There's the problem there. The burden of proof for "seeming" is pathetically low, and yet the police create huge risks to the lives of the people they raid, and their own lives, by acting on such impressions.
"the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."
That sounds like appropriate advice for apprx. all addresses.
"It's just not something we talk and think a lot about..."
While to you and me, that makes perfect sense, to others it is a signal that you are at best in denial and at worst a party to the Evil Patriarchy. Sorry.
If you want to produce your own goods, purchase or grow your own raw materials, mix in your labour, and go for it. No one will shoot you.
(If you're limiting your concern to the bootstrapping question of how someone who has nothing can get something... well, such people can do unskilled labour or rely on charity, -then- purchase those raw materials. This isn't rocket science, and it describes a vanishingly small fraction of the population.)
"and either everyone works for you or starves or you will kill them..."
You must feel very cautious every time you frequent a grocery store, taxi, computer company, landlord, bank, airport, even the guy who sells you underwear, if you think they're secretly planning to kill you if you don't purchase their goods.
... and when basic broadband connectivity does become widespread (isn't it already?), then the goalposts move "25 Mbps downstreamâ"the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline"... requiring yet more government transfer-of-wealth.
"You mean that every time a local community decides to foot the cost themselves..."
That makes it sound so unanimous and wholesome. But 'course the way the "local community decides" really is to have a few representatives chosen by an occasional plurality of voters spend the involuntary taxes of everyone in the community.
"Quote from the article " This is a classic ad hominem attack, consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, often focusing on irrelevant items, whose net effect is to direct attention away from the merits of an argument and instead to the character of the person making it. "
At least that's the way Mann phrases it (without providing citations as to what instance "this" he's referring to). His opponents would probably point at numerous criticisms of Mann's work, and of Mann's occasionally disgraceful behaviour, as reason to doubt Mann -- not his "character" in the abstract.
They could get some of it by selling valuable services that the market couldn't satisfy. Aw heck, even if you force-sell to the population at large, at least keep up the appearance that this is in exchange for specific goods or services of value provided to the population, as opposed to some sort of general entitlement by the state to your money. That mindset would come along with burdens upon the state to show minimality, necessity, etc., rather than mere majority whim.
Slashdot Mirror
more like 11.4 years
In those few cases, they may need to take the bullet. Or use other technologies to protect themselves while politely inquiring at the doorstep.
"I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid."
I thought the TFA (which you "actually do read") and this subthread is exactly about reasons for that.
Taking the situation seriously ... ok. ... not ok.
Staging a raid
"seem like"
There's the problem there. The burden of proof for "seeming" is pathetically low, and yet the police create huge risks to the lives of the people they raid, and their own lives, by acting on such impressions.
"the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."
That sounds like appropriate advice for apprx. all addresses.
... becomes subjective bias-reinforcement when using the phrase "even worse" in comparing numbers
"It's just not something we talk and think a lot about ..."
While to you and me, that makes perfect sense, to others it is a signal that you are at best in denial and at worst a party to the Evil Patriarchy. Sorry.
If you want to produce your own goods, purchase or grow your own raw materials, mix in your labour, and go for it. No one will shoot you.
(If you're limiting your concern to the bootstrapping question of how someone who has nothing can get something ... well, such people can do unskilled labour or rely on charity, -then- purchase those raw materials. This isn't rocket science, and it describes a vanishingly small fraction of the population.)
"and either everyone works for you or starves or you will kill them ..."
You must feel very cautious every time you frequent a grocery store, taxi, computer company, landlord, bank, airport, even the guy who sells you underwear, if you think they're secretly planning to kill you if you don't purchase their goods.
"those that scream the loudest about government are always the ones who want to be the sole controller of government"
Au contraire, many of us would simply yell "laissez faire", and not control government nor you.
"If we had it your way..."
I'm not sure you've quite met the evidentiary burden of that claim.
... and when basic broadband connectivity does become widespread (isn't it already?), then the goalposts move "25 Mbps downstreamâ"the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline" ... requiring yet more government transfer-of-wealth.
I would like the state neither to grant such a monopoly, nor compete with private interests.
"Why do you hate democratically-elected officials making decisions so much?"
I would rather leave to ceasar (government) what is ceasar's, and to god (free enterprise) what is god's.
"You mean that every time a local community decides to foot the cost themselves ..."
That makes it sound so unanimous and wholesome. But 'course the way the "local community decides" really is to have a few representatives chosen by an occasional plurality of voters spend the involuntary taxes of everyone in the community.
... and he better watch his back, in case any of the pictures come out looking like that prophet guy
"Quote from the article " This is a classic ad hominem attack, consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, often focusing on irrelevant items, whose net effect is to direct attention away from the merits of an argument and instead to the character of the person making it. "
At least that's the way Mann phrases it (without providing citations as to what instance "this" he's referring to). His opponents would probably point at numerous criticisms of Mann's work, and of Mann's occasionally disgraceful behaviour, as reason to doubt Mann -- not his "character" in the abstract.
So when you say "No.", you mean "Yes.".
"everyone gets a basic income whether they want it or not. It's meant to be enough to live off"
So, from each according to ability, to each according to need (where "need" is defined to be a uniform quantity).
Thank you for your correction.
"Anybody know a quick and dirty way, a good formula,"
Why sure. We demonstrate the amazing power of DIVISION:
24 hours
-----------------
1.7 ms/100 years
= 5.0823529e+09 years
Solution there, it seems to me, is to inhabit unchangeable-spin planets.
I "couldn't" care less.
They could get some of it by selling valuable services that the market couldn't satisfy. Aw heck, even if you force-sell to the population at large, at least keep up the appearance that this is in exchange for specific goods or services of value provided to the population, as opposed to some sort of general entitlement by the state to your money. That mindset would come along with burdens upon the state to show minimality, necessity, etc., rather than mere majority whim.