the ballot for each position. See, what I mean?
No, I'm not "rewriting the dictionary" — I'm just stating the wisdom, that comes (to some people?) with age:there is no meaningful freedom, if one can not afford the disagreement with people, who'd seek to (for whatever reasons) restrict one's exercising it.
And, going back to my original point, each dollar taxed from me, reduces my freedom to spend it, while empowering the people, bent on imposing their will on me — for my own good, of course...
POTS, or 'Plain Old Telephone Service,' is the analog standard that allows the use of simple unpowered phone devices on the wire, with the phone company supplying ring and talk voltage [emphasis mine]. I cannot fault progress, in fact I'm part of the problem: I gave up my dial tone a couple years ago because I needed cell and could not afford to keep both. But what concerns me is, are we poised to dismantle systems that are capable of standing alone to keep communities and regions 'in-touch' with each other, in favor of systems that rely on centralized (and distant) points of failure?
We'd be replacing one highly centralized system with a different one. Hardly a problem in itself.
If it really easy to get a patent overthrown, only patents which are strongly defensible will be granted. And then everyone (but the patent trolls) wins.
Small(er) inventors — who can't afford to roll out production based on their own inventions — would lose mightily as well. They need to market their invention to the would-be manufacturers. If it is "too easy" to overthrow a patent, then, upon seeing an interesting invention, the "evil corporation" will direct their legal department to do the overthrowing instead of paying the inventor his share.
Sure, law abiding people deserve better. They deserve education, healthcare, housing and food.
Huh? Nobody deserves any of these things — not any more than he can afford.
The fact that prisons provide these free of charge to prisoners is irrelevant.
It is, indeed, irrelevant — unless condemned to death, the prisoners ought to be fed, and housed, and medically treated while in government's care. But teaching them, how to found companies (not even, how to work for one, but how to found one) — that's not at all required for basic survival while in custody.
hopefully schemes of this kind will mean these offenders are less likely to re-offend
Hopefully, indeed. But I am most skeptical, that the described curriculum: "practice tweeting" and "discuss business books" will achieve that goal.
Climatology is the science, climate change is an event that is happening
Behind the times, are we? Well, if you insist on hair-splitting and arguing semantics, here... In University of Montana, for just one example, you can already minor in Climate Change. A college in a more progressive state may be already offering to major in the same discipline, but I'm too lazy to keep searching...
bet dollar to donuts you don' even know the science is [sic]
Watch your language, young man, if you wish your questions, however rhetorical, answered.
They [Republicans -mi] ignore all sciences, not just 'real' ones. See fracking & evolution for just a couple examples.
The only "science" in dispute over fracking is whether or not the natural gas-extraction process is dangerous to the environment. Given that the only arguments against are either sponsored by OPEC or put forward by bona-fide anti-Capitalists, it is indeed most prudent to ignore them.
As for evolution, the process is rejected by most major religions, which makes it hardly a Republican-only problem. Even among Christians Obama, for example, got a (slightly) higher share of votes, than McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Yeah, if you believe United Nations' reports on the matter. I don't — because United Nations has a conflict of interest — as do many of the politicians and the scientists funded by them. Sure, if you try hard enough — measuring what supports your agenda, while ignoring, what does not, you can "prove" a lot of things. Heck, those very icebergs were reportedly melting dangerously in 1922!
sea levels rise
Yeah, right. Wake me up, when Al Gore sells his — recently purchased — ocean front villa and moves to the hills.
Truth is, even where predictions are, sort of, materializing, it mostly happens at drastically lower rates than predicted.
Things like corn ethanol aren't about helping global warming
Slashdot Mirror
It is even worse than that. Not just flying and driving are considered a privilege, even the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as rights are being treated as privileges. Gun-ownership is the most obvious example — even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license. And even if the Executive branch "shall issue" such licenses, it can also withdraw (or not renew) them — without bothering with the Judiciary.
