To a considerable extent. But I think there's a lack of outrage because the tech surveillance you mention is more "out of sight, out of mind". Also, such technology is viewed as being too convenient to give up AND people use those technologies willingly as opposed to being "spied on" by "prying perverts" with such things like drones.
Unfortunately one never really "owns" anything (except perhaps their own life). Even when you "own" your home (or car, etc.) it can still be taken from you for not paying your taxes, be they property taxes, unclaimed income taxes, dealing drugs, etc.
You make false assumptions about materialism. There is no research in neuroscience that says that consciousness and all it includes is NOT merely a phenomena of the material brain. You should know the "mind-body" problem has been a field of philosophy and science since ancient times. Yet the more we come to understand the more we are discovering that consciousness is in fact merely a phenomena of the (material) brain.
That is evidenced by the fact of the effects of pharmacology and how drugs effect consciousness, how brain injuries effect cognitive abilities, how neurosurgery can effect the functioning of the brain (for good or bad), how physical illness effects brain function and cognition and the fact that there has NEVER been any scientific research that has detect any evidence for a disembodied conscious (which equivalent to providing evidence of a disembodied entity such as a deity).
So if... you want to argue in support of a mind-body duality how about providing some definitive peer reviewed research proving it. All scientific research points in the other direction. Mind is a phenomena of the physical brain.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Do you realize that statistics done in other countries are completely unreliable? Their systems for tracking such things are practically non-existent. And as I mentioned law enforcement agencies in South America are notoriously corrupt. So let's assume your figure of Brazilian rates being 30% higher than the U.S. That would dispute your own original assertion of the U.S. being the most lawless country in the world. Considering the fact that South American data is useless than there is no way you could conclude that their crime/homicide rates are NOT two or three times that of the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
So... am I to assume that your preference for a clown show be a world in which so-called human beings should relinquish even the most basic "laws of nature"? Even wild animals have a natural right to defend themselves and don't rely upon other creatures to protect them from aggression. It seems you may have deluded yourself into believing "society" replaces certain natural rights. Society is completely dependent upon individual people's willingness to participate and cooperate. Though most people may accept that to a certain degree, all people will never completely relinquish their right to self-determination which includes individual action to protect oneself. Especially in incidences in which law enforcement can not be relied upon to immediately respond to your crisis. In fact all "self-protection" laws exist in recognition of that natural fact.
Precluding non-felons from freely possessing firearms without prohibitive requirements is contrary to natural law. You can choose to ignore it if you want and replace it with social agencies and surveillance technology but ultimately that will lead to revolution. Because people will not settle for such dehumanization in the long run.
An ex-Marine acquaintance of mine that runs regional gun safety classes, teaches weapons tactics, owns his own gun shop etc. made me aware on the first day of my gun safety class that there exists a fallacy about law enforcement agencies. That fallacy is the idea that such agencies exist to protect the "public" from criminal and violent people or acts. The truth of the matter is that such agencies exist to merely "prevent the spread" of criminal activity into the wider community once a criminal act occurs. What that means is that essentially, in any given situation, the individual is on his or her own at that particular moment. That people should have little expectation of law enforcement to individually protect them in any given situation. It's not realistic or practical. That reality applies to every single person and that each person has more of a degree of responsibility for self-protection than any law officer. That includes being aware of your surroundings, being aware of potentially dangerous situations and people, etc. However, when we relinquish our responsibilities to others including unreliable law enforcement agencies we actually encourage intellectual and situational laziness and ignorance.
Let's assume Lott's figure is in the ball park just for argument sake. Which of course no one knows in the slightest because most of those acts go unreported. Your assertion that the U.S. may be the most lawless country in the world is ludicrous. For the very fact no one knows. Secondly, my neighbor travels to South America regularly and used to live in Argentina. He was fairly well to do (and still is). Anyway, his experiences down there would make the U.S. seem like Disney World. He lived in a villa surrounded by barbwire fence, had armed guards and never travelled alone. According to him most South American countries are dangerous and corrupt places. One never knew if a cab driver would rob or kidnap you for ransom. Gunmen would stop you on the streets and take everything you had in broad daylight. And no one even bothered reporting such incidents to police because all the cops are on the take too. And that's just South America. He was an engineer on a ship and has travelled the world and he claims it isnt much better in Asia. So as far as i'm concerned I'd believe him before believing your generalization.
