I know your post was modded insightful and all, but can you point me toward the original source of the Richardson quote? I can't seem to find it. Your link points toward an unsourced citation.
Reading this, it's hard to escape the impression that you are just grimly set on interpreting the entire scope of history in a way that simplistically blames the American bogeyman as much as possible.
To do this,you have to ignore all kinds of inconvenient facts -- like the fact that the alternative to the right-wing Shah came not from the democratic left, but from the even FARTHER right: Khomeini and his ilk.
Or this part, which is funny: "The war we helped create." "Helped create?" Huh? Newsflash: Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs were perfectly capable of doing this on their own. These were two aggressive, militaristic regimes, each bent on regional supremacy. Oh, but of course, it was the big, bad US that made them fight. Sure, ok.
It is far from clear to me how this is "insightful." The Middle East is one long crescent of theocratic oppression, from Morocco to Malaysia. It's easy to glibly say, "Oh, well, we should just invest half a trillion dollars to make it a better place." How exactly would investing in Saddam's Iraq have made it "a better place?" How would investing in wealthy Saudi Arabia make it "a better place?" How would investing in the Taliban's 6th-Century religious dictatorship have made Afghanistan "a better place"? For that matter, why would the Taliban would have accepted, or allowed their countrymen to accept, your dirty western money?
It's part of the line of thinking that says, "Oh, there's a problem? We can just solve it by shoveling money at it!" In real life, things rarely work that way.
"$500 billion or so," invested according to political calculations (by which I mean, not market-based analyses that invest according to promising lines of research) = 1,000 Solyndras.
This will never happen, but not for the reasons you say.
There is a key factor that this entire comment thread seems to miss: The fact that Iran's economic infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Their entire economy relies on a fixed set of oil refineries and production platforms that, unlike the missiles, can't be moved or hidden. Iran can bluster all it wants, but attacking one US ship would lead to the destruction of their entire economy. They know this, and so does the U.S.
It's perfectly clear what I'm talking about, and further, your blanket statement ("doing something to mitigate problems is definitely preferable to doing nothing about them") is wrong.
Someone above noted that it's like saying that, because your car sustains a certain amount of wear on it's daily commute, you should rebuild the engine every night. That would be mitigating potential problems, too. Does that mean it's "definitely preferable to doing nothing"? No, because in this case the cost of mitigating potential problems would very quickly soar past the cost of doing nothing.
That's been the rational case against Kyoto from the beginning. We'd be bankrupting ourselves for a slight decrease in the rate of temperature increase.
Insightful? This is exactly the kind of ignorant, reflexive, argument-from-emotion-not-facts type of short-sighted thinking that used to be ridiculed here on Slashdot.
See my other posts pointing out that bankrupting the current generation -- NO MATTER HOW NOBLE AND WELL-MEANING THE INTENT -- does not help future generations; it HURTS them.
What helps your children is not mindless consumption OR foolish investing. It is wisely investing in things that create value, for them to build on in turn. Now, sure, you can say that implementing Kyoto would be an investment. Fine, we all get that. But that's not the question. The question is, considering its colossal costs, would Kyoto be the BEST investment? The wisest use of our resources? Would our children be better off with crippled economies and a lower standard of living, but with average global temps a degree or two below what they otherwise would have been? Or vice-versa?
Your kind of shallow, college-student-greenpeace-club emotionalizing is NOT insightful, and does not help clarify these issues.
"The alternative 'just use less' philosophy is based upon some crazy idea that 7 billion people can just live in yurts."
Yeah I don't get this either. All these thread commenters use terms like "wealth" or "consumption." Do they understand that they are talking about *standards of living*? This is the basic quality of life for everyone that we're supposed to be trying to *improve*. When you drain "wealth" from a society, it is the POOR who take in on the chin. It is the wealthy who have the money, education and political clout to cushion their fall.
"if USA was to sign, it would be MUCH easier to get India and China to sign on as well"
This is completely unsupported speculation. To my knowledge, these countries have never said, "Well, gosh. We'll sign it if the U.S. leads the way!"
Allow me to suggest that I have much more respect for these countries than you do, as I understand that they are perfectly capable of determining their own best interests.
This issue has been addressed since AGW issues first came into the public's consciousness in the early 1990s. Indeed, Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, was largely a long treatment of this.
His argument went something like this:
* Even if Kyoto was completely implemented
* AND the resultant actions had best-case effects
* It would only make a slight dent in the rate of CO2 emission
* It would also be hugely expensive -- not "oh, one less yacht for the fleet," but as in significantly lowering standards of living around the world, especially for the poor.
