Re:Herbal medicine has limited value
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Have either of you Avoidant Personality Disorder sufferers looked into or tried "Constructive Living"? It is based on Morita and Naikan Japanese therapies and seems to really help some people. I've found just listening to the tapes insightful and useful although I don't (that I know of) suffer from any serious disorders (although I been told that my excessive use of parens (a bad habit from writing too much scheme) is really annoying (perhaps someone can coin a creative name for that)).
I don't understand why this was modded troll. Health is part of the whole "luck" bit. If luck is the random tapestry of reality, i.e. who your parents are and who they know, the social and economic level into which you are born, and the health and physical qualities you have then the whole "self made man" thing is really a bit of a farce.
Still, whatever hand of cards you are dealt in life the choices you make obviously dramatically impact the final outcome and the point of TFA is that putting 10k hours into something seems to be a requirement to being the top of your game (all else equal).
Regarding health care, I think that, a society that invests in the health and education of its people will achieve more than a "you're on your own" society.
I'm beginning to wonder if you seriously believe what you write. Maybe you are just having a little fun at my expense. Oh well. I'll assume you are serious.
Anyhow, by your same argument I shouldn't vote at all, or hell, I may as well vote for the candidate I hate the most, why not? My vote is insignificant.
Again, yes, one vote doesn't count. But this is sort of like a game of prisoners dilemma. You have to make your best guess as to what millions of other voters are going to do. Lets say I'm a Green. I can make a pretty good bet that only a few percent of voters will vote Green this election. Almost everyone else is going to draw that same conclusion. We all know that if a substantial number of us vote Green we can actually influence the election - but not in a good way because we know that most Greens are probably from the Democrat camp and indeed I'm pretty sure most Greens would much prefer Obama over McCain. If the Greens managed to pull 20% of the vote then you can be almost certain that Obama will lose some 20% of his votes and McCain will win the election. For most Greens I presume that would be very bad.
So, knowing the dynamics of the plurality election means that if it is important to you which of the major candidates wins then you are a fool to vote independent. The exception is where you are in a state where the vote is so certain to go to the major candidate that you don't want. In that case your vote truly does not count and voting independent is fine.
If I recall correctly the Florida election was decided by a few hundred votes. A few hundred people who strongly preferred Gore over Bush but out of frustration with both parties voted independent effectively cut of their nose to spite their face.
In short I believe that it isn't about controlling what others do but instead it is about guessing what others are likely to do.
As to your point about a vote for a third party being a vote against your preferred candidate from the two major parties... I don't quite understand it. It's also true that a vote for one of the two major parties is a vote against your preferred third party candidate. How should these facts affect your decision about who to vote for? Since the logic works both ways, I don't think they should affect your decisions at all.
Yes, it does cut both ways. A voter who has a preference for a third party candidate AND who does not want to see, say, McCain win, is screwed. They must be strategic in their vote. Probably they will have to vote for Obama and send the inadvertent message that the third party candidate is not that popular. That is the painful position we are in. Now, I am saying that all we have to do to fix the problem is allow folks to select one or more candidates on their ballot. Incredibly simple and no complicated ranking (and debatable) algorithms needed.
Do you believe that your vote will have a significant chance of affecting the election outcome? If so, why wouldn't you vote for the person you WANT to have in office?
It has been proven and explained adnauseum that plurality voting is dysfunctional. I will only add that you are talking in terms of a single voter. I'm thinking in aggregates. I'm assuming that others will have similar inclinations.
Also, although you didn't say this, the other logical fallacy with regards to voting is when people invoke the "but if everyone did that" argument. You can't control what everyone does, so whether or not everyone else will or won't do it shouldn't affect your own judgement about how to vote.
True of course that you can't control what others do. However if enough people buy into an idea and act then things can get done. I emailed my Congressmen and while my email by itself made no difference the fact that many others also sent in emails I think did have an impact.
All that being said, I'm voting for Obama this year after having voted Libertarian in every election that I was able to vote in previously (starting in 1992). I just like him as a candidate, and libertarianism has lost some of its sheen as I've thought more about it over the years. But I'm not voting for Obama because I feel like it's a more or less effective use of my vote. It's who I honestly want to win, and I think that every person should vote with the same motivation.
