Minor (yet important) distinction: blacks are convicted of more violent crimes than whites. Perhaps this is because they commit more, maybe there are other factors. There is quite a bit of debate around exactly this subject.
Wow. I mean, just real "Day is night" shit here. Killing someone doesn't violate their right to life? That is absurd on the face of it, and completely backwards from standing legal precedent. OJ Simpson being a prime example. Found not guilty of murder (the criminal offense), found liable in civil court for violating his victims' rights.
Well, it's not directly, but from what I've seen at my local level, it goes like this. Campaign funds are used to hire campaign staff. So my campaign hires your wife to the tune of $50k/year to do pretty much nothing. Your company then contracts with me as a "consultant" or some such nebulously quantifiable work. In reality, it is generally not quite that obvious, there are much longer chains (and more people lining their pockets), but that's the general idea.
Even discounting crap jobs that nobody would enjoy, who the hell loves everything they do at their job? I like parts of my job, which are the defining tasks. But I still have to fill out my TPS reports. I might be willing to do some parts of my job just for the pleasure of working, but it turns out, my boss needs ALL parts of my job done. Even the boring shit nobody would find interesting, which is why she offers money in exchange for me doing it. Anyone that says they love their job almost certainly means "I love X% of my job" where x < 100
It is probably illegal to throw peanuts at people on the street (some form of assault, I imagine). If you did so to a person who had an allergic reaction and died, you'd probably be charged with manslaughter. We also ban noises over a certain level, certain sights (i.e., pornography) in public. If you can smoke without forcing me to inhale even a single portion of it, fine. I have no problem with that. But you can't, so your argument that you should have the right to smoke in public is less creditable than an argument I should be allowed to have consensual sex in public.
Oh, and smokers are the minority most places. So you are the one arguing that the few should be allowed to inconvenience the many.
As long as there are still public elections, there is no need (or will) for armed revolution. If you can organize enough people effectively enough to militarily conquer the country, surely you can organize enough people effectively enough to take over both the Democrat and Republican parties.
) I have learned that even internet criminals are like most criminals and just very very very very...dumb.
Just a slight correction, most criminals that get caught are very dumb. There is no way to definitively say anything about those that are not caught, although the obvious conclusion is that they are smarter or luckier than those that are.
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2?
Well, yeah. That's why we object to China (or anyone else) trying to horn in on our action. No one cares if $they take something from $them. It's only a problem when $they take something from us. Note, this is pretty much true of all nations - US just has more it considers $MINE than most other nations.
There is no intrinsic good quality in being poor. All the good qualities associated with people in financial struggle come with conjuction with their non-materialistic beliefs
Well, yes and no. Yes, there is no intrinsic good quality in being poor. Or rich. Or male, female, black, white, American, Chinese, etc. Good is a subjective term that only applies to sentient beings (at least in the sense of good vs. evil), not objective states. That said, there are many good qualities typically associated with poor people much more so than rich people. Frugality, resourcefulness, valuing people over things, work ethic. Most people consider these good qualities, and they are often considered likely outcomes of growing up with financial burdens. While of course they aren't restricted only to the poor, nor guaranteed to the poor, a wealthy person that develops these qualities is seldom considered to have developed them b/c of his/her lack of financial burdens.
Yes, I can agree with all of those statements. Of course, you have to have some mechanism to fund campaigns. Publicly financed make the most sense to me, but I can see some arguments for severely limited personal donations. Both have pitfalls and complexities, but seem more desirable than unlimited personal donations (what we have now that allow individuals and organizations to effectively purchase legislation) or only personal spending (which would limit the candidate field drastically). Maybe there is another solution. Just about anything would be better than the absolutely broken system we currently have.
They still have representation. They can vote, they can go out and campaign themselves for their preferred candidate (actual political speech). Hell, they can lobby - write letters, make appointments to talk to the Senator, make phone calls, whatever. They just can't pay money directly to a politician. What fundamental right is violated by that prohibition?
If you actually log out, it doesn't reset your mod points. If you remain logged in, but simply check "post anonymously", it does. At least, that's how it worked last time I messed around with it.
Im not sure how you intend to get rid of that without curtailing people's right to vote, or to speech, or to the press.
Get rid of campaign donations, or severely limit them? If you believe donations deserve the same protections as political speech, please explain why. If possible, explain why that protection for giving someone money doesn't equate to speech in any other aspect of life, either in the legal or common sense.
I note that everything you listed is a sophisticated piece of computer technology, at least these days. Given the rapid pace of progress in this particular sector, I think it's a bit disingenuous to use it to assert that buying power has increased. My smartphone is more powerful than any personal computer that was available in 1998. How is comparing their relative cost a meaningful comment on buying power? Staple goods are a much better indicator b/c A) everyone has to buy them; not so cars, laptops, smartphones (maybe refrigerators, but probably not even them) and B) there has not been an exponential increase in the technology of staple goods, so no corresponding exponential increase in efficiency of their production.
