It's quibbling, but I don't think that's correct.
The charters for the colonies were from the king, and "taxation without representation" was not lobbying (mainly) to let the colonies into Parliament, but rather to assert that Parliament had no authority to impose taxes at all. The colonies were subject to the king directly (which is why the colonies like Virginia had their own House of Burgesses, etc)
Maybe the platters would be fine... but wouldn't this destroy any (increasingly computerized) intelligence [which they hope to gather], too? If so, that makes it less likely to be used in a raid, but rather as the van[guard] of an attack.
... and the great logic fail is that "Unfair" should also be "Illegal"? What about when you buy a new TV on a Wednesday and miss out on the Black Friday deal? Was that fair to you? Shouldn't one assume that prices change, volume matters, etc? This is a perfect example of a "free", but not "perfect" market. Taking your specific case, you can no longer differentiate yourself via access to special data (say, airline routing and pricing data?), but rather have to supply an additional service. Welcome to the real world; the line forms to your left.
Really? Somehow I'm betting that non-free-market unions and a socialisticly-derived sense of entitlement have more to do with this behavior than "a free market competitive economy". I realize that my assertion is just as nakedly unsupported as yours, but I figured I needed to weigh in on the possibility that this got modded up as "Insightful" instead of "Informative".
If that were the problem, yes, but I don't think that it is.
Just looking at fractional reserve under-capitalization (due to criminally-negligent monetary policy), the concomitant fraud in how various mortgage-backed securities were represented, the fraudulent credit-default-swap over-selling, and the ongoing-now MLS fiasco, we're talking about massive, documented fraud for which not one person (to my knowledge... ?) has gone to jail. Instead, they've all been encouraged via the moral hazard of the bailout and the current administration's pressure upon state Attorneys General to take a paltry sum and forego prosecution.
If the problem is a lack of laws, I'll support it; I just suggest that enforcement or repeal of existing laws would be more prudent ("don't legalize fraud or theft in the first place")
You've not realized as much you've thought then, my friend. Though, it is also true that most Americans haven't, either.
Rather than address the caricature ("crony capitalism"), I'll keep it simple: the free market is nothing more (or less) than a statement that groups of people are both untrustworthy (as individuals and in groups) and yet the only means of efficiently measuring the desires of other people.
So on two points the free market is held up in opposition-- not to government (in se), but to "Statism": (1) that all transactions should be done without violence and (2) central planning necessarily fails to accurately predict (a) pricing or (b) goods and quantities (as a function of failed pricing analysis). (1) is violated when the state compels one to (a) not do something one otherwise wants or (b) do something one would not otherwise do. (2) was largely proven by Mises, and does not imply that private entities are superior at the analysis or prediction, only that they care more due to the profit/loss requirements.
"Statism" looks to government as its god in the same way you broadly accuse Americans of looking to the idol of "Free Market". Us Paleo-Conservative minarchists (new word for the day) don't want government abolished-- we already agree we need it because evil exists, we just want it to operate in its proper sphere.The very crony capitalism/corporatism you despise is a function of the a state failure, not a market failure. You want a solution? It's not "Regulation" that's the answer, it's "Enforcement." We don't need any new laws, quotas, procedures, or double-check overhead to know that bad stuff gets done, and such things NEVER catch it beforehand. What we need is for our executive branches (not digging at POTUS, just the entire "law enforcement" segment of government) to have the stones to throw the cronies in jail. Don't blame the market for failures at the governmental level, and don't look to the already-failing bureaucrat for a solution
That's a false dichotomy. The choices are (1) give (some of) the UNvested shares back and don't get rich, or (2) get fired, forfeit all of the UNvested shares, and don't get rich.
I hope the IPO punishes them for this.
I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited. Factor in that with local reporting we're still getting more government waste, more local corruption, and less effective schools with these programs been cheered on by most of those in journalism, and this seems to boil down to "if that fox stops guarding the henhouse..."
I agree that the Fourth Estate (right?) is important, but its value is historically overstated, and it is easily co-opted for outright propaganda.