I'm not clear on if you agree that plurality voting is problematic or not. In this election you either vote for Obama or McCain or if you prefer a third party candidate you vote for that candidate AND EFFECTIVELY GIVE A VOTE AGAINST YOUR preference of McCain or Obama. Again, this has been explained elsewhere much better than I can do here.
I do agree with you that a fundamental change to the voting system would be the single most effective way to improve the state of American politics though. Being able to rank candidates and vote for many at once would quickly destroy the two-party system that is strangling US politics.
Just a comment on ranking. Yes, ranking would be desirable. But again if you think in term of aggregates I think that the much simpler approval voting is sufficient to break the gridlock and cure the system.
If everyone stopped fighting for the whales, wolves, freedom of choice/life, campaign reform or whatever your hot button is, just for a few weeks, and focused instead on getting approval voting implemented I think the change could be made.
So this election, how about we start a campaign - zero votes for non-approvers of approval voting?
We already want to vote the whole damn lot out. This is the perfect time to implement such a thing. I just registered approvalvote.com and I'll put up a site this weekend if I can.
Regarding all those who will argue for Condorcet, range, IRV or other excellent voting ideas: we need the simplest, most understandable idea that is reasonably resistant to strategic voting. Approval voting meets those requirements where the other systems do not.
This is the product of modern political and social pragmatism - a free-for-all, every man for himself.
Maybe so. Personally I think it is because of the flawed voting mechanism - plurality voting. I think if we switched to approval voting (i.e. the hanging chads are not only ok but actually encouraged) then the people could reasonably hold the politicians accountable come election time. Right now I'd like to vote independent but to do so is to take the risk of getting stuck with another four years of the same hell. If I could vote for my independent favorite AND (whilst holding nose) vote for the conventional dem or repub nominee then I think the politicians would be forced to address the issues as seen by independents.
I think it a little odd how you didn't quite answer the question. Not that you are obligated to, but it implies to me that you may not really be ok with the idea of you new-worlders being "uploaded" while us old-fogies get to keep hanging around in the physical world. The win-win for me is if *you* get uploaded freeing up some space for me and like minded folk to enjoy the physical world, mosquitoes and all. We promise to keep the power on, really we do.
True, I can't prove that it isn't all a big simulation. However it is one hell of a simulation and it's all we've got. Since you seem comfortable with living what for me would be a lie (debates about reality aside) then you should be happy to take the path I outlined previously.
Yes, or no - are you happy to be plugged into a machine in an underground warehouse? If are honestly proposing that a planet with 20 billion people will be fine because the population can just plug into the machine for a little nature time then it seems to me you should be fine with the proposal I put forward. Still seems like a win-win to me.
Hmmm, is your post genuine or troll? Anyhow, maybe there is a good way around that difference in opinion. Since a simulated reality is all you want it seems that you would be quite happy with the Matrix like warehouse of bodies plugged into the simulator.
So, those of us who value reality can have the surface of the planet and for those happy with simulated reality there will be mile after mile of underground warehouses for you to live your simulated lives.
Since your taste and smell inputs are simulated we can probably extract enough nutrients from our sewage to keep the lot of you alive and happy. I'd say we have a win-win.
You are correct, there is no edge or limit. However there it seems pretty likely we will see a negative correlation of quality of life with population - if we aren't already seeing it now.
What good is a population of 20 billion on the planet if everyone is packed into endless cities? If you value open spaces, good food, clean air, nice beaches, hiking trails not packed wall-to-wall with people, wild areas with an actual range of wild animals and so forth then you probably would like to see some limits to grow of human population.
Carrying capacity and technological advances are irrelevant.
My vision of the world as inherited by my kids and their kids is not a Coruscant city planet. In my opinion 6.5 billion may already be too much. Is it technically feasible to get all 6.5 billion of us up to a quality of life matching the US middle class (which is arguably not asking much)?
The alternative is simple, effective, proven and it has been known for a long time. It also has the consequence of curbing the wealth of those who gain it by means of controlling resources (as opposed to those who attain wealth by means of producing goods or services), a fact that the current power elite are well aware of.
Oh, the idea isn't perfect and there are some minor possible unintended consequences, which IMHO can be addressed with very minimal regulation.
Google Henry George for background on this old but good idea. The wikipedia article is a fairly good starting point.
We got rid of cable and are finding that there is more than enough stuff over the air to keep us entertained and informed. I do miss the Colbert Report but that's about it.
