What does matter is a legal/tax structure which encourages corporations to ship work overseas. Not to mention a system that favors large corporations over smaller ones.
That's what an effective labor organization would be working on. Unions have become complacent, and in some cases, corrupt, but that doesn't disprove the potential utility of organized labor. They should just stop organizing against specific businesses and organize around broader issues.
If you want to protect jobs, then ban multi-national and even multi-state corporations. Then put back the limits that a corporation can only work in the one field it was originally incorporated for.
Yes. Except it's not protecting jobs, it's protecting democracy. We threw off the aristocracy once, and now we're letting a new one sneak in amongst us.
Corporations have won many undue rights and protections. Labor (regular citizens) must organize to remove them. At the very least, if capital is to be protected and allowed free reign across borders, labor should enjoy the same freedom, and some protections of its own.
The GP said "more egalitarian" not "perfectly egalitarian." It is possible to regulate the market so that the income distribution is smaller. This is what the GP was talking about, not communism or anarchy. You, on the other hand, are constructing a straw man to bash.
Oh yes, those evil politicians force things, but corporations are Only Companies, they have no power in society. Sure. Jeez, even free market hero Adam Smith knew otherwise.
Not arguing a specific point, just this general attitude. It's got to go. Business interests are quite clearly very often against the public interest. Check out Congressman Sherrod Brown's Myths of Free Trade for a crash course covering this major point.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? When everyone is forced to be equal?
No. Unlike those who would dismantle the work of generations, I have some faith in our form of government. I have more faith in our democracy than in business. Unfortunately, business holds most of the cards on important issues right now, such as labor laws, trade laws, and their own regulation.
You mean that if I move a heavy rock from point a to point b, then some money will fall from the sky?
No, I was referring to your family anecdote, further above in this thread, about advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system. I believe I made that clear, and to put words in my mouth so that you can have a straw man to combat is quite dishonest, not to mention failing to address the point I did make.
We all know our public school system is a dismal failure
No we don't. But thanks for the "some people say" style talking point. We were not discussing education, public or private, in any case. I wonder why you introduce the topic here. It seems you have by this point accepted the original premise (way up at the start of this thread, my original comment) that responsible government funding and administration of insurance programs and infrastructure can do wonders for society, including for many (if not all) people who do not directly benefit from such projects.
It seems to me that your only concern at this point is about how far we should go ("where do you draw the line") in that case, we are in agreement. Again, I have faith in our system of government to answer those questions. I obviously think we can and should go a bit further than you, but I have also made it clear I am not arguing for socialism or communism, merely for greater balance against inherently anti-democratic business interests....if poor, uneducated parents cannot teach their children how to move up the ladder, then who will?
Who, indeed, but a well-funded public education system? In any case, you are again constructing an anecdotal mirage at which to thrash. Bravo. No point in following this line of argument any further.
Like I said, if France is so much better, then why don't you move there?
Another straw man. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why do market fetishists consistently fall back on this line of "why don't you move to France if you love it so much?"
You're proving that an excess of reason is a malady in itself.
Of course businesses are run by citizens. But in operation they exhibit special business interests which are at odds with the public interest.
Small business owners may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. Individuals working for large businesses may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. Shareholders may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. But the overall system is greater than the sum of its parts and the behaviors of individuals add up to different behaviors on the whole. Society is not made up of individuals, distinct from each other. The very fact that we use language to converse about anything at all is evidence of the fact that we are part of something greater than our individual selves. Efficient, intelligent government is aware of and addresses these emergent aspects of business and society.
But it should come from our hearts and not be forced upon us.
If this worked in practice, there would have been no need for the labor movements of the late 19th century, no need for the women's suffrage movement, no need for the civil rights movement, and certainly no need for the original American revolution.
Oh, and a note on social mobility, in regards to your family anecdote a few comments up, and it also has to do with market fairness: It's declined a lot in the last few years. "When asked if people get rewarded for their effort, 61 percent of Americans agree, versus 49 percent of Canadians, 33 percent of the British, and 23 percent of the French. But of all these societies, America is one of the least mobile, which is to say the least dependent on hard work rather than social station. In Denmark, the relationship between one's parent's income and one's own is 15% percent or so. In Canada, it's 19% percent. In France, it's 41 percent. And in America, it's 47 percent. The only country more hidebound and hierarchal is England (50 percent), also the country most closely approximating the American economic model."
