Your example, of course has nothing to do with private property rights. A warlord is a government entity, thank you. A government entity, BTW, who denies private property rights to the people under his rule.
There's some kind of distortion filter on your mind...I think it's called "ideology." The term "government" can be used to describe many different forms of rule, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think warlords are defending what they consider to be their private property. Just because they deny private property rights to others doesn't mean they aren't enforcing their own private property rights. They just have a very inequitable view about who should own property. If you want to see the same concept translated into capitalism (which seems to be the only language you understand) take the example of the mining company town. The corporation owned the mine, the town, the store, the transportation, and the housing. The workers were paid in "script" which could only be redeemed at the company store. The miners generally started out in debt to the company for their mining equipment and never broke even so they were also de facto property of the corporation. They couldn't leave unless they paid off their debt to the company and even if they could do that, they still had to buy transportation out of town from the same company. This is what private property rights will revert to if not kept in check.
And, of course, we all know the best way for a corporation to maximize its profits and to grow its business is to totally disregard the health, happiness and welfare of its customers.
Is that a joke? You're not really serious are you? Well, just in case you are...Yes, that's exactly how it works. Haven't you been paying attention? That's how a great many corporations operate, and they profit handsomely in the process. You'd have to be a blind stooge not to be able to see that happening in modern corporate behavior.
Let me give you a news flash. Corporate abuses always occur through the arm of government.
...because corporations can't exist without the blessing of government. Damn, you're simple-minded.
A corporation cannot force you to sell your land. Only a government can do that. Look up eminent domain abuses. The government is always involved.
Duh! Eminent domain is, by definition, a government action. That's like saying, "Look up bad judicial rulings. The government is always involved." Yes, the government is always involved in government actions. But I took you up on your offer to look up eminent domain abuse. Well, look what I found Private interests manipulating the people's government to take land away from individual home-owners and give it to them for their private profit. How about that.
Governments are a necessary evil, and will ALWAYS gravitate toward tyranny unless checked on ALL fronts, including regulation of business.
I have no argument with that. But you are ignoring the other side of that coin...Corporations will also gravitate toward tyranny and twist the people's government into an entity that furthers their profit at the expense of the people as a whole (except for the lucky few at the top of the corporations). Private entities (corporations) must also be held in check. Open your mind to all sides of the argument.
You want to know why Corporate America is so heavily involved in Government? It's because government is so heavily involved in regulating and controlling business.
Circular argument, dude. A does B because B does A because A does B because B does A, etc., etc., etc. Unconvincing.
What has this got do to with the fact that a government which controls the property you need to live, work and eat controls your life?
Um, what are you talking about? Are you talking about laws? Do you think we would be better off without laws?
If the US federal government controlled all property in the country, how long do you think we would remain a constitutional republic?
Again, what are you talking about? I don't think there are many people who would argue for the government controlling "all property." You're an extremist. I never even hinted at such a thing. Come back when you're ready to argue rationally.
Actually, both the govenment are corporations are a small group of people (government officials and management)exercising power on behalf of the larger group (citizens and shareholders).
Remember, only public corporations have shareholders, and, even then, their only interest is monetary profit. The quest for profit is not a force that will drive society toward any kind of freedom or happiness, just toward monetary riches (and only for a select few).
Rule of law (government) NEEDS to exist to enforce the private property, or you have anarchy. Which is what you have in afghanistan, not private property.
Oh, but I beg to differ. Anarchy means a complete lack of rule. If you think there is a lack of ruling power in Afghanistan, just go over there and try to make some sort of change, even a simple change like organizing a soccer club or something. There'll be a Toyota pickup truck full of guys with AK-47s on your ass demanding, on behalf of their private-property-claiming warlord, that you explain yourself to him in person. That's feudalism, my private-property-loving friend, not anarchy.
The problems there stem from the fact that the government has not been able to effectively enforce said private property rights.
Nope. The problems there stem from the fact that the government has not been able (or willing) to enforce the rule of law over the rule of private-property-claiming warlords. The warlords say, "This piece of Afghanistan belongs to me. I will rule it as I see fit. No one can tell me otherwise. Defy my at your own risk." That is a triumph of private property rights over the rule of the people (government).
