"victim blaming" is a straw-man term designed to make those so accused look foolish. Everyone understands that there are many links in the causal chain of an undesirable event. No one who points at a few ("X took nude selfie") excludes the existence of the other ("Y stole it") necessary links.
"fraudulent" is quite an accusation. If you try to outlaw market crashes/corrections, you will kill the market, and then what of your retirement savings?
Whine whine whine... environmentalist research can be done outside funding & auspices of the federal government. Do it for "the truth", do it "for science".
Ezekiel is one of the architects of obamacare. Expect nothing inconsistent from him with the idea of getting the old (expensive) people to just go and die already; that's the only way that obamacare can survive (and even that's a long shot).
Yes, but you're short on quantity & specificity on how it's to "society's benefit" to have (how many?) people live in rural areas.
Plus you will notice food is to some extent market-based, so people are paying for that "benefit" directly already. (Let's ignore stuff like food stamps or farmer subsidies, which don't exactly help quantify the benefits, only the costs.)
"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location...."
I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways you approve. You're not a dictator either (thank god).
And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
"Or do you accept that a certain minimal number of children accidentally killing each other and dudes shooting themselves in the dick is the price we pay for freedom that is arbitrarily unregulated."
Slashdot Mirror
... yeah, or not.
At least one indubitable fact today was that the only thing that stopped the bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun.
That naivete is darned charming.
"I nearly died of shame."
Did W say nothing reasonable & quotable?
"The exception is where sunlight is unavailable"
Don't forget the inverse-square law either.
"if you were to take into account mining, pollution, and adverse health impacts of coal and gas ..."
What are the chances that those costs can be "taken into account" (imagined) differently by different people?
"victim blaming" is a straw-man term designed to make those so accused look foolish. Everyone understands that there are many links in the causal chain of an undesirable event. No one who points at a few ("X took nude selfie") excludes the existence of the other ("Y stole it") necessary links.
If you don't understand why "smart guns" are a threat to normal gun owners in certain states, you are not educated on the subject.
That seems like showing bathing baby photos to grandma is criminal.
"We were married eight months later."
What took that long? Getting emacs vs. vi settled?
"you can only argue about the intended target"
That also depends mostly on the user.
"fraudulent" is quite an accusation. If you try to outlaw market crashes/corrections, you will kill the market, and then what of your retirement savings?
"Market fundamentalists would argue, 'let the utilities die. "
No, market fundamentalists would argue, let the mandated subsidies to solar etc. die first.
" I think it's self explanatory. " ... because that's where the money is ...
"Americans please take note, this is what happens when you elect conservatives."
You missed the part where the Labour party supports the draft law.
Whine whine whine ... environmentalist research can be done outside funding & auspices of the federal government. Do it for "the truth", do it "for science".
Ezekiel is one of the architects of obamacare. Expect nothing inconsistent from him with the idea of getting the old (expensive) people to just go and die already; that's the only way that obamacare can survive (and even that's a long shot).
"
You like to eat don't you?"
Yes, but you're short on quantity & specificity on how it's to "society's benefit" to have (how many?) people live in rural areas.
Plus you will notice food is to some extent market-based, so people are paying for that "benefit" directly already. (Let's ignore stuff like food stamps or farmer subsidies, which don't exactly help quantify the benefits, only the costs.)
" benefits to society as a whole "
Quantify, specify.
"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. ..."
I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways you approve. You're not a dictator either (thank god).
And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.
"But you would condemn them to sub-standard living"
No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
"sub-standard living" -- that's begging the question
"why not just get them all to move"
Sorry, I'm not a dictator.
"What about roads? Schools? Sewage? Water?"
You're confusing subsidies and paid municipal services.
Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).
... at all.
"Or do you accept that a certain minimal number of children accidentally killing each other and dudes shooting themselves in the dick is the price we pay for freedom that is arbitrarily unregulated."
Yes.