The prisoner in question was in a SuperMax prison, where prisoners are locked down in their cells for a least 23.5 hours of the day. For the half hour they are allowed "out" (if it isn't raining) they are put in a courtyard, by themselves, with no contact with other prisoners. So the only contact these people have is with the guards, the security, obviously the guards were helping this person pass notes. The guards were bribed, so now we need guards to watch the guards. How many guards does it take for crime gangs not to be able to bribe all of them? As I mentioned in the other thread, these prison gangs have a long reach. Bribes don't always take the form of money, many times family members are threatened, and the guards know that these gangs can carry out their threats, and many of them don't report it, for fear the gang will find out (which they will) and carry out their threats.
More security and money isn't the answer, that just puts a further burden on the rest of society. The US already spends billions on prisons. Murderers are of no use to a civilized society, when something is of no use you get rid of it, you don't sweep it under the rug and ignore it and say everything is better.
You are truly naive if you believe more security is the answer. I really encourage you to do some research about how prisons really work and don't work. Most prisons are more like social clubs for criminals, where they have nothing else to do besides work out and learn better ways to perfect their "profession".
"This, again, is contradictory. If they were truely isolated, they wouldn't have been able to contact anyone. If one notes that security isn't strong enough, the most logical thing to do is beef up security."
Which causes even more burden on society (paying for more guards). These people are proven killers, there is no justification for keeping them around. Besides wouldn't total isolation mean cruel and unusual punishment?
"Executing innocents isn't just 'unfortunate', but is unforgivable, and should be avoided at all costs. If someone finds an innocent life not valuable enough to be saved because of an imaginary better cleansing of society (which is actually a totally unsupported claim; there are no indications whatsoever which show capital punishments have a detrimental efect on crime)"
I never said that capital punishment had any effect on crime, in fact I don't really care if it does or not, by "cleansing", I mean I no longer have to be in the same society with them.
As far as innocents go, there are many groups trying to prove that the US executes innocent people, so they can use it to change the system, so far they haven't been successful, which leads me to the conclusion that the number of times (in modern times, certainly before modern forensics's this happened) this happens is extremely rare, and morally I have no problem with it even it does, since overall the system gets it right.
"Only if you start with the premise that the state fails 'to right the original wrong', by failing to kill all persons who killed before... which no state does, even not the USA. Since the state (and in fact, any state) allows some killers to live, that premise is false. If it's false, then your above reasoning has no grounds, and the original contradiction remains."
I never stated the system was perfect, killers get off or are given short sentences all time, this is a failing of the courts, not the punishment phase. To take your original point further, if a previous killer got off or was released and someone else killed him (non-self defense) that person should also be put to death. Just because the victim deserved it, isn't justification to take matters into your own hands.
Speaking from my own personal experience, ~25 years ago, my cousin was killed, the killer admitted the crime, was convicted, didn't bother to appeal, and received 20 years, do you know what that person did the week he was released? Robbed a bank, and killed a clerk, this time he got life in prison. The system got closer to the right answer this time, unfortunately another family has to deal with the lose of a loved one by his hand. Do you think anyone in my family (or the clerks family) feels his punishment was correct? Granted, my feelings about the death penalty weren't changed by this, but they were certainly reinforced and showed me how flawed our current court system is, that killers are allowed to ever walk in civilized society again!
"Semantics. They are sufficiently removed from society as to not pose a threat to society anymore. "
You obviously didn't research anything on the Aryan Brotherhood, if you had you would find that this "prison gang" is far from removed from society, and isolated in prison. The brotherhood has ordered hits on people outside of prison, not very removed if they can still "kill" someone from inside prison.
Executing innocent people is unfortunate, but RARELY happens, and certainly is no excuse to get rid of a system that cleanses society.
"If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
Depends. If the person who killed the former killer was acting in self-defense, they certainly would not be prosecuted. Also if the person who had killed before, had not already been killed then the state failed to right the original wrong, since that person was still on the streets.
