That's nice, but there's a big difference between putting down the toilet seat, and paying out a third of your income to support dubious social programs, ill advised wars, corporate bailouts, and other nonsense. Most people who compromise on that only do so because they believe it can change, the rest go with it because there's no other choice.
In many states public universities are banned from charging tuition to in-state students. This is ostensibly because the state funds the teacher's salaries. But of course, they can still charge it for out of state students, so there is a huge incentive to recruit them in order to increase income. They prefer doing this to controlling costs.
So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"
I'm sure a lot of people are going to be cool with this.
People who are disagreeable to the system, but go along with anyway it to avoid being killed, are not sociopaths. They are being pragmatic and choosing their battles. And society would probably collapse if people didn't do this. That's why the government always has to threaten violence in order to function.
Most criminals don't agree with being put in jail. You have to use the threat of violence to put them there. That is government in it's purest, most basic form. Take that away, and you no longer have government.
You're not a despot if you don't have people following you. I'm not talking about the people who will listen to you, I'm asking what you do about the people who don't. If what you're saying were true, you'd count writers and philosophers as kings and presidents. The distinction is violence. That's what makes it government.
Authority does not derive from the consent of the governed. That's just an idea that sounds nice on paper. If everyone who was governed consented to it, there would be a lot less people in jail. You're saying only a certain number of people have to go along with it, but what happens to the others?
Taxes are collected under the threat of violence. People voted for Obama believing he'd raise taxes on other people and not themselves. People still want that. Assholes.
All governmental authority derives from their ability to do violence. If what you were saying was true, police officers wouldn't carry weapons.
You can win an election bu making promises, but authority you are taking on is guaranteed by violence. People voted for Obama because they believed he would do violence to others rather than themselves.
The social security trust fund is money owed to Social Security by the federal government. What is an asset to the creditor is a liability to the debtor.
It's different because with fractional reserve banking, the money is lent out to people who have agreed to pay it back with interest. In a ponzi scheme, the money is given out with no possibility for repayment, and the only source of funds is new people paying into the system. A closer analogue would be social security, though the analysts at CNN claim it isn't a ponzi scheme:
It is true that benefits to current Social Security recipients are paid for in part by new members of the workforce. But Social Security is not a fraudulent criminal enterprise designed only to benefit current participants in the program. It is a legitimate government program meant to serve both current and future generations of retirees.
Yeah, but non-FDA approved procedures should still be available for people who want them. If you are willing to take the risk (maybe you have a terminal illness or something), shouldn't you be allowed to?
Collecting any interest on money used to be considered usury (that was the original meaning of the word).
Simply because we have an entrenched system of doing things today, and it's been working for a couple hundred years, doesn't mean it's the only way. Nor does it mean the system isn't broken, and failing. It could even be on it's last legs, we wouldn't know until it had collapsed.
You mean per dollar spent. Keep in mind that per capita means essentially "per person". If you're talking per capita, cuba is far from the top (though I doubt they are significantly below the US, if at all) because they don't have enough dollars per capita.
Unless you're saying that the Swiss are a reckless people with a terrible health care system
The FDA is notoriously conservative when it comes to approving new treatments. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are easily the most strict in the world.
Your body will often do this on it's own if you are healthy. When it doesn't, that's when you get cancer. I'd think, since it's actually a cure, it would be better to use it only on people that have cancer (especially since it could have a lot of nasty side effects). Perhaps using it preventatively might cause resistant forms of cancer to become more prevalent as well (I know that sounds crazy).
Slashdot Mirror
If the russians are the best at heavy lift, how come NASA has build the rockets that can lift the most?
That's nice, but there's a big difference between putting down the toilet seat, and paying out a third of your income to support dubious social programs, ill advised wars, corporate bailouts, and other nonsense. Most people who compromise on that only do so because they believe it can change, the rest go with it because there's no other choice.
In many states public universities are banned from charging tuition to in-state students. This is ostensibly because the state funds the teacher's salaries. But of course, they can still charge it for out of state students, so there is a huge incentive to recruit them in order to increase income. They prefer doing this to controlling costs.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to be cool with this.
People who are disagreeable to the system, but go along with anyway it to avoid being killed, are not sociopaths. They are being pragmatic and choosing their battles. And society would probably collapse if people didn't do this. That's why the government always has to threaten violence in order to function.
Or they could use the same LHC, and a different detector somewhere else. That might be a little cheaper.
Most criminals don't agree with being put in jail. You have to use the threat of violence to put them there. That is government in it's purest, most basic form. Take that away, and you no longer have government.
What's the difference between these organizations, and government? As you pointed out, they wouldn't work unless most members were agreeable.
Besides, I was saying that violence is the distinction between a cultural leader, and a governmental one.
You're not a despot if you don't have people following you. I'm not talking about the people who will listen to you, I'm asking what you do about the people who don't. If what you're saying were true, you'd count writers and philosophers as kings and presidents. The distinction is violence. That's what makes it government.
How did you think he was going to accomplish that?
Authority does not derive from the consent of the governed. That's just an idea that sounds nice on paper. If everyone who was governed consented to it, there would be a lot less people in jail. You're saying only a certain number of people have to go along with it, but what happens to the others?
Taxes are collected under the threat of violence. People voted for Obama believing he'd raise taxes on other people and not themselves. People still want that. Assholes.
All governmental authority derives from their ability to do violence. If what you were saying was true, police officers wouldn't carry weapons.
You can win an election bu making promises, but authority you are taking on is guaranteed by violence. People voted for Obama because they believed he would do violence to others rather than themselves.
Someone should make a movie about this. . .
The social security trust fund is money owed to Social Security by the federal government. What is an asset to the creditor is a liability to the debtor.
The social security trust accounts for $2.5 trillion of the national debt. They will probably need to raise taxes down the road to pay for it.
It's different because with fractional reserve banking, the money is lent out to people who have agreed to pay it back with interest. In a ponzi scheme, the money is given out with no possibility for repayment, and the only source of funds is new people paying into the system. A closer analogue would be social security, though the analysts at CNN claim it isn't a ponzi scheme:
Yikes.
Do you think maybe you work too much? I work from home about 25 hours a week, and it pays the bills. I'm pretty happy with it.
Yeah, but non-FDA approved procedures should still be available for people who want them. If you are willing to take the risk (maybe you have a terminal illness or something), shouldn't you be allowed to?
Collecting any interest on money used to be considered usury (that was the original meaning of the word).
Simply because we have an entrenched system of doing things today, and it's been working for a couple hundred years, doesn't mean it's the only way. Nor does it mean the system isn't broken, and failing. It could even be on it's last legs, we wouldn't know until it had collapsed.
Star Trek and Star Wars start with "Star".
You mean per dollar spent. Keep in mind that per capita means essentially "per person". If you're talking per capita, cuba is far from the top (though I doubt they are significantly below the US, if at all) because they don't have enough dollars per capita.
The FDA is notoriously conservative when it comes to approving new treatments. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are easily the most strict in the world.
This is because the government in the US doesn't allow new medical procedures onto the market until they've been thoroughly tested.
Land of the free, am I right?
There's more to learning than test scores.
Your body will often do this on it's own if you are healthy. When it doesn't, that's when you get cancer. I'd think, since it's actually a cure, it would be better to use it only on people that have cancer (especially since it could have a lot of nasty side effects). Perhaps using it preventatively might cause resistant forms of cancer to become more prevalent as well (I know that sounds crazy).