Government has to exist, i don't think the property rights people are arguing that, but they don't what the govenment owning everything...
You act like it's an either/or thing. Either all property is owned by private interests or by government (the people). What about a thoughtful blending of the two concepts? Neither private interests nor the government should have a monopoly on property.
To claim that the government is the people, in the United States or anywhere else, is laughable.
You're arguing the difference between theory and practice. The only reason the current US government doesn't reflect the will of her people is because her citizens don't respect or exercise the power their forebears fought and died for. While we've been sleeping, corporations jumped in and took the power we abdicated and used it to skew our current system in the grotesque monster it has become. The constitution very clearly gives us all power over our own lives. It's up to us to take it and use it wisely for our own good. The alternative is allowing moneyed interests to manipulate our lives for their own profit.
Now, you can repeat the phrase "we the people" until the end of time,... ...and I will, to my last breath. ...but that won't change the fact that government exists only when certain individuals hold power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) over other individuals. Government is force. You (the people) may get to choose who obtains that "right" to initiate force, but that doesn't change the fact that force will be used as a means to an end.
The difference is that those individuals serve at the will of the people. They are accountable to us. If they turn against the people we can make them pay for it, through the institution and mechanisms of government. Private (corporate) power, however, is unaccountable to the people. They can and will do as they please regardless of what the people think. That is why government is necessary, so that the people's rights may be held sacrosanct and above the rights of private (corporate) interests. Your narrow-minded view that "[g]overnment is force" denies that the real power is in the hands of the people and that the people have the means to control their government's behavior.
The one true, logical difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the rest do not.
They only hold the power we give them. If they abuse that power we can take it back from them. No such oversight exists for private power except the regulatory powers of the people through government. You seem to think that we would do better with no government at all. That's anarchy, bro, that would quickly turn into thug-ocracy. My rights would trump yours if I could bash your brains in. Government gives us the power to live in peace and argue over any differences that arise instead of the free-for-all nightmare utopia that you envision.
So, since no generalization is possible, we should just ignore the fact that we took from people who didn't even understand what we were taking from them? How convenient.
Man, could you be more wrong? If welfare isn't a right, why is it inscribed in the very opening sentence of the constitution?
WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And those lot of people are total idiots. You either have personal property rights, or you have the government exercising control of all the property.
Remember, our current system of law defines corporations as "persons", and they have vastly more resources at their disposal than any individual persons. Also, you seem to be misinterpreting what the government is. The government is "we, the people." So lets flip your argument over and see what the other side of the coin looks like: You either have government (people's) property rights, or you have private interests (corporations) exercising control of all the property.
This constant ranting about private property rights doesn't genuinely portray who the government is and who the private interests are. The government is us and the private interests are corporations, not people.
The moment a government has the power to control the land you need for shelter, food and industry, that's the day that government can control every fundamental aspect of your life. They can tell you where to live, where to farm, where to work.
Bullshit! The constitution of the US very strictly defines the limits of government power. That's the whole reason for its existence. It allows the people to pool their resources for the common good while protecting the individual from tyranny. You've lost sight of who is on your side and who is aligned against your well being.
99.9% of the fools who argue against property rights are basically envious of some rich guy on the hill and either want him living in a trailer park out of spite, or they have some idiotic idea that with the government owning all the land, they'd be living in that house on the hill for free.
That's pure hot air. The rich-guy-on-the-hill metaphor completely obscures the reality of who benefits the most from out-of-balance private property rights. Huge, heartless corporations are the "rich guy on the hill" you speak of, and they could care less about my health, happiness, or welfare. All corporations care about are profits. All other priorities are rescindent.
Sometimes I wish I could just send them all to a public housing project for six months.
And sometimes I wish I could send people like you to a place where private interests are free to operate without government (people's) oversight...someplace like Afghanistan where warlords operate their private fiefdoms similarly to the old feudal system. That's what pure private property rights gets you.
Property rights and freedom go hand in hand. If you are "against" pritate ownership of property, you are against freedom.
