Progressivism aside, why is it that classical-liberals, right-libertarians and conservatives seem to be blind to the simple concept of a monopoly?
It has long been accepted by all, that it is legitimate for the government to deter monopolies (see anti-trust laws). Unfortunately, in several cases, the government chose to create monopolies under a foolish assumption, that it will be able to mitigate the drawbacks of monopolization by regulation. AT&T Corp. was the most infamous example of the spectacular failure of that illogic...
Yes, it does seem stupid and wasteful to have multiple ISPs run their own cables to each house. However, it is better in the long run, than to allow only one company (such as Verizon) run one cable and then "lease" access to competitors...
Knowing so much about the constitution, then surely you understand it was never meant to list all the rights of citizens.
You are absolutely right, citizens may have other rights... However, one can not escape the fact, that none of the rights enumerated guaranteed, that the government will provide anything. Only what it will not be allowed to take away.
Said that same Thomas Jefferson:
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
... but seriously, how is access to a broadband Internet connection a legal right?
America's Founding Fathers only saw necessary to enumerate the protective rights — they listed the things, the Government is not allowed to do to people. All of them believing in personal responsibility for the famous Pursuit of Happiness, they did not put anything remotely like Right to Shelter — a Government obligation to give citizens something other than freedom to mind their own business — into the Document they crafted.
Nor have they approved of Government's benevolence at taxpayer's expense: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." -- said James Madison in reaction to Congress planning to offer Federal money to French refugees.
Finland may feel different — whatever strikes their fancy... From a Progressive's point of view, Finland is far ahead — while we are still debating "the right" to health care, they've declared the right to speedy Internet access. To the Founding Fathers point, that all rot: "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe," — wrote Thomas Jefferson at about same time...
???? I don't think, the word "troll" means, what you think, it means...
The point was, Bush is more of a fascist than Obama.
This does not at all follow from anything you've said — not that I can pretend to understand your passionate word-juggling (Hitler a Libertarian? Wow!) I stand by my allegation, that the Left are (not so crypto-) Fascist — and my evidence to that is in the similarity of their stated goals to those of NSDAP...
Ideologically Bush is much closer than Obama with respect to Fascism.
None of the links you provided mention "Fascism". But by interpreting them to mean, what you wrote, you reveal, that you are one of those, who consider Fascism as somehow opposite of Socialism. This is an illusion, carefully created by Leftists (beginning with Stalin himself) trying to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazism. It worked for decades — infamously for the prominent Leftists such as Gore Vidal calling his Republican opponent a Nazi.
These meme must've originated from USSR's war with Nazi Germany — which made simpler minds accept, that, since the two are fighting, they must be opposite (never mind the two regimes' earlier collusion in carving up Europe and singing praises for each other)... It is simply not true at all — Fascism is a kind of Socialism, and Hitler's Party very name — National Socialists — reminds us of it.
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. [...]
All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants
We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
That's odd. I thought it was monopolies, and the bizarre situation where everyone along the chain passes the buck
It is monopolies — the government-created ones. Why is our health-insurance tied to our employer by the tax-policies — the employers do get to deduct insurance costs from their revenue, but individuals don't? Why are insurance companies barred from selling policies across State-lines — thus limiting competition?
Why did 0bama mock (and grossly misrepresent) McCain's plan to put an end to both of these issues — by a) ending tax-deduction for employers, b) providing tax-deduction for individuals instead, c) ending limits on insurance-selling across State-lines — last year? Because he wanted the government to keep and expand its control — in a, perhaps sincere, belief, that the government can do a better job (at anything), than the free market.
The fact that the US spends multiples what other OCED countries spend (16% GDP versus 10% GDP)
16% vs. 10% is hardly "multiples"...
while the US is 15th in life expectancy the only metric for effectiveness of healthcare
Not only is life expectancy not "the only" metric of effectiveness of healthcare, it is not a metric of it at all. Here is from the source, sure to delight you:
The life expectancy argument is so stupid even The New York Times hasn't made it -- except in news stories quoting others or in the ramblings of the Times' more gullible op-ed columnists. You mostly hear the life expectancy argument from Hollywood actresses and profoundly dumb Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland. [...]
For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. (And it would be even more without concealed-carry laws! See John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime.") According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
That will tend to reduce the U.S.'s "life expectancy" numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country's medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)
It's comparing apples and oranges to talk about life expectancy as if it tracks with a country's health care system. What matters is the survival rate from the same starting line, to wit, the same medical condition. [emphasis mine -mi] Not surprisingly, in the apples-to-apples comparisons, the U.S. medical system crushes the welfare-state countries.