Also, increased consumption should lower costs, all else remaining static. Especially in technology. You could use this as an argument for standard of living increases, but not buying power. I have more smart phones than JD Rockefeller did - you think I have more relative buying power in my economy than he did in his?
Depends on his job, really. Maybe he travels around to various locations, so there is no way to know where he is "supposed" to be at any given time. Maybe his output is in the form of site evaluation reports that he can easily fill out in 5 minutes (assuming he isn't doing his job) and file electronically. There are several scenarios that make judging a person's attendance and even output difficult.
Revolutions only happen when large groups of the people can get behind something...It has to be bad. Not just a little bad, but so bad that a good number of people is willing to sacrifice anything and everything because it can't get worse.
Yep. The thing is, in most first-world countries, you can take political power and effect the change you want with fewer people and far less risk than you can take physical control. If we have enough people pissed off and agreeing with one another that they could mount an effective revolution, we could just skip the guns and take over the government. That's why Arab Spring happened - people no longer had the option to participate in their own governance. Physical resort was the only resort left. We (America for me, but lots of places are included in that "We") are no where near the point where political solutions are impossible. People bitch and complain and whine and moan, but how many are motivated to become politically active? If you can't be bothered to campaign for a congressman, you aren't gonna pick up a gun and go head-to-head with the US military.
How is it deceptive? It points to a selection of other pages with information about Newt Gingrich, or at least articles about him; I didn't bother reading them and assume there is little actual information. You go to newtgingrich.com, you get articles about Newt Gingrich. The fact that you were expecting something else doesn't make it deceptive - they aren't trying to convince you they are what you were expecting. The fact that your reasonable expectation was subverted is what makes it a dirty trick. Only an incredibly dim bulb would be "deceived" into thinking this was actually sponsored and/or approved by Newt himself.
Because you lopped off the units. 1 GB > 10 MB makes perfect sense. 1 innocent person in jail > 10 guilty persons running free makes sense when measuring social injustice.
12: Piss on a building, or bush on the side of the highway.
I personally pretty glad you are no longer allowed to pee on my building (if you really ever were). I agree sex offender is a bit overkill for this, but really, you shouldn't be allowed to pee on any property that isn't yours unless explicitly allowed by the owner. Proper sanitation is one of the fundamentals of modern civilization.
I have 2 questions for you: 1) How does anywhere else resolve intractable differences between private parties in a manner that is better? 2) What makes you think you are, or should be, privy to the (likely) thousands of instances per day where two private citizens DO resolve their differences in an amicable manner that doesn't involve the public system?
Yes, I'm aware that public policy revolves around the dispensation of public funds. That's why I acknowledged that you can not take calculations of personal gain completely out of the political process. And while of course I don't want groups I don't like to benefit (I don't like them, after all), that is not at all what I meant. What I meant is that the political process itself should not be influenced by money any more than is strictly necessary. Neither I nor anyone else, nor any group of people acting as a single entity, should be allowed to put money directly towards specific laws. Obviously, the person(s) that can afford to put up giant billboards, take out TV ads, etc. will have a greater influence on the opinions of his fellow citizens. I don't see a desirable way to negate this aspect of greater wealth delivering greater political influence. But there at least it simply gives one a greater voice, and thus more influence over the opinions of your fellow citizens. Who at the end of the day are responsible for their own vote. Political donations to a candidate are not the same thing as exercising political speech. They are giving a person money while saying "There's more where that came from....maybe. BTW, I really want a Yes vote on Prop 387". How is this different than bribery? It's illegal to buy citizens' votes in an election, but not a politician's vote on policy? Why is that?
When the majority of our political process is funded by organizations whose stated purpose is the pursuit of their own profits, I think something is clearly wrong. The profit of donors is being prioritized over the will of the people Abolishing all direct political donations, or setting a low enough cap on them that "bidding wars" for a politician's vote do nothing would correct this system design flaw. Why shouldn't we do so?
The biggest difference between products, carpets, etc. is that these are reasonable activities for a company to engage in while seeking a profit. I believe, as do many others, that our political process IS NOT a legitimate profit seeking activity to engage in. We would like to prevent (as much as possible) the manipulation of public policy towards private profit.
I would. It's clear that any group whose primary purpose is to advance the financial well-being of it's members is going to participate in the political process only where there is a perceived financial benefit to doing so. This perverts the political process. Ban it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Minor (yet important) distinction: blacks are convicted of more violent crimes than whites. Perhaps this is because they commit more, maybe there are other factors. There is quite a bit of debate around exactly this subject.
