You are more than welcome. I use the comments section here to learn, to expand, to improve, and (ideally) help others do the same. Not everything needs to be an argument and it's possible to be civil while disagreeing or debating. It does mean, at times, setting one's ego aside and accepting that there are still things to learn and that it is okay to be wrong - provided you're willing to learn from that. Unique? No, just rare. I tend to notice similarly minded folks and find myself interacting with them more frequently than I may interact with others. Yes, that's a compliment.
That said, in reference to your other question - we're on the same page, I think. As unfortunate as it is, I think this is a conversation that we must have as a society. It's an emotionally charged topic and, as you suggested, a minefield but that does not negate the necessity of having this talk as well as many other talks just like it.
For instance, I'd like to think that I've been both civil and honest in bringing up what I believed might be a touchy subject with you. It was directly related to your comment, or at least tangentially related, but (hopefully) done with tact and with genuine concern. I can not elicit a response of any value if I approach it in a way that makes you get defensive and that would mean I'd not get a very good response. Call me selfish but, well, I'm kind of partial to getting good answers and opinions.
Seeing as we're on the same page, or close enough, and I think it safe to conclude that while we both probably have suggestions, that neither of us knows the answers and neither of us is comfortable speaking for the whole. So then, how do we (not just you and I) begin to have this discussion? I am, indeed, fishing for a response but, to be clear, I'm not fishing for a response of my choosing - I'm legitimately curious and do not know. I figure that you have experience in this matter and thus value your opinion - you've certainly more insight than I and a greater familiarity with the process. In other words, I am not trying to make you say anything in specific nor am I trying to prove anything. (Unfortunately, such does need to be clarified at times.)
So, at this point, I'm here:
How do we have this conversation as a society and be inclusive of those who are the greatest stakeholders and ensuring the best possible outcomes? How do we enable people, such as yourself, to ensure that they are heard and that their children's realistic needs are being met?
Full disclosure: I will be on the ballot in 2016. I'm am running to represent my district as a Senator in the State of Maine. No, you can not vote for me so I am comfortable disclosing that as it is not me using Slashdot as my campaign platform. I do not actually want to run and I do not wish to hold office but I have been asked, many times, to do so. As I am in a position to do so, I will offer my name and if the voters decide that I should hold that office then I will do so to the best of my ability for a single term. Frankly, I've far more interesting things to do with my time - even if it's just sit around and post on Slashdot. As I have been asked, am in the position to do so, then I feel it is my end of the social contract to present that choice to the constituents.
How do we decide to accept that it might be time to be honest and admit that we've been using ROI metrics in such matters for years but under a different name? What metrics are we going to use to decide value? It's certainly not just dollars and cents. It's certainly not just quality of life. And, dare I say it aloud, while it may well be about an ideal of equal opportunity it is absurd to believe it will result in equal outcomes. The cold hard truth is that we have a finite number of resources and the resources we have are constrained because of an insane desire to keep spending money on bombing little brown men.
Would that I could, I'd snap my fingers and change it. However, I can assure you, nobody listens to KGIII. Presumably that's because the
I have both solar and, as of last summer, two good sized wind turbines. I actually don't know for certain but, given past usage amounts, I believe that I now generate a minimum so that I'll be pushing electricity into the grid on days when I'd normally be drawing down a whole bunch of power. (I'm not home this winter and probably won't be back home until spring, I'm enjoying the winter in Florida for a change.)
Add to that, the power company does not pay me for what I put into the grid and actually charge me a maintenance fee to remain connected to the mains power. They do give me credits which I can sell, trade, gift, or donate and after a year has passed at new capacity I will verify the numbers and donate the credits to my local elementary school.
But, yes... I do not yet have an EV but that's on my list of things to do in 2016 as Tesla will have a viable model for my particular uses. If my guesstimates are accurate, I'll still be pushing power into the grid - even if I use the EV quite frequently. It will probably be "the missus' car." I suspect I'll make some use of the Ludicrous Mode.
To the point!
Yes, it's not economical and the install will not pay for itself before it needs to be replaced and overhauled. My home is in Maine and power is relatively inexpensive there - and would likely be from hydro where I live. I do it because it's a good thing to do and because it's more reliable than mains power - I still need to keep a generator just because we sometimes lose power for a couple of weeks at a time and there may be damage done to the system. I'm quite willing to pay extra for sustainable power and economics have little or no bearing on my decision to have the system built out for me.
And no, I did not do the build out myself - nor do I maintain the system myself. I know, I know... I'll leave my geek card on the nightstand along with a few dollars as my way of saying thanks.
Chicago used to have subways to distribute goods to stores and take manufactured goods out to the railway stations and be shipped across the country. They were using during the prohibition era.
Somewhere in CA there was (LA, I think?) a subway and light rail system that was bought out by either oil or automobile companies, I forget which but there's a documentary (or more) that touches on it. My understanding is that it was a legitimate conspiracy to buy them out, shut them down, and get people to use the automobile. I do not recall the name of the documentary but, often enough, someone on Slashdot actually knows the remainder of what I've forgotten and fills it in for us. 'Tis one of the reasons that I like this site as much as I do.
Alas, I'm in lazy, passive consumer, and stupid mode so I'm unwilling and unable to recollect more details about said rail system. I think it was a PBS documentary but probably not NOVA.
I don't even have 1/100th of his assets and I have a house cleaner. In fact, I flew her and her husband down to Florida over the holidays and they're going to stay here for a while - as in living in the house with me. Really though, I still do quite a bit of the cleaning and whatnot on my own but she mostly comes in and checks on me, makes a few meals a week, and makes sure I remember to eat and do normal stuff like get to appointments. She picks up my groceries and does that sort of shopping stuff for me because, well, I'm not really that good at some of that stuff. I actually sometimes forget to eat if I'm not reminded. I just get busy doing something and time seems to pass.
I think you're on to something. It's a bit unnerving to go pick something up, and you know you left it there, and it's gone. I lived alone for a while and now I have a girlfriend and it's strange to have things moved from where they once were. The missus says its eerie but she's never actually had a house cleaner or anything like that before - but I still find it odd.
In fact, back home there are two rooms that I don't like to have cleaned. One is my "office" which is more a shop and the other isn't really a room so much as it is a collection of them in my basement. I have a server room, utility closet, and a separate room (concrete and a steel door) that remains locked pretty much all the time. She doesn't clean any of those rooms but there's a pantry down there that gets cleaned.
Oh, heh... That reads a little odd but the room with the steel door is where I store my moderate collection of firearms. It's not like I don't trust her with them or anything, it's that I prefer to keep it locked and am ultimately responsible for the contents of that room. It's not like it is a concrete room full of various dungeon equipment and a gimp suit, it's not full of Lithuanian boys, and there are no secret doors that lead to a doomsday device. I'm just not that creative or interesting.
If I could have all those things done by an AI and a robot? I think I might prefer that though, at the same time, when I lived alone that was often the only human interaction that I'd have, in person, for some rather long periods of time.
But you're right - it's really unnerving to have stuff out of place when you know where you put it. It actually reaches the point where, if you're not really familiar with it, you're kind of a stranger in your own kitchen - buggered if I know how to work the dishwasher or where the peanut butter is. I don't really know how to describe it but it does take some time to acclimate. The girlfriend is still trying to adjust and has commented on it several times so it's odd that you bring it up.
That said, over this past weekend I had a few people who frequent this site stop over and celebrate the ringing in of the new year with us. (I'll let them identify themselves or not.) I'd like to think that they'd have not even noticed that I have a house keeper. She's not staff. She's a friend. I just happen to pay her because she does things to help me out.
It's a little different than the room keeping service at a hotel. They're in and out. A house keeper is there for multiple hours per day, doing your laundry, cooking your food, and maybe even answering your phone. In my case, she comes and goes as she wants - she gets paid for a full 40 hours even if she only works 20. She knows me well enough that we've kind of figured it out. I don't know how Zukerberg is but she's not just someone who works for me - she's a real friend who needed a job and something to do.
Also, I'm not important enough for her to care if I'm doing lines off an iPhone. She would cluck in disapproval but she'd keep it in the strictest of confidence. Her husband, on the other hand, might actually partake but I don't think anyone would swear to it in a court of law.
At any rate, you're not just right - you're uncannily right in those regards. It's oddly topical considering I was just having this same discussion either earlier today or late last night with the missus.
I am in passive consumption mode so I scrolled past that and then scrolled back up. I'm not going to charge you for the keyboard this time but, for FSM's sake, could you at least give a guy some warning first?
I'm afraid I must do you a disservice and reply. Would that I could, I'd wait and do it later. Alas, I'm going to enter my "not thinking" state soon as I prepare to resign for the evening, it has been a few hectic days and I am old. However, I will both leave this tab open and give it more thought later and, perhaps, add some additional content as time allows.
I did want to touch on this before forgetting and letting it pass... I humbly disagree that such, the Libertarian as I know it, has ceased to exist. The reasons for this are twofold, perhaps more but two shall suffice, and they are: I do am not alone and may, in fact, still be in the majority among party members and I am not a coward.
Eh? Well... As near as I can tell? We, the people who were here that got the party started are still here and haven't actually changed our views except to refine them a little. Many of those that I associate with are similarly minded. I think the phase is, in common parlance, "the silent majority."