My myth box has been quietly grinding away marking commercials, transcoding etc. and the whole family loves it. We only have a 47" LCD so theoretically can't quite see the difference between 1080p and 720p but all the HD content from over the air looks great.
My only disappointment(s) 1. Need more disk space and 2. I can't run simulations, compiles etc. on the box when it is recording or playing back without causing some skipping. Oh well, might have to upgrade to a little more horsepower.
For most of the smokers I know, the bans on smoking are no more inconvenient than having to go to the loo to take a dump.
Personally I find it very inconvenient to have to find a loo, sometimes I'll have to go to the next floor if the cleaning staff is in there. It'd be a great time saver if I had a chamber pot right by my desk at work.
Split the property into two separate concepts and re-assess your statements.... I think the land and natural resources need to be divvied up differently.
Of course. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion. I'm not proposing common ownership and neither did Henry George. What was your point?
Google Henry George for one practical and tested method of doing this.
Wiki's article on him says he was anti Chinese immigrant. Besides newspapers, that's some he shared with William Randolph Hearst. During WWII besides the Japanese Hearst wanted to put the Chinese and all other Asian into internment camps. He pressed his "yellow peril".
An understandable concern. His opposition to bringing in immigrants was similar to some of the opposition to illegal immigration today. I think it is probably true that wages will be pushed down by immigration. Again, I'm not sure how that is relevant to this thread. Are you saying the guy was a jerk so we should reject his ideas? An aside: I think the population of the US has reached a point where further growth will push down quality of life. I'd personally like to see a ZPG policy, either on a state by state basis or for the country as a whole but I accept the fact that ZPG is not a popular idea.
From wiki "George preferred taxing unimproved land value". That misses all the services land offers. For instance wetlands purify water and recharge aquifers. By taxing those lands he'd encourage people to build on that land thus depriving people of fresh water.
A good point. As with any solution to a problem there are corner cases that will require special attention. Where land has special environmental character (wetlands, national or state parks unique habitat etc.) the land should be set aside and taxing it would be a silly case of the government paying itself.
It is the land ownership that **created** the poverty in the first place.
Cite please. Actually land ownership allows people to improve their economic lot in life. Even those immigrants Henry George opposed.
It is just an opinion based on the observation that where there are ample natural resources and not excessive population that poverty only seems to be found where there the land or natural resources is in the hands of a few.
By the way if we opened the border to Mexico I'm sure that those who chose to come to the States would experience a big improvement in their quality of life. Do you support substantial immigration to the US? I'm convinced that a major root cause of poverty in both the US and Mexico is the fact that a lot of the land is kept out of useful production by owners and that the problem would be reduced or even eliminated if income taxes were replace with land tax. Here are some interesting summaries of various "land instead of income or property" taxes: Tax Reform Success Stories
There are two basic ways to make money. The one you illustrate nicely in your post is service, labor, intellectual effort etc. I.e. the work you do. The other you don't mention: controlling resources. Many very wealthy and powerful people gained their wealth by this second method and I think it can be reasonably argued that said wealth is often NOT from serving the interests of others.
I think it is true that free markets and private property appear to foster greedy and selfish people to accumulate more money than cooperative people. But what part is the **real** root cause? I think sufficiently transparent free markets are a good thing. However full control of natural resources (land, oil, water, forests etc.) is more problematic.
To illustrate by taking to the extreme - imagine a person has gained full legal control (i.e. full ownership) over all the arable land on an island. Now that person can literally dictate whether the islanders get to eat or starve and are effectively now in poverty. Now eliminate all income tax and tax the land at 90% or so of it's rental value and the land owner is no longer in control of the islanders destiny - assuming the government does a better than half assed job of distributing the taxes back to the people in the form of services or even rebates.
Now on these floating islands the same issues will surface and if they converge on dumb solutions (i.e. liberbrokenism) they will of course fail dramatically.
I think "property" is too ill defined a concept and actually creates part of the problems of fairness and poverty.
Split the property into two separate concepts and re-assess your statements. The first half of property is land and natural resources and the second part is labor or effort (physical or intellectual). I agree that it is not fair (or good, or right, or moral) to deprive someone of the fruits of their labor however I think the land and natural resources need to be divvied up differently. Google Henry George for one practical and tested method of doing this.
Your land owner example is a glaring illustration of the problem and a terrible solution all in one. It is the land ownership that **created** the poverty in the first place. Note: just because land ownership created the problem doesn't mean that the solution is eliminating the ownership of land!