Wow. I mean, just real "Day is night" shit here. Killing someone doesn't violate their right to life? That is absurd on the face of it, and completely backwards from standing legal precedent. OJ Simpson being a prime example. Found not guilty of murder (the criminal offense), found liable in civil court for violating his victims' rights.
Well, it's not directly, but from what I've seen at my local level, it goes like this. Campaign funds are used to hire campaign staff. So my campaign hires your wife to the tune of $50k/year to do pretty much nothing. Your company then contracts with me as a "consultant" or some such nebulously quantifiable work. In reality, it is generally not quite that obvious, there are much longer chains (and more people lining their pockets), but that's the general idea.
Except one implies the person themselves will have input into the discussion, one implies they will not. Rather crucial difference, that.
Even discounting crap jobs that nobody would enjoy, who the hell loves everything they do at their job? I like parts of my job, which are the defining tasks. But I still have to fill out my TPS reports. I might be willing to do some parts of my job just for the pleasure of working, but it turns out, my boss needs ALL parts of my job done. Even the boring shit nobody would find interesting, which is why she offers money in exchange for me doing it. Anyone that says they love their job almost certainly means "I love X% of my job" where x < 100
It is probably illegal to throw peanuts at people on the street (some form of assault, I imagine). If you did so to a person who had an allergic reaction and died, you'd probably be charged with manslaughter. We also ban noises over a certain level, certain sights (i.e., pornography) in public. If you can smoke without forcing me to inhale even a single portion of it, fine. I have no problem with that. But you can't, so your argument that you should have the right to smoke in public is less creditable than an argument I should be allowed to have consensual sex in public.
Oh, and smokers are the minority most places. So you are the one arguing that the few should be allowed to inconvenience the many.
Interestingly, it was Tolkien who brought CS Lewis back around to his faith after Lewis had abandoned it as a teenager.
As long as there are still public elections, there is no need (or will) for armed revolution. If you can organize enough people effectively enough to militarily conquer the country, surely you can organize enough people effectively enough to take over both the Democrat and Republican parties.
) I have learned that even internet criminals are like most criminals and just very very very very...dumb.
Just a slight correction, most criminals that get caught are very dumb. There is no way to definitively say anything about those that are not caught, although the obvious conclusion is that they are smarter or luckier than those that are.
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2?
Well, yeah. That's why we object to China (or anyone else) trying to horn in on our action. No one cares if $they take something from $them. It's only a problem when $they take something from us. Note, this is pretty much true of all nations - US just has more it considers $MINE than most other nations.
There is no intrinsic good quality in being poor. All the good qualities associated with people in financial struggle come with conjuction with their non-materialistic beliefs
Well, yes and no. Yes, there is no intrinsic good quality in being poor. Or rich. Or male, female, black, white, American, Chinese, etc. Good is a subjective term that only applies to sentient beings (at least in the sense of good vs. evil), not objective states. That said, there are many good qualities typically associated with poor people much more so than rich people. Frugality, resourcefulness, valuing people over things, work ethic. Most people consider these good qualities, and they are often considered likely outcomes of growing up with financial burdens. While of course they aren't restricted only to the poor, nor guaranteed to the poor, a wealthy person that develops these qualities is seldom considered to have developed them b/c of his/her lack of financial burdens.
Yes, I can agree with all of those statements. Of course, you have to have some mechanism to fund campaigns. Publicly financed make the most sense to me, but I can see some arguments for severely limited personal donations. Both have pitfalls and complexities, but seem more desirable than unlimited personal donations (what we have now that allow individuals and organizations to effectively purchase legislation) or only personal spending (which would limit the candidate field drastically). Maybe there is another solution. Just about anything would be better than the absolutely broken system we currently have.
They still have representation. They can vote, they can go out and campaign themselves for their preferred candidate (actual political speech). Hell, they can lobby - write letters, make appointments to talk to the Senator, make phone calls, whatever. They just can't pay money directly to a politician. What fundamental right is violated by that prohibition?
If you actually log out, it doesn't reset your mod points. If you remain logged in, but simply check "post anonymously", it does. At least, that's how it worked last time I messed around with it.
Im not sure how you intend to get rid of that without curtailing people's right to vote, or to speech, or to the press.
Get rid of campaign donations, or severely limit them? If you believe donations deserve the same protections as political speech, please explain why. If possible, explain why that protection for giving someone money doesn't equate to speech in any other aspect of life, either in the legal or common sense.
