Are you suggesting that men have the same incidence of HIV across the country? Are you suggesting that men refuse to use condoms in the same proportion across the country? Are you suggesting that this is not a problem outside the borders of the US? Again, if all states have this problem and would benefit from the research, then have them pay for the research voluntarily rather than by force. It seems that the government loves red tape, unless it involves getting buy-in from the people funding the effort.
That is not a different point. You are assuming the complaint about water is an issue with unbearable inconvenience. That is not right. The issue with the water ban is that it is even the slightest inconvenience without any benefit whatsoever. A cost-benefit analysis where the cost is positive and the benefit is nothing is always a loser.
I don't know how to answer your question, because it's too vague. I wasn't trying to set you up. I need a specific item in order to respond.
You're really mis-stating my argument, though. My argument is simply that I don't see a reason why most public services need to be provided by the federal government. I see why you took my comment about gathering like-minded individuals to the extreme, but what I was really trying to say is that if your state wants highways, then let it pay for highways. If your town wants public education, let it pay for public education. But it doesn't make sense that a tax payer in Alaska pay for local transit in Milwaukee, and that's where the force comes in (because there is no legitimate cost-benefit analysis for that tax payer in Alaska).
> Priority lines at the airport bug me. First class passengers are not > paying me or the airport, the airline is collecting the cash.
Um, what? Your deep discount coach fare is absolutely subsidized by these travelers.
> So why should they get special treatment and make the wait worse for > the rest of us?
It's very simple. These travelers pay more to the airline. The airline cannot operate without them. The airline pays the airport to fund a separate priority line. The fact that a business traveler is sure he or she can get through security in 5 minutes or less brings more such business to the airline.
> Maybe I should set up a toll booth on my street. Or go to the DMV and > set up velvet ropes to one station, and sell the "right" to that > quicker line for $50/head.
You seem to not understand who pays for these priority lines. It's the airlines, and (indirectly) the very people who use them. They also pay for a part of your line and your coach seat.
This isn't the same thing. Priority lines are all over the place and have nothing to do with Clear. You do not have to pay extra to use priority lines.
You also fail. You are taking a government-established monopoly and trying to generalize across all private businesses. This stuff really isn't that hard...
> Small and medium private companies may well be (and are probably > forced to be) efficient. The larger ones (particularly running > any sort of service as opposed to just supplying goods) just seem > to turn into huge leeches with all the worst attributes of state > services but without any sort of even minimal accountability.
Exactly! Don't you wonder why? You seem to just say "well, that's the way it is". Not really, sir. Large companies have money to lobby government to pass favorable legislation that entrenches their market share. This is not news.
That is akin to asking if I favor removal of federal tax funding for public services in general. If you want to talk about specific items instead of just "national defense", then we can discuss whether it makes sense to fund them with tax funding or not. There is a ton of stuff under the umbrella of "national defense", and no not all of it should be funded with federal tax money.
> I pay taxes too. So if it makes you happier, feel free to imagine that > it is my tax dollars and those of other "like-minded" individuals that > are paying for this project, while your tax dollars pay for the > activities (of which I suspect there are quite a few) that you favor > and I do not.
I prefer to "imagine" the way it really works.
> You mean, aside from the fact that enhancing condom use will save > you me, and everybody money by reducing costs associated with > unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as Hep > B and HIV? And aside from the fact that the research was approved > by an expert peer review panel of scientists with the actual > knowledge and experience to judge the scientific merit of the > project and the benefits for public health?
That doesn't explain why it has to be funded by federal tax dollars. If you can make such a great cost-benefit analysis, you'd think we wouldn't have to force people to pay for it.
If you think it's a good idea, then why don't you and like-minded individuals pay for the research? Or perhaps you have a reason why this must be funded by federal tax dollars?
If it is truly not funded 1 penny by tax dollars, then I am all for it.
I can't answer your question about the UK system because I really don't know details about it. I can list out the reasons our public education system fails in the US, though. And I think it is clear that private education is superior, at least until 8th grade (I'm not so sure, once you get into high school where diversity in electives allows students to seek the path they wish -- but then again, the lack of such diversity in private schooling is only a factor of small number of people who can afford to attend, not anything inherent in the system itself.)
Exactly! The very fact that they select a small group of people instead of allowing anyone to look at this is the very evidence that the "the innocent have nothing to hide" mantra is bullshit. If there's no concern with this practice, then why wouldn't it be accessible to everyone? Why make the point that only a select few can see? They are anticipating a legitimate objection by structuring the monitoring like that, so everyone is aware, at least beneath the surface, that privacy has value.
