It is important to any and all, who wish the state's law-enforcement apparatus fight crimes (such as the corruption manifested in McCabe getting a bribe from Clinton) whatever the people, rather than people (such as Trump) whatever the crimes.
You are speculating and aren't particularly convincing. Would the electricity reach Americans any faster, had the work of Tesla and Edison been done by a government agency instead? Would we have had airtravel any sooner, if Wright brothers worked for the Feds? Hitler's government created "People's Vagon" in the 30ies — decades after Ford's private enterprise created an affordable car for the masses. (Cue in the "Why can't we be more like Europe?!" lament.)
government has an opportunity to act like a VC firm
Bzzz! Stop right there. The government can not be a "VC firm", because none of the government officials are putting their own money on the line. This allows them to spend the monies confiscated from you and me at gun point on pies-in-sky and without any responsibility. The best we can hope for, is that they aren't outright corrupt — investing taxpayers' monies in exchange for kickbacks. But even if they are sincere and honest, they can simply make stupid decisions — with our money.
A real venture-capitalist backing something like the infamous Solyndra would lose his shirt and not invest again. Has anyone been fired from the DoE for actually investing in Solyndra?
The DOE performed basic research in the 1970s that led directly to our leadership in today's fracking technology
You seem to suggest, no one would've researched those technologies, if the government hadn't done it. Are you ready to support this suggestion with citations and other evidence?
In all the hoopla, Steward’s point has gotten lost. He is quick to acknowledge that fracking's success came through the hard work of people at Mitchell Energy, building on the advances of others. Fracking technology has existed for more than a century, and the first commercial fracking job was done in 1947. His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures.
Sure, if the government has already done something and published the results, it would be stupid not to use them. But to imply, as you do, that the government's contribution was somehow unique and irreplaceable is to misrepresent the facts.
You did well to offer an actual citation. However, the study you are citing seems like utter bullshit.
To wit:
The page laments, I quote: "Latinos/Hispanics and African-Americans, are harder hit than others" — a sure sign of demagoguery.
The report was made in 2006 and cautions of the problem "becoming much worse" if not addressed. It is now 2018 and nothing significant was done to address it — is the San Joaquin Valley the nationally-known environmental disaster it was going to be? Somehow, it is not in the news at all...
At least one of the authors — "Fred Lurmann, who has 27 years of experience in air-quality and exposure analysis, and advises several state air-pollution agencies" — had an obvious and blatant conflict of interest. Had he concluded, that there is no cause for concern, he would've found himself unemployed very soon. It was and remains in his own self-interest to talk up the threat however imaginary.
You, probably, should not have cited anything so suspect. But, if you raised your standards of evidence, I readily concede, you would've found nothing else to support your case...
Thanks, most informative. However, none of what you say is any different between the case of "FCC vs. Homowner Associations" and "FCC vs. State governments".
Without Title II they can't do anything
Seems like you agree with me and disapprove of both:
You do know that the FCC has asserted it's authority over state, local and land use contracts
I do indeed. And I disapprove of it as a government overreach.
But most/.-ers celebrate that, while denouncing the same Comission's other, most recent, overreach — the pre-emption of the State's attempts to impose their own "net neutrality".
You can approve of both, or reject both. But you can not pick only one of these — and remain self-consistent. That was my point.
So your argument is that anyone who thinks they are being ethical is ethical?
Not at all. Congratulations on knocking down a strawman of your own erecting.
You didn't formulate a response to whether or not helping these people would be the ethical thing to do.
I did not — because it irrelevant.
You merely stated that regardless of the morality of action / inaction, only those who believe it is ethical to help them should pay.
Indeed. It is the only way for the government to remain ethical. Otherwise it immediately devolves into exactly the kind of system I described.
Those, who do not want to help others may be assholes — but you still shall have no power to compel them.
The benefit of forming a society is that sometimes the society as a whole can take action when everyone does not agree.
This is no "benefit" — it is a horrendous downside to living in a society. It is to be minimized, not celebrated.
The Collectivism you espouse and promote is the root of all evil. Once you accept the primacy of the Glorious Collective over the cantankerous Individual, all things become possible — mass robbery, genocide, forced relocations — in the name of Society and The Greater Good.
What kind of self-consistent thinker would trust redistributing money to the same apparatus, that they denounce for seeking to snoop on every conversation and have a backdoor to every encryption?
