What large files would these dumbasses who are too stupid to enable security download? Linux distributions? No, we both know it would be music and movies. I'd advise you to drop that argument lest you become self-contradictory.
Could be anything, really. I'm not going to assume. FWIW though, because someone else is stealing (oh, and copyrighit infrinment ISN'T the same as stealing) doesn't make it ok for you to steal. By that logic, because someone stole something from someone anywhere, its now a-ok for me to steal something from someone. Clearly, its not. I think you realize that you really have no point now... you're trying to justify one wrong by claiming that the person YOU are saying its ok to steal from is likely stealing themselves...
If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences.
Got ya. So if a woman is raped, its her fault, because she didn't protect herself by carrying a gun or taking self defense courses. Same goes for some kid that is murdered by a serial killer. That's some world you want to live in.
Spoken like a true member of the upper class. Go back to your gated community, fat cat.
Spoken like the little entitled asshat that you are. FWIW, according to the latest statistics, I'm firmly middle class, and don't live in a gated community. If I had millions, I probably WOULDN'T care if someone stole something small from me. But I don't, so when some entitled, inconsiderate asshole dents my car with his door, its more stressful because now I have to figure where to get the money to fix it, since I don't have it lying around.
Please, hang yourself before you decide to move out of your mothers basement. I'm sure she's sick of providing everything for her worthless 35 yr old son.
Yes that makes a great interview... trying to ask a protester questions as the police are spraying him with pepper spray
*sigh* You really just don't want to admin you're wrong, do you? They were likely interviewing before the police started moving in; they likely starting taking pictures WHILE the police were moving it. Pictures can be pretty powerful you know?
Also a great photo... picture of the lens covered in pepper spray
yes, I'm sure the goal was to get a picture of pepper spray, ass.
So has any journalist who has ridden in a military vehicle on the front line clamed that their rights as a journalist have been infringed when they were shot at? Or were they even surprised they were shot at? I doubt it. Just as these other journalists shouldn't be surprised when they get hit with pepper spray when they stand in front of an advancing police line.
The press certainly DOES get upset when they are shot at; they are observing only (although as I pointed out, somethings they give TOO much information in the eyes of one of the combatants).
The fact is that that it seems the police PURPOSEFULLY targeted the reporters in the link mentioned. Its pretty obvious when someone has a camera pointed out at you.
You're trying to explain that point away, saying they deserved it. There's no point in discussnig this futher; anything the police want to do is in your eyes their right, as long as they claim they're stopping terrorism huh? Don't worry, I'm sure we'll all have the police state you so desire very shortly.
It's a rather subjective line you're walking there...I doubt most infomants can definitively say that what they're revealing is an illegal act.
Bullshit. Most informats are experts in their field. Even still, at the very least they know what is going on is immoral. Immoral acts, even if not illegal, need to be brought to light as well.
Take the NSA wiretapping saga currently going on; bright legal minds on both sides of the aisle can't come to a consensus whether it's an illegal activity or not.
The 'bright legal minds' siding with the Bush administrator are clearly wrong. Any highschooler can tell you the taps violate the unreasonable search amendment. I'd have to say, those defending it aren't very bright, and are likely paid by the administration..
Half say the president has these powers, half disagree. It will take a SCOTUS verdict, probably resulting in a 5-4 split, to determine that. If the SCOTUS is near evenly split on whether something is in fact illegal, why should we assume Joe Somebody have a clue?
SCOTUS being split has nothing to do with the actual legality of it. Judges have personal motives as well; some may be more willing to ignore the 4th admendment than others. Some members of SCOTUS said that seperate but equal was constitutional as well, when it clearly was not.
Instead, they should take it through the proper channels *first* before talking to someone at the NY Times. In addition, the NY Times/USA Today/other papers should be concerned about GETTING THE STORY RIGHT instead of getting the scoop, something that it seems most reporters have lost sight of in recent days.
I think the people have a RIGHT to know when their government isn't following its own rules. Its all too common nowadays for government to try and sweep things under the carpet; more distrubingly, it seems its easier and easier to do this. The government knows it was doing wrong, and it knows it would NEVER be able to stop the media from publishing something.. so now they're going after the whistleblowers. They're trying to do the same thing which the first amendment is meant to protect us from; hide their evil.
To segue...the first amendment determined that the government can't come in and shut down a newspaper for printing things it didn't like. Being subpoenad because someone committed a criminal act in revealing classified information does not fall into that category of free press violations. Being a reporter does not mean you can participate in breaking the law, it means you have the same rights to speak your mind as everyone else, and the government can't violate your right to publish those thoughts.
Being a reporter means you CAN publish things, even if the publishing of such information is deemed 'illegal.' How on earth can we possibly keep an eye on government if the someone is not there to expose them? What the government cannot do by censoring the press they are now trying to do by criminalizing the whistleblowers. We the people of this country have a RIGHT to know EVERYTHING which our government is doing. A secret government, one that cannot be examined is a tyranical one.
That is income, not wealth. It does not take into account any holding or debts. According to the best estimates between holdings, income and debt the bottom 50% of the US breaks even with debt and holdings about equal (actually I think for 2004 it went up to +.6% or something).
So what? These people ARE still eating. I have debt as well, am I starving? No. Lets not forget, people CHOOSE to go into debt. They do it by buying houses they can't afford, by having children which they can't afford, or by purchasing high priced cars, which they cannot afford. If you want to reduce debt, you make it harder for people to get loans and lines of credit, especially credit cards. THAT's when most of debt starting becoming common for people, through banks wanting to make obscene profits off of people. But at the end of the day, there people CHOOSE to open that line of credit.
Wrong. The investor is free to walk away.
What the hell are you talking about?
You know, you're whole 'poor inventor, only gets 10% of the profits, and he has no choice but to make that deal.' I was saying they do not; if you believe your invention is worth something, and someone is only offering you 10% for their assistance bringing it to market, the inventor can walk away and find someone offering a deal more to his liking.
Did you even read what I wrote earlier? Crime correlates to wealth disparity, not just poverty as measured by income. You see when a poor person reasonable concludes that the guy living in the mansion across town does not work 16000 times harder than they do, to earn the disproportionally higher amount of wealth that person has, they lose the primary motivating factor that prevents crime... ethical/moral restrictions. They feel justified, sort of a robinhood thing, you know? And I'm not sure that I blame them. When the average person, however, has everything they need to survive they feel both less justified in committing crime and less willing to risk what they have. As a result, crime drops.
Yes, I've read what you're been writing. You claim that people are starving or in such desperate need of housing that they are committing crimes. I'm pointing out that we ALREADY provide food and shelter to those that need it. And you ignore it, each and every time. Its interesting you point out robinhood as a justification used by poor people; YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING. Its just that you're codifying it and having the state take from Peter to pay Paul... which is worse by the way; at least there are ways you can defend against muggings (one is by not living in a poor area). There's nothing you can do when the goverment focibly steals from you.
As far as your revenge comment goes; I can only conclude that you're trying to justify your delusional views by attacking me personally. Its not revenge I want, its fairness. Its not fair to the people that work that their money is forcibly stolen from them in the form of taxes, and given to people WHO ARE HAPPY DOING NOTHING. Its really not fair is it. Yet you would EXPAND that. How much would I lose on that now?? 50% of my income; 75%?