Pathology? There is nothing pathological about a person wanting to employ all self-defensive measures to secure life or liberty. And yes, one cant own a firearm for purely defensive measures. Because once the weapon is owned it can be used or "misused". I also might suggest that firearm suicides should not be an issue in the slightest. A suicide is by definition an act committed against oneself. And if a person decides to end their own life that is no more a judgment for anyone else to make than it is someone else deciding what religion you practice. NO ONE owns your life and each person is completely within their right to end it as they see fit. Thus... suicides shouldnt even be a consideration in the firearms debate.
Secondly, though there has (apparently) been a significant drop in suicides in Australia since they changed their gun laws, there is considerably less statistical evidence indicating an equal drop in homicides. Besides, to my knowledge, Australia never had a constitutional right to defend themselves with a firearm. The American constitutionality is premised upon a fundamental and natural right to self-defense. Other countries may choose to defend their strict gun laws but they ignore that fundamental natural right at their own peril. Shall the whole world turn over their weapons to autocratic and otherwise powerful government agents? The government is less responsive to citizen personal danger than the individual themselves. The idea of law enforcement protecting the citizenry is ludicrous in most cases. Just because someone is not a trained marksman they dont have the same rights of self-protection?
You cant have self-protection without someone abusing such rights (i.e. criminal or irresponsible firearm ownership). Additionally, the fact that 40,000 people are injured or killed every year with firearms compares just as favorably as motor vehicle homicides every year. Do we ban liquor, or weed or make passing a driver's license test prohibitively difficult? I see far more irresponsible drivers on the road than i see irresponsible gun owners. And there is NO natural or constitutional right to driving a car.
There is nothing morally or scientifically inferior in "materialism" as opposed to such phenomena as "free will" and "self-awareness". There is no evidence that free-will is in fact "free" and that self-awareness is not an epiphenomenon of materialism. Just because a phenomena appears to exist does not mean its "cause" is independent and stands on its own merits as opposed to being merely a result of something else. As yet we dont know enough about such phenomena, neurology, consciousness, the ability of material objects (such as the physical brain) to generate apparent immaterial perceptions to claim that anything other than the brain itself is the "cause". The body/mind duality controversy may very well be eliminated with advancements in our understanding of neurology (and its capabilities). In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that consciousness and "free will" is NOT a phenomena of the physical brain.
Maybe... likely not. Boredom can be induced by many factors. For example having too little to do. Read a newspaper? Your attention maybe off of operating the vehicle but also attention is directed off of the road. Safe? I have serious doubts. The wisest answer to long distance travel is not technology, rather it is rest periods and extravehicular stimulation. Anyone who would trust their safety to a unintuitive technological "robot" probably shouldnt even be permitted to have a license. You might respond that there are plenty of bad drivers on the road now and an automated vehicle would make their driving safer. I would counter that those same drivers shouldnt have the privilege of driving in the first place. That would also force more lousy drivers to use public transportation which is far safer for everyone. Having the ability to operate a motorized vehicle is a privilege not a right and taking less responsibility for your driving by relinquishing your skills to a computer is irresponsible.
Youre so full of crap your eyes are brown. Your comment "It is all about the power to the SEIU" draws a false dichotomy between "taxpayers" and union membership. It's telling that you didnt pick greedy corporations for the same illustration. Though large union leadership may be subject to a certain amount of "self-interest" what makes that any different than the self interest of the pursuit of personal or corporate wealth? The whole point of unionization is to negotiate an equitable allocation of actual or anticipated resources. And corporate investors and corporations who engage in tax avoidance engages in the same self interested activities that have no different effect on the economy than unions negotiating better working conditions for their members. There is little difference in the "markets" between stockholders and stakeholders. Yet the stakeholders over the past 40 years have been continuously denigrated and eviscerated for the benefit of stockholders. There is nothing morally wrong with striving for a more equitable balance.
It's amusing to me that you see little of such protests on the major network news programs and that those same programs always find time to pitch some "humanitarian" story about some kid running a lemon aid stand or how a dog saved some old lady crossing a busy street, etc. They certainly dont want to give the general public any idea that not all is well in Emerald City (or anywhere).
