For some ISPs, the caps don't apply between 2am and 8am. This is similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans. Does Comcast really need to cap usage when nobody's using the network, or is it just a money grab?
The Electoral College has some redeeming features that would need to be supported by its replacement if we want to avoid regression. So we still have some work ahead of us if we want to abolish the Electoral College.
So for now let's focus instead on eliminating plurality voting. It has no benefits that are not also supported by superior, alternative voting systems.
At what point would it make more sense to abandon a low-lying city or relocate it to higher ground than to shore it up? Until this question is answered, nobody can say for sure that New Orleans or New York City is worth saving.
But other than the nation-wide railroad network, the flush toilet, the telegraph, commercial air-travel, and the massively-affordable personal car, what has the laissez-faire economy done for us?
If rehabilitation were the main goal of imprisonment, then there would be no practical reason to keep people in prison after they are rehabilitated, and knowing that they'll be set free as soon as they are reformed would be a powerful motivator for prisoners to avoid breaking the rules by, for example, accepting contraband by drone.
Amazing things could happen if we were to align the goals of prisoners with the goals of the rest of society.
Yes, that's called "arbitrage." It results from prices that are set far below market equilibrium. Those "rednecks," as you call them, are doing a valuable service by preventing a shortage of supplies. Yes, the prices may seem high, but at least you can buy what they are selling, and that gives you a choice that you wouldn't have otherwise.
Better solution: Mandate that businesses (and by that, I mainly mean developers) provide enough parking for their projected number of customers and employees
Do you mean build so much parking that there's never a shortage when the price is zero? That's actually a very bad idea, because the economically optimal number of parking spaces is the number where MR=MC. This means wherever the cost of providing a parking space is not zero, the lost revenue from not providing it should also be nonzero. In other words, in an unpriced parking lot, it's financially optimal for it to get filled up completely at times. For a very similar reason, if you never miss a flight, you're spending too much time at the airport.
No, rather than micromanaging the number of parking spaces, it's better to decide what is the problem you're trying to solve, and give the businesses freedom to decide how to solve it. Is the problem that their parking lots are filling up completely? Then simply require that their parking lots never fill up completely.
The problem of congestion caused by people circling around looking for parking has already been solved. Cities simply have to wake up to the fact that parking is both rivalrous and excludable and therefore neither a public good nor should be treated as one.
Anyway, there's more than one way to prevent customers of a business from parking in residential areas. When cities dictate to businesses how to prevent a problem instead of just the what to prevent, that's micromanaging.
In many communities overnight street parking is illegal... If a bar has a parking lot, the car can safely remain there overnight without trouble and the driver knows this.
I see. Cities must force bars to provide abundant, free parking where they've made overnight street parking illegal. So they "fix" problems caused by a freedom-robbing law by adding another freedom-robbing law. It's a comedy of errors!
So as you can see, once again, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
If you wanted to open a bar in a city that doesn't stupidly allow people to store their personal property on taxpayer-owned land for free, wouldn't you be more inclined to either build abundant parking for your customers without the city forcing you to, or locate your bar near good transit options? See, both options eliminate customers parking in residential neighborhoods.
So it appears that in this case, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
Oh sure, let's trust the people who can't even protect their own networks to properly identify the perpetrators of a hack instead of some innocent bystander running a TOR exit node.
Are you worried that they will be able to successfully attack anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
For some ISPs, the caps don't apply between 2am and 8am. This is similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans. Does Comcast really need to cap usage when nobody's using the network, or is it just a money grab?
The Electoral College has some redeeming features that would need to be supported by its replacement if we want to avoid regression. So we still have some work ahead of us if we want to abolish the Electoral College.
So for now let's focus instead on eliminating plurality voting. It has no benefits that are not also supported by superior, alternative voting systems.
At what point would it make more sense to abandon a low-lying city or relocate it to higher ground than to shore it up? Until this question is answered, nobody can say for sure that New Orleans or New York City is worth saving.
First, we zoned minorities out of white neighborhoods. Now we're also trying to keep them out of voting booths. Is this country becoming more racist?
But other than the nation-wide railroad network, the flush toilet, the telegraph, commercial air-travel, and the massively-affordable personal car, what has the laissez-faire economy done for us?
If rehabilitation were the main goal of imprisonment, then there would be no practical reason to keep people in prison after they are rehabilitated, and knowing that they'll be set free as soon as they are reformed would be a powerful motivator for prisoners to avoid breaking the rules by, for example, accepting contraband by drone.
Amazing things could happen if we were to align the goals of prisoners with the goals of the rest of society.
If Uber switched to an auction model, would it be price gouging if the winning bid is more than time and a half?
Why don't the "rednecks" do that? Or do they?
Yes, that's called "arbitrage." It results from prices that are set far below market equilibrium. Those "rednecks," as you call them, are doing a valuable service by preventing a shortage of supplies. Yes, the prices may seem high, but at least you can buy what they are selling, and that gives you a choice that you wouldn't have otherwise.
The Luddites have used that very same argument for centuries.
That's a very good point.
If that were true, we wouldn't let people out of jail until they've been rehabilitated.
That's a good reason why restoration also should not be the primary purpose of justice.
Remember, the primary purpose of justice in the USA is revenge (a.k.a. "retribution"), not restoration.
"Nobody will ever need more than 2 colors." --Steve Jobs
That one's easy: to improve economic mobility.
If something is legal, does that automatically make it morally right?
Do you mean build so much parking that there's never a shortage when the price is zero? That's actually a very bad idea, because the economically optimal number of parking spaces is the number where MR=MC. This means wherever the cost of providing a parking space is not zero, the lost revenue from not providing it should also be nonzero. In other words, in an unpriced parking lot, it's financially optimal for it to get filled up completely at times. For a very similar reason, if you never miss a flight, you're spending too much time at the airport.
No, rather than micromanaging the number of parking spaces, it's better to decide what is the problem you're trying to solve, and give the businesses freedom to decide how to solve it. Is the problem that their parking lots are filling up completely? Then simply require that their parking lots never fill up completely.
The problem of congestion caused by people circling around looking for parking has already been solved. Cities simply have to wake up to the fact that parking is both rivalrous and excludable and therefore neither a public good nor should be treated as one.
Anyway, there's more than one way to prevent customers of a business from parking in residential areas. When cities dictate to businesses how to prevent a problem instead of just the what to prevent, that's micromanaging.
I see. Cities must force bars to provide abundant, free parking where they've made overnight street parking illegal. So they "fix" problems caused by a freedom-robbing law by adding another freedom-robbing law. It's a comedy of errors!
So as you can see, once again, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
If you wanted to open a bar in a city that doesn't stupidly allow people to store their personal property on taxpayer-owned land for free, wouldn't you be more inclined to either build abundant parking for your customers without the city forcing you to, or locate your bar near good transit options? See, both options eliminate customers parking in residential neighborhoods.
So it appears that in this case, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
This is why prisons, or something like them, should be open to everyone, without having to commit a crime or join the military.
Except when cities encourage irresponsible alcohol use.
Are you worried that they will be able to successfully attack anyone?