If you "remove" them to prison, they are still a burden on society (and on the family left behind by their barbarism), and are certainly not removed from society (research the Aryan Brotherhood). Removing them permanently, while barbaric, rights their wrong and is the best solution for society as a whole.
Your definition can also be used to describe the perpetrator of the crime, and in that case the "state" is simply removing a barbaric, uncivilized person from its otherwise civilized society. The death penalty is a tool for removing people that can't seem to grasp how to interact in a civilized society.
Most H1's had diesel engines, gas H1's were rare. The article wasn't clear which Hummer they were comparing to the Prius. Digging through the spreadsheet it looks like they were using an H2, which is most certainly gas.
I guess it depends on whose definition of totaled. My brother-in-law had his Prius about 2 weeks, before he got hit by a 7-series BMW. Looking at the pictures I was surprised that it wasn't totaled, and he was a more than a little pissed that the insurance company didn't total it. He was without it for close to 6 months, and the final bill was something like $13K.
I wonder sometimes about the visibility thing. My truck is close in size to an H1, a F-350 CrewCab 4x4, and it amazes me how many people turn out in front of me, or cut me off. With a vehicle that is 24 feet long, I find it hard to believe that I am ever in anyones blind spot.
My comparison size is too small. I have only ever owned 2 cars (vs. 5 trucks), they both made it past 100K, but cars have limited usefulness for my lifestyle, for which trucks fit better. So while one barely made it to 150K the other had 120K on it, and probably had a lot more in it, but at the time I wasn't driving it and didn't need it, so I got rid of it. I didn't maintain them any differently then my trucks, oil and filter changes every 2K, coolant flushes once a year, brake fluid flushes every 2 years, pads checked/changed yearly.
I think your idea of what a libertarian is, is influenced too much by what Libertarians (Libertarian Party, Cato Institute, etc) claim to be libertarian views. A true libertarian would totally agree with your view on zoning rules, and would never want the government to interfere with someone's property rights.
I have a friend with an H1 that just turned 250K, and it looks and runs like new. Even though the H2's and H3's aren't in the same class as an H1, they are still built on truck platforms (albeit GM truck platforms...), it would not be out of the realm of possibility for one of these to see 300K. Considering the H2 has been out for almost 8 years I'm sure a few have turned the 2 century mark Being gassers is a disadvantage, but taken care of a gasser can go 300-400K.
As the OP stated trucks and cars are totally different beasts. I own two Ford trucks (CC 350's), one 20 years old and one 15 years old. Both have gas motors, one has 250K the other 200k, neither have ever had any major engine work, just water pumps, belts, radiators, the normal wear items. The exhaust systems are both original and rust free, both trucks are starting to get a little "cancer" around the rear wheel wells, but certainly nothing that hurts the performance on these trucks. Both trucks are used the same as I used them from day one, hauling, towing, etc, not lite duty stuff.
I could afford to buy a new truck, but why waste the money, these two cost me almost nothing to maintain, compared to $50K+ just to replace one of them.
Now cars are another matter... I have only had one car that ever got close to these two, it made it to 150K, and it just would have cost too much to keep it safe.
Actually the commercial H1's, which are based on the Humvee, use the same diesel engine, and it's highly likely that a diesel H1 would easily see 300K. I have a friend with an H1 that has 250K on it and it certainly shows no signs of giving up.
I didn't feel it was necessary to continue to engage someone who has such low esteem for my intelligence, but I will, because it seems so important for your ego to continue to bash me.
Let's use your bank example. In that particular example the government hasn't interfered to choose a winner or a loser, a contract was signed between the bank and the borrower, the borrower didn't abide by the contract, and the court simply provided a judgment for the bank to collect the debt owed. The bank wasn't made more profitable by the decision, in essence it was always the banks money, the borrower was just using it and didn't see fit to pay it back. If the government had found for the borrower, then the government would have interfered and allowed the borrower to profit. The government is essentially providing mediation to settle a contract dispute, and as long as they settle the dispute fairly, according to the contract, no interference has taken place.