Not so. Every state and the federal government have "business law" regulations that stipulate that "investors" get first consideration in the operation of a business entity. For example, in virtually every state there are requirements of corporate officers to maximize profit in the interest of investors and if corporate officers fail in their fiduciary responsibilities to maximize shareholder profit that administrator can be held personally responsible for certain losses. There is NO comparable business law that protects consumers other than the state and federal laws enacted known as "consumer protection" laws. However the laws protecting investors are more enforceable and more specific than the more ambiguous protections afforded to consumers. It's analogous to buying a home. Even though one might imagine that just because you live in a house and can make modifications to said dwelling, then it's YOUR home. If you dont pay your mortgage (bank as investor which by proxy represents bank shareholders) the bank must foreclose to protect their investors. Foreclosure allows the investors to resell the property to someone who will make good on the loan. In other words, investors interests supersede your right to live somewhere. Thus investors trump consumer. That's capitalism. Monied interest takes precedence over all other interests, including public safety, community interests, state of the environment, global and national defense (war), etc.
It is exactly the consumer oriented protections that conflict with monied interests that is at the heart of the conservative efforts (by any party) to undermine the power, reach and effectiveness of government. Monied interests want no other form of "regulation" other than regulation that benefits monied interests. THAT... is their idea of capitalism and "free markets."
Of course youre not bias in any way. That leaves sarcasm, misinformed, misguided, liar or stupid. There is no relationship between welfare roles and the FAA rules. In fact just the opposite of your assertion is closer to the truth. Ever since the Clinton administration the main mission of relief programs has been employment directed, including self employment. The welfare system hands out hundreds of thousands of "grants" to welfare recipients to aid them in starting their own business. And for any type of business that has the potential to succeed. Every thing from Air pilot training, to horse training to truck driving to countless under graduate degrees in an effort to get people employed. You obviously know very little about how "welfare" actually works. The reason the welfare roles have grown and perhaps the number of government jobs is a direct result of economic conditions created with the present day conservative economic policies over the past forty years. It always amazes me how conservative sycophants like to ignore the economic conditions created by outsourcing, downsizing, no or few levies attached to lower priced foreign products or just about ANY economic policies to create a more level playing field for American workers. And lets not forget the business philosophy of maximizing profit at ALL cost, even American jobs. Oh, wait, my opinion doesnt matter because I'm obviously a "liberal". In fact I'm neither liberal or conservative. I'd just prefer to rely upon fact.
It is profoundly irrational to seek power over others. That kind of egoism and narcissism would be viewed as a personality disorder, obsessive/compulsive if not out right psychotic. One might argue that egoism is a natural human trait but even that Neolithic drive is maladaptive in all exceptionally socialized and complex cultures. One might also assert that what I describe makes all business and political leaders deviant and thus one would be forced to conclude the world is led by a cadre of crazy people. Instead, when one does "objectively" evaluate where we have been led for the past 4000 years you would expect to find humankind exactly where we are; on a polluted, warring and increasingly dangerous "blue marble" in the outlands of the galaxy. Rational people would be far more cooperative given the tenuousness (from terrestrial or extraterrestrial threats) with which we persist. Ultimately we stand together or fall together.
That's a nice thought, (species) selfishness = dominance. Aren't you forgetting something? How about time? We MAY be temporarily a technically superior species but certainly not the longest surviving one. Birds, reptiles and in particular insects have survived far longer. Ants (and bees) for one have a very "organized" almost altruistic social structure and is one of the longest surviving species. I suppose one could argue what difference does it make because ants dont have airplanes, computers, cars, firearms, etc. The point being, (and this kind of addresses your dominance observation) what good is dominance if it's only temporary? Isnt survivability ultimately the end goal? Homo Sapiens have only been around for a geologic and biological blink of an eye. So any accomplishments we've made only really matters IF they translate into actual long term species survival. And at the rate we are reproducing, fouling the air, water, soil, etc. one cannot reasonably expect homo sapiens to last anywhere near another fifty thousand years.
