If the statistics don't agree with you, then the statistics are false? Not really much point try to discuss something with you if you just dismiss everything you don't agree with.
Since Castro's government is a totalitarian dictatorship, Castro can pull any statistics he likes from his ass, and have them accepted as fact.
Beyond stupid. Any sort of professional medical attention (even if the equipment is substandard) is better than what's available in a 'back alley' of any country.
Who would you prefer to be treated by? A doctor who was trained in Cuba, or a doctor who was trained in Mexico?
Furthermore, Mexico has a higher infant mortality rate & lower life expectancy than cuba - two good indicators of health care in a country.
Those "two good indicators" are mostly bullshit. If Mexico has a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy, it's only because those in the Mexican government find it more difficult to pull numbers out of their asses.
I don't think you should give in so easily. The quality of healthcare you receive in the US is directly proportional to how wealthy you are. If you have major coin, you will receive first rate healthcare. If you are at the bottom of the economic spectrum you won't.
This would be a suprise to illegal immigrants in America.
I would wager that the average Cuban citizen receives better health care than the average Americans does, if only because there are more doctors per capita. Certainly the average Cuban receives better healthcare than poor Americans do.
You are either horribly gullible, or deranged. We know what sort of "health care" that ordinary Cubans receive:
For years Havana was simply a playground for the very rich from the US. In those days, most of the population was still poor, it was just that they had to see foriegn tourists and businesses reaping all the benefits of their labour. Nowadays, everyone is poor (A gross generalisation I know but hopefully you get my point).
This means that although you might have to go without the occasional little luxury, you dont have to see someone else who has more money than they know what to do with living it up.
And if anyone really wants to make an argument that the average cubans lot was better before the revolution I would love to hear it, I need a good laugh.
Before Castro, Cuba was the wealthiest nation in Latin America. People emigrated from Spain to live there.
Turns out for some things regulation is better - look at how a poor country like Cuba has better healthcare (with lower infant mortality rates) than the wealthy US.
Moving poverty around isn't helping anyone (except, in this case, corporations).
Considering that people in these countries flock to work these "outsourced" jobs means that the companies are probably paying more than what their workers would otherwise earn.
Some entire industries are based on government subsidies - either direct money transfers like ADM gets or indirect subsidies as side effects of legislation like the big telecoms get.
These are subsidies that grew out of those good, progressive New Deal acts that were supposed to reign in the excesses of evil, exploitive capitalism, remember?
There are differences. I'm saying there is also a lot of overlap. And frankly, if money is power, then I agree that you can have "too much", as an individual in a society. Unelected, unaccountable power is a threat to society itself.
The power that comes from having lots of money is infinitesimal compared to the power of a State.
Well, your actually paying for a license to use their OS.
When Microsoft hides the OS API so that they can use it and others can't they're effectively selling you half a tool. By not letting competitors use the entire OS that MSFT sells you they're taking away YOUR CHOICE to choose the tools you want.
They are not "taking away your choice". You can use Linux.
Not if you're a radical anarchist, I guess not. To anyone willing to recognize that there are, in fact, limits to personal freedom and do and should exist in any SOCIETY of people, then the Greens and Libs have an awful lot of overlap in the civil liberties and democratic principle departments.
Every real libertarian understands that personal freedom ends where harm to others begins.
Trouble is, "Greens" define "harm" as paying somebody below a certain hourly wage, earning "too much" money per year, or driving an SUV.
Also, last I checked, doesn't the gov subsidise the majority of the costs to lay the initial infrastructure, so the telcos should not be whining about incuring such major costs. I could be wrong on that last point though.
What percentage of building expenses was paid for by the government? Under what law? What is the approximate annual amount of government subsidies provided to AT&T, Qwest and Verizon?
You should have continue following the money as it were. How did htese people get the money? By government. Government provided them with special protections no normal person has. Hiding behind the wall of a corproation is a protection/benefit system designed to produce exactly what you correctly identify as a problem. With these "protections" in place both people and companies who become "corporate entities" become an arm of the government (that is what a Charter effectively does - and it is a Corporate Charter) and gain all manner of advantages an otherwise free market system does not provide.
1.) Any idiot can create his own LLC.
2.) If there was no government, such a legal mechanism may not exist to limit individual liability, but the ability to collect liabilities and debts would be more limited, resulting in no big change.
