Well it is true that oxygen enables terrorists to carry out their attacks. We should probably license those who are allowed to use it, tax them heavily for the privilege, and force them to wear tracking devices used on house-arrestees.
It's the only way to protect us from the terrible secret of space. It has a terrible power. The humans must go down the stairs, the only part open for debate is whether they should be pushed or shoved.
it was 991-xxxx where xxxx was the last 4 digits of the number, at least in my area. Pick up phone, dial, blip the line and listen for steady tone, then hang up. The phone would start ringing..
1. That's what socialists say socialism is, but that's not what it really is. It's still control of the means of production by others, except they claim to answer to the workers but don't, since what's said in certain, 200+yo legal paperwork is ignored whenever it's inconvenient. What happens in the USA is the worst of both worlds: we have government meddling AND corporate greed, passing the puck back and forth at the top of the pyramid. Each sells access to what the other legally cannot. The currency can be the dollar, or favor, or exclusivity. The wealthy cannot rule over the proles without a big state to impose on their liberty and finances. What better way to do that than slowly increasing tax, inflation, and artificial barriers to opportunity?
2. The US government is full of hypocrites and there is no shortage in other nations either. Most libertarians would agree with you here.
3. Soviet communism is what trainwrecked most of eastern europe and several asian countries whose preexisting regimes favored heavy handed states anyway. Then there's the self-loathing cultures it created in places like sweden. I hardly call any of this a success.
4. I have no hard on for any particular company. An even playing field means the state isn't picking winners and losers or forming exclusive clubs that have to be bought into, either outright with cash, or with political lobbying. As long as vehicles meet safety regs (which is required of every vehicle anyway), what's wrong with some competition? You are arguing circular reasoning. The law is what needs to change here. Loosening the regs on private taxis would force the ones currently protected to have to compete. There's nothing wrong with that but that's why their lobbyists bitch.
Yes, except 'level playing field' doesn't include enabling monopolies that build decrepit, out of date protection rackets that get in the way of innovation. No, I am not arguing for feudalism.
Communal right to what? If the community hates the service for whatever reason, it will die. It's the over regulation that kills any potential replacements. Why do you think Uber (and others) have sprung up at all? Obviously because their founders saw opportunity and the community is at least somewhat interested in a shake up. If the community wasn't interested, they'd all have gone out of business already. Government bureaucrats are agitating because the lobbyists of the established systems are bitching. What's wrong with taxi services competing with each other to offer the best service at the lowest price?
Why can't a taxi driver refuse a fare? What if the would-be passenger is a threat? What is so terrible with letting individuals make their own damn choices? For the taxi driver it's a choice between taking the fare and earning some money, or not. For the would-be fare, it should be a choice between those who are offering the service. If Uber sucks, don't use them. We're not talking about something extremely complex and life-altering here (like pharmaceuticals).
My point is that none of them should be paying these fees. If you want to fund roads publicly, itemize it as a portion of income tax and drop the rest of the steep fees associated with vehicles ($60 for a plastic card that grants a driving 'privilege'? It should be $2.50). The 'big pot' style slushfunding you advocate is where all the waste comes from. I guess my definition of fairness is different from yours. Different groups paying different amounts creates its own castes, with those at the top having to pay more and more as more and more regs pile up over time. Then there's ever increasing bureaucracy which adds its own cost. The current USA federal budget is something close to 20 TRILLION dollars, a lot of that borrowed. There's plenty of money to fund all the roads needed, but the left in this country are unwilling to cut the fat from anything, and the neo-right are too interested in shielding the loopholes that protect the wealthy from paying what they'd normally pay under the current system. The net result is that the middle class and poor fund their own financial and legal servitude. If independents are able to eviscerate the protected markets, that means there's fat to be cut that will eventually save people money. This isn't just about uber, but about any independent offering the same services.
