Of course there is, just like we're "mostly free" in the US.
> I guess I should make it clear that my comments are not just me being an asshole.
I never thought you were being an asshole, I just think you're taking the typical arrogant American position that anything less than the level of freedom you have is a terrible thing. Now, I'm not going to tell you that China is fine, it's not. But it's nowhere near as bad as people around here, yourself included, imply it is.
Get off the moral high horse, other people want to use it.
I said "it's not as free as it might be." But if you listened to the/. crowd, you'd think people there were little more than rabbits trapped in the government warrens. It's a little tedious and a little arrogant.
Being educated is an incredibly good career move in China. Being outspoken, less so. But then, mathematicians aren't exactly notable as a whole for being political firebrands.
Stop buying into the propaganda that the whole of China is some sort of Gulag. It's not as free as it might be, but it's nowhere near the repressive state that the/. crowd enjoys believing.
Some do, some don't. And for those that do, it mostly has nothing to do with 'escaping' China, but with the fact that the top universities are still in the West.
> IMO, you can't just instantly (4 years, for a country to change its entire economy is essentially instantaneous for that kind of thing) change your entire economy to become a bunch of super duper experts..
Well, they changed their entire economy instantly to become a bunch of super-duper peasant farmers not too long ago, so there's some precedent anyway.
> Big Money dominates US federal law making and has done so blatantly since at least WWII.
That's not something I disputed. I understand that money generally twists laws to suit itself. But the originator of this post stated categorically that ALL LAWS, save the moral ones like murder and the like, are made for the exclusive benefit of moneyed interests. If that was true, much of the legislation I detailed would never have gotten to the point of being legislation.
> If you look at the historical share price of philip morris (NYSE:MO) from circa 1970 to circa 1988 when they started to diversify by purchasing Kraft,
There's a lot of noise there. Kraft, last I checked, doesn't make cigarettes. My interpretation of these events is that PM saw the writing out of the wall and started insulating itself from the increasingly less-profitable, more-exposed-to-liability tobacco industry by diversifying.
> My thesis is that in cases where the direct and obvious effects seem to be counter to the interests of the powerful, the indirect benefits are just as, if not more, valuable.
In complete opposition to occams razor. I'm sure you can invent all kinds of explanations after the fact, but I just don't buy it. The list is too long: OSHA, emissions standards, environmental laws, it just goes on. Unless you can come up with something concrete that addresses these areas without vague handwaving and talking about increases in stock prices since 1970 - and whose hasn't? - I ain't listening.
> One thing is for certain, such requirements haven't hurt their profits and that's all that matters.
I can't find any data on this in a brief googling. Do you have any? It seems counterintuitive that a decreasing smoker population would somehow lead to an increase in tobacco company profits.
> I don't see how a rational person could view the situation otherwise, do you just choose to ignore the outcome of all these so called "do gooder" laws? Are you completely unaware of the phenomenon of "regulatory capture?"
My only assertion is that the government forced auto companies to do something they would not otherwise have done that made cars safer. I can't really see any way to deny this. I'm sure the auto companies can twist the laws so they don't suffer too much or at all, but I don't see how that affects my thesis, which is that the idea that all laws are made by and for the exclusive benefit of the rich is ridiculous.
> In some cases, the sense of security is more dangerous than not having any.
In some cases I suppose that might be true, but as several other people have demonstrated with facts, as opposed to vague handwaving about menacing corporations, not this one.
I've cited a lot more than one example and I could rattle off many more if I thought he'd wouldn't be able to invent an immensely improbably explanation for it.
And incidentally, citing examples where the statement is false is exactly how you disprove things.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So you're with the other guy, the one who insists that Big Tobacco really doesn't at all mind not being able to advertise on TV and plastering their products with "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU"? The one who contends that the fight the auto companies put up against mandatory seat belts was somehow a ruse and they really wanted them all the time so that they could somehow use this to drive out smaller car companies?
> Yeah, but we already have all that. Its just not right here, where our laws matter.
