"You want viable solutions? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions."
Make those "viable" solutions alive then. Then you won't even have to agitate for the banning of payday loan services - people will naturally leave them. (Well, as long as the welfare money tree keeps blooming.)
"they prey on desperate people that have no one else to turn to"
Let's pretend that is literally true. What's going to be the outcome if you get your way and these "scummy businesses" don't exist any more? These desperate people will have literally no one to turn to. You've just hurt them even more.
"It does have the right to tell manufacturers to include a safety feature"
Well, let's not use the word "right" for that sort of thing. It's a "power" they've given themselves via the commerce clause and pieties. IMO even that particular power is questionable. By forcing particular safety features, e.g., they are smothering competition in relation to alternative safety features that the market may demand.
"someone else may have to suffer the emotional trauma"
Amazing, this reliance on someone else's "emotional trauma" as a reason to override simple freedoms. You really don't see what crazy implications that has?
Self-defence? outlawed - after all, a passer-by might see violence and blood.
Curtains on windows? outlawed - after all, someone might get emotional trauma from not being able to spy.
Curtains on windows? mandated - after all, someone else might feel inferior after spying.
The mind boggles that anyone could seriously think someone else's feelings should override freedoms.
"No, by requiring YOU to wear seat belts, the state is protecting ME from the elevated legal (and psychological) consequences of having killed someone in a car accident"
What a fascinating theory.
By that reasoning, would you also support mandating that pedestrians be encased in crash-absorbent giant balls when they cross a street? That bikes be prohibited? That you wear peril-sensitive sunglasses (q.v.)? Or just that after any crash, you remain in your car, eyes tightly shut, ears tightly covered, yelling "la la la la la" at the top of your lungs, so your fragile constitution won't have to fend with the reality outside?
"The nanny state is also providing the roads and underwriting the health"
So wait, are you suggesting that because taxes are extracted from us to pay for roads & the socialized health care system, we should therefore be considered subjects of the state, so we don't burden it too much, and don't take advantage of all that "universal" service?
"the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits"
Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.
You made it necessary to spell out certain basic axioms that everyone else would take for granted. Perhaps I should also say we are talking about human beings, not gods. And on planet earth.
"If a company deliberately produces misinformation and attacks on science and scientists then they should be prosecuted."
No. Science and scientists may be attacked and misinformation spread about them. There are, thankfully, few limits on free speech. And unless you can formulate some specific theory of crimespeak that is consistent with current law (slander, etc.), stop talking about it. Referring to your quaint notion of "public good" doesn't cut it in court - or here.
You are the one who puts profits ahead of human lives and the greater good. Why don't you stop doing that?
You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
"insinuate that the scientific community is trying to silence the critics"
"Insinuate"? Dude, it's more like "quote"!
James Hansen, Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth and our current object-of-affection Bill Nye, and many others, have said that "deniers" should be punished or charged.
Slashdot Mirror
"You want viable solutions? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions."
Make those "viable" solutions alive then. Then you won't even have to agitate for the banning of payday loan services - people will naturally leave them. (Well, as long as the welfare money tree keeps blooming.)
"Most people lose everything they ever had."
[citation needed]
"I was trapped with zero way out."
See bankruptcy.
"That is not a fucking solution."
True, I'm not aware of any payday onanism loans.
"sane people consider that step one"
You know what's even more sane? Establishing and testing an alternative before shutting down the only solution that already exists.
"they prey on desperate people that have no one else to turn to"
Let's pretend that is literally true. What's going to be the outcome if you get your way and these "scummy businesses" don't exist any more? These desperate people will have literally no one to turn to. You've just hurt them even more.
"they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry"
Could have saved some words and just said "they are legal".
That sounds like a plan ... but the market value for 1-5ha reef islands washing away is pretty close to zero.
can confirm
Thanks!
"It does have the right to tell manufacturers to include a safety feature"
Well, let's not use the word "right" for that sort of thing. It's a "power" they've given themselves via the commerce clause and pieties. IMO even that particular power is questionable. By forcing particular safety features, e.g., they are smothering competition in relation to alternative safety features that the market may demand.
"someone else may have to suffer the emotional trauma"
Amazing, this reliance on someone else's "emotional trauma" as a reason to override simple freedoms. You really don't see what crazy implications that has?
Self-defence? outlawed - after all, a passer-by might see violence and blood.
Curtains on windows? outlawed - after all, someone might get emotional trauma from not being able to spy.
Curtains on windows? mandated - after all, someone else might feel inferior after spying.
The mind boggles that anyone could seriously think someone else's feelings should override freedoms.
"No, by requiring YOU to wear seat belts, the state is protecting ME from the elevated legal (and psychological) consequences of having killed someone in a car accident"
What a fascinating theory.
By that reasoning, would you also support mandating that pedestrians be encased in crash-absorbent giant balls when they cross a street? That bikes be prohibited? That you wear peril-sensitive sunglasses (q.v.)? Or just that after any crash, you remain in your car, eyes tightly shut, ears tightly covered, yelling "la la la la la" at the top of your lungs, so your fragile constitution won't have to fend with the reality outside?
"The nanny state is also providing the roads and underwriting the health"
So wait, are you suggesting that because taxes are extracted from us to pay for roads & the socialized health care system, we should therefore be considered subjects of the state, so we don't burden it too much, and don't take advantage of all that "universal" service?
"I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society."
Where is this bastion of equality and fairness where violent crime does not occur?
"the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits"
Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.
"Can't drive a car without wearing seat belts, ..."
That is an act of oppression. The nanny state is protecting you from yourself, which it should not do.
" It is also not "free" it is basic."
You're splitting hairs. Of course it is "free" to the recipients, that's the whole point.
"There is a lot of overhead that could be saved in managing welfare systems by doing something like this."
Not enough. The product basic-income * total-population is still much larger than welfare+overheads * number-of-welfarists.
"you have to add caveats ..."
You made it necessary to spell out certain basic axioms that everyone else would take for granted. Perhaps I should also say we are talking about human beings, not gods. And on planet earth.
"If a company deliberately produces misinformation and attacks on science and scientists then they should be prosecuted."
No. Science and scientists may be attacked and misinformation spread about them. There are, thankfully, few limits on free speech. And unless you can formulate some specific theory of crimespeak that is consistent with current law (slander, etc.), stop talking about it. Referring to your quaint notion of "public good" doesn't cut it in court - or here.
You are pretending - or are sufficiently ignorant to believe - that non-criminal profits are in any way conflicting with "human lives and the greater good".
If "feasible" means "economical", there is definitely doubt - each bit of government subsidy & market distortion is concrete proof of that.
You're equating profit to criminality. Stop that.
"The 80s just called. They want their "greed is good" mantra back."
That was a good and accurate mantra.
"If people are putting profits ahead of human lives and the greater good then they should be punished."
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Profit -is- for human lives and the greater good.
"But did Bill Nye really say that all deniers should be charged?"
No one said "all". It should be "none".
"insinuate that the scientific community is trying to silence the critics"
"Insinuate"? Dude, it's more like "quote"!
James Hansen, Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth and our current object-of-affection Bill Nye, and many others, have said that "deniers" should be punished or charged.
yes ... except that if they ask uncomfortable questions about climate change, they should be charged criminally.
Isn't he though! With permission of Congress, he spends other people's money! Wheeee!!!