* For the same amount of money, we could provide clear air, water and shelter for every poor person on earth.
* The best predictor of a generation's prosperity is the *previous* generation's prosperity. In essence, bankrupting ourselves doesn't help our children; it hurts them.
* So, society might be much better off not bankrupting itself to reduce climate change, but instead spending a much smaller part of its resources *adapting* to climate change, and investing the rest in ways that are ultimately more productive.
Lots of people argue with this. But my point in this is that many people do understand the basic issues, but also understand that what is in the best interests of future generations is NOT "Oh, obviously, we must cut CO2 at all costs."
It's true that the ""left spends a decade building up government run services and departments, taxing the rich, introducing more regulation and reigning in the worst aspects of capitalism"
But this part?
"Then the right spends a decade tearing it all down again, selling off government assets, cutting regulation and giving tax breaks to the rich."
This is deluded. The regulatory state grows every year, by any measure (number of regs, cost of regs, # of people employed enforcing regs, etc). There is no rollback. The wheel of government power is a ratchet -- it only turns one direction. The best that can be said is every decade or so, a futile attempt is made to hold the line, and slow the growth. But in the big picture, the story of society is the story of an ever-enlarging public sphere and an ever-shrinking private sphere.
I don't understand this. If there's one thing I've learned from the media (and from Slashdot in recent years), it's that Europeans are peaceful, enlightened New Humans, in contrast to us backwards, redneck, violent hicks in the states. Are you telling me Europeans have any concept of war?
Most of us understand why the government can't just print more money. The price of everything would just go up.
College tuition is exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that in this case, the government is printing a special kind of money -- money that can only be used for one thing. It is no surprise when then price of that thing just goes up accordingly.
Subsidies (i.e., cheap loans) increase demand. Increased demand causes the price to rise.
Consider:
* The US massively subsidizes education. The price of education rises far beyond the rate of inflation.
* The US massively subsidizes housing. The price of housing rises far beyond the rate of inflation.
* The US massively subsidizes health care. The price of health care rises far beyond the rate of inflation. (Except, of course, the kinds of health care -- like cosmetic surgery or lasik surgery -- that do not typically get subsidized. Costs in these areas have plummeted.)
Pointing this out inevitably draws attacks, like by acknowledging this, you are part of a conspiracy to deny education to poor people. And I don't pretend to have an answer to this dilemma. The only really clear thing is that the laws of supply and demand aren't *statutory* laws, that can just be altered with a pen and a lot of hand-waving. They are fundamental natural laws, and well-intentioned attempts to manipulate markets (from student loans to price-control regimes) almost always trigger equal and opposite consequences.
The real shame is that important issues like these are so easily demagogued. Even though the system is clearly broken, no politician in his right mind would ever propose changing it. "Look!" people would scream. "He hates poor people!"
- AJ
Ha ha. I looked at the linked comment, and was about to come back and write that that was the first time in the history of Slashdot that someone looked to DOC RUBY, of all people, for a "sensible explanation." It wasn't until then that I realized that the linker WAS Doc Ruby!
Oh Doc, you magnificent bastard.
- AJ
I don't actually completely disagree with you. Here in the US they are more typically floated by progressives, but on the other hand, it is one of those policy ideas that gets support from some conservatives as well. It's the authoritarian impulse that, unfortunately, unites left and right.
So in sum, you're right -- I should have chosen my words more carefully.
I think a lot of the woes of America could be cured by establishing a two-year national service requirement for all youth, without exceptions,
Like (to be fair) most people, he underestimates the fundamental value of liberty.
This kind of national service requirement is a staple of progressivism. And it fits the classic progressive mold: In the narrow sense, it's a good, progressive idea. It's an expedient way to arrive at a desired result. Trying to achieve something? No problem! Just have the government force it on everyone!
And of course, in the wider sense, it's a horrible idea. It's essentially saying it's OK for your fellow citizens to order your in a way they deem desireable. Set aside mandatory travel, for a moment: What *else* will the government do with this power?
- Alaska Jack
PS Don't bother bringing up the military draft, unless you want to prove MY point. Americans have always considered the draft an emergency power of last resort, which is only permitted based on the fact that the first duty of any nation is to preserve its existence (otherwise, everything else is moot anyway). The first duty of every nation is not to broaden its young people's horizons -- as desirable as that may be.
