Well, it seems slashdot has a high degree of social liberalism.
Thanks for give examples of why it the coast to coast rail roads would have failed. Thanks for inplying I am ignorant, because I am not "participating in local governnment".
True?
Thanks to the mods for scoring up mpapet, as what is said is sooooo scorable.
Well, the Great Norther Railroad was a privately laid railroad. During the intercontinental government rail road subsidies, this railroad functioned completely privately.
It also did better than its southern, pork laden cousin. The govt RR, paid for per mile of track laid. The subsidized companies, ran circuitous routes using low grade steel for the track, just to get paind for miles of track laid. Also contained in this bargain was land grants; somewhere on the order of 25% of the western terrories(I don't think my memory is playing hyperbole on me, but correct me if it is)
On the other hand, The Great Northern, laid its track to connect commercial centers and ports and used high quality steel to induce confidence in thier rail system. It was completely privately funded. It had more commerce running on it.
Do we really need govt, in order for laying technical infrastructureso our economy can grow? The rail subsidies nearly(my opinion) broke the back of the nation. Is that helpfull?
Another point. "The prescription drug benefit" Bill, or whatever moniker its going by, illustrated the problem with the leverage of scale.
Private, and politicaly powerful, companies lobied cocngress to pass this legislation. One of its arms, fixes the price of prescription drugs above what thier world market value is. This is why so many seniors are buying across the border, on thier own dime, because medicare has to pay a set price.
This legislation, broke the supply/demand relationship such that highly demanded medications still sold for the "old" price.
Still think they are in it for your best interests?
Not that, I do not see your point. I'd hate to be farkish obtuse.
I asked the same question about access to space in a shuttle thread a few weeks ago. Can the provate sector get to the moon?
The US did it almost 30 years ago. Where is my leverage of scale now? Myonly hope for traveling in space right now is the private sector.
NASA is not just about space, but also covers avaition. Would we have good basic research from private companies on civil aviation? NASA, does do a good job on making air transport safer, but could a private firm/professional org. do a better job?
I am not cocksure enough to say they would. However, I am also not cocksure enough to say govet is required.
And you are assuming that hospital wouldn't get pissed off at the lack of customers and build a cheap road to provide access thier services so they can make a profit.
You pay an aggregate tax every year. You don't get to decide, "hey thats to pricy!" Why? Because you can't see what you are paying for.
Wouldn't it be better if you actually had to pay to use that beach, pay to ride that highway and etc, each time you use the service instead of paying the aggregate tax?
If you thought the beach was run down, you could stop paying for it. The folks who run the beach might think, "hey we should use our revenue more wisely and fix up the beach!"
But alas, we are not allowed to make these decisions anymore. Ever try to use your "insurance" to directly negotiate for medical services?
The 'War on Poverty' was enacted in response to hard economic times which saw a poverty rate of around 25%. However, President Johnson's 'War on Poverty' speech was delivered at a time of recovery and some viewed it as an effort to get Congress to authorize social welfare programs. The poverty level had fallen from 22.4% in 1959 to 19% in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced.
Government officials are always poised just in time to take credit for things it did not create.
Um, those rules were created by the billion dollar companies. They can afford lobbyists. This is a much cheaper way to make a buck, then actually competing.
Regulation hurts. Period, IMHO. I really don't want to start a flame war, but it seems the "common sense" attitude a lot of Americans have is that unfettered market competition with out government intervention is BAD.
In my humble opinion, all that regulation does, is to reward the very big companies who can afford to lobby congress to suppress competition.
I just can't get over the continuing assumption many make, that a government program advertised to "save us from the big bad wolf" is good and anyone who opposes it hates the little guy.
Look at the motivation that the FCC has. There are a bunch of career politicians who are scared that the FCC is no longer relevant. Why have a commitee to regulate the "air waves" when new technoloogies depreciate this need? I realy think this is simply a move on the FCC's part to make themselves appear relevant and spend your tax dollars. They want to run ICANN, because god know what a miserable failure it... oh wait it isn't.
"Regulate private, subscription based networks for the children's sake!"
Thats the parents job.
Ever notice that each site with NEWs has the same news? One would think that the internet would kill the monolithic ap feeds and provide more diverse coverage of world events.
It seems that most news sites get their content from RSS feeds and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get.... *sigh*
Bring a little bit of hydrogen with you. Duh! Use the amazingly light and compact energy source known as antimatter to heat the hydrogen up and expel it from a nozzel.
Be careful about the idiot part. When you point a finger, four are pointing back at you.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet those "some people" your refer to were career politicians.
