As an asside, I wonder if we could build a smaller, more efficient fishing boat by having rubber fuel tanks at the bottom of the fish holds? As you consume fuel, you gain room to put fish.....
"Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?"
Not just the United States. The problem is, as you identify, the current global economy.
And many of those nation cities are still far too large, yes, 11 million people are NOT going to agree on a single objective morality, and that is a pre-requisite for ethical behavior.
Multicultural globalism has become tyranny- because it is centralized..1% of 1% own 50% of the world. 1% owns 75% of the world, under globalism. The other 99% of human beings on this planet pay rent to that 1% in some form- either interest, taxes, or direct rent for property borrowed.
That's what I thought they were, which indicates a VERY easy change to make that will blow them all away: Change the language the student must answer in from Java to ZX Spectrum Basic.
I'm in disagreement with America in general on economics and government in general. I'm an anti-libertarian at this point, who wants extreme tribalism, solidarity, and subsidiarity. There is NEVER a reason to trust a man you can't march directly into his office and punch him in the nose, or shake hands with at Church. Collectivism, whether of capitalist or socialist variety, allows anonymity into the market so that the few can take power from the many without fear of retaliation, at which point they WILL begin abusing the many.
Industry or government doing the abusing matters nothing to the abused who are prevented from fighting back.
Decentralization and extreme distributed ownership is the answer to that. If the most people you can abuse through labor practices are your direct report employees, and through pricing are your direct customers, then the sphere of influence of your industry is very small indeed. If the most people you can abuse through your laws are your neighbors in a very small area, your friends and family, then your government is sufficiently small for me. And if you abuse these people, they're free to move and trade elsewhere; and that is sufficient control to prevent your abuse.
It's when your organization grows larger than that, when your direct reports have direct reports below them and when your customers and constituency are people you don't personally know, that the trouble arises.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry. I champion neither, but then again, I'm more of a paleoconservative Catholic than an American. Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
Yes, you are. Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Even when government is led by industry.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization. ALL centralization, be it from industry or the people, is bad in the long run.
Apparently, being truthful is "being a jerk". There was NOTHING in his memo that was mysogynistic or jerk like. "He's entirely responsible for the way people perceived him."- now that is bullying outright. You are NOT responsible for the actions of people around you.
Slashdot Mirror
As an asside, I wonder if we could build a smaller, more efficient fishing boat by having rubber fuel tanks at the bottom of the fish holds? As you consume fuel, you gain room to put fish.....
"Am I correct then in taking it to mean you would favor then completely abolishing the US federal government and breaking the country into a large number (perhaps thousands or more) of small independent nation-states or nation-cities?"
Not just the United States. The problem is, as you identify, the current global economy.
And many of those nation cities are still far too large, yes, 11 million people are NOT going to agree on a single objective morality, and that is a pre-requisite for ethical behavior.
Multicultural globalism has become tyranny- because it is centralized. .1% of 1% own 50% of the world. 1% owns 75% of the world, under globalism. The other 99% of human beings on this planet pay rent to that 1% in some form- either interest, taxes, or direct rent for property borrowed.
That's what I thought they were, which indicates a VERY easy change to make that will blow them all away: Change the language the student must answer in from Java to ZX Spectrum Basic.
I'm in disagreement with America in general on economics and government in general. I'm an anti-libertarian at this point, who wants extreme tribalism, solidarity, and subsidiarity. There is NEVER a reason to trust a man you can't march directly into his office and punch him in the nose, or shake hands with at Church. Collectivism, whether of capitalist or socialist variety, allows anonymity into the market so that the few can take power from the many without fear of retaliation, at which point they WILL begin abusing the many.
Industry or government doing the abusing matters nothing to the abused who are prevented from fighting back.
Decentralization and extreme distributed ownership is the answer to that. If the most people you can abuse through labor practices are your direct report employees, and through pricing are your direct customers, then the sphere of influence of your industry is very small indeed. If the most people you can abuse through your laws are your neighbors in a very small area, your friends and family, then your government is sufficiently small for me. And if you abuse these people, they're free to move and trade elsewhere; and that is sufficient control to prevent your abuse.
It's when your organization grows larger than that, when your direct reports have direct reports below them and when your customers and constituency are people you don't personally know, that the trouble arises.
When the few control the many, that is a government, even if you call it industry. I champion neither, but then again, I'm more of a paleoconservative Catholic than an American. Industry and government are one and the same, when controlled by the few at the expense of the many, it's collectivism and centralization.
If the industry is acting as the government, then they are the government. I don't see why you see that as a boundary.
Centralization on Wall Street, Centralization in Washington DC, doesn't matter to anybody living elsewhere. It's still centralization.
Genetic fallacy anybody? Use of the Genetic Fallacy also proves you are too stupid for democracy
Yes, VPNs can make a difference. They can also make your IP look like it is on the moon from the amount of time they add to your ping test.
Not if contacting the authorities makes them a target, which may explain the 17 minute on average difference in the original article.
Yes, you are. Even if they still pretend to be capitalists, if they're working together and everything is centrally owned, that's centralization.
Even when government is led by industry.
When you reduce the number of people who drive government, that is centralization. ALL centralization, be it from industry or the people, is bad in the long run.
https://www.fox.com/watch/4e9ac96523b454de771f95a4f775facb
I could have told you people are far too stupid to live in a democracy.
If Facebook wanted to do something useful, they'd create a set of flag icons and tag every post with IP country of origin.
Was a requirement for Nazis.
How do you concentrate power into the hands of the few, without the few gaining control over the means of production?
What else would you call a movement that advocates for state control over all production?
Is it BLACK?
Which one, the author who thinks anything with steam is steam powered, or the pilot who doesn't know that the word engineering exists?
The first Uber Driver with a Knife my change your mind....
But Bomb throwing Islamics get more scrutiny before not being welcome?
Really? What specifically did he say?
The paper I read came down to the conclusion that if you want more women in Tech, you need to pay them 23% more than men.
You mean lying? That's what I call your "psychological safety" and "political correctness"..
Respect should be EARNED, not commanded. Sounds to me more like you neurotypicals are just picking on the boy because he didn't play by your rules.
Apparently, being truthful is "being a jerk". There was NOTHING in his memo that was mysogynistic or jerk like. "He's entirely responsible for the way people perceived him."- now that is bullying outright. You are NOT responsible for the actions of people around you.
And look at your exact words again:
Let's see, anonymous coward whining about SJWs
Yep, your problem seems to be anonymous cowards.
Isn't the answer clear? Go pay them more. Find minorities on the street, pay them to go to school, then hire them after they graduate.
Actually, he gave the answer to getting a larger pool of female engineers- pay them different and more.
I still think his idea that if you want more women to excel at tech, pay them 23% more to do so, is brilliant.