And what do you say when the wealthy becomes the government and impose the uniformity anyhow? Welcome to feudalism.
I'd say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "feudalism" is. Fedualism isn't the result of free market activity and individual liberties, it's the result of strong government: the kind you advocate.
Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.
Lucky for us, we don't have such a system. Financially, there are many places in Europe and Asia that are far more favorable for the interests of wealthy people.
If you're going to build your society around what the wealthy can afford to buy in terms of political action, you will end up with an inherently unjust society.
The kind of "just society" you want to achieve can only be achieved through totalitarianism, as centuries of European history show.
I prefer having freedom to government-imposed uniformity; the fact that many people end up wealthier than me through chance or even "unfair advantages" doesn't bother me much. You should get over it too.
And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?
Vote for different representatives, representatives that actually cut the budget. It has happened in the past and it's happening elsewhere.
I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution.
Sure, countries transition from free societies to welfare states or socialism all the time; I have no doubt we can accomplish the same thing. It's easy: people just vote in ever bigger benefits and public spending.
The sh*t hits the fan when the money runs out and totalitarians get elected based on empty promises to fix things. We still have a ways to fall before we get there.
and we, too, should be against the tyranny of the masses and promote the enlightened government by and for the elite.
Those in government automatically form an "elite" no matter who they are; that's the nature of government and power. I prefer that elite not to be a professional class of politicians, who use government as a way to substitute for having a real job and enrich themselves and their buddies at the tax payer's expense.
But somehow Apple is the anti-privacy company and google is okay.
Which part of "Apple's devices (like everybody else's)" did you not understand?
As a company, Google *depends* on eliminating privacy -- it is the source of their revenue. Apple depends on hardware sales.
And it is this sort of blind, foolish, uninformed fanboy belief that I was responding to. Apple's devices do what everybody else's do: they track your location and send it back. They do that for the simple reason that it's useful and that users want it. If Apple's devices didn't do it, Apple couldn't sell its hardware.
I never understand the fanboys.
You understand them perfectly because, unlike me, you are one.
iBeacons is just one small part of what they do. Apple's devices (like everybody else's) constantly determine your location, and unless you're very careful about disabling it, transmit it. Whether this bothers you or whether it should bother you is another question, but it is happening.
They like to share with people who shove enough money into their hands. It's the same as with the rest of their OS, which is a hodgepodge of features designed to funnel business to specific partners. Apple "cares about your privacy" in the same sense that a pimp cares about the virginity of his ladies: their customers should be able to enjoy the illusion of it.
I don't think "trick" applies here. Snowden went to Russia only after pretty much all other options had been closed off by the Obama administration. If instead of going batshit insane on Snowden, the administration had quietly tolerated (or even encouraged) asylum in some small South American nation, the Russians wouldn't have him and the US secret service could keep an eye on him.
That graph shows US government investment. In addition to US government funding, there is European and Asian government funding and private industry. In aggregate, we've probably spent more than $50b in today's dollars already and nothing has come out of it.
And what these research labs are building are expensive toys. If you're trying to build a commercially viable fusion reactor, spending $10b on a "working" prototype that won't even break even is not the way to do it. Government funding for this "research" is just a feeding trough for special interests who enrich themselves.
To put those 50 billion dollars in context, fossil fules have received 594 billion dollars in subsidies in the USA since 1950.
You seem to be arguing that we should ignore the subsidies we're already paying and then just merrily pay even more to another industry, and this time one that just uses the money to build expensive toys that never work. Instead of adding more government subsidies on top of existing subsidies, a better thing to do would be: (1) scrap fossil fuel subsidies, (2) deregulate the energy industry sufficiently so that people who invest in fusion privately could actually expect to reap the benefits of that investment.
Right now, if anybody were to succeed at creating a fusion reactor, between national security, radioactive waste (yup, they produce that), fuel supply, permitting, patents, etc., they'd likely never see a return.
Our balance of trade improves and out buying power gets a boost from that.
If you export more and import less, you work harder for getting fewer stuff. The "increase in buying power" doesn't help you because you're not actually buying or consuming. Even if exporting more and importing less were a good thing, other nations wouldn't just let the US benefit at their expense, they'd adopt similar policies and we'd have a trade war.
Tariffs and trade restrictions benefit powerful special interests and politicians, they do not benefit the country as a whole.
The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to the effects of climate change. Instead of increasing premiums, we should use climate damage tariffs to cover this increase.
I.e. you want to tax consumer goods to give even bigger handouts to powerful agribusinesses and wealthy owners of beach front property. Thanks for revealing so clearly the corrupt intent behind proposed climate regulations.