Editors, I am a long-time reader (like many, I lurked for years before signing up for an account), so I'm relatively used to/.'s somewhat quirky interface. But even I am often baffled. Do you ever just sit down with someone unfamiliar with Slashdot, and ask them to navigate around and accomplish certain tasks? Or explain to you, as best they understand, what certain things are, the logic behind the structure, etc?
Someday, I hope Slashdot adopts some kind of left-pane threaded view (like taking Google Group's "tree" view, or the one used Craigslist's help forum, and combining it with the rating and other things that make Slashdot good). In the short term, though, I think some simple usability testing could really help things out around here.
You seem to know a thing or two about ridiculousness.
(1) "You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant."
Are you aware that the law explicitly forbids arresting a person of *any* color on "suspicion of being an immigrant"?
(2) "Anyone living long term in this country is an American."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe a long tenure of living here automatically grants you American citizenship, though of course you can apply. But what if you choose not to? What if you don't consider yourself an American? Are you one anyway? And do you mean living long-term here legally? Or illegally?
You are obviously speaking from the heart here, but that doesn't mean what you're saying makes any sense. Often, the opposite.
(3) "That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. "
I'm sorry, but this is objectively incorrect. What made this country great was the unprecedented application of liberal values: Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and thought; government of, by and for the people; equal justice under law; etc. In other words, all those things we call "liberty." How long people lived here had nothing to do with it. Simple racial diversity is a nice plus -- I like it as much as you do -- but even the most cursory review of history will show that it's hardly critical, or even necessary. Plenty of relatively homogenous civilizations have achieved great things.
(4) "Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry."
ALL LAWS are eventually abused, by politicians, prosecutors or cops who are incompetent, ignorant, racist, etc. This law is no different. Victims of abuse are free to sue for giant settlements, just like in any other case of wrongful arrest/imprisonment.
Yes I do. But it's not relevant -- the "original version" is not the one that passed. According to Wikipedia, the one that passed stated that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."
I don't particularly like this law. Could it be abused? Oh, totally. But it only came about because of the federal government's politically motivated failure to even try to live up to its obligations.
(ARTICLE IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.")
I am one of those kids that dont understand this (neither about why it is better in short term nor whey bad idea in long term). Someone care to explain?
I don't think you've thought this through very well. Your reply does not seem to be based on fact.
(1) "people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times."
I've just been reading up on Arizona's SB 1070. It makes no mention whatsoever of "brown skin." The law seems to apply equally to all colors of immigrants. I.e., it certainly discriminates between nationals and foreigners, but does not seem to discriminate between *types* of foreigners.
Not trying to be disingenuous here. Arizona clearly has a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, not from Romania. But that doesn't mean Arizonans don't like *Mexicans*; it just means they don't like *illegal immigration.*
(2) "'Americans are a free people: No Identity papers' doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white."
This seems obviously false as well. The people you're referring to -- i.e., immigrants, whether legal or illegal -- *aren't Americans.* I certainly hope we treat non-Americans well, but whether we do or don't seems to have little bearing on whether Americans "are a free people."
In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.
Now 80 percent of/. is just a bunch of script kiddies who think opposition to this kind of thing is rooted in religious crackpottery, or imaginary straw men who just think everything from Europe is communist.
I mean, gosh, Washington, Madison, Jefferson -- How could those guys not understand how much better life would be if we centralized all our power in one big government?
I hate to bust your bubble, but this is common knowledge among anyone who knows anything about business. Businesses -- especially big businesses -- are not in principle opposed to regulation. Regulations form a significant barrier to entry for potential competitors. Big, established businesses can absorb these costs. Little mom-and-pop startups can't.
From about a million examples, let's take Starbucks. They champion things like food-safety inspections, requirements for health insurance, raising the minimum wage, etc. Because they deeply, deeply care about their customers and employees? No. Because a demanding regulatory regime discourages Joe Sixpack from throwing up little Coffee Shacks on every streetcorner, and undercutting Starbucks on convenience and price.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Mr. chrb, sir.
I know your post was modded insightful and all, but can you point me toward the original source of the Richardson quote? I can't seem to find it. Your link points toward an unsourced citation.
Thanks,
- aj
Reading this, it's hard to escape the impression that you are just grimly set on interpreting the entire scope of history in a way that simplistically blames the American bogeyman as much as possible.
To do this,you have to ignore all kinds of inconvenient facts -- like the fact that the alternative to the right-wing Shah came not from the democratic left, but from the even FARTHER right: Khomeini and his ilk.
