The proper role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing else. A representative democracy is only a mechanism to attempt to have a government act in that manner. Thus it is not the politicians who should be making those choices, usurping the decisions of individuals.
It takes weight to extend the front of the car further in front of the driver and passengers, and that distance is essential for safety. There is no technological solution to the fact that a human can only decelerate so fast without damage. Weight reduces fuel economy. Lower fuel costs allow people to buy less efficient vehicles. QED.
An economist, acting as an economist, does not make statements like "we need higher gas taxes". He says "higher gas taxes would have effects X, Y, and Z in roughly x', y', and z' proportion to the tax.
To make the conclusion that we need to do something, or less strongly that we should do something, the economist must add to the realm of economics his own political or ethical assumptions. In the case of Knittel (living in the leftist environment of Cambridge, Massachusetts), those assumptions have nothing to do with freedom.
Rights are not something that requires work by another party for you t have them.
Alas for simplicity, but a jury trial and the ability to compel witnesses to appear are considered rights in the US and other places. Either the concept of rights has to be stretched, or those things have to be put in a category similar to but not the same as rights.
Or, to quote Ricky Ricardo, "You've got some 'splainin' to do."
Those concepts are not axiomatic. I can easily conceive of the existence of slavery, in which most aspects of a person are controlled by various means.
The essence of slavery is ownership of one person by another. (not in which most aspects of a person are controlled by various means). Part of the concept of a right is that everybody has it and can only lose it by violating someone else's right. The basic (and axiomatic) right is the right to one's own life, and from that all other rights are either equivalent or derived. To live, one must be able to act to support one's own life (I am not considering infants and invalids here). To live, one must be able to own (and in some situations trade for) the results of his actions. The first thing he must own is himself, which is equivalent to his right to his own life (I suppose that's debatable, but I think it can be established fairly easily.)
Slavery, the claim of another person to own me, contradicts my self-ownership. Since my self-ownership is a right, there can be no right of another person to own me; slavery is inherently a violation of a human right.
One of the worst aspects of a tyrannical government is that the law is essentially unknowable, that a person can never be sure that his actions are legal, that he can be jailed or worse for innocent activities. To be knowable, among other things the law must be immutable unless explicitly changed by established mechanisms. Unless there's good scholarship about the meaning of the Constitution (hence "original intent"), it's too easy to distort the meaning to agree with modern slang, or to apply it in an inappropriate way (the notorious example being "general welfare".)
The second reason is that the founders did an extraordinary job of careful writing based upon lifetimes of experience and study, at a high point (historically) in the development of philosophy. What they meant originally is very important because of its excellence, and because much of it is fundamental and unchanging with respect to human nature. What is thought (or even just dishonestly claimed) to be outdated is usually not. That some things which have gotten through the amendment process have turned out disastrous (the 16th, 17th and 18th, for examples) illustrates the folly of taking original intent lightly.
Please be careful with your language. "Freedom of speech" is being able to say "Obama should be tortured to death" to a TV audience, without government retribution. "Freedom of expression" is a man being able to masturbate in front of a group of preschoolers and nuns, without government retribution.
Generally the Founders were careful in their language and attempts at restatement are inferior. "Freedom to listen" implies I don't have to pay to listen to a concert with seats selling at $250 apiece. "Freedom to listen" means there's nothing wrong with leaving behind some bugs in the bedroom when I visit my neighbor's house.
Some people are missing your sarcasm and your poorly hidden leftist presumptions.
Yes, it's within the rights of [some people within] a population to say "...we're going to build the infrastructure..." but unless there is unanimous consent, you're stealing from some people to pay for it. It's not the word "socialism" that makes it wrong, it's the theft.
Most US towns and cities already have public (and "free") access to the internet at libraries and some government buildings like town halls. That's already more than should be required of the government, and is on a level with the items you mentioned like courts and polling places. Government-provided high speed internet to the home, along with a computer to use it, is an unjustified expense.
The distributor's cut varies with the estimated popularity of the film. The percentage is high for blockbusters, and the theater has to fill up to make money For unpopular films the theater gets more of the ticket price.
Well-designed big theaters (and especially stadia) often have more efficient speakers (horns). They are typically better than 10% and can reach better than 80% efficiency. Home speakers usually run 0.5% to 1%. With efficient speakers, power requirements are reduced.
