Re the signs - I gave an example of regulatory hurdles which but ridiculous burdens on opening up a store, building a building, opening up a factory, a warehouse, etc... I gave an example of something I had direct experience with.
These regulations are burdensome and their affect is dire.
Labor costs are not simply wages. It's also the administrative costs; the bureaucracy involved in maintaining a workforce. Some regulations make sense. And many do not. You keep thinking it has to do with wages given to the employee. This is only part of the process. You don't have to believe me. All you need to do is to pretend that you're an employer and want to add employees. Start reading what you need to do. You'll see that the actual wage given the employee is only a small part of your concerns.
If you're too lazy to do that then contemplate upon why we have HR? Their job is simply to take care of the laws regarding hiring and firing employees. As a techie I'm sure you've enjoyed interviewing with HR.
I don't either. But I, as a libertarian, have been called Alt-Right simply for talking about limiting the power given to the federal government. Milo has been called Alt-Right.
If an atheist,live-and-let-live, libertarian can (and is) called Alt-Right then the term is not clearly defined or understood and thus has multiple meanings.
I see your objections regarding the vote fraud. Any suggestions on how,I, a voter can double check that my vote was tallied, and tallied the way I had voted?
On a side note:
1. Definition of fascism
Re: social conservatives. Even if they refuse to allow multiple gender bathrooms; refuse to acknowledge gay marriage - it's not fascism.
I disagree completely with the socon's position. I would separate church from state in marriage. The state should provide civil ceremony contracts which are required to enforce marriage provisions. One could have a church wedding and would not be considered legally married without said contract. And a LGBT person can get a civil ceremony contract without going to church to get "married." In this case "marriage" is before God; and civil ceremony is for the state.
2. I as a libertarian (Menger, von Mises, Friedman) equate laissez-faire with free market. I'm interested in your distinction. What, to you, separates the two positions?
Jobs didn't leave the US simply because of high labor rates but also taxation. Sometimes we create unnecessary regulatory hurdles. and considering the lackadaisical response by the bureaucracy you can't be surprised.
Example in some places you need to have signs approved by a board that meets once a month. (I have been part of this process)
The rational solution would be (if you want regulations) to have the requirements clearly laid out.
Example: The sign
may be no bigger than x
allowable fonts are:
allowable colors are:
sign must include x and y with a font size no smaller than z.
Should company want something difference then they can go and get a variance.
When you simplify things to simply "labor" costs you are missing the crux of the matter.
How long it takes to open a store, and the hurdles you have to jump through, is FAR more expensive and FAR more off-putting than you think.
Of course they do. It's done all the time. People like a label and appropriate it for themselves. All of a sudden you get an "overloaded" term; then there is confusion; then one dominates due to usage.
Spencer is a dick but he doesn't own the phrase Alt-Right. There's no trademark. And it's not as if the term has been in usage since the 1840s or 1920s in which there is an entrenched user base and established meaning.
Alt-Right has been in flux. Spend some time on Reddit and you'll see the term bandied about in numerous ways. So many ways that it really doesn't mean anything except "not establishment right." Are there some fascists using the term "Alt-Right"? Hell yes.
But what makes the term so confusing is when you read posts by people who denounce fascists and fascism, who are themselves for individual liberty, who defend interracial marriage, defend LBGT rights, who are not, in any-stretch-of-the-imagination fascists and yet self-label as Alt-Right.
When you read dozens, if not 100s of such people who self-label as Alt-Right then you see that the equation of Alt-Right == fascism falls apart.
I mean, really, is Milo a fascist? WTF. Like his denounciations of PC speech or not; like his views on feminism, or the catholic church, or libertarians, or not. He is certainly not a fascist.
Alt-Right now has many meanings. Spencer's definition is no longer the only one.
Re the magic - It's magical to think that a government can effectively manage an economy and all aspects of peoples' lives without having a repressive dictatorship.
Socially libertarians are live-and-let-live. The government, according to Libertarians, should not have the power to legislate your sexual life, what you consume (even if considered harmful), etc...
Fiscally we're small-market mainly for the reason that the more power one gives to the state to "do good", to help "solve a problem" the more it can be used against you. (See sig) Secondly because government meddling, while it may do some good at some times, ultimately devolves into a cabal who uses the power of the purse and the police to enhance their own position.