If that's the case, the American colonists, our founders, were very greatly against freedom because they showed absolutely no respect for the property rights of the Native Americans who beat them here by several thousand years. To restore our respect for freedom and our right to legitimately preach to others about freedom, we have no choice but return the land we stole from them by force.
Moreover, when government owns all property, it is really those who control government who own the property. These are individuals just like you and me, acting in self-interest like you and me. The only difference is that they hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, and we don't.
And, conversely, when private parties own all property, it is those private entities who control things. You might believe those private entities are the citizens, themselves, but the greatest money (and therefore, the greatest private power) is in the hands of corporations. A greater emphasis on privatization means greater power for corporations over property and individual citizens.
The constitution describes the US government as "We, the people." If we take that seriously and control government for the greater good of its citizens then government power is citizen power and government ownership of property is citizen ownership of property. The most equitable arrangement is a balance of private and government ownership of property with good oversight by the citizenry. An extra-strong emphasis on oversight of corporate power would be prudent.
Wow, what a surprise! The Iraqi doctors are claiming she wasn't raped!
Wow, what another surprise. Another Bush loyalist jumps in to defend the liars who have usurped democracy. Aren't you guys the ones who wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people? Maybe you wanted to "liberate" all of them except these doctors. You just want them to shut up, right?
And there aren't mass gravesites buried in the desert, either.
Those mass graves were created while dubya's daddy sat on his hands and watched. King George the 1st encouraged the Shiites in southern Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam but intentionally left Saddam's Republican Guard intact after the first Gulf War to reduce the chance of an Islamic faction gaining power. When Saddam sent in the attack helicopters, Bush senior could have easily taken them out with the world's blessings but he chose to let Saddam slaughter the Shiites. The same thing happened under Reagan with us selling weapons to Saddam and trying to keep him in a stalemate with Iran. Some of those weapons were used to slaughter Kurds.
Keep on believing your comfortable fiction. That's what democracy is all about, your comfort, right?
Me thinks a number of "/.-ers" could use a good ass-raping...The humor in it escapes me...
Especially since the anal rape story is another lie perpetrated by the Pentagon. Her Walter Reed doctors are using her for propaganda again and she doesn't even know it. Here's the scoop from the NZ Herald and from Wired.
I like how they tried to obscure the "Gillette Venus" printed on the boxes in the PDF file but the overlay image doesn't appear until the picture is completely loaded. Gillette doesn't want us to know that the tests are being conducted either with their cooperation or on their behalf. Ooops. Foiled by the PDF.
That a good point you have there. Maybe if you wear a hat no one will notice it.
I'm assuming the vehicles are not going to pass... and so they get all these citations.
If they don't pass then they should get a citation. What's wrong with giving someone a citation when they break the law, rich or poor?
...its persecution of the poor.
Look, the whole concept of individualized, personal transportation is discriminatory to the poor. Our cities are designed around the car. Urban and suburban sprawl (created by the availability of the automobile) creates the necessity to own and maintain a car. Public transportation is pitiful in this country because who's going to provide an expensive transportation infrastructure that primarily serves the poor? We've almost completely turned over our public spaces to cars. The poorest of all have no hope of owning any kind of car, junker or otherwise, because it's just too expensive. I don't hear you showing any sympathy for them. You're just using the issue like a drunk uses a street lamp -- for support rather than illumination. Libertarians could care less about the poor. You think the poor can just suck it up and get to work and quit whining so don't pretend you suddenly developed a heart.
Yes, that's a good point. That would be a good section of the bill to offer a concession. Something like: If the selected vehicle passes the smog inspection then the state eats the cost of the test. I have a feeling, though, that the system would be much more accurate than people seem to believe and that section would create a good incentive to make it even more accurate.
And what happens when you drive by a sensor 5 times a week and it sends you 5 citations at $50 or $100 a pop?
You're either a lier or you didn't even bother to RTFA. The system isn't intended to be used to issue citations. It's meant to be used to identify possible violations and then bring those cars in for an accurate test.