This isn't really an argument for less laws, it's an argument for more.
> playing to the center doesn't seem to work for anyone lately.
Sad but true.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oh come on.
> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
Seat belts don't save lives, eh? Ralph Nader was just a tool of the auto industry? Big Tobacco engineered the ban on cigarette advertising on TV as a clever ruse to lock out the smaller producers, who through some nebulous market forces are unable to sponsor racing teams? Standard Oil was broken up because it... well, I don't know, but I'm sure you have a tinfoil hat answer for that one too.
I'll agree that in general, laws are written by the rich for the rich, but there are also some that are written for the little guy by good legislators. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no such thing as a class action suit, no such thing as OSHA, no anti-trust laws (ok, well there practically aren't any more, but you know what I mean), etc.
Taking a position that ALL laws favor the rich with NO EXCEPTIONS is simply ridiculous.
> I honestly believe that a "Total Lawless Zone" is better than what we currently have (though 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you).
You will not find me entirely unsympathetic to this view, but it's still hyperbole to me. I'd certainly agree that our government is pretty broken right now, but I can't even start to imagine what would happen if all the gloves came off. Child labor, debtors prison, indentured servitude... ugh.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Dang, forgot to respond to this:
> All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful
Well now, that's patently false. I'll just point you at car safety and tobacco/liquor advertising laws and make my exit.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy
Right, but the guy's point was that these zones would always be co-opted, and that while living in a society of law is kind of a pain in the ass at times, it's the citizens only protection against larger, more powerful entities such as corporations, and that the desire for autonomous zones is a nice idea but in practice amounts to suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
ok. but China can hardly be called a communist nation anymore, and has been that way for some time now, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
> Hey, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.
As do I.
> Is there such a thing as "a little bit free?"
Of course there is, just like we're "mostly free" in the US.
> I guess I should make it clear that my comments are not just me being an asshole.
I never thought you were being an asshole, I just think you're taking the typical arrogant American position that anything less than the level of freedom you have is a terrible thing. Now, I'm not going to tell you that China is fine, it's not. But it's nowhere near as bad as people around here, yourself included, imply it is.
Get off the moral high horse, other people want to use it.
/. crowd, you'd think people there were little more than rabbits trapped in the government warrens. It's a little tedious and a little arrogant.
I said "it's not as free as it might be." But if you listened to the
Being educated is an incredibly good career move in China. Being outspoken, less so. But then, mathematicians aren't exactly notable as a whole for being political firebrands.
/. crowd enjoys believing.
Stop buying into the propaganda that the whole of China is some sort of Gulag. It's not as free as it might be, but it's nowhere near the repressive state that the
Some do, some don't. And for those that do, it mostly has nothing to do with 'escaping' China, but with the fact that the top universities are still in the West.
China produces some really good mathematicians.
> IMO, you can't just instantly (4 years, for a country to change its entire economy is essentially instantaneous for that kind of thing) change your entire economy to become a bunch of super duper experts..
Well, they changed their entire economy instantly to become a bunch of super-duper peasant farmers not too long ago, so there's some precedent anyway.
Ok thanks for the update. If anything else wakes you up, be sure to post it. What did you have for breakfast?
> Big Money dominates US federal law making and has done so blatantly since at least WWII.
That's not something I disputed. I understand that money generally twists laws to suit itself. But the originator of this post stated categorically that ALL LAWS, save the moral ones like murder and the like, are made for the exclusive benefit of moneyed interests. If that was true, much of the legislation I detailed would never have gotten to the point of being legislation.
also, if I remember correctly, the crowd cheers when you do it.
> If you look at the historical share price of philip morris (NYSE:MO) from circa 1970 to circa 1988 when they started to diversify by purchasing Kraft,
There's a lot of noise there. Kraft, last I checked, doesn't make cigarettes. My interpretation of these events is that PM saw the writing out of the wall and started insulating itself from the increasingly less-profitable, more-exposed-to-liability tobacco industry by diversifying.