I was saying that since the income inequality is so big, it's only fair that tax inequality is also big.
I did not state, that it is "unfair". I was simply proving, beyond shadow of doubt, that "rich" are not "exempted" from taxes — and that you were wrong alleging, that they were.
And quoting the National Tax Payers Union about social justice
I did not quote them "about social justice" — but I believe their figures accurate. You don't? What figures do you have?
Your next issue is about military spending versus social spending. 21.6 percent spent on defense is completely crazy.
Crazy or not, these are the facts. The combined spending on defense and "war on terror" is about the same as Social Security or Medicaid/Medicair alone. Even if 50% of the defense spending were "waste", you'd only save about 10% of the federal budget by ending it — nothing to sneeze at, but no magic bullet either.
You put a smug comment, that all budget troubles could be solved, if only we could a) stop exempting the rich from paying taxes; and b) stop wasting money and defense contracts. The facts I was able to find with 30 seconds of Googling disprove both of your contentions: a) the rich already carry the vast share of tax burden (whether that's fair or not is off-topic); and b) the entire defense spending is only 21% of the federal budget and thus even if you halved it, you wouldn't save very much.
Your argument completely defeated you dare coming back?.. Wow...
And it [defense spending -mi] is money sent down the toilet.
Is it your contention, that the United States needs no military at all? Please, state for the record...
Also, if your Medicare and Medicaid are so expensive, you must be doing something wrong.
Of course! The first thing wrong, was establishing these programs in the first place. Instead of fixing this, you and yours propose even more of the same — why don't we expand Medicare to all — that's what you are asking...
Then the problem is not the government, but plain old capitalism gone wild.
Capitalism's record at providing immense economic benefits even to the least fortunate of its participants is well established and beyond doubt.
Socialism, on the other hand, has little to show economically wherever practiced, and slides into horrible tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe) from a slightest push-over. Having tried both, I'll choose capitalism over and over again — the "wilder" the better. Thank you very much.
You have to be completely blind to defend a system that costs twice as much as a public one
Citation needed.
Not mentioning the 40 millions with no coverage at all.
Citation needed.
Dear, Slashdot is not a Progressives' gathering — even if it feels like that some times. You need to substantiate your figures.
That said, even if your numbers were true, it wouldn't have changed a thing. Government providing health care is broadly against the Constitution, and past violations (such as Medicaid) don't justify new ones.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..."-James Madison
If you keep exempting the rich from paying taxes...
The top 50% of tax-payers pay 91.11% of the income tax. The riches 1% pays 40.42%.
... and spend all your public money in useless defence contracts
The federal government's total spending in 2008 was at 2.9 trillion dollars. Of that, the entire Department of Defense's budget plus "The Global War on Terror" constituted $626.6 billions — or merely 21.6 percent, and even the rosiest pacifist would not claim, that all of that went to "useless defense contracts". For comparison, Social Security alone was $608bln, and the Medicare and Medicaid combined for another $595bln.
You really think so? Our public schools are constantly derided by all — left and right — for producing rather mediocre results. A particular example:
In international comparisons, American 12th-graders rank in the 14th percentile in math and the 29th percentile in science. The U.S. outperformed only Cyprus and South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Worse, Asian countries didn't participate in the last 12th-grade assessment tests.
Next. USPS sucks and can't pay for itself — needs billions of "bailouts" every once in a while — including right now. Had it not been for the government support, and the government-mandated monopoly (private companies aren't allowed to compete with the "First Class" mail) they would've gone bankrupt long ago.
And highways? Are you really proud of them? Despite insane amounts of money put into them (thanks to the inflated union contracts), an average American spends a week waiting in traffic. For Los Angeles (and, other big cities) the time is two weeks...
Is this — the mediocre results, the constant cost overruns, and pathetic wait times, what you think are "positive examples"? Something you want to see in health care?
I lived the past 9 years without TV — watching it only in gym sometimes. Yes, we do have a TV-set — but no cable (our Internet comes via DSL). I think, I've ignored Timewarner/Comcast/whoever it is, whom the government gave my part of town as a monopoly.
The GP's point is valid — ignoring corporations is far easier, than the government.
