So, your response to an argument for a free market, is to argue that government will abandon it's true role (to maintain a free market), in exchange for a cowardly position of supporting thugs? And you dare call someone an idiot?
You obviously don't understand the parent's definition of "oppression". A lot of people have this weird notion that if someone doesn't provide for you in the manner that you would like to become accustomed, you are being "oppressed".
-No one will pay for my college expenses. I'm being oppressed. -No one will pay for the surgery I want. I'm being oppressed. -No one will feed my children. I'm being oppressed.
They cannot distinguish between being oppressed, and being left to your natural state.
It is my job to protect myself. It is the government's job to protect me from others. When we get to the government being responsible for protecting me, then the government will also assume the role of protecting me from myself. That is when the state becomes oppressive.
As someone that has become more and more libertarian as I've aged and discovered how politicians will use every excuse to enslave the populous, could I please ask you to stop making libertarians look bad?
The place of government is to relieve the friction inherent in people having to live so close to one another. Passing one another at death defying speeds in a safe and orderly manner requires a high level of standards and control. This is the very reason government is necessary.
Mandating the amount of salt in food is borderline. It is a simple matter to add your own, but it is a hidden ingredient that makes food more desirable while not actually adding value. It is a hidden lie used by the food preparers. I also like the idea of the government requiring manufacturers of packaged food to post the contents, and restaurants to provide nutritional information for the food they serve. It allows me to be an informed buyer, and it is impossible to have a free market when information is unequally shared between buyer and seller.
If drunk driving is bad enough in an area, then I can imagine that I might want to be informed that I-95 will be overrun by drunks tonight. Having the drunks removed actually increases my freedom.
Please, stop with the irrational "all government is bad mantra". That is as stupid as the "daddy gub'ment got to take care o' me" mentallity.
People would add aftermarket "steering balls" though. Old cars would increase the mechanical advantage through gearing. You'd turn the wheel, say, three times to get a full right turn. For a vehicle that had to do a lot of maneuvering, something like a delivery truck that was constantly backing up to docks, all that wheel turning with two hands would get slow and tedious. Drivers would add a ball that you could grab with one hand to turn the wheel multiple times without having to change hand positions.
Though you could see them on farmer's trucks that didn't have to meet safety requirements because they weren't supposed to be on public roads, they were outlawed before I started driving. Many a driver was killed by the small object impact to the forehead matching a round steering ball.
In an emergency, where you are traveling fast enough that you can't brake to avoid it, turning the wheel more than 90 degrees will cause the car to spin or flip. And that can be accomplished with one hand. If you're not strong enough to control a modern car with assisted steering with one hand in emergency situation, please see a physical therapist.
I owned a Mac truck without power steering. The steering wheel was literally 30" diameter to give the mechanical advantage necessary, but you still couldn't turn it sitting still. That's a bad think to do, but I drove a moving van and needed to get in and out of some tight spots. That was a vehicle that required two hands. There isn't a car made today that can't be steered by the force of the palm of one hand.
Technology can fix a LOT of things....for those that can afford it. A house can keep a man dry...for those that can afford it. A fish will feed a man...for those that can afford it.
So, what are you saying, other than the normal whine of "everybody should have everything they want"?
And in Europe, you won't get it unless the bureaucrats think you deserve it.
Expensive things requiring lots of human resources to create can never be had by all. We can distribute goods according to who has earned the resources to exchange for the them, or we can distribute goods according to the whims of a bureaucracy.
Then commit your life to living for the prosperity of others. It's not that hard to make such a decision, really. People have done it throughout the ages.
A even better way of saying it is, "Societal advancement now takes a back seat to earning resources" for that is all that money represents. If you object to exerting yourself for the betterment of your condition, but are only for the condition of others, then don't. But, you can quit with the "unfettered greed of a few" mantra. It's just haughty bullshit and you know it.
Or they could wear spring-foot shoes. Then the "footed" athlete would again have the advantage of longer legs.
Currently, humanity is completely schizoid over athletic "supplements". Friggin' Congressional hearings in the US over steroid use, when everyone with a brain knows that if you ain't gettin' in the big leagues without a few 'roids. Then there are the body builders who actually claim with a straight face that they aren't on the needle, while a quick glance at picture of Ferango and Schartzenager (sp?), put the lie to it. Instead of assisting the willful choices of these athletes, and assisting them with research and knowledge to improve the state of the art like is done with NASCAR and experimental aviation, we try to act like it shouldn't happen.