To get efficiency at low frequencies, large speakers are needed. Fortunately, high efficiency is mostly needed in large spaces, so there is room for large speakers.
With advancing technology in recent decades, the price of high power amplifiers has come down substantially. As a consequence, the tradeoff between high power amps and efficient speakers continues to move away from the efficient speakers.
Corporate welfare retards progress. Forced labor retards progress. "Ethnic cleansing" (by which I assume you mean military campaigns against many Amarind tribes) retarded progress. The US gained strength despite these things, not because of them.
In addition, these things should be understood in their historical context.
The weaknesses of the West during the 1970s were due to the rising levels of statism, i.e. movement away from capitalism. Calling the reduction of capitalism a failure of capitalism is just silly.
The wealth of the West steadily advanced both on an absolute scale and in comparison to communist countries for decade after decade from the start of communism until Soviet Russia's collapse. Aside from movement away from freedom, the leaders of the West failed to act aggressively, largely because they to some degree believed the lies of communist strength.
In snowy areas, it is occasionally useful to be able to do an accelerating oversteer skid in the manner that only a RWD car can do. This is usually a slow speed maneuver, well below 20 mph.
Any place with very heavy traffic and at least 2 lanes in your direction will have offensive driving. The heavier the traffic, the worse it is. In and around big cities, where the drivers seldom experience open conditions, the bad habits become ingrained.
I've seen people deliberately make it impossible for someone in an adjacent lane to cut in front of them. It's happened to me, and I've done it myself. I'm so glad that I now live in a rural area, where this behavior is almost nonexistent, and usually not even possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The proper role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and nothing else. A representative democracy is only a mechanism to attempt to have a government act in that manner. Thus it is not the politicians who should be making those choices, usurping the decisions of individuals.
It takes weight to extend the front of the car further in front of the driver and passengers, and that distance is essential for safety. There is no technological solution to the fact that a human can only decelerate so fast without damage. Weight reduces fuel economy. Lower fuel costs allow people to buy less efficient vehicles. QED.
There are no tires that provide enough traction to drive a car when a wedge of snow under the bumper lifts the tires off the ground.
Driving more than two wheels not only adds substantially to the cost and price of a vehicle, it hits fuel economy pretty hard.
An economist, acting as an economist, does not make statements like "we need higher gas taxes". He says "higher gas taxes would have effects X, Y, and Z in roughly x', y', and z' proportion to the tax.
To make the conclusion that we need to do something, or less strongly that we should do something, the economist must add to the realm of economics his own political or ethical assumptions. In the case of Knittel (living in the leftist environment of Cambridge, Massachusetts), those assumptions have nothing to do with freedom.
What, pulling numbers out of thin air? Who, me?
Alas for simplicity, but a jury trial and the ability to compel witnesses to appear are considered rights in the US and other places. Either the concept of rights has to be stretched, or those things have to be put in a category similar to but not the same as rights.
Or, to quote Ricky Ricardo, "You've got some 'splainin' to do."
Capitalism is the recognition, protection, and practice of rights considered in an economic context. Socialism is the denial and abrogation of rights.
A person cannot lose his rights without violating another person's rights. A person's rights can be violated, but they still remain his rights.
Consider a 20 mph speed limit on a road. I can drive faster than the limit - violate the limit - but the limit still remains 20 mph.
A right is an aspect of an innocent human being, and a consequence of being an innocent human being. They are not separable.
The essence of slavery is ownership of one person by another. (not in which most aspects of a person are controlled by various means). Part of the concept of a right is that everybody has it and can only lose it by violating someone else's right. The basic (and axiomatic) right is the right to one's own life, and from that all other rights are either equivalent or derived. To live, one must be able to act to support one's own life (I am not considering infants and invalids here). To live, one must be able to own (and in some situations trade for) the results of his actions. The first thing he must own is himself, which is equivalent to his right to his own life (I suppose that's debatable, but I think it can be established fairly easily.)
Slavery, the claim of another person to own me, contradicts my self-ownership. Since my self-ownership is a right, there can be no right of another person to own me; slavery is inherently a violation of a human right.