I swear, people suck at reading comprehension sometimes, that or they're deliberately misinterpreting. I don't get why people around here equate any criticism of regulation to anarcho capitalism and then fire off the ad hominems based on that strawman.
Amoral or immoral? there's a difference. Breaking immoral law is not immoral. Just because a bunch of government bureaucrats and their protection racket lobbyists are whining that someone is bypassing law designed to prevent competition doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If uber is playing games with fees and the like, then don't use them. There are plenty of other options.
Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right? WTF..
I don't get why people hate uber so much.. If you don't like their price gouging, don't use them. It's not like taxis are any less of a ripoff these days.
No. It is false equivalence to say that unregulated taxis have the same consequences as unregulated pharma. Also I did not say I supported complete deregulation of anything, but people love jumping to strawman arguments and ad hominem. There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.
Give the state a dictionary, and highlight the definitions of the words "capitalism" and "liberty." We are adults. We shouldn't need to be 'licensed' just to charge someone for a ride.
When it comes time to 'manage' obamacare expenditure, I can almost guarantee the info about what's kept in your refrigerator will be a mandated part of your insurance application, and condition for continued coverage. It's no different than that 'snapshot' service by progressive, where they 'save' you money in return for letting them monitor your driving. Eventually all of this will be mandatory and the 'savings' will disappear.
Exactly. Some external conflagration of agendas will battle over the setting of your thermostat, what food you store/eat, how much electricity you use, what you can access on the net, etc. I'll pass. I immediately thought of that 'smart' wall outlet by sony. Who wants to be micromanaged like that?
Slashdot Mirror
Such small amounts on $100 accounts are hardly worth claiming. People living paycheck to paycheck hardly earn more than that.
Retirement? In this economy? Most people in their 20s and 30s now will probably not be able to, at least not completely.
Your fake incredulity notwithstanding, most people do not have the cash for that. They have to pay bills.
Just because you're self employed doesn't mean you're rich.
Apparently.
Well it is true that oxygen enables terrorists to carry out their attacks. We should probably license those who are allowed to use it, tax them heavily for the privilege, and force them to wear tracking devices used on house-arrestees.
It's the only way to protect us from the terrible secret of space. It has a terrible power. The humans must go down the stairs, the only part open for debate is whether they should be pushed or shoved.
it was 991-xxxx where xxxx was the last 4 digits of the number, at least in my area. Pick up phone, dial, blip the line and listen for steady tone, then hang up. The phone would start ringing..
1. That's what socialists say socialism is, but that's not what it really is. It's still control of the means of production by others, except they claim to answer to the workers but don't, since what's said in certain, 200+yo legal paperwork is ignored whenever it's inconvenient. What happens in the USA is the worst of both worlds: we have government meddling AND corporate greed, passing the puck back and forth at the top of the pyramid. Each sells access to what the other legally cannot. The currency can be the dollar, or favor, or exclusivity. The wealthy cannot rule over the proles without a big state to impose on their liberty and finances. What better way to do that than slowly increasing tax, inflation, and artificial barriers to opportunity?
2. The US government is full of hypocrites and there is no shortage in other nations either. Most libertarians would agree with you here.
3. Soviet communism is what trainwrecked most of eastern europe and several asian countries whose preexisting regimes favored heavy handed states anyway. Then there's the self-loathing cultures it created in places like sweden. I hardly call any of this a success.
4. I have no hard on for any particular company. An even playing field means the state isn't picking winners and losers or forming exclusive clubs that have to be bought into, either outright with cash, or with political lobbying. As long as vehicles meet safety regs (which is required of every vehicle anyway), what's wrong with some competition? You are arguing circular reasoning. The law is what needs to change here. Loosening the regs on private taxis would force the ones currently protected to have to compete. There's nothing wrong with that but that's why their lobbyists bitch.
Yes, except 'level playing field' doesn't include enabling monopolies that build decrepit, out of date protection rackets that get in the way of innovation. No, I am not arguing for feudalism.
