On the plus side, it looks a lot less painful than the American version, while still providing non-lethal incapacitation. He also claims it's much less likely to disturb pacemakers (though I doubt it's good for your heart, then again, seems preferable to getting shot). Also it's just about the only weapon where a tinfoil hat (and jacket) would protect you from it's effects.
Heathen, energy is a myth. We all know all houses can be powered by one of those small black panels, or a tiny wind park. It's just that Bush (and presumably Obama, who seems to get lots of money from the evil BP and thus is contaminated), well it's just that Bush and Obama like cancer and killing small lovable animals with nuclear power plants and heating up the earth until we're all dead. Oh and they're also torturing those poor, lovable, and so very innocent massacrers.
Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought !
(this post attempts to make the point "it goes both ways")
Oh no ! It's even worse than we though t ! Oh no ! It's even worse than we thou ght ! Oh no ! It's even worse than we th ought ! Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought ! Oh no ! It's even worse th an we thought ! Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought !
Too bad that intermediate step killed at least 100 million people (and that's for the soviets alone)...
And I seriously think that if state control is relinquished society will immediately revert - to capitalism (since the black market will simply move into the open to become the economic system. Presumably this is how the first human society "formally" adopted capitalism now 5000+ years ago. Besides, I've seen this happen in practice in Zimbabwe - whenever the authorities move out (and they're so undermanned they can't even maintain presence in every village), markets (the real kind in public squares) spring up. This is one of the few things that improve life in Zimbabwe. Oh and -dollars only- no Zimbabwean currency, please (I'm told some communities use gold, but it's harder to test for authenticity than dollars))
communism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party. 4. communalism.
Note how all versions of the definition use the word "state". Cleary such a thing exists...
You don't get to make up the meaning of words.
If you don't agree : you qowerq q346oiod a8045k a;l4488ljk ! (and your mother too !)
The core idea of communism, the principle which ultimately distinguishes it from capitalism, is the claim that economics are not truly a separate sphere from politics...
Nice way to put it, however you miss the gigantic advantage capitalism has. In capitalism the decisions are ultimately made by what might be called "reality", not by "the rich" as the rich don't choose who gets to be rich.
In small companies, inefficient policies lead to corporate death, cessation of activities, and obviously, to an owner in the poorhouse.
By contrast, as we all know, inefficient politics lead to more inefficient politics. Obviously this cannot last long.
Capitalism is how the real world works : limited resources, everyone try to use them as you see fit, and deal with the consequences. Attempting to force a different system onto people might work a little bit. Attempting to force a different system onto the world is the quickest route to total disaster I know of.
That's the essence of what socialists want to do, of course : change the world. Change the very laws of physics. And obviously, they're never going to succeed.
The only thing socialist policies do is translating the failure of a few into the failure of everyone.
Ultimately socialism requires a mild form of psychological disease : it is a refusal to accept reality as it is, instead trying to force a system that doesn't fit at all onto reality. Needless to say, reality has never cooperated with any such enterprise.
The "truly rich" pay their fair share of taxes already considering most of the poor pay NO federal income tax.
Yes, but we all know what socialists really want. If you believe socialists want to improve the lot of everyone by somehow making more money available to everyone, just go and look at the pay and benefits package of a university. That's how socialists pay their own employees.
It's enough to make Milton Friedman say "man this is unfair".
I submit that what the GP poster and socialists in general want is something totally different : their actions are far less inconsistent if you assume they want more power and more people under their direct command, and they want to use this power for massive forced social re-engineering projects (gulags in everything but the name).
Then their actions make sense. They want power, and they want to "re-educate" you.
But the sad fact is that if one looks at Halliburton or BP, they're a lot more charitable both in intentions and actual fact than any socialist individual I know.
Communism, by definition, requires a stateless government. There is no truly Communist country in the world. The furthest any have gotten is the transition totalitarian oligarchy that Marx felt was necessary just before communism could be achieved. He didn't recon that the leap from totalitarian to stateless was pretty much impossible. A country simply cannot function without leadership, and Communism requires that there be no leader. It is literally impossible.
Communism is achieving 100% centrally controlled economic activity. Euhm pray tell, how can that be achieved without an entity to do the controlling ?