On the contrary, I'm a big civil rights fan and advocate. Which is one reason I dont fly... period. I'm merely asserting that IF the PEOPLE see a need for some security practice that the security procedures ought to be consistent across the industry so that every passenger knows in advance what security (or lack thereof) they are dealing with. Without having to scrutinize ten different airline security practices. I for one dont trust private industry any more than government.... each one has their own misguided motivations. Not to resort to ad homonym attacks, but free market ideologues are as repugnant as socialist or communist ideologues for the fail (or are unwilling) to admit every system is corrupt one way or another.
You cant be serious. Private industry fought all past attempts to screen passengers because of the inconvenience and cost. They even fought the Air Marshalls proposal way back when. Only the government mandates from 9/11 made any significant difference. Even then the airlines industry balked fearing it would adversely effect air travel and thus their bottom line. In addition to that, if each company was responsible for their own security they would no doubt have a system with substantial discrepancies in procedures and safeguards.
Typical libertarian response, blame everything on "red tape". There's plenty of red tape in western Europe yet there economies are doing better than the U.S. overall (European Union). Let's also ignore all the red tape that protects working slobs from employer malfeasance, irresponsibility, workplace hazards, toxins, etc. etc. in the pursuit of an extra 3% in profit which largely goes into the owners pocket, not creating "jobs". You free-market extremists like to ignore the other side of the market equations until you or your child's health is adversely effected. Then scream bloody murder like they do on Fox every time something happens in the market that upsets their fantastical ideas about how markets are supposed to function. (Yeh MSNBC and CNN does the same thing. Everyone has their slant on the news even if it means employing incredulous distortions. The point being conservatism isnt as pure as all you libertarians like to pretend.) You seem to forget that a vast majority of that "red tape" came to be over the last 80 years BECAUSE "the people" demanded it after someone was killed, sickened, endangered, robbed of their savings, poisoned with contaminated fresh water, misdiagnosed, lied to, purposely cheated, etc. etc. ad infinitum. If you believe all that red tape exists just because someone in D.C. or your state legislature loved making up rules youre a fool. Most of those rules exist either because the public demanded it because of events demonstrating a need for regulation or the markets themselves created the need. The conservative theology opposing red tape largely ignores decades that demanded such regulation and is a revisionist plot to rewrite American, and global economic and political history. The fact that you can ignore the past generation of empty promises by "job creators", capitalist political sycophants, the "1%" and other capitalist lapdogs to me demonstrates you are as much of a "shit for brains" ass licker as you would accuse your liberal communist opponents. Extremist ideology on both sides is what's not only polarizing America but that extreme social discord is one of the main components undermining American prominence.
Youre joking, yes? Doing pretty well without them? (Unions) What country do you actually live in? China? Nearly ANY news source reports the American middle class has significantly shrunk. The minimum wage (had it kept pace with inflation) would now be around $12. Fewer people (at least until "Obama Care) had or have employer sponsored health insurance. More people than ever are seeking medical services from "free clinics" (low income). Workforces are significantly reduced.
"Trickle Down"? Taking less money from "job creators"? Who are they? Oh, wait, they MAY be creating sweatshop jobs overseas but certainly not any sustainable jobs to any considerable degree in the U.S. Killing people just because of their government's political structure? Youre a Neanderthal if you really believe that. There is no pure capitalist government in the world. So why dont you go shoot a few Americans because there are communist/socialist policies in place in a America.
Giving weapons to the contras. Again, whether or not one agrees, it was factually illegal at the time to do so. So what? Presidents are above the law? They may think they are. But wishing and being are two different things. You want to encourage lawlessness? Miscreants like you are part of the moral plague upon the planet.
Let not forget that Ronnie and Nancy also consulted astrologers and "spiritualists" (or the séance and palm reading kind) before making many important decisions.
There is no such thing as business (especially corporate) "false advertising". That's one of the ramifications of corporate personhood. Since corporations are "people" under various Supreme Court rulings and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, they have the same legal protections you do. Which means they have the rights of "free speech" (including lies, half-truths and outright falsehoods) and the prohibition against self incrimination. The Kasky v. Nike case blurred the line between commercial and first amendment speech. And now with more recent SCOTUS rulings on corporate personhood, corporations incur even less scrutiny in what they can say.