Heck, even "performing in costume" requires a license in New York City...
TARP was about government bailing out financial institutions. Whether ill-advised or not, there is nothing in there about the said institutions stealing billions of dollars.
Request for citation stands...
No, dear, that's not how it works. You make a statement, you provide evidence. And if you wish to refer to some unknown writer instead of supplying arguments yourself, you have to establish their credentials too.
As a matter of fact, no, I do not think, he should be charged over my death. I know, he would be, but in my not-so-humble opinion, he should not be — only with the unlawful discharging of the firearm, because that was what he intended to do and the punishment should not depend on whether the bullet ricocheted into anyone or missed.
Likewise, there should be no difference between attempted and regular murder (or other crime) — the punishment for murderous intent should be the same regardless of the success. The victim dying (or surviving) later in the hospital should not affect the punishment of the perpetrator.
I firmly believe, it would be beneficial for the society, if the criminal system prosecuted the intents instead of results. It is most unfortunate, that we can not (with today's technology) reliably know the intent in all cases...
Come, come, let's not devolve into ad hominems this early in the conversation...
Contrary to many people's (including pigs') misconception, arrest in itself is not (supposed to be) punishment. It is only justified, when the suspect may flee — and any time spent behind bars before the trial is deducted from the sentence handed down.
Given that this man is most unlikely to be sentenced to any jail-time for the alleged crime, arrest is particularly unfair in this case.
Thus, though you and I agree, that he should be punished for the transgression, there is no way to approve of the arrest.
Only if he meant to hit someone — without a legal reason to do that.
A school can not arrest anyone — not for theft, not for jaywalking, not for rape nor murder.
Further, theft is a criminal offense and the desires of the (alleged) victim do not decide, whether or not the prosecution is commenced. Sure, the prosecution may take the victim's wishes under advisement and they would look silly in court if the supposed victim testifies for the accused, but the final decision rests with the police/prosecutor.
Citation needed.
While it may be illegal in some municipalities, in some others it is even worse... It is racist to leave a car unlocked or otherwise cause a poor to commit a crime.
By observing a cable running from the outlet to the car? Theft — or attempted theft (if the outlet happened to be dead) is a certainty. No need to enter the vehicle...
If the outlet is on the outside wall of a building, it was not placed there to power one's tabletop lamp, but for a tool, high-powered speakers, and/or appliance of some kind — things, that could use that kind of flow (and more).
Notably, the man is not even charged (no pun) with anything but the theft of electricity, so let's not invent any new transgressions for him.
This was a good opportunity to offer some citations, but what do I know...
Perhaps, "intellectual point of view" means something else where you live. The only way this is possible is for the tax-spending government to spend the taxes both wiser and with higher efficiency, than the majority of taxpayers would've spent them on their own. Although this is possible in theory — and may even have happened a few times in history — usually whatever a government does (from running a railroad to building a web-site), is done poorly. This is not a "partisan" statement — it is a widely accepted wisdom. The expression "not bad for government job" is part of vernacular. Heck, Harry Truman pointed out decades ago: "Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship."
Some things — like waging war — can not be done safely by non-government entities, because non-governmental customers ordering such services may get too tempted. But for most things, it is both fairer and more efficient to let people decide, how to spend their monies.
Oh, so it is about me, huh? Alright. Having been born and raised in Ukraine (then part of the USSR), I moved to the US at the age of 20 — but not after visiting other parts of the Evil Empire: Lithuania, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, Since moving to a free(er) country, I've traveled every year for pleasure and visited — and I mean spending at least several days in each, not an airport stop-over — the following countries, some of them more than once (in no particular order):
In other words, I do think, I've been around more than an average human being alive today — even if I'm still missing chunks like China and India, as well as the Arab world from my personal map.
I do hope, you shall find the list satisfactory and accept my credentials and qualifications to hold an opinion. Can we go back to the topic?