Just a note: It may've been pure happenstance, but a plan to let them default, intentionally, is the best plan they could've had, more "Inspector Gadget" than "Homer Simpson". Krugman doesn't acknowledge it, but this is the prescription from the Austrian school. Iceland (apparently, didn't read your link) diluted it a bit by bailing out Glitnir, but letting entities default is the action that a truly free ("non-mercantilist") government should pursue.
I know that this is rat-holing the thread a bit, but can you expand on this? I hear it a lot, but it usually assumes a (IMO) really bad definition of "failures" which means "thing I want is more expensive than I want to pay" or "price changed more quickly than that for which I was prepared."
Both of these might be undesirable to you and I, but are in no way "failures" in any sense of the word. They just reflect the previous state of imperfect knowledge and the (often irrational) reaction to the progressive revelation of knowledge; case in point? It's quite possible that no one knows who holds the note on your house; you don't know that, because you faithfully pay $X / mo to bank Y. With the exposure of ever greater banking shenanigans, the bank stocks will likely get creamed as the true information of their (worthless) value becomes known. The sell-off might be an overreaction, but it will oscillate to the proper price level (where "proper" means "equilibrium price between voluntary buyers and sellers).
His argument was pretty straightforward, and can be restated this way: every cost that is not intrinsic to the core business (especially, as was noted, in a time of general economic distress) necessarily reduces the overall viability of the business. If catering to those with disabilities were profitable to companies, they would already be doing it. Since they are not already doing it, we must conclude that either (a) it is not profitable and is, therefore, economic destruction or (b) an unrealized gold mine.
For some company C, I'm sure that it will be (b) after they do some extensive capital improvements (just like the development of most real gold mines); for most companies, this will be a sinkhole.
And yes, the same logic applies to the ADA. Yes, I think it is neat-o that ramps, door widths, and the like allow those with reduced mobility to access pretty much any place they want. Perhaps the blossoming of such is a sign of a moral and considerate society. But bringing it about via coercion and then pretending that kindness and brotherly love are overflowing at the city gates is a bit rich.
In this (Kelo) discussion, I do think it is notable that what you value you place on your baseball card collection, Van Gogh painting, grandfather's back-40, or anything else you own actually is the market value. You may never find someone else willing to buy at that price, but that's the "problem" of you, the seller.
Well, at least until someone else wants it at a different (lower) price and uses the law to force you to accept it. I understand the argumentation of "greater good", etc, but even those legitimate corner cases (no one was starving in New London, right?) are predicated upon the view one (axiomatically) takes of the value of the individual vs the collective.
So long as that's acknowledged, this discussion can move forward with this as a footnote. The reason to bring it up is that most supporting Kelo (not necessarily the parent poster) will be very inconsistent in their individual/collective weighting.
To wit, the (il)logic is the same when it comes to the person. Those supporting Kelo already grant a subjective limit for "property rights." Given that, when do "human rights" (of which property used to be one, yes?) go, too, for the greater good? While this is (rightly) rejected out-of-hand as unthinkable, the logic still leads there and no clear, compelling exception has been made for what that went on there.
All that said, I've not read the court docs. If the "agile riposte" is that Kelo signed a contract and then wanted to back out when potential rewards changed, then the New London would have the right to press things through. In that case, though, it seems eminent domain wouldn't have come into play, yes?
There has, to my knowledge, never been a platform or group of any appreciable size or influence that really wanted, as an end, to mess up the environment.
People are getting worked up because of the perception, well-founded or not, that certain people's preferences for how and when to normalize improvements will become mandatory soon and thus result in less choice at a higher cost.
Compounding this via genetic fallacy, the same people that congregate for various AGW factions also tend to flash-mob for "stimulus plans" and the like. And we know how well those expenditures of our money have gone.
Eventually, one just gets tired of know-ier than thou showing up looking for a hand-out.
