Just put Bill Gates in charge and be done with it.
Actually, he'd be a better choice than most of today's Congress-critters...
But, seriously, how much would this hypothetical Mr. Gates have to pay per vote to make a difference? People, who don't care, will sell theirs cheaply, but that's Ok — they didn't care anyway, so theirs is not an important vote. People, who do care, will need a substantial sum to "sell out"...
Once again, none of this is justification for preemptively intervening into what an owner can do with his property. Unless you are willing to accept the argument, that, for example, promiscuity increases the dangers of STDs and so the government is justified in limiting sex between consenting adults.
there is a reason for selfie bans in voting booths: it prevents vote buying.
Seriously, what is wrong with vote-buying? Yes, selling one's vote is mildly disgusting (though should not be illegal), but buying something another person wants to sell? Why not? I know at least one guy, who is equally disgusted with Trump and Clinton — he plans to stay home this time. If someone else felt like offering him money to go and vote for their candidate, why should that be illegal?
What are ethical justifications behind the laws prohibiting the practice?
Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?
It is called "private property" — what I do inside my apartment/house is (or ought to be) just as private and out of government's hands as what I do with my body.
Noise and other "Law & Order" issues may be valid considerations — people breaking criminal laws or violating privacy of others should be punished. But that ought not preclude folks from doing what they wish with their property any more, than, for example, fears of pedophilia can allow banning consensual sex between adults.
Before you ask, distinction between people using rented real estate for AirBNB and those profiting from their own is without difference to the topic. Whether or not such subletting is permitted by the lease agreement is between landlords and tenants and is not any of government's concern.
Not sure about these other regions, but the housing situation in NYC — and that's the topic — surely is a failure. The rent-control was introduced to the city in 1943 as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from "greedy landlords" jacking up the prices, while the men were at war. Housing remains very expensive. Landlords wary of difficulties evicting bad tenants are very particular about who they rent to — insisting on credit-reports, income tax return-copies, and background checks.
Yet again, the old truth manifests itself. When you meddle with the free market, you only make things worse... The cental planning of command-and-control economies — such as that of New York City — is not only less fair, but also less efficient, than free market capitalism.
This would be very valid criticism of a theoretical climate model that would predict that it would get there and stay there.
There is simply no valid climate model. Period. The entire discipline is in shambles as most of the adherents — either clueless politics-driven enthusiasts, or crooks grabbing taxpayers' money.
Try it yourself — cite successful predictions made by "Climate Science" over the last 30 years, that have come true... Rules are simple:
Each citation is to include two links — one to the prediction being made, the other — to its confirmation within, say, 20% of the predicted value (if quantifiable).
The prediction must be somewhat useful — predicting, that it will get "hotter or colder", for example, is not acceptable.
The two links must be at least several years apart. Lauding a prediction after it came true does not count — otherwise I too would like to claim some government money for recording numerous predictions 5 years ago (one for each possible cm of snow on Oct 31, 2016) and publishing only the successful ones today.
Could you list even 2 or 3 such entries? I doubt it — many have tried...
A government which doesn't give you anything can also take away everything you have.
It could happen, yes. But the government, that's not expected to take care of all the citizenry's needs, does not need to become so powerful and omnipresent as to be able to take it all away.
So, there you go — a government limited in its responsibilities can remain limited in its power over the governed. The government expected to provide for all — can not. It inevitably becomes powerful enough to abuse the citizens. Whether it actually does abuse, well, TFA seems to provide an example... Numerous others abound.
Communism is quite the opposite, because it is about local direct democracy
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
It is no surprise, that all attempts to build Communism/Socialism in earnest — from Stalin to Chavez — resulted in just such a situation.
You could even describe Stalin as history's most successful fascist
You can't. Fascism allows private property and leaves the means of production in private hands — as long as the businesses do the State's bidding, they can manage the details on their own and can even compete with each other — this degree of freedom and the competition is what makes Fascism more efficient. Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) do not allow any means of production in private hands at all. By definition.
