To demand equal outcomes, is to deny the rights of the individual to succeed. This is why Socialist or Communist governments always end up denying individual rights in favor of the State. The U.S. Constitution defends each individual's right to the PURSUIT of happiness, NOT happiness in and of itself.
I've addressed your other points elsewhere. It is you, however, who are ignorant of history. The Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force, is the source of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" line. On the other hand, the Constitution begins (emphasis mine):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
You are creating a false dilemma, and not arguing in good faith.
A progressive taxation system allows plenty of incentive for success. There is a huge gap between welfare and the maximum income, with a correspondingly huge difference in quality of life. Will an individual really work harder so he can buy that seventh house, or that eighth Bentley? After a point, an increase in income is not an incentive to work harder, and that increased income merely becomes a drag on society at large.
Just out of curiosity: do you support the BSD license over the GPL? The argument has a certain similarity.
GPL - progressive taxation: some restrictions on freedom in order to ensure the remaining freedom in the long run. BSD license - flat tax: absolute freedom.
Or we could do something even more radical and cut spending, say the billions of dollars that we hand out to corporations in the form of agricultural subsidies. Except Obama is all for those.
I agree that these subsidies are bad. They need to be reformed to not encourage overproduction of corn. But that is a minor issue. If you really want to reduce government spending, decrease the DoD budget. It's the single largest drain on government finances. Err.. wait.. McCain wants to spend more money on the military.
I've yet to see any explanation of why income inequality is bad that isn't just thinly veiled envy.
It's a bad thing because it leads to aristocracy. It leads to concentration of power at the top, and a shift toward governing from the masses toward governing for the few. If you, like me, believe government ought to be create a happy society for all, we cannot allow wealth to beget wealth until we're an oligarchy. Progressive income taxation is a wonderful system that accounts for the negative externality of wealth concentration.
When government tries to stop something, the laws they create end up creating more of what they wanted to halt. Drug wars = more drug use. Copyright laws = more unlicensed copying. It's the forbidden fruit syndrome: parents say "don't have sex," kids can't get enough of screwing around.
Okay. Let's pass laws against being polite in bars, against driving safely, and against honoring contracts!
Take the recent Epogen, Aranesp and Procrit fiascos. Tested drugs that still ended up killing people.
You don't mention the thousands of drugs that never made it past FDA inspection, and would have killed people if they had. If our testing process is flawed, we need to fix it. But you don't present a compelling argument for our being better-off without testing.
The FDA is so unsure of itself and the drugs it "approves" through bureaucratic processes that it even has a website dedicated to warning people about approved drugs.
Any organization will make mistakes. You've put the FDA in a catch-22 here. If they don't issue retractions and warnings, they're guilty of complicity and corruption. If they do issue retractions, they're guilty of incompetence and cowardice. In your world, the FDA can't win.
Why is it that more people die from Tylenol each month than from the Elixir you quoted?
Perhaps because Tylenol is one of the most popular drugs in the world? Perhaps because any substance can be a poison in the right dose? Without a source, it's hard to say. Are you claiming the FDA botched in its approval of Tylenol?
Government's safety standards only set a minimum, but that minimum causes many companies to cut corners because they feel they're meeting the minimum requirements.
Nevertheless, even these minimum standards have saved many lives. Industrial accidents are far less common than they used to be. If the standards are insufficient, perhaps they should be made stricter, not abolished.
There's been decades of proof that pasteurization and homogenization both have negative consequences.
Then write a letter to your newspaper and start the bad publicity train a-rolling! Or... err... wait... perhaps your "proof" isn't as strong as you think. (Hint: scientists don't use the word "proof". They use words like "evidence" and "support".)
Perhaps if the world really worked like that, you'd have a point. But the people getting rich aren't the ones with knowledge and skill. They're the tall, confident ones who wine and dine important people. They play the game, and who join the old boy's club. These qualities do not translate into worth to society at large. The ultra-rich are parasites.
Also, small government über alles is not a sustainable philosophy. At least government is accountable. Corporations, unchecked, become little autocratic empires that aren't good for anyone but the owners.
The government's job is to govern the country or the post they are in. Nothing more nothing less.
Yes, but there are multiple ways to govern.
They have no obligation to you or anyone else unless that somehow effects the post they are over.