Correct. But industry in the US would pick up, leading to more domestic prosperity. Without the tariff, China gets to lower costs of production and compete unfairly, reducing US GDP.
If by "prosperity" you mean millions of mind-numbing, low-paying jobs sticking little electronic parts into little holes, and prices going up dramatically, But a massive increase in inflation would indeed put an extra zero on everybody's paycheck soon, leading to a numerically higher GDP. At least the cost of college education becomes a non-issue since people don't need it for those jobs.
The blanket claim that "CO2 is not pollution" is not true: just try breathing 100% pure CO2 for a while
Pure nitrogen will also kill you, and pure oxygen will hurt your lungs and eventually kill you. By your argument, air is a pollutant. On the other hand, lowering levels of CO2 in the atmosphere further and further would kill us too, since that's where almost all food comes from.
At lower concentrations the thermal aspects hold at an atmospheric level,
Arguably, we currently have a CO2 deficit, since the large glacial cover we have right now is quite unusual.
Perhaps the amounts in question don't bother you, perhaps, but they do bother others and we have to work out a way to proceed.
We can simply ignore those "others", many of whom use the pretext of concern about climate change to achieve political and economic objectives.
Vice is spreading the misinformation: they are misrepresenting BFA as an astroturfer. It's a bald-faced lie on their part.
If you are talking about the arguments about net neutrality itself, Vice is spreading misinformation there as well. They present it as if it is a foregone conclusion that net neutrality via FCC regulation is a good thing for consumers. Given the corruption and past failures of the FCC and telecoms regulation, Vice is either utterly stupid, or they are in the pocket of some powerful special interests. And frankly, so are you.
Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation,... If by 'any citizen' you mean 'anyone who can either pay the thousands of dollars to have a lawyer help them do the paperwork' or the 'anyone who can takes months figuring out the forms on their own'. Then yes.
The only reason to incorporate is because you want to accomplish something with a bunch of other people, a group, so the burden on each individual is small. My local running club is a corporation, and we are collecting the amazing amount of $20/year from our members.
If you are a loner who can't figure out how to fill out some simple paperwork, your problem isn't that rich people are keeping the means of production from you or prevent you from incorporating, it's that you are a loner who can't accomplish elementary tasks. That's not sufficient reason to spoil things for the rest of us and make us as miserable as you seem to be.
Is given greater weight by the politicians or regulators that the corporations are lobbying or donating to. It means that the corporation view is considered first or given more importance than competing views.
Let's turn that around for a minute: Why should such groups get the privileged status afforded by incorporation, including things like limited liability and favorable tax treatment?
There is nothing "privileged" about that status: it's available to everyone for just about any purpose. It is widely used by almost every political group and organization because it's the right form of organization. Barack Obama has numerous such organizations created for the purpose of supporting him.
Instead, the assholes who control these groups want special treatment that places them above individual citizens.
Any citizen can use these mechanism easily and enjoy the same protections; incorporating costs next to nothing. If you don't use these legal protections for your non-profit or for profit activities, that's your own fault. Don't blame other "corporations" for your own laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "feudalism" is. Fedualism isn't the result of free market activity and individual liberties, it's the result of strong government: the kind you advocate.
Lucky for us, we don't have such a system. Financially, there are many places in Europe and Asia that are far more favorable for the interests of wealthy people.
The kind of "just society" you want to achieve can only be achieved through totalitarianism, as centuries of European history show.
I prefer having freedom to government-imposed uniformity; the fact that many people end up wealthier than me through chance or even "unfair advantages" doesn't bother me much. You should get over it too.
Vote for different representatives, representatives that actually cut the budget. It has happened in the past and it's happening elsewhere.
Sure, countries transition from free societies to welfare states or socialism all the time; I have no doubt we can accomplish the same thing. It's easy: people just vote in ever bigger benefits and public spending.
The sh*t hits the fan when the money runs out and totalitarians get elected based on empty promises to fix things. We still have a ways to fall before we get there.
Those in government automatically form an "elite" no matter who they are; that's the nature of government and power. I prefer that elite not to be a professional class of politicians, who use government as a way to substitute for having a real job and enrich themselves and their buddies at the tax payer's expense.
Do you think "The tax code is too complex for me to figure out, so I don't really have to pay, do I?" would work?
http://advertising.apple.com/
Which part of "Apple's devices (like everybody else's)" did you not understand?
And it is this sort of blind, foolish, uninformed fanboy belief that I was responding to. Apple's devices do what everybody else's do: they track your location and send it back. They do that for the simple reason that it's useful and that users want it. If Apple's devices didn't do it, Apple couldn't sell its hardware.
You understand them perfectly because, unlike me, you are one.
You just restated what I said; you simply tried to put a positive spin on it.
