It used to be a universal American value. The left decided they preferred totalitarian thought control instead. So now free and open debate is exclusively a center right value.
And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal
Because fuck the locals and what they want.
Local governments are a creation of state governments. The states delegate authority to them.
And it's not "fuck" anyone. But someone needs to give a final yes or no on a project rather than 50 different boards and groups and courts saying "no" (or "no, but it can be yes if you also build us a pony farm"). The board would take all the input and render a decision. The decision wouldn't be about what anyone "wants", it would be a consequence of the rules.
So when someone wants to level it for their infrastructure dream, you should happily accept he loss, right?
You know there are specific rules for that, right? The rules protect the property owner while allowing things to get built. The rules should probably do a better job of protecting the property owner, but they should be rules, not 1000 different people squaring off to flex their political muscle every time someone wants to build something.
I don't care about the specific process, but are you really arguing against an orderly, rules-based process with a definite timeline? If so, why?
I'm sure we'll hear there are only 2 possibilities:
1. A many layered, multi-year regulatory process that makes it prohibitively difficult to get anything done 2. An anarchy hellscape where corpses rot in the streets and the living envy the dead
Too bad we can't come up with a sensible regulatory scheme more like the countries in Europe. Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables. And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal, with one board taking all the inputs and making the final decision in each case.
But, no. How would dozens of minor bureaucrats wield power then? How would city councilmen get campaign funds? How would 50 State boards justify their paychecks? Who would protect the habitat of the endangered Morlocks or historical heritage sites of the CHUDs?
Yeah, perhaps it's just a complete coincidence that all those places had such bad luck while proclaiming socialism. Even then, why not do the things associated with good luck rather than the things associated with misfortune?
Not really, because US only allow emigration of highly educated people who can support them self. So the people who moved to US would have been better of then an average person in their home country, even if they stayed home.
Sure, the selection of immigrants is a factor. But being an alien in a foreign land should balance that somewhat. We've been told by socialist politicians and pundits that Finland's system is superior to ours. If true, why can't it overcome these factors and produce similar outcomes? Conclusion: it's not substantially superior; if it has advantages they are small ones at best.
But this is moot. None of the Nordic countries or Germany are what you would call socialist countries. They are "free marked" capitalist countries, and the only difference between them and US, is the exact amount of money the government moves between citizens, and thus exactly which services the the government is responsible for ensuring.
I know that, but that's not the story socialist politicians and pundits tell. They point to these countries' success and claim it justifies any and every giveaway or scheme they can dream up.
Well then... let's remedy that so we can have some objective discussion.. what constitutes a "socialist" nation in your view and why
No thanks. If you really think the thing you like isn't similar to all the bad things, then you're probably right.
I will say that I'm predisposed to be against government giveaways, and a big part of the reason is that US society and institutions have been unkind to me. A huge number of people seem to be largely motivated by condescension or hatred, and many of the rest are happy to pursue their own self-interest regardless of who else gets hurt. So "being a part of society" has not much appeal and any help I've received has already been repaid many times over.
If you've had a different experience, then perhaps that's why you have a different attitude.
It makes a kind of sense for Danes (for example) to look around and see other Danes, feel a sort of kinship or at least something in common, and conclude that systems setup to help might be handled sensibly.
But I live in the US, so I've learned to reflexively distrust anyone making claims, anyone in authority, and anyone who wants something from me. And that attitude seems wiser and wiser all the time. I look around and mostly see people I need to protect myself from, not a society of people I can count on.
Sure, but Finnish Americans are doing 59% better. If the American economic system were substantially worse than Finland's (which is something ideologues try to tell us) then the expectation would be that Finns in Finland would have a better standard of living than Finn ex-pats in the US and Americans of Finnish ancestry. But the opposite is true.
I'm not trying to tell Finland to be like America. I would like America to be like America. And other countries that aren't like Finland shouldn't think they can magically become like Finland just because some politicians tell a happy story.
It's also called being part of a society rather than some Randian utopia of self centered greed.
Yay for straw men. What would we do without them?
But OK, I'll agree that socialism doesn't always disasterously fail everyone, everywhere. And free markets don't always help everyone.
But that doesn't mean we can't look at China today vs. Great Leap Forward China, or Venezuela before and after Chavez and learn some lessons.
For example, maybe only Scandinavians can succeed at socialism while everyone else is doomed to fail at it. So places where the population isn't nearly 100% Scandinavian should stay far away. That seems to fit the pattern.
Trump has stopped the CIA mess in Syria, I hope he also stops the waste of resources and lives in Venezuela.
It keeps happening over and over. How does "hoping" it might work out differently make sense? It seems like the only choices that work out at all are the ones the CIA bogeyman won't mess up: free markets and elected governments.
You mean what keeps happening over and over again? Those [whomever we're blaming it on this time] keep messing up these awesome, righteous societies, over and over and over and over.
What's it going to take to learn that [whomever] will always do that and that people should earn money instead of trying to split up money other people earned?