Keep in mind that, although the system may not be 100% accurate, it is not intended to be used to issue citations. It is only intended to identify probable violations and then call the owners of those vehicles in for an accurate test. This is in the interest of the people of California because it can improve their health and prevent them from losing federal funding due to exceeding air pollution limits.
Issuing a moving violation requires an arrest to be made. The camera is technically the arresting officer. The driver isn't arrested, is not released on his own recognicence, so the ticket is essentially invalid.
The difference here is that a camera that takes a picture of a car running a stop light usually doesn't have a picture of the actual violator (the driver). In the case of the pollution-cam (or whatever) the vehicle itself is the object that is in violation, so a picture of it is a valid record of a probable violation. And, again, no citation is issued -- just a notification that you need to get your car rechecked to verify it's compliance with the agreed upon standards.
We use 90% peroxide from a small specialty supplier for all of our flight vehicles, but they closed shop a while ago, and we haven't been able to come to terms with the only domestic supplier of 90% peroxide, FMC chemical corp.
That's kind of messed up because FMC just closed its peroxide plant near me citing a lack of demand for the product.
Your point just screams out the truth, which is that there wasn't a viable reason that the 'oil men' would have wanted to invade Iraq.
No, but there was a great reason to have the US taxpayers invade Iraq and give our sons' and daughters' lives so that we could subsidize their profits there. The energy companies aren't the ones paying the price. They're just the ones who will gobble up the profit while we pay the price. That's the most disgusting form of corporate welfare.
You have a basic misunderstanding of what government is for. Government isn't some kind of third-party that steps in like a referee. The government is us -- we, the people. If we need to do something collectively that individuals can't do on their own then government is exactly the vehicle to get it done. If you don't believe that that is the function of government then read this:
WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Just let it go NASA, it was never anything more than a pork project.
It was more of a political project with pork on the side. Remember Ronald Reagan announcing Space Station "Freedom" -- so named to provide some hokey, 1950s-style, image of how much better we were than those evil Ruskey's? It was conceived to be a really tall flagpole.
Slashdot Mirror
Your example, of course has nothing to do with private property rights. A warlord is a government entity, thank you. A government entity, BTW, who denies private property rights to the people under his rule.
There's some kind of distortion filter on your mind...I think it's called "ideology." The term "government" can be used to describe many different forms of rule, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think warlords are defending what they consider to be their private property. Just because they deny private property rights to others doesn't mean they aren't enforcing their own private property rights. They just have a very inequitable view about who should own property. If you want to see the same concept translated into capitalism (which seems to be the only language you understand) take the example of the mining company town. The corporation owned the mine, the town, the store, the transportation, and the housing. The workers were paid in "script" which could only be redeemed at the company store. The miners generally started out in debt to the company for their mining equipment and never broke even so they were also de facto property of the corporation. They couldn't leave unless they paid off their debt to the company and even if they could do that, they still had to buy transportation out of town from the same company. This is what private property rights will revert to if not kept in check.
And, of course, we all know the best way for a corporation to maximize its profits and to grow its business is to totally disregard the health, happiness and welfare of its customers.
Is that a joke? You're not really serious are you? Well, just in case you are...Yes, that's exactly how it works. Haven't you been paying attention? That's how a great many corporations operate, and they profit handsomely in the process. You'd have to be a blind stooge not to be able to see that happening in modern corporate behavior.
Let me give you a news flash. Corporate abuses always occur through the arm of government.
...because corporations can't exist without the blessing of government. Damn, you're simple-minded.
A corporation cannot force you to sell your land. Only a government can do that. Look up eminent domain abuses. The government is always involved.
Duh! Eminent domain is, by definition, a government action. That's like saying, "Look up bad judicial rulings. The government is always involved." Yes, the government is always involved in government actions. But I took you up on your offer to look up eminent domain abuse. Well, look what I found Private interests manipulating the people's government to take land away from individual home-owners and give it to them for their private profit. How about that.
Governments are a necessary evil, and will ALWAYS gravitate toward tyranny unless checked on ALL fronts, including regulation of business.