The government's only acceptable role is ensuring, various corporations compete in providing a service or making goods, rather than collude. When the government attempts to provide the same service themselves (having declared the oxymoronic "market failure"), you get the worst of both worlds — government's inefficiency and a monopoly's arrogance.
I do hope, we don't get to experience this ourselves again in health care. Public schools, USPS, and highways are enough...
And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.
Yes, that's called Fascism. Some people ascribe this to Obama administration, as it aims to take over corporations. Calling him "Hitler" over this misses the point, though, (and triggers Godwin's Law) — Nazism is an aberration of Fascism and Obama does not deserve the mustaches printed on his portraits (although they do make me glee, because Bush deserved it even less).
Things sucked in Mussolini's Italy and in Franco's Spain, without the death camps. One need not be genocidal to destroy economy...
Dubya Bush did the same thing, spending a lot of time in red and "purple" states.
The article also alleges, that the States important to Democrats get substantially larger pieces of the "stimulus" money — an accusation, that can not be thrown at G.W. Bush if only because his stimulus consisted of tax-cuts and tax-rebates, that went to whoever paid small taxes (and some who didn't)...
But my point was non-partisan — whoever is in charge, they'll try to use everybody's tax dollars to reward their own supporters. There is no reliable stopping this, other than to reduce the amount of tax dollars at their disposal.
This is where I turn into a raging Libertarian and the audience loses interest...
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.Thomas Jefferson
You don't understand. It's free money. That's how it works. Free. Money. They print it on big printing presses and everything. You'd better get in line or you'll miss out.
Right. And next time there are elections, be sure, your State backs the winner. Or else you'll miss out big time!
I feel that society benefits when some burden is shifted from our electrical grid.
Is there a cost, which you'd agree is too high? What is it — you have not studied it, have you? Do you trust the politicians to make that determination for you?
For just one example, do you know, that the typical efficiency of solar electrical generation is only 15-20%? Whereas when used to produce heat, 80-85% of Sun's energy falling on the panels can be captured?
If it unfairly benefits property and homeowners, that precedent was already set by the utilities cor- persons.
I don't know, who "cor- persons" are. But even if it fairly benefited everyone, going through the government's bureaucracy is extremely inefficient.
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.Thomas Jefferson
A portion of that money already came out of your pocket, and you've already paid for someone else's project.
Right — the cow is already dead, so all you, silly vegetarians, may as well eat it!
There's nothing wrong with applying for tax-subsidized funding if you're already a taxpayer.
You are right, that there is nothing wrong with applying for the tax-subsidized funding.
That's kind of the point.
No, the GP's point was, that it is wrong to provide tax-subsidized funding for such things — or advocate such provision, as the GGP was doing: "would be nice if my state offered that!"
All government bureaucrats are usually idiots — what makes you think, Feds are any brighter?
The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.
Hey, I have an idea! Let's turn health care over to these people — just to see, if they perform better this time, than they did with public schools and highways...
The bullying is usually more psychological (as opposed to male physical bullying) but has comparable impacts on the victims.
I really don't believe, a psychological bullying — unless, maybe, done by a well-trained psychologist (such as a professional interrogator) — can have an impact comparable to physical beating. I'm sure it sucks, but it is not anywhere close, if only because in the case of beating the psychological impact is huge too, but it goes on top of the physical pain.
One is called "loser" and other names, is robbed of the lunch money, and then beaten up...
You obviously haven't been -- repeatedly -- the only "girl" in years of math and science classes
No, I have not been neither a "girl" nor a girl anywhere. I have been a boy in a Math/Physics high school, to which admission was open wide to all — subject to passing entrance exams. The admission committee did favor girls, because there was a constant shortage of them applying.
The girls were perfectly bright. There were, on average, 3 boys for each girl, which — contrary to your statement — did not lead to the girls being abused. The opposite was true — they could get whatever they wanted from the male classmates... (Or, perhaps, chivalry was not as dead in Ukraine 20 years ago, as it was in the US when you were growing up.)
Your situation may have been different — I don't know it at all. But, it would seem, you are part of Slashdot community (at least), possibly even part of the 1.5% of the female part of FOSS. Your having been abused by classmates in school may have been a contributing reason. I'm sure, it does happen to girls too — just not as much.
leering little boys who repeatedly make crude sexual jokes and suggestions in your general direction
I guess, you've never seen/heard, what these "leering little boys" do to each other. In addition to "crude sexual jokes", they also beat each other up and rob of lunch monies, for example. It is all far more "uncivil", but we don't get to complain about "sexism". Teachers, parents, and the rest of the society just tell us to stop whining like a cry-baby and be a man... The girls agree (thanks to the evolution's programming) and overwhelmingly prefer to date the beaters over the beaten...