It's amazing how every socialist paradise always gets poorer and poorer and it's always the fault of the CIA, even while Obama was president.
You guys should just give it up. The CIA will always be there making your utopian plans fail, no matter what. Every leader everywhere is powerless against the CIA's efforts, and clearly always will be.
If you stick with free markets, the CIA might let you prosper. Otherwise you have no chance. How many disasters is it going to take to learn?
Widespread desperation and misery in the country with the richest oil reserves in Latin America. Everyone is poor (except the leaders) and it's all the fault of the CIA (or whoever it's convenient to blame this time). And yet, no matter how many times it brings disaster, some people keep believing stories about how spending others' money instead of earning their own will work out good for them.
In a shocking display of indifference and hubris, Uber drivers maintained their normal schedule yesterday even as reports of invasive biting fire ants alarmed and troubled residents of Japan. "I think they should have done something. You know, if they could," said one resident who requested to remain anonymous.
The White House press room declined to comment other than saying this story is "fake news".
"Race to the bottom" is "slippery slope" (a.k.a. "fear mongering"). If you have an "A leads to B and here's why" argument, then make it. Otherwise stop trolling.
This is a nothing story. Cars have recalls all the time. You go to the dealer and they get fixed. What's the difference if Uber leased a car expecting drivers to go get it fixed?
If you're an obsessed Uber-hater, then "OMG!!!! This is 1 million smoking guns at once!!!". Give the hate a rest. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous obsessions or conspiracy theories or WTF ever.
By the time 2022 comes around, the current crop of entrenched ISPs will have implemented a way to mitigate any threat to their business model.
Comcast already did that. They bought NBC/Universal and they're making lots of money from theme parks and Fast & Furious movies. Why should anyone give 2 shits about "their business model"? They can't keep ATT and T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon and potentiallly others from offering 5G fixed wireless internet service.
Slashdot Mirror
...he's called the ignorant one for stating scientific facts.
Religious inquisitions do have that tendency. His mistake was not seeing the true nature of the zealotry.
no
It used to be a universal American value. The left decided they preferred totalitarian thought control instead. So now free and open debate is exclusively a center right value.
Free and open debate.
The "reactions" aren't to the essay. The phony drama is just a wedge, used to exert power over people.
Of course he didn't read it.
This post is juvenile. If middle school taunts are all you have to offer on the subject, why say anything at all?
And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal
Because fuck the locals and what they want.
Local governments are a creation of state governments. The states delegate authority to them.
And it's not "fuck" anyone. But someone needs to give a final yes or no on a project rather than 50 different boards and groups and courts saying "no" (or "no, but it can be yes if you also build us a pony farm"). The board would take all the input and render a decision. The decision wouldn't be about what anyone "wants", it would be a consequence of the rules.
So when someone wants to level it for their infrastructure dream, you should happily accept he loss, right?
You know there are specific rules for that, right? The rules protect the property owner while allowing things to get built. The rules should probably do a better job of protecting the property owner, but they should be rules, not 1000 different people squaring off to flex their political muscle every time someone wants to build something.
I don't care about the specific process, but are you really arguing against an orderly, rules-based process with a definite timeline? If so, why?
I'm sure we'll hear there are only 2 possibilities:
1. A many layered, multi-year regulatory process that makes it prohibitively difficult to get anything done
2. An anarchy hellscape where corpses rot in the streets and the living envy the dead
Too bad we can't come up with a sensible regulatory scheme more like the countries in Europe. Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables. And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal, with one board taking all the inputs and making the final decision in each case.
But, no. How would dozens of minor bureaucrats wield power then? How would city councilmen get campaign funds? How would 50 State boards justify their paychecks? Who would protect the habitat of the endangered Morlocks or historical heritage sites of the CHUDs?
Government power seems to attract such people. That's why supporting power in government hands is so foolish and dangerous.
Yeah, perhaps it's just a complete coincidence that all those places had such bad luck while proclaiming socialism. Even then, why not do the things associated with good luck rather than the things associated with misfortune?
If you saw news stories like this or this, would you trust the government to run a redistribution plan?
Not really, because US only allow emigration of highly educated people who can support them self. So the people who moved to US would have been better of then an average person in their home country, even if they stayed home.
Sure, the selection of immigrants is a factor. But being an alien in a foreign land should balance that somewhat. We've been told by socialist politicians and pundits that Finland's system is superior to ours. If true, why can't it overcome these factors and produce similar outcomes? Conclusion: it's not substantially superior; if it has advantages they are small ones at best.
But this is moot. None of the Nordic countries or Germany are what you would call socialist countries. They are "free marked" capitalist countries, and the only difference between them and US, is the exact amount of money the government moves between citizens, and thus exactly which services the the government is responsible for ensuring.
I know that, but that's not the story socialist politicians and pundits tell. They point to these countries' success and claim it justifies any and every giveaway or scheme they can dream up.
Well then... let's remedy that so we can have some objective discussion.. what constitutes a "socialist" nation in your view and why
No thanks. If you really think the thing you like isn't similar to all the bad things, then you're probably right.