So despite common American beliefs that, in general, if you work hard you'll be rewarded for your efforts and rise up high, it's just not true, and not as true now as it once was...
Yeah, I suppose - they're sort of hybrid communist/capitalist, from what I understand, using the following definitions anyway:
Socialism = workers owning means of production Communism = state owning means of production Capitalism = elite merchants owning means of production Welfare State Capitalism = elite merchants owning means of production & state instituting protections for labor/environment/infrastructure to balance against inequities of markets
In a sense, everyone IS their own business RIGHT NOW.
That's not the same thing, and it is silly to say "nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful" and then to reply to the my observation with the assertion that everyone is their own business already. In fact, it's quite disingenuous. Either people need to start a business to be successful, or they already are in business for themselves and something else is keeping everyone from being successful. I think it would be more honest to admit that markets by default encourage an ever smaller class of people with ever growing power and an ever growing class of people with ever diminishing power.
Understanding this as a reality of markets, as Smith did, leads one to the conclusion that governments need to pass special laws & regulations to balance this out, as Smith himself concluded. Citing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind," he understood the power of the employer in the workplace and in the domestic and international economy: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He understood the conflict between large business and the public interest:
"It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful, that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent, is too often, either neglected, or oppressed."
He warned against child labor, too many hours in the workday, and "excessive application" of work by the employer. Since history began, Smith observed, while the invisible hand has brought efficiency to economic systems, it also can wreak havoc on the less advantaged, the ill-educated, the vulnerable, and the unlucky. And all too often, Smith noted, the "masters themselves" use the government that they can almost always influence to wring additional advantage out of the working classes. In The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Smith also wrote about industrial England:
"It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily, and the law does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of Parliament against combining to lower the price [wages] of work, but many against combining to raise it."
Throughout his life, Smith recognized and understood the goals of the elite: The elite's interest, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
"In any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... The proposal of any new law, or regulation of commerce, which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution and ought never to be adopted... but with the most suspicious affection. It comes from an order of men... whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive, and even to oppress, the public and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
I believe that Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I believe that everyone should be required to have them and that the employer should help contribute matching funds. Adam Smith would want transparency in taxes and expense, which is exactly what HSAs enable. Insurance does not enable this because only the insurance company is concerned with the cost.
Well, I don't have a lifeline to Smith's ghost, but I imagine instead he would have questioned HSAs because they are in general only supported by the bu
my parents grew up in small mill towns where the only opportunity was working at the mill. They moved west and raised nine children with a blue collar income. Their parents could barely afford an automobile, but they owned several. I am college educated and make better money than they dreamed of. You see, most of the poor in this country own cars, microwaves, a washer and dryer, etc. With 4.9% unemployment, most can also find a decent job. In fact, nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful.
Aside from the difficulty of finding lenders, and the difficulty of finding patrons for your business. I mean really, can you imagine if every single person in the U.S. started their own business? It'd be utter chaos! "Start a business" is no solution for anyone. It's a possibility, but the market itself keeps most people from taking that path, lest the market be clogged with businesses and no employees or customers...
Other than that, you present a nice anecdote of exactly what it is that does, indeed, make America and other capitalist welfare states amazingly wonderful. A healthy civic society fueled by a strong economy and can-do citizens. Unfortunately you conveniently ignore all the public infrastructure that must by necessity have been in place for your family to have succeeded over the years. You mention college, and if you didn't get any public help for that, you certainly are fortunate, and greatly in the minority. If your family never had help from a federally-managed bank with federally-regulated loan interest, I wonder at how they managed to own three cars, let alone one. I can only guess at what other benefits your family may have had as it moved west and prospered (if your family goes far back enough, all settlers had paid-for federal defense from Native Americans, and government irrigation projects, etc., etc. - the entire southwest was federally subsidized with government welfare projects in one form or another.)