Then, when such behaviours are publicly denounced as uncivil, watch in amazement as otherwise intelligent male humans will leap up to *defend* such behaviour as normative.
Unfortunately, in high school (and among children in general) "uncivil" and "normative" are not opposites at all... I agree, that this sucks, but it is part of the sucky growing-up experience. Whether it justifies the dismissals of all your complaints and calling you "too sensitive", is a different story, but if the abuse you've suffered never exceeded "crude sexual jokes", I'd tend to agree with your teachers...
Do any of these people truly believe that this *should* be the price of admission that women *must* pay in order to join the fraternal order?
Sexism sure exists, but I don't at all think, Math/FOSS/Science is more sexist, than other vocations. Or do you think, you'd find fewer sexists among coal miners or firefighters? Heck, I'll repeat, that FOSS — where no one's gender is certain, and where nobody can normally see the other person — is far less sexist than average.
If only 1.5% of your cake consisted of strawberries.... but fewer than 0.1% of your cake consisted of feces, what is the real problem with your cake?
So, in your opinion, a sexist contributes zero to the cake, whatever their accomplishments on behalf of the project(s)? Because comparing him to "feces" you've implied exactly that... Take one "sexist" quote from Stallman, and it is as if the GNU-project (the "cake") is completely ruined?
Though, you know, it would be nice if people realized that it is generally a bad thing for people to be able to make death threats against women without being called on it.
It is an awful thing for people to be able to make death threats against anyone without being called on it.
What reports of sexism have there been? Are you raising the subject of sexism just based on the fact that only 1.5% of FOSS developers are women?
For decades, it has been accepted, that statistics is evidence. Recognizing, that there can be legitimate differences in inclinations towards certain activities among genders is a big no-no. The only exception is made for negative inclinations — such as increased aggressiveness — among males, or positive — such as attention to detail — among females, err, scratch that — "female" has a "male" in it — the proper term is womyns.
That the same testosterone (or whatever it really is), that makes males more aggressive on average may also make them more determined scientists or more involved FOSS-developers, is not mentioned... Or, perhaps, one needs to have been nerdy and suffer from bullying — something girls rarely have to go through — in school to look for a recreational outlet online.
Whatever the real reasons for disparity, claiming "sexism" in FOSS — the activity, that's done almost exclusively via Internet, where nobody knows your real gender (nor race, for that matter, nor even species!), is beyond stupid, of course. But by pointing this out, a person — myself included after I typed the previous sentence — automatically becomes a "sexist in denial". I guess, I need therapy now...
Lastly, the 1.5% is not bad — among FreeBSD-project, for example, there were 0 (zero!) females, last time I checked. The situation only "improved" a little bit, when one guy (from San Francisco, of all places), announced his gender- (and name-) change...
In my experience as an admin I've found that they also have more and _sicker_ porn on their computers.
And just how would you know that? What does "as an admin" have to do with it? Do you have the right to look into other people's files as an admin? Actually, legally, you might be able to justify it, but morally you can't. That they are porn may be deducible from the filenames and types, which you are allowed to examine to determine, whether they are work related, need to be backed-up, etc.
But to make a reliable determination, that the porn of the religious people is "sicker" than that of atheists, you had to look inside a statistically significant number of files belonging to a statistically significant number of different people.
If you have actually done that "as an admin" you sure have broken moral norms and, likely, laws... More likely, you simply misrepresented your "experience as an admin" here to make your rhetoric more exciting... Shame either way.
Hey, he was declared "The Greatest President" before even taking office — much less concluding even one Presidential term.
Seriously, if he wants to earn true respect, he would reject the award: "Thank you, folks, hold that thought until 2012, but for now my accepting it would make the mockery of the award itself and of most of its past recipients."
Slashdot Mirror
It has long been accepted by all, that it is legitimate for the government to deter monopolies (see anti-trust laws). Unfortunately, in several cases, the government chose to create monopolies under a foolish assumption, that it will be able to mitigate the drawbacks of monopolization by regulation. AT&T Corp. was the most infamous example of the spectacular failure of that illogic...
Yes, it does seem stupid and wasteful to have multiple ISPs run their own cables to each house. However, it is better in the long run, than to allow only one company (such as Verizon) run one cable and then "lease" access to competitors...