You totally ignore that most of these 'poverty' people ARE on welfare, ARE being fed, ARE having their housing paid for (or the rent greatly reduced), and ARE STILL COMMITTING CRIMES. No one here is ACTUALLY starving on the streets; indeed, a good majority of those WANT to just live on the street and take food handouts at the shelter, because its easier than being responsible and working for a living. This isn't something I'm making up, this is experience working in a food shelter for the homeless. Time and again offered to HELP be found jobs and an apartment to get them going again, and time and again the answer is 'I'd rather just live off of handouts.'
You never address these points you just keep trouncing out statistics (likely skewed and mis-interperated to support your 'view').
You certainly have a right to your opinion and voice; I just don't understand WH
The number one predictor of poverty is the income of your parents. I don't think it is reasonable to assume poverty is solely based upon individual achievement in a country where half of the wealth is controlled by a tiny minority that inherited it.
The number one predictor of someone being obese if if their parents are obese. Therefore its inevitable, right? Wrong. All it means is that the same eating patterns were taught to the kid; but its still the kids fault for not taking responsibilty for his weight problem once he's closer to being an adult. The same goes for the poor; they learn to be irresponsible and not to think about a 'bigger picture.' It sucks, but ultimately, its up to them to 'figure out' they need to be responsible and work on a plan to move up.
And when a desperate junkie stabs my girlfriend or shoots my mother tripling their sentence helps me how? The point is to prevent the violence that results for the good of all, not to punish people more harshly. Punitive measures are weak as preventatives because junkies are desperate. Draconian punitive measures just mean the junkie has less to lose and it is more reasonable for them to kill victims to reduce the dangers associated with being caught.
It helps you because that person can no longer harm anyone again. Personally I'd think that losing 30 years of my life in prison as opposed to 10 is losing more, not less. Your argument doesn't make sense. The point is to force people to responsible for themselves, which would reduce violence. You claim the junkie is acting out of desperation, yet you then imply they're thinking logically. They're so desprate they are beyond reason, yet they attempt to reason their way out of the punishment. Doesn't follow, sorry.
Blame? I'm not interested in blaming anyone, just in preventing my mother or girlfriend or myself from having to deal with the crime that results.
Sure you are; you're blaming drugs and society instead of the person who violated anothers rights. Since you acknowledge that your socialst measures won't eliminate crime, the answer in preventing your mother of girlfriend from having to deal with crime is to train in self defense, and be armed.
It isn't an argument to keep drugs criminalized, its an argument to decriminalize them and take additional steps to solve the rest of the problem.
The 'additional steps' you want to take though come at the expense of others, which is unreasonable. Let people suffer the full consequences of their actions. Perhaps if we had more of this today, we'd have less crime and less people sitting on their ass collecting welfare.
Capital punishment works very poorly as a deterrent by all counts and it costs more to execute someone than to keep them housed in a a prison for 10 years. Suppose robbing a person to feed your habit is punishable by death. What incentive does an addict now have to leave their mugging victim alive as a possible witness? What incentive to they have to surrender to police instead of killing the hostage they took, or shooting it out with the cops? None. This means we have more violent crime and murder, not less.
In this case its not meant as a punishment. Its removing someone who contributes nothing and causes a lot of problems. I never even said they'd be killed in response to a crime; just being a known junkie could be enough. As far as being more costly that's because of the legal system. If it was legal for the police just to drive into a drug area, find the known junkies and shoot them on site, your cost argument falls apart.
Because using my tax dollars to help them benefits me by reducing crime, especially violent crime, reducing the amount of my taxes that has to be spent on courts and police and makes my neighborhood a better place to live. I don't want socialized medicine to provide for addicts because they deserve it, I want them because it costs me less total tax dollars and results in a better place to live for me and mine
Yes, only ONE is about Canadian police pepper spraying journalists though. Since my reply was to the comment that "canadian police never peppersprayed journalists" I would say its pretty relevent. Also the post I replied too didn't say anything about the other two incidents, and thus my reply had nothing to do with the other links.
The first one (from cjfe.org) is the one where the photographers got hit with pepper spray. From the journalists own account: "The first row of police advanced with shields. Then a second row of police had the pepper spray, which they sprayed from between the shields so you couldn't see where it was coming from" If the police were spraying between the shields then the photographers must have been in the protest front line to have got hit. That's not covering the protest, that's participating.
Of course, all journalists would have been to the sides. They wouldn't be talking to protesters or trying to capture images from the protesters point of view. They never do anything like that. Just like they never ride in a Humvee during times of war. Certainly they never got shot at by an Israeli tank when the journalist is blowing their cover..
FWIW, I grew up in the country, and had plenty of woods and stuff around.
Of course so I don't burst your bubble I won't remind you of the original post which listed "being alone in the woods, alone on the lake, within walking distance of hunting (i.e. far from other people)."
I'll give you a hint; you don't know your neighbors when you move in, so there's a good chance you may not get along with them after you have. I have plenty of friends and enjoy going out; just that most people aren't worth getting to know.
3,000,000 is not a lot of people compared to 150,000,000 who have nothing at all.
Wow, going to start making up numbers now. The poverty rate in the US is 12.7%, or 37,000,000.
So, 13.7% is the number of people either poor or very very well off. The vast majority then are getting their basic needs met.
The economic system that places all the power in the hands of people who inherited money. You'll be lucky to get such a deal in our current system. Take a look at the people who invented some of the biggest new inventions of the last few decades. Notice how none of them are wealthy as a result? That is because they had to borrow the resources to develop their ideas or they would never even have existed.
Wrong. The investor is free to walk away. And are your poor poor investors homeless living in the street, or do they still do pretty well for themselves, even if not mega wealthy.
Statistically, this does not seem to be true.
Oh yes, crime is because we have so many people starving on the streets. Bullshit. Pretty much any poor person can get to a food shelter or get on food stamps, and this is what happens.
Some investments will tank, others will pay out. In general the wealthy simply invest in the market broadly and let it earn them money while sucking it away from the people who didn't have money to start with. And why do they have that money to invest? Because their parents did for the most part. Money is power. Have you ever heard the saying "it takes money to make money?" It is true, which is why money always consolidates in the capitalist market.
And its THEIR loss when it tanks, isn't it? Your argument is that people that have money shouldn't be able to make more. Pretty poor one it seems. How exactly is investing in an invention "sucking money away from those that didn't have it to begin with"? You can take money from someone that doesn't have any!
Sure the economy could collapse, but all the economic models of capitalism predict it certainly will collapse due to this, just as it has always done in the past.There is a difference between maybe something will happen outside our control and choosing a plan that results in something happening.
Seems like the socialist ones are having the problems; China, the EU formed because, individually, the Western European countries weren't doing that hot (which the exception of Britian, which is why they didn't adopt the Euro). All economoic models (captialist or not) are flawed, because they can't account for human nature. Its simply not possible.
Please. It works just fine in a lot of countries. What makes you think it wouldn't work in the US?
Because we value individualism more here than in outer countries. And it not necessarly working in all countries either; it seems Canada is considerng moving back to private health care.
People are violent and dangerous and kill each other all the time. People commit more violent crimes when they are subjected to poverty. Will eliminating poverty eliminate crime? No. Does that mean it is useless for reducing crime? No. A lot of the time people steal or kill because they are desperate and then are more likely to do so again. A lot of times people feel they are being treated unethically by a system that grants privilege to some and not others and it removes the primary factor that inhibits people from committing this kind of crime. What, exactly, do you think would reduce this kind of crime?
A lot of people still and kill because they feel like it, or want something that they can't have but which is a luxury. I don't feel like i've been treated ethically all the time; I haven't killed or stolen anything because of it. To say that being violated is justification for harming some other 3rd party is stupid.
Nope, the bank foreclosed.