Or this part, which is funny: "The war we helped create." "Helped create?" Huh? Newsflash: Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs were perfectly capable of doing this on their own. These were two aggressive, militaristic regimes, each bent on regional supremacy. Oh, but of course, it was the big, bad US that made them fight. Sure, ok.
- aj
It is far from clear to me how this is "insightful." The Middle East is one long crescent of theocratic oppression, from Morocco to Malaysia. It's easy to glibly say, "Oh, well, we should just invest half a trillion dollars to make it a better place." How exactly would investing in Saddam's Iraq have made it "a better place?" How would investing in wealthy Saudi Arabia make it "a better place?" How would investing in the Taliban's 6th-Century religious dictatorship have made Afghanistan "a better place"? For that matter, why would the Taliban would have accepted, or allowed their countrymen to accept, your dirty western money?
It's part of the line of thinking that says, "Oh, there's a problem? We can just solve it by shoveling money at it!" In real life, things rarely work that way.
-aj
"$500 billion or so," invested according to political calculations (by which I mean, not market-based analyses that invest according to promising lines of research) = 1,000 Solyndras.
- aj
This will never happen, but not for the reasons you say.
There is a key factor that this entire comment thread seems to miss: The fact that Iran's economic infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Their entire economy relies on a fixed set of oil refineries and production platforms that, unlike the missiles, can't be moved or hidden. Iran can bluster all it wants, but attacking one US ship would lead to the destruction of their entire economy. They know this, and so does the U.S.
- aj
It's perfectly clear what I'm talking about, and further, your blanket statement ("doing something to mitigate problems is definitely preferable to doing nothing about them") is wrong.
Someone above noted that it's like saying that, because your car sustains a certain amount of wear on it's daily commute, you should rebuild the engine every night. That would be mitigating potential problems, too. Does that mean it's "definitely preferable to doing nothing"? No, because in this case the cost of mitigating potential problems would very quickly soar past the cost of doing nothing.
That's been the rational case against Kyoto from the beginning. We'd be bankrupting ourselves for a slight decrease in the rate of temperature increase.
- aj
.
Insightful? This is exactly the kind of ignorant, reflexive, argument-from-emotion-not-facts type of short-sighted thinking that used to be ridiculed here on Slashdot.
See my other posts pointing out that bankrupting the current generation -- NO MATTER HOW NOBLE AND WELL-MEANING THE INTENT -- does not help future generations; it HURTS them.
What helps your children is not mindless consumption OR foolish investing. It is wisely investing in things that create value, for them to build on in turn. Now, sure, you can say that implementing Kyoto would be an investment. Fine, we all get that. But that's not the question. The question is, considering its colossal costs, would Kyoto be the BEST investment? The wisest use of our resources? Would our children be better off with crippled economies and a lower standard of living, but with average global temps a degree or two below what they otherwise would have been? Or vice-versa?
Your kind of shallow, college-student-greenpeace-club emotionalizing is NOT insightful, and does not help clarify these issues.
- aj
"The alternative 'just use less' philosophy is based upon some crazy idea that 7 billion people can just live in yurts."
Yeah I don't get this either. All these thread commenters use terms like "wealth" or "consumption." Do they understand that they are talking about *standards of living*? This is the basic quality of life for everyone that we're supposed to be trying to *improve*. When you drain "wealth" from a society, it is the POOR who take in on the chin. It is the wealthy who have the money, education and political clout to cushion their fall.
- aj
"if USA was to sign, it would be MUCH easier to get India and China to sign on as well"
This is completely unsupported speculation. To my knowledge, these countries have never said, "Well, gosh. We'll sign it if the U.S. leads the way!"
Allow me to suggest that I have much more respect for these countries than you do, as I understand that they are perfectly capable of determining their own best interests.
- aj
This issue has been addressed since AGW issues first came into the public's consciousness in the early 1990s. Indeed, Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, was largely a long treatment of this.
His argument went something like this:
* Even if Kyoto was completely implemented
* AND the resultant actions had best-case effects
* It would only make a slight dent in the rate of CO2 emission
* It would also be hugely expensive -- not "oh, one less yacht for the fleet," but as in significantly lowering standards of living around the world, especially for the poor.
* For the same amount of money, we could provide clear air, water and shelter for every poor person on earth.
* The best predictor of a generation's prosperity is the *previous* generation's prosperity. In essence, bankrupting ourselves doesn't help our children; it hurts them.