Well. YOUR definition is based on Spencer. Try reading the Milo piece on the subject. You'll see that Alt-Right is a much broader term than you give it. As a free-market, live-and-let-live, proudly atheist libertarian I have been called Alt-Right numerous times.
So. Many, many people, both on the left and right, do not consider Alt-Right to be simply White Nationalism
Re: traditional gender roles. I disagree with Social Conservatives but their position/= fascism.
Re: voting: I'm 100% in favor of showing ID to vote.
We (you and I and other techies) need to come up with an open source voting mechanism in which we can see a list of hashes (a pseudo-anonymous list of voters) with their corresponding selection. You as an individual can confirm on a publicly available website that your vote was recorded, and recorded accurately. (You would have a receipt with your hash.)
Re: corporatism. I have not seen that yet. I have seen people who are known defenders of free-market. How they act with political power is another story.
Now they show fascist tendencies. Rioting when Milo comes to speak. You don't like Milo don't go to his talks. Standing outside and protesting Milo is absurd. Rioting is fascist.
You expect a two bedroom 1000sq ft apartment? Where the fook do you live? Here is spacious NYC 550 square feet is a decent sized one bedroom. You expect a foyer? Not here dude.
Seriously. 1000 square foot places in NYC (in nice areas) are an expensive, close to unaffordable, luxury.
U.S. Court Rules that EPA Violated Personal Privacy of Farmers...
northernag.net/.../US-Court-Rules-that-EPA-Violated-Personal-Privacy-of-Farmers-Ra...
Sep 13, 2016 - The Environmental Protection Agency has violated the personal privacy of tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers, according to a...
Farmers, Ranchers Welcome Selection of Scott Pruitt to Lead EPA
www.fb.org/news/farmers-ranchers-welcome-selection-of-scott-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Dec 8, 2016 - Farmers, ranchers and many others cheered President-elect Donald Trump's choice of Scott Pruitt to lead EPA. In his position as attorney...
The fine tuning of said laws - of course. But that's not what's happening. We have an out-of-control bureaucracy that's unresponsive to state or federal legislators. The legislators take priority over a regulatory agency.
It is not a case of science versus politician. It is a case of individuals making decisions capriciously. The EPA is subordinate to both the legislative and judicial branch. It cannot "take" property without oversight. Lands are reclassified as "wet lands" and farmers are put out of business. If there is scientific evidence that this land must be put into the public domain in order to maintain the health of the ecosystem then fine. It is what it is. We have now appropriated the land from said farmer, rancher, whatever, and we, as a society, must pay for it.
The EPA is hated for good reason. It's not simply that big corporations don't want to clean-up their mess.
We are not trying to outlaw alcohol and pretending we are only "taxing" it. We could put a $100/liter tax on alcohol; pretend that we're not outlawing it; and then be "surprised" when an underground economy arises; and that there is violence enforcing the law.
In NYC selling individual cigarettes (loosies) is illegal because it cuts down on the tax revenue. A couple of years ago, to increase revenue, NYC cracked down on the sale of loosies. A guy refused to comply with the police and died of a choke hold. Everyone is blaming the racist, fascist police. The true blame belongs on the administrators who made selling loosies a crime and decided to send the police to enforce the ban.
Ultimately each of these law you pass requires an armed response. And then you're surprised and outraged that there is violence and abuse.
Right. They tried to put the frackers and oil sand drillers out of business by dropping prices. This happens with increased supply. The opposite happens with limited supply, especially when dealing with monopoly powers.
Frackers can make money in the 40-50 / barrel range (some less than that). Saudi Arabia has a break even in the low 30s (IIRC) but has a budget requirement of about 100/barrel. (They need 100/barrel to not run a deficit.)
At issue with carbon-based energy is bridging the gap until solar and wind can take over. Alternative energy production has been growing at an exponential pace for 40 years and there's no reason for us to think that the rate of growth will slow anytime soon.
We need carbon-based energy for another 20+ years. And that's it.
But don't worry Exxon and Mobil will do quite well there will still be a need for refining oil. We just won't be using it as an energy source.
So you're assuming that everything the EPA is good? You don't mind having an agency write their own laws? Make their own regulations? You should be horrified by that even if you're a strong supporter of the EPA.
Would you want customs agents making their own regulations? How about police departments? Hell no.
The laws and regulations ought to come from Congress.