Still haven't read your Adam Smith? Come back and try again after you have. I suggest The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Oh, and by the way, there are no socialist governments in the world. Never have been. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. (Communism, of course, being when the state owns the means of production). What we have, and pretty much every other successful nation in the world has, is called Welfare State Capitalism. Capitalism is allowed to run pretty much free, but the state sets up rules for the markets and protects the citizens, environment and infrastructure from business interests which are fundamentaly anti-democracy.
Yes, when adults are in control. Unfortunately we've had the descendents of the John Birch society and the Goldwater movement in control of government for, arguably, upwards of 25-35 years. Their entire modus operandi is to make government inept, inefficient and unreliable so that they can say exactly what you're saying and dismantle it.
Social security is an unreliable FAILURE.
Nope, it's the most successful, popular program in US government history. Sure, it could be better, particularly if the privatization fetishists would stop meddling with it...
I hate to break it to you, but people are not infrastructure. In the US, citizens ARE the government.
They are both. You don't think a healthy, secure citizenry is better at participating in the economy and government than a sickly, insecure one? Fine, let your human infrastructure go to waste and see how your society unravels. We adults will be here to pick up the pieces and rebuild civilization after you kids get done playing around.
Do you even understand the concept of freedom?
Better than you. You seem to want to live under constant economic tyranny. No doubt you feel you'll logically be one of the elite who benefit from the system. "NEWS FLASH:" more likely you'll be one of the serfs. I'd bet you already are and don't even know it, though admittedly I don't know anything about your life and I may be wrong about what class you're in.
Go read your Adam Smith (you know, the great economic thinker) and perhaps you'll understand a little better.
First, you enter any of these contracts completely by choice.
Ah, but who controls the choices available to you?
If the choice is crappy phone service or no phone service at all, sure I can maybe make some sort of principled stand, but what difference does it make?
That's the whole point of government regulation and labor unions and things like that - business groups are small and organize easily. The public and workers are very large groups in comparison and exceedingly difficult to organize effectively. Therefore, laws and regulations work to balance these forces out to make the market healthier.
Because for some things efficiency is the greater concern, for which the solution is the marketplace. For others, reliability is the greater concern, for which the solution is government.
Products usually fall under the former, infrastructure usually falls under the latter. Oh, and people fall under infrastructure, hence social security, and, inevitably, national health care.
Of course national defense is a public service. But what you're talking about is national offense, which benefits no one but the select elite. Well, probably not even them in the long term.
When a gamer wants to see a game made into a movie (or at least this gamer), the thing I want out of the movie is to relive the experience of the game, and perhaps have it extended a bit. That's all.
Most games are alike in terms of the game aspect. You need to collect X object to achieve Y goal, or surmount A obstacle to get to point B. That's the essence of games. Surrounding that in great games are interesting stories and settings. Doom's gameplay was somewhat revolutionary, but part of what made it attractive was the mix of occult and sci-fi motifs. The art was interesting, the "space marine" character with little Sam Raimi-inspired quirks was interesting...
A proper Doom movie would have used the occult/sci-fi setting as it was in the game, perhaps aping some of the original art but on a proper big-screen scale, and it should have been directed by Sam Raimi, or someone who could do that style credit.
Unfortunately, id Software changed the general idea of Doom for Doom III, and the movie went even further, so you're stuck with a stinker.
The same thing has happened for pretty much all other bad game movies. Tinker with plot to annoy fans, change the setting and style enough that it isn't like it was in the game, and you've suddenly created your own movie, something similar to the original, but not good enough to please fans, and not enough of a separate, well-thought-out movie to please regular moviegoers.
I shudder to think what they would do with Half Life, Grim Fandango, or hell, even Tux Racer! Let's make Half Life about a whistleblower fighting government-grown mutants (almost close enough) - Let's make Grim Fandango a live action film and get rid of half the characters - Let's take that lovable Tux and make a wacky comedy a la Cannonball Run... Hollywood will ruin games as movies until games companies start making their own movies with the original plot and style of the games.
The really awesome part of spending in the public interest is that there are usually residual benefits even for those people who don't directly use the services.
Public roads? Lubricates the commerce (at the very least), which makes the economy as a whole better for you to participate in.
Social security? Keeps the unfortunate & market-abused from being too much of a drag on society and potentially a destabilizing force; IOW, it keeps society secure for you, too.