On land, the oil could simply be accumulated in a small area, and left there for bacteria to eat it, or burned off.
Like any idiot knows perfectly well.
This is a high-pressure oil geiser 5000 ft below the surface (where no human being can survive without massive technological assistance). So it's kind of a bigger problem.
this spill doesn't even rank in the top 50 oil spills in history.
That's what truly amazes me : this oil "disaster" is actually a relatively minor one. Perhaps it's Obambi's Alynsky "never let a good crisis go to waste" policy in action ?
We all know he needs people's attention away from healthcare.
Just blame the other guy has been a blueprint of democrat statement for years now.
Of course that isn't to say it wasn't republican policy before then.
Oh well. In this case it was democrats who made the disaster possible. It was a democrat congress that controlled the safety regulations that failed to prevent the disaster, and a democrat executive that was charged with implementing them. So I guess if they had an ounce of humility they'd order an investigation and proceed from there. But we all know the chance of that happening...
Unfortunately as long as those "lower middle class" and other unwashed masses do their dying out of view, the "more government, now ! Just take this guy's money" doesn't care at all.
If you think like that, and you truly believe that everyone is a brainless moron that just does what corporations want, then how & why would YOU be different ?
Quite frankly, if you are indeed correct, and apple users have no culpability, no control over apple, then you need to be locked up. Simply because of what you imply you'd do if you ever heard the "kill the poor" single.
Besides, if what you say were true, why would apple bother to actually build working devices ? If marketing has 1% the power you say it has, surely it wouldn't necessitate such hard work.
Apple users deserve at least a 50% share of the blame, especially since they're perfectly well aware of the way these devices are made.
It's time the government stepped in and let the US Army/Navy/Air Force engineers solve this shit. Cap the well through any means necessary
Yeah the people who know what they're doing are not doing so well. So let's just send in people with zero experience, and bombs. (this is not a comment denouncing army engineers, in fact they're to be admired. But they have zero experience doing this, they're not going to do well at all)
This is a high-pressure "geiser" that's blowing the oil out into the sea, blowing at a pressure that is much more than heavy steel can handle. And that's not the worst of it. Doubtless the gas pocket that caused the first accident was not the only one of it's kind.
What could possibly go wrong ?
You must be a democrat. The government, with zero experience and barely half a clue what they're even trying to do, will surely outperform a company that's been doing this for over a century. Perhaps you should go and check how that works in practice, say by comparing north & south korea : same people, same smarts, same universities, same religion, same everything. Only in one of them everything is done by the "capable" government, in the other everything's done by the private sector.
To give a car analogy, The Cement job is like your normal brakes. The BOP is like the Ebrake. Sure it might stop the car, but when both fail you really should be asking why the main brakes failed, not why the ebrake was only half effective.
And if we actually knew what we were drilling into and which -gaseous, liquid and solid- flows we'd encounter, we wouldn't even need one.
The real source of the problem is obviously some random (and quite unexpected) gas pocket in the oil field, or along the drill hole, that somehow was located in an extremely inconvenient spot. There does not exist such a thing as a device that will keep arbitrarily high-pressure gas under control.
To use your analogy, the main brakes failed because somone had greased the road. The BOP failed because the car was going fast downhill on a greased road. So the whole thing crashed.
He has more than likely let BP off the with his delays and inaction. By the time any real investigation takes place, the evidence will be gone. And WE will be stuck with the bill, not whoever was at fault.
And I claim you stole from me. So now the police should force you to pay it back to me, if necessary by arresting you and ordering the bank to pay to me.
Fortunately we have this little thing called "due process". Of course, it's applied BOTH to you AND to BP and transocean and whoever else. So what you say might very well be true, and yet we're NOT going to do what you say. If that means someone gets away, that's too bad. But it's much preferred over the kind of idiotic mob justice you're advocating.
Obama...
Of course BP was a huge donor to Obama's campaign. Of course we all know only republicans are bought by big oil right ? The money trail says different, you say ? Oh my... I knew that before he was elected, when Obambi could do no wrong.
Heh, the joke on statements like yours is that they're essentially accurate. The oil was either going to sink deeper into the crust and be destroyed, or "this" would have happened.
Note that you read that sentence correctly : this was bound to happen whether or not BP drilled there.
