Actually if you have some land it really doesn't take much more energy than to run the pumps using direct solar desalinization. There are plenty of areas near the coast that don't see much use currently that could be repurposed for this if we had some sort of rational water policy. Good luck on that though.
If you have a better system we're listening. I know I've looked and ever other alternative is either worse even in theory or based on wishful thinking.
Actually feudalism had pretty strict rules about that. You're talking about autocracy which is something completely different. Many feudal societies slowly slid into autocracy while maintaining the outer forms as more power accreted to the king and away from the dukes, earls & barons.
Their intent was to make the same argument that the soviet union did: that they weren't actually communist, "yet".
Well, by Marx's definition they weren't. The Soviet Union had, in theory, achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an intermediate system between capitalism and communism. In my opinion in was more dictatorship than proletariat, but that's not surprising given human nature. Centralization of power always leads to abuse.
Eventually a unified world government is more efficient but since that scares the hell out of a lot of people that will never happen until we remove money (corruption) from politics.
So never then?
The solution isn't to assume that corruption can be ever fully eradicated. The solution is to design systems that minimize and compartmentalize it.
They've been shoving computers into school since at least the Apple II days, if not earlier. I'm not seeing much of a coherent effort to actually use them in some transformational way. I mean, if you're going to go with flip classes (pre-recorded lectures at home, problem sets at school) then this is probably a necessary step. If you're just going to keep teaching in the same way then this seems like a massive boondoggle. Sure, the kids and parents will love it because they're not paying the full price for it, it'll be subsidized by increased property taxes on everyone who lives within the district.
Sorry, but if you have a better system for doing stuff, we're all ears.
Well, at the very least the UN should switch to a bicameral structure with one chambers membership being more closely aligned with actual country power. Say a combination of land mass, population and wealth for a reasonable proxy.
The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?
WWI probably. Why would you want to? It's pretty much the cornerstone of our entire war fighting doctrine to gain air superiority and then pound the heck out of our adversaries prior to full engagement. I can guarantee you the air strikes on D-Day were coming fast and furious. We spent nearly five months before that destroying the Luftwaffe in order to ensure air superiority prior to the invasion.
A transport configured LCAC can carry 180 fully equipped troops. The full size UHAC will have similar dimensions so I don't imagine it will carry much more than a company at a time. With the much larger carrying capacity though it'll be able to move a lot more heavy equipment per load which means consolidating the beachhead and moving inland should go much faster.
You're right of course. Heinlein had the correct solution, namely that all conflicts should only be initiated by referendum and that anyone voting yes is automatically drafted if it passes.
Aside from the membership problems, what exactly would they do? Threaten to blow themselves up?
Blowing themselves up constitutes their normal work so in this context I believe a strike would involve refusing to blow themselves up until their demands are met.
Even in terms of employing physicists and maintaining our national capability to embark on cutting edge projects we would be far better off putting the money to next generation nuclear reactors/ alternative fuel reactors like Thorium.
Wouldn't that tend to employ Nuclear Engineers rather than Particle Physicists?
Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.
You've hit the nail on the head. Its not the entity that is the problem, concentration of power itself is the problem. Many people, including Libertarians don't seem to grasp this concept. It's not that giving power to the government is always bad or always good, its conditional on whether that concentrates power or distributes it more widely. So if you're in a situation where the Federal government is the most powerful entity in society then giving them more power is bad, but if you're in a situation where some other entity is the most powerful then giving them more power is good. Pluralism is the best guarantee of liberty.
A sole proprietorship or partnership has unlimited liability which certainly makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to raise funds or start new businesses. Under current rules a corporation has single liability which both reduces total liability and more importantly makes it quantifiable. Double liability raises the liability cap without throwing out the quantifiable part. Under that scenario reactor funding would be slighty more expensive and the shareholders would doubtless demand extra safety measures but it would hardly kill the entire industry. Frankly, I think we should move to double liability for all shares of stock, but that's a different conversation altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if you have some land it really doesn't take much more energy than to run the pumps using direct solar desalinization. There are plenty of areas near the coast that don't see much use currently that could be repurposed for this if we had some sort of rational water policy. Good luck on that though.
Yes, and with their aggressive nature and huge military force that's something we should really be worried about.
ExxonMobil is worth over ten North Koreas, and has zero influence.
Excuse me while I laugh myself sick.
The inverse is not really possible as the state is just too damn big to be captured.
How quaint. Tell us, which alternate reality do you live in where the top corporations don't have earnings larger than the GDP of most countries?