Slashdot Mirror
To a considerable extent. But I think there's a lack of outrage because the tech surveillance you mention is more "out of sight, out of mind". Also, such technology is viewed as being too convenient to give up AND people use those technologies willingly as opposed to being "spied on" by "prying perverts" with such things like drones.
Unfortunately one never really "owns" anything (except perhaps their own life). Even when you "own" your home (or car, etc.) it can still be taken from you for not paying your taxes, be they property taxes, unclaimed income taxes, dealing drugs, etc.
You make false assumptions about materialism. There is no research in neuroscience that says that consciousness and all it includes is NOT merely a phenomena of the material brain. You should know the "mind-body" problem has been a field of philosophy and science since ancient times. Yet the more we come to understand the more we are discovering that consciousness is in fact merely a phenomena of the (material) brain. That is evidenced by the fact of the effects of pharmacology and how drugs effect consciousness, how brain injuries effect cognitive abilities, how neurosurgery can effect the functioning of the brain (for good or bad), how physical illness effects brain function and cognition and the fact that there has NEVER been any scientific research that has detect any evidence for a disembodied conscious (which equivalent to providing evidence of a disembodied entity such as a deity). So if... you want to argue in support of a mind-body duality how about providing some definitive peer reviewed research proving it. All scientific research points in the other direction. Mind is a phenomena of the physical brain. http://www.scientificamerican....
Do you realize that statistics done in other countries are completely unreliable? Their systems for tracking such things are practically non-existent. And as I mentioned law enforcement agencies in South America are notoriously corrupt. So let's assume your figure of Brazilian rates being 30% higher than the U.S. That would dispute your own original assertion of the U.S. being the most lawless country in the world. Considering the fact that South American data is useless than there is no way you could conclude that their crime/homicide rates are NOT two or three times that of the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
So... am I to assume that your preference for a clown show be a world in which so-called human beings should relinquish even the most basic "laws of nature"? Even wild animals have a natural right to defend themselves and don't rely upon other creatures to protect them from aggression. It seems you may have deluded yourself into believing "society" replaces certain natural rights. Society is completely dependent upon individual people's willingness to participate and cooperate. Though most people may accept that to a certain degree, all people will never completely relinquish their right to self-determination which includes individual action to protect oneself. Especially in incidences in which law enforcement can not be relied upon to immediately respond to your crisis. In fact all "self-protection" laws exist in recognition of that natural fact. Precluding non-felons from freely possessing firearms without prohibitive requirements is contrary to natural law. You can choose to ignore it if you want and replace it with social agencies and surveillance technology but ultimately that will lead to revolution. Because people will not settle for such dehumanization in the long run. An ex-Marine acquaintance of mine that runs regional gun safety classes, teaches weapons tactics, owns his own gun shop etc. made me aware on the first day of my gun safety class that there exists a fallacy about law enforcement agencies. That fallacy is the idea that such agencies exist to protect the "public" from criminal and violent people or acts. The truth of the matter is that such agencies exist to merely "prevent the spread" of criminal activity into the wider community once a criminal act occurs. What that means is that essentially, in any given situation, the individual is on his or her own at that particular moment. That people should have little expectation of law enforcement to individually protect them in any given situation. It's not realistic or practical. That reality applies to every single person and that each person has more of a degree of responsibility for self-protection than any law officer. That includes being aware of your surroundings, being aware of potentially dangerous situations and people, etc. However, when we relinquish our responsibilities to others including unreliable law enforcement agencies we actually encourage intellectual and situational laziness and ignorance.
Let's assume Lott's figure is in the ball park just for argument sake. Which of course no one knows in the slightest because most of those acts go unreported. Your assertion that the U.S. may be the most lawless country in the world is ludicrous. For the very fact no one knows. Secondly, my neighbor travels to South America regularly and used to live in Argentina. He was fairly well to do (and still is). Anyway, his experiences down there would make the U.S. seem like Disney World. He lived in a villa surrounded by barbwire fence, had armed guards and never travelled alone. According to him most South American countries are dangerous and corrupt places. One never knew if a cab driver would rob or kidnap you for ransom. Gunmen would stop you on the streets and take everything you had in broad daylight. And no one even bothered reporting such incidents to police because all the cops are on the take too. And that's just South America. He was an engineer on a ship and has travelled the world and he claims it isnt much better in Asia. So as far as i'm concerned I'd believe him before believing your generalization.
