Douglas Preston describes a system like this in Tyrannosaur Canyon where the NSA runs speech-to-text on every phone call and calculates (mostly just keyword matching IIRC) the probability that it relates to something they're interested in, in which case it gets passed to a human screener for verification, and then on to the FBI, Delta Force, whatever.
homeless people should be allowed to break into my house and steal food out of my fridge
Yes, if they are on the brink of starvation. I'd hope they'd have the sense to break into a well-off person's house rather than another poor or middle class person's. They have no right to harm you or anyone in your house though. It would only be ethical to take only what you needed to survive in the immediate sense (perhaps a day or so) and do so in a way that minimizes the negative effects on the person you stole from. That is, take the bare minimum you need from someone who would miss it the least.
Ok, so you probably have no problem with the concept of welfare then, other than that is administered by the government. I have no problem with individuals or charitable organizations giving food to homeless people. What I have a problem with is someone taking my property without my consent. The problem with any part of what you describe working is that everybody must believe in exactly the same levels of moderation that you describe, and it is a horribly slippery slope. At what point can I stop worrying about this poor homeless person's well-being and start worrying about myself? So can I shoot him for stealing if he takes 5 apples, but not 4? What recourse do I have when I have 8 apples and 2 homeless people take 4 of my apples each, leaving me with none? Now, under your system, I have to go steal apples from somebody else. Stealing is either ethical or not, there is no middle ground. Under this system, there is also no motivation for anybody to do well at anything. Socialist structures of any kind, government-supported or not, spoil the pot and remove the motivation to be productive.
To say "It's not wrong to steal in order to survive" is a tiny bit less bad, but that still violates somebody else's property rights.
You seem to think that property rights are more important than someone living. I find that sad.
Quite to the contrary, the right to continue living is the most fundamental property right. By your logic (a person living is more important than other people's property rights), homeless people should be allowed to break into my house and steal food out of my fridge, possibly killing me in the process.
I believe all people have the right to take anything they need to live regardless of ability to pay.
Anyone who believes this is a socialist. To say "It's not wrong to steal in order to survive" is a tiny bit less bad, but that still violates somebody else's property rights. Once the polarizing phrase "It's my right" gets pulled out and added to the opinion, this person is advocating socialist at gunpoint.
They can't legalize it because that would involve admitting they were wrong and abolishing a large part of existing government infrastructure. Which, as everyone (including Milton Friedman) knows, is stereotypically impossible.
"There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." - Milton Friedman
The only problem with that (and it is a major problem) is that when an American votes, they are not voting for anything close to the individual issues that matter, they are voting for the continually changing views of a person who is nothing but an abstract representation of any number of campaign-related obligations and vote-getting polarizing ideas.
I would be all for any sweeping reform that allowed ordinary American citizens to actually vote on issues like the ones mentioned in the parent. While that would be a huge logistical and technological challenge, it would be worth it, because then the actions of the USA would be representative of the majority of its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n9/htdocs/ctrl.php?country=us for another article to rtf
They should definitely call those Scourge.
I use my Spyderco or Leatherman, plus brute force!
Douglas Preston describes a system like this in Tyrannosaur Canyon where the NSA runs speech-to-text on every phone call and calculates (mostly just keyword matching IIRC) the probability that it relates to something they're interested in, in which case it gets passed to a human screener for verification, and then on to the FBI, Delta Force, whatever.
I wonder if someone at AT&T read that book?
They can't legalize it because that would involve admitting they were wrong and abolishing a large part of existing government infrastructure. Which, as everyone (including Milton Friedman) knows, is stereotypically impossible. "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." - Milton Friedman
The only problem with that (and it is a major problem) is that when an American votes, they are not voting for anything close to the individual issues that matter, they are voting for the continually changing views of a person who is nothing but an abstract representation of any number of campaign-related obligations and vote-getting polarizing ideas. I would be all for any sweeping reform that allowed ordinary American citizens to actually vote on issues like the ones mentioned in the parent. While that would be a huge logistical and technological challenge, it would be worth it, because then the actions of the USA would be representative of the majority of its citizens.