I will say that I'm predisposed to be against government giveaways, and a big part of the reason is that US society and institutions have been unkind to me. A huge number of people seem to be largely motivated by condescension or hatred, and many of the rest are happy to pursue their own self-interest regardless of who else gets hurt. So "being a part of society" has not much appeal and any help I've received has already been repaid many times over.
If you've had a different experience, then perhaps that's why you have a different attitude.
It makes a kind of sense for Danes (for example) to look around and see other Danes, feel a sort of kinship or at least something in common, and conclude that systems setup to help might be handled sensibly.
But I live in the US, so I've learned to reflexively distrust anyone making claims, anyone in authority, and anyone who wants something from me. And that attitude seems wiser and wiser all the time. I look around and mostly see people I need to protect myself from, not a society of people I can count on.
The last guy they told us to trust famously said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
Sure, but Finnish Americans are doing 59% better. If the American economic system were substantially worse than Finland's (which is something ideologues try to tell us) then the expectation would be that Finns in Finland would have a better standard of living than Finn ex-pats in the US and Americans of Finnish ancestry. But the opposite is true.
I'm not trying to tell Finland to be like America. I would like America to be like America. And other countries that aren't like Finland shouldn't think they can magically become like Finland just because some politicians tell a happy story.
Why would you take one failed 3rd world country
Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe before 1990, the USSR, North Korea, China's Great Leap Forward, Cambodia, National Socialists in Germany, etc.
It's a long list and I'm sure someone could make it longer.
And Venezuela wasn't a "failed country" before Chavez.
The Scandanavian countries have some of the highest standards of living in the world and would definitely be considered "socialist" by your view
Not sure what you think "my view" is. But Swedish Americans, Danish Americans, Finnish Americans all have a 50% higher standard of living than respective Swedes, Danes, and Finns living in the Nordic countries.
It's also called being part of a society rather than some Randian utopia of self centered greed.
Yay for straw men. What would we do without them?
But OK, I'll agree that socialism doesn't always disasterously fail everyone, everywhere. And free markets don't always help everyone.
But that doesn't mean we can't look at China today vs. Great Leap Forward China, or Venezuela before and after Chavez and learn some lessons.
For example, maybe only Scandinavians can succeed at socialism while everyone else is doomed to fail at it. So places where the population isn't nearly 100% Scandinavian should stay far away. That seems to fit the pattern.
Can you learn?
Trump has stopped the CIA mess in Syria, I hope he also stops the waste of resources and lives in Venezuela.
It keeps happening over and over. How does "hoping" it might work out differently make sense? It seems like the only choices that work out at all are the ones the CIA bogeyman won't mess up: free markets and elected governments.
You mean what keeps happening over and over again? Those [whomever we're blaming it on this time] keep messing up these awesome, righteous societies, over and over and over and over.
What's it going to take to learn that [whomever] will always do that and that people should earn money instead of trying to split up money other people earned?
It's amazing how every socialist paradise always gets poorer and poorer and it's always the fault of the CIA, even while Obama was president.
You guys should just give it up. The CIA will always be there making your utopian plans fail, no matter what. Every leader everywhere is powerless against the CIA's efforts, and clearly always will be.
If you stick with free markets, the CIA might let you prosper. Otherwise you have no chance. How many disasters is it going to take to learn?
Widespread desperation and misery in the country with the richest oil reserves in Latin America. Everyone is poor (except the leaders) and it's all the fault of the CIA (or whoever it's convenient to blame this time). And yet, no matter how many times it brings disaster, some people keep believing stories about how spending others' money instead of earning their own will work out good for them.
Breaking news: Uber failed to prevent an invasion of Japan by fire ants!
In a shocking display of indifference and hubris, Uber drivers maintained their normal schedule yesterday even as reports of invasive biting fire ants alarmed and troubled residents of Japan. "I think they should have done something. You know, if they could," said one resident who requested to remain anonymous.
The White House press room declined to comment other than saying this story is "fake news".
"Race to the bottom" is "slippery slope" (a.k.a. "fear mongering"). If you have an "A leads to B and here's why" argument, then make it. Otherwise stop trolling.
This is a nothing story. Cars have recalls all the time. You go to the dealer and they get fixed. What's the difference if Uber leased a car expecting drivers to go get it fixed?
If you're an obsessed Uber-hater, then "OMG!!!! This is 1 million smoking guns at once!!!". Give the hate a rest. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous obsessions or conspiracy theories or WTF ever.
No, there will always be trolls and doomsayers. The rest of us should tell them to fuck off with their negative attitude.
By the time 2022 comes around, the current crop of entrenched ISPs will have implemented a way to mitigate any threat to their business model.
Comcast already did that. They bought NBC/Universal and they're making lots of money from theme parks and Fast & Furious movies. Why should anyone give 2 shits about "their business model"? They can't keep ATT and T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon and potentiallly others from offering 5G fixed wireless internet service.