Of course, they could randomize except when connecting to selected networks.
iBeacons is just one small part of what they do. Apple's devices (like everybody else's) constantly determine your location, and unless you're very careful about disabling it, transmit it. Whether this bothers you or whether it should bother you is another question, but it is happening.
Apple is fine with gathering the data, and sharing it, they just want to sell it themselves.
They like to share with people who shove enough money into their hands. It's the same as with the rest of their OS, which is a hodgepodge of features designed to funnel business to specific partners. Apple "cares about your privacy" in the same sense that a pimp cares about the virginity of his ladies: their customers should be able to enjoy the illusion of it.
I don't think "trick" applies here. Snowden went to Russia only after pretty much all other options had been closed off by the Obama administration. If instead of going batshit insane on Snowden, the administration had quietly tolerated (or even encouraged) asylum in some small South American nation, the Russians wouldn't have him and the US secret service could keep an eye on him.
That graph shows US government investment. In addition to US government funding, there is European and Asian government funding and private industry. In aggregate, we've probably spent more than $50b in today's dollars already and nothing has come out of it.
And what these research labs are building are expensive toys. If you're trying to build a commercially viable fusion reactor, spending $10b on a "working" prototype that won't even break even is not the way to do it. Government funding for this "research" is just a feeding trough for special interests who enrich themselves.
You seem to be arguing that we should ignore the subsidies we're already paying and then just merrily pay even more to another industry, and this time one that just uses the money to build expensive toys that never work. Instead of adding more government subsidies on top of existing subsidies, a better thing to do would be: (1) scrap fossil fuel subsidies, (2) deregulate the energy industry sufficiently so that people who invest in fusion privately could actually expect to reap the benefits of that investment.
Right now, if anybody were to succeed at creating a fusion reactor, between national security, radioactive waste (yup, they produce that), fuel supply, permitting, patents, etc., they'd likely never see a return.
Yes, and your point is?
If you export more and import less, you work harder for getting fewer stuff. The "increase in buying power" doesn't help you because you're not actually buying or consuming. Even if exporting more and importing less were a good thing, other nations wouldn't just let the US benefit at their expense, they'd adopt similar policies and we'd have a trade war.
Tariffs and trade restrictions benefit powerful special interests and politicians, they do not benefit the country as a whole.
I.e. you want to tax consumer goods to give even bigger handouts to powerful agribusinesses and wealthy owners of beach front property. Thanks for revealing so clearly the corrupt intent behind proposed climate regulations.
If by "prosperity" you mean millions of mind-numbing, low-paying jobs sticking little electronic parts into little holes, and prices going up dramatically, But a massive increase in inflation would indeed put an extra zero on everybody's paycheck soon, leading to a numerically higher GDP. At least the cost of college education becomes a non-issue since people don't need it for those jobs.
Pure nitrogen will also kill you, and pure oxygen will hurt your lungs and eventually kill you. By your argument, air is a pollutant. On the other hand, lowering levels of CO2 in the atmosphere further and further would kill us too, since that's where almost all food comes from.
Arguably, we currently have a CO2 deficit, since the large glacial cover we have right now is quite unusual.
We can simply ignore those "others", many of whom use the pretext of concern about climate change to achieve political and economic objectives.
Actually, the US is twice as efficient at GDP/ton of GHG, about the same as Canada, Australia, and Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Vice is spreading the misinformation: they are misrepresenting BFA as an astroturfer. It's a bald-faced lie on their part.
If you are talking about the arguments about net neutrality itself, Vice is spreading misinformation there as well. They present it as if it is a foregone conclusion that net neutrality via FCC regulation is a good thing for consumers. Given the corruption and past failures of the FCC and telecoms regulation, Vice is either utterly stupid, or they are in the pocket of some powerful special interests. And frankly, so are you.
The only reason to incorporate is because you want to accomplish something with a bunch of other people, a group, so the burden on each individual is small. My local running club is a corporation, and we are collecting the amazing amount of $20/year from our members.
If you are a loner who can't figure out how to fill out some simple paperwork, your problem isn't that rich people are keeping the means of production from you or prevent you from incorporating, it's that you are a loner who can't accomplish elementary tasks. That's not sufficient reason to spoil things for the rest of us and make us as miserable as you seem to be.
Show some actual evidence for that statement.
There is nothing "privileged" about that status: it's available to everyone for just about any purpose. It is widely used by almost every political group and organization because it's the right form of organization. Barack Obama has numerous such organizations created for the purpose of supporting him.
Any citizen can use these mechanism easily and enjoy the same protections; incorporating costs next to nothing. If you don't use these legal protections for your non-profit or for profit activities, that's your own fault. Don't blame other "corporations" for your own laziness.