I used to call myself libertarian, because I believe in these tenants, but I've found the very idea and the language surrounding it to have been co-opted by the wacky anarcho-libertarians shouting "get your stinking government hands off my.... (ahem medicaid?)"
(sorry that last bit was a joke on the modern Republican memes)
Anyway, I believe in extraordinary protection of individual freedom that is also aligned with government control and/or regulation of fundamental industries. That is to say, I find it absurdly easy to control public utilities for evil, whether it is power/sewer or internet/television.
In this model, I support some of the early 1970s and 1980s Northern European efforts at statist-republics, where individual freedoms of association, speech, assembly, expression, etc are held sacrosanct, but where fundamental services (these are things in which competition is impossible, unusual, or dangerous), such as public utilities, medical care, public safety (police, fire), safety nets for the poor and elderly, military, supervision of public health, etc, are strictly controlled (if not publicly owned).
When these things are pursued for profit, they inevitably fall short of their goals and their mandate (increase profit) are counter to their apparent goals (provide better service). I still find it a bit scary that hospitals in areas of the US not large enough to support multiple comparable institutions, are simultaneously in charge of maximizing profits (which, in business, means minimizing effort in providing service), and also maximizing care. There is NO business incentive other than the sheer humanity of the hospital middle-managers and front-line workers, to maximize care.
The same goes for dozens of utilities (see pre-1978 Bell Telecom).
So you quit... and now what. You're unemployed and homeless... and when asked about the 2 year gap on your resume you labeled a psycho for thinking that Mars One (now known as a cluster-f#@k) was actually going to happen.
I assume you're just being polemic here- this sort of initiative (and the prestige of beating out over 200,000 others) is a positive, not a negative.
Actually, in surveys of REAL ASTRONAUTS, a number of them have said very clearly that to be the first team to go to Mars, they would willingly make it a one-way trip.
The tools that applied are hardly qualified to operate a spacecraft. I would want to select someone that is in *absurdly* good shape and has the willpower to do it themselves. I would want someone who has already been subject to high-gee training, and has a low propensity for motion sickness.
i would want to choose someone with an extremely high amount of willpower and who is very well educated in both the general sciences as well as mechanically inclined.
Yes, many of these things can be trained, but the TYPE OF PEOPLE we want going on this trip are those who do these things anyway, because that's WHO THEY ARE.
That said, there are many many very qualified people within the military, NASA and other occupations that would do it AND are qualified to do it.
It must be a voluntary process, obviously, but I think there would be no shortage of volunteers, honestly.
It's only mandatory in the US, and I think that was a reaction to try to reduce the $400 million per year in associated health care costs of adults suffering acute shingles, and some of the more unusual side effects (a quarter of people have minor neurological problems -unexplained pain, etc)
But that's fair. Still, what is the downside of the vaccination?
The flu vaccine is questionable, except for those at high risk of contracting it, especially given the high rate of mutation.
However HepB is highly contagious for a "fluids only" virus and can be transmitted in tears, saliva, etc (Unlike HIV). Almost 5% of the world's population has Hep B. It's not trivial.
The risk from a vaccination "toxin" is, however, trivial.
I guess the biggest problem in reaching a number is at what point you start calling our ancestors "human" vs "pre-human".
For a great period of history, the human population likely numbered under 1 million, making a worry about these pre-historic populations somewhat trivial....
To steal from Bertrand Russel (and then from Dawkins). I am a "Teapot Agnostic".
That is to say, if you postulate that there is a magical china teapot in orbit around Jupiter, I will deny that either of us have the capability of verifying this claim, but I will believe, with some moderate conviction, that it probably isn't true.
If you start legislating society based on this belief (for example, giving your teapot manufacturing companies tax-exempt status), I will subsequently be inclined to mock you, perhaps by decorating things with teapots, or wearing one on my head.:-D
Well, not really, but hopefully you see the analogy.
I would point out that the US has a number of de facto restrictions, whether it's a joke at the airport, or a google search for "pressure cooker".