Oh - "but Congressmen don't have the time and energy to work on such laws". That's why a lot of the "responsibility" given to the Federal Government should be in the states. Examples include HUD, Education, etc...
Then let the Federal Government focus on Federal problems - you know, little, inconsequential things, such as pollution, war, immigration, international treaties, selecting court justices.
We could substitute alcohol for tobacco. A lot of people think the same way about weed. Wow. What a boon to society that has been. Let's up the foockin' ante and criminalize tobacco.
By that token how do you account for the medications and drugs you piss out of your body and put into the "commons". The amount of harm done to you by cigarette smoke coming while walking outside is trivial compared to the harm done by the sun to your skin, eating too much sugar, sitting too much, drinking (alcohol) too much, pollution from cars, from factories making your phone, from generators powering server farms.
Wrong. This is not an individual v corporate issue.
You should be free to f*k who you want.
You should be free to smoke tobacco, weed, crack, whatever.
Either you own your own body or you don't.
If you don't have a right to smoke tobacco you don't have a right to drink or take any other substance that some all-knowing, do-gooder bureaucrat thinks is harmful.
Either you make the decision for yourself or the state does it for you.
Yeah! Let's increase the police power of the state. Let's make states even more intrusive. Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.
Then we will have utopia. And we will all inspire joy-joy feelings in all those around us.
But since the produced supply is higher then the world wide price would drop. We would be "subsidizing" oil production at a minimum base price in order to keep production at glut level. Europe and China would have lower fuel costs.
Of course lower prices could mean increased use - thus higher prices. (And a waste of resources and US tax dollars).
It would only work if industrialized countries worldwide continue conversion to alternative energies.
If they don't then we would have to cut production subsidies as it didn't achieve its stated goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Re the signs - I gave an example of regulatory hurdles which but ridiculous burdens on opening up a store, building a building, opening up a factory, a warehouse, etc... I gave an example of something I had direct experience with.
These regulations are burdensome and their affect is dire.
Labor costs are not simply wages. It's also the administrative costs; the bureaucracy involved in maintaining a workforce. Some regulations make sense. And many do not. You keep thinking it has to do with wages given to the employee. This is only part of the process. You don't have to believe me. All you need to do is to pretend that you're an employer and want to add employees. Start reading what you need to do. You'll see that the actual wage given the employee is only a small part of your concerns.
If you're too lazy to do that then contemplate upon why we have HR? Their job is simply to take care of the laws regarding hiring and firing employees. As a techie I'm sure you've enjoyed interviewing with HR.
I don't either. But I, as a libertarian, have been called Alt-Right simply for talking about limiting the power given to the federal government. Milo has been called Alt-Right.
If an atheist,live-and-let-live, libertarian can (and is) called Alt-Right then the term is not clearly defined or understood and thus has multiple meanings.
I see your objections regarding the vote fraud. Any suggestions on how,I, a voter can double check that my vote was tallied, and tallied the way I had voted?
On a side note:
1. Definition of fascism
Re: social conservatives. Even if they refuse to allow multiple gender bathrooms; refuse to acknowledge gay marriage - it's not fascism.
I disagree completely with the socon's position. I would separate church from state in marriage. The state should provide civil ceremony contracts which are required to enforce marriage provisions. One could have a church wedding and would not be considered legally married without said contract. And a LGBT person can get a civil ceremony contract without going to church to get "married." In this case "marriage" is before God; and civil ceremony is for the state.
2. I as a libertarian (Menger, von Mises, Friedman) equate laissez-faire with free market. I'm interested in your distinction. What, to you, separates the two positions?
Jobs didn't leave the US simply because of high labor rates but also taxation. Sometimes we create unnecessary regulatory hurdles. and considering the lackadaisical response by the bureaucracy you can't be surprised.
Example in some places you need to have signs approved by a board that meets once a month. (I have been part of this process)
The rational solution would be (if you want regulations) to have the requirements clearly laid out. Example: The sign
may be no bigger than x
allowable fonts are:
allowable colors are:
sign must include x and y with a font size no smaller than z.
Should company want something difference then they can go and get a variance.
When you simplify things to simply "labor" costs you are missing the crux of the matter.
How long it takes to open a store, and the hurdles you have to jump through, is FAR more expensive and FAR more off-putting than you think.
Of course they do. It's done all the time. People like a label and appropriate it for themselves. All of a sudden you get an "overloaded" term; then there is confusion; then one dominates due to usage.