My original point, which you decided to take way out of context, is that government shouldn't be involved in directly funding winners and losers, which is what subsidizes and tariffs are, direct interference. Even free markets have to have rules, and sometimes it is unavoidable for these rules to interfere, but not every rule the government makes interferes and the government should strive to keep the interference to a minimum.
I don't parrot anybody, I have had these views longer then I have known there was anything called a libertarian (notice the small "l"). My views are based on research and thought about the topics for which I speak. You can insult my intelligence all you want and say that I don't have a point of view until your blue in the face, but guess what? Everyone has a point of view, and none of them are wrong, just different ways to look at a similar problem. As I mentioned before, insulting someones intelligence because they don't see something the same as you says more about you than the person your insulting. You unfortunately seem to be a narrow minded, intolerant individual that can't step outside your point of view to acknowledge differing view points, I feel sorry for you.
Depends on the Hummer. The article doesn't say which Hummer they are comparing to, but a diesel H1 (which most H1's were) could easily go 300K. This would also explain why the 2006 comparison no longer contained a Hummer, since H1's stopped production in 2005.
Making rules and enforcing the rules are one thing, and of course governments have to make the "ground rules", by which everyone has to play. Actively manipulating the markets by infusing cash, thus picking the winners and losers steps over the line, and shouldn't be tolerated in a free market.
"Only intellectual midgets think a pure free market can exist in the absence of government of creating and enforcing the rules of the market"
You must be a lefty or socialist, they tend to like to insult other peoples intelligence when they don't agree with their points of view. There are lots of points of views in this world and for you to insult someone's intelligence because they have a different view then yours tells more about you then the person you are insulting.
But who decides what industries are "mission critical". The government has created the current "automobile dependence" by subsidizing the building of the interstates. If the government hadn't built such nice, big roads then driving wouldn't be as nice of an alternative.
So now you purpose the government spend even more tax payer money on lite-rail, who says thats the right alternative? Amtrak stills exists because the government heavily subsidizes it. Effective competition doesn't exist in the area of transportation, because the government continues to fund the wrong/old technologies. As long as the government controls these industries there is no reason for a private company to compete there. Since governments historically make poor choices when it comes to technology they are the wrong entity to be making these choices in the first place, but they continue to pour tax payer into propping up bad choices, and locking out alternatives.
"Generate the electricity to power this network from a series of nuclear power plants operating solely for this purpose.. Green, and cheaper over the long term!"
You do realize that our known supply of uranium is smaller then our known supply of coal? Of course breeder reactors could solve some of that problem, but alas the US government won't allow building of such reactors.
"Increase taxes on gasoline/diesel to the point where the cost per gallon starts looking more like western europe."
Do you realize the reason gas is so cheap is because the government heavily subsidizes the oil industry. If you want the price of gas higher, stop subsidizing the oil industry (which if Hillary has her way will happen indirectly, by fining them billions instead).
"Fourth, move more long-distance cargo onto the rail network, and use diesel trucks only for the "last mile" of delivery."
The free market is already making this choice. Freight rail is making a huge comeback in the US. The problem is that the US has become such a huge consumer of goods that there is just too much for the current rail infrastructure to handle, thus there are still more trucks on the road.
It absolutely is true. Try taking farm subsidizes away and see what happens. Farmers have grown addicted to subsidizes, so much so that they are willing to commit fraud to get more subsidies.
Corn based ethanol is a waste of time and resources. Ethanol isn't all bad and certainly sugar based ethanol, at least gets close to the same power output as gasoline, unfortunately the government killed the sugar industry in this country years ago, through... subsidizes.
At the cost of a dependent society. Even if I believed, that across the board, what you say is true, you end up with a society that is addicted to subsidizes. The downside, just like any other addiction, is that you end up having to increase the subsidizes to keep the machine rolling.