Funny, I don't recall anyone ever being arrested for googling "pressure cooker." Perhaps you could cite a source. As for joking at the airport, I can tell all the "chicken that crossed the road" and "my wife is so fat" jokes I want without ever getting arrested. If, however, I tell a "joke" that starts with "I have a bomb and I want to kill people with it" then that gets attention real fast -- as it should. It's the equivalent of shouting "fire!' in a crowded theater, and as such your example is a poor one. Got anything any better?
There was a slashdot article on a couple getting a visit from three black SUVs who siezed their computers for searching "pressure cooker bomb". Obviously, there was no crime, so they weren't arrested, per se, but it's still overboard. The point is, frankly, our company now will pay up to 50% more for airplane tickets that route AROUND the US, because they are concerned about the security of equipment and data, after several instances of having laptops sized and/or searched at the border. They will not host data services in the US, due to justified fear about surveillance. Many of my co-workers will not vacation in the US now, and instead head to other locations instead. The Rocky Mountains are impressive, but are pretty similar up in Canada. The Pacific coast is nice, but cheaper and just as pleasant in Baja, Mexico.
I want to be clear that many of these decisions were made BEFORE Snowden, but seem very justified in hindsight.
I live in a multi cultral city with greater diversity than almost anywhere in the US.
Diversity has not a damned thing to do with imprisonment rates, and I challenge you to find a study from a respected, neutral organization that states otherwise.
Almost every time I have mentioned crime and imprisonment issues, someone brings up diversity, as if the diversity of the US is the cause of the issues of policing and crime and terrorism, etc, etc. I proactively mention it now.
Having spent a lot of time in various countries in Europe, aside from a few exceptions, I would choose about a dozen places above the US, and there are several other candidates that I might choose if the economics weren't quite as unfavorable.
Then please name these bastions of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to keep and bear arms, and rights to life, liberty, and property. You obviously know more on this than I do, so please educate me. I, for one, know of nowhere on the planet that puts these guarantees in writing with as much breadth as the U.S. Constitution. Sure, our government is currently flouting said document, but other nations don't even *have* such a document to begin with.
Sure, there are some issues everywhere, but I don't give a damn what's written in some document that's regularly ignored. IN PRACTICE, in day-to-day activities, I have less reason to feel anxious about accidentally committing some crime and ending up in prison in most other western countries.
Sure, gun ownership is slightly less free. I do have to get a background check and have the serial number recorded, but don't you have to do that now in most of the US? Yeah, I can't buy a gun at a garage sale. I think that seems reasonable. Sure, France did implement the anti-muslim head scarf law, which violates the protection of religious
I have a few examples for you. For example, I have a friend who works in the national police. He processes background checks for things like job applications. First of all, the forms they receive are treated like gold. They are not passed around, when transported between people, they must be covered so that personal information is not compromised or shared unnecessarily, even amongst other agents in the same department. When the processing is complete, they are destroyed. There is a civilian appointed auditor who validates that the process is followed and that no records contained within these forms are passed around within the government.
Contrast that to the US, where the fingerprints and any other information obtained as part of a background check request with the FBI are filed in massive databases. Even the envelope that the letter is sent in is scanned and stored in the person's police file. The document regularly are passed around freely among departments with little control on who sees them.
This is just a tiny example, but underscores the whole ATTITUDE and APPROACH that I feel has strong value to human dignity.
I'm certainly not advocating moving to China or Russia, but the numbers cited are based on international estimates, not "official" numbers.
While I concede the "hate speech" and "holocaust denial" is an obvious de jure restriction on speech, I would point out that the US has a number of de facto restrictions, whether it's a joke at the airport, or a google search for "pressure cooker". Ostensibly, they are in the spirit of eliminating terrorism, or increasing safety, but I find the attitude that supports de facto restrictions to be much more frightening than those that are specifically codified in law and are applied transparently and with public input.
As far as imprisonment rates, I live in a multi cultral city with greater diversity than almost anywhere in the US. My employer actually SAVED money in letting me move here, because despite a few points higher taxes, the cost for insurance, disability and a few other services are included in those taxes and are no longer a cost of doing business. They were able to give me a raise as a result, when I moved.