> My thesis is that in cases where the direct and obvious effects seem to be counter to the interests of the powerful, the indirect benefits are just as, if not more, valuable.
In complete opposition to occams razor. I'm sure you can invent all kinds of explanations after the fact, but I just don't buy it. The list is too long: OSHA, emissions standards, environmental laws, it just goes on. Unless you can come up with something concrete that addresses these areas without vague handwaving and talking about increases in stock prices since 1970 - and whose hasn't? - I ain't listening.
> Columbine game involves shooting unarmed children.
Carmageddon involves running over unarmed children, senior citizens and cheerleaders.
I mean, I know it's not exactly a historical simulation, I'm just sayin'.
> One thing is for certain, such requirements haven't hurt their profits and that's all that matters.
I can't find any data on this in a brief googling. Do you have any? It seems counterintuitive that a decreasing smoker population would somehow lead to an increase in tobacco company profits.
> I don't see how a rational person could view the situation otherwise, do you just choose to ignore the outcome of all these so called "do gooder" laws? Are you completely unaware of the phenomenon of "regulatory capture?"
My only assertion is that the government forced auto companies to do something they would not otherwise have done that made cars safer. I can't really see any way to deny this. I'm sure the auto companies can twist the laws so they don't suffer too much or at all, but I don't see how that affects my thesis, which is that the idea that all laws are made by and for the exclusive benefit of the rich is ridiculous.
So only six days to install then?
> In some cases, the sense of security is more dangerous than not having any.
In some cases I suppose that might be true, but as several other people have demonstrated with facts, as opposed to vague handwaving about menacing corporations, not this one.
Half his posts contain simple spelling errors a spellchecker could find, and the other half are dupes.
I've cited a lot more than one example and I could rattle off many more if I thought he'd wouldn't be able to invent an immensely improbably explanation for it.
And incidentally, citing examples where the statement is false is exactly how you disprove things.
So you're with the other guy, the one who insists that Big Tobacco really doesn't at all mind not being able to advertise on TV and plastering their products with "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU"? The one who contends that the fight the auto companies put up against mandatory seat belts was somehow a ruse and they really wanted them all the time so that they could somehow use this to drive out smaller car companies?
Look, the guy chose to die rather than have it published. I don't see how anyone could send a clearer signal, sheesh.
> Yeah, but we already have all that. Its just not right here, where our laws matter.
This isn't really an argument for less laws, it's an argument for more.
> playing to the center doesn't seem to work for anyone lately.
Sad but true.
Oh come on.
... well, I don't know, but I'm sure you have a tinfoil hat answer for that one too.
> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
Seat belts don't save lives, eh? Ralph Nader was just a tool of the auto industry? Big Tobacco engineered the ban on cigarette advertising on TV as a clever ruse to lock out the smaller producers, who through some nebulous market forces are unable to sponsor racing teams? Standard Oil was broken up because it
I'll agree that in general, laws are written by the rich for the rich, but there are also some that are written for the little guy by good legislators. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no such thing as a class action suit, no such thing as OSHA, no anti-trust laws (ok, well there practically aren't any more, but you know what I mean), etc.
Taking a position that ALL laws favor the rich with NO EXCEPTIONS is simply ridiculous.
> Wish I could confirm its origin.
It was in Wired magazine, lo these many years ago. Of this I am sure.
> I honestly believe that a "Total Lawless Zone" is better than what we currently have (though 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you).
... ugh.
You will not find me entirely unsympathetic to this view, but it's still hyperbole to me. I'd certainly agree that our government is pretty broken right now, but I can't even start to imagine what would happen if all the gloves came off. Child labor, debtors prison, indentured servitude
Dang, forgot to respond to this:
> All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful
Well now, that's patently false. I'll just point you at car safety and tobacco/liquor advertising laws and make my exit.
> Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy
Right, but the guy's point was that these zones would always be co-opted, and that while living in a society of law is kind of a pain in the ass at times, it's the citizens only protection against larger, more powerful entities such as corporations, and that the desire for autonomous zones is a nice idea but in practice amounts to suicide.