Providing subsidies for bad business plans is bad business. Corn based ethanol is a bad business plan, and the government shouldn't be propping it up.
"And while we're at it, why don't we make sure that any laws that affect some businesses in different ways than others (thus providing an indirect subsidy) get stricken from the books."
Totally agree.
If the small family farmer can't make it in their business of choice, then they should find a business they can make it in. It's no different than if I can't make it in the career I have chosen, I don't sit around and bitch about out it and expect the government to help me out, I find something else to do. It is never appropriate for governments to interfere with the markets.
The government preserves the "American way of life" by staying out of the way and allowing people to make their way in the world. Giving people/corporations handouts when things don't work out the way they planned, doesn't create a strong "way of life" it creates a dependent "way of life".
In this particular case the market is informed about ethanol and they know it's a bad deal (too costly to produce and the result, due to lower power, is that it costs more than gasoline). This is why the government needs to subsidize it (force the market), if ethanol were the right choice, it wouldn't need subsidizing.
The money spent on subsidizing ethanol could be better spent finding the right solution.
Why stop at farm subsidies? Lets get rid of all corporate subsidies. Governments shouldn't be giving tax payer money to any corporations, if corporations can't make it on their own, then maybe their business plan wasn't as good as they thought.
"is the gear and support contracts in millions of dollars? "
Yes. We spend $20M-$50M with EMC yearly, our Oracle support contract alone is $1M+. We have never had a problem with vendors not supporting us, or nullifying our contracts (they like their money too much), and they are aware of our environment.
I have EMC folks on site all the time, and they are fully aware that I have both RHEL and CentOS boxes hooked to theirs boxes. My managers also fully aware of what I do, and support it.
I use VCS, volume manager and NetBackup, but would never let a Veritas person even close to the datacenter, I can't afford the downtime they would cause.
Slashdot Mirror
The prisoner in question was in a SuperMax prison, where prisoners are locked down in their cells for a least 23.5 hours of the day. For the half hour they are allowed "out" (if it isn't raining) they are put in a courtyard, by themselves, with no contact with other prisoners. So the only contact these people have is with the guards, the security, obviously the guards were helping this person pass notes. The guards were bribed, so now we need guards to watch the guards. How many guards does it take for crime gangs not to be able to bribe all of them? As I mentioned in the other thread, these prison gangs have a long reach. Bribes don't always take the form of money, many times family members are threatened, and the guards know that these gangs can carry out their threats, and many of them don't report it, for fear the gang will find out (which they will) and carry out their threats.
More security and money isn't the answer, that just puts a further burden on the rest of society. The US already spends billions on prisons. Murderers are of no use to a civilized society, when something is of no use you get rid of it, you don't sweep it under the rug and ignore it and say everything is better.
You are truly naive if you believe more security is the answer. I really encourage you to do some research about how prisons really work and don't work. Most prisons are more like social clubs for criminals, where they have nothing else to do besides work out and learn better ways to perfect their "profession".
"This, again, is contradictory. If they were truely isolated, they wouldn't have been able to contact anyone. If one notes that security isn't strong enough, the most logical thing to do is beef up security."
Which causes even more burden on society (paying for more guards). These people are proven killers, there is no justification for keeping them around. Besides wouldn't total isolation mean cruel and unusual punishment?
"Executing innocents isn't just 'unfortunate', but is unforgivable, and should be avoided at all costs. If someone finds an innocent life not valuable enough to be saved because of an imaginary better cleansing of society (which is actually a totally unsupported claim; there are no indications whatsoever which show capital punishments have a detrimental efect on crime)"
I never said that capital punishment had any effect on crime, in fact I don't really care if it does or not, by "cleansing", I mean I no longer have to be in the same society with them.
As far as innocents go, there are many groups trying to prove that the US executes innocent people, so they can use it to change the system, so far they haven't been successful, which leads me to the conclusion that the number of times (in modern times, certainly before modern forensics's this happened) this happens is extremely rare, and morally I have no problem with it even it does, since overall the system gets it right.