Telling people what can and cant do with their own property is called Communism.
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
Eich publicly supported Proposition 8, and donated a large sum of money
It was not deliberately public — only inasmuch, as largish donations must be registered (in violation of the First Amendment, which is usually understood to protect anonymous speech).
all to deny certain people the right
Whatever. My point was, 52% of California voters voted for the same thing. Which means, the entire State should've been boycotted until it purged those thought-criminals somehow.
He was a bad cultural fit for Mozilla.
He was a perfectly fine "cultural fit" for Mozilla for many years before that, and would've remained just fine after that — just as Mr. Thiel remains fine for Facebook.
But the boycott threatened to dent Firefox' market share and that is why they panicked. The fears were completely unjustified, of course, as Chick-Fill-A has shown, SJWs lack the stamina for any sort of long-lasting damage.
"We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate,"
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla, it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8, which won the backing of over 52% of California voters. By the hateful logic of Mr. Eich's detractors, the entire State of California should've been boycotted by the freedom-loving web-sites until the State purged their thought-criminals.
Where Mr. Zuckerberg stood on that boycott is unclear, but the words he is preaching now, should've been uttered then.
if you're not going to listen to Trump's own words which you can watch with a minute long visit to YouTube
You make claims, you supply proof. As far as I know, Trump never expressed the sentiments you attribute to him (without any evidence).
And when President Clinton starts giving Ukraine Javelins, I expect you to write an apology.
Deal. Will you apologize, when she starts talking about "the need to move one beyond past hostilities" or "work out a reasonable compromise" — such as, when Putin is replaced by someone new in Kremlin, still without any intention to return Crimea?
It was not just Obama's naivette — Hillary Clinton was running the State Department at the time. More to the point, it was not just the two of them either — the entire Democratic Establishment thought so, dismissing "Republican hawks" as "war-mongers". Whether they did it for personal gain, like Clinton, or out of sheer idiocy, like Biden (the fount of foreign policy expertise, according to Democrats), they'll keep doing it.
You undercut your case when you link sources like "freebeacon", "powerlineblog", "breitbart"
No, I don't. First of all, my sources also include WSJ, NYTimes, and even Politifact. For someone, who offers no citations at all, it is rather rich to complain about mine.
Second, a fact remains a fact, no matter, who reports it.
the Clinton foundation is one of the highest rated major charities in the US
Yeah, sure. And Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
what you have against a charity that spends nearly 90% of its funds on stamping out AIDS and other diseases [...]
See? No citation again. Let me help you. Of the $91.3mln spent by the foundation in 2014, according to their own tax-filings, only $5.2 million went to charitable grants.
Your "Podesta story" is about Podesta (not Clinton) [...] he probably divested
You mentioned a number of things about Trump's advisors, including Manafort, who once help Yanukovich. It is perfectly fair for me to bring up Podesta. And I can keep doing it, too.
Versus Trump, who personally has owned and run businesses heavily backed by Russians
Citations are missing again, khmm... Let's see, if I can help. This? No... Sorry, you'll have to do it yourself.
Russians occasionally making investments in companies related to people related to Clinton
Clintons received — both directly and via their Foundation — billions of dollars. A lot of that came from Putin-controlled entities. Just in 2015, for example, when she was already actively engaged in elections, they reported as much $10 million in income. What do you suppose, they sold, other than some more cattle futures?
person who currently, actively, and strongly personally supports Putin
Because it is irrelevant. First, all space launches, even those ostensibly for civilian use, are related to national security. Second, the real reason for a ban is not the fear, Russia may suddenly take over an ascending rocket and send it into Miami, but a desire to choke — or, at least, stop helping — Russia's rocket industry. Which it is already using to update/increase its collection of ICBMs — mostly pointed at us.