Spencer is a dick but he doesn't own the phrase Alt-Right. There's no trademark. And it's not as if the term has been in usage since the 1840s or 1920s in which there is an entrenched user base and established meaning.
Alt-Right has been in flux. Spend some time on Reddit and you'll see the term bandied about in numerous ways. So many ways that it really doesn't mean anything except "not establishment right." Are there some fascists using the term "Alt-Right"? Hell yes.
But what makes the term so confusing is when you read posts by people who denounce fascists and fascism, who are themselves for individual liberty, who defend interracial marriage, defend LBGT rights, who are not, in any-stretch-of-the-imagination fascists and yet self-label as Alt-Right.
When you read dozens, if not 100s of such people who self-label as Alt-Right then you see that the equation of Alt-Right == fascism falls apart.
I mean, really, is Milo a fascist? WTF. Like his denounciations of PC speech or not; like his views on feminism, or the catholic church, or libertarians, or not. He is certainly not a fascist.
Alt-Right now has many meanings. Spencer's definition is no longer the only one.
Re the magic - It's magical to think that a government can effectively manage an economy and all aspects of peoples' lives without having a repressive dictatorship.
Socially libertarians are live-and-let-live. The government, according to Libertarians, should not have the power to legislate your sexual life, what you consume (even if considered harmful), etc...
Fiscally we're small-market mainly for the reason that the more power one gives to the state to "do good", to help "solve a problem" the more it can be used against you. (See sig) Secondly because government meddling, while it may do some good at some times, ultimately devolves into a cabal who uses the power of the purse and the police to enhance their own position.
Well. YOUR definition is based on Spencer. Try reading the Milo piece on the subject. You'll see that Alt-Right is a much broader term than you give it. As a free-market, live-and-let-live, proudly atheist libertarian I have been called Alt-Right numerous times.
So. Many, many people, both on the left and right, do not consider Alt-Right to be simply White Nationalism
Re: traditional gender roles. I disagree with Social Conservatives but their position /= fascism.
Re: voting: I'm 100% in favor of showing ID to vote.
We (you and I and other techies) need to come up with an open source voting mechanism in which we can see a list of hashes (a pseudo-anonymous list of voters) with their corresponding selection. You as an individual can confirm on a publicly available website that your vote was recorded, and recorded accurately. (You would have a receipt with your hash.)
Re: corporatism. I have not seen that yet. I have seen people who are known defenders of free-market. How they act with political power is another story.
How about hosting ANTIFA?
Now they show fascist tendencies. Rioting when Milo comes to speak. You don't like Milo don't go to his talks. Standing outside and protesting Milo is absurd. Rioting is fascist.
Again, that's the problem. Alt-Right /= Fascist.
Fascist is government controlling the economy and using police power and terror to enforce orthodoxy.
Free market and small-government people on the right are, by definition, NOT fascist.
Yes. But people self-label and not all people who label themselves as Alt-Right are White Nationalists.
Further there are people that lump Libertarians in as Alt-Right (as in they're not establishment conservatives).
So the phrase Alt-Right is not a simple == White Nationalists.
Milo, whether you like him or not, wrote an excellent article on what Alt-Right means.
In Cobble Hill, Brooklyn it's $2250/mth
You expect a two bedroom 1000sq ft apartment? Where the fook do you live? Here is spacious NYC 550 square feet is a decent sized one bedroom. You expect a foyer? Not here dude.
Seriously. 1000 square foot places in NYC (in nice areas) are an expensive, close to unaffordable, luxury.
Look up EPA and ranchers.
... ...
...
https://www.google.com/search?...
Here's the first two results
U.S. Court Rules that EPA Violated Personal Privacy of Farmers
northernag.net/.../US-Court-Rules-that-EPA-Violated-Personal-Privacy-of-Farmers-Ra...
Sep 13, 2016 - The Environmental Protection Agency has violated the personal privacy of tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers, according to a
Farmers, Ranchers Welcome Selection of Scott Pruitt to Lead EPA
www.fb.org/news/farmers-ranchers-welcome-selection-of-scott-pruitt-to-lead-epa
Dec 8, 2016 - Farmers, ranchers and many others cheered President-elect Donald Trump's choice of Scott Pruitt to lead EPA. In his position as attorney
The fine tuning of said laws - of course. But that's not what's happening. We have an out-of-control bureaucracy that's unresponsive to state or federal legislators. The legislators take priority over a regulatory agency.