"Only if you start with the premise that the state fails 'to right the original wrong', by failing to kill all persons who killed before... which no state does, even not the USA. Since the state (and in fact, any state) allows some killers to live, that premise is false. If it's false, then your above reasoning has no grounds, and the original contradiction remains."
I never stated the system was perfect, killers get off or are given short sentences all time, this is a failing of the courts, not the punishment phase. To take your original point further, if a previous killer got off or was released and someone else killed him (non-self defense) that person should also be put to death. Just because the victim deserved it, isn't justification to take matters into your own hands.
Speaking from my own personal experience, ~25 years ago, my cousin was killed, the killer admitted the crime, was convicted, didn't bother to appeal, and received 20 years, do you know what that person did the week he was released? Robbed a bank, and killed a clerk, this time he got life in prison. The system got closer to the right answer this time, unfortunately another family has to deal with the lose of a loved one by his hand. Do you think anyone in my family (or the clerks family) feels his punishment was correct? Granted, my feelings about the death penalty weren't changed by this, but they were certainly reinforced and showed me how flawed our current court system is, that killers are allowed to ever walk in civilized society again!
What you call barbaric, I call justice.
"Semantics. They are sufficiently removed from society as to not pose a threat to society anymore. "
You obviously didn't research anything on the Aryan Brotherhood, if you had you would find that this "prison gang" is far from removed from society, and isolated in prison. The brotherhood has ordered hits on people outside of prison, not very removed if they can still "kill" someone from inside prison.
Executing innocent people is unfortunate, but RARELY happens, and certainly is no excuse to get rid of a system that cleanses society.
"If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
Depends. If the person who killed the former killer was acting in self-defense, they certainly would not be prosecuted. Also if the person who had killed before, had not already been killed then the state failed to right the original wrong, since that person was still on the streets.
If you "remove" them to prison, they are still a burden on society (and on the family left behind by their barbarism), and are certainly not removed from society (research the Aryan Brotherhood). Removing them permanently, while barbaric, rights their wrong and is the best solution for society as a whole.
Your definition can also be used to describe the perpetrator of the crime, and in that case the "state" is simply removing a barbaric, uncivilized person from its otherwise civilized society. The death penalty is a tool for removing people that can't seem to grasp how to interact in a civilized society.
It's likely, at least in TimeWarner's case, that they have cross licensed these patents with Verizon, and are not a "target".
Most H1's had diesel engines, gas H1's were rare. The article wasn't clear which Hummer they were comparing to the Prius. Digging through the spreadsheet it looks like they were using an H2, which is most certainly gas.
I guess it depends on whose definition of totaled. My brother-in-law had his Prius about 2 weeks, before he got hit by a 7-series BMW. Looking at the pictures I was surprised that it wasn't totaled, and he was a more than a little pissed that the insurance company didn't total it. He was without it for close to 6 months, and the final bill was something like $13K.
I wonder sometimes about the visibility thing. My truck is close in size to an H1, a F-350 CrewCab 4x4, and it amazes me how many people turn out in front of me, or cut me off. With a vehicle that is 24 feet long, I find it hard to believe that I am ever in anyones blind spot.
My comparison size is too small. I have only ever owned 2 cars (vs. 5 trucks), they both made it past 100K, but cars have limited usefulness for my lifestyle, for which trucks fit better. So while one barely made it to 150K the other had 120K on it, and probably had a lot more in it, but at the time I wasn't driving it and didn't need it, so I got rid of it. I didn't maintain them any differently then my trucks, oil and filter changes every 2K, coolant flushes once a year, brake fluid flushes every 2 years, pads checked/changed yearly.
I think your idea of what a libertarian is, is influenced too much by what Libertarians (Libertarian Party, Cato Institute, etc) claim to be libertarian views. A true libertarian would totally agree with your view on zoning rules, and would never want the government to interfere with someone's property rights.
