"Socializing the losses" means that the government or public take the losses, not that there are more people involved. It's still just private individuals taking losses, and given how rich the people who invested in this are, there isn't going to be any significant increase in social welfare spending. You can argue about "socializing the losses" in some cases, sure, but it's not a phrase you can make mean anything you like.
I don't think a bomb robot was the right way to handle this, but I also don't think he posed no threat. This was a building in the middle of the city, they couldn't just let him stay there forever.
But that's fair, because Korash [sic] was white and a rapist. The police celebrate and protect rapists, so long as they are white.
This statement is both disgusting and untrue. Please go troll somewhere else.
Koresh got such a long time, in part, because his compound was fortified and there were lots of people inside. This guy was alone and did not have defenses set up. The two situations aren't comparable.
Bullshit. You could argue that all cops in departments that kill innocent people are the problem, but even then I don't think that's right. In jurisdictions where they haven't had any killings where the justification is even a little bit in doubt, you can't say those cops are the problem too. Dallas has a pretty good police force, from what I hear. Their police chief is black, and I doubt he's aiding and abetting the cops who are racist killers.
Why does that matter? The point is, she didn't ask. She took classified information - which she didn't have the power to declassify - and stored it on an outside system without authorization.
I was specifically responding to your claim that "blacks dont [sic] disobey the law any more then [sic] us whites". I'm not disagreeing that the statement "The black disregard of law and order inspires the police to defend their lives." is racist, because it is.
Usually those militias are on ground they fully control. This guy was holed up in a place that wasn't his and probably had no traps set up, couldn't defend himself as well as a militia could.
Blacks do commit more violent crime per capita than whites do. This is largely because poor people in general commit more violent crime than middle or upper class people do, however. And then racial sentencing gap, while a travesty of justice, isn't actually all that large.
The dude explicitly stated he wanted to hurt white people, and he had pro-BLM posts all over. When you shoot 17(?) people and only two of them aren't cops, you have to wonder how much he was actually targeting the protesters.
I'd also like to clarify the argument slightly; monopolies in and of themselves aren't bad, it's abuses of monopoly power that are bad. Antitrust laws, as the article states, are often rather subjective. It's reasonable to argue that antitrust laws have been implemented poorly; less reasonable to say "no news ones either", but big-L Libertarians can be unreasonable. Small-l libertarians would primarily argue for reform rather than abolition. Seems like you only really pay attention to the big-L Libertarians.
A free market is, contrary to what most people on both political sides think, one where prices are set freely (no price fixing by government or monopoly). It does not mean one that is free from all government regulation. Therefore, most consumer markets in America are free markets, but with regulations that are not price fixing. If you think a free market is one where no government intervention exists at all, then sure, that has probably never existed.
Markets need anti-monopoly regulations to exist, and fraud protection (and, of course, protection from threats, etc.). Other regulations may or may not make it more stable or efficient or desirable in some other way.
I dunno, why don't you ask the government about that? Governments deciding they want to buy something is hardly examples of free market failure though.
The FBI categorically did not clear her. They did not recommend prosecution, but that's not the same as saying what she did was fine. They actually said
there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning
She absolutely mishandled classified information. She broke several parts of the USC, some of which do not consider intent. The FBI said they would not support prosecution for a number of reasons, but that, regardless of whether what she did was illegal or not, she should have handled it differently.
Also, re: earlier claim about her not deleting emails, from their statement:
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years
Although, to be fair, they do also go on to say:
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.
So she did delete some, but it may have been a mistake or without thinking.
Note also that I'm not arguing for or against a position, just saying you aren't representing the libertarian argument properly.
Since you missed it the first time...
Free market != unregulated market. There are plenty of free markets, but completely unregulated markets don't work, I agree. But nice "I'm old so I know better, you stupid young person (although I don't know your age)". Solid, A+ argument there.