It is not a case of science versus politician. It is a case of individuals making decisions capriciously. The EPA is subordinate to both the legislative and judicial branch. It cannot "take" property without oversight. Lands are reclassified as "wet lands" and farmers are put out of business. If there is scientific evidence that this land must be put into the public domain in order to maintain the health of the ecosystem then fine. It is what it is. We have now appropriated the land from said farmer, rancher, whatever, and we, as a society, must pay for it.
The EPA is hated for good reason. It's not simply that big corporations don't want to clean-up their mess.
We are not trying to outlaw alcohol and pretending we are only "taxing" it. We could put a $100/liter tax on alcohol; pretend that we're not outlawing it; and then be "surprised" when an underground economy arises; and that there is violence enforcing the law.
In NYC selling individual cigarettes (loosies) is illegal because it cuts down on the tax revenue. A couple of years ago, to increase revenue, NYC cracked down on the sale of loosies. A guy refused to comply with the police and died of a choke hold. Everyone is blaming the racist, fascist police. The true blame belongs on the administrators who made selling loosies a crime and decided to send the police to enforce the ban.
Ultimately each of these law you pass requires an armed response. And then you're surprised and outraged that there is violence and abuse.
No. Not saying that at all. But the objection to the EPA is not it's stated goal of clean water and air.
The objection is that it oversteps its role; that it's acting as an unaccountable agency and therefore it needs to be reigned in.
Reigning in the EPA is not the same as eliminating the EPA or not wanting clean air and water.
Right. They tried to put the frackers and oil sand drillers out of business by dropping prices. This happens with increased supply. The opposite happens with limited supply, especially when dealing with monopoly powers.
Frackers can make money in the 40-50 / barrel range (some less than that). Saudi Arabia has a break even in the low 30s (IIRC) but has a budget requirement of about 100/barrel. (They need 100/barrel to not run a deficit.)
At issue with carbon-based energy is bridging the gap until solar and wind can take over. Alternative energy production has been growing at an exponential pace for 40 years and there's no reason for us to think that the rate of growth will slow anytime soon.
We need carbon-based energy for another 20+ years. And that's it.
But don't worry Exxon and Mobil will do quite well there will still be a need for refining oil. We just won't be using it as an energy source.
So you're assuming that everything the EPA is good? You don't mind having an agency write their own laws? Make their own regulations? You should be horrified by that even if you're a strong supporter of the EPA.
Would you want customs agents making their own regulations? How about police departments? Hell no.
The laws and regulations ought to come from Congress.
Oh - "but Congressmen don't have the time and energy to work on such laws". That's why a lot of the "responsibility" given to the Federal Government should be in the states. Examples include HUD, Education, etc...
Then let the Federal Government focus on Federal problems - you know, little, inconsequential things, such as pollution, war, immigration, international treaties, selecting court justices.
We could substitute alcohol for tobacco. A lot of people think the same way about weed. Wow. What a boon to society that has been. Let's up the foockin' ante and criminalize tobacco.
By that token how do you account for the medications and drugs you piss out of your body and put into the "commons". The amount of harm done to you by cigarette smoke coming while walking outside is trivial compared to the harm done by the sun to your skin, eating too much sugar, sitting too much, drinking (alcohol) too much, pollution from cars, from factories making your phone, from generators powering server farms.
Wrong. This is not an individual v corporate issue.
You should be free to f*k who you want.
You should be free to smoke tobacco, weed, crack, whatever.
Either you own your own body or you don't.
If you don't have a right to smoke tobacco you don't have a right to drink or take any other substance that some all-knowing, do-gooder bureaucrat thinks is harmful.
Either you make the decision for yourself or the state does it for you.
Yeah! Let's increase the police power of the state. Let's make states even more intrusive. Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.
Then we will have utopia. And we will all inspire joy-joy feelings in all those around us.
But since the produced supply is higher then the world wide price would drop. We would be "subsidizing" oil production at a minimum base price in order to keep production at glut level. Europe and China would have lower fuel costs.
Of course lower prices could mean increased use - thus higher prices. (And a waste of resources and US tax dollars).
It would only work if industrialized countries worldwide continue conversion to alternative energies.
If they don't then we would have to cut production subsidies as it didn't achieve its stated goal.