Obviously, the political landscape in the US is not *the* reason I left, but it certainly was a strong consideration. Having spent a lot of time in various countries in Europe, aside from a few exceptions, I would choose about a dozen places above the US, and there are several other candidates that I might choose if the economics weren't quite as unfavorable.
For practical purposes, most western countries have strict privacy laws. They also have a healthy fear of secret courts and secret police.
While there are some three-letter agencies in Europe, their scope and reach is substantially limited.
It's always worth pointing out that the US (having less than 5% of the world's population) houses over 30% of the world's prisioners and takes people's freedom at a rate nearly double Russia and China and 10-16 times that of most of Europe.
Despite a similar framework of laws, this particular obsession, itself, belies a pretty specific and astounding obsession with authority and police that is unique among the world (except, maybe, in China).
This is also one of the myriad reasons I left the US for good several years ago. Good riddance.
Have you ever heard of the crime "structuring"? If you haven't let me give you a little summary.
See, a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, some probably legitimate, many probably not, the government made the sale and possession of drugs illegal (including alcohol, at first). In order to maintain illegal businesses, a number of various types of organized crime arose. In response to this, the IRS was given sweeping powers to strike at individuals regarding their assets and income. A set of laws was put in place to give them this power and now, lying to the government about the source and value of your personal income was illegal.
As a result, organized crime businesses needed to find means of distributing cash without records, hence "money laundering". Often using a business, such as a laundromat to direct money elsewhere, criminals could distribute their cash. As a result, a series of new laws were created to prevent the distribution of cash to businesses, including sweeping NEW laws enabling the government to snoop in private company's records.
Moving on, the crime bosses began to launder money internationally. This usually involved briefcases full of cash. As a result, some western countries enacted regulations on the amount of cash one could carry over the border. Today, anything over $10,000 in cash must be declared and will usually be subject to investigation as to the source.
But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.
As the result of a law to prohibit the structuring of activities to avoid the law to prevent the carrying of cash, which itself is to avoid the law of domestic money laundering, which itself is to avoid the law of revenue auditability, which itself is set up to prevent those who started a business based on that which is of questionable ethics (selling prohibited substances).
Your language and reference to Pelosi makes me think that you believe this is a partisan issue.
I do want to point out that Republicans in the House voted to keep the spying program at a rate of 2:1. Democrats voted against the spying program (in favor of the budget cut) by a factor of 1.5:1.
But the biggest correlation are those who receive money from the defense industry. Those who voted to keep the spying program get over $40k from defense contractors and those who voted against it got an average of only $12k.
Except one time I called 911 while a crazy man tried to break the window of my car and the dispatcher told me she couldn't do anything, nor could even route me to the correct dispatcher until I told her exactly what intersection I was at... but I didn't know... so she offered to stay on the phone with me until we found out...
Which is useless if the guy had busted out a gun or a tire iron and actually succeeded in breaking into the car....
Amber Alerts are worthless and do absolutely nothing in over 95% of cases. In the US, there were less than 400 reported stranger abductions, but over 40,000 amber alerts were issued.
Several police studies have shown them to be quite nearly worthless, but the economic cost of putting up thousands of road signs, deploying massive international tracking and notification systems has counted in the tens of billions of dollars.
You do realize how many MORE children's lives could be saved by $10 billion in health care and nutritional supplements... or even in mental health, considering the suicide rate amongst children is a factor of TEN higher than the abduction rate.
Slashdot Mirror
rm -rf
part of the joke. :-)
It's a meta-joke.
oooooohhhhh
Woosh...
The sound of Voyager leaving the solar system..... over your head. :-)
Actually, Democrats would probably classify somewhere as "centre right" in most other countries.
Just for reference.
+1 intelligent
I used to call myself libertarian, because I believe in these tenants, but I've found the very idea and the language surrounding it to have been co-opted by the wacky anarcho-libertarians shouting "get your stinking government hands off my.... (ahem medicaid?)"
(sorry that last bit was a joke on the modern Republican memes)
Anyway, I believe in extraordinary protection of individual freedom that is also aligned with government control and/or regulation of fundamental industries. That is to say, I find it absurdly easy to control public utilities for evil, whether it is power/sewer or internet/television.