Giant oil spills into the ocean are not all that rare (huge pressure on a liquid with cracks in rocks leading towards a place with merely large pressures... you don't need a nobel prize to understand what's going to happen). Granted "usually" the leaks are slower and deeper into the ocean, but not always.
So what happens to all that oil that leaks every year ? Why, bacteria use it for energy. They build entire colonies around these leaks and with the energy in them. Just like we do.
and the external forces with the power to stop it are too busy counting their profits to care about it
What about all those people with ipads, iphones, apple laptops and so on. Don't those things show don't care people die for their entertainment ?
Apple is just doing the bidding of their customers, nothing more. Blaming the company for doing something everyone wants it to do, regardless of the consequences, is hypocritical in the extreme.
The Gilded Age, in which a small group of elites grew enormously rich and powerful on the backs of people who remained incredibly poor, and the multiple market crashes and panics that happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries, taught us that unrestrained capitalism is not a sustainable economic model. Since then...
Unfortunately that same age also taught us that "a little too much" socialism did not merely result in crashes, panics and lots poor people, but in gigantic massacres, starvation, totalitarianism and gulags.
How would communism work in the real world (ie. not everyone agrees) without totalitarianism ?
Centrally directed economy means that every object anyone has, anything at all, from underpants, socks, to phones, ipads and even computers only got to that person at the direct command of the government. How could such a system not be totalitarian ? In a theoretical "perfect" communism any call you make over the phone needs to get approved by the government (or one might even say that only calls initiated by the government would be legal).
Interestingly, the reverse is not true. A system can perfectly well be totalitarian without being communist. Though I suppose some communist tendencies (such as interference in everything) are unavoidable. They're (in Latin America, or Iran for example) generally not nearly as pervasive as in examples of communist states though.
But the funny part is that Monsanto would welcome any sort of biological catastrophe, as they're the only ones that would be capable of fighting it. Kind of like how my paranoid father thinks the majority of viruses are produced by Norton and McCafee on the side just to stir up business, Monsanto could produce a better fungus to drive up business.
Unfortunately, monsanto's researchers, unlike you, are perfectly aware of how easy it is to compete against a billion years of evolution in the real world.
They are -somewhat- capable of copying dna from one lifeform to another. That's it. Redesigning the inner workings of a living cell - that's about as far away as warp speed.
"ridiculous"... well perhaps not. Obviously provisions like this are meant to improve the stability of the virus ("meme") that is islam (why "virus" well it's "alive" in that it directs the actions of living beings, but it can exists only through "infection" of actual living beings, but in a psychological sense instead of a physical one).
It seems to me pretty obvious that once a human is infected, the virus would want to prevent exposure to potential competitors (e.g. much of the human intra-.
It's "ridiculous" ? Well, no, it's just another measure of control.
Just like this sort of reactions. Against "civilized" (and thus highly interdependant) societies obviously the threat of direct violence for minute offenses works very well, since with so many interdependencies, just blowing up a few of them will immediately affect everyone negatively (how much easier would the crisis have been without 9/11 ? We all know the answer could very well be "a lot easier"). Governments like Pakistan's, but also many others cannot afford to discuss these sort of rules, since that would lead to immediate and very violent reactions, and would immediately affect everyone. In a democracy this would pretty much guarantee that the government gets voted out (even if it's not responsible for the disaster, governments under whose watch people's lives worsen are simply not popular for obvious reasons).
Of course, that's the trick unions have used, both in the West and (now more and more) in the East. Last time, in the middle east, when these 2 forces faced off, arguably the communists (with Soviet support) were on the winning hand, until their center of support collapsed (but currently, they're down, not out).
The problem is that one cannot reasonably hope to oppose movements like these in the long term without putting violence against violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the video BTW :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2mZsXHKdk
Near the end he's tasering pigs.
On the plus side, it looks a lot less painful than the American version, while still providing non-lethal incapacitation. He also claims it's much less likely to disturb pacemakers (though I doubt it's good for your heart, then again, seems preferable to getting shot). Also it's just about the only weapon where a tinfoil hat (and jacket) would protect you from it's effects.