The freedom of speech, while important, is not particularly useful, if you can't afford to publish your opinions to reach your audience (or a substantial portion thereof). Or, worse, if you can't afford the legal defense, when the government chips away at the freedom — such as by outlawing certain jokes in certain places (like airports), or "hate speech", or confining freedom of expression to "free speech zones".
As for the right to vote... Well, all Soviet citizens had it — and encouraged by the government to use it. But there was only a single candidate on the ballot for each position. See, what I mean?
No, I'm not "rewriting the dictionary" — I'm just stating the wisdom, that comes (to some people?) with age:there is no meaningful freedom, if one can not afford the disagreement with people, who'd seek to (for whatever reasons) restrict one's exercising it.
And, going back to my original point, each dollar taxed from me, reduces my freedom to spend it, while empowering the people, bent on imposing their will on me — for my own good, of course...
Exactly. And tracing the ahole, who spat a chewing gum onto sidewalk (or a carpet!) will also be easy...
We'd be replacing one highly centralized system with a different one. Hardly a problem in itself.
Outlawing? Hardly. You can still use it — you (or the manufacturer) just need to pay the licensing fee to the patent-holder until expiration.
Small(er) inventors — who can't afford to roll out production based on their own inventions — would lose mightily as well. They need to market their invention to the would-be manufacturers. If it is "too easy" to overthrow a patent, then, upon seeing an interesting invention, the "evil corporation" will direct their legal department to do the overthrowing instead of paying the inventor his share.
Yes. And in those rare cases I might buy from NewEgg.
I do — it is a part of my anti-monopoly stand (the same stand may push me to stop buying from Amazon some time soon).
But, as the GP pointed out, the ability to spend one's Discover "points" on Amazon is handy too.
The second-largest invader after the US was Britain. Yet, according to the article, UK is not affected by the discussed phenomenon.
Fail.
It does not. Though my (over?)quote of you included the words "fair use", I I was concentrating on the "sell" part — and how you seek to prevent that.
Huh? Nobody deserves any of these things — not any more than he can afford.
It is, indeed, irrelevant — unless condemned to death, the prisoners ought to be fed, and housed, and medically treated while in government's care. But teaching them, how to found companies (not even, how to work for one, but how to found one) — that's not at all required for basic survival while in custody.
Hopefully, indeed. But I am most skeptical, that the described curriculum: "practice tweeting" and "discuss business books" will achieve that goal.
Behind the times, are we? Well, if you insist on hair-splitting and arguing semantics, here... In University of Montana, for just one example, you can already minor in Climate Change. A college in a more progressive state may be already offering to major in the same discipline, but I'm too lazy to keep searching...
Ad hominems... How sad.
Watch your language, young man, if you wish your questions, however rhetorical, answered.
The only "science" in dispute over fracking is whether or not the natural gas-extraction process is dangerous to the environment. Given that the only arguments against are either sponsored by OPEC or put forward by bona-fide anti-Capitalists, it is indeed most prudent to ignore them.
As for evolution, the process is rejected by most major religions, which makes it hardly a Republican-only problem. Even among Christians Obama, for example, got a (slightly) higher share of votes, than McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Yeah, if you believe United Nations' reports on the matter. I don't — because United Nations has a conflict of interest — as do many of the politicians and the scientists funded by them. Sure, if you try hard enough — measuring what supports your agenda, while ignoring, what does not, you can "prove" a lot of things. Heck, those very icebergs were reportedly melting dangerously in 1922!
Yeah, right. Wake me up, when Al Gore sells his — recently purchased — ocean front villa and moves to the hills.
Truth is, even where predictions are, sort of, materializing, it mostly happens at drastically lower rates than predicted.
Bzzz! Wrong... Revising history again.
Oh, another wonderful quote... The world-destroying lightbulbs — Edison (and Tesla) laughing sadly.
Thanks for confirming the maxim: "Scratch a Global Warming alarmist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath."
This is not about me — you'd do better next time, if you refrain from outright ad-hominems...