No one who wasn't literally insane would try to use smallpox as a weapon, the infection would inevitably spread back to the country which initiated it
Yes, because there aren't any insane people around who carry a grudge against us.
That seems to be the best compromise for the moment, though there are signs that this system trends towards Fascism.
If you have a better system we're listening. I know I've looked and ever other alternative is either worse even in theory or based on wishful thinking.
Actually feudalism had pretty strict rules about that. You're talking about autocracy which is something completely different. Many feudal societies slowly slid into autocracy while maintaining the outer forms as more power accreted to the king and away from the dukes, earls & barons.
A weak state isn't a requirement though it's one possible solution. In a strong state the private interests just work to capture the state instead.
Their intent was to make the same argument that the soviet union did: that they weren't actually communist, "yet".
Well, by Marx's definition they weren't. The Soviet Union had, in theory, achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an intermediate system between capitalism and communism. In my opinion in was more dictatorship than proletariat, but that's not surprising given human nature. Centralization of power always leads to abuse.
Eventually a unified world government is more efficient but since that scares the hell out of a lot of people that will never happen until we remove money (corruption) from politics.
So never then? The solution isn't to assume that corruption can be ever fully eradicated. The solution is to design systems that minimize and compartmentalize it.
They've been shoving computers into school since at least the Apple II days, if not earlier. I'm not seeing much of a coherent effort to actually use them in some transformational way. I mean, if you're going to go with flip classes (pre-recorded lectures at home, problem sets at school) then this is probably a necessary step. If you're just going to keep teaching in the same way then this seems like a massive boondoggle. Sure, the kids and parents will love it because they're not paying the full price for it, it'll be subsidized by increased property taxes on everyone who lives within the district.
Sorry, but if you have a better system for doing stuff, we're all ears.
Well, at the very least the UN should switch to a bicameral structure with one chambers membership being more closely aligned with actual country power. Say a combination of land mass, population and wealth for a reasonable proxy.
Every government is the enemy of human rights and liberties.
Even if that were true there are no alternatives.
The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?
WWI probably. Why would you want to? It's pretty much the cornerstone of our entire war fighting doctrine to gain air superiority and then pound the heck out of our adversaries prior to full engagement. I can guarantee you the air strikes on D-Day were coming fast and furious. We spent nearly five months before that destroying the Luftwaffe in order to ensure air superiority prior to the invasion.
Don't worry global citizen, the glorious forces of the United States Military still have paratroopers and air power to reach you in your time of need!
A transport configured LCAC can carry 180 fully equipped troops. The full size UHAC will have similar dimensions so I don't imagine it will carry much more than a company at a time. With the much larger carrying capacity though it'll be able to move a lot more heavy equipment per load which means consolidating the beachhead and moving inland should go much faster.
You're right of course. Heinlein had the correct solution, namely that all conflicts should only be initiated by referendum and that anyone voting yes is automatically drafted if it passes.
Aside from the membership problems, what exactly would they do? Threaten to blow themselves up?
Blowing themselves up constitutes their normal work so in this context I believe a strike would involve refusing to blow themselves up until their demands are met.
Even in terms of employing physicists and maintaining our national capability to embark on cutting edge projects we would be far better off putting the money to next generation nuclear reactors/ alternative fuel reactors like Thorium.
Wouldn't that tend to employ Nuclear Engineers rather than Particle Physicists?
The author threw in some tech companies and lied about their persecution.
How is requiring the use of dealers not an unfair restraint of trade? Dictating business models is not a proper role for the government.
Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.
You've hit the nail on the head. Its not the entity that is the problem, concentration of power itself is the problem. Many people, including Libertarians don't seem to grasp this concept. It's not that giving power to the government is always bad or always good, its conditional on whether that concentrates power or distributes it more widely. So if you're in a situation where the Federal government is the most powerful entity in society then giving them more power is bad, but if you're in a situation where some other entity is the most powerful then giving them more power is good. Pluralism is the best guarantee of liberty.
Easy, short farming and go long aquaculture, instant profit!
After reading your description I had my first ever moment of wanting to be a climatologist.
A sole proprietorship or partnership has unlimited liability which certainly makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to raise funds or start new businesses. Under current rules a corporation has single liability which both reduces total liability and more importantly makes it quantifiable. Double liability raises the liability cap without throwing out the quantifiable part. Under that scenario reactor funding would be slighty more expensive and the shareholders would doubtless demand extra safety measures but it would hardly kill the entire industry. Frankly, I think we should move to double liability for all shares of stock, but that's a different conversation altogether.