Ugh. The bank foreclosed because he couldn't pay the
I think people should be free to put whatever they want in their own bodies, but addiction results in serious negative effects for society, including increased poverty and crime.
Poverty is soley that person's fault; you blow all your money on crack or the latest entertainment equipment, makes no difference. Tough shit if you were stupid enough to get hooked on an addictive substance. If you commit a crime because you were high, your sentence should be tripled. Blame the people taking the drug, not the drug itself.
Decriminalizing drugs reduces the problem, but does not eliminate it.
I'm sure the same arguement was made to keep prohibition. Your response in the other thread is "it won't eliminate the problem, but it will reduce it so its worth it." Well, there you go.
Socialist programs to treat drug addiction along with other health problems and to provide the basics for those in need so they don't have to steal to eat because they spent all their money on crack is another important part of the solution that has worked in other countries. Giving heroin addicts enough heroin to stop them from losing it and enough food to eat and a place to stay is cheaper for society than housing them in prisons or leaving them loose and desperate on the streets to commit crimes.
Technically just killing the addict outright is the cheapest solution. If you choose to experiment with a drug that can get such power over you, I fail to see WHY anyone should help you and not just put you on a raft in the middle of the ocean. Perhaps people that dumb ought not be around to reproduce..
Oh? So you have deer, pheasants, foxes, hawks and other assorted wildlife for neighbors?
Why would I want wild animals as neighbors? But yes we do have fox and hawks around.
Fishing on a lake with no one else in sight?
I find fishing an mindnumbing waste of time. But I do have a lake which I can go boating on, or a beach which I can even walk to. The larger beaches may be crowed, but the smaller ones are empty or have only a few people.
Woods to ramble in?
We also have trees here, believe or not. There's a wildlife preserve, so you can't go in it, but there are woods nearby, with a bike path through some. If you mean a huge forest, I had that growing up; there's only so much you can do in the woods by yourself..
Hunting within walking distance?
I don't hunt, so its not a big deal. Hunting seems rather pointless to me anyway; I fail to see how stalking something to shoot it is fun, especially if there's no chance of you really being in danger..
Neighborhoods where you know everyone personally, and their back door is always open for visitors?
Most people suck, why would I want to know them personally? Why would I want to visit them, I have everything I want in my own home. If I want to visit someone, I visit my friends, not someone that just happened to move in next to me.
Don't automatically assume that what/you/ want is what everyone wants.
Where did I say that I was speaking for everyone? I wasn't, and my post was trying to illistrate that yes, some people DO like living in a city.
I mean, I know this is annual salary, but $4k/month still seems a lot to me.
Um, its not. After taxes, its $2,640 / month, and then my mortgage, taxes, and house insurance is about $1500 / month. There's over half of my salary (fortunatly, my wife also works, and fortunatly, I make more than $50k) just for the house.
But it depends on where you live too; sounds like $50k is quite a bit in AL, but in NYC, you'd be homeless.
It matters if you kids go to the same school, and they start trying to push ID. Or ban alcohol sales on Sunday. Or prohibit just about anything else they find 'unethical.'
So you prefer massive amounts of concrete and small cramped overpriced apartment housing... nice.
Yes, because in those massive ammounts of concrete is anything you could want. Overpriced is a relative term; it ignores all the convience around.
I'll take a nice big yard and no reliance on a dingy subway, thanks
I have a house, but I'm still convienced an apartment is better. That way I have time for things I want to do, instead of fixing the house, cutting the grass, etc. etc. And a subway beats driving myself; driving is frustrating, especially with the amount of jerks out there. You have jerks in a subway, but at least their inconsiderate behavior probably won't kill you.
While you're pointing out the "clear meaning" of the Constitution, how about the fact that the First Amendment only applies to Congress? Therefore, states are free to shut you up at will.
I'm not going to reply to anything, since you're a moron. States CANNOT pass laws which are in conflict of the Constitution. And Press doesn't just mean the printing presses of the 1700s.
What good is Freedom of the press or speech if the states can take it away at a whim? I'd say its a pretty useless amendment if we take your interpretation, don't you think?
Ya, no shit stupid. That doesn't change the fact that seizing the records of a journalist CAN blow the cover for someone unrelated to the investigation which siezed the records. That's exactly why they shouldn't sieze ANY of the records of the journalist.
Your comments about a mofioso, business or terrorist are totally irrelevent here, since they are NOT JOURNALISTS.
Treating drugs as a crime you commit against yourself and then throwing you in prison, nearly guaranteeing you'll have no better options when you get out, is an absurd farce and the shameful idiocy of the US.
I agree. People should be free to put whatever they want in thier own body, and anyone should be able to sell that to them. Better yet, regulate it, just like alcohol. There goes much of the crime problem. Socialism isn't the answer; forcing the government to acknowledge that what I do with my own body is none of their business is the solution.
The numbers as I recall are the top 1% controls 30%, the top 10% of people controls more than 50% of the total wealth, the next 40% controls the rest and the bottom 50% breaks even between debt and assets. Further, I think in 2004 there were 8 people in the top 1% that had not been born into that position (inheritance). There are lots of studies out there that show numbers on this and the US census data supports the trend although they ignore incomes over 1 million dollars and just assume anyone making more than 1 million makes exactly 1 million for historical reasons.
At least you brought some numbers. I agree with stances on inheritance; nothing should just be given to you. But that's different than saying 'everybody gets somethig no matter what.' Before we move on, lets remember, that tiny 11% you talk about is 33,000,000 (based on a population of 300,000,000). That's QUITE a lot of people.
I think you haven't been paying attention. Most inventors make very little profit compared to the financiers. Assuming you invent something cool, all on your own, in order to get it to market and manufacture you're looking at giving up maybe 90% of the profit. As a result, for every dollar you make someone who has done nothing except inherit a pile of money to finance your venture is making nine dollars. This is called monetary condensation. People with money make more money with that money by doing nothing and money slowly consolidates into fewer and fewer hands until there is a revolution and the poor take it and redistribute it.
You ignore the part about learning at all. I never said inventing was REQUIRED. And guess who's fault it is if an inventer only negotiates 10% of the profit from bringing the invention to market? That's right, its the inventers fault. If it takes 3 million to get a product to market, the investor is also taking a much bigger risk, isn't he? What's the inventor out? Time and money for parts. The investor out 3 million if the product tanks. That risk is exactly why the investor gets 90%. If the investor was really "doing nothing" as you say, how would he be out such a large some of money? Why would the inventor have anything to do with him, since he's "doing nothing?" I'm sorry, but you need to come back to reality.
You need to take some basic economics. Monetary condensation is pretty much established as a fact of the marketplace.
Lets try this again. I said "Working hard without bettering yourself is useless. That's likely what that statistic is showing." So the correct interpritation is that the reason the bottom 50% are just "breaking even" is because they aren't working to do anything to better themselves, or mismanaging their money. Kinda their fault, isn't it?
Because otherwise they are mugging you. Or because otherwise, once all the money has consolidated, they are burning down your house and taking back the money you did not earn. Or because regardless of how hard you work, you become one of them when the economy collapses and there is no work for you.
They'd still be mugging me; not for food, but for Nike's or an XBox. You don't understand human nature do you; people want what they don't have regardless of whether they ACTUALLY need it. The economy collapsing is an irrelevent point; no matter what economic system you have you have the risk of the economy collapsing. Nothing will change that. An economy could collapse because of a devistating illness or drought which kills much of the crops. Socialism won't help you there either.
Yeah because no one works for luxuries... oh wait yes they do. People want to work and do things. If they have no desperate need to work, they are simply more likely to be choosy about what they do and are a lot more likely to take chances which results in more innovation and more progress.