You will often be compelled, with force if necessary, to pay for or even participate in activities you disagree with.
This sort of tyranny is only acceptable — ethical — when the alternative is the destruction of the very state we live in. The government's power to compel can only be applied to repelling invasions, fighting crime, and enforcing contracts.
Think of a village facing attack by barbarians or bandits ("Seven Samurai" or "Magnificent Seven") — they can, ethically, forcibly collect money to hire defenders, confiscate materiel necessary for same, and conscript fighters/helpers. But to spend anything thus collected on fixing somebody's roof? That would be unethical...
Lastly, you seem to favor Edmund Burke — his quote is in your signature at this time. So, I'll just leave this here...
What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations? And vice versa?
Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...
So only people ethical enough to care about a real solution to the problem would have to pay?
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
Thanks for asking. Charity is not only implicitly omitted, we have Founding Fathers on record explicitly stating, it is not there:
“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.”
Individual charity does not work on the same scale as collective societal assistance
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
It has long been observed, that inside every so-called Liberal there is an Authoritarian screaming to get out. You've just added yourself to the vast body of evidence supporting this observation.
anyone claiming that individual charity can solve any significant problem is either uneducated, being dishonest with themselves or being dishonest with those they are trying to persuade.
I would be advocating for tuition forgiveness, extended and enhanced unemployment payments, retraining, and public pensions for those who spent 5-10+ years training for high paid and critical fields
So, instead of these doctors and nurses, who trained for the now-obsolete professions, it would be the colleges and medical schools, that trained them, that will be millions of dollars in the hole according to your plan?
Or are you going to use the government's power to confiscate money at gunpoint to force your fellow taxpayers to pay off those folks?
Ignoring tens of millions of lives being ruined
You don't have to "ignore" them — indeed, you can help them as much as you can afford. You can also advocate for charity on their behalf. But there is no reason, why these people should be helped by the taxpayers, and I fear, that's what you are alluding to.
Basically: the rich get richer, and the working class gets unemployed.
Imagine for a second, that a magical pill is invented, that prevents any and all illness in humans. It is fairly easy to make and needs to be taken once only at any point after birth.
Would you be seriously lamenting the unemployment of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare staff — and begrudging the pill's inventor(s) and/or manufacturer(s) their billions of dollars?
He reached for his waistband... Where a lot of people tend to put guns.
Even more people keep their wallets there... For all you know, he more likely to be reaching for his ID. That all the other cops present held their fire is the best evidence possible, no threat could have been reasonably perceived. Unlike, perhaps, in the case of this unfortunate man.
If the SWATTER never called the called the police setting the entire thing up.
That a "swatting" prank took place is completely irrelevant. Even if there was a real hostage-taking taking place, firing a lethal shot in such circumstances was an outrage.
That's a bullshit theory. If it we were to stipulate, what you ask as to, we wouldn't need the courts, judges, and juries. If everything the police are told by anonymous callers — and repeat to each other — is truth, then kill/lock up everyone of the accused...
Asking to model based on this "theory" of yours is like calculating a helicopter flight ignoring air-resistance... The proposed theory makes no sense.
The only hostages according to the phone call where his mother and sister. In other words women. The person that walked out was male.
The victim was ordered to surrender and was raising his hands (unlike certain, ahem, Michael Brown). What possible reason was there for shooting him?
Seriously, forget putting yourself in the victim's place — put yourself in the cop's place... And think, what could the victim have done differently to avoid being shot at? And if you can't blame him for anything, then you have to blame the shooter.
Science fiction books have been spectacularly wrong before, but that's the best source of such speculation anyway. Heinlein's Red Planet offers an idea — somewhat based on how remote colonies on Earth have been managed, when crossing the Atlantic took about as long — and was as risky — as getting to Mars may be soon. Written in 1940ies, it allowed for an ancient sentient race of Martians, but that does not detract from its description of the human life over there.
And how those colonies, dissatisfied with the overlords representing the remote government, eventually rebelled.
So I find it objectively far more important to limit law enforcement effectiveness to the most obvious and egregious violations and avoid wrongful convictions at all costs.
No. What you want is to make those other activities legal — thus freeing the honest cops from having to prosecute them, and making it harder for the dishonest ones to harass you. This, however, is completely unrelated to the question I posed...
