How much? And why won't they demand more than that?
Do you think there's an upper limit to what society can pay these people for not working before there are net negative consequences? What keeps the amount below that number?
- Offshoring of all manufacturing from first world countries shifted smart people to office work, less-than-smart people to crappy service jobs
Except there's still a huge amount of manufacturing in first world countries. Here's some info for the US. And the difference between "first world" and developing countries is shrinking rapidly.
- Offshoring of office work including IT shifted a bunch of the smart people to crappy service jobs or the "gig economy" - Automation or offshoring of the rest of the office work
People like you have been selling this story for 20 years. Unemployment is at 5%. Sure, there's significant underemployment and the U6 number is high, but those have been improving steadily for a few years now.
What's really happening is that we're transitioning to an "everything, everywhere" economy. Manufacturing, office work, construction, service jobs, gigs, and farming, mining, drilling and everything else will be done in the traditional first world countries and in traditional developing countries for customers worldwide.
Not a single person at the government school or the government police force who mistreated this kid will ever face even a mild consequence. No one will apologize for their role.
There's nothing that could ever satisfy that test. A kid who runs into the road is going to get hit by a car in ordinary circumstances. If he's incredibly lucky or the driver is heroically responsive and saves the day, the kid won't get hit. No system, human or otherwise, can ever be created to solve this situation satisfactorily. The best hope is probably automatic braking.
At first, I want autonomous driving for when I'm stuck in traffic. It should be able to handle that situation safely. Let's have that and then move on from there.
Prepare yourself to one day anticipate a conclusion that might be mildly interesting.
Thanks Slashdot! But why didn't you post a story warning us we might someday see this story (about what we might someday know -- about some stuff that happened a million years ago)?
Just when they'd started to convince people that "climate change" was legitimately about real phenomenon. But, as we suspected all along, it's just another way to loot rich countries for the good of... who? Who gets the money? Certainly not poor individuals in poor countries -- they never get the money.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?
Do you think it's ethical or good for you to hurt people in the name of love? Do you think it's evil or unethical to help people if you're doing it out of greed -- entirely for your own gain? Do you think the people around you should happily agree to subject themselves to whatever you want to do to them because you're morally righteous and ethically pure?
We have counterparts to those agencies, but ours are hostile. When we buy appliances, we know we are paying extra and getting something inferior because the government prohibited the sale of the old version that worked better and cost less.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
If government is, at best, a necessary evil, then any government that's unnecessary is simply evil.
Greed is one thing that can impact others negatively including the push for big government.
"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
In fact, a greedy tormentor can be bribed or bought, whereas do-gooders who'd cause you the same harm are much more dangerous.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals
... all the money and power to be made enforcing The Right Way on people...
Or adverts that tell everyone that greed and privatization is the answer?
If you think that someone else's so-called "greed" is any of your business, you're saying you know The Right Way for them to make their choices, and that you should have the power to impose your choices on them. (Of course, the power structures you build and sustain always eventually end up being used against you by them. But that's nothing that can't be fixed by centralizing even more power, right?)
I googled that, but all I got was promotional pages. Nothing about how they're planning to have people arrested and imprisoned for funding campaign speech. Maybe they're not planning that. It's not clear either way. Arresting and imprisoning people for speech is evil, so I would never support that.
1. "We know The Right Way for everyone to live their lives and make their choices." This philosophy won't agree with you. The Right Way goes for everyone, regardless of how many they are. If they don't agree, they're stupid or whatever, and their objections can be thoughtlessly dismissed.
2. "We'll live our own lives and make our own choices." These people might agree with you, but it's hard for them to rein in government because of all the money and power to be made enforcing The Right Way on people. Also, these people seem to be a small minority. The majority seem to want to spend their neighbors' money and to make their neighbors' choices for them.
Slashdot Mirror
How much? And why won't they demand more than that?
Do you think there's an upper limit to what society can pay these people for not working before there are net negative consequences? What keeps the amount below that number?
- Offshoring of all manufacturing from first world countries shifted smart people to office work, less-than-smart people to crappy service jobs
Except there's still a huge amount of manufacturing in first world countries. Here's some info for the US. And the difference between "first world" and developing countries is shrinking rapidly.
