The real issue is how to most efficiently funnel money to Goldman Sachs now that the housing bubble and the bank bailouts are over. The need to keep doing God's work after all.
It isn't the "only" way. Another alternative is to have no government, except the bare minimum. "It is only to protect our rights, that we have any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat Party. Let's return to a government that only exercises the powers granted to it by the Constitution, and all other powers be reserved to the Citizens.
We had one of those but the banksters found that it limited their access to OPM too much so it was scrapped in favor of the current government.
It doesn't matter. Government can not and will not remain limited. Before the ink was even dry on the US constitution the federal government was using it's new taxing power to bail our bankers and bond speculators on the backs of farmers.
If you have a government then you will be ruled by an oligarchy.
In order for one person to consume more than he produces another must produce more and be persuaded to give up the excess. Either that happens voluntarily or it must be taken by force (stolen).
Right now everything the government does falls into the latter category because all taxes are extracted under threat of violence.
It's easy, but mentally dishonest, for individual to divorce the benefits he received from the government from the armed IRS agents that will arrest and imprison anyone who gets caught trying to keep everything that they produce. Since no one manages to get through life without receiving some benefit from the government we all have blood on our hands. The question is: Do we continue to defend this practice or do we decide that no one has the right to the production of another person?
[sarcasm]Yeah just like pure economic theory prevented store owners from put-up "Whites Only" signs in the 1950s.[/sarcasm]
In many cases those signs were mandated by state laws. In other words - first the government mandated segregation under penalty of law. Then the government mandated desegregation under penalty of law. How about having the government leave private businesses alone for a change?
I would ideally like to be entirely self-sufficient and provide everything my child needs to survive and thrive. The truth of the matter is that such is not possible.
So how much government compulsion is acceptable to you in order to extract the resources necessary for your child to survive and thrive that you are unable to produce yourself?
Is there a limit? If so what is it and on what moral basis do you justify this behavior?
If that was the case then it would have been an effective affirmative defense if brought-up in court.
Sorry, that's not the case. "I can't afford it" is not an affirmative defense when it comes to ADA violations.
Why don't you try reading some of the other posts by people with experience in this area or better yet, go out an meet a few local small business owners and ask them.
I find it amazing that a family that had run a hardware store for 2 generations couldn't just build their own ramp.
They were more likely perfectly capable of doing so but that doesn't mean that the "could" in a legal sense. Perhaps that city had regulations that only allow licensed contractors to perform that type of work.
They sure do love that, but these things would never get passed unless the individuals that fund politicians' releection campaigns didn't want them.
Do you really think that a regulation that affects a "too big to fail" bank or a corporation like GE will get passed into law unless it gives them a competitive advantage?
The "please don't throw me into the briar patch" routine is strictly for the benefit of the voters.
In my hometown, a hardware store couldn't afford to put in an ADA-compliant ramp for the one guy in town who used a wheelchair. When they said as much, he sued. The store, in the family for 2 generations, closed down because the owner couldn't carry the expense of the loan he needed for building the ramp- and the cost of the lawsuit.
Home Depot lost a competitor and WalMart gained a low wage employee. Sounds like the ADA is functioning perfectly.
I can understand that they have to make PUBLIC websites and information (state, federal, etc) accessible, but, this almost implies they are going to require that private business...
By the way, don't expect any small business exemption to last forever. That's what regulations are for after all: to tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations at the expense of small independent businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at it from a longer timescale the ice age isn't completely over yet.
Apparently not as much as we've been led to believe.
A better example is that we've been wandering around on the beach during low tide and now are getting all upset because the water level is rising.
Careful - start asking people why the climate started getting increasingly erratic 3 million years ago and they'll lable you as a troll.
The real issue is how to most efficiently funnel money to Goldman Sachs now that the housing bubble and the bank bailouts are over. The need to keep doing God's work after all.
It's been pretty cold recently.
That would be great if that were ever to happen in practice.
In reality every form of government that has ever been tried always reverts to oligarchy. It's just a matter of how fast.
Democracy is just oligarchy in different clothing.
We had one of those but the banksters found that it limited their access to OPM too much so it was scrapped in favor of the current government.
It doesn't matter. Government can not and will not remain limited. Before the ink was even dry on the US constitution the federal government was using it's new taxing power to bail our bankers and bond speculators on the backs of farmers.
If you have a government then you will be ruled by an oligarchy.
We have exactly two choices for how to organize society: oligarchy or anarchy.
Or even build reactors that reprocess internally.
In order for one person to consume more than he produces another must produce more and be persuaded to give up the excess. Either that happens voluntarily or it must be taken by force (stolen).
Right now everything the government does falls into the latter category because all taxes are extracted under threat of violence.
It's easy, but mentally dishonest, for individual to divorce the benefits he received from the government from the armed IRS agents that will arrest and imprison anyone who gets caught trying to keep everything that they produce. Since no one manages to get through life without receiving some benefit from the government we all have blood on our hands. The question is: Do we continue to defend this practice or do we decide that no one has the right to the production of another person?
In many cases those signs were mandated by state laws. In other words - first the government mandated segregation under penalty of law. Then the government mandated desegregation under penalty of law. How about having the government leave private businesses alone for a change?
That's why I said that it isn't really an affirmative defense. It relies on the discretion of a judge which may or may not be given.
So how much government compulsion is acceptable to you in order to extract the resources necessary for your child to survive and thrive that you are unable to produce yourself?
Is there a limit? If so what is it and on what moral basis do you justify this behavior?
It always comes back to the government, doesn't it? We need more regulations to "save" us from the problems they created in the first place.
Start your own.
Sorry, that's not the case. "I can't afford it" is not an affirmative defense when it comes to ADA violations.
Why don't you try reading some of the other posts by people with experience in this area or better yet, go out an meet a few local small business owners and ask them.
Translation: I like my subsidy and don't give a shit about the collateral damage as long as I get mine.
They were more likely perfectly capable of doing so but that doesn't mean that the "could" in a legal sense. Perhaps that city had regulations that only allow licensed contractors to perform that type of work.
They sure do love that, but these things would never get passed unless the individuals that fund politicians' releection campaigns didn't want them.
Do you really think that a regulation that affects a "too big to fail" bank or a corporation like GE will get passed into law unless it gives them a competitive advantage?
The "please don't throw me into the briar patch" routine is strictly for the benefit of the voters.
Home Depot lost a competitor and WalMart gained a low wage employee. Sounds like the ADA is functioning perfectly.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the purpose of regulations is to serve those that they claim to protect or assist.
Regulations exist to give one type of business a competitive advantage over another.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
By the way, don't expect any small business exemption to last forever. That's what regulations are for after all: to tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations at the expense of small independent businesses.