Cuba is a huge tropical island with a well educated population. North Korea is strategically located between the vibrant state of South Korea and China, soon to be the world's largest economy. Both Cuba and North Korea are in prime locations for international trade and commerce.
In addition to all that, they have the most progressive socialist governments in the world. While the rest of the world has been wasting their time with free enterprise and capitalism, these guys took the progressive, enlightened approach.
Again, lots of pointless talk about "rights" and "licensing" and "rules" to justify ambushing and robbing travelers. Why justify it? Just stop ambushing and robbing travelers.
If mobsters were setup along the road, stopping travelers and taking their money under implied threats, it would be wrong. Not just illegal, but actually morally wrong. Even if they only took $100 from each. Even if they only stopped people going fast. Even if they had "rules" for who was stopped. Even if they said they were only targeting people doing risky things. Even if they told you you "agreed" to this by coming on their turf. Fortunately, we don't have mobsters doing that. Unfortunately, we have an even more powerful organization doing essentially the same thing.
Mobsters don't care about right and wrong. They just want to get paid. How about you?
Easy. They keep redefining "intoxicated" closer and closer to perfectly sober. Even the slightest distraction is the same as being "intoxicated" when "intoxicated" is a half bottle of beer.
I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing [changes in the Earth's rotation speed]? Just thinking logically, it makes sense. We're taking carbon that's been buried for millions of years, and then burning it, on a huge scale. How can this not affect the [Earth's rotation speed]?.
That's not really an argument. Something is either happening or it's not, regardless of whether it sounds logical to you or anyone else.
People are skeptical because the climate change alarmists want to centralize government power over individuals. There's a never-ending list of reasons why we are told we should give governments more power over us. When one reason fails, the power-hungry always come up with a new reason. There's an equally long set of historical examples for why government power over individuals is dangerous.
Since power-hungry people have an obvious motive to lie, and since free people have obvious reasons to be suspicious of the power-hungry, why shouldn't you expect "resistance" when yet another reason to concentrate power is offered?
You seem to think "rule of law" means every action or inaction in every second of everyone's day needs to be ruled by a law. That's not what it means. A free person rules himself. "Rules of law" means the people in the government have to follow the law.
You really seem hellbent to justify ambushing travelers and taking their money -- even though everyone knows that's not the behavior of an honest person. You don't have to go crazy trying to defend robbing travelers, just stop doing it. Find something honest to do with your time. Maybe try helping people rather than taking their money.
I don't get tickets because I don't go fast. I don't get raped either, because I don't dress up like a slut and hang out in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But what kind of person sits by the side of the road waiting to ambush people and take their money? Honest people don't do things like that.
The LA Times story says 1200 gallons. "Thousands of gallons" is a big exaggeration that is probably intended to mislead people. But it's more than 70 gallons.
What's the point? Either there are lots of problems all over and therefore we need to think about regulation, or not. This story is about one incident. It does not indicate lots of problems. It does not counter-indicate lots of problems either. If there is data to indicate widespread problems, post the data.
Stop pretending to have knowledge. Either post it or admit you don't know.
On a somewhat-related note (well, "oil + pipelines" so close enough): Imagine what sort of damage will be done by a leak of the proposed oil sands pipeline if that corrosive gunk finds its way into the aquifer used by the majority of the Midwest and the huge amount of farming that occurs there
Why do we need national regulations to deal with a small local problem that affects only a few people?
Is it because you have a personal hatred for one of the parties involved? Is it because you will personally gain from the regulation? Or is it because you think everything in the world needs a regulatory hand guiding it -- a government hand, with armed enforcers to punish anyone who gets out of line? Which is it?
Here in the US, males 26 and older are forced to buy health insurance that includes pregnancy, even though pregnancy isn't a health condition for males.
For 401k plans, you pay the money into the plan every paycheck. When the person retires, no more money is paid into the account. The retiree draws upon the money saved during his working years. All the costs are up-front, borne by the people who received the benefit from the work done.