- Offshoring of office work including IT shifted a bunch of the smart people to crappy service jobs or the "gig economy"
- Automation or offshoring of the rest of the office work
People like you have been selling this story for 20 years. Unemployment is at 5%. Sure, there's significant underemployment and the U6 number is high, but those have been improving steadily for a few years now.
What's really happening is that we're transitioning to an "everything, everywhere" economy. Manufacturing, office work, construction, service jobs, gigs, and farming, mining, drilling and everything else will be done in the traditional first world countries and in traditional developing countries for customers worldwide.
The world largely views the USA as a bully and full of very wealthy people that don't care about those less privileged.
We were promised that the world would love us if we elected Obama. Did the world break it's promise?
What do you think will be your margin of victory? Do you think it'll be a landslide?
What is your agenda for the first 100 days of the McAfee administration?
empathy fail
It's like the way you'd feel if your friend crashed his car 2 hours before he was supposed to give you a ride to the airport.
Non-sociopaths use a sad-face emoticon.
Government officials never get punished for this sort of thing. Authority is self-justifying.
Not a single person at the government school or the government police force who mistreated this kid will ever face even a mild consequence. No one will apologize for their role.
So they should just keep paying extremely high taxes and bay area salaries rather than try to find a better deal?
They should keep paying 30,000 people they don't need. Shouldn't they?
There's nothing that could ever satisfy that test. A kid who runs into the road is going to get hit by a car in ordinary circumstances. If he's incredibly lucky or the driver is heroically responsive and saves the day, the kid won't get hit. No system, human or otherwise, can ever be created to solve this situation satisfactorily. The best hope is probably automatic braking.
At first, I want autonomous driving for when I'm stuck in traffic. It should be able to handle that situation safely. Let's have that and then move on from there.
Prepare yourself to one day anticipate a conclusion that might be mildly interesting.
Thanks Slashdot! But why didn't you post a story warning us we might someday see this story (about what we might someday know -- about some stuff that happened a million years ago)?
Just when they'd started to convince people that "climate change" was legitimately about real phenomenon. But, as we suspected all along, it's just another way to loot rich countries for the good of ... who? Who gets the money? Certainly not poor individuals in poor countries -- they never get the money.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?
Do you think it's ethical or good for you to hurt people in the name of love?
Do you think it's evil or unethical to help people if you're doing it out of greed -- entirely for your own gain?
Do you think the people around you should happily agree to subject themselves to whatever you want to do to them because you're morally righteous and ethically pure?
They keep demanding more and more, but no matter how much they take, the planet never gets "saved".
It's not hype. Dishwashers take 2-3 hours to wash dishes. They used to take half as long and the dishes were just as clean.
We have counterparts to those agencies, but ours are hostile. When we buy appliances, we know we are paying extra and getting something inferior because the government prohibited the sale of the old version that worked better and cost less.
Inevitably governments do have to make choices
Government should make very few choices, only when absolutely necessary.
Thomas Paine:
If government is, at best, a necessary evil, then any government that's unnecessary is simply evil.
Greed is one thing that can impact others negatively including the push for big government.
"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
In fact, a greedy tormentor can be bribed or bought, whereas do-gooders who'd cause you the same harm are much more dangerous.
C.S. Lewis said it best:
Or adverts that tell everyone that greed and privatization is the answer?
If you think that someone else's so-called "greed" is any of your business, you're saying you know The Right Way for them to make their choices, and that you should have the power to impose your choices on them. (Of course, the power structures you build and sustain always eventually end up being used against you by them. But that's nothing that can't be fixed by centralizing even more power, right?)
I googled that, but all I got was promotional pages. Nothing about how they're planning to have people arrested and imprisoned for funding campaign speech. Maybe they're not planning that. It's not clear either way. Arresting and imprisoning people for speech is evil, so I would never support that.
There are 2 basic philosophies at work.
1. "We know The Right Way for everyone to live their lives and make their choices." This philosophy won't agree with you. The Right Way goes for everyone, regardless of how many they are. If they don't agree, they're stupid or whatever, and their objections can be thoughtlessly dismissed.
2. "We'll live our own lives and make our own choices." These people might agree with you, but it's hard for them to rein in government because of all the money and power to be made enforcing The Right Way on people. Also, these people seem to be a small minority. The majority seem to want to spend their neighbors' money and to make their neighbors' choices for them.