The spring shoe could assist the handicapped, or a marathon runner. How could they improve the life of a mail carrier? A soldier in the field? A third world farmer? The lack of creativity from the purists is detrimental to the human race.
The determining factor will probably be the weight of the battery pack. Until we develop something with the utility of ATP, specifically the on the fly recharging provided by our digestive systems, bionics will always be playing catchup.
Why don't you invest your money in an insurance company that will invest your funds in paying for every amputee to have the top notch prosthetics and offers zero ROI. I hear those stocks do really well on the market.
If you don't want your healthcare determined by beancounters, don't rely on beancounters to pay for your healthcare. Your asking a company to accept a small payment to cover a large risk, with a prescribed remedy for various conditions. Then you want to complain that the remedy provided should be of greater value than what you agreed to at the onset.
Insurance company stocks typically earn single digit returns. Not spectacular, but reliable. Any lower, and they would not attract capital. Learn some economics before spewing these overused banalities.
It takes $1 worth of material and some machine shop time to turn an AR-15 fully auto. The biggest argument not to is that full auto is an incredible waste of ammo.
You stated the purpose for your multiple cards. You didn't necessarily explain why you carried them. Why does travelling for business require two cards? Why do you need to carry the card for household expenses? Never know when you'll need to drop into the big-box store to buy some planks to repair the porch? You carry a personal credit card and a debit card (which you use most of the time). Why?
From your explanation, I can only see a reason to carry two cards: a single card for business and your debit card.
Slashdot Mirror
So, your response to an argument for a free market, is to argue that government will abandon it's true role (to maintain a free market), in exchange for a cowardly position of supporting thugs? And you dare call someone an idiot?
You obviously don't understand the parent's definition of "oppression". A lot of people have this weird notion that if someone doesn't provide for you in the manner that you would like to become accustomed, you are being "oppressed".
-No one will pay for my college expenses. I'm being oppressed.
-No one will pay for the surgery I want. I'm being oppressed.
-No one will feed my children. I'm being oppressed.
They cannot distinguish between being oppressed, and being left to your natural state.
A slight correction, if I may.
It is my job to protect myself. It is the government's job to protect me from others. When we get to the government being responsible for protecting me, then the government will also assume the role of protecting me from myself. That is when the state becomes oppressive.
As someone that has become more and more libertarian as I've aged and discovered how politicians will use every excuse to enslave the populous, could I please ask you to stop making libertarians look bad?
The place of government is to relieve the friction inherent in people having to live so close to one another. Passing one another at death defying speeds in a safe and orderly manner requires a high level of standards and control. This is the very reason government is necessary.
Mandating the amount of salt in food is borderline. It is a simple matter to add your own, but it is a hidden ingredient that makes food more desirable while not actually adding value. It is a hidden lie used by the food preparers. I also like the idea of the government requiring manufacturers of packaged food to post the contents, and restaurants to provide nutritional information for the food they serve. It allows me to be an informed buyer, and it is impossible to have a free market when information is unequally shared between buyer and seller.
If drunk driving is bad enough in an area, then I can imagine that I might want to be informed that I-95 will be overrun by drunks tonight. Having the drunks removed actually increases my freedom.
Please, stop with the irrational "all government is bad mantra". That is as stupid as the "daddy gub'ment got to take care o' me" mentallity.
People would add aftermarket "steering balls" though. Old cars would increase the mechanical advantage through gearing. You'd turn the wheel, say, three times to get a full right turn. For a vehicle that had to do a lot of maneuvering, something like a delivery truck that was constantly backing up to docks, all that wheel turning with two hands would get slow and tedious. Drivers would add a ball that you could grab with one hand to turn the wheel multiple times without having to change hand positions.
Though you could see them on farmer's trucks that didn't have to meet safety requirements because they weren't supposed to be on public roads, they were outlawed before I started driving. Many a driver was killed by the small object impact to the forehead matching a round steering ball.
In an emergency, where you are traveling fast enough that you can't brake to avoid it, turning the wheel more than 90 degrees will cause the car to spin or flip. And that can be accomplished with one hand. If you're not strong enough to control a modern car with assisted steering with one hand in emergency situation, please see a physical therapist.