Heathen, energy is a myth. We all know all houses can be powered by one of those small black panels, or a tiny wind park. It's just that Bush (and presumably Obama, who seems to get lots of money from the evil BP and thus is contaminated), well it's just that Bush and Obama like cancer and killing small lovable animals with nuclear power plants and heating up the earth until we're all dead. Oh and they're also torturing those poor, lovable, and so very innocent massacrers.
Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought !
(this post attempts to make the point "it goes both ways")
Oh no ! It's even worse than we though t !
Oh no ! It's even worse than we thou ght !
Oh no ! It's even worse than we th ought !
Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought !
Oh no ! It's even worse th an we thought !
Oh no ! It's even worse than we thought !
Too bad that intermediate step killed at least 100 million people (and that's for the soviets alone) ...
And I seriously think that if state control is relinquished society will immediately revert - to capitalism (since the black market will simply move into the open to become the economic system. Presumably this is how the first human society "formally" adopted capitalism now 5000+ years ago. Besides, I've seen this happen in practice in Zimbabwe - whenever the authorities move out (and they're so undermanned they can't even maintain presence in every village), markets (the real kind in public squares) spring up. This is one of the few things that improve life in Zimbabwe. Oh and -dollars only- no Zimbabwean currency, please (I'm told some communities use gold, but it's harder to test for authenticity than dollars))
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism
communism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.
Note how all versions of the definition use the word "state". Cleary such a thing exists ...
You don't get to make up the meaning of words.
If you don't agree : you qowerq q346oiod a8045k a;l4488ljk ! (and your mother too !)
The core idea of communism, the principle which ultimately distinguishes it from capitalism, is the claim that economics are not truly a separate sphere from politics ...
Nice way to put it, however you miss the gigantic advantage capitalism has. In capitalism the decisions are ultimately made by what might be called "reality", not by "the rich" as the rich don't choose who gets to be rich.
In small companies, inefficient policies lead to corporate death, cessation of activities, and obviously, to an owner in the poorhouse.
By contrast, as we all know, inefficient politics lead to more inefficient politics. Obviously this cannot last long.
Capitalism is how the real world works : limited resources, everyone try to use them as you see fit, and deal with the consequences. Attempting to force a different system onto people might work a little bit. Attempting to force a different system onto the world is the quickest route to total disaster I know of.
That's the essence of what socialists want to do, of course : change the world. Change the very laws of physics. And obviously, they're never going to succeed.
The only thing socialist policies do is translating the failure of a few into the failure of everyone.
Ultimately socialism requires a mild form of psychological disease : it is a refusal to accept reality as it is, instead trying to force a system that doesn't fit at all onto reality. Needless to say, reality has never cooperated with any such enterprise.
The "truly rich" pay their fair share of taxes already considering most of the poor pay NO federal income tax.
Yes, but we all know what socialists really want. If you believe socialists want to improve the lot of everyone by somehow making more money available to everyone, just go and look at the pay and benefits package of a university. That's how socialists pay their own employees.
It's enough to make Milton Friedman say "man this is unfair".
I submit that what the GP poster and socialists in general want is something totally different : their actions are far less inconsistent if you assume they want more power and more people under their direct command, and they want to use this power for massive forced social re-engineering projects (gulags in everything but the name).
Then their actions make sense. They want power, and they want to "re-educate" you.
But the sad fact is that if one looks at Halliburton or BP, they're a lot more charitable both in intentions and actual fact than any socialist individual I know.
Communism, by definition, requires a stateless government. There is no truly Communist country in the world. The furthest any have gotten is the transition totalitarian oligarchy that Marx felt was necessary just before communism could be achieved. He didn't recon that the leap from totalitarian to stateless was pretty much impossible. A country simply cannot function without leadership, and Communism requires that there be no leader. It is literally impossible.
Communism is achieving 100% centrally controlled economic activity. Euhm pray tell, how can that be achieved without an entity to do the controlling ?
On land, the oil could simply be accumulated in a small area, and left there for bacteria to eat it, or burned off.
Like any idiot knows perfectly well.
This is a high-pressure oil geiser 5000 ft below the surface (where no human being can survive without massive technological assistance). So it's kind of a bigger problem.
this spill doesn't even rank in the top 50 oil spills in history.