The second amendment is net-beneficial
Citation needed. Or would have been needed, had the topic been about that.
predominantly scientists who played prominent roles in the Manhattan Project during WW2.
WW2 ended in 1945 and everybody of prominence back then is long dead.
But even if they were alive, try explaining, why their role in the development of the weapon makes them better experts on matters of foreign policy, military, and psychology, than that of any engineer or a dentist?
Why, in other words, should we value their opinion on how imminent the use of their weapon is over that of an engineer or a dentist?
Do you think, bladesmiths could better predict the imminence of duels, than other contemporaries?
Some of the protesters may be scientists, but their protests aren't scientific and thus not any more valid than those by engineers, nurses, or musical directors.
Slashdot Mirror
It is important to any and all, who wish the state's law-enforcement apparatus fight crimes (such as the corruption manifested in McCabe getting a bribe from Clinton) whatever the people, rather than people (such as Trump) whatever the crimes.
Ah, such a big list, when you could've just said "Hillary Clinton"...
Or, maybe, your very premise is incorrect and Trump does not, actually, want to be an authoritarian despot?
If it weren't for the double stadards, Illiberals wouldn't have had any.
Please, make all these people, who are more successful than I am, pay for my education.
(As well as food, shelter, and healthcare.)
You are speculating and aren't particularly convincing. Would the electricity reach Americans any faster, had the work of Tesla and Edison been done by a government agency instead? Would we have had airtravel any sooner, if Wright brothers worked for the Feds? Hitler's government created "People's Vagon" in the 30ies — decades after Ford's private enterprise created an affordable car for the masses. (Cue in the "Why can't we be more like Europe?!" lament.)
Bzzz! Stop right there. The government can not be a "VC firm", because none of the government officials are putting their own money on the line. This allows them to spend the monies confiscated from you and me at gun point on pies-in-sky and without any responsibility. The best we can hope for, is that they aren't outright corrupt — investing taxpayers' monies in exchange for kickbacks. But even if they are sincere and honest, they can simply make stupid decisions — with our money.
A real venture-capitalist backing something like the infamous Solyndra would lose his shirt and not invest again. Has anyone been fired from the DoE for actually investing in Solyndra?
You seem to suggest, no one would've researched those technologies, if the government hadn't done it. Are you ready to support this suggestion with citations and other evidence?
Don't even try. Your own link states:
Sure, if the government has already done something and published the results, it would be stupid not to use them. But to imply, as you do, that the government's contribution was somehow unique and irreplaceable is to misrepresent the facts.
You did well to offer an actual citation. However, the study you are citing seems like utter bullshit.
To wit:
You, probably, should not have cited anything so suspect. But, if you raised your standards of evidence, I readily concede, you would've found nothing else to support your case...
Thanks, most informative. However, none of what you say is any different between the case of "FCC vs. Homowner Associations" and "FCC vs. State governments".
Seems like you agree with me and disapprove of both:
I do indeed. And I disapprove of it as a government overreach.
But most /.-ers celebrate that, while denouncing the same Comission's other, most recent, overreach — the pre-emption of the State's attempts to impose their own "net neutrality".
You can approve of both, or reject both. But you can not pick only one of these — and remain self-consistent. That was my point.
Not at all. Congratulations on knocking down a strawman of your own erecting.
I did not — because it irrelevant.
Indeed. It is the only way for the government to remain ethical. Otherwise it immediately devolves into exactly the kind of system I described.
Those, who do not want to help others may be assholes — but you still shall have no power to compel them.
This is no "benefit" — it is a horrendous downside to living in a society. It is to be minimized, not celebrated.
The Collectivism you espouse and promote is the root of all evil. Once you accept the primacy of the Glorious Collective over the cantankerous Individual, all things become possible — mass robbery, genocide, forced relocations — in the name of Society and The Greater Good.
What kind of self-consistent thinker would trust redistributing money to the same apparatus, that they denounce for seeking to snoop on every conversation and have a backdoor to every encryption?
This sort of tyranny is only acceptable — ethical — when the alternative is the destruction of the very state we live in. The government's power to compel can only be applied to repelling invasions, fighting crime, and enforcing contracts.
Think of a village facing attack by barbarians or bandits ("Seven Samurai" or "Magnificent Seven") — they can, ethically, forcibly collect money to hire defenders, confiscate materiel necessary for same, and conscript fighters/helpers. But to spend anything thus collected on fixing somebody's roof? That would be unethical...
