If you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, I suppose you would think that the laws for internment of undesireables was a good thing as well? How about in the good old USA? If not, please tell us what you would have done. One solution that you must apply in both cases.
Funny how after all that talk about how the regulations are corrupted and illegitimate, you turn around and call Uber a scam. How about a third option: The people like Uber so much that any attempts to close it result in complaints and politicians getting thrown out of office as young people start to enter the voting population.
As an example, in Austin, Texas, it is illegal to possess marijuana for personal consumption. Yet everyone smokes it out in the streets, and the cops just walk on by. They have been told to ignore it, and allow the "law violation" to proceed. Why is this? Popular outcry. The politicians see the writing on the wall, and while it is hard, politically, to change the law, it is easy to call up the police commissioner and tell him to adopt a new "lax enforcement" policy. Of course, with respect to taxi companies, this results in uneven application of the law. Perhaps now they will lobby to drop all the ridiculous regulations their grandfathers called for.
"The relevant laws where established a long long time ago."
And who do you think wrote those laws?
Uber is wise to open immediately, since the people using it absolutely love it, and will complain if the government tries to get rid of them. The solution is to get rid of the longstanding laws that were born of corruption. They only serve the people who hired the now long dead lobbyists that paid off a few long dead politicians to sign unconstitutional legislation in smoke filled back rooms far from the public eye.
Aztecs legally sacrificed children to their gods. Should their parents have worked to change the laws to divest legal authority from the priest class while allowing their children to be slaughtered? Would a (non-violent) rebellion have been justified?
Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.
Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority.
And yes, it has everything to do with "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms". They are the ones who LITERALLY WROTE the legislation in question, and they did it to stop competition. This is not legitimate, and the politicians who took up this cause should be tried for corruption. In China, they hang corrupt officials. Maybe they do have a little bit of moral authority there. Just not a monopoly.
Humans were designed over a long, intense period of selection to be able to perform deep, self-referential thinking, ie to be able to know that the other guy knows that they are bluffing/lying/have some particular knowledge, and make plans accordingly. It is probably the single task that humans are best at. I'm not saying that having a machine beat humans at poker will mean the Singularity has arrived, but when they go one step farther and start beating us at politics (which requires the same skillset as poker but with more complexity, plus the ability to integrate other types of knowledge), then it's all over.
I must say that I am looking forward to it. Humans are much better at beating others in the race to gain power than they are at actually ruling and making decisions for other people.
Distinctions are worthless without differences. These people all play golf together, drink together, fuck each other's wives, and share saunas. It's incestuous, and we are seeing the result of political inbreeding today. The only way to fix it is to vote third party, regardless of any change that the Republocrats make. But again, 95% can't see through it, and those same 95% claim that the other 5% don't understand politics.
Wireless internet can be set up pretty much anywhere in less than a month, so long as the local government doesn't threaten them with theft and violence.
If they do something like that, it makes the news, and it turns into a PR disaster, and they reverse themselves very quickly.
And even then, it's all voluntary.
Honestly, which would you prefer? A system where non-compliance gets you put in a box or murdered (and they can kill your dog for no reason and get away with it), or one where non-compliance means you can't get a loan and maybe get a judgement against you?
No, it isn't. It can go over phone lines, wirelessly, over cable lines, etc etc etc. You people blather on and on about natural monopolies as a theory, while completely ignoring empirical data. My own hometown used to have two electricity companies. Then the city council forced a merger and granted a monopoly, and now prices have absolutely EXPLODED.
Fact is that I could personally set up a small wireless ISP in my neighborhood, and it would be competitive.
Pepsi and Coke don't pretend to be the opposite of each other, nor do they get people to rally into camps and set them against each other. THAT is the problem with modern politics. The population is at each other's throats while the central bank steals all of our purchasing power and redistributes it to the 0.1%.
Yes, and that's all well and good. The problem arises when 95% of the population is fooled into voting for a single party with two wings, both of which are working against them.
If that is how they feel, then it's a farce, because they do, in fact, have insurance, from the time they accept a trip until they drop off the passenger. All the commercial activity is covered.