That's what truly amazes me : this oil "disaster" is actually a relatively minor one. Perhaps it's Obambi's Alynsky "never let a good crisis go to waste" policy in action ?
We all know he needs people's attention away from healthcare.
Just blame the other guy has been a blueprint of democrat statement for years now.
Of course that isn't to say it wasn't republican policy before then.
Oh well. In this case it was democrats who made the disaster possible. It was a democrat congress that controlled the safety regulations that failed to prevent the disaster, and a democrat executive that was charged with implementing them. So I guess if they had an ounce of humility they'd order an investigation and proceed from there. But we all know the chance of that happening ...
With Obama, there is at least a reasonable doubt.
not really
Of course, all intelligent people knew this before he was elected. And yes, for this (and quite a few other) problems McCain was the better candidate.
That's how increased costs result in lives lost.
Unfortunately as long as those "lower middle class" and other unwashed masses do their dying out of view, the "more government, now ! Just take this guy's money" doesn't care at all.
If there was even a modicum of fairness in the world that would be the middle east. You know, the ones profiting of the oil.
If you think like that, and you truly believe that everyone is a brainless moron that just does what corporations want, then how & why would YOU be different ?
Quite frankly, if you are indeed correct, and apple users have no culpability, no control over apple, then you need to be locked up. Simply because of what you imply you'd do if you ever heard the "kill the poor" single.
Besides, if what you say were true, why would apple bother to actually build working devices ? If marketing has 1% the power you say it has, surely it wouldn't necessitate such hard work.
Apple users deserve at least a 50% share of the blame, especially since they're perfectly well aware of the way these devices are made.
Actually the soviets have anywhere between hundred million and half a billion dead corpses on their conscience.
Can you point to any single (serious) historian who claims the US killed even 1% of those numbers ?
Although on the internet one learns quickly not to expect anything remotely resembling facts from people like you.
It's time the government stepped in and let the US Army/Navy/Air Force engineers solve this shit. Cap the well through any means necessary
Yeah the people who know what they're doing are not doing so well. So let's just send in people with zero experience, and bombs. (this is not a comment denouncing army engineers, in fact they're to be admired. But they have zero experience doing this, they're not going to do well at all)
This is a high-pressure "geiser" that's blowing the oil out into the sea, blowing at a pressure that is much more than heavy steel can handle. And that's not the worst of it. Doubtless the gas pocket that caused the first accident was not the only one of it's kind.
What could possibly go wrong ?
You must be a democrat. The government, with zero experience and barely half a clue what they're even trying to do, will surely outperform a company that's been doing this for over a century. Perhaps you should go and check how that works in practice, say by comparing north & south korea : same people, same smarts, same universities, same religion, same everything. Only in one of them everything is done by the "capable" government, in the other everything's done by the private sector.
To give a car analogy, The Cement job is like your normal brakes. The BOP is like the Ebrake. Sure it might stop the car, but when both fail you really should be asking why the main brakes failed, not why the ebrake was only half effective.
And if we actually knew what we were drilling into and which -gaseous, liquid and solid- flows we'd encounter, we wouldn't even need one.
The real source of the problem is obviously some random (and quite unexpected) gas pocket in the oil field, or along the drill hole, that somehow was located in an extremely inconvenient spot. There does not exist such a thing as a device that will keep arbitrarily high-pressure gas under control.
To use your analogy, the main brakes failed because somone had greased the road. The BOP failed because the car was going fast downhill on a greased road. So the whole thing crashed.
Do you have any credible source for that ?
He has more than likely let BP off the with his delays and inaction. By the time any real investigation takes place, the evidence will be gone. And WE will be stuck with the bill, not whoever was at fault.
And I claim you stole from me. So now the police should force you to pay it back to me, if necessary by arresting you and ordering the bank to pay to me.
Fortunately we have this little thing called "due process". Of course, it's applied BOTH to you AND to BP and transocean and whoever else. So what you say might very well be true, and yet we're NOT going to do what you say. If that means someone gets away, that's too bad. But it's much preferred over the kind of idiotic mob justice you're advocating.
Obama ...
Of course BP was a huge donor to Obama's campaign. Of course we all know only republicans are bought by big oil right ? The money trail says different, you say ? Oh my ... I knew that before he was elected, when Obambi could do no wrong.