One of the worst aspects of a tyrannical government is that the law is essentially unknowable, that a person can never be sure that his actions are legal, that he can be jailed or worse for innocent activities. To be knowable, among other things the law must be immutable unless explicitly changed by established mechanisms. Unless there's good scholarship about the meaning of the Constitution (hence "original intent"), it's too easy to distort the meaning to agree with modern slang, or to apply it in an inappropriate way (the notorious example being "general welfare".)
The second reason is that the founders did an extraordinary job of careful writing based upon lifetimes of experience and study, at a high point (historically) in the development of philosophy. What they meant originally is very important because of its excellence, and because much of it is fundamental and unchanging with respect to human nature. What is thought (or even just dishonestly claimed) to be outdated is usually not. That some things which have gotten through the amendment process have turned out disastrous (the 16th, 17th and 18th, for examples) illustrates the folly of taking original intent lightly.
Please be careful with your language. "Freedom of speech" is being able to say "Obama should be tortured to death" to a TV audience, without government retribution. "Freedom of expression" is a man being able to masturbate in front of a group of preschoolers and nuns, without government retribution.
Generally the Founders were careful in their language and attempts at restatement are inferior. "Freedom to listen" implies I don't have to pay to listen to a concert with seats selling at $250 apiece. "Freedom to listen" means there's nothing wrong with leaving behind some bugs in the bedroom when I visit my neighbor's house.
Some people are missing your sarcasm and your poorly hidden leftist presumptions.
Yes, it's within the rights of [some people within] a population to say "...we're going to build the infrastructure..." but unless there is unanimous consent, you're stealing from some people to pay for it. It's not the word "socialism" that makes it wrong, it's the theft.
Most US towns and cities already have public (and "free") access to the internet at libraries and some government buildings like town halls. That's already more than should be required of the government, and is on a level with the items you mentioned like courts and polling places. Government-provided high speed internet to the home, along with a computer to use it, is an unjustified expense.
The distributor's cut varies with the estimated popularity of the film. The percentage is high for blockbusters, and the theater has to fill up to make money For unpopular films the theater gets more of the ticket price.
Well-designed big theaters (and especially stadia) often have more efficient speakers (horns). They are typically better than 10% and can reach better than 80% efficiency. Home speakers usually run 0.5% to 1%. With efficient speakers, power requirements are reduced.
To get efficiency at low frequencies, large speakers are needed. Fortunately, high efficiency is mostly needed in large spaces, so there is room for large speakers.
With advancing technology in recent decades, the price of high power amplifiers has come down substantially. As a consequence, the tradeoff between high power amps and efficient speakers continues to move away from the efficient speakers.
Thanks so much. Best laugh of the day.
Corporate welfare retards progress. Forced labor retards progress. "Ethnic cleansing" (by which I assume you mean military campaigns against many Amarind tribes) retarded progress. The US gained strength despite these things, not because of them.
In addition, these things should be understood in their historical context.
Still in production, there have been 92 episodes of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse starting May, 2006.
The weaknesses of the West during the 1970s were due to the rising levels of statism, i.e. movement away from capitalism. Calling the reduction of capitalism a failure of capitalism is just silly.
The wealth of the West steadily advanced both on an absolute scale and in comparison to communist countries for decade after decade from the start of communism until Soviet Russia's collapse. Aside from movement away from freedom, the leaders of the West failed to act aggressively, largely because they to some degree believed the lies of communist strength.
You deliberately ignored item #4: Soviet farms inherently used slave labor, agribusinesses use free labor.
Soviet Russia had some of the richest soil on the face of the earth; their farming produced poor yield and damaged the soil.
Current best silicon photocell technology is 25% http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/PVeff(rev111205).jpg and hasn't improved in a decade. Their 16% or 20% is nothing to crow about.
In snowy areas, it is occasionally useful to be able to do an accelerating oversteer skid in the manner that only a RWD car can do. This is usually a slow speed maneuver, well below 20 mph.
Any place with very heavy traffic and at least 2 lanes in your direction will have offensive driving. The heavier the traffic, the worse it is. In and around big cities, where the drivers seldom experience open conditions, the bad habits become ingrained.
I've seen people deliberately make it impossible for someone in an adjacent lane to cut in front of them. It's happened to me, and I've done it myself. I'm so glad that I now live in a rural area, where this behavior is almost nonexistent, and usually not even possible.