Communal right to what? If the community hates the service for whatever reason, it will die. It's the over regulation that kills any potential replacements. Why do you think Uber (and others) have sprung up at all? Obviously because their founders saw opportunity and the community is at least somewhat interested in a shake up. If the community wasn't interested, they'd all have gone out of business already. Government bureaucrats are agitating because the lobbyists of the established systems are bitching. What's wrong with taxi services competing with each other to offer the best service at the lowest price?
So common, so obvious, yet you don't list any.
Why can't a taxi driver refuse a fare? What if the would-be passenger is a threat? What is so terrible with letting individuals make their own damn choices? For the taxi driver it's a choice between taking the fare and earning some money, or not. For the would-be fare, it should be a choice between those who are offering the service. If Uber sucks, don't use them. We're not talking about something extremely complex and life-altering here (like pharmaceuticals).
My point is that none of them should be paying these fees. If you want to fund roads publicly, itemize it as a portion of income tax and drop the rest of the steep fees associated with vehicles ($60 for a plastic card that grants a driving 'privilege'? It should be $2.50). The 'big pot' style slushfunding you advocate is where all the waste comes from. I guess my definition of fairness is different from yours. Different groups paying different amounts creates its own castes, with those at the top having to pay more and more as more and more regs pile up over time. Then there's ever increasing bureaucracy which adds its own cost. The current USA federal budget is something close to 20 TRILLION dollars, a lot of that borrowed. There's plenty of money to fund all the roads needed, but the left in this country are unwilling to cut the fat from anything, and the neo-right are too interested in shielding the loopholes that protect the wealthy from paying what they'd normally pay under the current system. The net result is that the middle class and poor fund their own financial and legal servitude. If independents are able to eviscerate the protected markets, that means there's fat to be cut that will eventually save people money. This isn't just about uber, but about any independent offering the same services.
I swear, people suck at reading comprehension sometimes, that or they're deliberately misinterpreting. I don't get why people around here equate any criticism of regulation to anarcho capitalism and then fire off the ad hominems based on that strawman.
oh wait, that's right, the states are cracking down on those options too.. guess you're back to being ripped off by taxis.
I didn't say that it was or that it should be, nor does the lack of a required license to charge for rides equate to such a state.
Amoral or immoral? there's a difference. Breaking immoral law is not immoral. Just because a bunch of government bureaucrats and their protection racket lobbyists are whining that someone is bypassing law designed to prevent competition doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If uber is playing games with fees and the like, then don't use them. There are plenty of other options.
Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right? WTF..
I don't get why people hate uber so much.. If you don't like their price gouging, don't use them. It's not like taxis are any less of a ripoff these days.
No. It is false equivalence to say that unregulated taxis have the same consequences as unregulated pharma. Also I did not say I supported complete deregulation of anything, but people love jumping to strawman arguments and ad hominem. There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.
Same could be said for socialism.
false equivalence..
Give the state a dictionary, and highlight the definitions of the words "capitalism" and "liberty." We are adults. We shouldn't need to be 'licensed' just to charge someone for a ride.
then who is kde and gnome 3 for?
It wasn't supposed to be the scripted, interpreted, bloated hellhole that it is now either.
When it comes time to 'manage' obamacare expenditure, I can almost guarantee the info about what's kept in your refrigerator will be a mandated part of your insurance application, and condition for continued coverage. It's no different than that 'snapshot' service by progressive, where they 'save' you money in return for letting them monitor your driving. Eventually all of this will be mandatory and the 'savings' will disappear.
I didn't mean to understate either. Perhaps I should've rephrased. Private entities have as big an interest in our minutiae as the state does.
Exactly. Some external conflagration of agendas will battle over the setting of your thermostat, what food you store/eat, how much electricity you use, what you can access on the net, etc. I'll pass. I immediately thought of that 'smart' wall outlet by sony. Who wants to be micromanaged like that?