People WANT to work? Are you kidding me? Explain the number of people that just draw a welfare check; people which have stated they don't want to work. A homeless
I realize we have problems, I'm not trying to ignore them or any of that crap you said I meant. What I am sick of is non-Americans saying how crappy our country is from high and mighty 'we are pefect' soap box.
We have problems.. no shit, but I guess you never heard of the saying 'those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' Its the hipocracy of those kinds of statements that I hate, and was attempting to address.
I'm not a freeloader; I have a job. I contribute to society. I don't attach to people's wireless networks or drive their cars off my front lawn. But I have no problem with people who freeload - if they can get something for free, why pay? I feel more contempt for the spineless people who give freeloaders free things against their will.
You certainly have the attitude of one. Its very odd someone would advocate somethign they themselves would not do. I suspect you're a liar.
If I were attached to someone elses's wireless network and noticed I had low bandwidth, I'd realize he was using it to its full capacity and I'd disconnect. But how many people too stupid to check the "enable security" checkbox use their internet connections to full capacity? As to your 25 cent piece of candy, 10 cents per kilowatt-hour *.005 kilowatts * 1 hour =.05 cents. Are there people who honestly would miss.05 cents?
How would you know its not just interfernce from something else? You wouldn't. First off, its not as simple as checking an 'enabled security' option, on any of the routers I've seen. Second, those same people CAN very easily use their connection to full capacity; all it takes is one large download. Finally, STEALING IS STEALING. It doesn't matter if its only a nickel, that was exactly my point, asshat.
The AP isn't faulty, the user is. Whose fault is it if he doesn't even read the 2-page quick start guide?
Maybe the user doesn't want his wireless connection slowed down due to encryption or other security measures. Did you ever stop to think about that? Encryption can suck as much as 30% of your speed. That's not insignficant.
If you can't even be bothered locking your shit up, why would you put forth the effort to lock me up? (assuming I screwed up and left evidence)
Because I may have made a conscience decision to NOT lock things up, because of the peformance hit encryption entails. But not locking does NOT mean I've given you permission to use it. I'd put for effort to have you locked up because you should know better than to use someone else's private property without permission, regardless of whether or not said property has been secured. Its a pretty important lesson to learn.
I am an asshole, yes, but I don't believe everyone owes me. If I find the need, I'll take what I need, but that hasn't happened so far. But you seem like the "don't steal my bread to feed your starving family" type, so...
You're right; its not right to steal someone else's bread to feed your own family. You may have just taken away THIER meal. There are enough ligitimate ways to get on a wireless network there's no need for you to use someone's private one. There are enough ligitimate ways to earn money to buy food that you don't need to steal. 'If you find a need, you'll take what you need' is entitlement. You believe that YOU are entitled to have what others have earned. The fact that you convience yourself that you need it more than someone else is just rationalization so that you don't feel bad about it later.
I doubt I'd mind; this world is pretty crappy.
If you reall feel that way, do everyone a favor, and buy the gun yourself. There may be crappy things in the world, but I'd rather spend my life with those that can appreciate the good things in it anyway.
You work hard eh? Me too. That does not mean most people who make the most money do though.
I was never arguing that. Obviously the higher up you go, the more distorted things are.
Most of the wealth in this country is controlled by people who simply inherited it and did not work for it at all.
Any statistics or did you just make that up?
It is a myth that hard work is the way to earn money. Statistically, that is just not the case.
Hard work includes bettering yourself, by learning, and also includes inventing something. Given what I see of most people,they have no desire to do more than the bear minimum. If you're spent 20 years running a press for example, that's not the 'hard work' i'm advising. Working hard without bettering yourself is useless. That's likely what that statistic is showing.
If you provide the basics and nothing more (not money, just the goods/services) then people will work for luxuries and if they don't, fine.
No, its not fine. The basics aren't free, and I fail to see why I should have to pay for some fatass to sit in their trailer (which is also being paid for by me) to eat potato chips (also paid for by me). Give everyone the basics, and you'll have a huge majority of people doing nothing but being provided those basics by the hard working minority. Starvation is a pretty good motivator to get a job, I would say.
It is better they live their entire life consuming only the basics at least they have little motivation to rob me and I live in a better place as a result.
No you don't; you work hard, have little luxuries to show for it, and while you're off at work, said fatass munching on chips decides to break into your house to steal your TV. See, people WON'T just be happy being given the basics. They'll want more, and they'll want it free too. Then you'll pay for their gastric bypass surgery, because all they do is eat chips and watch YOUR TV.
People will work to get their designer shoes, iPods, and really good food. If they don't work, very few will commit crimes to get them, since this system provides both moral motivation and greater risk for a smaller reward than the current system.
Really? Where's the greater risk? I see greater risk for those that work. Did you ever notice that the rich people who do nothing are spoiled? Its because they were HANDED things, and never learned the value of working for what you want. You'll spread that to a majority of people with your scheme.
Socialism should not provide unnecessary surgeries (unless it is cheaper in the long run than the resulting problems). Socialism should not provide cars.
What exactly are you comparing to decide the necesseity of the surgery? To me, letting them die in their own blubber is the cheapest way to handle the problem. Why shouldn't socialism provide cars? What if you want to work, but its 30 miles away? Should socialism pay for you to move? Buy you the more expensive house near your job?
This is true, when socialism does not provide all the necessities. Take a look at violent crime rates in countries where socialism provides for medical care and drug treatment compared to countries where it does not. Notice any amazingly strong correlations? In the US, for example, more than three quarters of all people driven into poverty and desperate to survive do so as a result of a medical problem they cannot afford to treat. These people and their families make up the majority in US prisons.
Correlation does not equal caustion. It could just be the citizens of those countries are less prone to using violence. I don't see the drug dealers in the slums 'just trying to get by,' they have the latest cell phones, most expensive cars, etc. etc. Your conclusion is faulty.
For whatever reason the strongest correlation to crime is poverty. Socialism mediates poverty and in places where the necessities are provided by socialism, crime rates are very lo
A social safety net prevents desperation, which leads to violence and other negative social trends.
A social safety net also encourages people to sit back, do nothing and just take take take, at the expense of those of us that work hard.
There are ALOT of new cars in the trailer park not too far from me. Also, there's a huge amount of money being spent by medicare / medicaid so that fat lazy people can get a gastric bypass, which usually doesn't solve the problem, and leads to even more complications (which again, the tax payers must foot the bill for).
Also, even with a social safety net, there's still an awful lot of crime (usually in the same areas where a large group of people are receiving benefits). So I doubt that your social safety net does anything positive at all.
If I or anyone else would have to reveal something under subpoena or on a witness stand if it were part of a criminal case (and leaking classified documents is a crime), then so should the high and mighty New York Times.
If the information they want was part of a investigative story you did, you'd have the same protections.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
Oh right. Its the journalists fault. Not the people that SENT the troops there to begin with, not the people shooting at the troops. Its the journalists.
If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times.
There's a problem if the US attorney's office won't do anything about it though, especially if its corrupt government you're talking about. The correct answer IS going to the press. That's the only way to be sure the journalist isn't silenced in some way. I fail to see how telling anyone of an illegal activity is themselves a criminal. Maybe the people being called out SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACTING ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH.
Your logic defies belief. Its not the people breaking the law that's the problem.. is the people telling us about it??
Slashdot Mirror
What large files would these dumbasses who are too stupid to enable security download? Linux distributions? No, we both know it would be music and movies. I'd advise you to drop that argument lest you become self-contradictory.