I have a friend with an H1 that just turned 250K, and it looks and runs like new. Even though the H2's and H3's aren't in the same class as an H1, they are still built on truck platforms (albeit GM truck platforms...), it would not be out of the realm of possibility for one of these to see 300K. Considering the H2 has been out for almost 8 years I'm sure a few have turned the 2 century mark Being gassers is a disadvantage, but taken care of a gasser can go 300-400K.
As the OP stated trucks and cars are totally different beasts. I own two Ford trucks (CC 350's), one 20 years old and one 15 years old. Both have gas motors, one has 250K the other 200k, neither have ever had any major engine work, just water pumps, belts, radiators, the normal wear items. The exhaust systems are both original and rust free, both trucks are starting to get a little "cancer" around the rear wheel wells, but certainly nothing that hurts the performance on these trucks. Both trucks are used the same as I used them from day one, hauling, towing, etc, not lite duty stuff.
I could afford to buy a new truck, but why waste the money, these two cost me almost nothing to maintain, compared to $50K+ just to replace one of them.
Now cars are another matter... I have only had one car that ever got close to these two, it made it to 150K, and it just would have cost too much to keep it safe.
Actually the commercial H1's, which are based on the Humvee, use the same diesel engine, and it's highly likely that a diesel H1 would easily see 300K. I have a friend with an H1 that has 250K on it and it certainly shows no signs of giving up.
"Assumptions about expected lifetime aside, this seems to put the Prius in better, but not great, standing."
Considering, according to the spreadsheet, a Porsche 911 is also better than a Prius, I'd say not.
I didn't feel it was necessary to continue to engage someone who has such low esteem for my intelligence, but I will, because it seems so important for your ego to continue to bash me.
Let's use your bank example. In that particular example the government hasn't interfered to choose a winner or a loser, a contract was signed between the bank and the borrower, the borrower didn't abide by the contract, and the court simply provided a judgment for the bank to collect the debt owed. The bank wasn't made more profitable by the decision, in essence it was always the banks money, the borrower was just using it and didn't see fit to pay it back. If the government had found for the borrower, then the government would have interfered and allowed the borrower to profit. The government is essentially providing mediation to settle a contract dispute, and as long as they settle the dispute fairly, according to the contract, no interference has taken place.
My original point, which you decided to take way out of context, is that government shouldn't be involved in directly funding winners and losers, which is what subsidizes and tariffs are, direct interference. Even free markets have to have rules, and sometimes it is unavoidable for these rules to interfere, but not every rule the government makes interferes and the government should strive to keep the interference to a minimum.
I don't parrot anybody, I have had these views longer then I have known there was anything called a libertarian (notice the small "l"). My views are based on research and thought about the topics for which I speak. You can insult my intelligence all you want and say that I don't have a point of view until your blue in the face, but guess what? Everyone has a point of view, and none of them are wrong, just different ways to look at a similar problem. As I mentioned before, insulting someones intelligence because they don't see something the same as you says more about you than the person your insulting. You unfortunately seem to be a narrow minded, intolerant individual that can't step outside your point of view to acknowledge differing view points, I feel sorry for you.
Depends on the Hummer. The article doesn't say which Hummer they are comparing to, but a diesel H1 (which most H1's were) could easily go 300K. This would also explain why the 2006 comparison no longer contained a Hummer, since H1's stopped production in 2005.
Making rules and enforcing the rules are one thing, and of course governments have to make the "ground rules", by which everyone has to play. Actively manipulating the markets by infusing cash, thus picking the winners and losers steps over the line, and shouldn't be tolerated in a free market.
"Only intellectual midgets think a pure free market can exist in the absence of government of creating and enforcing the rules of the market"
You must be a lefty or socialist, they tend to like to insult other peoples intelligence when they don't agree with their points of view. There are lots of points of views in this world and for you to insult someone's intelligence because they have a different view then yours tells more about you then the person you are insulting.