I have no argument with that. But you are ignoring the other side of that coin...Corporations will also gravitate toward tyranny and twist the people's government into an entity that furthers their profit at the expense of the people as a whole (except for the lucky few at the top of the corporations). Private entities (corporations) must also be held in check. Open your mind to all sides of the argument.
You want to know why Corporate America is so heavily involved in Government? It's because government is so heavily involved in regulating and controlling business.
Circular argument, dude. A does B because B does A because A does B because B does A, etc., etc., etc. Unconvincing.
What has this got do to with the fact that a government which controls the property you need to live, work and eat controls your life?
Um, what are you talking about? Are you talking about laws? Do you think we would be better off without laws?
If the US federal government controlled all property in the country, how long do you think we would remain a constitutional republic?
Again, what are you talking about? I don't think there are many people who would argue for the government controlling "all property." You're an extremist. I never even hinted at such a thing. Come back when you're ready to argue rationally.
Actually, both the govenment are corporations are a small group of people (government officials and management)exercising power on behalf of the larger group (citizens and shareholders).
Remember, only public corporations have shareholders, and, even then, their only interest is monetary profit. The quest for profit is not a force that will drive society toward any kind of freedom or happiness, just toward monetary riches (and only for a select few).
Rule of law (government) NEEDS to exist to enforce the private property, or you have anarchy. Which is what you have in afghanistan, not private property.
Oh, but I beg to differ. Anarchy means a complete lack of rule. If you think there is a lack of ruling power in Afghanistan, just go over there and try to make some sort of change, even a simple change like organizing a soccer club or something. There'll be a Toyota pickup truck full of guys with AK-47s on your ass demanding, on behalf of their private-property-claiming warlord, that you explain yourself to him in person. That's feudalism, my private-property-loving friend, not anarchy.
The problems there stem from the fact that the government has not been able to effectively enforce said private property rights.
Nope. The problems there stem from the fact that the government has not been able (or willing) to enforce the rule of law over the rule of private-property-claiming warlords. The warlords say, "This piece of Afghanistan belongs to me. I will rule it as I see fit. No one can tell me otherwise. Defy my at your own risk." That is a triumph of private property rights over the rule of the people (government).
Government has to exist, i don't think the property rights people are arguing that, but they don't what the govenment owning everything...
You act like it's an either/or thing. Either all property is owned by private interests or by government (the people). What about a thoughtful blending of the two concepts? Neither private interests nor the government should have a monopoly on property.
To claim that the government is the people, in the United States or anywhere else, is laughable.
You're arguing the difference between theory and practice. The only reason the current US government doesn't reflect the will of her people is because her citizens don't respect or exercise the power their forebears fought and died for. While we've been sleeping, corporations jumped in and took the power we abdicated and used it to skew our current system in the grotesque monster it has become. The constitution very clearly gives us all power over our own lives. It's up to us to take it and use it wisely for our own good. The alternative is allowing moneyed interests to manipulate our lives for their own profit.
Now, you can repeat the phrase "we the people" until the end of time,...
...and I will, to my last breath.
The difference is that those individuals serve at the will of the people. They are accountable to us. If they turn against the people we can make them pay for it, through the institution and mechanisms of government. Private (corporate) power, however, is unaccountable to the people. They can and will do as they please regardless of what the people think. That is why government is necessary, so that the people's rights may be held sacrosanct and above the rights of private (corporate) interests. Your narrow-minded view that "[g]overnment is force" denies that the real power is in the hands of the people and that the people have the means to control their government's behavior.
The one true, logical difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the rest do not.
They only hold the power we give them. If they abuse that power we can take it back from them. No such oversight exists for private power except the regulatory powers of the people through government. You seem to think that we would do better with no government at all. That's anarchy, bro, that would quickly turn into thug-ocracy. My rights would trump yours if I could bash your brains in. Government gives us the power to live in peace and argue over any differences that arise instead of the free-for-all nightmare utopia that you envision.
So, since no generalization is possible, we should just ignore the fact that we took from people who didn't even understand what we were taking from them? How convenient.
Welfare isn't a right....
Man, could you be more wrong? If welfare isn't a right, why is it inscribed in the very opening sentence of the constitution?
WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And those lot of people are total idiots. You either have personal property rights, or you have the government exercising control of all the property.
Remember, our current system of law defines corporations as "persons", and they have vastly more resources at their disposal than any individual persons. Also, you seem to be misinterpreting what the government is. The government is "we, the people." So lets flip your argument over and see what the other side of the coin looks like:
You either have government (people's) property rights, or you have private interests (corporations) exercising control of all the property.
This constant ranting about private property rights doesn't genuinely portray who the government is and who the private interests are. The government is us and the private interests are corporations, not people.
The moment a government has the power to control the land you need for shelter, food and industry, that's the day that government can control every fundamental aspect of your life. They can tell you where to live, where to farm, where to work.
Bullshit! The constitution of the US very strictly defines the limits of government power. That's the whole reason for its existence. It allows the people to pool their resources for the common good while protecting the individual from tyranny. You've lost sight of who is on your side and who is aligned against your well being.
99.9% of the fools who argue against property rights are basically envious of some rich guy on the hill and either want him living in a trailer park out of spite, or they have some idiotic idea that with the government owning all the land, they'd be living in that house on the hill for free.
That's pure hot air. The rich-guy-on-the-hill metaphor completely obscures the reality of who benefits the most from out-of-balance private property rights. Huge, heartless corporations are the "rich guy on the hill" you speak of, and they could care less about my health, happiness, or welfare. All corporations care about are profits. All other priorities are rescindent.
Sometimes I wish I could just send them all to a public housing project for six months.
And sometimes I wish I could send people like you to a place where private interests are free to operate without government (people's) oversight...someplace like Afghanistan where warlords operate their private fiefdoms similarly to the old feudal system. That's what pure private property rights gets you.
Property rights and freedom go hand in hand. If you are "against" pritate ownership of property, you are against freedom.
If that's the case, the American colonists, our founders, were very greatly against freedom because they showed absolutely no respect for the property rights of the Native Americans who beat them here by several thousand years. To restore our respect for freedom and our right to legitimately preach to others about freedom, we have no choice but return the land we stole from them by force.
Moreover, when government owns all property, it is really those who control government who own the property. These are individuals just like you and me, acting in self-interest like you and me. The only difference is that they hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, and we don't.
And, conversely, when private parties own all property, it is those private entities who control things. You might believe those private entities are the citizens, themselves, but the greatest money (and therefore, the greatest private power) is in the hands of corporations. A greater emphasis on privatization means greater power for corporations over property and individual citizens.
The constitution describes the US government as "We, the people." If we take that seriously and control government for the greater good of its citizens then government power is citizen power and government ownership of property is citizen ownership of property. The most equitable arrangement is a balance of private and government ownership of property with good oversight by the citizenry. An extra-strong emphasis on oversight of corporate power would be prudent.
Wow, what a surprise! The Iraqi doctors are claiming she wasn't raped!
Wow, what another surprise. Another Bush loyalist jumps in to defend the liars who have usurped democracy. Aren't you guys the ones who wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people? Maybe you wanted to "liberate" all of them except these doctors. You just want them to shut up, right?
And there aren't mass gravesites buried in the desert, either.
Those mass graves were created while dubya's daddy sat on his hands and watched. King George the 1st encouraged the Shiites in southern Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam but intentionally left Saddam's Republican Guard intact after the first Gulf War to reduce the chance of an Islamic faction gaining power. When Saddam sent in the attack helicopters, Bush senior could have easily taken them out with the world's blessings but he chose to let Saddam slaughter the Shiites. The same thing happened under Reagan with us selling weapons to Saddam and trying to keep him in a stalemate with Iran. Some of those weapons were used to slaughter Kurds.
Keep on believing your comfortable fiction. That's what democracy is all about, your comfort, right?
Me thinks a number of "/.-ers" could use a good ass-raping...The humor in it escapes me...
Especially since the anal rape story is another lie perpetrated by the Pentagon. Her Walter Reed doctors are using her for propaganda again and she doesn't even know it.
Here's the scoop from the NZ Herald and from Wired.
I like how they tried to obscure the "Gillette Venus" printed on the boxes in the PDF file but the overlay image doesn't appear until the picture is completely loaded.