To add to the farce, there hasn't been a single incident (that I am aware of) where these policies have even been exercised.
Yes, they do, which is why, instead of creating ObamaNet (tm), we should make a law making it illegal for any government entity to grant a telecom (or any form of) monopoly.
I see, you don't want to trade the devil you know for the devil that only exists in your head.
When was the last time you heard of a private security firm breaking into someone's house to stop them from doing something they don't like (and the wrong house, no less)? Don't say that they can't because there are regulations against it, there aren't, which is why bounty hunters get to do that sort of thing.
Uhhh, no. That is completely wrong. Libertarians are very strongly against government granted monopolies at any scale. It's just that there aren't enough of them in any one jurisdiction save maybe New Hampshire to do anything about it.
The United States was what we would now consider a Libertarian government (most citizens had ZERO interaction with the Federal government at any timescale) from the End of Reconstruction until 1913, when it switched to a mixed market that remained fairly libertarian. It has slid towards fascism at a slow but continuous pace since. The slider is now almost all the way on the other side of the scale, where we will soon be full-on corporatist, where the government impinges on our lives many times every day in an indirect manner, and almost every day in a direct manner.
But that is a good thing, since we are ruled by angels.
People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream.
People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.
Yeah, but they only actually effect a very few people, whereas both parties are totally gung-ho about having minimum wage retards finger-fuck 87 year olds in airports.
No, it really doesn't. Words have meaning. Please use them appropriately. Yes, every organization is out for its own best interests, but the vast majority don't pretend to be two seperate diametrically opposed organizations that are fighting each other. Show me the Koch Brothers funding environmentalists, or the NSF giving grants to climate change "deniers", or something along those lines, and you might have an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, I suppose you would think that the laws for internment of undesireables was a good thing as well? How about in the good old USA? If not, please tell us what you would have done. One solution that you must apply in both cases.
Funny how after all that talk about how the regulations are corrupted and illegitimate, you turn around and call Uber a scam. How about a third option: The people like Uber so much that any attempts to close it result in complaints and politicians getting thrown out of office as young people start to enter the voting population.
As an example, in Austin, Texas, it is illegal to possess marijuana for personal consumption. Yet everyone smokes it out in the streets, and the cops just walk on by. They have been told to ignore it, and allow the "law violation" to proceed. Why is this? Popular outcry. The politicians see the writing on the wall, and while it is hard, politically, to change the law, it is easy to call up the police commissioner and tell him to adopt a new "lax enforcement" policy. Of course, with respect to taxi companies, this results in uneven application of the law. Perhaps now they will lobby to drop all the ridiculous regulations their grandfathers called for.
"The relevant laws where established a long long time ago."
And who do you think wrote those laws?
Uber is wise to open immediately, since the people using it absolutely love it, and will complain if the government tries to get rid of them. The solution is to get rid of the longstanding laws that were born of corruption. They only serve the people who hired the now long dead lobbyists that paid off a few long dead politicians to sign unconstitutional legislation in smoke filled back rooms far from the public eye.
Aztecs legally sacrificed children to their gods. Should their parents have worked to change the laws to divest legal authority from the priest class while allowing their children to be slaughtered? Would a (non-violent) rebellion have been justified?
Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.
Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority.
And yes, it has everything to do with "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms". They are the ones who LITERALLY WROTE the legislation in question, and they did it to stop competition. This is not legitimate, and the politicians who took up this cause should be tried for corruption. In China, they hang corrupt officials. Maybe they do have a little bit of moral authority there. Just not a monopoly.
Humans were designed over a long, intense period of selection to be able to perform deep, self-referential thinking, ie to be able to know that the other guy knows that they are bluffing/lying/have some particular knowledge, and make plans accordingly. It is probably the single task that humans are best at. I'm not saying that having a machine beat humans at poker will mean the Singularity has arrived, but when they go one step farther and start beating us at politics (which requires the same skillset as poker but with more complexity, plus the ability to integrate other types of knowledge), then it's all over.
I must say that I am looking forward to it. Humans are much better at beating others in the race to gain power than they are at actually ruling and making decisions for other people.