The problem with pay-as-you-go being optional is that the people who use less will opt for it
The solution to that is a base "connection" fee. Then who cares if people who use less go for it. In fact it would likely stimulate some of that competition the fervent free market aficionados so love. Suck enough low bandwidth users away from the flat rate sellers and they will have to raise their price. A couple lean mean companies could break the back of the flat rate sellers - maybe even resulting in fairer (and hopefully lower) costs for all.
The only advantage other countries have is that they made the switch years before when the costs were less and they could rely on the US for most of the medical innovation. We won't have that luxury and anyone expecting the same results is a fool.
Do you have any data to support that the US dominates medical inovation? A quick google search didn't give me a feel either way. As far as solution space goes my opinion is thus:
Make it illegal for employers to supply insurance.
Captive employer provided insurance *destroys* competition. Current insurance plans are 90% about keeping doctors from getting paid by the insurance co. and 10% about getting the patients real needs met. Then, if necessary, have the government give every person a voucher for health insurance usable with any qualified health ins. co.
That crossbow was pretty weak. I'm guessing maybe a 50lb pull or so. I had an (also rather weak) 90lb bow that required holding one end with your foot and pulling with both hands. None the less still a pretty impressive material to withstand even a weak crossbow bolt.
Sounds great. Now try to nail down "income" and try and collect 10% of it. Hint, look at US tax law. Taxing *income* is the problem. Try taxing something that isn't made by people and is relatively easy to measure. One good (IMHO) candidate is land. Some guy in the 18th century figured it all out. His name is Henry George. BTW taxing sales, bank transactions or flat taxes all have serious unintended consequences. Taxing land isn't perfect but it is about as equitable as you can get and it would *stimulate* productive activity. The other popular tax options *stifle* economic activity. Too bad it takes serious study to "get". Also, it is a very unpopular idea with wealthy and powerful people. I wonder why...
Slashdot Mirror
Have either of you Avoidant Personality Disorder sufferers looked into or tried "Constructive Living"? It is based on Morita and Naikan Japanese therapies and seems to really help some people. I've found just listening to the tapes insightful and useful although I don't (that I know of) suffer from any serious disorders (although I been told that my excessive use of parens (a bad habit from writing too much scheme) is really annoying (perhaps someone can coin a creative name for that)).
I don't understand why this was modded troll. Health is part of the whole "luck" bit. If luck is the random tapestry of reality, i.e. who your parents are and who they know, the social and economic level into which you are born, and the health and physical qualities you have then the whole "self made man" thing is really a bit of a farce.
Still, whatever hand of cards you are dealt in life the choices you make obviously dramatically impact the final outcome and the point of TFA is that putting 10k hours into something seems to be a requirement to being the top of your game (all else equal).
Regarding health care, I think that, a society that invests in the health and education of its people will achieve more than a "you're on your own" society.
I'm beginning to wonder if you seriously believe what you write. Maybe you are just having a little fun at my expense. Oh well. I'll assume you are serious.
Anyhow, by your same argument I shouldn't vote at all, or hell, I may as well vote for the candidate I hate the most, why not? My vote is insignificant.
Again, yes, one vote doesn't count. But this is sort of like a game of prisoners dilemma. You have to make your best guess as to what millions of other voters are going to do. Lets say I'm a Green. I can make a pretty good bet that only a few percent of voters will vote Green this election. Almost everyone else is going to draw that same conclusion. We all know that if a substantial number of us vote Green we can actually influence the election - but not in a good way because we know that most Greens are probably from the Democrat camp and indeed I'm pretty sure most Greens would much prefer Obama over McCain. If the Greens managed to pull 20% of the vote then you can be almost certain that Obama will lose some 20% of his votes and McCain will win the election. For most Greens I presume that would be very bad.
So, knowing the dynamics of the plurality election means that if it is important to you which of the major candidates wins then you are a fool to vote independent. The exception is where you are in a state where the vote is so certain to go to the major candidate that you don't want. In that case your vote truly does not count and voting independent is fine.
If I recall correctly the Florida election was decided by a few hundred votes. A few hundred people who strongly preferred Gore over Bush but out of frustration with both parties voted independent effectively cut of their nose to spite their face.
In short I believe that it isn't about controlling what others do but instead it is about guessing what others are likely to do.