Tell me more about this. I currently have a 2hr firesafe which stores my offline backup. You're saying that the UL rating (something on the order of 1800F for 1 hr, 1600-1700 for 2, max internal temp of ~350) will damage the HDDs?
Darnton appears afflicted by a definition of monopoly (popular to/.) which means "large market share, preferred by the consumer" rather than a government-backed privilege to be the only seller of a good. The GP is right: the very fact that this guy only has to come up with the cash to build a better/freer system shows that it would not be a monopoly.
The GP is correct in layering disdain upon this chap, as his statements ring of hand-wringing and gerrymandering because he and his ilk do not get to hold the keys anymore. Just because he is concerned about Google's dominance doesn't mean that it is a valid concern or that the GP (or anyone) should have to care. At this point, I've seen no conditions from Google that require the destruction of books once scanned, so I fail to see how this does anything except make the books more available than they were. If his concern were with regard to the profitability of one's publishing endeavors once a high-quality digital copy is cheaply available or in the public domain... well, he's right. And why is that a problem for me, the consumer?
With respect, classical economics and Austrian economics are not quite the same thing, and the Austrian school of economics explains this quite well.
Notice any similarities here? No, it's not a perfect fit, but it's the best I could do on short notice.
No one is saying that these models have nothing to do with malinvestment, but it's likely the inputs to the model are also obfuscated by distorted monetary signals
In financial markets, everybody doing the same thing is the classic recipe for a bubble and inevitable bust.
Citation? Booms and busts are caused by, respectively, expansion and contraction of the money supply (usually in the form of bank credit), often accompanied by manipulated interest rates. The formulas used by lots of investing firms could cause clusters of errors, but the extent of types of companies (and governments) affected points to a more Austrian-style, systemic boom/bust rather than a single-(important-)sector miscalculation.
With respect: no, that's not the question. This is a new question. That said, it is a valid one.
Christians (in the main) interpret the bible to see that homosexuality-- a specific sin pattern, to be at direct odds with the nature of marriage.
As referenced in other places in this thread, the confusion here is with regards to the legal status of marriage and the religious meaning of it. In my opinion, the state ought not be involved in it at all. Since they are, now it becomes part of my business (as it will/may effect me).
Formulated this way, it becomes part of a broader question on the role of the state. Most who hold to a stronger role of the state to establish positive morality (I do not) would add greater pressure here. Those of us who do not hold to that role of the state could also object to those that would seek to make us an all-inclusive, gender-neutral utopia for the same reason: your particular view of a positive morality is objectionable.
Thus, we're stuck with asking two things, both of which sum up this problem concisely:
a) why should the state be involved at all?
b) If (a) doesn't solve it, now we have the current issue of whose morality we implement. Morality is always a question of authority, and God is the greatest authority.
Perhaps I was wrong, but I read the "Citation Needed" as a request for citations that the OT/NT look poorly upon homosexuality. Such was my post.
The second part of the GP I did not undertake to prove. Since your response did follow with a biblical inquiry, I'll stick with that.
To the point, the bible doesn't explicitly say they can't get married. It doesn't need to. The Judaic law taught that practicing homosexuals were an abomination ("evil") and were to be killed with sufficient evidence. It holds marriage as a positive good.
While I've probably just been pWNED, your question is as silly (from a biblical perspective) as asking why a "practicing murderer" cannot be installed as a pastor/bishop/elder/overseer. That it might still happen in some case is irrelevant.
As to the gist of your question, though: All laws legislate morality, the only question is which morality we legislate. All morality is inexorably derived from authority, and the reigning idea of $deity is ever the authority. Hence the shift in our laws as the nation becomes less Christianized. Protesting that secular humanism/atheism recognizes no $deity is just a special case of the above axiom.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quibbling, but I don't think that's correct. The charters for the colonies were from the king, and "taxation without representation" was not lobbying (mainly) to let the colonies into Parliament, but rather to assert that Parliament had no authority to impose taxes at all. The colonies were subject to the king directly (which is why the colonies like Virginia had their own House of Burgesses, etc)
I suspect he meant, "Could not measure it with a good scope, nor with a voltmeter ..."