If the backbone providers want to be free of government requirements that they provide the same level of service to everyone, then they should be prepared to accept the concurrent responsibility -- that as soon as they are no longer blind to the traffic passing over their networks, the moment they look at the packets to determine whether they should be given priority treatment, they're no longer a "common carrier",
ISPs are not "common carriers".
and become liable for any illegal activity they support by forwarding packets.
Such legal immunity from prosecution or civil suits is not "granted" by "common carrier" laws, nor does such immunity depend on "common carrier" status.
I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA would love to have a nice, deep-pocketed target like the telecommunications industry to claim as co-defendants in suits claiming millions of dollars of damages from copyright violations due to filesharing. If they don't want government regulation, they shouldn't expect to get government protection.
If there was no government, no reasonable person would seek to imprison or kill the owner of a network for what flows over the network. Your argument is flawed.
Show me transcripts of the criminal trial, please.
Re:Build fiber into housing developments
on
Own the Last Mile
·
· Score: 1
But, as the fiber is not a living essential it will be owned by -- wait for it -- the developer.
Where the fiber crosses into common areas, the homeowners association will own it.
Build fiber into housing developments
on
Own the Last Mile
·
· Score: 1
Developers already put in streets, sewers, gas and electrical lines when they build subdivisions. Just add fiber to the list. Every development has it's own small central office or headend.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say anything with that many actual pictures is pretty damn good documentation, but feel free to poison the well if you insist.
Since Castro's government is a totalitarian dictatorship, Castro can pull any statistics he likes from his ass, and have them accepted as fact.
What political office does Laura Bush hold?
Did she receive preferential treatment?
Governments are formed for the ostensible purpose of protecting against external threats, not from any threat posed by "big business".
Abuses by government has been orders of magnitude worse than any abuses by business.
Who would you prefer to be treated by? A doctor who was trained in Cuba, or a doctor who was trained in Mexico?
Those "two good indicators" are mostly bullshit. If Mexico has a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy, it's only because those in the Mexican government find it more difficult to pull numbers out of their asses.
This would be a suprise to illegal immigrants in America.
You are either horribly gullible, or deranged. We know what sort of "health care" that ordinary Cubans receive:
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001470.html
Yes.
Then you would be going from lies to mere propaganda.
The sort of "health care" available to ordinary Cubans is far worse than anything available in the backalleys of, say, Mexico.
Maybe because you're so willing to repeat the lies of totalitarians.
Before Castro, Cuba was the wealthiest nation in Latin America. People emigrated from Spain to live there.
Today, Cuba is Third World.
You mean like Canada?
My, what better health care indeed!
These monopolies were created by government. The proper solution is not more government.
Considering that people in these countries flock to work these "outsourced" jobs means that the companies are probably paying more than what their workers would otherwise earn.
These are subsidies that grew out of those good, progressive New Deal acts that were supposed to reign in the excesses of evil, exploitive capitalism, remember?
The power that comes from having lots of money is infinitesimal compared to the power of a State.
Well, your actually paying for a license to use their OS.
They are not "taking away your choice". You can use Linux.
Every real libertarian understands that personal freedom ends where harm to others begins.
Trouble is, "Greens" define "harm" as paying somebody below a certain hourly wage, earning "too much" money per year, or driving an SUV.
So in other words, you don't share those values.
What percentage of building expenses was paid for by the government? Under what law? What is the approximate annual amount of government subsidies provided to AT&T, Qwest and Verizon?
1.) Any idiot can create his own LLC.
2.) If there was no government, such a legal mechanism may not exist to limit individual liability, but the ability to collect liabilities and debts would be more limited, resulting in no big change.
ISPs are not "common carriers".
Such legal immunity from prosecution or civil suits is not "granted" by "common carrier" laws, nor does such immunity depend on "common carrier" status.
If there was no government, no reasonable person would seek to imprison or kill the owner of a network for what flows over the network. Your argument is flawed.
And conquers a few other nations. And acts like sub-human savages in those nations.
Show me transcripts of the criminal trial, please.
Where the fiber crosses into common areas, the homeowners association will own it.
Developers already put in streets, sewers, gas and electrical lines when they build subdivisions. Just add fiber to the list. Every development has it's own small central office or headend.