Could be anything, really. I'm not going to assume. FWIW though, because someone else is stealing (oh, and copyrighit infrinment ISN'T the same as stealing) doesn't make it ok for you to steal. By that logic, because someone stole something from someone anywhere, its now a-ok for me to steal something from someone. Clearly, its not. I think you realize that you really have no point now... you're trying to justify one wrong by claiming that the person YOU are saying its ok to steal from is likely stealing themselves...
If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences.
Got ya. So if a woman is raped, its her fault, because she didn't protect herself by carrying a gun or taking self defense courses. Same goes for some kid that is murdered by a serial killer. That's some world you want to live in.
Spoken like a true member of the upper class. Go back to your gated community, fat cat.
Spoken like the little entitled asshat that you are. FWIW, according to the latest statistics, I'm firmly middle class, and don't live in a gated community. If I had millions, I probably WOULDN'T care if someone stole something small from me. But I don't, so when some entitled, inconsiderate asshole dents my car with his door, its more stressful because now I have to figure where to get the money to fix it, since I don't have it lying around.
Please, hang yourself before you decide to move out of your mothers basement. I'm sure she's sick of providing everything for her worthless 35 yr old son.
Yes that makes a great interview... trying to ask a protester questions as the police are spraying him with pepper spray
*sigh* You really just don't want to admin you're wrong, do you? They were likely interviewing before the police started moving in; they likely starting taking pictures WHILE the police were moving it. Pictures can be pretty powerful you know?
Also a great photo... picture of the lens covered in pepper spray
yes, I'm sure the goal was to get a picture of pepper spray, ass.
So has any journalist who has ridden in a military vehicle on the front line clamed that their rights as a journalist have been infringed when they were shot at? Or were they even surprised they were shot at? I doubt it. Just as these other journalists shouldn't be surprised when they get hit with pepper spray when they stand in front of an advancing police line.
The press certainly DOES get upset when they are shot at; they are observing only (although as I pointed out, somethings they give TOO much information in the eyes of one of the combatants).
The fact is that that it seems the police PURPOSEFULLY targeted the reporters in the link mentioned. Its pretty obvious when someone has a camera pointed out at you.
You're trying to explain that point away, saying they deserved it. There's no point in discussnig this futher; anything the police want to do is in your eyes their right, as long as they claim they're stopping terrorism huh? Don't worry, I'm sure we'll all have the police state you so desire very shortly.
It's a rather subjective line you're walking there...I doubt most infomants can definitively say that what they're revealing is an illegal act.
Bullshit. Most informats are experts in their field. Even still, at the very least they know what is going on is immoral. Immoral acts, even if not illegal, need to be brought to light as well.
Take the NSA wiretapping saga currently going on; bright legal minds on both sides of the aisle can't come to a consensus whether it's an illegal activity or not.
The 'bright legal minds' siding with the Bush administrator are clearly wrong. Any highschooler can tell you the taps violate the unreasonable search amendment. I'd have to say, those defending it aren't very bright, and are likely paid by the administration..
Half say the president has these powers, half disagree. It will take a SCOTUS verdict, probably resulting in a 5-4 split, to determine that. If the SCOTUS is near evenly split on whether something is in fact illegal, why should we assume Joe Somebody have a clue?
SCOTUS being split has nothing to do with the actual legality of it. Judges have personal motives as well; some may be more willing to ignore the 4th admendment than others. Some members of SCOTUS said that seperate but equal was constitutional as well, when it clearly was not.
Instead, they should take it through the proper channels *first* before talking to someone at the NY Times. In addition, the NY Times/USA Today/other papers should be concerned about GETTING THE STORY RIGHT instead of getting the scoop, something that it seems most reporters have lost sight of in recent days.
I think the people have a RIGHT to know when their government isn't following its own rules. Its all too common nowadays for government to try and sweep things under the carpet; more distrubingly, it seems its easier and easier to do this. The government knows it was doing wrong, and it knows it would NEVER be able to stop the media from publishing something.. so now they're going after the whistleblowers. They're trying to do the same thing which the first amendment is meant to protect us from; hide their evil.
To segue...the first amendment determined that the government can't come in and shut down a newspaper for printing things it didn't like. Being subpoenad because someone committed a criminal act in revealing classified information does not fall into that category of free press violations. Being a reporter does not mean you can participate in breaking the law, it means you have the same rights to speak your mind as everyone else, and the government can't violate your right to publish those thoughts.
Being a reporter means you CAN publish things, even if the publishing of such information is deemed 'illegal.' How on earth can we possibly keep an eye on government if the someone is not there to expose them? What the government cannot do by censoring the press they are now trying to do by criminalizing the whistleblowers. We the people of this country have a RIGHT to know EVERYTHING which our government is doing. A secret government, one that cannot be examined is a tyranical one.
That is income, not wealth. It does not take into account any holding or debts. According to the best estimates between holdings, income and debt the bottom 50% of the US breaks even with debt and holdings about equal (actually I think for 2004 it went up to +.6% or something).
So what? These people ARE still eating. I have debt as well, am I starving? No. Lets not forget, people CHOOSE to go into debt. They do it by buying houses they can't afford, by having children which they can't afford, or by purchasing high priced cars, which they cannot afford. If you want to reduce debt, you make it harder for people to get loans and lines of credit, especially credit cards. THAT's when most of debt starting becoming common for people, through banks wanting to make obscene profits off of people. But at the end of the day, there people CHOOSE to open that line of credit.
Wrong. The investor is free to walk away.
What the hell are you talking about?
You know, you're whole 'poor inventor, only gets 10% of the profits, and he has no choice but to make that deal.' I was saying they do not; if you believe your invention is worth something, and someone is only offering you 10% for their assistance bringing it to market, the inventor can walk away and find someone offering a deal more to his liking.
Did you even read what I wrote earlier? Crime correlates to wealth disparity, not just poverty as measured by income. You see when a poor person reasonable concludes that the guy living in the mansion across town does not work 16000 times harder than they do, to earn the disproportionally higher amount of wealth that person has, they lose the primary motivating factor that prevents crime... ethical/moral restrictions. They feel justified, sort of a robinhood thing, you know? And I'm not sure that I blame them. When the average person, however, has everything they need to survive they feel both less justified in committing crime and less willing to risk what they have. As a result, crime drops.
Yes, I've read what you're been writing. You claim that people are starving or in such desperate need of housing that they are committing crimes. I'm pointing out that we ALREADY provide food and shelter to those that need it. And you ignore it, each and every time. Its interesting you point out robinhood as a justification used by poor people; YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING. Its just that you're codifying it and having the state take from Peter to pay Paul... which is worse by the way; at least there are ways you can defend against muggings (one is by not living in a poor area). There's nothing you can do when the goverment focibly steals from you.
As far as your revenge comment goes; I can only conclude that you're trying to justify your delusional views by attacking me personally. Its not revenge I want, its fairness. Its not fair to the people that work that their money is forcibly stolen from them in the form of taxes, and given to people WHO ARE HAPPY DOING NOTHING. Its really not fair is it. Yet you would EXPAND that. How much would I lose on that now?? 50% of my income; 75%?
You totally ignore that most of these 'poverty' people ARE on welfare, ARE being fed, ARE having their housing paid for (or the rent greatly reduced), and ARE STILL COMMITTING CRIMES. No one here is ACTUALLY starving on the streets; indeed, a good majority of those WANT to just live on the street and take food handouts at the shelter, because its easier than being responsible and working for a living. This isn't something I'm making up, this is experience working in a food shelter for the homeless. Time and again offered to HELP be found jobs and an apartment to get them going again, and time and again the answer is 'I'd rather just live off of handouts.'