Examined... All three protect the individual from the government's abuse. None guarantee the individual any handout...
You are absolutely right, citizens may have other rights... However, one can not escape the fact, that none of the rights enumerated guaranteed, that the government will provide anything. Only what it will not be allowed to take away.
Said that same Thomas Jefferson:
No, actually, they would not have been...
America's Founding Fathers only saw necessary to enumerate the protective rights — they listed the things, the Government is not allowed to do to people. All of them believing in personal responsibility for the famous Pursuit of Happiness, they did not put anything remotely like Right to Shelter — a Government obligation to give citizens something other than freedom to mind their own business — into the Document they crafted.
Nor have they approved of Government's benevolence at taxpayer's expense: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." -- said James Madison in reaction to Congress planning to offer Federal money to French refugees.
Finland may feel different — whatever strikes their fancy... From a Progressive's point of view, Finland is far ahead — while we are still debating "the right" to health care, they've declared the right to speedy Internet access. To the Founding Fathers point, that all rot: "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe," — wrote Thomas Jefferson at about same time...
???? I don't think, the word "troll" means, what you think, it means...
This does not at all follow from anything you've said — not that I can pretend to understand your passionate word-juggling (Hitler a Libertarian? Wow!) I stand by my allegation, that the Left are (not so crypto-) Fascist — and my evidence to that is in the similarity of their stated goals to those of NSDAP...
None of the links you provided mention "Fascism". But by interpreting them to mean, what you wrote, you reveal, that you are one of those, who consider Fascism as somehow opposite of Socialism. This is an illusion, carefully created by Leftists (beginning with Stalin himself) trying to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazism. It worked for decades — infamously for the prominent Leftists such as Gore Vidal calling his Republican opponent a Nazi.
These meme must've originated from USSR's war with Nazi Germany — which made simpler minds accept, that, since the two are fighting, they must be opposite (never mind the two regimes' earlier collusion in carving up Europe and singing praises for each other)... It is simply not true at all — Fascism is a kind of Socialism, and Hitler's Party very name — National Socialists — reminds us of it.
For actual proof, consider Hitler's programme for NSDAP:
It is monopolies — the government-created ones. Why is our health-insurance tied to our employer by the tax-policies — the employers do get to deduct insurance costs from their revenue, but individuals don't? Why are insurance companies barred from selling policies across State-lines — thus limiting competition?
Why did 0bama mock (and grossly misrepresent) McCain's plan to put an end to both of these issues — by a) ending tax-deduction for employers, b) providing tax-deduction for individuals instead, c) ending limits on insurance-selling across State-lines — last year? Because he wanted the government to keep and expand its control — in a, perhaps sincere, belief, that the government can do a better job (at anything), than the free market.
16% vs. 10% is hardly "multiples"...
Not only is life expectancy not "the only" metric of effectiveness of healthcare, it is not a metric of it at all. Here is from the source, sure to delight you:
I did not state, that it is "unfair". I was simply proving, beyond shadow of doubt, that "rich" are not "exempted" from taxes — and that you were wrong alleging, that they were.
I did not quote them "about social justice" — but I believe their figures accurate. You don't? What figures do you have?
Visiting this page may prove enlightening...
Crazy or not, these are the facts. The combined spending on defense and "war on terror" is about the same as Social Security or Medicaid/Medicair alone. Even if 50% of the defense spending were "waste", you'd only save about 10% of the federal budget by ending it — nothing to sneeze at, but no magic bullet either.
You put a smug comment, that all budget troubles could be solved, if only we could a) stop exempting the rich from paying taxes; and b) stop wasting money and defense contracts. The facts I was able to find with 30 seconds of Googling disprove both of your contentions: a) the rich already carry the vast share of tax burden (whether that's fair or not is off-topic); and b) the entire defense spending is only 21% of the federal budget and thus even if you halved it, you wouldn't save very much.
Your argument completely defeated you dare coming back?.. Wow...
Is it your contention, that the United States needs no military at all? Please, state for the record...
Of course! The first thing wrong, was establishing these programs in the first place. Instead of fixing this, you and yours propose even more of the same — why don't we expand Medicare to all — that's what you are asking...
Capitalism's record at providing immense economic benefits even to the least fortunate of its participants is well established and beyond doubt.