I seriously hope you're not considering voting for the candidate whose campaign manager worked for Yanukovitch, whose foreign policy advisor actively works for Gazprom
was part of the Administration, that still would not give Ukraine lethal weapons (such as anti-tank missiles they desperately need) to counter the threat of Russia's armor
Continues to employ John Podesta, who received millions from Putin too — and, unlike Manafort, Podesta is not simply a cold professional campaigner one day in Peru, tomorrow in Israel, and so on, he is sincerely behind Clinton and Democrats.
Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he'd be a better choice than most of today's Congress-critters...
But, seriously, how much would this hypothetical Mr. Gates have to pay per vote to make a difference? People, who don't care, will sell theirs cheaply, but that's Ok — they didn't care anyway, so theirs is not an important vote. People, who do care, will need a substantial sum to "sell out"...
Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton will spend a whopping billion on her campaign — maybe, simply giving the money to voters would've been better for all?
Once again, none of this is justification for preemptively intervening into what an owner can do with his property. Unless you are willing to accept the argument, that, for example, promiscuity increases the dangers of STDs and so the government is justified in limiting sex between consenting adults.
Seriously, what is wrong with vote-buying? Yes, selling one's vote is mildly disgusting (though should not be illegal), but buying something another person wants to sell? Why not? I know at least one guy, who is equally disgusted with Trump and Clinton — he plans to stay home this time. If someone else felt like offering him money to go and vote for their candidate, why should that be illegal?
What are ethical justifications behind the laws prohibiting the practice?
This is an onerous and ridiculous requirement. Some amount of noise is normal and to be expected. Especially — during the day.
If it is excessive — call police.
It is called "private property" — what I do inside my apartment/house is (or ought to be) just as private and out of government's hands as what I do with my body.
Noise and other "Law & Order" issues may be valid considerations — people breaking criminal laws or violating privacy of others should be punished. But that ought not preclude folks from doing what they wish with their property any more, than, for example, fears of pedophilia can allow banning consensual sex between adults.
Before you ask, distinction between people using rented real estate for AirBNB and those profiting from their own is without difference to the topic. Whether or not such subletting is permitted by the lease agreement is between landlords and tenants and is not any of government's concern.
Not sure about these other regions, but the housing situation in NYC — and that's the topic — surely is a failure. The rent-control was introduced to the city in 1943 as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from "greedy landlords" jacking up the prices, while the men were at war. Housing remains very expensive. Landlords wary of difficulties evicting bad tenants are very particular about who they rent to — insisting on credit-reports, income tax return-copies, and background checks.
Meanwhile, well-connected politicians — especially the "fighters for affordable housing" get such subsidized apartments for themselves — and not just one, but up to four sometimes.
Unfair, inefficient, corruption-prone — what's not to like about Statism?
Yet again, the old truth manifests itself. When you meddle with the free market, you only make things worse... The cental planning of command-and-control economies — such as that of New York City — is not only less fair, but also less efficient, than free market capitalism.
There is simply no valid climate model. Period. The entire discipline is in shambles as most of the adherents — either clueless politics-driven enthusiasts, or crooks grabbing taxpayers' money.
Try it yourself — cite successful predictions made by "Climate Science" over the last 30 years, that have come true... Rules are simple:
Could you list even 2 or 3 such entries? I doubt it — many have tried...
Yes. As I said, Fascism is nasty. But Spain, for all its ills, was still better than USSR, where life was even worse.
Truth hurts, huh?
It could happen, yes. But the government, that's not expected to take care of all the citizenry's needs, does not need to become so powerful and omnipresent as to be able to take it all away.
So, there you go — a government limited in its responsibilities can remain limited in its power over the governed. The government expected to provide for all — can not. It inevitably becomes powerful enough to abuse the citizens. Whether it actually does abuse, well, TFA seems to provide an example... Numerous others abound.
Fascism. It is generally better than Communism
Citation needed.
Franco's Spain vs. USSR.
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
It is no surprise, that all attempts to build Communism/Socialism in earnest — from Stalin to Chavez — resulted in just such a situation.