Maybe the platters would be fine ... but wouldn't this destroy any (increasingly computerized) intelligence [which they hope to gather], too? If so, that makes it less likely to be used in a raid, but rather as the van[guard] of an attack.
Genetic Fallacy
Duh! That's certainly UNFAIR.
... and the great logic fail is that "Unfair" should also be "Illegal"? What about when you buy a new TV on a Wednesday and miss out on the Black Friday deal? Was that fair to you? Shouldn't one assume that prices change, volume matters, etc? This is a perfect example of a "free", but not "perfect" market. Taking your specific case, you can no longer differentiate yourself via access to special data (say, airline routing and pricing data?), but rather have to supply an additional service. Welcome to the real world; the line forms to your left.
Really? Somehow I'm betting that non-free-market unions and a socialisticly-derived sense of entitlement have more to do with this behavior than "a free market competitive economy". I realize that my assertion is just as nakedly unsupported as yours, but I figured I needed to weigh in on the possibility that this got modded up as "Insightful" instead of "Informative".
Just looking at fractional reserve under-capitalization (due to criminally-negligent monetary policy), the concomitant fraud in how various mortgage-backed securities were represented, the fraudulent credit-default-swap over-selling, and the ongoing-now MLS fiasco, we're talking about massive, documented fraud for which not one person (to my knowledge ... ?) has gone to jail. Instead, they've all been encouraged via the moral hazard of the bailout and the current administration's pressure upon state Attorneys General to take a paltry sum and forego prosecution.
If the problem is a lack of laws, I'll support it; I just suggest that enforcement or repeal of existing laws would be more prudent ("don't legalize fraud or theft in the first place")
Rather than address the caricature ("crony capitalism"), I'll keep it simple: the free market is nothing more (or less) than a statement that groups of people are both untrustworthy (as individuals and in groups) and yet the only means of efficiently measuring the desires of other people.
So on two points the free market is held up in opposition-- not to government (in se), but to "Statism": (1) that all transactions should be done without violence and (2) central planning necessarily fails to accurately predict (a) pricing or (b) goods and quantities (as a function of failed pricing analysis). (1) is violated when the state compels one to (a) not do something one otherwise wants or (b) do something one would not otherwise do. (2) was largely proven by Mises, and does not imply that private entities are superior at the analysis or prediction, only that they care more due to the profit/loss requirements.
"Statism" looks to government as its god in the same way you broadly accuse Americans of looking to the idol of "Free Market". Us Paleo-Conservative minarchists (new word for the day) don't want government abolished-- we already agree we need it because evil exists, we just want it to operate in its proper sphere.The very crony capitalism/corporatism you despise is a function of the a state failure, not a market failure. You want a solution? It's not "Regulation" that's the answer, it's "Enforcement." We don't need any new laws, quotas, procedures, or double-check overhead to know that bad stuff gets done, and such things NEVER catch it beforehand. What we need is for our executive branches (not digging at POTUS, just the entire "law enforcement" segment of government) to have the stones to throw the cronies in jail. Don't blame the market for failures at the governmental level, and don't look to the already-failing bureaucrat for a solution
That's a false dichotomy. The choices are (1) give (some of) the UNvested shares back and don't get rich, or (2) get fired, forfeit all of the UNvested shares, and don't get rich. I hope the IPO punishes them for this.
This is undeniably true, but it comes from a rational fear of ice, too
There's a lot more daytime melt-and-refreeze once you get south of Virginia.
with these programs been cheered on by most of those in journalism
... and please hold the snarky comments about editing; I thought I reviewed it ... :)
--> " ... with these programs being cheered on ..."
I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited. Factor in that with local reporting we're still getting more government waste, more local corruption, and less effective schools with these programs been cheered on by most of those in journalism, and this seems to boil down to "if that fox stops guarding the henhouse ..."