Subsidized communications (incl. wifi services)? Facilitates democracy, free flow of information, not to mention commerce like roads & public transport also do. Which makes the economy and your democracy all the better, even if you choose other avenues to participate in commerce & government.
Google is just having to deal with a situation brought on by decades of meddling by American business elites in the affairs between America and China China's government and American interests employ PR firms which harness former government officials like Henry Kissinger to lobby Congress and the American people in support of trade rules that result in major exporting of jobs and materials, along with turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights and environmental transgressions (also much to the delight of American business, whose interests are often at odds with democracy and the public interest). I find it interesting how Google is walking the line here...
...it's the best news ever if you've invested in any arctic real estate.
Why? Just because it gets warmer and the shore moves inland doesn't automatically give you proper:
A) beaches B) soil for farming C) lots of other things dependent on more than just warmth and sea level
Besides, one of the whole points of global warming science is that the changes can be more than just higher temperatures and rising sea levels. Freshwater melting into the ocean, ocean conveyer belts... climate change doesn't just mean the ports, beaches and farmland move north.
Somebody else here made the point that the whole focus of the story is that a noted environmentalist has "changed his tune" and now supports nuclear power. Given that, it is very relevant to point out that the "noted environmentalist" is now employed by industry in a PR capacity. Therefore, the story of "noted environmentalist turned nuclear supporter" is somewhat changed to "guy who was once connected with Greenpeace but now works for industry repeats industry point of view."
Now, I happen to agree with the arguments for nuclear power, but I think it's worth noting the guy's true affiliations and allegiances when his whole shtick revolves around his Greenpeace cred.
Really? You should check out Myths of Free Trade. It's actually very good, and has a nice big section under Myth 4 or 5 talking about how the Chinese government lobbies Congress via former US officials who now make money working for China...
Whether your libertarian or liberal, you should check this book out. It's by Sherrod Brown, a US Congressman.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about strikes?
What does matter is a legal/tax structure which encourages corporations to ship work overseas. Not to mention a system that favors large corporations over smaller ones.
That's what an effective labor organization would be working on. Unions have become complacent, and in some cases, corrupt, but that doesn't disprove the potential utility of organized labor. They should just stop organizing against specific businesses and organize around broader issues.
If you want to protect jobs, then ban multi-national and even multi-state corporations. Then put back the limits that a corporation can only work in the one field it was originally incorporated for.
Yes. Except it's not protecting jobs, it's protecting democracy. We threw off the aristocracy once, and now we're letting a new one sneak in amongst us.
Corporations have won many undue rights and protections. Labor (regular citizens) must organize to remove them. At the very least, if capital is to be protected and allowed free reign across borders, labor should enjoy the same freedom, and some protections of its own.
The GP said "more egalitarian" not "perfectly egalitarian." It is possible to regulate the market so that the income distribution is smaller. This is what the GP was talking about, not communism or anarchy. You, on the other hand, are constructing a straw man to bash.
Hooray for you! You made a link! Now you can proceed to making whole web pages! I suggest making one about your cat.
Oh yes, those evil politicians force things, but corporations are Only Companies, they have no power in society. Sure. Jeez, even free market hero Adam Smith knew otherwise.
Not arguing a specific point, just this general attitude. It's got to go. Business interests are quite clearly very often against the public interest. Check out Congressman Sherrod Brown's Myths of Free Trade for a crash course covering this major point.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? When everyone is forced to be equal?
...if poor, uneducated parents cannot teach their children how to move up the ladder, then who will?
No. Unlike those who would dismantle the work of generations, I have some faith in our form of government. I have more faith in our democracy than in business. Unfortunately, business holds most of the cards on important issues right now, such as labor laws, trade laws, and their own regulation.
You mean that if I move a heavy rock from point a to point b, then some money will fall from the sky?
No, I was referring to your family anecdote, further above in this thread, about advancement through effort and the superiority of the current American system. I believe I made that clear, and to put words in my mouth so that you can have a straw man to combat is quite dishonest, not to mention failing to address the point I did make.