Are you completely ignorant of economics, or just trying to pick a fight?
The suggestion that the government is more efficient than private enterprise is laughable. The issue is that private enterprise cannot compete with an agency that can tax and that has endless guaranteed reserves. When the "price" is a forced fee, regardless of whether the service or product is consumed, then the consumer might as well consume, right? Further, if they pay $x already for service from taxes, then they'd have to come up with another $y to pay for this private "competitor", paying twice for the same service.
Your suggestion is like saying that private education cannot compete with public education. You're kidding yourself.
Save me, government! I can't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements, but I believe you can! Save me from my own incompetence!!!
> genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it > has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based > society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.
Sorry, you seem to be unfamiliar with sexual selection principles. This already happens. Do you feel more comfortable because there is a bit more randomness that might make things a little more equal? This is the same old argument. Would you rather have everyone more equal even if it means everyone is worse off?
> Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can > afford it.
Obviously...
> Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't > afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong > / better cardiovascular function.
The screening only alters the likelihood of getting what was already possible. It does not create new possibilities. It does not remove existing possibilities from poor people.
> Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive > because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
Actually, everyone's insurance premiums would be lower. Let me know if you need an explanation on how insurance works...
> The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent > my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got > to do it.
Uhhh, what? Stupid people are not harmful. It's aligning a bunch of stupid people in a common purpose (like keeling ze eenfeedels!) that is harmful. Relatedly, I don't think that religion like we have today could originate in our current atmosphere. Information flows too freely, and I don't see how we could end up with as many localizations of differing myths.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. I respect your beliefs and will fight to make sure you are allowed to live your life based on those beliefs and those with opposing beliefs do not infringe on your freedom. I expect you to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that men have the same incidence of HIV across the country? Are you suggesting that men refuse to use condoms in the same proportion across the country? Are you suggesting that this is not a problem outside the borders of the US? Again, if all states have this problem and would benefit from the research, then have them pay for the research voluntarily rather than by force. It seems that the government loves red tape, unless it involves getting buy-in from the people funding the effort.
???
That is not a different point. You are assuming the complaint about water is an issue with unbearable inconvenience. That is not right. The issue with the water ban is that it is even the slightest inconvenience without any benefit whatsoever. A cost-benefit analysis where the cost is positive and the benefit is nothing is always a loser.
I don't know how to answer your question, because it's too vague. I wasn't trying to set you up. I need a specific item in order to respond.
You're really mis-stating my argument, though. My argument is simply that I don't see a reason why most public services need to be provided by the federal government. I see why you took my comment about gathering like-minded individuals to the extreme, but what I was really trying to say is that if your state wants highways, then let it pay for highways. If your town wants public education, let it pay for public education. But it doesn't make sense that a tax payer in Alaska pay for local transit in Milwaukee, and that's where the force comes in (because there is no legitimate cost-benefit analysis for that tax payer in Alaska).
Congratulations, sir, on completely missing the point.
> Priority lines at the airport bug me. First class passengers are not
> paying me or the airport, the airline is collecting the cash.
Um, what? Your deep discount coach fare is absolutely subsidized by these travelers.
> So why should they get special treatment and make the wait worse for
> the rest of us?
It's very simple. These travelers pay more to the airline. The airline cannot operate without them. The airline pays the airport to fund a separate priority line. The fact that a business traveler is sure he or she can get through security in 5 minutes or less brings more such business to the airline.
> Maybe I should set up a toll booth on my street. Or go to the DMV and
> set up velvet ropes to one station, and sell the "right" to that
> quicker line for $50/head.
You seem to not understand who pays for these priority lines. It's the airlines, and (indirectly) the very people who use them. They also pay for a part of your line and your coach seat.
Feel better now?
This isn't the same thing. Priority lines are all over the place and have nothing to do with Clear. You do not have to pay extra to use priority lines.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Traveler#Clear
You also fail. You are taking a government-established monopoly and trying to generalize across all private businesses. This stuff really isn't that hard...
> Small and medium private companies may well be (and are probably
> forced to be) efficient. The larger ones (particularly running
> any sort of service as opposed to just supplying goods) just seem
> to turn into huge leeches with all the worst attributes of state
> services but without any sort of even minimal accountability.
Exactly! Don't you wonder why? You seem to just say "well, that's the way it is". Not really, sir. Large companies have money to lobby government to pass favorable legislation that entrenches their market share. This is not news.