Gillette doesn't want us to know that the tests are being conducted either with their cooperation or on their behalf.
Ooops. Foiled by the PDF.
Can Zelda enter? Or is there an age limit?
I believe you're not trolling.
What has happened is that you fell for the "Novell is dead" FUD.
Remember when YOU were relevant?
No?
Neither do I.
Hey idiot--
That a good point you have there. Maybe if you wear a hat no one will notice it.
I'm assuming the vehicles are not going to pass... and so they get all these citations.
If they don't pass then they should get a citation. What's wrong with giving someone a citation when they break the law, rich or poor?
Look, the whole concept of individualized, personal transportation is discriminatory to the poor. Our cities are designed around the car. Urban and suburban sprawl (created by the availability of the automobile) creates the necessity to own and maintain a car. Public transportation is pitiful in this country because who's going to provide an expensive transportation infrastructure that primarily serves the poor? We've almost completely turned over our public spaces to cars. The poorest of all have no hope of owning any kind of car, junker or otherwise, because it's just too expensive. I don't hear you showing any sympathy for them. You're just using the issue like a drunk uses a street lamp -- for support rather than illumination. Libertarians could care less about the poor. You think the poor can just suck it up and get to work and quit whining so don't pretend you suddenly developed a heart.
Yes, that's a good point. That would be a good section of the bill to offer a concession. Something like: If the selected vehicle passes the smog inspection then the state eats the cost of the test. I have a feeling, though, that the system would be much more accurate than people seem to believe and that section would create a good incentive to make it even more accurate.
And what happens when you drive by a sensor 5 times a week and it sends you 5 citations at $50 or $100 a pop?
You're either a lier or you didn't even bother to RTFA. The system isn't intended to be used to issue citations. It's meant to be used to identify possible violations and then bring those cars in for an accurate test.
Keep in mind that, although the system may not be 100% accurate, it is not intended to be used to issue citations. It is only intended to identify probable violations and then call the owners of those vehicles in for an accurate test. This is in the interest of the people of California because it can improve their health and prevent them from losing federal funding due to exceeding air pollution limits.
Issuing a moving violation requires an arrest to be made. The camera is technically the arresting officer. The driver isn't arrested, is not released on his own recognicence, so the ticket is essentially invalid.
The difference here is that a camera that takes a picture of a car running a stop light usually doesn't have a picture of the actual violator (the driver). In the case of the pollution-cam (or whatever) the vehicle itself is the object that is in violation, so a picture of it is a valid record of a probable violation. And, again, no citation is issued -- just a notification that you need to get your car rechecked to verify it's compliance with the agreed upon standards.
We use 90% peroxide from a small specialty supplier for all of our flight vehicles, but they closed shop a while ago, and we haven't been able to come to terms with the only domestic supplier of 90% peroxide, FMC chemical corp.
That's kind of messed up because FMC just closed its peroxide plant near me citing a lack of demand for the product.
Your point just screams out the truth, which is that there wasn't a viable reason that the 'oil men' would have wanted to invade Iraq.
No, but there was a great reason to have the US taxpayers invade Iraq and give our sons' and daughters' lives so that we could subsidize their profits there. The energy companies aren't the ones paying the price. They're just the ones who will gobble up the profit while we pay the price. That's the most disgusting form of corporate welfare.
Even cheaper would be to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. The US wouldn't have even had to invade anyone for that.
Yes, and it would supply fully two percent of our oil consumption. Don't buy into that crap.
Again, why is that the Government's job?
You have a basic misunderstanding of what government is for. Government isn't some kind of third-party that steps in like a referee. The government is us -- we, the people. If we need to do something collectively that individuals can't do on their own then government is exactly the vehicle to get it done. If you don't believe that that is the function of government then read this:
WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES,
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Just let it go NASA, it was never anything more than a pork project.
It was more of a political project with pork on the side. Remember Ronald Reagan announcing Space Station "Freedom" -- so named to provide some hokey, 1950s-style, image of how much better we were than those evil Ruskey's? It was conceived to be a really tall flagpole.