Pathology? There is nothing pathological about a person wanting to employ all self-defensive measures to secure life or liberty. And yes, one cant own a firearm for purely defensive measures. Because once the weapon is owned it can be used or "misused". I also might suggest that firearm suicides should not be an issue in the slightest. A suicide is by definition an act committed against oneself. And if a person decides to end their own life that is no more a judgment for anyone else to make than it is someone else deciding what religion you practice. NO ONE owns your life and each person is completely within their right to end it as they see fit. Thus... suicides shouldnt even be a consideration in the firearms debate. Secondly, though there has (apparently) been a significant drop in suicides in Australia since they changed their gun laws, there is considerably less statistical evidence indicating an equal drop in homicides. Besides, to my knowledge, Australia never had a constitutional right to defend themselves with a firearm. The American constitutionality is premised upon a fundamental and natural right to self-defense. Other countries may choose to defend their strict gun laws but they ignore that fundamental natural right at their own peril. Shall the whole world turn over their weapons to autocratic and otherwise powerful government agents? The government is less responsive to citizen personal danger than the individual themselves. The idea of law enforcement protecting the citizenry is ludicrous in most cases. Just because someone is not a trained marksman they dont have the same rights of self-protection? You cant have self-protection without someone abusing such rights (i.e. criminal or irresponsible firearm ownership). Additionally, the fact that 40,000 people are injured or killed every year with firearms compares just as favorably as motor vehicle homicides every year. Do we ban liquor, or weed or make passing a driver's license test prohibitively difficult? I see far more irresponsible drivers on the road than i see irresponsible gun owners. And there is NO natural or constitutional right to driving a car.
There is nothing morally or scientifically inferior in "materialism" as opposed to such phenomena as "free will" and "self-awareness". There is no evidence that free-will is in fact "free" and that self-awareness is not an epiphenomenon of materialism. Just because a phenomena appears to exist does not mean its "cause" is independent and stands on its own merits as opposed to being merely a result of something else. As yet we dont know enough about such phenomena, neurology, consciousness, the ability of material objects (such as the physical brain) to generate apparent immaterial perceptions to claim that anything other than the brain itself is the "cause". The body/mind duality controversy may very well be eliminated with advancements in our understanding of neurology (and its capabilities). In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that consciousness and "free will" is NOT a phenomena of the physical brain.
Maybe... likely not. Boredom can be induced by many factors. For example having too little to do. Read a newspaper? Your attention maybe off of operating the vehicle but also attention is directed off of the road. Safe? I have serious doubts. The wisest answer to long distance travel is not technology, rather it is rest periods and extravehicular stimulation. Anyone who would trust their safety to a unintuitive technological "robot" probably shouldnt even be permitted to have a license. You might respond that there are plenty of bad drivers on the road now and an automated vehicle would make their driving safer. I would counter that those same drivers shouldnt have the privilege of driving in the first place. That would also force more lousy drivers to use public transportation which is far safer for everyone. Having the ability to operate a motorized vehicle is a privilege not a right and taking less responsibility for your driving by relinquishing your skills to a computer is irresponsible.
Youre so full of crap your eyes are brown. Your comment "It is all about the power to the SEIU" draws a false dichotomy between "taxpayers" and union membership. It's telling that you didnt pick greedy corporations for the same illustration. Though large union leadership may be subject to a certain amount of "self-interest" what makes that any different than the self interest of the pursuit of personal or corporate wealth? The whole point of unionization is to negotiate an equitable allocation of actual or anticipated resources. And corporate investors and corporations who engage in tax avoidance engages in the same self interested activities that have no different effect on the economy than unions negotiating better working conditions for their members. There is little difference in the "markets" between stockholders and stakeholders. Yet the stakeholders over the past 40 years have been continuously denigrated and eviscerated for the benefit of stockholders. There is nothing morally wrong with striving for a more equitable balance.
It's amusing to me that you see little of such protests on the major network news programs and that those same programs always find time to pitch some "humanitarian" story about some kid running a lemon aid stand or how a dog saved some old lady crossing a busy street, etc. They certainly dont want to give the general public any idea that not all is well in Emerald City (or anywhere).
