Thank you for clarifying. Even 49% of people wishing to retain possession of a self-defence or hobby tool are a "nobody", just like baby f*ers. It must be comfortable for you to have such a clear moral compass.
"It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants."... except those who do. If the "we" you're talking about were unanimous, it would not have needed a petition, never mind a law.
"equality" is an irrelevant measure when trying to improve the situation of the poor. It would be an inappropriate and in any case unachievable goal. What matters is not how far away person X and Y are. What matters is that person X is not starving to death etc.
"supports government decisions to fight poverty and reduce the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. Measuring equality requires good, long-term and repeated data in order to determine if we are making progress. Without it, we simply donâ(TM)t know"
Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.
Imagine how much better "policy and decisions" they could make if they could put your whole life under the microscope! Please send all your passwords to the police right away.
Dunno, maybe. If all you think 'dividing anyone' or being 'divisive' (or its fashionable antonym 'inclusion') means are the endpoints of the nazi-angel spectrum, then there's not much point using those words any more, is there? So we can expect corresponding self-censorship of SJW literature from now on?
Politicians cashing in on the carefully nurtured panic about global warming and its association with CO2. They could have just said "the car more fuel than expected"... but that is too tame to stir up the public with.
The rationale is literal counterfactual nonsense. Having an CoC is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a friendly or "welcoming" community. The proposal gives no evidence about problems in the community or about how these problems would be solved.
A whole little essay claiming that "slavery" is a good metaphor for a normal free economy rated "Insightful". Ha ha ha.
"It is not a voluntary exchange if the alternative is starvation / homelessness."
Please estimate for us the number of individuals who are in such dire straits that they only have one conceivable choice of income / employer, and whose only alternative is starvation / homelessness.
Then please explain why an economic system should be organized by the unique constraints of such a tiny minority of people.
"This might come as a shock, but the World does not revolve around you!"
Straw man, no one said it did. You could have simply said "the Hurd guys probably do it for fun." and be done with it. That admission would OTOH arouse the question why this is news for nerds and why it matters.
Haha, you might laugh... and yet, people seriously advising that governments should "borrow" interest-free money directly from their central banks, instead of offering bonds to the public. Inflation-a-rama... but it's surely worth the risk, because the Social Spending is So Superimportant.
Increasing efficiency of government services is laudable. Whether that aspect makes up for the incremental outlay remains to be seen (or predicted).
"and providing people with freedom to try crazy things whether that means spending time doing art work, watching TV, studying, doing a super risky startup (without a VC)."
Arts, watching TV, super risky startup... no, not on my dime. But it would be a delightful demonstration of the absurdity of the "from each according to means, to each according to need" marxist dictum.
"Total capitalism isn't going to work great, when everything is made by machines."
"all citizens would be paid a taxless benefit sum free of charge by the government"
But gee, where does the government get that money from? Of course, the citizens would pay, on average, multiple times that "benefit sum" to the government.
"his is really the difference between capitalism as a means to exploit the weak, and capitalism as a means to voluntarily exchange for mutual benefit."
Those are two sides of the exact same coin. Capitalism is exactly the voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. What you people call "exploiting the weak" is the voluntary exchange between two people for mutual benefit, one of which you feel sympathy for.
The previous generations have built up tremendous capital in these western countries. Trouble is, with relatively weak legal constraints on governments, if they turned more totalitarian, they would not only be bad because of that, but because of its possible feasting on that saved-up capital. Don't rest comfortably just because you're comfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
"people who like guns are strange and not to be entirely trusted"
Do you tell that to the face of police officers or soldiers or security guards who carry?
Thank you for clarifying. Even 49% of people wishing to retain possession of a self-defence or hobby tool are a "nobody", just like baby f*ers. It must be comfortable for you to have such a clear moral compass.
Prime ministers are icky - who'd want to access one?
"they're at the same latitude as Canada"
Canada's latitude ranges from 41.7degN to 90degN.
"It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants." ... except those who do. If the "we" you're talking about were unanimous, it would not have needed a petition, never mind a law.