I am not afraid. Unlike, to use your feminist example, others - I'm not afraid of ostracism. I'm not afraid of harming the party as a whole to stand up against those who have tarnished our name and made our party a caricature. Unlike the feminists who were silent and feared retribution or causing harm to their movement while they were usurped by those not truly interested in equality? I've realized that I must fight - or suffer the same fate.
I had a bit of an internal dialogue and even had it externally. Some of it was right here on this site. The outcome of that dialogue was that I can do any one of a number of different things. I can call myself a "Classic Libertarian." I can call myself a "Socialist Libertarian." I can simply stop trying to let people know that sane Libertarians still exist. There are other choices... I've concluded that, for now, I will continue the struggle - if not lead it. I will fight the misuses of the name. I will take the time to help people (and I've had some success with this) realize that the Libertarian they're familiar with is a caricature. I will continue to toil, perhaps in vain, but I can not yet give up that fight. I am not a coward. There is little that can be done to me that will actually cause me harm.
It's tempting to quit. It's tempting to just let them have the name. It's tempting to just not respond and self-identify as a Classic or Socialist Libertarian. In fact, sometimes I do - but I try not to. Chances are, until a little while ago, you had no idea that this philosophy (by name, at least) existed and that there were adherents in the US. If nothing else, this has been noticed by one person. On top of that, in another sub-thread, I've interacted with another. Is it daunting, overwhelming, difficult, and possibly futile? Yup... But I'm a stubborn bastard and this word belongs to me. It is MY failing that it has reached this point. I should have spoken out years ago when things changed. I should have nipped this in the bud early on and both from within the party and publicly. I failed. I was derelict in my duties and this is a result of me not doing my job.
So, it's a lot of damned work but I'm trying. While that only covers one small part of your reply, I've not yet given enough thought to give a proper response to the rest. You've done me the favor of giving me an intelligent response, it would be remiss of me to not do the same. Hopefully, for now, the above will suffice and I'll give the additional aspects some thought and reply - if needed. However, I can not give up yet. I may... It's definitely a lot like work but it's rewarding at times when I get decent, intelligent, and thoughtful replies. One of my favorites is, "Wow, I had no idea. Thanks." Or similar... But I'm too stupid to give the rest of your comments any justice at the moment.
To be a bit more clear, the descriptor (such exists and even has a formal name) of "Socialist Libertarian" is fairly apt but I like to distance myself from Socialists because I used logic and reasoned my way to this philosophy. At one point, it was others who are similar to myself who made up the majority of party members but I think the demographics are slightly changed.
The note of pragmatism is very astute and I'm not sure if you noticed on your own or are familiar with my posting history. I am, indeed, a pragmatic person. I'm also fairly moderate - and tend to dislike extremes. I've studied a great deal of history (not as an academic pursuit) and realized that it is often extremism that results in (oddly enough) the most extreme problems.
The biggest counter to my argument doesn't seem to hold water when reality is considered... To use the "dying in the streets" thing, that still happens - albeit with less frequency than before. We're just not surrounded by them but, even in those areas, there are people there who have the assets to do more than what they do while still remaining comfortable or, more likely, doing very little to help.
Where these lines need to be drawn and by whom should they be drawn is still, of course, a matter of debate. Being the evil, cold-hearted, ass that I am - I'd like to see some real-world experimentation done in a controlled manner. I suppose we shouldn't let 'em starve and stuff and restrict ourselves to volunteers but getting a truly controlled environment will be problematic and the process is going to piss off a lot of people. I confess, I have no way to do so nor even the slightest idea as to where to begin. I'm sure ethics commissions (and world courts!) would frown on this. I guess it's more accurate to say that I'd like to see the data from such more than I'd like to see it done.
I've been quite fortunate in life and have the assets to donate significant sums. I'd like to put society in a position where more people are able to do so and are encouraged to do so. You're correct (I think) in that such would happen in an ideal society. However, I use the pragmatic excuse and submit that such will not happen.
In much the way that Anarchy could be a utopia, in much the way that Communism is a fantastic ideal, in much the way that a true Democracy would be wonderful... All those rely on so many things that they might just as well be fantasy. They might be viable in small familial, tribal, or communal areas where participants are there by choice or know no other ways but greed, avarice, fear, jealousy, laziness, dishonesty, and more are all innate human traits. So long as we remain human, no one political ideology will work in its pure form.
So, we're left with the question of where the lines must be drawn. I'm a Libertarian because I believe those lines must be drawn as close as is reasonably possible to afford people the most amount of liberty. I'm a Libertarian because I want people to be able to use their freedoms to maximize their benefits from their liberties. I'm a Libertarian because I want everyone else to be able to enjoy those same liberties that I enjoy. I got lucky in life and I'd like others to have the same chances at success that I had - or more.
Meh, that was kind of pithy but I'm sure you get the idea.;-)
At this rate, the White House will have its own reality show by the fall season.
They do and people pay big money for it. We usually call it by another name but the end result is much the same. We call it, "Campaign Season."
You didn't think you were being fed anything other than entertainment, did you? Dude, we even fucking vote 'em off the island. They even have corporate sponsorship. They have teams, rallies, and games to determine who is and who is not preferred by their peers and the audience.
How the fuck can it be anything less than reality television?
Caveat: Err... I'm not actually sure what reality television is per se. I get my descriptions of it from people here on this site and other sites with message boards. I don't actually watch much in the way of television so I might be confusing it with something else. I should also note, I don't watch the televised debates, news, political commercials, or anything of that nature - again, I'm going by how others reference it. But, from an outsider looking in - they seem to have a lot in common, up to and including scripts, post-process editing, gaffs, and blooper reels. (At least I am imagining blooper reels. If there are none, lemme keep my dreams.)
I kind of pride myself on being willing to be held accountable for what I say. Right or wrong, I said it and I own it. I may make mistakes and that's okay - I'll learn something. I'm okay with that and that's why I generally post with my username or identify myself in posts if they're AC posts.
I like being held responsible. I like having to defend my beliefs. I like having to have to back up my statements with facts. I like being challenged.
I'm not afraid to make a mistake or fail. I'm afraid to repeat mistakes and not have tried in the first place. When I screw up, and I will, I want you to tell me. I don't want to be coddled. I don't want a participating trophy. I want to learn, to grow, and to improve. I've been making use of the internet for this very thing for somewhere near 30 years. You, the internet participant, have helped me adjust my philosophy and learn to be more critical of my thinking.
I, for one, am grateful for that and I'd not have it any other way. That, in and of itself, is something learned - I used to not want such things. I used to want to have people accept what I said as correct. No, now (thanks to you) I want to be challenged, I want flaws pointed out, and I want to know when I've reached a logically inconsistent conclusion. I want to be able to use logic and reason my way to sound conclusions. I think, if nothing else, it has made me a happier person and kept me motivated to learn and continually improve.
A fool is the person who thinks they have all the answers and never need to change their minds or learn new things. An idiot is the person who parrots them and believes them. It all goes back to, and I think this is actually one of my best features - if I may say so myself, my having learned to shut the hell up and listen to people who are smarter than I. I don't know everything and I sort of hope I never think I do. The hard part is letting go of the ego and being introspective and honest enough to know when you need to ask for help.
Now that you mention it? I've never, to the best of my recollection, gotten a result from Twitter to any search that I've ever done. Yes, I can probably craft a query to bring up a result and yet I've never noticed one and certainly never clicked on one. However, I'm fairly attentive and I've never even seen one.
There are probably many reasons why this is the case with the most prominent being the nature of things that I search for. I've seen Facebook results. I've found Fark, Slashdot, and Reddit. I think I may have even seen Pinrrest and even clicked on it (but never actually figured out what the point of that site was - it was a bunch of people stealing things and being proud of it, I'm pretty sure that was Pintrest) but I do not recollect ever seeing a Twitter result.
I've seen and clicked on results that included content *from* Twitter. They'll have such embedded in their site/article. I've seen other sites that had them linked and whatnot. But no, I've never seen them in any search result (that I remember) and I'm pretty positive that, if I had, I didn't click on 'em.
That said, I can't tell if your comment was serious or sarcasm.;-) Intonation and inflection aren't easily conveyed via text. I also have absolutely no clue if Google is allowed to index Twitter or not.:/ I suppose I could, you know, Google it.
No, I'm more accurately described as a Socialist Libertarian (they exist!) but we're very similar. I am both planning on voting for Sanders and supporting him financially. It sounds strange, to some, to have a Libertarian say they'll be voting for Bernie but we exist - we're just not that vocal. We haven't changed so much as public perception of our party has changed.
At one point, we were the "loony left." The public has often been willing to swallow what I can only call propaganda. I'm not much of a conspiracy theory kind of guy but I suspect there's some merit to the idea that there's a concerted effort to keep America a two party political system. We're painted as whackjobs and nuts. We're painted as gun nuts who hate babies and are racists. We're called all sorts of names - I encourage you to notice (even if just for a week) the rhetoric about "Libertarians" on just this site.
I suspect that you're familiar enough with my posts to be able to compare and contrast what is said with what reality is. The... What's the word? Juxtaposition? The juxtaposition is very telling. I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, in and of itself, but it's a fine place to begin research. I'll link you...
The first four paragraphs are enough. The entire article is not bad, actually. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the accuracy and lack of bias - it's there but it is slight. I've no major qualms with the article. However, just the first four paragraphs are enough.