* So, society might be much better off not bankrupting itself to reduce climate change, but instead spending a much smaller part of its resources *adapting* to climate change, and investing the rest in ways that are ultimately more productive.
Lots of people argue with this. But my point in this is that many people do understand the basic issues, but also understand that what is in the best interests of future generations is NOT "Oh, obviously, we must cut CO2 at all costs."
- aj
Well, factually, you're half right.
It's true that the ""left spends a decade building up government run services and departments, taxing the rich, introducing more regulation and reigning in the worst aspects of capitalism"
But this part?
"Then the right spends a decade tearing it all down again, selling off government assets, cutting regulation and giving tax breaks to the rich."
This is deluded. The regulatory state grows every year, by any measure (number of regs, cost of regs, # of people employed enforcing regs, etc). There is no rollback. The wheel of government power is a ratchet -- it only turns one direction. The best that can be said is every decade or so, a futile attempt is made to hold the line, and slow the growth. But in the big picture, the story of society is the story of an ever-enlarging public sphere and an ever-shrinking private sphere.
- aj
I don't understand this. If there's one thing I've learned from the media (and from Slashdot in recent years), it's that Europeans are peaceful, enlightened New Humans, in contrast to us backwards, redneck, violent hicks in the states. Are you telling me Europeans have any concept of war?
Yeah right. Show me one example.
- aj
Most of us understand why the government can't just print more money. The price of everything would just go up. College tuition is exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that in this case, the government is printing a special kind of money -- money that can only be used for one thing. It is no surprise when then price of that thing just goes up accordingly. Subsidies (i.e., cheap loans) increase demand. Increased demand causes the price to rise. Consider: * The US massively subsidizes education. The price of education rises far beyond the rate of inflation. * The US massively subsidizes housing. The price of housing rises far beyond the rate of inflation. * The US massively subsidizes health care. The price of health care rises far beyond the rate of inflation. (Except, of course, the kinds of health care -- like cosmetic surgery or lasik surgery -- that do not typically get subsidized. Costs in these areas have plummeted.) Pointing this out inevitably draws attacks, like by acknowledging this, you are part of a conspiracy to deny education to poor people. And I don't pretend to have an answer to this dilemma. The only really clear thing is that the laws of supply and demand aren't *statutory* laws, that can just be altered with a pen and a lot of hand-waving. They are fundamental natural laws, and well-intentioned attempts to manipulate markets (from student loans to price-control regimes) almost always trigger equal and opposite consequences. The real shame is that important issues like these are so easily demagogued. Even though the system is clearly broken, no politician in his right mind would ever propose changing it. "Look!" people would scream. "He hates poor people!" - AJ
Ha ha. I looked at the linked comment, and was about to come back and write that that was the first time in the history of Slashdot that someone looked to DOC RUBY, of all people, for a "sensible explanation." It wasn't until then that I realized that the linker WAS Doc Ruby! Oh Doc, you magnificent bastard. - AJ
I don't actually completely disagree with you. Here in the US they are more typically floated by progressives, but on the other hand, it is one of those policy ideas that gets support from some conservatives as well. It's the authoritarian impulse that, unfortunately, unites left and right.
So in sum, you're right -- I should have chosen my words more carefully.
- aj
I think a lot of the woes of America could be cured by establishing a two-year national service requirement for all youth, without exceptions,
Like (to be fair) most people, he underestimates the fundamental value of liberty.
This kind of national service requirement is a staple of progressivism. And it fits the classic progressive mold: In the narrow sense, it's a good, progressive idea. It's an expedient way to arrive at a desired result. Trying to achieve something? No problem! Just have the government force it on everyone!
And of course, in the wider sense, it's a horrible idea. It's essentially saying it's OK for your fellow citizens to order your in a way they deem desireable. Set aside mandatory travel, for a moment: What *else* will the government do with this power?
- Alaska Jack
PS Don't bother bringing up the military draft, unless you want to prove MY point. Americans have always considered the draft an emergency power of last resort, which is only permitted based on the fact that the first duty of any nation is to preserve its existence (otherwise, everything else is moot anyway). The first duty of every nation is not to broaden its young people's horizons -- as desirable as that may be.
Editors, I am a long-time reader (like many, I lurked for years before signing up for an account), so I'm relatively used to /.'s somewhat quirky interface. But even I am often baffled. Do you ever just sit down with someone unfamiliar with Slashdot, and ask them to navigate around and accomplish certain tasks? Or explain to you, as best they understand, what certain things are, the logic behind the structure, etc?