We all know our public school system is a dismal failure
No we don't. But thanks for the "some people say" style talking point. We were not discussing education, public or private, in any case. I wonder why you introduce the topic here. It seems you have by this point accepted the original premise (way up at the start of this thread, my original comment) that responsible government funding and administration of insurance programs and infrastructure can do wonders for society, including for many (if not all) people who do not directly benefit from such projects.
It seems to me that your only concern at this point is about how far we should go ("where do you draw the line") in that case, we are in agreement. Again, I have faith in our system of government to answer those questions. I obviously think we can and should go a bit further than you, but I have also made it clear I am not arguing for socialism or communism, merely for greater balance against inherently anti-democratic business interests.
Who, indeed, but a well-funded public education system? In any case, you are again constructing an anecdotal mirage at which to thrash. Bravo. No point in following this line of argument any further.
Like I said, if France is so much better, then why don't you move there?
Another straw man. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why do market fetishists consistently fall back on this line of "why don't you move to France if you love it so much?"
I will not carry this further. Good day.
You're proving that an excess of reason is a malady in itself.
Of course businesses are run by citizens. But in operation they exhibit special business interests which are at odds with the public interest.
Small business owners may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. Individuals working for large businesses may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. Shareholders may be concerned about fairness in government and industry. But the overall system is greater than the sum of its parts and the behaviors of individuals add up to different behaviors on the whole. Society is not made up of individuals, distinct from each other. The very fact that we use language to converse about anything at all is evidence of the fact that we are part of something greater than our individual selves. Efficient, intelligent government is aware of and addresses these emergent aspects of business and society.
But it should come from our hearts and not be forced upon us.
If this worked in practice, there would have been no need for the labor movements of the late 19th century, no need for the women's suffrage movement, no need for the civil rights movement, and certainly no need for the original American revolution.
Oh, and a note on social mobility, in regards to your family anecdote a few comments up, and it also has to do with market fairness: It's declined a lot in the last few years. "When asked if people get rewarded for their effort, 61 percent of Americans agree, versus 49 percent of Canadians, 33 percent of the British, and 23 percent of the French. But of all these societies, America is one of the least mobile, which is to say the least dependent on hard work rather than social station. In Denmark, the relationship between one's parent's income and one's own is 15% percent or so. In Canada, it's 19% percent. In France, it's 41 percent. And in America, it's 47 percent. The only country more hidebound and hierarchal is England (50 percent), also the country most closely approximating the American economic model."
So despite common American beliefs that, in general, if you work hard you'll be rewarded for your efforts and rise up high, it's just not true, and not as true now as it once was...
Yeah, I suppose - they're sort of hybrid communist/capitalist, from what I understand, using the following definitions anyway:
Socialism = workers owning means of production
Communism = state owning means of production
Capitalism = elite merchants owning means of production
Welfare State Capitalism = elite merchants owning means of production & state instituting protections for labor/environment/infrastructure to balance against inequities of markets
That's not the same thing, and it is silly to say "nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful" and then to reply to the my observation with the assertion that everyone is their own business already. In fact, it's quite disingenuous. Either people need to start a business to be successful, or they already are in business for themselves and something else is keeping everyone from being successful. I think it would be more honest to admit that markets by default encourage an ever smaller class of people with ever growing power and an ever growing class of people with ever diminishing power.
Understanding this as a reality of markets, as Smith did, leads one to the conclusion that governments need to pass special laws & regulations to balance this out, as Smith himself concluded. Citing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind," he understood the power of the employer in the workplace and in the domestic and international economy: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He understood the conflict between large business and the public interest:
He warned against child labor, too many hours in the workday, and "excessive application" of work by the employer. Since history began, Smith observed, while the invisible hand has brought efficiency to economic systems, it also can wreak havoc on the less advantaged, the ill-educated, the vulnerable, and the unlucky. And all too often, Smith noted, the "masters themselves" use the government that they can almost always influence to wring additional advantage out of the working classes. In The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Smith also wrote about industrial England:
Throughout his life, Smith recognized and understood the goals of the elite: The elite's interest, he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
I believe that Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I believe that everyone should be required to have them and that the employer should help contribute matching funds. Adam Smith would want transparency in taxes and expense, which is exactly what HSAs enable. Insurance does not enable this because only the insurance company is concerned with the cost.