Not so. Every state and the federal government have "business law" regulations that stipulate that "investors" get first consideration in the operation of a business entity. For example, in virtually every state there are requirements of corporate officers to maximize profit in the interest of investors and if corporate officers fail in their fiduciary responsibilities to maximize shareholder profit that administrator can be held personally responsible for certain losses. There is NO comparable business law that protects consumers other than the state and federal laws enacted known as "consumer protection" laws. However the laws protecting investors are more enforceable and more specific than the more ambiguous protections afforded to consumers. It's analogous to buying a home. Even though one might imagine that just because you live in a house and can make modifications to said dwelling, then it's YOUR home. If you dont pay your mortgage (bank as investor which by proxy represents bank shareholders) the bank must foreclose to protect their investors. Foreclosure allows the investors to resell the property to someone who will make good on the loan. In other words, investors interests supersede your right to live somewhere. Thus investors trump consumer. That's capitalism. Monied interest takes precedence over all other interests, including public safety, community interests, state of the environment, global and national defense (war), etc. It is exactly the consumer oriented protections that conflict with monied interests that is at the heart of the conservative efforts (by any party) to undermine the power, reach and effectiveness of government. Monied interests want no other form of "regulation" other than regulation that benefits monied interests. THAT... is their idea of capitalism and "free markets."
Of course youre not bias in any way. That leaves sarcasm, misinformed, misguided, liar or stupid. There is no relationship between welfare roles and the FAA rules. In fact just the opposite of your assertion is closer to the truth. Ever since the Clinton administration the main mission of relief programs has been employment directed, including self employment. The welfare system hands out hundreds of thousands of "grants" to welfare recipients to aid them in starting their own business. And for any type of business that has the potential to succeed. Every thing from Air pilot training, to horse training to truck driving to countless under graduate degrees in an effort to get people employed. You obviously know very little about how "welfare" actually works. The reason the welfare roles have grown and perhaps the number of government jobs is a direct result of economic conditions created with the present day conservative economic policies over the past forty years. It always amazes me how conservative sycophants like to ignore the economic conditions created by outsourcing, downsizing, no or few levies attached to lower priced foreign products or just about ANY economic policies to create a more level playing field for American workers. And lets not forget the business philosophy of maximizing profit at ALL cost, even American jobs. Oh, wait, my opinion doesnt matter because I'm obviously a "liberal". In fact I'm neither liberal or conservative. I'd just prefer to rely upon fact.
It is profoundly irrational to seek power over others. That kind of egoism and narcissism would be viewed as a personality disorder, obsessive/compulsive if not out right psychotic. One might argue that egoism is a natural human trait but even that Neolithic drive is maladaptive in all exceptionally socialized and complex cultures. One might also assert that what I describe makes all business and political leaders deviant and thus one would be forced to conclude the world is led by a cadre of crazy people. Instead, when one does "objectively" evaluate where we have been led for the past 4000 years you would expect to find humankind exactly where we are; on a polluted, warring and increasingly dangerous "blue marble" in the outlands of the galaxy. Rational people would be far more cooperative given the tenuousness (from terrestrial or extraterrestrial threats) with which we persist. Ultimately we stand together or fall together.
Let's not forget Ronny Reagan.
That's a nice thought, (species) selfishness = dominance. Aren't you forgetting something? How about time? We MAY be temporarily a technically superior species but certainly not the longest surviving one. Birds, reptiles and in particular insects have survived far longer. Ants (and bees) for one have a very "organized" almost altruistic social structure and is one of the longest surviving species. I suppose one could argue what difference does it make because ants dont have airplanes, computers, cars, firearms, etc. The point being, (and this kind of addresses your dominance observation) what good is dominance if it's only temporary? Isnt survivability ultimately the end goal? Homo Sapiens have only been around for a geologic and biological blink of an eye. So any accomplishments we've made only really matters IF they translate into actual long term species survival. And at the rate we are reproducing, fouling the air, water, soil, etc. one cannot reasonably expect homo sapiens to last anywhere near another fifty thousand years.