I owned a Mac truck without power steering. The steering wheel was literally 30" diameter to give the mechanical advantage necessary, but you still couldn't turn it sitting still. That's a bad think to do, but I drove a moving van and needed to get in and out of some tight spots. That was a vehicle that required two hands. There isn't a car made today that can't be steered by the force of the palm of one hand.
Mama? Is that you? When will we get to Wal-Mart?
Depends on how good she is, really.
If you ain't double-clutchin', you ain't drivin'!!
At least it isn't a Ford truck. Then he'd have to worry about the model rockets from the news crews when he crashed.
Technology can fix a LOT of things....for those that can afford it. A house can keep a man dry...for those that can afford it. A fish will feed a man...for those that can afford it.
So, what are you saying, other than the normal whine of "everybody should have everything they want"?
And in Europe, you won't get it unless the bureaucrats think you deserve it.
Expensive things requiring lots of human resources to create can never be had by all. We can distribute goods according to who has earned the resources to exchange for the them, or we can distribute goods according to the whims of a bureaucracy.
Then commit your life to living for the prosperity of others. It's not that hard to make such a decision, really. People have done it throughout the ages.
A even better way of saying it is, "Societal advancement now takes a back seat to earning resources" for that is all that money represents. If you object to exerting yourself for the betterment of your condition, but are only for the condition of others, then don't. But, you can quit with the "unfettered greed of a few" mantra. It's just haughty bullshit and you know it.
Or they could wear spring-foot shoes. Then the "footed" athlete would again have the advantage of longer legs.
Currently, humanity is completely schizoid over athletic "supplements". Friggin' Congressional hearings in the US over steroid use, when everyone with a brain knows that if you ain't gettin' in the big leagues without a few 'roids. Then there are the body builders who actually claim with a straight face that they aren't on the needle, while a quick glance at picture of Ferango and Schartzenager (sp?), put the lie to it. Instead of assisting the willful choices of these athletes, and assisting them with research and knowledge to improve the state of the art like is done with NASCAR and experimental aviation, we try to act like it shouldn't happen.
The spring shoe could assist the handicapped, or a marathon runner. How could they improve the life of a mail carrier? A soldier in the field? A third world farmer? The lack of creativity from the purists is detrimental to the human race.
So, let's start complaining about this after unemployment is below 2%.
...and people are willing to leave the unemployment rolls for personal servant wages.
The determining factor will probably be the weight of the battery pack. Until we develop something with the utility of ATP, specifically the on the fly recharging provided by our digestive systems, bionics will always be playing catchup.
Why don't you invest your money in an insurance company that will invest your funds in paying for every amputee to have the top notch prosthetics and offers zero ROI. I hear those stocks do really well on the market.
If you don't want your healthcare determined by beancounters, don't rely on beancounters to pay for your healthcare. Your asking a company to accept a small payment to cover a large risk, with a prescribed remedy for various conditions. Then you want to complain that the remedy provided should be of greater value than what you agreed to at the onset.
Insurance company stocks typically earn single digit returns. Not spectacular, but reliable. Any lower, and they would not attract capital. Learn some economics before spewing these overused banalities.
Steve Austin, with his bionic limbs, is like a mirage that's always just up ahead--but never seems to actually get any closer.
Steve gets closer. It's the six million dollars that always stays out of reach.
What's with the negative attitude? I charge you with being biased.
Have you tried:
He is a completely empty mouthpiece and said whatever he thought people might vote for while on the campaign trail.
It takes $1 worth of material and some machine shop time to turn an AR-15 fully auto. The biggest argument not to is that full auto is an incredible waste of ammo.
You left out option c
c) American citizens clearly disatisfied with their government.
Most of the soldiers in the US Military's standing army only serve for 4 years. A career soldier is actually rare.
Obama wasn't responsible for a kidnapping. He was responsible for mass murder.
WTF? That's BETTER?
They say it for terrorism or to stop gambling or whatever else they can think of.
The real reason is TAX REVENUE, each and every time.
You stated the purpose for your multiple cards. You didn't necessarily explain why you carried them.
Why does travelling for business require two cards?
Why do you need to carry the card for household expenses? Never know when you'll need to drop into the big-box store to buy some planks to repair the porch?
You carry a personal credit card and a debit card (which you use most of the time). Why?
From your explanation, I can only see a reason to carry two cards: a single card for business and your debit card.