That is akin to asking if I favor removal of federal tax funding for public services in general. If you want to talk about specific items instead of just "national defense", then we can discuss whether it makes sense to fund them with tax funding or not. There is a ton of stuff under the umbrella of "national defense", and no not all of it should be funded with federal tax money.
> I pay taxes too. So if it makes you happier, feel free to imagine that
> it is my tax dollars and those of other "like-minded" individuals that
> are paying for this project, while your tax dollars pay for the
> activities (of which I suspect there are quite a few) that you favor
> and I do not.
I prefer to "imagine" the way it really works.
> You mean, aside from the fact that enhancing condom use will save
> you me, and everybody money by reducing costs associated with
> unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as Hep
> B and HIV? And aside from the fact that the research was approved
> by an expert peer review panel of scientists with the actual
> knowledge and experience to judge the scientific merit of the
> project and the benefits for public health?
That doesn't explain why it has to be funded by federal tax dollars. If you can make such a great cost-benefit analysis, you'd think we wouldn't have to force people to pay for it.
If you think it's a good idea, then why don't you and like-minded individuals pay for the research? Or perhaps you have a reason why this must be funded by federal tax dollars?
If it is truly not funded 1 penny by tax dollars, then I am all for it.
I can't answer your question about the UK system because I really don't know details about it. I can list out the reasons our public education system fails in the US, though. And I think it is clear that private education is superior, at least until 8th grade (I'm not so sure, once you get into high school where diversity in electives allows students to seek the path they wish -- but then again, the lack of such diversity in private schooling is only a factor of small number of people who can afford to attend, not anything inherent in the system itself.)
Exactly! The very fact that they select a small group of people instead of allowing anyone to look at this is the very evidence that the "the innocent have nothing to hide" mantra is bullshit. If there's no concern with this practice, then why wouldn't it be accessible to everyone? Why make the point that only a select few can see? They are anticipating a legitimate objection by structuring the monitoring like that, so everyone is aware, at least beneath the surface, that privacy has value.
Uhhhh... also assumes every American has a computer.
???
Absolutely. As long as I'm free not to choose not to pay for it and every citizen that chooses to pay for it pays the same.
Are you completely ignorant of economics, or just trying to pick a fight?
The suggestion that the government is more efficient than private enterprise is laughable. The issue is that private enterprise cannot compete with an agency that can tax and that has endless guaranteed reserves. When the "price" is a forced fee, regardless of whether the service or product is consumed, then the consumer might as well consume, right? Further, if they pay $x already for service from taxes, then they'd have to come up with another $y to pay for this private "competitor", paying twice for the same service.
Your suggestion is like saying that private education cannot compete with public education. You're kidding yourself.
Save me, government! I can't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements, but I believe you can! Save me from my own incompetence!!!
For the uninitiated, what is that evidence?
Summary fails. Gagging the newspaper from printing newsworthy information it discovered would be outrageous.
> genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it
> has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based
> society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.
Sorry, you seem to be unfamiliar with sexual selection principles. This already happens. Do you feel more comfortable because there is a bit more randomness that might make things a little more equal? This is the same old argument. Would you rather have everyone more equal even if it means everyone is worse off?
> Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can
> afford it.
Obviously...
> Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't
> afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong
> / better cardiovascular function.
The screening only alters the likelihood of getting what was already possible. It does not create new possibilities. It does not remove existing possibilities from poor people.
> Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive
> because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
Actually, everyone's insurance premiums would be lower. Let me know if you need an explanation on how insurance works...
> The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent
> my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got
> to do it.
And you should have the right to do it.
Uhhh, what? Stupid people are not harmful. It's aligning a bunch of stupid people in a common purpose (like keeling ze eenfeedels!) that is harmful. Relatedly, I don't think that religion like we have today could originate in our current atmosphere. Information flows too freely, and I don't see how we could end up with as many localizations of differing myths.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. I respect your beliefs and will fight to make sure you are allowed to live your life based on those beliefs and those with opposing beliefs do not infringe on your freedom. I expect you to do the same.
So what about any of that? Why do I not have the right screen for any of those things?
We don't create "that much" CO2 either. Is that really your argument that it won't have any environmental effect?
As I said, it was hyperbole. I just don't see why I would waste my time worrying about something so relatively unlikely to have any effect on me.
The fact that I posted something saying this guy is overreacting proves I am concerned about getting H1N1? Brilliant.