It'd be nice if you actually responded to the rest of that paragraph instead of just cherry-picking what you thought was the most unreasonable section when taken out of context. But you probably won't do that, it's not your style.
She only did "almost exactly what they did" if you consider White House staffers who weren't running for office using private email addresses for White House and RNC business (no classified information as far as anyone's been able to prove) to be almost exactly the same as a person running for POTUS setting up her own server and keeping Top Secret information on it. Also important to note that Rove resigned over it, and that Cheney, while probably somewhat involved, isn't mentioned in most articles about it.
To be clear, I fully believe that Rove should be prosecuted for it, but what he did was wrong in a different way than what Hillary did. Whether or not she deleted work-related emails is not of concern to me, it's the mishandling of classified information.
So you believe patients have the expertise to know that a phony blood test is phony?
No, I didn't say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Note also that I'm not arguing for or against a position, just saying you aren't representing the libertarian argument properly.
How about a patent medicine?
Medicines are covered by the FDA; blood tests - medical tests in general, in fact - are covered by different regulations. The FDA can approve machines or tools, but not test procedures. The issues that resulted in this whole story are unrelated to patented medicines.
How exactly would a consumer know that snake oil is snake oil in the absence of regulation?
Presumably though independent testing and private investigation. The same things that got the ball rolling with this story, in fact. Doctors and reporters were noticing that the Theranos test results didn't agree with conventional ones in a significant number of cases. Note also that not all libertarians want *no* regulation on medical testing (or even drugs). Some do want that, of course, but most just disagree with the current process to varying degrees.
I read pretty quickly, but I have to say, I'm excited that this card will make me read much faster. 5 GB in 10 seconds is a lot - I'll get so much more reading done!
Slashdot Mirror
"Socializing the losses" means that the government or public take the losses, not that there are more people involved. It's still just private individuals taking losses, and given how rich the people who invested in this are, there isn't going to be any significant increase in social welfare spending. You can argue about "socializing the losses" in some cases, sure, but it's not a phrase you can make mean anything you like.
"People shooting at you aren't a threat"
-AK Marc
I don't think a bomb robot was the right way to handle this, but I also don't think he posed no threat. This was a building in the middle of the city, they couldn't just let him stay there forever.
But that's fair, because Korash [sic] was white and a rapist. The police celebrate and protect rapists, so long as they are white.
This statement is both disgusting and untrue. Please go troll somewhere else.
Koresh got such a long time, in part, because his compound was fortified and there were lots of people inside. This guy was alone and did not have defenses set up. The two situations aren't comparable.
Bullshit. You could argue that all cops in departments that kill innocent people are the problem, but even then I don't think that's right. In jurisdictions where they haven't had any killings where the justification is even a little bit in doubt, you can't say those cops are the problem too. Dallas has a pretty good police force, from what I hear. Their police chief is black, and I doubt he's aiding and abetting the cops who are racist killers.
They did give the option to surrender. Negotiations broke down, he started shooting at them again.
The story says he was exchanging gunfire with the cops after negotiations broke down. Sounds like he was still a threat.
Why does that matter? The point is, she didn't ask. She took classified information - which she didn't have the power to declassify - and stored it on an outside system without authorization.
If you could correct more things, you would have. But you've been mostly wrong so far.
I was specifically responding to your claim that "blacks dont [sic] disobey the law any more then [sic] us whites". I'm not disagreeing that the statement "The black disregard of law and order inspires the police to defend their lives." is racist, because it is.
Usually those militias are on ground they fully control. This guy was holed up in a place that wasn't his and probably had no traps set up, couldn't defend himself as well as a militia could.
Blacks do commit more violent crime per capita than whites do. This is largely because poor people in general commit more violent crime than middle or upper class people do, however. And then racial sentencing gap, while a travesty of justice, isn't actually all that large.
The dude explicitly stated he wanted to hurt white people, and he had pro-BLM posts all over. When you shoot 17(?) people and only two of them aren't cops, you have to wonder how much he was actually targeting the protesters.