Socialism, on the other hand, has little to show economically wherever practiced, and slides into horrible tyranny (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe) from a slightest push-over. Having tried both, I'll choose capitalism over and over again — the "wilder" the better. Thank you very much.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Dear, Slashdot is not a Progressives' gathering — even if it feels like that some times. You need to substantiate your figures.
That said, even if your numbers were true, it wouldn't have changed a thing. Government providing health care is broadly against the Constitution, and past violations (such as Medicaid) don't justify new ones.
The top 50% of tax-payers pay 91.11% of the income tax. The riches 1% pays 40.42%.
The federal government's total spending in 2008 was at 2.9 trillion dollars. Of that, the entire Department of Defense's budget plus "The Global War on Terror" constituted $626.6 billions — or merely 21.6 percent, and even the rosiest pacifist would not claim, that all of that went to "useless defense contracts". For comparison, Social Security alone was $608bln, and the Medicare and Medicaid combined for another $595bln.
You were saying?..
You really think so? Our public schools are constantly derided by all — left and right — for producing rather mediocre results. A particular example:
Next. USPS sucks and can't pay for itself — needs billions of "bailouts" every once in a while — including right now. Had it not been for the government support, and the government-mandated monopoly (private companies aren't allowed to compete with the "First Class" mail) they would've gone bankrupt long ago.
And highways? Are you really proud of them? Despite insane amounts of money put into them (thanks to the inflated union contracts), an average American spends a week waiting in traffic. For Los Angeles (and, other big cities) the time is two weeks...
Is this — the mediocre results, the constant cost overruns, and pathetic wait times, what you think are "positive examples"? Something you want to see in health care?
I lived the past 9 years without TV — watching it only in gym sometimes. Yes, we do have a TV-set — but no cable (our Internet comes via DSL). I think, I've ignored Timewarner/Comcast/whoever it is, whom the government gave my part of town as a monopoly.
The GP's point is valid — ignoring corporations is far easier, than the government.
The government's only acceptable role is ensuring, various corporations compete in providing a service or making goods, rather than collude. When the government attempts to provide the same service themselves (having declared the oxymoronic "market failure"), you get the worst of both worlds — government's inefficiency and a monopoly's arrogance.
I do hope, we don't get to experience this ourselves again in health care. Public schools, USPS, and highways are enough...
Yes, that's called Fascism. Some people ascribe this to Obama administration, as it aims to take over corporations. Calling him "Hitler" over this misses the point, though, (and triggers Godwin's Law) — Nazism is an aberration of Fascism and Obama does not deserve the mustaches printed on his portraits (although they do make me glee, because Bush deserved it even less).
Things sucked in Mussolini's Italy and in Franco's Spain, without the death camps. One need not be genocidal to destroy economy...
The article also alleges, that the States important to Democrats get substantially larger pieces of the "stimulus" money — an accusation, that can not be thrown at G.W. Bush if only because his stimulus consisted of tax-cuts and tax-rebates, that went to whoever paid small taxes (and some who didn't)...
But my point was non-partisan — whoever is in charge, they'll try to use everybody's tax dollars to reward their own supporters. There is no reliable stopping this, other than to reduce the amount of tax dollars at their disposal.
This is where I turn into a raging Libertarian and the audience loses interest...
Right. And next time there are elections, be sure, your State backs the winner. Or else you'll miss out big time!
Is there a cost, which you'd agree is too high? What is it — you have not studied it, have you? Do you trust the politicians to make that determination for you?
For just one example, do you know, that the typical efficiency of solar electrical generation is only 15-20%? Whereas when used to produce heat, 80-85% of Sun's energy falling on the panels can be captured?
I don't know, who "cor- persons" are. But even if it fairly benefited everyone, going through the government's bureaucracy is extremely inefficient.
Right — the cow is already dead, so all you, silly vegetarians, may as well eat it!
You are right, that there is nothing wrong with applying for the tax-subsidized funding.
No, the GP's point was, that it is wrong to provide tax-subsidized funding for such things — or advocate such provision, as the GGP was doing: "would be nice if my state offered that!"
All government bureaucrats are usually idiots — what makes you think, Feds are any brighter?
Hey, I have an idea! Let's turn health care over to these people — just to see, if they perform better this time, than they did with public schools and highways...
I really don't believe, a psychological bullying — unless, maybe, done by a well-trained psychologist (such as a professional interrogator) — can have an impact comparable to physical beating. I'm sure it sucks, but it is not anywhere close, if only because in the case of beating the psychological impact is huge too, but it goes on top of the physical pain.