I've made, I think, great use of the internet. I've been here since the days before it was an internet so much. We'd dial into a BBS and converse there. Some of us could dial into the university and access much more. Hell, some of us even had fiber back in those days. But, I digress...
See, I've always been about learning - and that means being able to modify my beliefs. I've put my ideals up against argument, defended them with logic, and reasoned myself to sound conclusions. I've done this with your help and spent 30 years in the process. I've not always believed as I do, I've modified my opinions when I gained new facts, new insight, and realized logical inconsistencies in my own philosophies. (That was not easy and, hopefully this doesn't seem egotistical, is actually a rarity. I do wish more people would try it.)
As an aside: It's a near certainty that I'll be on the 2016 ballot to represent my district in the Senate for the State of Maine. I avoid making many comments that could be mistaken as campaign comments here but I do not hide it. I enjoy having my beliefs challenged, being forced to defend them with logic and facts, and then learning. You (a generic you but still you) have been a great asset in my education.
At any rate, I don't think you're remiss in your description so much but it's that we really don't have that party here in my country. It's also not quite right. I'm very much, for instance, accepting of risk that are inherent in a free society made up of people who have maintained their liberties. For instance, I'm very much pro-firearm ownership rights. I'm very much pro-physician assisted suicide. I'm very much in favor of the right to use drugs. I'm very much in favor of erring on the side of liberty where it comes to protecting the commons vs. individual rights.
For some definitions, I find it easiest to say this - concerning the three words (freedom, liberty, and rights): I have the freedom to kill you. I am not at liberty to kill you. If you threaten my freedom, I have the right to kill you.
I also have a pot of soup analogy for the acquisition of rights but I'll only bother typing that out if you're genuinely curious - it's only tangentially related.
So there are, in my understanding, some fundamental differences between my beliefs and what I know of the Social Democrats. I do not favor a big government but, frankly, the size is irrelevant and it is the impact and intrusiveness that I think needs
That's not implausible. See, for example, how the BBC was used for propaganda during WWII. One of the things they did was have a radio station that was *very* negative towards the UK government, including commentary about Churchill's impotency and similar, all while including enough rhetoric to be able to slip in comments that suggested the Germans didn't have to listen to Hitler and that they were being fed lies by Hitler's propaganda.
Now, I don't believe that such is the case but, if I wanted to be controlling, I'd make damned sure that I had a station that was just critical enough of the government (while being powerless to effect change) that the people believing it felt that it was unbiased or independent. It's the logical thing to do. If it weren't ever critical, when the people knew criticism was due, they'd disbelieve it entirely. If it's just critical enough, or even overly so, then they're more likely to not worry so much about things that aren't being criticized.
If I wanted to be really sneaky then I'd not only have the BBC specifically target certain things, things to be outraged about, but I'd have created those things to be outraged about and then pretend to listen to their complaints and change so that there were lesser impacts but actually getting what I wanted in the first place. To put that into more easily understood terms - if I needed $10,000,000 then I'd say I was going to raise taxes on homeless people to raise $150,000,000. I'd have the BBC get outraged, including the homeless part. I'd then settle by raising taxes on the middle-class to raise the original $10,000,000 and the people would be happy that they'd put that government in its place. And oh, they would be...
I might even let the BBC find some underling who was going to embezzle the money and spend it on an evil terrorist plot, fire them and send them to prison, and only collect $20,000,000 in taxes to prevent that from happening every again - not on my watch!!! All in the name of charity and Doing the Right Thing - of course. Ignore that my umbrella corporation owns the company that will be supplying that welfare operation by providing food, shelter, services, and management... That's just not important and you'll be happy that we changed our minds about that whole homeless thing, found the criminal and punished them, and will forget the criminal's name within a week when the next news cycle hits.
Fortunately, of course, the BBC doesn't do that and the government is not malicious like that.
I'd like to add that the best Navy on the planet is the US Navy. Bar none, no discussion, end of topic. That's not something we can debate. I say that not as a braggart but to reach a point...
See, the US and the UK kind of get along. As near as I can tell, the UK has the second best Navy on the planet - we could debate that but it is immaterial. On the off-chance that the Royal Navy is unable to intercept and respond with force (which is very unlikely - people may not realize it but the Royal Navy is pretty damned adept) they need only to ask and the USN will be there to lend assistance - even in matters such as this. Chances are, the USN actually has assets that aren't that far away from those waters at any given time. The USN is *very* well equipped and *very* adept at what they do - to the point that many people don't even realize this. For better or worse, when the USN comes to town people notice.
That said, the Royal Navy ain't nothing to fuck with. They are pretty well set in their position as the second greatest naval power on the planet - they have greater blue water capacity than almost every other nation on the planet and greater capacity than many others combined.
I don't know if people have seen this or know these things but those naval vessels, not just the floating islands that have airplanes, can do stuff like ACCURATELY launch projectiles, weighing as much as modern a mid-sized sedan, more than 25 miles inland. That fishing vessel? About that... They don't even have to be able to see it to be able to target and hit it from over the horizon. They probably don't even have to fire a second shot.
Some of the earliest computers were actually targeting computers used aboard naval vessels. They've continually refined them... They can be in swells the height of a standard American home and *still* successfully hit a target that is so far distant that the curvature of the Earth means that they can not physically see that object.
And they practice this...
If you've never seen the big guns go off? Oh my... Just, oh my... The report is loud enough to be heard for many miles. The recoil is enough to move the whole ship - and ships are big things with lots of mass an inertia.
No, the Royal Navy probably won't need any assistance at all but, if they do, someone is seriously fucked. The fishing companies will need to be lucky every time. The Royal Navy only needs to be lucky once. I'd behoove the fishing vessel captains to think clearly about their actions lest they raise the ire of the Royal Navy or, perhaps worse, awaken the sleeping giant that is the USN. See, for history sake, Japan and how well that worked out for them. Needless to say, the USN has improved greatly since those days and, frankly, the Royal Navy probably won't even need to ask for help. They've got this.
You're not very familiar with international law or maritime law, are you?
I realize that you're hell bent on making yourself look silly but I'll try to help you out. The world is not a binary place. Enforcement can not be 100% and nobody is expecting it to be - well, nobody involved in this process. Regulations don't work like you seem to think they do. Instead of making authoritative statements, you can always just ask questions. I find it comes in handy and there are lots of people here who know a whole ton of different things - some of the are even willing to help me fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
Whenever I say something stupid (which is fairly frequent), I make it a point to phrase it as a question. It's amazing what a difference it can make. Lemme give you an example:
"Do progressives really want to force people to have gay sex, mandatory abortions, and adopt Islam as their main religion?"
It's also handy for eliciting responses which isn't, by default, the same thing as trolling. You're giving the odd little critter known as a Nutria a bad name!
You're the same person that said, "Well, I can just make my own drone and those drone laws can't stop me!" Aren't you? On its surface that appears to be a valid statement. Given some thought, however, and you'll realize it's just silly. Laws against speeding do not stop people from street racing. Laws against theft do not prevent people from stealing. Laws against murder have not eliminated murder. Funny how that works and yet we still have those laws. I'll see if you can figure out why on your own. Feel free to ask for help. Time is my greatest asset but I'm willing to share it.
Perhaps tangentially related is that enforcement needn't be 100%, which seems to be something that is being assumed by more than one person. I'm sure the goal is 100% enforcement but a more tempered and realistic approach will be taken and the methods used with be commiserate with the amounts of abuse.
Remember, the law doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. It never has, it wasn't even really meant to do so. I'm not sure why people think it does. The law is there to provide a known, accepted, punishment for those who behave in manners considered unacceptable by the powers that be. It's like the people who say, "drone laws won't stop me!" True. Laws against murder don't stop all murders either. Instead, the laws indicate what is and isn't acceptable and describe the appropriate (as decided by the government) punishments.
Will this area be subject to abuse? Probably. How much? We'll have to see. How much will it take to patrol this area? That too will need to be determined. They're called measured responses. Fortunately, most people aren't mentally handicapped and can see the world is full of choices that are not, in fact, binary in nature.
Holy shit! I opened this thread to say almost the same thing. You from the Island or are you a Hollywood Marine?;-)
(My retarded ass went not once but twice - I rejoined to finish paying for school. Man, that was a lot of years ago.)
By the way, you are number four. I've found two other Marine vets here and met one of them in person. I suppose, 'tis an obligation that I say this: Semper Fi. However, you already knew that and it's a bit worn out by the masses.
That was a horrible rendition! Then again, I was never a fan of the original - I just happened to know the song and artist. I somehow suspect that this group might not have known the movie or the original. If they did then they completely missed my beautiful pun. *sighs* Best pun ever and it was completely and totally missed. All these years later and I still remember it.
I don't know as i'd go that far. Perhaps you have some fascist governments where that was the core message? Or, perhaps, some "progressive" governments that you'd like to cite? I'd be quite interested in learning your perspective and why you feel the way you do.
There are lots of abuses committed "in the name of" but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of the thing being given attention. For instance, people kill in the name of Christianity. I'd submit that that doesn't make them all bad. People do evil things in the name of wealth acquisition, that doesn't make that inherently bad. People even kill because they're hungry, that doesn't mean that hunger is not a concern.
That seems like it's a rather large brush to paint with. I'm not sure if it is worth the energy and time (time being my most precious asset) but I'll take a chance.