You never address these points you just keep trouncing out statistics (likely skewed and mis-interperated to support your 'view').
You certainly have a right to your opinion and voice; I just don't understand WH
The number one predictor of poverty is the income of your parents. I don't think it is reasonable to assume poverty is solely based upon individual achievement in a country where half of the wealth is controlled by a tiny minority that inherited it.
The number one predictor of someone being obese if if their parents are obese. Therefore its inevitable, right? Wrong. All it means is that the same eating patterns were taught to the kid; but its still the kids fault for not taking responsibilty for his weight problem once he's closer to being an adult. The same goes for the poor; they learn to be irresponsible and not to think about a 'bigger picture.' It sucks, but ultimately, its up to them to 'figure out' they need to be responsible and work on a plan to move up.
And when a desperate junkie stabs my girlfriend or shoots my mother tripling their sentence helps me how? The point is to prevent the violence that results for the good of all, not to punish people more harshly. Punitive measures are weak as preventatives because junkies are desperate. Draconian punitive measures just mean the junkie has less to lose and it is more reasonable for them to kill victims to reduce the dangers associated with being caught.
It helps you because that person can no longer harm anyone again. Personally I'd think that losing 30 years of my life in prison as opposed to 10 is losing more, not less. Your argument doesn't make sense. The point is to force people to responsible for themselves, which would reduce violence. You claim the junkie is acting out of desperation, yet you then imply they're thinking logically. They're so desprate they are beyond reason, yet they attempt to reason their way out of the punishment. Doesn't follow, sorry.
Blame? I'm not interested in blaming anyone, just in preventing my mother or girlfriend or myself from having to deal with the crime that results.
Sure you are; you're blaming drugs and society instead of the person who violated anothers rights. Since you acknowledge that your socialst measures won't eliminate crime, the answer in preventing your mother of girlfriend from having to deal with crime is to train in self defense, and be armed.
It isn't an argument to keep drugs criminalized, its an argument to decriminalize them and take additional steps to solve the rest of the problem.
The 'additional steps' you want to take though come at the expense of others, which is unreasonable. Let people suffer the full consequences of their actions. Perhaps if we had more of this today, we'd have less crime and less people sitting on their ass collecting welfare.
Capital punishment works very poorly as a deterrent by all counts and it costs more to execute someone than to keep them housed in a a prison for 10 years. Suppose robbing a person to feed your habit is punishable by death. What incentive does an addict now have to leave their mugging victim alive as a possible witness? What incentive to they have to surrender to police instead of killing the hostage they took, or shooting it out with the cops? None. This means we have more violent crime and murder, not less.
In this case its not meant as a punishment. Its removing someone who contributes nothing and causes a lot of problems. I never even said they'd be killed in response to a crime; just being a known junkie could be enough. As far as being more costly that's because of the legal system. If it was legal for the police just to drive into a drug area, find the known junkies and shoot them on site, your cost argument falls apart.
Because using my tax dollars to help them benefits me by reducing crime, especially violent crime, reducing the amount of my taxes that has to be spent on courts and police and makes my neighborhood a better place to live. I don't want socialized medicine to provide for addicts because they deserve it, I want them because it costs me less total tax dollars and results in a better place to live for me and mine
It would have worked, but all the people that got high forgot what they were doing..
Have you actually read the links?
Yes, only ONE is about Canadian police pepper spraying journalists though. Since my reply was to the comment that "canadian police never peppersprayed journalists" I would say its pretty relevent. Also the post I replied too didn't say anything about the other two incidents, and thus my reply had nothing to do with the other links.
The first one (from cjfe.org) is the one where the photographers got hit with pepper spray. From the journalists own account: "The first row of police advanced with shields. Then a second row of police had the pepper spray, which they sprayed from between the shields so you couldn't see where it was coming from" If the police were spraying between the shields then the photographers must have been in the protest front line to have got hit. That's not covering the protest, that's participating.
Of course, all journalists would have been to the sides. They wouldn't be talking to protesters or trying to capture images from the protesters point of view. They never do anything like that. Just like they never ride in a Humvee during times of war. Certainly they never got shot at by an Israeli tank when the journalist is blowing their cover..
FWIW, I grew up in the country, and had plenty of woods and stuff around.
Of course so I don't burst your bubble I won't remind you of the original post which listed "being alone in the woods, alone on the lake, within walking distance of hunting (i.e. far from other people)."
I'll give you a hint; you don't know your neighbors when you move in, so there's a good chance you may not get along with them after you have. I have plenty of friends and enjoy going out; just that most people aren't worth getting to know.
3,000,000 is not a lot of people compared to 150,000,000 who have nothing at all.
Wow, going to start making up numbers now. The poverty rate in the US is 12.7%, or 37,000,000.
So, 13.7% is the number of people either poor or very very well off. The vast majority then are getting their basic needs met.
The economic system that places all the power in the hands of people who inherited money. You'll be lucky to get such a deal in our current system. Take a look at the people who invented some of the biggest new inventions of the last few decades. Notice how none of them are wealthy as a result? That is because they had to borrow the resources to develop their ideas or they would never even have existed.
Wrong. The investor is free to walk away. And are your poor poor investors homeless living in the street, or do they still do pretty well for themselves, even if not mega wealthy.
Statistically, this does not seem to be true.
Oh yes, crime is because we have so many people starving on the streets. Bullshit. Pretty much any poor person can get to a food shelter or get on food stamps, and this is what happens.
Some investments will tank, others will pay out. In general the wealthy simply invest in the market broadly and let it earn them money while sucking it away from the people who didn't have money to start with. And why do they have that money to invest? Because their parents did for the most part. Money is power. Have you ever heard the saying "it takes money to make money?" It is true, which is why money always consolidates in the capitalist market.
And its THEIR loss when it tanks, isn't it? Your argument is that people that have money shouldn't be able to make more. Pretty poor one it seems. How exactly is investing in an invention "sucking money away from those that didn't have it to begin with"? You can take money from someone that doesn't have any!
Sure the economy could collapse, but all the economic models of capitalism predict it certainly will collapse due to this, just as it has always done in the past.There is a difference between maybe something will happen outside our control and choosing a plan that results in something happening.
Seems like the socialist ones are having the problems; China, the EU formed because, individually, the Western European countries weren't doing that hot (which the exception of Britian, which is why they didn't adopt the Euro). All economoic models (captialist or not) are flawed, because they can't account for human nature. Its simply not possible.
Please. It works just fine in a lot of countries. What makes you think it wouldn't work in the US?
Because we value individualism more here than in outer countries. And it not necessarly working in all countries either; it seems Canada is considerng moving back to private health care.
People are violent and dangerous and kill each other all the time. People commit more violent crimes when they are subjected to poverty. Will eliminating poverty eliminate crime? No. Does that mean it is useless for reducing crime? No. A lot of the time people steal or kill because they are desperate and then are more likely to do so again. A lot of times people feel they are being treated unethically by a system that grants privilege to some and not others and it removes the primary factor that inhibits people from committing this kind of crime. What, exactly, do you think would reduce this kind of crime?
A lot of people still and kill because they feel like it, or want something that they can't have but which is a luxury. I don't feel like i've been treated ethically all the time; I haven't killed or stolen anything because of it. To say that being violated is justification for harming some other 3rd party is stupid.
Nope, the bank foreclosed.
Ugh. The bank foreclosed because he couldn't pay the
I think people should be free to put whatever they want in their own bodies, but addiction results in serious negative effects for society, including increased poverty and crime.