FUD, thats what government does. "Whos gonna put out the fires?" "It could've seriously sucked."
Well here is another idea. I could've seriously succeded.
Thanks for give examples of why it the coast to coast rail roads would have failed. Thanks for inplying I am ignorant, because I am not "participating in local governnment".
True?
Thanks to the mods for scoring up mpapet, as what is said is sooooo scorable.
I figgured nerds would know....
Mod parent down. Its not insightful.
They have to swear an oath to defend it under penalty of treason/death. Yet like you, they simply set it aside.
*sigh*
Very true. Please mod up parent. No threadjack intended, but 911, was a nice little demon too, wasn't it?
It also did better than its southern, pork laden cousin. The govt RR, paid for per mile of track laid. The subsidized companies, ran circuitous routes using low grade steel for the track, just to get paind for miles of track laid. Also contained in this bargain was land grants; somewhere on the order of 25% of the western terrories(I don't think my memory is playing hyperbole on me, but correct me if it is)
On the other hand, The Great Northern, laid its track to connect commercial centers and ports and used high quality steel to induce confidence in thier rail system. It was completely privately funded. It had more commerce running on it.
Do we really need govt, in order for laying technical infrastructureso our economy can grow? The rail subsidies nearly(my opinion) broke the back of the nation. Is that helpfull?
Private, and politicaly powerful, companies lobied cocngress to pass this legislation. One of its arms, fixes the price of prescription drugs above what thier world market value is. This is why so many seniors are buying across the border, on thier own dime, because medicare has to pay a set price.
This legislation, broke the supply/demand relationship such that highly demanded medications still sold for the "old" price.
Still think they are in it for your best interests?
I asked the same question about access to space in a shuttle thread a few weeks ago. Can the provate sector get to the moon?
The US did it almost 30 years ago. Where is my leverage of scale now? Myonly hope for traveling in space right now is the private sector.
NASA is not just about space, but also covers avaition. Would we have good basic research from private companies on civil aviation? NASA, does do a good job on making air transport safer, but could a private firm/professional org. do a better job?
I am not cocksure enough to say they would. However, I am also not cocksure enough to say govet is required.
And you are assuming that hospital wouldn't get pissed off at the lack of customers and build a cheap road to provide access thier services so they can make a profit.
You pay an aggregate tax every year. You don't get to decide, "hey thats to pricy!" Why? Because you can't see what you are paying for.
Wouldn't it be better if you actually had to pay to use that beach, pay to ride that highway and etc, each time you use the service instead of paying the aggregate tax?
If you thought the beach was run down, you could stop paying for it. The folks who run the beach might think, "hey we should use our revenue more wisely and fix up the beach!"
But alas, we are not allowed to make these decisions anymore. Ever try to use your "insurance" to directly negotiate for medical services?
The 'War on Poverty' was enacted in response to hard economic times which saw a poverty rate of around 25%. However, President Johnson's 'War on Poverty' speech was delivered at a time of recovery and some viewed it as an effort to get Congress to authorize social welfare programs. The poverty level had fallen from 22.4% in 1959 to 19% in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced. Government officials are always poised just in time to take credit for things it did not create.
Again, why don't people see this?
Regulation hurts. Period, IMHO. I really don't want to start a flame war, but it seems the "common sense" attitude a lot of Americans have is that unfettered market competition with out government intervention is BAD. In my humble opinion, all that regulation does, is to reward the very big companies who can afford to lobby congress to suppress competition. I just can't get over the continuing assumption many make, that a government program advertised to "save us from the big bad wolf" is good and anyone who opposes it hates the little guy. Look at the motivation that the FCC has. There are a bunch of career politicians who are scared that the FCC is no longer relevant. Why have a commitee to regulate the "air waves" when new technoloogies depreciate this need? I realy think this is simply a move on the FCC's part to make themselves appear relevant and spend your tax dollars. They want to run ICANN, because god know what a miserable failure it... oh wait it isn't. "Regulate private, subscription based networks for the children's sake!" Thats the parents job.
Ever notice that each site with NEWs has the same news? One would think that the internet would kill the monolithic ap feeds and provide more diverse coverage of world events. It seems that most news sites get their content from RSS feeds and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get their content and THEN provide RSS feeds that other newsites pull from to get.... *sigh*
Nuff said.
Bring a little bit of hydrogen with you. Duh! Use the amazingly light and compact energy source known as antimatter to heat the hydrogen up and expel it from a nozzel. Be careful about the idiot part. When you point a finger, four are pointing back at you.