Allow me, if you will, to give an example or three:
I have a friend, near and dear to my heart, and he owns/operates a small franchise fast-food outlet in a small town called Farmington, Maine. He employs a few people, mostly cute college girls, to work at the counter making sandwiches. There is a manager and an assistant manager. The hourly rate for the employees is above average for that job description and in that particular location. There are even some added benefits but we needn't get into those for the purpose of this story.
My friend was having financial issues and, unlike many, he realized that the best way to overcome those issues was to do the opposite of downsizing. He felt that expanding was a good idea and had sound numbers to demonstrate that building out his own place (as opposed to renting) would help and that this could be further funded by starting up a new franchise in a new location.
He came to me and asked to borrow [redacted] which might seem like a shitton of money but it really isn't. I agreed to loan him that money in return for a percentage of his business and, contractually, he has the right to buy back that percentage but no obligation to do so. I have since helped him expand to multiple additional sites, made all of my money back, made extra money, and continue to profit as he's declined to buy back my percentage of his company.
I have taken my company, long since sold, and built it from the ground up - with a grant and a loaned computer. I sold that company for [redacted] in 2007 and "retired" because I can spent like a drunken sailor for the rest of my life and still not have to worry about a damned thing. Yet, there's a pretty good chance that if you live in the United States that you've actually benefited, even if in some small way, from my work. (I modeled traffic of the vehicular and then pedestrian types and consulted on optimization, route planning, safety improvements, throughput improvements, etc.)
I've taken ideas, given them to others, and then enabled them to achieve a measure of financial success in the days since - all while retaining a portion of the business or getting a flat-out return on my investment by way of interest on a loan. I've even convinced a friend to start his own computer repair business. They now have two offices, run a hosting company, and do managed IT services for a number of local businesses.
Another example would be that there was this little company, a man with a dream, who needed some money so he had an IPO. I bought shares, 2000 of them, in this company when they were just about $24 each. Yes, that's a little bit of money but that company is called Tesla. I still own those shares. You can check their current valuation. I haven't looked for a month or two, it's not time for me to divest.
What snake oil have I peddled? What immoral acts have I committed? What sins am I guilty of? Keep in mind, I don't even *need* this extra money. I have plenty.
I'm going to redact some sums. They're immaterial and would probably only suit to cloud your judgment further. Suffice to say, they are goodly amounts. The kind of numbers that make business journals, local news, and get covered in applicable industry publications. I've shared those numbers and names before and it has resulted in some negative attention so I'll refrain from putting myself at risk though, I suppose, you could probably just check my posting history and figure a lot of it out. Trust me when I say it is immaterial and that I'm pretty sure that I'm neither a monster nor a snake oil peddler. If you need independent verification then several folks from Slashdot were with me on this past Saturday. I'm just your normal guy who got lucky because I was in the right place, at the right time, able to take some risks, and had great people to help me out.
I am, indeed, aware which is why I specifically asked you. I actually look to see who made what comment, at least frequently I remember to do so. I also note that you're generally one to give logical replies - though sometimes a bit emotional. So, I was careful to ensure that you were (hopefully) aware that it was not meant as an attack, a slight, denigration, or anything of that nature.
Where do you draw the line? Buggered if I know - that's why I asked you.;-)
Drawing on history, and having only your comments to go by, I'd submit that your son, in particular, should be given as normal an education as possible and encouraged to participate as much as possible - with realism being the ultimate decider. From your comments, which may be biased and that's not abnormal, I can conclude that you think your child has a reasonable chance at being a productive, happy, free member of society with some assistance. I'll take that at face value and not dispute it.
As such, I'm inclined to state affirmatively that you're child should get the aid needed to ensure the maximum chance of success.
Then, we have people who have an IQ (not the best metric but let's just use it for now, if you'll allow it) below something like 60. That number is pulled from my ass. Assign any value to it you wish so long as it is sufficiently high enough to where you're being honest with yourself. That person, through no fault of their own, will never benefit from the effort, expenditure, or attention. They are, quite literally, not just distracting but taking resources that would better benefit someone like your child or a more gifted student.
There are some who will simply never benefit. I don't see how, while maintaining some semblance of reality in our thinking and being honest with each other, not investing in their education can (realistically) be misconstrued as oppression or a political move. Yes, there could be abuses but that's really unlikely. Frankly, the kid eating crayons probably wasn't going to cast a vote.
There are some parents, for whatever reasons, who have insisted that the departments make sweeping changes and incur great expenses to provide what can only be called warehousing of their child. The child has no chance at success. They'll never function on their own. They'll never be a productive member of society. They'll always be (forgive the term) a burden.
You and I both know that I'm not advocating eugenics, I'm not advocating sterilization, I'm not suggesting that we neglect them, nor am I suggesting we treat them poorly. I'm a reasonable person with genuinely human concerns - I'm also a significant provider for a number of charitable groups. I am not a monster.
Where do the reasonable lines get drawn and who gets to make the choice? Pfft... 'Snot fair to ask me! I asked you!;-)
Yeah, they seem to agree that it would have necessitated a near-instantaneous response on behalf of the French and the English with mostly the ground aspect being dealt with by the French while the RAF handled the air. It's interesting to note that in WWI the Germans stomped through the Ardennes and then did the same thing at the start of WWII. What's always puzzled me is how did we get so lax that we managed to be surprised by the Germans stomping through the Ardennes, again, in the Battle of the Bulge?
We, of course, have the benefit of hindsight and a lot more information but that one has always puzzled me. I've heard a couple of historians try to lay some of the blame on Montgomery and lack of Ultra as they did a good job maintaining radio silence but that's always struck me as something ringing a bit hollow. I also don't know if I agree, entirely at least, with the historians who speculate that France and the UK could have ended the war as quickly and easily as they are thinking.
One of the other reasons they use to support that claim is a lack of enthusiasm, at that point, by the various Generals. There's some diaries and other publications that indicate that they weren't all that enthusiastic until after Poland, the Low Countries, etc... I seem to recall the crescendo being during the earlier stages (until about, oh, winter) on the Eastern Front. At any rate, I've heard more than one historian speculate that there may have been an internal rebellion but, frankly, that's one speculation too far so I don't lend much weight to it.
As said earlier, if Hitler had had the power and aid from aliens he could have taken over the world!!! (Hindsight and speculation are, while curious, not really all that good for deciding anything but they do make interesting conversations and thought processes.)
That's quite astute and fairly accurate. I imagine it will remain unread by most people as it is too long to fit on a bumper sticker and greater than 140 characters.
The major problem with your ideal is that it means that people will need to be both accountable and accept responsibility. It requires full, willful, participation by both the target and the people around them. It's logical, it's responsible, and it has a good chance at making society a better place.
Nah, we've got to have some charitable programs run by the government because humans are too greedy to attend to it themselves. Sure, you can point to all sorts of charitable giving and I can point to all sorts of hungry people. We can discuss how much, where, when, and under what rules. We can not, realistically, eliminate such entirely.
I favor the line in the sand being drawn a bit further way then you do (probably). There will be waste and there will be excesses. As someone who has accumulated a couple of dollars but is also a Libertarian and holds a PhD in Applied Mathematics - I can tell you that it's cheaper for me to pay more in taxes than it is for me to hire goons to protect my assets from disenfranchised hordes of hungry people.
(People often mistake me for a Socialist. Indeed, some of the things I believe have some similarities. I prefer to difference myself by making it clear that I used logic and reasoning as well as math as opposed to emotions, entitlement, and greed.)
See, it's cheaper to keep 'em healthy than it is to fix their major health problems later on in life. We can't just let them die in the streets, that's how you get revolutions. Those are disruptive and mean that free people aren't in a position to benefit from their liberties. Liberties taken, those as rights, are restrictions that need to be carefully considered.
I don't know about you but I want a healthy, happy, productive society where people are free to maximize their benefits gained from their liberties and free to make use of their rights. Oh, it's not emotional or altruistic. It keeps them from revolting and it enables me to better accumulate assets. The greater assets one has, the more one can take advantage of their liberties. It's great to be at liberty to say what you want but it's not so effective when you have no means to access a printing press or microphone.
I can, and will, go on. The email address works if you'd rather. I've been subjecting myself, willingly, to this debate since I first got online in the 1980s. I've refined things quite handily and learned a lot, changed some of my opinions, and reached the point where I can articulate it well enough but it's rather verbose.
For definition sake, concerning liberty, freedom, and rights... I have the freedom to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. If you're putting my freedom at risk, I have a right to kill you.
*sighs* I don't know why I bother but, no... I *am* not just a Libertarian but I've been a member of the party since, oh, the 1970s. I am not only fine with taxes but I don't even bother to write off everything that I could write off and reducing my tax obligations to their lowest amounts. Here's the kicker - if you've seen me post, you'd probably know that I've repeatedly stated that I can stand to pay more in taxes and probably should - that I only care that they're being spent poorly.
I'd love it if the taxes went to fix:
public roads to receive truck shipments; ports and airports to receive imported goods; courts to protect their copyrights, patents, pursue debts, and protect their property rights; police and fire departments to protect their business' property and safety; sewers to provide sanitation, flood control to protect their business, public schools to provide a literate work force, and many other benefits of society that make their business possible
But you fucking morons keep spending them on blowing up little brown men and allowing corporations to avoid paying their share.
Try talking to a Libertarian sometime. Try talking to a few though. We do have our share of nutcases.