One opinion piece does not a philosophy define.
I'd also like to clarify the argument slightly; monopolies in and of themselves aren't bad, it's abuses of monopoly power that are bad. Antitrust laws, as the article states, are often rather subjective. It's reasonable to argue that antitrust laws have been implemented poorly; less reasonable to say "no news ones either", but big-L Libertarians can be unreasonable. Small-l libertarians would primarily argue for reform rather than abolition. Seems like you only really pay attention to the big-L Libertarians.
I'm going to go ahead and ignore what Marx said about a system he despised and didn't understand all that well.
Fair enough. Going to address the rest of the post, or do you not have anything to contribute?
A free market is, contrary to what most people on both political sides think, one where prices are set freely (no price fixing by government or monopoly). It does not mean one that is free from all government regulation. Therefore, most consumer markets in America are free markets, but with regulations that are not price fixing. If you think a free market is one where no government intervention exists at all, then sure, that has probably never existed.
Markets need anti-monopoly regulations to exist, and fraud protection (and, of course, protection from threats, etc.). Other regulations may or may not make it more stable or efficient or desirable in some other way.
I dunno, why don't you ask the government about that? Governments deciding they want to buy something is hardly examples of free market failure though.
there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning
She absolutely mishandled classified information. She broke several parts of the USC, some of which do not consider intent. The FBI said they would not support prosecution for a number of reasons, but that, regardless of whether what she did was illegal or not, she should have handled it differently.
Also, re: earlier claim about her not deleting emails, from their statement:
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years
Although, to be fair, they do also go on to say:
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.
So she did delete some, but it may have been a mistake or without thinking.
Note also that I'm not arguing for or against a position, just saying you aren't representing the libertarian argument properly.
Since you missed it the first time...
Free market != unregulated market. There are plenty of free markets, but completely unregulated markets don't work, I agree. But nice "I'm old so I know better, you stupid young person (although I don't know your age)". Solid, A+ argument there.
It'd be nice if you actually responded to the rest of that paragraph instead of just cherry-picking what you thought was the most unreasonable section when taken out of context. But you probably won't do that, it's not your style.
She only did "almost exactly what they did" if you consider White House staffers who weren't running for office using private email addresses for White House and RNC business (no classified information as far as anyone's been able to prove) to be almost exactly the same as a person running for POTUS setting up her own server and keeping Top Secret information on it. Also important to note that Rove resigned over it, and that Cheney, while probably somewhat involved, isn't mentioned in most articles about it.
To be clear, I fully believe that Rove should be prosecuted for it, but what he did was wrong in a different way than what Hillary did. Whether or not she deleted work-related emails is not of concern to me, it's the mishandling of classified information.
So you believe patients have the expertise to know that a phony blood test is phony?
No, I didn't say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Note also that I'm not arguing for or against a position, just saying you aren't representing the libertarian argument properly.
How about a patent medicine?
Medicines are covered by the FDA; blood tests - medical tests in general, in fact - are covered by different regulations. The FDA can approve machines or tools, but not test procedures. The issues that resulted in this whole story are unrelated to patented medicines.
How exactly would a consumer know that snake oil is snake oil in the absence of regulation?
Presumably though independent testing and private investigation. The same things that got the ball rolling with this story, in fact. Doctors and reporters were noticing that the Theranos test results didn't agree with conventional ones in a significant number of cases. Note also that not all libertarians want *no* regulation on medical testing (or even drugs). Some do want that, of course, but most just disagree with the current process to varying degrees.
I read pretty quickly, but I have to say, I'm excited that this card will make me read much faster. 5 GB in 10 seconds is a lot - I'll get so much more reading done!
Yep, it sure is a shame the FDA didn't catch their fraud earlier.
How were the losses socialized? They had only private investors and they aren't getting bailed out.
Alternatively, female sociopaths have different goals (on average) than male sociopaths.