Well, I don't have a lifeline to Smith's ghost, but I imagine instead he would have questioned HSAs because they are in general only supported by the bu
"Start a business" is no solution for anyone.
Scratch that - "Start a business" is not a solution for everyone.
my parents grew up in small mill towns where the only opportunity was working at the mill. They moved west and raised nine children with a blue collar income. Their parents could barely afford an automobile, but they owned several. I am college educated and make better money than they dreamed of. You see, most of the poor in this country own cars, microwaves, a washer and dryer, etc. With 4.9% unemployment, most can also find a decent job. In fact, nothing stops anyone from starting their own business and becoming successful.
Aside from the difficulty of finding lenders, and the difficulty of finding patrons for your business. I mean really, can you imagine if every single person in the U.S. started their own business? It'd be utter chaos! "Start a business" is no solution for anyone. It's a possibility, but the market itself keeps most people from taking that path, lest the market be clogged with businesses and no employees or customers...
Other than that, you present a nice anecdote of exactly what it is that does, indeed, make America and other capitalist welfare states amazingly wonderful. A healthy civic society fueled by a strong economy and can-do citizens. Unfortunately you conveniently ignore all the public infrastructure that must by necessity have been in place for your family to have succeeded over the years. You mention college, and if you didn't get any public help for that, you certainly are fortunate, and greatly in the minority. If your family never had help from a federally-managed bank with federally-regulated loan interest, I wonder at how they managed to own three cars, let alone one. I can only guess at what other benefits your family may have had as it moved west and prospered (if your family goes far back enough, all settlers had paid-for federal defense from Native Americans, and government irrigation projects, etc., etc. - the entire southwest was federally subsidized with government welfare projects in one form or another.)
Still haven't read your Adam Smith? Come back and try again after you have. I suggest The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Oh, and by the way, there are no socialist governments in the world. Never have been. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. (Communism, of course, being when the state owns the means of production). What we have, and pretty much every other successful nation in the world has, is called Welfare State Capitalism. Capitalism is allowed to run pretty much free, but the state sets up rules for the markets and protects the citizens, environment and infrastructure from business interests which are fundamentaly anti-democracy.
The government is the solution for reliability?
Yes, when adults are in control. Unfortunately we've had the descendents of the John Birch society and the Goldwater movement in control of government for, arguably, upwards of 25-35 years. Their entire modus operandi is to make government inept, inefficient and unreliable so that they can say exactly what you're saying and dismantle it.
Social security is an unreliable FAILURE.
Nope, it's the most successful, popular program in US government history. Sure, it could be better, particularly if the privatization fetishists would stop meddling with it...
I hate to break it to you, but people are not infrastructure. In the US, citizens ARE the government.
They are both. You don't think a healthy, secure citizenry is better at participating in the economy and government than a sickly, insecure one? Fine, let your human infrastructure go to waste and see how your society unravels. We adults will be here to pick up the pieces and rebuild civilization after you kids get done playing around.
Do you even understand the concept of freedom?
Better than you. You seem to want to live under constant economic tyranny. No doubt you feel you'll logically be one of the elite who benefit from the system. "NEWS FLASH:" more likely you'll be one of the serfs. I'd bet you already are and don't even know it, though admittedly I don't know anything about your life and I may be wrong about what class you're in.
Go read your Adam Smith (you know, the great economic thinker) and perhaps you'll understand a little better.
How can you be an editor of anything and still not know the difference between "to" and "too?"
I'm serious.
First, you enter any of these contracts completely by choice.
Ah, but who controls the choices available to you?
If the choice is crappy phone service or no phone service at all, sure I can maybe make some sort of principled stand, but what difference does it make?
That's the whole point of government regulation and labor unions and things like that - business groups are small and organize easily. The public and workers are very large groups in comparison and exceedingly difficult to organize effectively. Therefore, laws and regulations work to balance these forces out to make the market healthier.
Long live regulations!
Because for some things efficiency is the greater concern, for which the solution is the marketplace. For others, reliability is the greater concern, for which the solution is government.