Lastly, you seem to favor Edmund Burke — his quote is in your signature at this time. So, I'll just leave this here...
What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations? And vice versa?
Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
The government can — and should:
Thanks for asking. Charity is not only implicitly omitted, we have Founding Fathers on record explicitly stating, it is not there:
"Subjugation" is such a loaded term, its use is a sure sign of demagoguery...
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
It has long been observed, that inside every so-called Liberal there is an Authoritarian screaming to get out. You've just added yourself to the vast body of evidence supporting this observation.
Is that your argument? That anyone disagreeing is an asshole? One would think, Hans Christian Andersen adequately destroyed this entire line of reasoning back in the 19th century, but, evidently, one would be wrong...
Great! So far we agree — even if XXongo does not.
So, instead of these doctors and nurses, who trained for the now-obsolete professions, it would be the colleges and medical schools, that trained them, that will be millions of dollars in the hole according to your plan?
Or are you going to use the government's power to confiscate money at gunpoint to force your fellow taxpayers to pay off those folks?
You don't have to "ignore" them — indeed, you can help them as much as you can afford. You can also advocate for charity on their behalf. But there is no reason, why these people should be helped by the taxpayers, and I fear, that's what you are alluding to.
Imagine for a second, that a magical pill is invented, that prevents any and all illness in humans. It is fairly easy to make and needs to be taken once only at any point after birth.
Would you be seriously lamenting the unemployment of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare staff — and begrudging the pill's inventor(s) and/or manufacturer(s) their billions of dollars?
Even more people keep their wallets there... For all you know, he more likely to be reaching for his ID. That all the other cops present held their fire is the best evidence possible, no threat could have been reasonably perceived. Unlike, perhaps, in the case of this unfortunate man.
That a "swatting" prank took place is completely irrelevant. Even if there was a real hostage-taking taking place, firing a lethal shot in such circumstances was an outrage.
That's a bullshit theory. If it we were to stipulate, what you ask as to, we wouldn't need the courts, judges, and juries. If everything the police are told by anonymous callers — and repeat to each other — is truth, then kill/lock up everyone of the accused...
Asking to model based on this "theory" of yours is like calculating a helicopter flight ignoring air-resistance... The proposed theory makes no sense.
The perpetrator of what?
The victim was ordered to surrender and was raising his hands (unlike certain, ahem, Michael Brown). What possible reason was there for shooting him?
Seriously, forget putting yourself in the victim's place — put yourself in the cop's place... And think, what could the victim have done differently to avoid being shot at? And if you can't blame him for anything, then you have to blame the shooter.
Though I've met a few, I'm yet to encounter — or even hear about a professor, especially in New York, who would sincerely wish to "save Capitalism".
Most of the academics work for the government — either directly or via government-provided grants — and thus inevitably lean Left.
I strongly doubt, this professor's concern for Capitalism's well-being is genuine — especially, since he proposes authoritarian methods to "fix" it.
Science fiction books have been spectacularly wrong before, but that's the best source of such speculation anyway. Heinlein's Red Planet offers an idea — somewhat based on how remote colonies on Earth have been managed, when crossing the Atlantic took about as long — and was as risky — as getting to Mars may be soon. Written in 1940ies, it allowed for an ancient sentient race of Martians, but that does not detract from its description of the human life over there.
And how those colonies, dissatisfied with the overlords representing the remote government, eventually rebelled.
Another excellent book is The Martian Way — by Azimov.
No. What you want is to make those other activities legal — thus freeing the honest cops from having to prosecute them, and making it harder for the dishonest ones to harass you. This, however, is completely unrelated to the question I posed...
Citation needed. Or would have been needed, had the topic been about that.
WW2 ended in 1945 and everybody of prominence back then is long dead.
But even if they were alive, try explaining, why their role in the development of the weapon makes them better experts on matters of foreign policy, military, and psychology, than that of any engineer or a dentist?
Why, in other words, should we value their opinion on how imminent the use of their weapon is over that of an engineer or a dentist?
Do you think, bladesmiths could better predict the imminence of duels, than other contemporaries?
Kind of like predictions of Global Warming killing off humanity in N years — for the last 2N years...
Some of the protesters may be scientists, but their protests aren't scientific and thus not any more valid than those by engineers, nurses, or musical directors.