But who decides what industries are "mission critical". The government has created the current "automobile dependence" by subsidizing the building of the interstates. If the government hadn't built such nice, big roads then driving wouldn't be as nice of an alternative.
So now you purpose the government spend even more tax payer money on lite-rail, who says thats the right alternative? Amtrak stills exists because the government heavily subsidizes it. Effective competition doesn't exist in the area of transportation, because the government continues to fund the wrong/old technologies. As long as the government controls these industries there is no reason for a private company to compete there. Since governments historically make poor choices when it comes to technology they are the wrong entity to be making these choices in the first place, but they continue to pour tax payer into propping up bad choices, and locking out alternatives.
"Generate the electricity to power this network from a series of nuclear power plants operating solely for this purpose.. Green, and cheaper over the long term!"
You do realize that our known supply of uranium is smaller then our known supply of coal? Of course breeder reactors could solve some of that problem, but alas the US government won't allow building of such reactors.
"Increase taxes on gasoline/diesel to the point where the cost per gallon starts looking more like western europe."
Do you realize the reason gas is so cheap is because the government heavily subsidizes the oil industry. If you want the price of gas higher, stop subsidizing the oil industry (which if Hillary has her way will happen indirectly, by fining them billions instead).
"Fourth, move more long-distance cargo onto the rail network, and use diesel trucks only for the "last mile" of delivery."
The free market is already making this choice. Freight rail is making a huge comeback in the US. The problem is that the US has become such a huge consumer of goods that there is just too much for the current rail infrastructure to handle, thus there are still more trucks on the road.
It absolutely is true. Try taking farm subsidizes away and see what happens. Farmers have grown addicted to subsidizes, so much so that they are willing to commit fraud to get more subsidies.
Corn based ethanol is a waste of time and resources. Ethanol isn't all bad and certainly sugar based ethanol, at least gets close to the same power output as gasoline, unfortunately the government killed the sugar industry in this country years ago, through... subsidizes.
At the cost of a dependent society. Even if I believed, that across the board, what you say is true, you end up with a society that is addicted to subsidizes. The downside, just like any other addiction, is that you end up having to increase the subsidizes to keep the machine rolling.
Providing subsidies for bad business plans is bad business. Corn based ethanol is a bad business plan, and the government shouldn't be propping it up.
"And while we're at it, why don't we make sure that any laws that affect some businesses in different ways than others (thus providing an indirect subsidy) get stricken from the books."
Totally agree.
If the small family farmer can't make it in their business of choice, then they should find a business they can make it in. It's no different than if I can't make it in the career I have chosen, I don't sit around and bitch about out it and expect the government to help me out, I find something else to do. It is never appropriate for governments to interfere with the markets.
The government preserves the "American way of life" by staying out of the way and allowing people to make their way in the world. Giving people/corporations handouts when things don't work out the way they planned, doesn't create a strong "way of life" it creates a dependent "way of life".
In this particular case the market is informed about ethanol and they know it's a bad deal (too costly to produce and the result, due to lower power, is that it costs more than gasoline). This is why the government needs to subsidize it (force the market), if ethanol were the right choice, it wouldn't need subsidizing.
The money spent on subsidizing ethanol could be better spent finding the right solution.
Why stop at farm subsidies? Lets get rid of all corporate subsidies. Governments shouldn't be giving tax payer money to any corporations, if corporations can't make it on their own, then maybe their business plan wasn't as good as they thought.
"is the gear and support contracts in millions of dollars? "
Yes. We spend $20M-$50M with EMC yearly, our Oracle support contract alone is $1M+. We have never had a problem with vendors not supporting us, or nullifying our contracts (they like their money too much), and they are aware of our environment.
I have EMC folks on site all the time, and they are fully aware that I have both RHEL and CentOS boxes hooked to theirs boxes. My managers also fully aware of what I do, and support it.
I use VCS, volume manager and NetBackup, but would never let a Veritas person even close to the datacenter, I can't afford the downtime they would cause.