On the contrary, I'm a big civil rights fan and advocate. Which is one reason I dont fly... period. I'm merely asserting that IF the PEOPLE see a need for some security practice that the security procedures ought to be consistent across the industry so that every passenger knows in advance what security (or lack thereof) they are dealing with. Without having to scrutinize ten different airline security practices. I for one dont trust private industry any more than government. ... each one has their own misguided motivations. Not to resort to ad homonym attacks, but free market ideologues are as repugnant as socialist or communist ideologues for the fail (or are unwilling) to admit every system is corrupt one way or another.
Again you ignore the risk. Unhealthy people ARE a risk to others. So you have a pretty narrowly skewed view of "risk assessment".
You cant be serious. Private industry fought all past attempts to screen passengers because of the inconvenience and cost. They even fought the Air Marshalls proposal way back when. Only the government mandates from 9/11 made any significant difference. Even then the airlines industry balked fearing it would adversely effect air travel and thus their bottom line. In addition to that, if each company was responsible for their own security they would no doubt have a system with substantial discrepancies in procedures and safeguards.
Most MS apps are crap anyway.
Pseudoscience. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/dows...
Typical libertarian response, blame everything on "red tape". There's plenty of red tape in western Europe yet there economies are doing better than the U.S. overall (European Union). Let's also ignore all the red tape that protects working slobs from employer malfeasance, irresponsibility, workplace hazards, toxins, etc. etc. in the pursuit of an extra 3% in profit which largely goes into the owners pocket, not creating "jobs". You free-market extremists like to ignore the other side of the market equations until you or your child's health is adversely effected. Then scream bloody murder like they do on Fox every time something happens in the market that upsets their fantastical ideas about how markets are supposed to function. (Yeh MSNBC and CNN does the same thing. Everyone has their slant on the news even if it means employing incredulous distortions. The point being conservatism isnt as pure as all you libertarians like to pretend.) You seem to forget that a vast majority of that "red tape" came to be over the last 80 years BECAUSE "the people" demanded it after someone was killed, sickened, endangered, robbed of their savings, poisoned with contaminated fresh water, misdiagnosed, lied to, purposely cheated, etc. etc. ad infinitum. If you believe all that red tape exists just because someone in D.C. or your state legislature loved making up rules youre a fool. Most of those rules exist either because the public demanded it because of events demonstrating a need for regulation or the markets themselves created the need. The conservative theology opposing red tape largely ignores decades that demanded such regulation and is a revisionist plot to rewrite American, and global economic and political history. The fact that you can ignore the past generation of empty promises by "job creators", capitalist political sycophants, the "1%" and other capitalist lapdogs to me demonstrates you are as much of a "shit for brains" ass licker as you would accuse your liberal communist opponents. Extremist ideology on both sides is what's not only polarizing America but that extreme social discord is one of the main components undermining American prominence.
Youre joking, yes? Doing pretty well without them? (Unions) What country do you actually live in? China? Nearly ANY news source reports the American middle class has significantly shrunk. The minimum wage (had it kept pace with inflation) would now be around $12. Fewer people (at least until "Obama Care) had or have employer sponsored health insurance. More people than ever are seeking medical services from "free clinics" (low income). Workforces are significantly reduced. "Trickle Down"? Taking less money from "job creators"? Who are they? Oh, wait, they MAY be creating sweatshop jobs overseas but certainly not any sustainable jobs to any considerable degree in the U.S. Killing people just because of their government's political structure? Youre a Neanderthal if you really believe that. There is no pure capitalist government in the world. So why dont you go shoot a few Americans because there are communist/socialist policies in place in a America. Giving weapons to the contras. Again, whether or not one agrees, it was factually illegal at the time to do so. So what? Presidents are above the law? They may think they are. But wishing and being are two different things. You want to encourage lawlessness? Miscreants like you are part of the moral plague upon the planet.
Let not forget that Ronnie and Nancy also consulted astrologers and "spiritualists" (or the séance and palm reading kind) before making many important decisions.
There is no such thing as business (especially corporate) "false advertising". That's one of the ramifications of corporate personhood. Since corporations are "people" under various Supreme Court rulings and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, they have the same legal protections you do. Which means they have the rights of "free speech" (including lies, half-truths and outright falsehoods) and the prohibition against self incrimination. The Kasky v. Nike case blurred the line between commercial and first amendment speech. And now with more recent SCOTUS rulings on corporate personhood, corporations incur even less scrutiny in what they can say.