Slashdot Mirror
You are more than welcome. I use the comments section here to learn, to expand, to improve, and (ideally) help others do the same. Not everything needs to be an argument and it's possible to be civil while disagreeing or debating. It does mean, at times, setting one's ego aside and accepting that there are still things to learn and that it is okay to be wrong - provided you're willing to learn from that. Unique? No, just rare. I tend to notice similarly minded folks and find myself interacting with them more frequently than I may interact with others. Yes, that's a compliment.
That said, in reference to your other question - we're on the same page, I think. As unfortunate as it is, I think this is a conversation that we must have as a society. It's an emotionally charged topic and, as you suggested, a minefield but that does not negate the necessity of having this talk as well as many other talks just like it.
For instance, I'd like to think that I've been both civil and honest in bringing up what I believed might be a touchy subject with you. It was directly related to your comment, or at least tangentially related, but (hopefully) done with tact and with genuine concern. I can not elicit a response of any value if I approach it in a way that makes you get defensive and that would mean I'd not get a very good response. Call me selfish but, well, I'm kind of partial to getting good answers and opinions.
Seeing as we're on the same page, or close enough, and I think it safe to conclude that while we both probably have suggestions, that neither of us knows the answers and neither of us is comfortable speaking for the whole. So then, how do we (not just you and I) begin to have this discussion? I am, indeed, fishing for a response but, to be clear, I'm not fishing for a response of my choosing - I'm legitimately curious and do not know. I figure that you have experience in this matter and thus value your opinion - you've certainly more insight than I and a greater familiarity with the process. In other words, I am not trying to make you say anything in specific nor am I trying to prove anything. (Unfortunately, such does need to be clarified at times.)
So, at this point, I'm here:
How do we have this conversation as a society and be inclusive of those who are the greatest stakeholders and ensuring the best possible outcomes?
How do we enable people, such as yourself, to ensure that they are heard and that their children's realistic needs are being met?
Full disclosure: I will be on the ballot in 2016. I'm am running to represent my district as a Senator in the State of Maine. No, you can not vote for me so I am comfortable disclosing that as it is not me using Slashdot as my campaign platform. I do not actually want to run and I do not wish to hold office but I have been asked, many times, to do so. As I am in a position to do so, I will offer my name and if the voters decide that I should hold that office then I will do so to the best of my ability for a single term. Frankly, I've far more interesting things to do with my time - even if it's just sit around and post on Slashdot. As I have been asked, am in the position to do so, then I feel it is my end of the social contract to present that choice to the constituents.
How do we decide to accept that it might be time to be honest and admit that we've been using ROI metrics in such matters for years but under a different name? What metrics are we going to use to decide value? It's certainly not just dollars and cents. It's certainly not just quality of life. And, dare I say it aloud, while it may well be about an ideal of equal opportunity it is absurd to believe it will result in equal outcomes. The cold hard truth is that we have a finite number of resources and the resources we have are constrained because of an insane desire to keep spending money on bombing little brown men.
Would that I could, I'd snap my fingers and change it. However, I can assure you, nobody listens to KGIII. Presumably that's because the
Hell, I can do that! Maybe I should take some old works and add some stuff to 'em and see if I can cause some hell with the copyright laws.
I have both solar and, as of last summer, two good sized wind turbines. I actually don't know for certain but, given past usage amounts, I believe that I now generate a minimum so that I'll be pushing electricity into the grid on days when I'd normally be drawing down a whole bunch of power. (I'm not home this winter and probably won't be back home until spring, I'm enjoying the winter in Florida for a change.)
Add to that, the power company does not pay me for what I put into the grid and actually charge me a maintenance fee to remain connected to the mains power. They do give me credits which I can sell, trade, gift, or donate and after a year has passed at new capacity I will verify the numbers and donate the credits to my local elementary school.
But, yes... I do not yet have an EV but that's on my list of things to do in 2016 as Tesla will have a viable model for my particular uses. If my guesstimates are accurate, I'll still be pushing power into the grid - even if I use the EV quite frequently. It will probably be "the missus' car." I suspect I'll make some use of the Ludicrous Mode.
To the point!
Yes, it's not economical and the install will not pay for itself before it needs to be replaced and overhauled. My home is in Maine and power is relatively inexpensive there - and would likely be from hydro where I live. I do it because it's a good thing to do and because it's more reliable than mains power - I still need to keep a generator just because we sometimes lose power for a couple of weeks at a time and there may be damage done to the system. I'm quite willing to pay extra for sustainable power and economics have little or no bearing on my decision to have the system built out for me.
And no, I did not do the build out myself - nor do I maintain the system myself. I know, I know... I'll leave my geek card on the nightstand along with a few dollars as my way of saying thanks.
Chicago used to have subways to distribute goods to stores and take manufactured goods out to the railway stations and be shipped across the country. They were using during the prohibition era.
Somewhere in CA there was (LA, I think?) a subway and light rail system that was bought out by either oil or automobile companies, I forget which but there's a documentary (or more) that touches on it. My understanding is that it was a legitimate conspiracy to buy them out, shut them down, and get people to use the automobile. I do not recall the name of the documentary but, often enough, someone on Slashdot actually knows the remainder of what I've forgotten and fills it in for us. 'Tis one of the reasons that I like this site as much as I do.
Alas, I'm in lazy, passive consumer, and stupid mode so I'm unwilling and unable to recollect more details about said rail system. I think it was a PBS documentary but probably not NOVA.
I don't even have 1/100th of his assets and I have a house cleaner. In fact, I flew her and her husband down to Florida over the holidays and they're going to stay here for a while - as in living in the house with me. Really though, I still do quite a bit of the cleaning and whatnot on my own but she mostly comes in and checks on me, makes a few meals a week, and makes sure I remember to eat and do normal stuff like get to appointments. She picks up my groceries and does that sort of shopping stuff for me because, well, I'm not really that good at some of that stuff. I actually sometimes forget to eat if I'm not reminded. I just get busy doing something and time seems to pass.
I think you're on to something. It's a bit unnerving to go pick something up, and you know you left it there, and it's gone. I lived alone for a while and now I have a girlfriend and it's strange to have things moved from where they once were. The missus says its eerie but she's never actually had a house cleaner or anything like that before - but I still find it odd.
In fact, back home there are two rooms that I don't like to have cleaned. One is my "office" which is more a shop and the other isn't really a room so much as it is a collection of them in my basement. I have a server room, utility closet, and a separate room (concrete and a steel door) that remains locked pretty much all the time. She doesn't clean any of those rooms but there's a pantry down there that gets cleaned.
Oh, heh... That reads a little odd but the room with the steel door is where I store my moderate collection of firearms. It's not like I don't trust her with them or anything, it's that I prefer to keep it locked and am ultimately responsible for the contents of that room. It's not like it is a concrete room full of various dungeon equipment and a gimp suit, it's not full of Lithuanian boys, and there are no secret doors that lead to a doomsday device. I'm just not that creative or interesting.
If I could have all those things done by an AI and a robot? I think I might prefer that though, at the same time, when I lived alone that was often the only human interaction that I'd have, in person, for some rather long periods of time.
But you're right - it's really unnerving to have stuff out of place when you know where you put it. It actually reaches the point where, if you're not really familiar with it, you're kind of a stranger in your own kitchen - buggered if I know how to work the dishwasher or where the peanut butter is. I don't really know how to describe it but it does take some time to acclimate. The girlfriend is still trying to adjust and has commented on it several times so it's odd that you bring it up.
That said, over this past weekend I had a few people who frequent this site stop over and celebrate the ringing in of the new year with us. (I'll let them identify themselves or not.) I'd like to think that they'd have not even noticed that I have a house keeper. She's not staff. She's a friend. I just happen to pay her because she does things to help me out.
It's a little different than the room keeping service at a hotel. They're in and out. A house keeper is there for multiple hours per day, doing your laundry, cooking your food, and maybe even answering your phone. In my case, she comes and goes as she wants - she gets paid for a full 40 hours even if she only works 20. She knows me well enough that we've kind of figured it out. I don't know how Zukerberg is but she's not just someone who works for me - she's a real friend who needed a job and something to do.
Also, I'm not important enough for her to care if I'm doing lines off an iPhone. She would cluck in disapproval but she'd keep it in the strictest of confidence. Her husband, on the other hand, might actually partake but I don't think anyone would swear to it in a court of law.
At any rate, you're not just right - you're uncannily right in those regards. It's oddly topical considering I was just having this same discussion either earlier today or late last night with the missus.
I am in passive consumption mode so I scrolled past that and then scrolled back up. I'm not going to charge you for the keyboard this time but, for FSM's sake, could you at least give a guy some warning first?
I'm afraid I must do you a disservice and reply. Would that I could, I'd wait and do it later. Alas, I'm going to enter my "not thinking" state soon as I prepare to resign for the evening, it has been a few hectic days and I am old. However, I will both leave this tab open and give it more thought later and, perhaps, add some additional content as time allows.
I did want to touch on this before forgetting and letting it pass... I humbly disagree that such, the Libertarian as I know it, has ceased to exist. The reasons for this are twofold, perhaps more but two shall suffice, and they are: I do am not alone and may, in fact, still be in the majority among party members and I am not a coward.
Eh? Well... As near as I can tell? We, the people who were here that got the party started are still here and haven't actually changed our views except to refine them a little. Many of those that I associate with are similarly minded. I think the phase is, in common parlance, "the silent majority."