As to your point about a vote for a third party being a vote against your preferred candidate from the two major parties ... I don't quite understand it. It's also true that a vote for one of the two major parties is a vote against your preferred third party candidate. How should these facts affect your decision about who to vote for? Since the logic works both ways, I don't think they should affect your decisions at all.
Yes, it does cut both ways. A voter who has a preference for a third party candidate AND who does not want to see, say, McCain win, is screwed. They must be strategic in their vote. Probably they will have to vote for Obama and send the inadvertent message that the third party candidate is not that popular. That is the painful position we are in. Now, I am saying that all we have to do to fix the problem is allow folks to select one or more candidates on their ballot. Incredibly simple and no complicated ranking (and debatable) algorithms needed.
Your logic on voting is flawed.
Do you believe that your vote will have a significant chance of affecting the election outcome? If so, why wouldn't you vote for the person you WANT to have in office?
It has been proven and explained adnauseum that plurality voting is dysfunctional. I will only add that you are talking in terms of a single voter. I'm thinking in aggregates. I'm assuming that others will have similar inclinations.
Also, although you didn't say this, the other logical fallacy with regards to voting is when people invoke the "but if everyone did that" argument. You can't control what everyone does, so whether or not everyone else will or won't do it shouldn't affect your own judgement about how to vote.
True of course that you can't control what others do. However if enough people buy into an idea and act then things can get done. I emailed my Congressmen and while my email by itself made no difference the fact that many others also sent in emails I think did have an impact.
All that being said, I'm voting for Obama this year after having voted Libertarian in every election that I was able to vote in previously (starting in 1992). I just like him as a candidate, and libertarianism has lost some of its sheen as I've thought more about it over the years. But I'm not voting for Obama because I feel like it's a more or less effective use of my vote. It's who I honestly want to win, and I think that every person should vote with the same motivation.
I'm not clear on if you agree that plurality voting is problematic or not. In this election you either vote for Obama or McCain or if you prefer a third party candidate you vote for that candidate AND EFFECTIVELY GIVE A VOTE AGAINST YOUR preference of McCain or Obama. Again, this has been explained elsewhere much better than I can do here.
I do agree with you that a fundamental change to the voting system would be the single most effective way to improve the state of American politics though. Being able to rank candidates and vote for many at once would quickly destroy the two-party system that is strangling US politics.
Just a comment on ranking. Yes, ranking would be desirable. But again if you think in term of aggregates I think that the much simpler approval voting is sufficient to break the gridlock and cure the system.
If everyone stopped fighting for the whales, wolves, freedom of choice/life, campaign reform or whatever your hot button is, just for a few weeks, and focused instead on getting approval voting implemented I think the change could be made.
So this election, how about we start a campaign - zero votes for non-approvers of approval voting?
We already want to vote the whole damn lot out. This is the perfect time to implement such a thing. I just registered approvalvote.com and I'll put up a site this weekend if I can.
Regarding all those who will argue for Condorcet, range, IRV or other excellent voting ideas: we need the simplest, most understandable idea that is reasonably resistant to strategic voting. Approval voting meets those requirements where the other systems do not.
Is it worth a shot?
This is the product of modern political and social pragmatism - a free-for-all, every man for himself.
Maybe so. Personally I think it is because of the flawed voting mechanism - plurality voting. I think if we switched to approval voting (i.e. the hanging chads are not only ok but actually encouraged) then the people could reasonably hold the politicians accountable come election time. Right now I'd like to vote independent but to do so is to take the risk of getting stuck with another four years of the same hell. If I could vote for my independent favorite AND (whilst holding nose) vote for the conventional dem or repub nominee then I think the politicians would be forced to address the issues as seen by independents.
I think it a little odd how you didn't quite answer the question. Not that you are obligated to, but it implies to me that you may not really be ok with the idea of you new-worlders being "uploaded" while us old-fogies get to keep hanging around in the physical world. The win-win for me is if *you* get uploaded freeing up some space for me and like minded folk to enjoy the physical world, mosquitoes and all. We promise to keep the power on, really we do.
True, I can't prove that it isn't all a big simulation. However it is one hell of a simulation and it's all we've got. Since you seem comfortable with living what for me would be a lie (debates about reality aside) then you should be happy to take the path I outlined previously.
Yes, or no - are you happy to be plugged into a machine in an underground warehouse? If are honestly proposing that a planet with 20 billion people will be fine because the population can just plug into the machine for a little nature time then it seems to me you should be fine with the proposal I put forward. Still seems like a win-win to me.