With pensions, all the promises are up front. Then people who come along later are stuck with the bill -- paying for more and more in pensions and getting less and less in government services.
Veteran's pensions don't fight wars. Police pensions don't patrol the streets. Fire fighter pensions don't put out fires. Teacher pensions don't teach kids.
Pensions should be replaced with a 401K-style savings plan. The people who soldiers fought for should be paying the cost, not their grandchildren. If you got fire protection from a fire fighter, you should pay, not the guy who moves into your town 10 years after the fire fighter retires.
The same thing that's wrong with all one-size-fits-all requirements: One size does not fit all, and the people your requirements don't fit are being oppressed.
Most such requirements, including this one, are also unnecessary. Buy your car where you can get service if you want. Don't if you don't. So your requirement oppresses people, and it does it unnecessarily. If you want a working definition of government evil, that's a good start.
If you look at the chart at the link, it's 500-1000 out of 22000 or so -- 22000 is an all time high. So it's obviously the most outrageous outrage in history and we should all panic and wail and rend our clothes.
A 5% budget cut is "the destruction of the greatest source of innovation the U.S. -- and the world -- has ever seen"?
Just for some perspective on Federal government spending, "General Science, Space, and Technology" spending is up 12% (after inflation adjustment) from 2002-2012 and "Health" spending is up 41% during the same period. "Energy" spending is up 2400%.
Slashdot Mirror
Cuba is a huge tropical island with a well educated population. North Korea is strategically located between the vibrant state of South Korea and China, soon to be the world's largest economy. Both Cuba and North Korea are in prime locations for international trade and commerce.
In addition to all that, they have the most progressive socialist governments in the world. While the rest of the world has been wasting their time with free enterprise and capitalism, these guys took the progressive, enlightened approach.
So why can't they pay their bills?
Again, lots of pointless talk about "rights" and "licensing" and "rules" to justify ambushing and robbing travelers. Why justify it? Just stop ambushing and robbing travelers.
If mobsters were setup along the road, stopping travelers and taking their money under implied threats, it would be wrong. Not just illegal, but actually morally wrong. Even if they only took $100 from each. Even if they only stopped people going fast. Even if they had "rules" for who was stopped. Even if they said they were only targeting people doing risky things. Even if they told you you "agreed" to this by coming on their turf. Fortunately, we don't have mobsters doing that. Unfortunately, we have an even more powerful organization doing essentially the same thing.
Mobsters don't care about right and wrong. They just want to get paid. How about you?
This is the real problem. Your phone furthers your own bourgeois material individualism. It must be re-purposed to better serve the collective.
Easy. They keep redefining "intoxicated" closer and closer to perfectly sober. Even the slightest distraction is the same as being "intoxicated" when "intoxicated" is a half bottle of beer.
It hasn't worked..
This is complete bullshit. Driving has been getting safer for 40 years and the trend is even longer and more obvious if you report fatalities per mile driven.
People still drive drunk
Drunk driving is down, even if you use the inflated "alcohol related" numbers.
I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing [changes in the Earth's rotation speed]? Just thinking logically, it makes sense. We're taking carbon that's been buried for millions of years, and then burning it, on a huge scale. How can this not affect the [Earth's rotation speed]?.
That's not really an argument. Something is either happening or it's not, regardless of whether it sounds logical to you or anyone else.
People are skeptical because the climate change alarmists want to centralize government power over individuals. There's a never-ending list of reasons why we are told we should give governments more power over us. When one reason fails, the power-hungry always come up with a new reason. There's an equally long set of historical examples for why government power over individuals is dangerous.
Since power-hungry people have an obvious motive to lie, and since free people have obvious reasons to be suspicious of the power-hungry, why shouldn't you expect "resistance" when yet another reason to concentrate power is offered?
You seem to think "rule of law" means every action or inaction in every second of everyone's day needs to be ruled by a law. That's not what it means. A free person rules himself. "Rules of law" means the people in the government have to follow the law.