Distinctions are worthless without differences. These people all play golf together, drink together, fuck each other's wives, and share saunas. It's incestuous, and we are seeing the result of political inbreeding today. The only way to fix it is to vote third party, regardless of any change that the Republocrats make. But again, 95% can't see through it, and those same 95% claim that the other 5% don't understand politics.
Wireless internet can be set up pretty much anywhere in less than a month, so long as the local government doesn't threaten them with theft and violence.
If they do something like that, it makes the news, and it turns into a PR disaster, and they reverse themselves very quickly.
And even then, it's all voluntary.
Honestly, which would you prefer? A system where non-compliance gets you put in a box or murdered (and they can kill your dog for no reason and get away with it), or one where non-compliance means you can't get a loan and maybe get a judgement against you?
I bet you thought I was an insurance shill when I argued that Obamacare would be a disaster.
No, it isn't. It can go over phone lines, wirelessly, over cable lines, etc etc etc. You people blather on and on about natural monopolies as a theory, while completely ignoring empirical data. My own hometown used to have two electricity companies. Then the city council forced a merger and granted a monopoly, and now prices have absolutely EXPLODED.
Fact is that I could personally set up a small wireless ISP in my neighborhood, and it would be competitive.
Pepsi and Coke don't pretend to be the opposite of each other, nor do they get people to rally into camps and set them against each other. THAT is the problem with modern politics. The population is at each other's throats while the central bank steals all of our purchasing power and redistributes it to the 0.1%.
Yes, and that's all well and good. The problem arises when 95% of the population is fooled into voting for a single party with two wings, both of which are working against them.
If that is how they feel, then it's a farce, because they do, in fact, have insurance, from the time they accept a trip until they drop off the passenger. All the commercial activity is covered.
To add to the farce, there hasn't been a single incident (that I am aware of) where these policies have even been exercised.
Yes, they do, which is why, instead of creating ObamaNet (tm), we should make a law making it illegal for any government entity to grant a telecom (or any form of) monopoly.
I see, you don't want to trade the devil you know for the devil that only exists in your head.
When was the last time you heard of a private security firm breaking into someone's house to stop them from doing something they don't like (and the wrong house, no less)? Don't say that they can't because there are regulations against it, there aren't, which is why bounty hunters get to do that sort of thing.
I'll wait.
Uhhh, no. That is completely wrong. Libertarians are very strongly against government granted monopolies at any scale. It's just that there aren't enough of them in any one jurisdiction save maybe New Hampshire to do anything about it.
The United States was what we would now consider a Libertarian government (most citizens had ZERO interaction with the Federal government at any timescale) from the End of Reconstruction until 1913, when it switched to a mixed market that remained fairly libertarian. It has slid towards fascism at a slow but continuous pace since. The slider is now almost all the way on the other side of the scale, where we will soon be full-on corporatist, where the government impinges on our lives many times every day in an indirect manner, and almost every day in a direct manner.
But that is a good thing, since we are ruled by angels.
Corporations don't hold guns to their customer's heads. Only governments do that.
How do you prefer to deal with your fellow man? Money or guns? Those are the only two choices that work at scale.
"Yes, that boot on your neck is there to protect you, citizen. Now give us your money or we'll shoot you!"
People who are against net neutrality are for the internet as it is and has been since it entered the mainstream.
People who are for net neutrality are trying to fix something that they think might be broken in theory because they are afraid of corporations and don't understand market forces.
"The PATRIOT Act isn't policy."
"Property rights policy isn't policy."
What is your malfunction?
Yeah, but they only actually effect a very few people, whereas both parties are totally gung-ho about having minimum wage retards finger-fuck 87 year olds in airports.
No, it really doesn't. Words have meaning. Please use them appropriately. Yes, every organization is out for its own best interests, but the vast majority don't pretend to be two seperate diametrically opposed organizations that are fighting each other. Show me the Koch Brothers funding environmentalists, or the NSF giving grants to climate change "deniers", or something along those lines, and you might have an argument.
Any topic THAT THEY TALK ABOUT. But the actual policy they implement is nearly identical. Obamacare was based off of Romneycare, FFS.