Someday, I hope Slashdot adopts some kind of left-pane threaded view (like taking Google Group's "tree" view, or the one used Craigslist's help forum, and combining it with the rating and other things that make Slashdot good). In the short term, though, I think some simple usability testing could really help things out around here.
- Alaska Jack
You seem to know a thing or two about ridiculousness.
(1) "You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant."
Are you aware that the law explicitly forbids arresting a person of *any* color on "suspicion of being an immigrant"?
(2) "Anyone living long term in this country is an American."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe a long tenure of living here automatically grants you American citizenship, though of course you can apply. But what if you choose not to? What if you don't consider yourself an American? Are you one anyway? And do you mean living long-term here legally? Or illegally?
You are obviously speaking from the heart here, but that doesn't mean what you're saying makes any sense. Often, the opposite.
(3) "That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. "
I'm sorry, but this is objectively incorrect. What made this country great was the unprecedented application of liberal values: Freedom of speech, assembly, religion and thought; government of, by and for the people; equal justice under law; etc. In other words, all those things we call "liberty." How long people lived here had nothing to do with it. Simple racial diversity is a nice plus -- I like it as much as you do -- but even the most cursory review of history will show that it's hardly critical, or even necessary. Plenty of relatively homogenous civilizations have achieved great things.
(4) "Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry."
ALL LAWS are eventually abused, by politicians, prosecutors or cops who are incompetent, ignorant, racist, etc. This law is no different. Victims of abuse are free to sue for giant settlements, just like in any other case of wrongful arrest/imprisonment.
- aj
Yes I do. But it's not relevant -- the "original version" is not the one that passed. According to Wikipedia, the one that passed stated that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest."
I don't particularly like this law. Could it be abused? Oh, totally. But it only came about because of the federal government's politically motivated failure to even try to live up to its obligations.
(ARTICLE IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.")
- aj
I am one of those kids that dont understand this (neither about why it is better in short term nor whey bad idea in long term). Someone care to explain?
I nominate Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.
Or, for an outsider's perspective, de Tocqueville.
- aj
I don't think you've thought this through very well. Your reply does not seem to be based on fact.
(1) "people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times."
I've just been reading up on Arizona's SB 1070. It makes no mention whatsoever of "brown skin." The law seems to apply equally to all colors of immigrants. I.e., it certainly discriminates between nationals and foreigners, but does not seem to discriminate between *types* of foreigners.
Not trying to be disingenuous here. Arizona clearly has a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, not from Romania. But that doesn't mean Arizonans don't like *Mexicans*; it just means they don't like *illegal immigration.*
(2) "'Americans are a free people: No Identity papers' doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white."
This seems obviously false as well. The people you're referring to -- i.e., immigrants, whether legal or illegal -- *aren't Americans.* I certainly hope we treat non-Americans well, but whether we do or don't seems to have little bearing on whether Americans "are a free people."
- aj
He's talking about the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.
You're talking about "the value of proper interactions with service providers."
He's talking principles.
You're talking expedience.
- aj
I guess I don't understand.
If you are here *legally*, then you already have papers -- and that goes for every state, not just Arizona.
If you are are *illegally*, then you have committed a crime. Why exactly should you not "end up in prison."?
Please clarify.
- aj
In the past, you wouldn't have had to explain to the people here why allowing the government to require everyone to carry "papers" was a good idea in the short term, but a bad idea in the long term.
Now 80 percent of /. is just a bunch of script kiddies who think opposition to this kind of thing is rooted in religious crackpottery, or imaginary straw men who just think everything from Europe is communist.
I mean, gosh, Washington, Madison, Jefferson -- How could those guys not understand how much better life would be if we centralized all our power in one big government?
- aj
I hate to bust your bubble, but this is common knowledge among anyone who knows anything about business. Businesses -- especially big businesses -- are not in principle opposed to regulation. Regulations form a significant barrier to entry for potential competitors. Big, established businesses can absorb these costs. Little mom-and-pop startups can't.
From about a million examples, let's take Starbucks. They champion things like food-safety inspections, requirements for health insurance, raising the minimum wage, etc. Because they deeply, deeply care about their customers and employees? No. Because a demanding regulatory regime discourages Joe Sixpack from throwing up little Coffee Shacks on every streetcorner, and undercutting Starbucks on convenience and price.
- aj