Yes, I realized after posting that I should have said "not an alternative, but a way to augment or fix capitalism ..."
Hmmm, is your post genuine or troll? Anyhow, maybe there is a good way around that difference in opinion. Since a simulated reality is all you want it seems that you would be quite happy with the Matrix like warehouse of bodies plugged into the simulator.
So, those of us who value reality can have the surface of the planet and for those happy with simulated reality there will be mile after mile of underground warehouses for you to live your simulated lives.
Since your taste and smell inputs are simulated we can probably extract enough nutrients from our sewage to keep the lot of you alive and happy. I'd say we have a win-win.
You are correct, there is no edge or limit. However there it seems pretty likely we will see a negative correlation of quality of life with population - if we aren't already seeing it now.
What good is a population of 20 billion on the planet if everyone is packed into endless cities? If you value open spaces, good food, clean air, nice beaches, hiking trails not packed wall-to-wall with people, wild areas with an actual range of wild animals and so forth then you probably would like to see some limits to grow of human population.
Carrying capacity and technological advances are irrelevant.
My vision of the world as inherited by my kids and their kids is not a Coruscant city planet. In my opinion 6.5 billion may already be too much. Is it technically feasible to get all 6.5 billion of us up to a quality of life matching the US middle class (which is arguably not asking much)?
So what's your alternative?
The alternative is simple, effective, proven and it has been known for a long time. It also has the consequence of curbing the wealth of those who gain it by means of controlling resources (as opposed to those who attain wealth by means of producing goods or services), a fact that the current power elite are well aware of.
Oh, the idea isn't perfect and there are some minor possible unintended consequences, which IMHO can be addressed with very minimal regulation.
Google Henry George for background on this old but good idea. The wikipedia article is a fairly good starting point.
We got rid of cable and are finding that there is more than enough stuff over the air to keep us entertained and informed. I do miss the Colbert Report but that's about it.
My myth box has been quietly grinding away marking commercials, transcoding etc. and the whole family loves it. We only have a 47" LCD so theoretically can't quite see the difference between 1080p and 720p but all the HD content from over the air looks great.
My only disappointment(s) 1. Need more disk space and 2. I can't run simulations, compiles etc. on the box when it is recording or playing back without causing some skipping. Oh well, might have to upgrade to a little more horsepower.
For most of the smokers I know, the bans on smoking are no more inconvenient than having to go to the loo to take a dump.
Personally I find it very inconvenient to have to find a loo, sometimes I'll have to go to the next floor if the cleaning staff is in there. It'd be a great time saver if I had a chamber pot right by my desk at work.
Split the property into two separate concepts and re-assess your statements. ...
I think the land and natural resources need to be divvied up differently.
Ever hear of the Tragedy of the Commons?
Of course. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion. I'm not proposing common ownership and neither did Henry George. What was your point?
Google Henry George for one practical and tested method of doing this.
Wiki's article on him says he was anti Chinese immigrant. Besides newspapers, that's some he shared with William Randolph Hearst. During WWII besides the Japanese Hearst wanted to put the Chinese and all other Asian into internment camps. He pressed his "yellow peril".
An understandable concern. His opposition to bringing in immigrants was similar to some of the opposition to illegal immigration today. I think it is probably true that wages will be pushed down by immigration. Again, I'm not sure how that is relevant to this thread. Are you saying the guy was a jerk so we should reject his ideas? An aside: I think the population of the US has reached a point where further growth will push down quality of life. I'd personally like to see a ZPG policy, either on a state by state basis or for the country as a whole but I accept the fact that ZPG is not a popular idea.
From wiki "George preferred taxing unimproved land value". That misses all the services land offers. For instance wetlands purify water and recharge aquifers. By taxing those lands he'd encourage people to build on that land thus depriving people of fresh water.
A good point. As with any solution to a problem there are corner cases that will require special attention. Where land has special environmental character (wetlands, national or state parks unique habitat etc.) the land should be set aside and taxing it would be a silly case of the government paying itself.
It is the land ownership that **created** the poverty in the first place.
Cite please. Actually land ownership allows people to improve their economic lot in life. Even those immigrants Henry George opposed.
It is just an opinion based on the observation that where there are ample natural resources and not excessive population that poverty only seems to be found where there the land or natural resources is in the hands of a few.