One is called "loser" and other names, is robbed of the lunch money, and then beaten up...
No, I have not been neither a "girl" nor a girl anywhere. I have been a boy in a Math/Physics high school, to which admission was open wide to all — subject to passing entrance exams. The admission committee did favor girls, because there was a constant shortage of them applying.
The girls were perfectly bright. There were, on average, 3 boys for each girl, which — contrary to your statement — did not lead to the girls being abused. The opposite was true — they could get whatever they wanted from the male classmates... (Or, perhaps, chivalry was not as dead in Ukraine 20 years ago, as it was in the US when you were growing up.)
Your situation may have been different — I don't know it at all. But, it would seem, you are part of Slashdot community (at least), possibly even part of the 1.5% of the female part of FOSS. Your having been abused by classmates in school may have been a contributing reason. I'm sure, it does happen to girls too — just not as much.
I guess, you've never seen/heard, what these "leering little boys" do to each other. In addition to "crude sexual jokes", they also beat each other up and rob of lunch monies, for example. It is all far more "uncivil", but we don't get to complain about "sexism". Teachers, parents, and the rest of the society just tell us to stop whining like a cry-baby and be a man... The girls agree (thanks to the evolution's programming) and overwhelmingly prefer to date the beaters over the beaten...
Unfortunately, in high school (and among children in general) "uncivil" and "normative" are not opposites at all... I agree, that this sucks, but it is part of the sucky growing-up experience. Whether it justifies the dismissals of all your complaints and calling you "too sensitive", is a different story, but if the abuse you've suffered never exceeded "crude sexual jokes", I'd tend to agree with your teachers...
Sexism sure exists, but I don't at all think, Math/FOSS/Science is more sexist, than other vocations. Or do you think, you'd find fewer sexists among coal miners or firefighters? Heck, I'll repeat, that FOSS — where no one's gender is certain, and where nobody can normally see the other person — is far less sexist than average.
So, in your opinion, a sexist contributes zero to the cake, whatever their accomplishments on behalf of the project(s)? Because comparing him to "feces" you've implied exactly that... Take one "sexist" quote from Stallman, and it is as if the GNU-project (the "cake") is completely ruined?
It is an awful thing for people to be able to make death threats against anyone without being called on it.
I hereby denounce you as a sexist!
For decades, it has been accepted, that statistics is evidence. Recognizing, that there can be legitimate differences in inclinations towards certain activities among genders is a big no-no. The only exception is made for negative inclinations — such as increased aggressiveness — among males, or positive — such as attention to detail — among females, err, scratch that — "female" has a "male" in it — the proper term is womyns.
That the same testosterone (or whatever it really is), that makes males more aggressive on average may also make them more determined scientists or more involved FOSS-developers, is not mentioned... Or, perhaps, one needs to have been nerdy and suffer from bullying — something girls rarely have to go through — in school to look for a recreational outlet online.
Whatever the real reasons for disparity, claiming "sexism" in FOSS — the activity, that's done almost exclusively via Internet, where nobody knows your real gender (nor race, for that matter, nor even species!), is beyond stupid, of course. But by pointing this out, a person — myself included after I typed the previous sentence — automatically becomes a "sexist in denial". I guess, I need therapy now...
Lastly, the 1.5% is not bad — among FreeBSD-project, for example, there were 0 (zero!) females, last time I checked. The situation only "improved" a little bit, when one guy (from San Francisco, of all places), announced his gender- (and name-) change...
Biased anecdotal evidence skipped
And just how would you know that? What does "as an admin" have to do with it? Do you have the right to look into other people's files as an admin? Actually, legally, you might be able to justify it, but morally you can't. That they are porn may be deducible from the filenames and types, which you are allowed to examine to determine, whether they are work related, need to be backed-up, etc.
But to make a reliable determination, that the porn of the religious people is "sicker" than that of atheists, you had to look inside a statistically significant number of files belonging to a statistically significant number of different people.
If you have actually done that "as an admin" you sure have broken moral norms and, likely, laws... More likely, you simply misrepresented your "experience as an admin" here to make your rhetoric more exciting... Shame either way.
Hey, he was declared "The Greatest President" before even taking office — much less concluding even one Presidential term.
Seriously, if he wants to earn true respect, he would reject the award: "Thank you, folks, hold that thought until 2012, but for now my accepting it would make the mockery of the award itself and of most of its past recipients."
Fat chance, I know...