Poverty is soley that person's fault; you blow all your money on crack or the latest entertainment equipment, makes no difference. Tough shit if you were stupid enough to get hooked on an addictive substance. If you commit a crime because you were high, your sentence should be tripled. Blame the people taking the drug, not the drug itself.
Decriminalizing drugs reduces the problem, but does not eliminate it.
I'm sure the same arguement was made to keep prohibition. Your response in the other thread is "it won't eliminate the problem, but it will reduce it so its worth it." Well, there you go.
Socialist programs to treat drug addiction along with other health problems and to provide the basics for those in need so they don't have to steal to eat because they spent all their money on crack is another important part of the solution that has worked in other countries. Giving heroin addicts enough heroin to stop them from losing it and enough food to eat and a place to stay is cheaper for society than housing them in prisons or leaving them loose and desperate on the streets to commit crimes.
Technically just killing the addict outright is the cheapest solution. If you choose to experiment with a drug that can get such power over you, I fail to see WHY anyone should help you and not just put you on a raft in the middle of the ocean. Perhaps people that dumb ought not be around to reproduce..
Oh? So you have deer, pheasants, foxes, hawks and other assorted wildlife for neighbors?
/you/ want is what everyone wants.
Why would I want wild animals as neighbors? But yes we do have fox and hawks around.
Fishing on a lake with no one else in sight?
I find fishing an mindnumbing waste of time. But I do have a lake which I can go boating on, or a beach which I can even walk to. The larger beaches may be crowed, but the smaller ones are empty or have only a few people.
Woods to ramble in?
We also have trees here, believe or not. There's a wildlife preserve, so you can't go in it, but there are woods nearby, with a bike path through some. If you mean a huge forest, I had that growing up; there's only so much you can do in the woods by yourself..
Hunting within walking distance?
I don't hunt, so its not a big deal. Hunting seems rather pointless to me anyway; I fail to see how stalking something to shoot it is fun, especially if there's no chance of you really being in danger..
Neighborhoods where you know everyone personally, and their back door is always open for visitors?
Most people suck, why would I want to know them personally? Why would I want to visit them, I have everything I want in my own home. If I want to visit someone, I visit my friends, not someone that just happened to move in next to me.
Don't automatically assume that what
Where did I say that I was speaking for everyone? I wasn't, and my post was trying to illistrate that yes, some people DO like living in a city.
I mean, I know this is annual salary, but $4k/month still seems a lot to me.
Um, its not. After taxes, its $2,640 / month, and then my mortgage, taxes, and house insurance is about $1500 / month. There's over half of my salary (fortunatly, my wife also works, and fortunatly, I make more than $50k) just for the house.
But it depends on where you live too; sounds like $50k is quite a bit in AL, but in NYC, you'd be homeless.
Who cares what your neighbors believe?
It matters if you kids go to the same school, and they start trying to push ID. Or ban alcohol sales on Sunday. Or prohibit just about anything else they find 'unethical.'
So you prefer massive amounts of concrete and small cramped overpriced apartment housing... nice.
Yes, because in those massive ammounts of concrete is anything you could want. Overpriced is a relative term; it ignores all the convience around.
I'll take a nice big yard and no reliance on a dingy subway, thanks
I have a house, but I'm still convienced an apartment is better. That way I have time for things I want to do, instead of fixing the house, cutting the grass, etc. etc. And a subway beats driving myself; driving is frustrating, especially with the amount of jerks out there. You have jerks in a subway, but at least their inconsiderate behavior probably won't kill you.
While you're pointing out the "clear meaning" of the Constitution, how about the fact that the First Amendment only applies to Congress? Therefore, states are free to shut you up at will.
I'm not going to reply to anything, since you're a moron. States CANNOT pass laws which are in conflict of the Constitution. And Press doesn't just mean the printing presses of the 1700s.
What good is Freedom of the press or speech if the states can take it away at a whim? I'd say its a pretty useless amendment if we take your interpretation, don't you think?
Ya, no shit stupid. That doesn't change the fact that seizing the records of a journalist CAN blow the cover for someone unrelated to the investigation which siezed the records. That's exactly why they shouldn't sieze ANY of the records of the journalist.
Your comments about a mofioso, business or terrorist are totally irrelevent here, since they are NOT JOURNALISTS.
Treating drugs as a crime you commit against yourself and then throwing you in prison, nearly guaranteeing you'll have no better options when you get out, is an absurd farce and the shameful idiocy of the US.
I agree. People should be free to put whatever they want in thier own body, and anyone should be able to sell that to them. Better yet, regulate it, just like alcohol. There goes much of the crime problem. Socialism isn't the answer; forcing the government to acknowledge that what I do with my own body is none of their business is the solution.
The numbers as I recall are the top 1% controls 30%, the top 10% of people controls more than 50% of the total wealth, the next 40% controls the rest and the bottom 50% breaks even between debt and assets. Further, I think in 2004 there were 8 people in the top 1% that had not been born into that position (inheritance). There are lots of studies out there that show numbers on this and the US census data supports the trend although they ignore incomes over 1 million dollars and just assume anyone making more than 1 million makes exactly 1 million for historical reasons.
At least you brought some numbers. I agree with stances on inheritance; nothing should just be given to you. But that's different than saying 'everybody gets somethig no matter what.' Before we move on, lets remember, that tiny 11% you talk about is 33,000,000 (based on a population of 300,000,000). That's QUITE a lot of people.
I think you haven't been paying attention. Most inventors make very little profit compared to the financiers. Assuming you invent something cool, all on your own, in order to get it to market and manufacture you're looking at giving up maybe 90% of the profit. As a result, for every dollar you make someone who has done nothing except inherit a pile of money to finance your venture is making nine dollars. This is called monetary condensation. People with money make more money with that money by doing nothing and money slowly consolidates into fewer and fewer hands until there is a revolution and the poor take it and redistribute it.
You ignore the part about learning at all. I never said inventing was REQUIRED. And guess who's fault it is if an inventer only negotiates 10% of the profit from bringing the invention to market? That's right, its the inventers fault. If it takes 3 million to get a product to market, the investor is also taking a much bigger risk, isn't he? What's the inventor out? Time and money for parts. The investor out 3 million if the product tanks. That risk is exactly why the investor gets 90%. If the investor was really "doing nothing" as you say, how would he be out such a large some of money? Why would the inventor have anything to do with him, since he's "doing nothing?" I'm sorry, but you need to come back to reality.
You need to take some basic economics. Monetary condensation is pretty much established as a fact of the marketplace.
Lets try this again. I said "Working hard without bettering yourself is useless. That's likely what that statistic is showing." So the correct interpritation is that the reason the bottom 50% are just "breaking even" is because they aren't working to do anything to better themselves, or mismanaging their money. Kinda their fault, isn't it?
Because otherwise they are mugging you. Or because otherwise, once all the money has consolidated, they are burning down your house and taking back the money you did not earn. Or because regardless of how hard you work, you become one of them when the economy collapses and there is no work for you.
They'd still be mugging me; not for food, but for Nike's or an XBox. You don't understand human nature do you; people want what they don't have regardless of whether they ACTUALLY need it. The economy collapsing is an irrelevent point; no matter what economic system you have you have the risk of the economy collapsing. Nothing will change that. An economy could collapse because of a devistating illness or drought which kills much of the crops. Socialism won't help you there either.
Yeah because no one works for luxuries... oh wait yes they do. People want to work and do things. If they have no desperate need to work, they are simply more likely to be choosy about what they do and are a lot more likely to take chances which results in more innovation and more progress.