I am not afraid. Unlike, to use your feminist example, others - I'm not afraid of ostracism. I'm not afraid of harming the party as a whole to stand up against those who have tarnished our name and made our party a caricature. Unlike the feminists who were silent and feared retribution or causing harm to their movement while they were usurped by those not truly interested in equality? I've realized that I must fight - or suffer the same fate.
I had a bit of an internal dialogue and even had it externally. Some of it was right here on this site. The outcome of that dialogue was that I can do any one of a number of different things. I can call myself a "Classic Libertarian." I can call myself a "Socialist Libertarian." I can simply stop trying to let people know that sane Libertarians still exist. There are other choices... I've concluded that, for now, I will continue the struggle - if not lead it. I will fight the misuses of the name. I will take the time to help people (and I've had some success with this) realize that the Libertarian they're familiar with is a caricature. I will continue to toil, perhaps in vain, but I can not yet give up that fight. I am not a coward. There is little that can be done to me that will actually cause me harm.
It's tempting to quit. It's tempting to just let them have the name. It's tempting to just not respond and self-identify as a Classic or Socialist Libertarian. In fact, sometimes I do - but I try not to. Chances are, until a little while ago, you had no idea that this philosophy (by name, at least) existed and that there were adherents in the US. If nothing else, this has been noticed by one person. On top of that, in another sub-thread, I've interacted with another. Is it daunting, overwhelming, difficult, and possibly futile? Yup... But I'm a stubborn bastard and this word belongs to me. It is MY failing that it has reached this point. I should have spoken out years ago when things changed. I should have nipped this in the bud early on and both from within the party and publicly. I failed. I was derelict in my duties and this is a result of me not doing my job.
So, it's a lot of damned work but I'm trying. While that only covers one small part of your reply, I've not yet given enough thought to give a proper response to the rest. You've done me the favor of giving me an intelligent response, it would be remiss of me to not do the same. Hopefully, for now, the above will suffice and I'll give the additional aspects some thought and reply - if needed. However, I can not give up yet. I may... It's definitely a lot like work but it's rewarding at times when I get decent, intelligent, and thoughtful replies. One of my favorites is, "Wow, I had no idea. Thanks." Or similar... But I'm too stupid to give the rest of your comments any justice at the moment.
To be a bit more clear, the descriptor (such exists and even has a formal name) of "Socialist Libertarian" is fairly apt but I like to distance myself from Socialists because I used logic and reasoned my way to this philosophy. At one point, it was others who are similar to myself who made up the majority of party members but I think the demographics are slightly changed.
The note of pragmatism is very astute and I'm not sure if you noticed on your own or are familiar with my posting history. I am, indeed, a pragmatic person. I'm also fairly moderate - and tend to dislike extremes. I've studied a great deal of history (not as an academic pursuit) and realized that it is often extremism that results in (oddly enough) the most extreme problems.
The biggest counter to my argument doesn't seem to hold water when reality is considered... To use the "dying in the streets" thing, that still happens - albeit with less frequency than before. We're just not surrounded by them but, even in those areas, there are people there who have the assets to do more than what they do while still remaining comfortable or, more likely, doing very little to help.
Where these lines need to be drawn and by whom should they be drawn is still, of course, a matter of debate. Being the evil, cold-hearted, ass that I am - I'd like to see some real-world experimentation done in a controlled manner. I suppose we shouldn't let 'em starve and stuff and restrict ourselves to volunteers but getting a truly controlled environment will be problematic and the process is going to piss off a lot of people. I confess, I have no way to do so nor even the slightest idea as to where to begin. I'm sure ethics commissions (and world courts!) would frown on this. I guess it's more accurate to say that I'd like to see the data from such more than I'd like to see it done.
I've been quite fortunate in life and have the assets to donate significant sums. I'd like to put society in a position where more people are able to do so and are encouraged to do so. You're correct (I think) in that such would happen in an ideal society. However, I use the pragmatic excuse and submit that such will not happen.
In much the way that Anarchy could be a utopia, in much the way that Communism is a fantastic ideal, in much the way that a true Democracy would be wonderful... All those rely on so many things that they might just as well be fantasy. They might be viable in small familial, tribal, or communal areas where participants are there by choice or know no other ways but greed, avarice, fear, jealousy, laziness, dishonesty, and more are all innate human traits. So long as we remain human, no one political ideology will work in its pure form.
So, we're left with the question of where the lines must be drawn. I'm a Libertarian because I believe those lines must be drawn as close as is reasonably possible to afford people the most amount of liberty. I'm a Libertarian because I want people to be able to use their freedoms to maximize their benefits from their liberties. I'm a Libertarian because I want everyone else to be able to enjoy those same liberties that I enjoy. I got lucky in life and I'd like others to have the same chances at success that I had - or more.
Meh, that was kind of pithy but I'm sure you get the idea. ;-)
At this rate, the White House will have its own reality show by the fall season.
They do and people pay big money for it. We usually call it by another name but the end result is much the same. We call it, "Campaign Season."
You didn't think you were being fed anything other than entertainment, did you? Dude, we even fucking vote 'em off the island. They even have corporate sponsorship. They have teams, rallies, and games to determine who is and who is not preferred by their peers and the audience.
How the fuck can it be anything less than reality television?
Caveat: Err... I'm not actually sure what reality television is per se. I get my descriptions of it from people here on this site and other sites with message boards. I don't actually watch much in the way of television so I might be confusing it with something else. I should also note, I don't watch the televised debates, news, political commercials, or anything of that nature - again, I'm going by how others reference it. But, from an outsider looking in - they seem to have a lot in common, up to and including scripts, post-process editing, gaffs, and blooper reels. (At least I am imagining blooper reels. If there are none, lemme keep my dreams.)
Also, yes I am aware that I need to get out more.
I kind of pride myself on being willing to be held accountable for what I say. Right or wrong, I said it and I own it. I may make mistakes and that's okay - I'll learn something. I'm okay with that and that's why I generally post with my username or identify myself in posts if they're AC posts.
I like being held responsible. I like having to defend my beliefs. I like having to have to back up my statements with facts. I like being challenged.
I'm not afraid to make a mistake or fail. I'm afraid to repeat mistakes and not have tried in the first place. When I screw up, and I will, I want you to tell me. I don't want to be coddled. I don't want a participating trophy. I want to learn, to grow, and to improve. I've been making use of the internet for this very thing for somewhere near 30 years. You, the internet participant, have helped me adjust my philosophy and learn to be more critical of my thinking.
I, for one, am grateful for that and I'd not have it any other way. That, in and of itself, is something learned - I used to not want such things. I used to want to have people accept what I said as correct. No, now (thanks to you) I want to be challenged, I want flaws pointed out, and I want to know when I've reached a logically inconsistent conclusion. I want to be able to use logic and reason my way to sound conclusions. I think, if nothing else, it has made me a happier person and kept me motivated to learn and continually improve.
A fool is the person who thinks they have all the answers and never need to change their minds or learn new things. An idiot is the person who parrots them and believes them. It all goes back to, and I think this is actually one of my best features - if I may say so myself, my having learned to shut the hell up and listen to people who are smarter than I. I don't know everything and I sort of hope I never think I do. The hard part is letting go of the ego and being introspective and honest enough to know when you need to ask for help.
Meh, but what do I know?
Now that you mention it? I've never, to the best of my recollection, gotten a result from Twitter to any search that I've ever done. Yes, I can probably craft a query to bring up a result and yet I've never noticed one and certainly never clicked on one. However, I'm fairly attentive and I've never even seen one.
There are probably many reasons why this is the case with the most prominent being the nature of things that I search for. I've seen Facebook results. I've found Fark, Slashdot, and Reddit. I think I may have even seen Pinrrest and even clicked on it (but never actually figured out what the point of that site was - it was a bunch of people stealing things and being proud of it, I'm pretty sure that was Pintrest) but I do not recollect ever seeing a Twitter result.
I've seen and clicked on results that included content *from* Twitter. They'll have such embedded in their site/article. I've seen other sites that had them linked and whatnot. But no, I've never seen them in any search result (that I remember) and I'm pretty positive that, if I had, I didn't click on 'em.
That said, I can't tell if your comment was serious or sarcasm. ;-) Intonation and inflection aren't easily conveyed via text. I also have absolutely no clue if Google is allowed to index Twitter or not. :/ I suppose I could, you know, Google it.
No, I'm more accurately described as a Socialist Libertarian (they exist!) but we're very similar. I am both planning on voting for Sanders and supporting him financially. It sounds strange, to some, to have a Libertarian say they'll be voting for Bernie but we exist - we're just not that vocal. We haven't changed so much as public perception of our party has changed.
At one point, we were the "loony left." The public has often been willing to swallow what I can only call propaganda. I'm not much of a conspiracy theory kind of guy but I suspect there's some merit to the idea that there's a concerted effort to keep America a two party political system. We're painted as whackjobs and nuts. We're painted as gun nuts who hate babies and are racists. We're called all sorts of names - I encourage you to notice (even if just for a week) the rhetoric about "Libertarians" on just this site.
I suspect that you're familiar enough with my posts to be able to compare and contrast what is said with what reality is. The... What's the word? Juxtaposition? The juxtaposition is very telling. I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, in and of itself, but it's a fine place to begin research. I'll link you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The first four paragraphs are enough. The entire article is not bad, actually. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the accuracy and lack of bias - it's there but it is slight. I've no major qualms with the article. However, just the first four paragraphs are enough.