I note that everything you listed is a sophisticated piece of computer technology, at least these days. Given the rapid pace of progress in this particular sector, I think it's a bit disingenuous to use it to assert that buying power has increased. My smartphone is more powerful than any personal computer that was available in 1998. How is comparing their relative cost a meaningful comment on buying power? Staple goods are a much better indicator b/c A) everyone has to buy them; not so cars, laptops, smartphones (maybe refrigerators, but probably not even them) and B) there has not been an exponential increase in the technology of staple goods, so no corresponding exponential increase in efficiency of their production.
Also, increased consumption should lower costs, all else remaining static. Especially in technology. You could use this as an argument for standard of living increases, but not buying power. I have more smart phones than JD Rockefeller did - you think I have more relative buying power in my economy than he did in his?
Depends on his job, really. Maybe he travels around to various locations, so there is no way to know where he is "supposed" to be at any given time. Maybe his output is in the form of site evaluation reports that he can easily fill out in 5 minutes (assuming he isn't doing his job) and file electronically. There are several scenarios that make judging a person's attendance and even output difficult.
Revolutions only happen when large groups of the people can get behind something...It has to be bad. Not just a little bad, but so bad that a good number of people is willing to sacrifice anything and everything because it can't get worse.
Yep. The thing is, in most first-world countries, you can take political power and effect the change you want with fewer people and far less risk than you can take physical control. If we have enough people pissed off and agreeing with one another that they could mount an effective revolution, we could just skip the guns and take over the government. That's why Arab Spring happened - people no longer had the option to participate in their own governance. Physical resort was the only resort left. We (America for me, but lots of places are included in that "We") are no where near the point where political solutions are impossible. People bitch and complain and whine and moan, but how many are motivated to become politically active? If you can't be bothered to campaign for a congressman, you aren't gonna pick up a gun and go head-to-head with the US military.
How is it deceptive? It points to a selection of other pages with information about Newt Gingrich, or at least articles about him; I didn't bother reading them and assume there is little actual information. You go to newtgingrich.com, you get articles about Newt Gingrich. The fact that you were expecting something else doesn't make it deceptive - they aren't trying to convince you they are what you were expecting. The fact that your reasonable expectation was subverted is what makes it a dirty trick. Only an incredibly dim bulb would be "deceived" into thinking this was actually sponsored and/or approved by Newt himself.
Because you lopped off the units. 1 GB > 10 MB makes perfect sense. 1 innocent person in jail > 10 guilty persons running free makes sense when measuring social injustice.
12: Piss on a building, or bush on the side of the highway.
I personally pretty glad you are no longer allowed to pee on my building (if you really ever were). I agree sex offender is a bit overkill for this, but really, you shouldn't be allowed to pee on any property that isn't yours unless explicitly allowed by the owner. Proper sanitation is one of the fundamentals of modern civilization.
I have 2 questions for you: 1) How does anywhere else resolve intractable differences between private parties in a manner that is better? 2) What makes you think you are, or should be, privy to the (likely) thousands of instances per day where two private citizens DO resolve their differences in an amicable manner that doesn't involve the public system?
Yes, I'm aware that public policy revolves around the dispensation of public funds. That's why I acknowledged that you can not take calculations of personal gain completely out of the political process. And while of course I don't want groups I don't like to benefit (I don't like them, after all), that is not at all what I meant. What I meant is that the political process itself should not be influenced by money any more than is strictly necessary. Neither I nor anyone else, nor any group of people acting as a single entity, should be allowed to put money directly towards specific laws. Obviously, the person(s) that can afford to put up giant billboards, take out TV ads, etc. will have a greater influence on the opinions of his fellow citizens. I don't see a desirable way to negate this aspect of greater wealth delivering greater political influence. But there at least it simply gives one a greater voice, and thus more influence over the opinions of your fellow citizens. Who at the end of the day are responsible for their own vote. Political donations to a candidate are not the same thing as exercising political speech. They are giving a person money while saying "There's more where that came from....maybe. BTW, I really want a Yes vote on Prop 387". How is this different than bribery? It's illegal to buy citizens' votes in an election, but not a politician's vote on policy? Why is that?
When the majority of our political process is funded by organizations whose stated purpose is the pursuit of their own profits, I think something is clearly wrong. The profit of donors is being prioritized over the will of the people Abolishing all direct political donations, or setting a low enough cap on them that "bidding wars" for a politician's vote do nothing would correct this system design flaw. Why shouldn't we do so?
The biggest difference between products, carpets, etc. is that these are reasonable activities for a company to engage in while seeking a profit. I believe, as do many others, that our political process IS NOT a legitimate profit seeking activity to engage in. We would like to prevent (as much as possible) the manipulation of public policy towards private profit.
I would. It's clear that any group whose primary purpose is to advance the financial well-being of it's members is going to participate in the political process only where there is a perceived financial benefit to doing so. This perverts the political process. Ban it all.