People WANT to work? Are you kidding me? Explain the number of people that just draw a welfare check; people which have stated they don't want to work. A homeless
You totally missed the point of my post.
I realize we have problems, I'm not trying to ignore them or any of that crap you said I meant. What I am sick of is non-Americans saying how crappy our country is from high and mighty 'we are pefect' soap box.
We have problems.. no shit, but I guess you never heard of the saying 'those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' Its the hipocracy of those kinds of statements that I hate, and was attempting to address.
I'm not a freeloader; I have a job. I contribute to society. I don't attach to people's wireless networks or drive their cars off my front lawn. But I have no problem with people who freeload - if they can get something for free, why pay? I feel more contempt for the spineless people who give freeloaders free things against their will.
.005 kilowatts * 1 hour = .05 cents. Are there people who honestly would miss .05 cents?
...
You certainly have the attitude of one. Its very odd someone would advocate somethign they themselves would not do. I suspect you're a liar.
If I were attached to someone elses's wireless network and noticed I had low bandwidth, I'd realize he was using it to its full capacity and I'd disconnect. But how many people too stupid to check the "enable security" checkbox use their internet connections to full capacity? As to your 25 cent piece of candy, 10 cents per kilowatt-hour *
How would you know its not just interfernce from something else? You wouldn't. First off, its not as simple as checking an 'enabled security' option, on any of the routers I've seen. Second, those same people CAN very easily use their connection to full capacity; all it takes is one large download. Finally, STEALING IS STEALING. It doesn't matter if its only a nickel, that was exactly my point, asshat.
The AP isn't faulty, the user is. Whose fault is it if he doesn't even read the 2-page quick start guide?
Maybe the user doesn't want his wireless connection slowed down due to encryption or other security measures. Did you ever stop to think about that? Encryption can suck as much as 30% of your speed. That's not insignficant.
If you can't even be bothered locking your shit up, why would you put forth the effort to lock me up? (assuming I screwed up and left evidence)
Because I may have made a conscience decision to NOT lock things up, because of the peformance hit encryption entails. But not locking does NOT mean I've given you permission to use it. I'd put for effort to have you locked up because you should know better than to use someone else's private property without permission, regardless of whether or not said property has been secured. Its a pretty important lesson to learn.
I am an asshole, yes, but I don't believe everyone owes me. If I find the need, I'll take what I need, but that hasn't happened so far. But you seem like the "don't steal my bread to feed your starving family" type, so
You're right; its not right to steal someone else's bread to feed your own family. You may have just taken away THIER meal. There are enough ligitimate ways to get on a wireless network there's no need for you to use someone's private one. There are enough ligitimate ways to earn money to buy food that you don't need to steal. 'If you find a need, you'll take what you need' is entitlement. You believe that YOU are entitled to have what others have earned. The fact that you convience yourself that you need it more than someone else is just rationalization so that you don't feel bad about it later.
I doubt I'd mind; this world is pretty crappy.
If you reall feel that way, do everyone a favor, and buy the gun yourself. There may be crappy things in the world, but I'd rather spend my life with those that can appreciate the good things in it anyway.
You work hard eh? Me too. That does not mean most people who make the most money do though.
I was never arguing that. Obviously the higher up you go, the more distorted things are.
Most of the wealth in this country is controlled by people who simply inherited it and did not work for it at all.
Any statistics or did you just make that up?
It is a myth that hard work is the way to earn money. Statistically, that is just not the case.
Hard work includes bettering yourself, by learning, and also includes inventing something. Given what I see of most people,they have no desire to do more than the bear minimum. If you're spent 20 years running a press for example, that's not the 'hard work' i'm advising. Working hard without bettering yourself is useless. That's likely what that statistic is showing.
If you provide the basics and nothing more (not money, just the goods/services) then people will work for luxuries and if they don't, fine.
No, its not fine. The basics aren't free, and I fail to see why I should have to pay for some fatass to sit in their trailer (which is also being paid for by me) to eat potato chips (also paid for by me). Give everyone the basics, and you'll have a huge majority of people doing nothing but being provided those basics by the hard working minority. Starvation is a pretty good motivator to get a job, I would say.
It is better they live their entire life consuming only the basics at least they have little motivation to rob me and I live in a better place as a result.
No you don't; you work hard, have little luxuries to show for it, and while you're off at work, said fatass munching on chips decides to break into your house to steal your TV. See, people WON'T just be happy being given the basics. They'll want more, and they'll want it free too. Then you'll pay for their gastric bypass surgery, because all they do is eat chips and watch YOUR TV.
People will work to get their designer shoes, iPods, and really good food. If they don't work, very few will commit crimes to get them, since this system provides both moral motivation and greater risk for a smaller reward than the current system.
Really? Where's the greater risk? I see greater risk for those that work. Did you ever notice that the rich people who do nothing are spoiled? Its because they were HANDED things, and never learned the value of working for what you want. You'll spread that to a majority of people with your scheme.
Socialism should not provide unnecessary surgeries (unless it is cheaper in the long run than the resulting problems). Socialism should not provide cars.
What exactly are you comparing to decide the necesseity of the surgery? To me, letting them die in their own blubber is the cheapest way to handle the problem. Why shouldn't socialism provide cars? What if you want to work, but its 30 miles away? Should socialism pay for you to move? Buy you the more expensive house near your job?
This is true, when socialism does not provide all the necessities. Take a look at violent crime rates in countries where socialism provides for medical care and drug treatment compared to countries where it does not. Notice any amazingly strong correlations? In the US, for example, more than three quarters of all people driven into poverty and desperate to survive do so as a result of a medical problem they cannot afford to treat. These people and their families make up the majority in US prisons.
Correlation does not equal caustion. It could just be the citizens of those countries are less prone to using violence. I don't see the drug dealers in the slums 'just trying to get by,' they have the latest cell phones, most expensive cars, etc. etc. Your conclusion is faulty.
For whatever reason the strongest correlation to crime is poverty. Socialism mediates poverty and in places where the necessities are provided by socialism, crime rates are very lo
It's *impossible* to make someone a member of a team against their will
What's your point? If you find someone like that working for you, you fire them.
A social safety net prevents desperation, which leads to violence and other negative social trends.
A social safety net also encourages people to sit back, do nothing and just take take take, at the expense of those of us that work hard.
There are ALOT of new cars in the trailer park not too far from me. Also, there's a huge amount of money being spent by medicare / medicaid so that fat lazy people can get a gastric bypass, which usually doesn't solve the problem, and leads to even more complications (which again, the tax payers must foot the bill for).
Also, even with a social safety net, there's still an awful lot of crime (usually in the same areas where a large group of people are receiving benefits). So I doubt that your social safety net does anything positive at all.
If I or anyone else would have to reveal something under subpoena or on a witness stand if it were part of a criminal case (and leaking classified documents is a crime), then so should the high and mighty New York Times.
If the information they want was part of a investigative story you did, you'd have the same protections.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
Oh right. Its the journalists fault. Not the people that SENT the troops there to begin with, not the people shooting at the troops. Its the journalists.
If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times.
There's a problem if the US attorney's office won't do anything about it though, especially if its corrupt government you're talking about. The correct answer IS going to the press. That's the only way to be sure the journalist isn't silenced in some way. I fail to see how telling anyone of an illegal activity is themselves a criminal. Maybe the people being called out SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACTING ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH.
Your logic defies belief. Its not the people breaking the law that's the problem.. is the people telling us about it??
Care to tell us where you are from? I'm sure you're country isn't all roses and puppies either.