Products usually fall under the former, infrastructure usually falls under the latter. Oh, and people fall under infrastructure, hence social security, and, inevitably, national health care.
Of course national defense is a public service. But what you're talking about is national offense, which benefits no one but the select elite. Well, probably not even them in the long term.
When a gamer wants to see a game made into a movie (or at least this gamer), the thing I want out of the movie is to relive the experience of the game, and perhaps have it extended a bit. That's all.
Most games are alike in terms of the game aspect. You need to collect X object to achieve Y goal, or surmount A obstacle to get to point B. That's the essence of games. Surrounding that in great games are interesting stories and settings. Doom's gameplay was somewhat revolutionary, but part of what made it attractive was the mix of occult and sci-fi motifs. The art was interesting, the "space marine" character with little Sam Raimi-inspired quirks was interesting...
A proper Doom movie would have used the occult/sci-fi setting as it was in the game, perhaps aping some of the original art but on a proper big-screen scale, and it should have been directed by Sam Raimi, or someone who could do that style credit.
Unfortunately, id Software changed the general idea of Doom for Doom III, and the movie went even further, so you're stuck with a stinker.
The same thing has happened for pretty much all other bad game movies. Tinker with plot to annoy fans, change the setting and style enough that it isn't like it was in the game, and you've suddenly created your own movie, something similar to the original, but not good enough to please fans, and not enough of a separate, well-thought-out movie to please regular moviegoers.
I shudder to think what they would do with Half Life, Grim Fandango, or hell, even Tux Racer! Let's make Half Life about a whistleblower fighting government-grown mutants (almost close enough) - Let's make Grim Fandango a live action film and get rid of half the characters - Let's take that lovable Tux and make a wacky comedy a la Cannonball Run... Hollywood will ruin games as movies until games companies start making their own movies with the original plot and style of the games.
The really awesome part of spending in the public interest is that there are usually residual benefits even for those people who don't directly use the services.
Public roads? Lubricates the commerce (at the very least), which makes the economy as a whole better for you to participate in.
Social security? Keeps the unfortunate & market-abused from being too much of a drag on society and potentially a destabilizing force; IOW, it keeps society secure for you, too.
Subsidized communications (incl. wifi services)? Facilitates democracy, free flow of information, not to mention commerce like roads & public transport also do. Which makes the economy and your democracy all the better, even if you choose other avenues to participate in commerce & government.
Just sayin'.
But I suppose we'd need to violate plant patents to be able to interface with its system...
What if they're trying to offer free, open wireless access? I guess they can just change the SSID to comply, but really...
Google is just having to deal with a situation brought on by decades of meddling by American business elites in the affairs between America and China China's government and American interests employ PR firms which harness former government officials like Henry Kissinger to lobby Congress and the American people in support of trade rules that result in major exporting of jobs and materials, along with turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights and environmental transgressions (also much to the delight of American business, whose interests are often at odds with democracy and the public interest). I find it interesting how Google is walking the line here...
...it's the best news ever if you've invested in any arctic real estate.
Why? Just because it gets warmer and the shore moves inland doesn't automatically give you proper:
A) beaches
B) soil for farming
C) lots of other things dependent on more than just warmth and sea level
Besides, one of the whole points of global warming science is that the changes can be more than just higher temperatures and rising sea levels. Freshwater melting into the ocean, ocean conveyer belts... climate change doesn't just mean the ports, beaches and farmland move north.
Somebody else here made the point that the whole focus of the story is that a noted environmentalist has "changed his tune" and now supports nuclear power. Given that, it is very relevant to point out that the "noted environmentalist" is now employed by industry in a PR capacity. Therefore, the story of "noted environmentalist turned nuclear supporter" is somewhat changed to "guy who was once connected with Greenpeace but now works for industry repeats industry point of view."
Now, I happen to agree with the arguments for nuclear power, but I think it's worth noting the guy's true affiliations and allegiances when his whole shtick revolves around his Greenpeace cred.
Really? You should check out Myths of Free Trade . It's actually very good, and has a nice big section under Myth 4 or 5 talking about how the Chinese government lobbies Congress via former US officials who now make money working for China...
Whether your libertarian or liberal, you should check this book out. It's by Sherrod Brown, a US Congressman.