You can't. Fascism allows private property and leaves the means of production in private hands — as long as the businesses do the State's bidding, they can manage the details on their own and can even compete with each other — this degree of freedom and the competition is what makes Fascism more efficient. Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) do not allow any means of production in private hands at all. By definition.
That's two non-sequitur off-topics from you, dumbass.
Your argument can be applied verbatim to defending the woman's right to kill her child after birth as well. Are you sure about it?
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
The government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take away everything you have.
But, hey, at least, abortions are still legal — is not that comforting?..
17 intelligence agencies agree: Russia is behind the attack because it wants Trump to win. Or something...
It was not deliberately public — only inasmuch, as largish donations must be registered (in violation of the First Amendment, which is usually understood to protect anonymous speech).
Whatever. My point was, 52% of California voters voted for the same thing. Which means, the entire State should've been boycotted until it purged those thought-criminals somehow.
He was a perfectly fine "cultural fit" for Mozilla for many years before that, and would've remained just fine after that — just as Mr. Thiel remains fine for Facebook.
But the boycott threatened to dent Firefox' market share and that is why they panicked. The fears were completely unjustified, of course, as Chick-Fill-A has shown, SJWs lack the stamina for any sort of long-lasting damage.
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla, it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8, which won the backing of over 52% of California voters. By the hateful logic of Mr. Eich's detractors, the entire State of California should've been boycotted by the freedom-loving web-sites until the State purged their thought-criminals.
Where Mr. Zuckerberg stood on that boycott is unclear, but the words he is preaching now, should've been uttered then.
You make claims, you supply proof. As far as I know, Trump never expressed the sentiments you attribute to him (without any evidence).
Deal. Will you apologize, when she starts talking about "the need to move one beyond past hostilities" or "work out a reasonable compromise" — such as, when Putin is replaced by someone new in Kremlin, still without any intention to return Crimea?
It was not just Obama's naivette — Hillary Clinton was running the State Department at the time. More to the point, it was not just the two of them either — the entire Democratic Establishment thought so, dismissing "Republican hawks" as "war-mongers". Whether they did it for personal gain, like Clinton, or out of sheer idiocy, like Biden ( the fount of foreign policy expertise, according to Democrats), they'll keep doing it.
No, I don't. First of all, my sources also include WSJ, NYTimes, and even Politifact. For someone, who offers no citations at all, it is rather rich to complain about mine.
Second, a fact remains a fact, no matter, who reports it.
Yeah, sure. And Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
See? No citation again. Let me help you. Of the $91.3mln spent by the foundation in 2014, according to their own tax-filings, only $5.2 million went to charitable grants.
You mentioned a number of things about Trump's advisors, including Manafort, who once help Yanukovich. It is perfectly fair for me to bring up Podesta. And I can keep doing it, too.
Citations are missing again, khmm... Let's see, if I can help. This? No... Sorry, you'll have to do it yourself.
Clintons received — both directly and via their Foundation — billions of dollars. A lot of that came from Putin-controlled entities. Just in 2015, for example, when she was already actively engaged in elections, they reported as much $10 million in income. What do you suppose, they sold, other than some more cattle futures?
False. Pants on Fire.
False. Pants on Fire.
False. Pants on Fire.
Half true — irrelevant.
As was your spiteful lie about Kyiv being "ugly". Non-sequitur and off-topic too.
Moskalya — na tryzub!
Because it is irrelevant. First, all space launches, even those ostensibly for civilian use, are related to national security. Second, the real reason for a ban is not the fear, Russia may suddenly take over an ascending rocket and send it into Miami, but a desire to choke — or, at least, stop helping — Russia's rocket industry. Which it is already using to update/increase its collection of ICBMs — mostly pointed at us.
You don't have to be a "hawk" to realize this...
Putin -- hujlo!
I'd rather Trump wins, than Clinton, who:
Unlike USSR before him, Putin courts all sides. I'll take my chances with Trump, who has no prior record of helping the asshole and is less likely to be blackmailed by him.