If they didn't, our system wouldn't be even remotely democratic. In reality, officials need to stand for re-election. In some jurisdictions, they can even be recalled mid-term. (See California.) These mechanisms ensure accountability. (Which is why I oppose term limits but support recall votes: that combination ensures maximum accountability.)
They have no obligation and I would actually say they are stupid is they think they are supposed to make the world a better place.
Then they are abrogating the duties of their offices.
very essence of freedom
No. Your freedom ends when it impacts my freedom. It's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. It's illegal to go around punching people. And it should be illegal to go around ruining the economy to buy another Yacht.
That is what you are wanting to do by raising the rent on the rich just so they don't have as much or more then the poorer people when do something to make money.
What the fuck are you talking about? Making taxation more progressive has nothing to do with abolishing meritocracy. Of course we should have welfare for people who refuse to work. We can't have them starving in the streets. But if they want a life better than bare survival, they have to work. That's a humanitarian incentive, and incentive enough for the rest of the free world.
It is a lot like lowering standard to include unqualified people instead of elevating unqualified people to qualified status. You still have a bunch of ignorant fools not qualified for the job but now they are proving it and showing everyone else their special treatment when they aren't fired. And somehow, people think this special treatment will end racism just because they can say, look, they are hired and getting jobs, our work it done here.
I oppose affirmative action, actually. But that's beside the point. What the fuck are you talking about? You can have a progressive society that remains a meritocracy.
That's what I hate about ignorant asses like you, you only care about your little agenda and don't have the wherewithal to see it for what it is. Income equality is something that is earned not forced or given. At least not in a free country/world.
Actually, I believe you best describe yourself there. You're the one who has not thought through his position, and I am the one who believes in a happy, prosperous society for all.
Yes, individual liability would work in principle to discourage unsafe practices. But you ignore human psychology. Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. And even if they were, it's utterly impractical for a private citizen or small company to test everything.
On the other hand, there's a very strong profit motive for companies to cheat and deceive: just look at the patent medicine era. These companies are also run by people. They cheat and believe they won't get caught. Most of the time, they aren't. So they do it again, and eventually people die.
And about your milk: if conventionally pasteurized milk is unsafe, I'm sure the FDA would be interested in hearing your evidence. And if they aren't, your newspaper will be. People will read the newspaper article, and the FDA will be forced to update its standards. That's how things are supposed to work.
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
A democratic government's responsibility is to make the world a better place. A happy society is an egalitarian society. Yes, that goal has to be balanced against others. But completely ignoring income inequality would just make us enter another gilded age. Are you ignorant of that era's miseries, or are you callous enough to inflect them on your fellow citizens?
How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that? Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.
You're dead-on about lobbying groups, however. Most of them are corporate shills. Then again, consider the EFF.
Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich. This will have two beneficial effects:
Slow the hemorrhaging of money out of the country
Decrease the income inequality that's skyrocketed during the Clinton and (especially) Bush eras. Our gini index has gone up considerably, and those chickens need to come home.
That said, I believe Obama represents a far bigger and more beneficial change than you seem to see. But even if he does only what you believe he'll do, it'll be a good thing.
It's not unique to LA either. You see it all over Buffalo, and in most cities.
As I understand it, we never used to have tagging problems. Surely, paint existed for the first part of the 20th century. Why are we having problems like this now?
Also well and good, but just like in real societies, the vast majority of people lead boring lives. Sure, you can be a high-level trader, or live an exciting life as a hermit in the woods who creates the best swords in all the land.
But who sweeps the floors? Who mortars stone together for the walls? Who threshes the wheat? Either you need NPCs to do all these things (and thousands upon thousands of them), or you need to give players magical powers to accomplish them easily and painlessly.
The problem is that rebuilding is tedious. Gaming is supposed to be an escape from reality; if you try to replicate reality too faithfully, the game is no longer an escape. Who wants to be a carpenter rebuilding houses when he could be out fighting?
Why? Astrophysics isn't that hard: you just need a good understanding of calculus (differential equations for best results) and humility enough to look up obscure terms. I think anyone of average intelligence could learn enough to get the gist of a research paper, if not to spot errors or produce results himself.
We really ought to teach calculus as part of the standard curriculum. It'll help demystify science and help everyone.