"equality" is an irrelevant measure when trying to improve the situation of the poor. It would be an inappropriate and in any case unachievable goal. What matters is not how far away person X and Y are. What matters is that person X is not starving to death etc.
To "help marginalized and disadvantaged groups" is not the same as bringing about "equality".
"supports government decisions to fight poverty and reduce the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. Measuring equality requires good, long-term and repeated data in order to determine if we are making progress. Without it, we simply donâ(TM)t know"
Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.
"making policy and decisions based on evidence"
Imagine how much better "policy and decisions" they could make if they could put your whole life under the microscope! Please send all your passwords to the police right away.
Dunno, maybe.
If all you think 'dividing anyone' or being 'divisive' (or its fashionable antonym 'inclusion') means are the endpoints of the nazi-angel spectrum, then there's not much point using those words any more, is there? So we can expect corresponding self-censorship of SJW literature from now on?
Well, I got the joke too, but the substance is worth addressing too.
I'm not saying it's untrue, only that it's "divisive".
"It's not dividing anyone."
Oh please. The first blaring announcement in the documentary is a whine about how "fewer large companies are run by women than by men named John".
"What is going on there?"
Politicians cashing in on the carefully nurtured panic about global warming and its association with CO2. They could have just said "the car more fuel than expected" ... but that is too tame to stir up the public with.
"Unfortunately, you do need a CoC with specific guidelines you can cite to kick them out."
No, you don't. People can be excluded from a community by other means than these CoC things. It's been done for years.
The rationale is literal counterfactual nonsense. Having an CoC is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a friendly or "welcoming" community. The proposal gives no evidence about problems in the community or about how these problems would be solved.
The CoC is a non-solution for a non-problem.
A whole little essay claiming that "slavery" is a good metaphor for a normal free economy rated "Insightful". Ha ha ha.
"It is not a voluntary exchange if the alternative is starvation / homelessness."
Please estimate for us the number of individuals who are in such dire straits that they only have one conceivable choice of income / employer, and whose only alternative is starvation / homelessness.
Then please explain why an economic system should be organized by the unique constraints of such a tiny minority of people.
"This might come as a shock, but the World does not revolve around you!"
Straw man, no one said it did. You could have simply said "the Hurd guys probably do it for fun." and be done with it. That admission would OTOH arouse the question why this is news for nerds and why it matters.
"society provided an army and legal system to protect you"
What you call society has no legal obligation to provide anything to you, especially defence.
Haha, you might laugh... and yet, people seriously advising that governments should "borrow" interest-free money directly from their central banks, instead of offering bonds to the public. Inflation-a-rama ... but it's surely worth the risk, because the Social Spending is So Superimportant.
"It's also about removing bureaucracy"
Increasing efficiency of government services is laudable. Whether that aspect makes up for the incremental outlay remains to be seen (or predicted).
"and providing people with freedom to try crazy things whether that means spending time doing art work, watching TV, studying, doing a super risky startup (without a VC)."
Arts, watching TV, super risky startup ... no, not on my dime. But it would be a delightful demonstration of the absurdity of the "from each according to means, to each according to need" marxist dictum.
"Total capitalism isn't going to work great, when everything is made by machines."
We are quite some way from that.
"all citizens would be paid a taxless benefit sum free of charge by the government"
But gee, where does the government get that money from? Of course, the citizens would pay, on average, multiple times that "benefit sum" to the government.
"his is really the difference between capitalism as a means to exploit the weak, and capitalism as a means to voluntarily exchange for mutual benefit."
Those are two sides of the exact same coin. Capitalism is exactly the voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. What you people call "exploiting the weak" is the voluntary exchange between two people for mutual benefit, one of which you feel sympathy for.
The previous generations have built up tremendous capital in these western countries. Trouble is, with relatively weak legal constraints on governments, if they turned more totalitarian, they would not only be bad because of that, but because of its possible feasting on that saved-up capital. Don't rest comfortably just because you're comfortable.
aka regulatory capture.