I agree that the Fourth Estate (right?) is important, but its value is historically overstated, and it is easily co-opted for outright propaganda.
Just a note: It may've been pure happenstance, but a plan to let them default, intentionally, is the best plan they could've had, more "Inspector Gadget" than "Homer Simpson". Krugman doesn't acknowledge it, but this is the prescription from the Austrian school. Iceland (apparently, didn't read your link) diluted it a bit by bailing out Glitnir, but letting entities default is the action that a truly free ("non-mercantilist") government should pursue.
I know that this is rat-holing the thread a bit, but can you expand on this? I hear it a lot, but it usually assumes a (IMO) really bad definition of "failures" which means "thing I want is more expensive than I want to pay" or "price changed more quickly than that for which I was prepared." Both of these might be undesirable to you and I, but are in no way "failures" in any sense of the word. They just reflect the previous state of imperfect knowledge and the (often irrational) reaction to the progressive revelation of knowledge; case in point? It's quite possible that no one knows who holds the note on your house; you don't know that, because you faithfully pay $X / mo to bank Y. With the exposure of ever greater banking shenanigans, the bank stocks will likely get creamed as the true information of their (worthless) value becomes known. The sell-off might be an overreaction, but it will oscillate to the proper price level (where "proper" means "equilibrium price between voluntary buyers and sellers).
His argument was pretty straightforward, and can be restated this way: every cost that is not intrinsic to the core business (especially, as was noted, in a time of general economic distress) necessarily reduces the overall viability of the business. If catering to those with disabilities were profitable to companies, they would already be doing it. Since they are not already doing it, we must conclude that either (a) it is not profitable and is, therefore, economic destruction or (b) an unrealized gold mine.
For some company C, I'm sure that it will be (b) after they do some extensive capital improvements (just like the development of most real gold mines); for most companies, this will be a sinkhole.
And yes, the same logic applies to the ADA. Yes, I think it is neat-o that ramps, door widths, and the like allow those with reduced mobility to access pretty much any place they want. Perhaps the blossoming of such is a sign of a moral and considerate society. But bringing it about via coercion and then pretending that kindness and brotherly love are overflowing at the city gates is a bit rich.
In this (Kelo) discussion, I do think it is notable that what you value you place on your baseball card collection, Van Gogh painting, grandfather's back-40, or anything else you own actually is the market value. You may never find someone else willing to buy at that price, but that's the "problem" of you, the seller.
Well, at least until someone else wants it at a different (lower) price and uses the law to force you to accept it. I understand the argumentation of "greater good", etc, but even those legitimate corner cases (no one was starving in New London, right?) are predicated upon the view one (axiomatically) takes of the value of the individual vs the collective.
So long as that's acknowledged, this discussion can move forward with this as a footnote. The reason to bring it up is that most supporting Kelo (not necessarily the parent poster) will be very inconsistent in their individual/collective weighting.
To wit, the (il)logic is the same when it comes to the person. Those supporting Kelo already grant a subjective limit for "property rights." Given that, when do "human rights" (of which property used to be one, yes?) go, too, for the greater good? While this is (rightly) rejected out-of-hand as unthinkable, the logic still leads there and no clear, compelling exception has been made for what that went on there.
All that said, I've not read the court docs. If the "agile riposte" is that Kelo signed a contract and then wanted to back out when potential rewards changed, then the New London would have the right to press things through. In that case, though, it seems eminent domain wouldn't have come into play, yes?
There has, to my knowledge, never been a platform or group of any appreciable size or influence that really wanted, as an end, to mess up the environment.
People are getting worked up because of the perception, well-founded or not, that certain people's preferences for how and when to normalize improvements will become mandatory soon and thus result in less choice at a higher cost.
Compounding this via genetic fallacy, the same people that congregate for various AGW factions also tend to flash-mob for "stimulus plans" and the like. And we know how well those expenditures of our money have gone.
Eventually, one just gets tired of know-ier than thou showing up looking for a hand-out.