You really seem hellbent to justify ambushing travelers and taking their money -- even though everyone knows that's not the behavior of an honest person. You don't have to go crazy trying to defend robbing travelers, just stop doing it. Find something honest to do with your time. Maybe try helping people rather than taking their money.
I don't get tickets because I don't go fast. I don't get raped either, because I don't dress up like a slut and hang out in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But what kind of person sits by the side of the road waiting to ambush people and take their money? Honest people don't do things like that.
Sewer systems are paid for by water/sewer fees. It's a fee for a service, not a tax.
How about getting an honest job where you don't spend your days ambushing travelers and taking their money?
It's a tax. It's so some people can spend money without going to the trouble of earning it.
The LA Times story says 1200 gallons. "Thousands of gallons" is a big exaggeration that is probably intended to mislead people. But it's more than 70 gallons.
What's the point? Either there are lots of problems all over and therefore we need to think about regulation, or not. This story is about one incident. It does not indicate lots of problems. It does not counter-indicate lots of problems either. If there is data to indicate widespread problems, post the data.
Stop pretending to have knowledge. Either post it or admit you don't know.
On a somewhat-related note (well, "oil + pipelines" so close enough): Imagine what sort of damage will be done by a leak of the proposed oil sands pipeline if that corrosive gunk finds its way into the aquifer used by the majority of the Midwest and the huge amount of farming that occurs there
So you'd rather people continue to die every year in oil train crashes? You don't have to "imagine" the train crash that killed 47 people in Quebec last summer.
Here's an easy fix: regulate the courts. The courts must be dangerously under-regulated if they are as inefficient as you say.
Why do we need national regulations to deal with a small local problem that affects only a few people?
Is it because you have a personal hatred for one of the parties involved? Is it because you will personally gain from the regulation? Or is it because you think everything in the world needs a regulatory hand guiding it -- a government hand, with armed enforcers to punish anyone who gets out of line? Which is it?
Here in the US, males 26 and older are forced to buy health insurance that includes pregnancy, even though pregnancy isn't a health condition for males.
Billionaire says "figure out a way to" pay for it. Meanwhile, he will be figuring out ways to collude with other companies to keep your salary low and to bring in thousands of people from Asia to compete with you for jobs.
For 401k plans, you pay the money into the plan every paycheck. When the person retires, no more money is paid into the account. The retiree draws upon the money saved during his working years. All the costs are up-front, borne by the people who received the benefit from the work done.
With pensions, all the promises are up front. Then people who come along later are stuck with the bill -- paying for more and more in pensions and getting less and less in government services.
Veteran's pensions don't fight wars. Police pensions don't patrol the streets. Fire fighter pensions don't put out fires. Teacher pensions don't teach kids.
Pensions should be replaced with a 401K-style savings plan. The people who soldiers fought for should be paying the cost, not their grandchildren. If you got fire protection from a fire fighter, you should pay, not the guy who moves into your town 10 years after the fire fighter retires.
So what's the difference and why does it matter?
The same thing that's wrong with all one-size-fits-all requirements: One size does not fit all, and the people your requirements don't fit are being oppressed.
Most such requirements, including this one, are also unnecessary. Buy your car where you can get service if you want. Don't if you don't. So your requirement oppresses people, and it does it unnecessarily. If you want a working definition of government evil, that's a good start.
If you look at the chart at the link, it's 500-1000 out of 22000 or so -- 22000 is an all time high. So it's obviously the most outrageous outrage in history and we should all panic and wail and rend our clothes.
A 5% budget cut is "the destruction of the greatest source of innovation the U.S. -- and the world -- has ever seen"?
Just for some perspective on Federal government spending, "General Science, Space, and Technology" spending is up 12% (after inflation adjustment) from 2002-2012 and "Health" spending is up 41% during the same period. "Energy" spending is up 2400%.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... -- see table 3.2
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own a TV.