In this model, I support some of the early 1970s and 1980s Northern European efforts at statist-republics, where individual freedoms of association, speech, assembly, expression, etc are held sacrosanct, but where fundamental services (these are things in which competition is impossible, unusual, or dangerous), such as public utilities, medical care, public safety (police, fire), safety nets for the poor and elderly, military, supervision of public health, etc, are strictly controlled (if not publicly owned).
When these things are pursued for profit, they inevitably fall short of their goals and their mandate (increase profit) are counter to their apparent goals (provide better service). I still find it a bit scary that hospitals in areas of the US not large enough to support multiple comparable institutions, are simultaneously in charge of maximizing profits (which, in business, means minimizing effort in providing service), and also maximizing care. There is NO business incentive other than the sheer humanity of the hospital middle-managers and front-line workers, to maximize care.
The same goes for dozens of utilities (see pre-1978 Bell Telecom).
Interesting discussion.
So you quit... and now what. You're unemployed and homeless... and when asked about the 2 year gap on your resume you labeled a psycho for thinking that Mars One (now known as a cluster-f#@k) was actually going to happen.
I assume you're just being polemic here- this sort of initiative (and the prestige of beating out over 200,000 others) is a positive, not a negative.
Trust me.
Actually, in surveys of REAL ASTRONAUTS, a number of them have said very clearly that to be the first team to go to Mars, they would willingly make it a one-way trip.
The tools that applied are hardly qualified to operate a spacecraft. I would want to select someone that is in *absurdly* good shape and has the willpower to do it themselves. I would want someone who has already been subject to high-gee training, and has a low propensity for motion sickness.
i would want to choose someone with an extremely high amount of willpower and who is very well educated in both the general sciences as well as mechanically inclined.
Yes, many of these things can be trained, but the TYPE OF PEOPLE we want going on this trip are those who do these things anyway, because that's WHO THEY ARE.
That said, there are many many very qualified people within the military, NASA and other occupations that would do it AND are qualified to do it.
It must be a voluntary process, obviously, but I think there would be no shortage of volunteers, honestly.
It's only mandatory in the US, and I think that was a reaction to try to reduce the $400 million per year in associated health care costs of adults suffering acute shingles, and some of the more unusual side effects (a quarter of people have minor neurological problems -unexplained pain, etc)
But that's fair. Still, what is the downside of the vaccination?
The flu vaccine is questionable, except for those at high risk of contracting it, especially given the high rate of mutation.
However HepB is highly contagious for a "fluids only" virus and can be transmitted in tears, saliva, etc (Unlike HIV). Almost 5% of the world's population has Hep B. It's not trivial.
The risk from a vaccination "toxin" is, however, trivial.
I guess the biggest problem in reaching a number is at what point you start calling our ancestors "human" vs "pre-human".
For a great period of history, the human population likely numbered under 1 million, making a worry about these pre-historic populations somewhat trivial. ...
Nope, it's a verified mental issue that requires support.
Religion is not. :-)
Actually, if you change the phrase "sky fairy" to "sky daddy", it's quite accurate...
The reason it sounds vicious is because it ACTUALLY IS a bit odd.
I have a friend who finds that going outside puts her "soul in peril".
Does that make her right?
Does that make it justified that the government won't let her get an ID (since she won't show up for the photo)?
To steal from Bertrand Russel (and then from Dawkins). I am a "Teapot Agnostic".
That is to say, if you postulate that there is a magical china teapot in orbit around Jupiter, I will deny that either of us have the capability of verifying this claim, but I will believe, with some moderate conviction, that it probably isn't true.
If you start legislating society based on this belief (for example, giving your teapot manufacturing companies tax-exempt status), I will subsequently be inclined to mock you, perhaps by decorating things with teapots, or wearing one on my head. :-D
Well, not really, but hopefully you see the analogy.
All of these things are why the James Webb is going to go to the Lagrange point, rather than orbit.
Orbit is a dumb place to be for a telescope. :-)
I'm certainly not advocating moving to China or Russia, but the numbers cited are based on international estimates, not "official" numbers.