By the way if we opened the border to Mexico I'm sure that those who chose to come to the States would experience a big improvement in their quality of life. Do you support substantial immigration to the US? I'm convinced that a major root cause of poverty in both the US and Mexico is the fact that a lot of the land is kept out of useful production by owners and that the problem would be reduced or even eliminated if income taxes were replace with land tax. Here are some interesting summaries of various "land instead of income or property" taxes: Tax Reform Success Stories
There are two basic ways to make money. The one you illustrate nicely in your post is service, labor, intellectual effort etc. I.e. the work you do. The other you don't mention: controlling resources. Many very wealthy and powerful people gained their wealth by this second method and I think it can be reasonably argued that said wealth is often NOT from serving the interests of others.
I think it is true that free markets and private property appear to foster greedy and selfish people to accumulate more money than cooperative people. But what part is the **real** root cause? I think sufficiently transparent free markets are a good thing. However full control of natural resources (land, oil, water, forests etc.) is more problematic.
To illustrate by taking to the extreme - imagine a person has gained full legal control (i.e. full ownership) over all the arable land on an island. Now that person can literally dictate whether the islanders get to eat or starve and are effectively now in poverty. Now eliminate all income tax and tax the land at 90% or so of it's rental value and the land owner is no longer in control of the islanders destiny - assuming the government does a better than half assed job of distributing the taxes back to the people in the form of services or even rebates.
Now on these floating islands the same issues will surface and if they converge on dumb solutions (i.e. liberbrokenism) they will of course fail dramatically.
I think "property" is too ill defined a concept and actually creates part of the problems of fairness and poverty.
Split the property into two separate concepts and re-assess your statements. The first half of property is land and natural resources and the second part is labor or effort (physical or intellectual). I agree that it is not fair (or good, or right, or moral) to deprive someone of the fruits of their labor however I think the land and natural resources need to be divvied up differently. Google Henry George for one practical and tested method of doing this.
Your land owner example is a glaring illustration of the problem and a terrible solution all in one. It is the land ownership that **created** the poverty in the first place. Note: just because land ownership created the problem doesn't mean that the solution is eliminating the ownership of land!
It is kind of like trying to cure a broken leg with antibiotics. You might need the antibiotics but you'd really better get a splint on there first.
I.e. start by identifying the **real** root cause and work on that.
After the first imaging whereby no quarter is given to recover data, I never have a problem with that user again
Cool, can you let us know what company you work for? I want to make sure I don't have any of its stock in my portfolio.
The problem with pay-as-you-go being optional is that the people who use less will opt for it
The solution to that is a base "connection" fee. Then who cares if people who use less go for it. In fact it would likely stimulate some of that competition the fervent free market aficionados so love. Suck enough low bandwidth users away from the flat rate sellers and they will have to raise their price. A couple lean mean companies could break the back of the flat rate sellers - maybe even resulting in fairer (and hopefully lower) costs for all.
The only advantage other countries have is that they made the switch years before when the costs were less and they could rely on the US for most of the medical innovation. We won't have that luxury and anyone expecting the same results is a fool.
Do you have any data to support that the US dominates medical inovation? A quick google search didn't give me a feel either way. As far as solution space goes my opinion is thus:
Make it illegal for employers to supply insurance.
Captive employer provided insurance *destroys* competition. Current insurance plans are 90% about keeping doctors from getting paid by the insurance co. and 10% about getting the patients real needs met. Then, if necessary, have the government give every person a voucher for health insurance usable with any qualified health ins. co.
That crossbow was pretty weak. I'm guessing maybe a 50lb pull or so. I had an (also rather weak) 90lb bow that required holding one end with your foot and pulling with both hands. None the less still a pretty impressive material to withstand even a weak crossbow bolt.
Sounds great. Now try to nail down "income" and try and collect 10% of it. Hint, look at US tax law. Taxing *income* is the problem. Try taxing something that isn't made by people and is relatively easy to measure. One good (IMHO) candidate is land. Some guy in the 18th century figured it all out. His name is Henry George. BTW taxing sales, bank transactions or flat taxes all have serious unintended consequences. Taxing land isn't perfect but it is about as equitable as you can get and it would *stimulate* productive activity. The other popular tax options *stifle* economic activity. Too bad it takes serious study to "get". Also, it is a very unpopular idea with wealthy and powerful people. I wonder why...