I've made, I think, great use of the internet. I've been here since the days before it was an internet so much. We'd dial into a BBS and converse there. Some of us could dial into the university and access much more. Hell, some of us even had fiber back in those days. But, I digress...
See, I've always been about learning - and that means being able to modify my beliefs. I've put my ideals up against argument, defended them with logic, and reasoned myself to sound conclusions. I've done this with your help and spent 30 years in the process. I've not always believed as I do, I've modified my opinions when I gained new facts, new insight, and realized logical inconsistencies in my own philosophies. (That was not easy and, hopefully this doesn't seem egotistical, is actually a rarity. I do wish more people would try it.)
As an aside: It's a near certainty that I'll be on the 2016 ballot to represent my district in the Senate for the State of Maine. I avoid making many comments that could be mistaken as campaign comments here but I do not hide it. I enjoy having my beliefs challenged, being forced to defend them with logic and facts, and then learning. You (a generic you but still you) have been a great asset in my education.
At any rate, I don't think you're remiss in your description so much but it's that we really don't have that party here in my country. It's also not quite right. I'm very much, for instance, accepting of risk that are inherent in a free society made up of people who have maintained their liberties. For instance, I'm very much pro-firearm ownership rights. I'm very much pro-physician assisted suicide. I'm very much in favor of the right to use drugs. I'm very much in favor of erring on the side of liberty where it comes to protecting the commons vs. individual rights.
For some definitions, I find it easiest to say this - concerning the three words (freedom, liberty, and rights): I have the freedom to kill you. I am not at liberty to kill you. If you threaten my freedom, I have the right to kill you.
I also have a pot of soup analogy for the acquisition of rights but I'll only bother typing that out if you're genuinely curious - it's only tangentially related.
So there are, in my understanding, some fundamental differences between my beliefs and what I know of the Social Democrats. I do not favor a big government but, frankly, the size is irrelevant and it is the impact and intrusiveness that I think needs
That's not implausible. See, for example, how the BBC was used for propaganda during WWII. One of the things they did was have a radio station that was *very* negative towards the UK government, including commentary about Churchill's impotency and similar, all while including enough rhetoric to be able to slip in comments that suggested the Germans didn't have to listen to Hitler and that they were being fed lies by Hitler's propaganda.
Now, I don't believe that such is the case but, if I wanted to be controlling, I'd make damned sure that I had a station that was just critical enough of the government (while being powerless to effect change) that the people believing it felt that it was unbiased or independent. It's the logical thing to do. If it weren't ever critical, when the people knew criticism was due, they'd disbelieve it entirely. If it's just critical enough, or even overly so, then they're more likely to not worry so much about things that aren't being criticized.
If I wanted to be really sneaky then I'd not only have the BBC specifically target certain things, things to be outraged about, but I'd have created those things to be outraged about and then pretend to listen to their complaints and change so that there were lesser impacts but actually getting what I wanted in the first place. To put that into more easily understood terms - if I needed $10,000,000 then I'd say I was going to raise taxes on homeless people to raise $150,000,000. I'd have the BBC get outraged, including the homeless part. I'd then settle by raising taxes on the middle-class to raise the original $10,000,000 and the people would be happy that they'd put that government in its place. And oh, they would be...
I might even let the BBC find some underling who was going to embezzle the money and spend it on an evil terrorist plot, fire them and send them to prison, and only collect $20,000,000 in taxes to prevent that from happening every again - not on my watch!!! All in the name of charity and Doing the Right Thing - of course. Ignore that my umbrella corporation owns the company that will be supplying that welfare operation by providing food, shelter, services, and management... That's just not important and you'll be happy that we changed our minds about that whole homeless thing, found the criminal and punished them, and will forget the criminal's name within a week when the next news cycle hits.
Fortunately, of course, the BBC doesn't do that and the government is not malicious like that.
I'd like to add that the best Navy on the planet is the US Navy. Bar none, no discussion, end of topic. That's not something we can debate. I say that not as a braggart but to reach a point...
See, the US and the UK kind of get along. As near as I can tell, the UK has the second best Navy on the planet - we could debate that but it is immaterial. On the off-chance that the Royal Navy is unable to intercept and respond with force (which is very unlikely - people may not realize it but the Royal Navy is pretty damned adept) they need only to ask and the USN will be there to lend assistance - even in matters such as this. Chances are, the USN actually has assets that aren't that far away from those waters at any given time. The USN is *very* well equipped and *very* adept at what they do - to the point that many people don't even realize this. For better or worse, when the USN comes to town people notice.
That said, the Royal Navy ain't nothing to fuck with. They are pretty well set in their position as the second greatest naval power on the planet - they have greater blue water capacity than almost every other nation on the planet and greater capacity than many others combined.
I don't know if people have seen this or know these things but those naval vessels, not just the floating islands that have airplanes, can do stuff like ACCURATELY launch projectiles, weighing as much as modern a mid-sized sedan, more than 25 miles inland. That fishing vessel? About that... They don't even have to be able to see it to be able to target and hit it from over the horizon. They probably don't even have to fire a second shot.
Some of the earliest computers were actually targeting computers used aboard naval vessels. They've continually refined them... They can be in swells the height of a standard American home and *still* successfully hit a target that is so far distant that the curvature of the Earth means that they can not physically see that object.
And they practice this...
If you've never seen the big guns go off? Oh my... Just, oh my... The report is loud enough to be heard for many miles. The recoil is enough to move the whole ship - and ships are big things with lots of mass an inertia.
No, the Royal Navy probably won't need any assistance at all but, if they do, someone is seriously fucked. The fishing companies will need to be lucky every time. The Royal Navy only needs to be lucky once. I'd behoove the fishing vessel captains to think clearly about their actions lest they raise the ire of the Royal Navy or, perhaps worse, awaken the sleeping giant that is the USN. See, for history sake, Japan and how well that worked out for them. Needless to say, the USN has improved greatly since those days and, frankly, the Royal Navy probably won't even need to ask for help. They've got this.
You're not very familiar with international law or maritime law, are you?
I realize that you're hell bent on making yourself look silly but I'll try to help you out. The world is not a binary place. Enforcement can not be 100% and nobody is expecting it to be - well, nobody involved in this process. Regulations don't work like you seem to think they do. Instead of making authoritative statements, you can always just ask questions. I find it comes in handy and there are lots of people here who know a whole ton of different things - some of the are even willing to help me fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
Whenever I say something stupid (which is fairly frequent), I make it a point to phrase it as a question. It's amazing what a difference it can make. Lemme give you an example:
"Do progressives really want to force people to have gay sex, mandatory abortions, and adopt Islam as their main religion?"
It's also handy for eliciting responses which isn't, by default, the same thing as trolling. You're giving the odd little critter known as a Nutria a bad name!
You're the same person that said, "Well, I can just make my own drone and those drone laws can't stop me!" Aren't you? On its surface that appears to be a valid statement. Given some thought, however, and you'll realize it's just silly. Laws against speeding do not stop people from street racing. Laws against theft do not prevent people from stealing. Laws against murder have not eliminated murder. Funny how that works and yet we still have those laws. I'll see if you can figure out why on your own. Feel free to ask for help. Time is my greatest asset but I'm willing to share it.
Perhaps tangentially related is that enforcement needn't be 100%, which seems to be something that is being assumed by more than one person. I'm sure the goal is 100% enforcement but a more tempered and realistic approach will be taken and the methods used with be commiserate with the amounts of abuse.
Remember, the law doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. It never has, it wasn't even really meant to do so. I'm not sure why people think it does. The law is there to provide a known, accepted, punishment for those who behave in manners considered unacceptable by the powers that be. It's like the people who say, "drone laws won't stop me!" True. Laws against murder don't stop all murders either. Instead, the laws indicate what is and isn't acceptable and describe the appropriate (as decided by the government) punishments.
Will this area be subject to abuse? Probably. How much? We'll have to see. How much will it take to patrol this area? That too will need to be determined. They're called measured responses. Fortunately, most people aren't mentally handicapped and can see the world is full of choices that are not, in fact, binary in nature.
Holy shit! I opened this thread to say almost the same thing. You from the Island or are you a Hollywood Marine? ;-)
(My retarded ass went not once but twice - I rejoined to finish paying for school. Man, that was a lot of years ago.)
By the way, you are number four. I've found two other Marine vets here and met one of them in person. I suppose, 'tis an obligation that I say this: Semper Fi. However, you already knew that and it's a bit worn out by the masses.
That was a horrible rendition! Then again, I was never a fan of the original - I just happened to know the song and artist. I somehow suspect that this group might not have known the movie or the original. If they did then they completely missed my beautiful pun. *sighs* Best pun ever and it was completely and totally missed. All these years later and I still remember it.
I don't know as i'd go that far. Perhaps you have some fascist governments where that was the core message? Or, perhaps, some "progressive" governments that you'd like to cite? I'd be quite interested in learning your perspective and why you feel the way you do.
There are lots of abuses committed "in the name of" but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of the thing being given attention. For instance, people kill in the name of Christianity. I'd submit that that doesn't make them all bad. People do evil things in the name of wealth acquisition, that doesn't make that inherently bad. People even kill because they're hungry, that doesn't mean that hunger is not a concern.
That seems like it's a rather large brush to paint with. I'm not sure if it is worth the energy and time (time being my most precious asset) but I'll take a chance.