Thanks for the heads up, but this idea scares the bejeesus out of me. Often IP addresses are hardcoded in the strangest places. (Bad practice, but it happens.) I feel like this magic packet will create a Frankenstein network that will appear to mostly work, then fail catastrophically as soon as one of the old hardcoded IP addresses is used.
It's our duty to prevent the madness of addressing every molecule in the known universe with their own fracking address, not to mention the pair up with a MAC address. Or a user identity or other hashing datum.
Get off the diction smack, will you? Language like this makes you sound simultaneously pompous and idiotic.
And yes, in fact, direct addressing would do a world of good. It's not as if your IPv4 address provides you with anything but the faintest illusion of privacy: ISPs keep logs, you know. Tor and other real anonymous routing services will be available in the IPv6 world too.
Slashdot Mirror
I've addressed your other points elsewhere. It is you, however, who are ignorant of history. The Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force, is the source of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" line. On the other hand, the Constitution begins (emphasis mine):
That sounds a lot more GPLish than BSDish.
You are creating a false dilemma, and not arguing in good faith.
A progressive taxation system allows plenty of incentive for success. There is a huge gap between welfare and the maximum income, with a correspondingly huge difference in quality of life. Will an individual really work harder so he can buy that seventh house, or that eighth Bentley? After a point, an increase in income is not an incentive to work harder, and that increased income merely becomes a drag on society at large.
Just out of curiosity: do you support the BSD license over the GPL? The argument has a certain similarity.
GPL - progressive taxation: some restrictions on freedom in order to ensure the remaining freedom in the long run.
BSD license - flat tax: absolute freedom.
I agree that these subsidies are bad. They need to be reformed to not encourage overproduction of corn. But that is a minor issue. If you really want to reduce government spending, decrease the DoD budget. It's the single largest drain on government finances. Err.. wait.. McCain wants to spend more money on the military.
It's a bad thing because it leads to aristocracy. It leads to concentration of power at the top, and a shift toward governing from the masses toward governing for the few. If you, like me, believe government ought to be create a happy society for all, we cannot allow wealth to beget wealth until we're an oligarchy. Progressive income taxation is a wonderful system that accounts for the negative externality of wealth concentration.
Okay. Let's pass laws against being polite in bars, against driving safely, and against honoring contracts!
You don't mention the thousands of drugs that never made it past FDA inspection, and would have killed people if they had. If our testing process is flawed, we need to fix it. But you don't present a compelling argument for our being better-off without testing.
Any organization will make mistakes. You've put the FDA in a catch-22 here. If they don't issue retractions and warnings, they're guilty of complicity and corruption. If they do issue retractions, they're guilty of incompetence and cowardice. In your world, the FDA can't win.
Perhaps because Tylenol is one of the most popular drugs in the world? Perhaps because any substance can be a poison in the right dose? Without a source, it's hard to say. Are you claiming the FDA botched in its approval of Tylenol?
Nevertheless, even these minimum standards have saved many lives. Industrial accidents are far less common than they used to be. If the standards are insufficient, perhaps they should be made stricter, not abolished.
Then write a letter to your newspaper and start the bad publicity train a-rolling! Or... err... wait... perhaps your "proof" isn't as strong as you think. (Hint: scientists don't use the word "proof". They use words like "evidence" and "support".)
Perhaps if the world really worked like that, you'd have a point. But the people getting rich aren't the ones with knowledge and skill. They're the tall, confident ones who wine and dine important people. They play the game, and who join the old boy's club. These qualities do not translate into worth to society at large. The ultra-rich are parasites.
Also, small government über alles is not a sustainable philosophy. At least government is accountable. Corporations, unchecked, become little autocratic empires that aren't good for anyone but the owners.
Yes, but there are multiple ways to govern.
If they didn't, our system wouldn't be even remotely democratic. In reality, officials need to stand for re-election. In some jurisdictions, they can even be recalled mid-term. (See California.) These mechanisms ensure accountability. (Which is why I oppose term limits but support recall votes: that combination ensures maximum accountability.)
Then they are abrogating the duties of their offices.
No. Your freedom ends when it impacts my freedom. It's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. It's illegal to go around punching people. And it should be illegal to go around ruining the economy to buy another Yacht.
What the fuck are you talking about? Making taxation more progressive has nothing to do with abolishing meritocracy. Of course we should have welfare for people who refuse to work. We can't have them starving in the streets. But if they want a life better than bare survival, they have to work. That's a humanitarian incentive, and incentive enough for the rest of the free world.