Heh, the joke on statements like yours is that they're essentially accurate. The oil was either going to sink deeper into the crust and be destroyed, or "this" would have happened.
Note that you read that sentence correctly : this was bound to happen whether or not BP drilled there.
Giant oil spills into the ocean are not all that rare (huge pressure on a liquid with cracks in rocks leading towards a place with merely large pressures ... you don't need a nobel prize to understand what's going to happen). Granted "usually" the leaks are slower and deeper into the ocean, but not always.
So what happens to all that oil that leaks every year ? Why, bacteria use it for energy. They build entire colonies around these leaks and with the energy in them. Just like we do.
I work for a government agency, if they could get away with it they'd work us this hard to, so it's not just a capitalism or Apple issue.
And if nobody could get away with it, you wouldn't be able to afford a simple cell phone.
The world sucks.
and the external forces with the power to stop it are too busy counting their profits to care about it
What about all those people with ipads, iphones, apple laptops and so on. Don't those things show don't care people die for their entertainment ?
Apple is just doing the bidding of their customers, nothing more. Blaming the company for doing something everyone wants it to do, regardless of the consequences, is hypocritical in the extreme.
What is the blame on apple users ?
The Gilded Age, in which a small group of elites grew enormously rich and powerful on the backs of people who remained incredibly poor, and the multiple market crashes and panics that happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries, taught us that unrestrained capitalism is not a sustainable economic model. Since then ...
Unfortunately that same age also taught us that "a little too much" socialism did not merely result in crashes, panics and lots poor people, but in gigantic massacres, starvation, totalitarianism and gulags.
You're confusing communism and totalitarianism
How would communism work in the real world (ie. not everyone agrees) without totalitarianism ?
Centrally directed economy means that every object anyone has, anything at all, from underpants, socks, to phones, ipads and even computers only got to that person at the direct command of the government. How could such a system not be totalitarian ? In a theoretical "perfect" communism any call you make over the phone needs to get approved by the government (or one might even say that only calls initiated by the government would be legal).
Interestingly, the reverse is not true. A system can perfectly well be totalitarian without being communist. Though I suppose some communist tendencies (such as interference in everything) are unavoidable. They're (in Latin America, or Iran for example) generally not nearly as pervasive as in examples of communist states though.
But the funny part is that Monsanto would welcome any sort of biological catastrophe, as they're the only ones that would be capable of fighting it. Kind of like how my paranoid father thinks the majority of viruses are produced by Norton and McCafee on the side just to stir up business, Monsanto could produce a better fungus to drive up business.
Unfortunately, monsanto's researchers, unlike you, are perfectly aware of how easy it is to compete against a billion years of evolution in the real world.
They are -somewhat- capable of copying dna from one lifeform to another. That's it. Redesigning the inner workings of a living cell - that's about as far away as warp speed.
"ridiculous" ... well perhaps not. Obviously provisions like this are meant to improve the stability of the virus ("meme") that is islam (why "virus" well it's "alive" in that it directs the actions of living beings, but it can exists only through "infection" of actual living beings, but in a psychological sense instead of a physical one).
It seems to me pretty obvious that once a human is infected, the virus would want to prevent exposure to potential competitors (e.g. much of the human intra-.
It's "ridiculous" ? Well, no, it's just another measure of control.
Just like this sort of reactions. Against "civilized" (and thus highly interdependant) societies obviously the threat of direct violence for minute offenses works very well, since with so many interdependencies, just blowing up a few of them will immediately affect everyone negatively (how much easier would the crisis have been without 9/11 ? We all know the answer could very well be "a lot easier"). Governments like Pakistan's, but also many others cannot afford to discuss these sort of rules, since that would lead to immediate and very violent reactions, and would immediately affect everyone. In a democracy this would pretty much guarantee that the government gets voted out (even if it's not responsible for the disaster, governments under whose watch people's lives worsen are simply not popular for obvious reasons).
Of course, that's the trick unions have used, both in the West and (now more and more) in the East. Last time, in the middle east, when these 2 forces faced off, arguably the communists (with Soviet support) were on the winning hand, until their center of support collapsed (but currently, they're down, not out).
The problem is that one cannot reasonably hope to oppose movements like these in the long term without putting violence against violence.