Allow me, if you will, to give an example or three:
I have a friend, near and dear to my heart, and he owns/operates a small franchise fast-food outlet in a small town called Farmington, Maine. He employs a few people, mostly cute college girls, to work at the counter making sandwiches. There is a manager and an assistant manager. The hourly rate for the employees is above average for that job description and in that particular location. There are even some added benefits but we needn't get into those for the purpose of this story.
My friend was having financial issues and, unlike many, he realized that the best way to overcome those issues was to do the opposite of downsizing. He felt that expanding was a good idea and had sound numbers to demonstrate that building out his own place (as opposed to renting) would help and that this could be further funded by starting up a new franchise in a new location.
He came to me and asked to borrow [redacted] which might seem like a shitton of money but it really isn't. I agreed to loan him that money in return for a percentage of his business and, contractually, he has the right to buy back that percentage but no obligation to do so. I have since helped him expand to multiple additional sites, made all of my money back, made extra money, and continue to profit as he's declined to buy back my percentage of his company.
I have taken my company, long since sold, and built it from the ground up - with a grant and a loaned computer. I sold that company for [redacted] in 2007 and "retired" because I can spent like a drunken sailor for the rest of my life and still not have to worry about a damned thing. Yet, there's a pretty good chance that if you live in the United States that you've actually benefited, even if in some small way, from my work. (I modeled traffic of the vehicular and then pedestrian types and consulted on optimization, route planning, safety improvements, throughput improvements, etc.)
I've taken ideas, given them to others, and then enabled them to achieve a measure of financial success in the days since - all while retaining a portion of the business or getting a flat-out return on my investment by way of interest on a loan. I've even convinced a friend to start his own computer repair business. They now have two offices, run a hosting company, and do managed IT services for a number of local businesses.
Another example would be that there was this little company, a man with a dream, who needed some money so he had an IPO. I bought shares, 2000 of them, in this company when they were just about $24 each. Yes, that's a little bit of money but that company is called Tesla. I still own those shares. You can check their current valuation. I haven't looked for a month or two, it's not time for me to divest.
What snake oil have I peddled? What immoral acts have I committed? What sins am I guilty of? Keep in mind, I don't even *need* this extra money. I have plenty.
I'm going to redact some sums. They're immaterial and would probably only suit to cloud your judgment further. Suffice to say, they are goodly amounts. The kind of numbers that make business journals, local news, and get covered in applicable industry publications. I've shared those numbers and names before and it has resulted in some negative attention so I'll refrain from putting myself at risk though, I suppose, you could probably just check my posting history and figure a lot of it out. Trust me when I say it is immaterial and that I'm pretty sure that I'm neither a monster nor a snake oil peddler. If you need independent verification then several folks from Slashdot were with me on this past Saturday. I'm just your normal guy who got lucky because I was in the right place, at the right time, able to take some risks, and had great people to help me out.
I am, indeed, aware which is why I specifically asked you. I actually look to see who made what comment, at least frequently I remember to do so. I also note that you're generally one to give logical replies - though sometimes a bit emotional. So, I was careful to ensure that you were (hopefully) aware that it was not meant as an attack, a slight, denigration, or anything of that nature.
Where do you draw the line? Buggered if I know - that's why I asked you. ;-)
Drawing on history, and having only your comments to go by, I'd submit that your son, in particular, should be given as normal an education as possible and encouraged to participate as much as possible - with realism being the ultimate decider. From your comments, which may be biased and that's not abnormal, I can conclude that you think your child has a reasonable chance at being a productive, happy, free member of society with some assistance. I'll take that at face value and not dispute it.
As such, I'm inclined to state affirmatively that you're child should get the aid needed to ensure the maximum chance of success.
Then, we have people who have an IQ (not the best metric but let's just use it for now, if you'll allow it) below something like 60. That number is pulled from my ass. Assign any value to it you wish so long as it is sufficiently high enough to where you're being honest with yourself. That person, through no fault of their own, will never benefit from the effort, expenditure, or attention. They are, quite literally, not just distracting but taking resources that would better benefit someone like your child or a more gifted student.
There are some who will simply never benefit. I don't see how, while maintaining some semblance of reality in our thinking and being honest with each other, not investing in their education can (realistically) be misconstrued as oppression or a political move. Yes, there could be abuses but that's really unlikely. Frankly, the kid eating crayons probably wasn't going to cast a vote.
There are some parents, for whatever reasons, who have insisted that the departments make sweeping changes and incur great expenses to provide what can only be called warehousing of their child. The child has no chance at success. They'll never function on their own. They'll never be a productive member of society. They'll always be (forgive the term) a burden.
You and I both know that I'm not advocating eugenics, I'm not advocating sterilization, I'm not suggesting that we neglect them, nor am I suggesting we treat them poorly. I'm a reasonable person with genuinely human concerns - I'm also a significant provider for a number of charitable groups. I am not a monster.
Where do the reasonable lines get drawn and who gets to make the choice? Pfft... 'Snot fair to ask me! I asked you! ;-)
Yeah, they seem to agree that it would have necessitated a near-instantaneous response on behalf of the French and the English with mostly the ground aspect being dealt with by the French while the RAF handled the air. It's interesting to note that in WWI the Germans stomped through the Ardennes and then did the same thing at the start of WWII. What's always puzzled me is how did we get so lax that we managed to be surprised by the Germans stomping through the Ardennes, again, in the Battle of the Bulge?
We, of course, have the benefit of hindsight and a lot more information but that one has always puzzled me. I've heard a couple of historians try to lay some of the blame on Montgomery and lack of Ultra as they did a good job maintaining radio silence but that's always struck me as something ringing a bit hollow. I also don't know if I agree, entirely at least, with the historians who speculate that France and the UK could have ended the war as quickly and easily as they are thinking.
One of the other reasons they use to support that claim is a lack of enthusiasm, at that point, by the various Generals. There's some diaries and other publications that indicate that they weren't all that enthusiastic until after Poland, the Low Countries, etc... I seem to recall the crescendo being during the earlier stages (until about, oh, winter) on the Eastern Front. At any rate, I've heard more than one historian speculate that there may have been an internal rebellion but, frankly, that's one speculation too far so I don't lend much weight to it.
As said earlier, if Hitler had had the power and aid from aliens he could have taken over the world!!! (Hindsight and speculation are, while curious, not really all that good for deciding anything but they do make interesting conversations and thought processes.)
That's quite astute and fairly accurate. I imagine it will remain unread by most people as it is too long to fit on a bumper sticker and greater than 140 characters.
The major problem with your ideal is that it means that people will need to be both accountable and accept responsibility. It requires full, willful, participation by both the target and the people around them. It's logical, it's responsible, and it has a good chance at making society a better place.
In short, never gonna happen.
Nah, we've got to have some charitable programs run by the government because humans are too greedy to attend to it themselves. Sure, you can point to all sorts of charitable giving and I can point to all sorts of hungry people. We can discuss how much, where, when, and under what rules. We can not, realistically, eliminate such entirely.
I favor the line in the sand being drawn a bit further way then you do (probably). There will be waste and there will be excesses. As someone who has accumulated a couple of dollars but is also a Libertarian and holds a PhD in Applied Mathematics - I can tell you that it's cheaper for me to pay more in taxes than it is for me to hire goons to protect my assets from disenfranchised hordes of hungry people.
(People often mistake me for a Socialist. Indeed, some of the things I believe have some similarities. I prefer to difference myself by making it clear that I used logic and reasoning as well as math as opposed to emotions, entitlement, and greed.)
See, it's cheaper to keep 'em healthy than it is to fix their major health problems later on in life. We can't just let them die in the streets, that's how you get revolutions. Those are disruptive and mean that free people aren't in a position to benefit from their liberties. Liberties taken, those as rights, are restrictions that need to be carefully considered.
I don't know about you but I want a healthy, happy, productive society where people are free to maximize their benefits gained from their liberties and free to make use of their rights. Oh, it's not emotional or altruistic. It keeps them from revolting and it enables me to better accumulate assets. The greater assets one has, the more one can take advantage of their liberties. It's great to be at liberty to say what you want but it's not so effective when you have no means to access a printing press or microphone.
I can, and will, go on. The email address works if you'd rather. I've been subjecting myself, willingly, to this debate since I first got online in the 1980s. I've refined things quite handily and learned a lot, changed some of my opinions, and reached the point where I can articulate it well enough but it's rather verbose.
For definition sake, concerning liberty, freedom, and rights... I have the freedom to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. If you're putting my freedom at risk, I have a right to kill you.
*sighs* I don't know why I bother but, no... I *am* not just a Libertarian but I've been a member of the party since, oh, the 1970s. I am not only fine with taxes but I don't even bother to write off everything that I could write off and reducing my tax obligations to their lowest amounts. Here's the kicker - if you've seen me post, you'd probably know that I've repeatedly stated that I can stand to pay more in taxes and probably should - that I only care that they're being spent poorly.
I'd love it if the taxes went to fix:
public roads to receive truck shipments; ports and airports to receive imported goods; courts to protect their copyrights, patents, pursue debts, and protect their property rights; police and fire departments to protect their business' property and safety; sewers to provide sanitation, flood control to protect their business, public schools to provide a literate work force, and many other benefits of society that make their business possible
But you fucking morons keep spending them on blowing up little brown men and allowing corporations to avoid paying their share.
Try talking to a Libertarian sometime. Try talking to a few though. We do have our share of nutcases.