Mind posting your source then?
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate
I would point out that the US has a number of de facto restrictions, whether it's a joke at the airport, or a google search for "pressure cooker".
Funny, I don't recall anyone ever being arrested for googling "pressure cooker." Perhaps you could cite a source. As for joking at the airport, I can tell all the "chicken that crossed the road" and "my wife is so fat" jokes I want without ever getting arrested. If, however, I tell a "joke" that starts with "I have a bomb and I want to kill people with it" then that gets attention real fast -- as it should. It's the equivalent of shouting "fire!' in a crowded theater, and as such your example is a poor one. Got anything any better?
There was a slashdot article on a couple getting a visit from three black SUVs who siezed their computers for searching "pressure cooker bomb". Obviously, there was no crime, so they weren't arrested, per se, but it's still overboard. The point is, frankly, our company now will pay up to 50% more for airplane tickets that route AROUND the US, because they are concerned about the security of equipment and data, after several instances of having laptops sized and/or searched at the border. They will not host data services in the US, due to justified fear about surveillance. Many of my co-workers will not vacation in the US now, and instead head to other locations instead. The Rocky Mountains are impressive, but are pretty similar up in Canada. The Pacific coast is nice, but cheaper and just as pleasant in Baja, Mexico.
I want to be clear that many of these decisions were made BEFORE Snowden, but seem very justified in hindsight.
I live in a multi cultral city with greater diversity than almost anywhere in the US.
Diversity has not a damned thing to do with imprisonment rates, and I challenge you to find a study from a respected, neutral organization that states otherwise.
Almost every time I have mentioned crime and imprisonment issues, someone brings up diversity, as if the diversity of the US is the cause of the issues of policing and crime and terrorism, etc, etc. I proactively mention it now.
Having spent a lot of time in various countries in Europe, aside from a few exceptions, I would choose about a dozen places above the US, and there are several other candidates that I might choose if the economics weren't quite as unfavorable.
Then please name these bastions of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to keep and bear arms, and rights to life, liberty, and property. You obviously know more on this than I do, so please educate me. I, for one, know of nowhere on the planet that puts these guarantees in writing with as much breadth as the U.S. Constitution. Sure, our government is currently flouting said document, but other nations don't even *have* such a document to begin with.
Sure, there are some issues everywhere, but I don't give a damn what's written in some document that's regularly ignored. IN PRACTICE, in day-to-day activities, I have less reason to feel anxious about accidentally committing some crime and ending up in prison in most other western countries.
Sure, gun ownership is slightly less free. I do have to get a background check and have the serial number recorded, but don't you have to do that now in most of the US? Yeah, I can't buy a gun at a garage sale. I think that seems reasonable. Sure, France did implement the anti-muslim head scarf law, which violates the protection of religious
I have a few examples for you. For example, I have a friend who works in the national police. He processes background checks for things like job applications. First of all, the forms they receive are treated like gold. They are not passed around, when transported between people, they must be covered so that personal information is not compromised or shared unnecessarily, even amongst other agents in the same department. When the processing is complete, they are destroyed. There is a civilian appointed auditor who validates that the process is followed and that no records contained within these forms are passed around within the government.
Contrast that to the US, where the fingerprints and any other information obtained as part of a background check request with the FBI are filed in massive databases. Even the envelope that the letter is sent in is scanned and stored in the person's police file. The document regularly are passed around freely among departments with little control on who sees them.
This is just a tiny example, but underscores the whole ATTITUDE and APPROACH that I feel has strong value to human dignity.
I'm certainly not advocating moving to China or Russia, but the numbers cited are based on international estimates, not "official" numbers.
While I concede the "hate speech" and "holocaust denial" is an obvious de jure restriction on speech, I would point out that the US has a number of de facto restrictions, whether it's a joke at the airport, or a google search for "pressure cooker". Ostensibly, they are in the spirit of eliminating terrorism, or increasing safety, but I find the attitude that supports de facto restrictions to be much more frightening than those that are specifically codified in law and are applied transparently and with public input.