Tell me more about this. I currently have a 2hr firesafe which stores my offline backup. You're saying that the UL rating (something on the order of 1800F for 1 hr, 1600-1700 for 2, max internal temp of ~350) will damage the HDDs?
Sorry, non sequitur.
/.) which means "large market share, preferred by the consumer" rather than a government-backed privilege to be the only seller of a good. The GP is right: the very fact that this guy only has to come up with the cash to build a better/freer system shows that it would not be a monopoly.
... well, he's right. And why is that a problem for me, the consumer?
Darnton appears afflicted by a definition of monopoly (popular to
The GP is correct in layering disdain upon this chap, as his statements ring of hand-wringing and gerrymandering because he and his ilk do not get to hold the keys anymore. Just because he is concerned about Google's dominance doesn't mean that it is a valid concern or that the GP (or anyone) should have to care. At this point, I've seen no conditions from Google that require the destruction of books once scanned, so I fail to see how this does anything except make the books more available than they were. If his concern were with regard to the profitability of one's publishing endeavors once a high-quality digital copy is cheaply available or in the public domain
With respect, classical economics and Austrian economics are not quite the same thing, and the Austrian school of economics explains this quite well.
Notice any similarities here? No, it's not a perfect fit, but it's the best I could do on short notice.
No one is saying that these models have nothing to do with malinvestment, but it's likely the inputs to the model are also obfuscated by distorted monetary signals
In financial markets, everybody doing the same thing is the classic recipe for a bubble and inevitable bust.
Citation? Booms and busts are caused by, respectively, expansion and contraction of the money supply (usually in the form of bank credit), often accompanied by manipulated interest rates. The formulas used by lots of investing firms could cause clusters of errors, but the extent of types of companies (and governments) affected points to a more Austrian-style, systemic boom/bust rather than a single-(important-)sector miscalculation.
That seems a bit backwards.
If 'everybody knows', why do we keep getting stupid articles about "why are the internets all pop-ups 'n' stuff?"
2 other drives: one in the removable tray, one in the firesafe*. Swap monthly.
*firesafe not included
With respect: no, that's not the question. This is a new question. That said, it is a valid one.
Christians (in the main) interpret the bible to see that homosexuality-- a specific sin pattern, to be at direct odds with the nature of marriage.
As referenced in other places in this thread, the confusion here is with regards to the legal status of marriage and the religious meaning of it. In my opinion, the state ought not be involved in it at all. Since they are, now it becomes part of my business (as it will/may effect me).
Formulated this way, it becomes part of a broader question on the role of the state. Most who hold to a stronger role of the state to establish positive morality (I do not) would add greater pressure here. Those of us who do not hold to that role of the state could also object to those that would seek to make us an all-inclusive, gender-neutral utopia for the same reason: your particular view of a positive morality is objectionable.
Thus, we're stuck with asking two things, both of which sum up this problem concisely:
a) why should the state be involved at all?
b) If (a) doesn't solve it, now we have the current issue of whose morality we implement. Morality is always a question of authority, and God is the greatest authority.
QED.
Perhaps I was wrong, but I read the "Citation Needed" as a request for citations that the OT/NT look poorly upon homosexuality. Such was my post.
The second part of the GP I did not undertake to prove. Since your response did follow with a biblical inquiry, I'll stick with that.
To the point, the bible doesn't explicitly say they can't get married. It doesn't need to. The Judaic law taught that practicing homosexuals were an abomination ("evil") and were to be killed with sufficient evidence. It holds marriage as a positive good.
While I've probably just been pWNED, your question is as silly (from a biblical perspective) as asking why a "practicing murderer" cannot be installed as a pastor/bishop/elder/overseer. That it might still happen in some case is irrelevant.
As to the gist of your question, though: All laws legislate morality, the only question is which morality we legislate. All morality is inexorably derived from authority, and the reigning idea of $deity is ever the authority. Hence the shift in our laws as the nation becomes less Christianized. Protesting that secular humanism/atheism recognizes no $deity is just a special case of the above axiom.