I oppose affirmative action, actually. But that's beside the point. What the fuck are you talking about? You can have a progressive society that remains a meritocracy.
Actually, I believe you best describe yourself there. You're the one who has not thought through his position, and I am the one who believes in a happy, prosperous society for all.
I'll give you credit for consistency and civility. Nevertheless, I think you're describing a nightmare world.
You and I had counterparts that had this argument nearly a century ago. My side won, mainly as a result of things like The 1937 Elixir Sulfanalamide Incident and The Triangle Factory Fire.
Yes, individual liability would work in principle to discourage unsafe practices. But you ignore human psychology. Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. And even if they were, it's utterly impractical for a private citizen or small company to test everything.
On the other hand, there's a very strong profit motive for companies to cheat and deceive: just look at the patent medicine era. These companies are also run by people. They cheat and believe they won't get caught. Most of the time, they aren't. So they do it again, and eventually people die.
And about your milk: if conventionally pasteurized milk is unsafe, I'm sure the FDA would be interested in hearing your evidence. And if they aren't, your newspaper will be. People will read the newspaper article, and the FDA will be forced to update its standards. That's how things are supposed to work.
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
Care to back this up with evidence? Voting for B in the primary doesn't necessarily indicate a dissatisfaction with A.
Obama has very high "favorable" ratings.
Why not? Because you say so?
A democratic government's responsibility is to make the world a better place. A happy society is an egalitarian society. Yes, that goal has to be balanced against others. But completely ignoring income inequality would just make us enter another gilded age. Are you ignorant of that era's miseries, or are you callous enough to inflect them on your fellow citizens?
So you're claiming perceptions can never change, so Intel should just give up? More competition in this arena can only be good for us.
How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that? Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.
You're dead-on about lobbying groups, however. Most of them are corporate shills. Then again, consider the EFF.
Even if he does nothing else, Obama will raise taxes on the rich. This will have two beneficial effects:
That said, I believe Obama represents a far bigger and more beneficial change than you seem to see. But even if he does only what you believe he'll do, it'll be a good thing.
It's not unique to LA either. You see it all over Buffalo, and in most cities.
As I understand it, we never used to have tagging problems. Surely, paint existed for the first part of the 20th century. Why are we having problems like this now?
Also well and good, but just like in real societies, the vast majority of people lead boring lives. Sure, you can be a high-level trader, or live an exciting life as a hermit in the woods who creates the best swords in all the land.
But who sweeps the floors? Who mortars stone together for the walls? Who threshes the wheat? Either you need NPCs to do all these things (and thousands upon thousands of them), or you need to give players magical powers to accomplish them easily and painlessly.
The problem is that rebuilding is tedious. Gaming is supposed to be an escape from reality; if you try to replicate reality too faithfully, the game is no longer an escape. Who wants to be a carpenter rebuilding houses when he could be out fighting?
I'd be proud to see this kind of thing installed. Having one would be a tangible symbol of progress, a reminder that we're not all luddites.
Why? Astrophysics isn't that hard: you just need a good understanding of calculus (differential equations for best results) and humility enough to look up obscure terms. I think anyone of average intelligence could learn enough to get the gist of a research paper, if not to spot errors or produce results himself.
We really ought to teach calculus as part of the standard curriculum. It'll help demystify science and help everyone.
23 here.
No, we are discussing a consumer watchdog agency that issues nothing except warnings. You don't buy certificates from this hypothetical organization.
Thanks for the heads up, but this idea scares the bejeesus out of me. Often IP addresses are hardcoded in the strangest places. (Bad practice, but it happens.) I feel like this magic packet will create a Frankenstein network that will appear to mostly work, then fail catastrophically as soon as one of the old hardcoded IP addresses is used.
Also, wildcard certificates + wildcard DNS.
Can you link to a text source please? I don't understand your claim that TCP and IP fundamentally hamper our progress.
Get off the diction smack, will you? Language like this makes you sound simultaneously pompous and idiotic.
And yes, in fact, direct addressing would do a world of good. It's not as if your IPv4 address provides you with anything but the faintest illusion of privacy: ISPs keep logs, you know. Tor and other real anonymous routing services will be available in the IPv6 world too.