As far as imprisonment rates, I live in a multi cultral city with greater diversity than almost anywhere in the US. My employer actually SAVED money in letting me move here, because despite a few points higher taxes, the cost for insurance, disability and a few other services are included in those taxes and are no longer a cost of doing business. They were able to give me a raise as a result, when I moved.
Obviously, the political landscape in the US is not *the* reason I left, but it certainly was a strong consideration. Having spent a lot of time in various countries in Europe, aside from a few exceptions, I would choose about a dozen places above the US, and there are several other candidates that I might choose if the economics weren't quite as unfavorable.
For practical purposes, most western countries have strict privacy laws. They also have a healthy fear of secret courts and secret police.
While there are some three-letter agencies in Europe, their scope and reach is substantially limited.
It's always worth pointing out that the US (having less than 5% of the world's population) houses over 30% of the world's prisioners and takes people's freedom at a rate nearly double Russia and China and 10-16 times that of most of Europe.
Despite a similar framework of laws, this particular obsession, itself, belies a pretty specific and astounding obsession with authority and police that is unique among the world (except, maybe, in China).
This is also one of the myriad reasons I left the US for good several years ago. Good riddance.
Have you ever heard of the crime "structuring"? If you haven't let me give you a little summary.
See, a long time ago, for a variety of reasons, some probably legitimate, many probably not, the government made the sale and possession of drugs illegal (including alcohol, at first). In order to maintain illegal businesses, a number of various types of organized crime arose. In response to this, the IRS was given sweeping powers to strike at individuals regarding their assets and income. A set of laws was put in place to give them this power and now, lying to the government about the source and value of your personal income was illegal.
As a result, organized crime businesses needed to find means of distributing cash without records, hence "money laundering". Often using a business, such as a laundromat to direct money elsewhere, criminals could distribute their cash. As a result, a series of new laws were created to prevent the distribution of cash to businesses, including sweeping NEW laws enabling the government to snoop in private company's records.
Moving on, the crime bosses began to launder money internationally. This usually involved briefcases full of cash. As a result, some western countries enacted regulations on the amount of cash one could carry over the border. Today, anything over $10,000 in cash must be declared and will usually be subject to investigation as to the source.
But deciding this wasn't sufficient, in the 1980s, a new law was created, called "structuring". This law essentially prevents you from carrying the sum of $10,000 over the border over the course of multiple trips. This law simply states that you may not circumvent arbitrary controls, such as currency limits, by conducting your activities in such a way as to avoid them.
As the result of a law to prohibit the structuring of activities to avoid the law to prevent the carrying of cash, which itself is to avoid the law of domestic money laundering, which itself is to avoid the law of revenue auditability, which itself is set up to prevent those who started a business based on that which is of questionable ethics (selling prohibited substances).
Illegal does not always equal wrong.
Uranium. :-)
Your language and reference to Pelosi makes me think that you believe this is a partisan issue.
I do want to point out that Republicans in the House voted to keep the spying program at a rate of 2:1. Democrats voted against the spying program (in favor of the budget cut) by a factor of 1.5:1.
But the biggest correlation are those who receive money from the defense industry. Those who voted to keep the spying program get over $40k from defense contractors and those who voted against it got an average of only $12k.
How is it living in Alabama? I hear the weather is nice.
Except one time I called 911 while a crazy man tried to break the window of my car and the dispatcher told me she couldn't do anything, nor could even route me to the correct dispatcher until I told her exactly what intersection I was at... but I didn't know... so she offered to stay on the phone with me until we found out...
Which is useless if the guy had busted out a gun or a tire iron and actually succeeded in breaking into the car....
Amber Alerts are worthless and do absolutely nothing in over 95% of cases. In the US, there were less than 400 reported stranger abductions, but over 40,000 amber alerts were issued.
Several police studies have shown them to be quite nearly worthless, but the economic cost of putting up thousands of road signs, deploying massive international tracking and notification systems has counted in the tens of billions of dollars.
You do realize how many MORE children's lives could be saved by $10 billion in health care and nutritional supplements... or even in mental health, considering the suicide rate amongst children is a factor of TEN higher than the abduction rate.
Holy crap....