Comment Re:Marketshare (Score 3) 205
How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations?
"Steal from the right people" is still worse than "don't steal".
How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations?
"Steal from the right people" is still worse than "don't steal".
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.
If that makes you uncomfortable (it should!), you ought to re-examine your logical position.
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.
The government can help you protect your rights, but it cannot be the source of the justification without it also having complete authority to do whatever it wants.
So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No.
By and large illegal immigrants are healthier than the average American and use fewer "health care resources", something which has been studied for decades now with lots of publications, in the hope that there's something there the rest of us can do.
You wouldn't know their health without doing a physical checkup, which isn't done on illegal immigrants bypassing official channels.
So what are these studies based off of?
There is herd immunity, but all that happens is a different strain of flu ends up spreading.
So every year, a number of people get sick with the flu
I'm afraid I do not find your concept of herd immunity to be useful.
If you get down to it there is no such thing as natural right. You may have that right but unless you are physically stronger then the one who tries to violate that right you are going to need someone to protect that right. The government provides that someone, mostly by punishing those who violate that right.
Natural rights do not exist only in a world without objective morality.
The jury is out on that question, considering the inability to prove God does not exist, and the natural tendency of mankind to seek justice and the "right" of things.
So for each of the so called natural rights the government grants you protection from violation. I see no difference from the government granting that right in the first place.
So you have no problems if a government rescinds those rights and decides a portion of its population needs to be plundered and converted into fertilizer? As in mass killing/genocide, in case that's too subtle.
Because in a world without "natural rights" - that's not wrong. If you were principled about there being no such thing as "natural rights", you'd respect the Hitlers and Stalins and Maos of the world for doing whatever they wanted to do. Cause their might makes it right.
As for the government taking that protection away: they won't. Not without due process.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say they do, without due process. Is that a good/right thing?
Because it has happened in the past, and it might happen in the future. You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?
Never heard of herd immunity? Your minor inconvenience could save an immunocompromised person.
1. Flu shots aren't given to everyone. Heck, they run shortages frequently - and that's with voluntary shots. There is no herd immunity to maintain. There has never been a flu herd immunity.
2. With unrestricted illegal immigration, it doesn't matter how immune the rest of the herd is, because we're importing new disease vectors/reservoirs without even a quick physical checkup.
In many states of the US that is true: after due process you can be sentenced to death.
You do not remotely comprehend the point, then. If the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed (right to life) is granted by government, the government doesn't need due process - the government can do no wrong.
A distinction needs to be drawn between protection of a right (using police/legal system/military) and the granting of a right.
We pay taxes to sustain a government that protects our natural rights. We do not pay government to grant us natural rights. Otherwise, what government grants, it can take, and anything it does, is right by definition, since it is the source of rights.
Not $1. Not the sort of supercomputer I was asking for.
Things don't come into existence just because someone wants them, or there wouldn't even be a concept of world hunger or poverty.
where do these rights you speak of come from? by what right do you speak freely? and what is the guarantor?
A right is the moral right to fight for it.
If someone wants to kill you, you are in the right to protect your life. A right to life. (Assuming of course you aren't threatening him in a way that forces him to kill you to protect his life)
Why is it right? That speaks to a sense of right or wrong and morality. Where does that come from? "Natural Rights" comes from a Christian framework, which claims there's a God given order man lives under.
Coming from an atheistic, purely secular framework, there is no basis for "Natural Rights". Everything just boils down to might and power, and any concept of fairness or justice is a mere cover for survival of the fittest.
And you have no inherent natural right to electricity, plumbing, roads, safety from murder/rape/robbery, etc. Society gives that to you in EXCHANGE for your taxes.
Wait, so government grants you the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed?
You do realize that means the government can take it away for any arbitrary reason, right? Which means you have no right to life - you are merely a government serf, who continues to live at the whim of government.
Companies do not create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs, companies fulfill that role of producing. If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.
Where's my supercomputer for $1?
Who wouldn't want it? Demand is nigh infinite! Why hasn't it popped into existence from all that pent up demand?
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
People don't simply "make money". They trade goods or services to get paid.
There's a difference between working 1 hour to earn $100, and working a week to earn $100. The first sounds like a good deal, the latter sounds like a waste of time.
Everyone has a threshold, and taxes make it so that you earn less for the same effort. If there was a 99% tax so you could spend an hour to make $1, would you still do it?
To eliminate all need for human direct labor you would have to invent a machine that is as flexible as a human and costs less per unit. In other words a human level AI on the cheap. That simply isn't likely to happen anytime soon. (and don't give me any BS about the so called singularity or other paranoid hypothetical dystopian futures) Any scenario where we get human level AI in a robot body for less money than a human would cost is simply science fiction for the foreseeable future.
It is refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot who notices this (unlikely) prerequisite for the robotic dystopia fantasy where humanity is replaced with machines.
Boys excluded from cool activity. Not sexism against boys. Girls get to do cool activity. Sexism against girls, because Christmas lights are pretty.
Yep.
Silly, the overhead administering it is very, very low. Much lower than the private retirement funds.
Private retirement funds invest the money, and pay back from profits. SS does no such productive thing. Government collects 13% and then pays out minus its cut.
Are you really arguing against a system that helped old people live a little more decently? There is no denying that SS provided (and probably still does) a great social service.
SS is a Ponzi scheme that robs the next generation to feed a previous one. The "Rate of Return" of SS has been decreasing with each generation - because the ratio of suckers to payees has been decreasing.
Even if SS became "sustainable", the benefits are wanting. Within families that care for their elders, all SS does is add overhead and extra costs. So SS penalizes families that prepare for retirement and care for their old, to benefit those who ignore retirement and neglect their old.
Why would you want to discourage people planning for retirement and caring for their elders?
If you're lucky, you will get old too and it's very likely you'll see it differently from now.
If I'm lucky, I'll see SS abolished in my lifetime so future generations do not live under its burden. Even if right before my retirement such that I never get a single penny.
Some generation is going to have to bite the bullet, and I'll choose mine if the previous ones are too selfish to do so. I don't hate the future enough to enrich myself at their expense, and I despise your belief that I am so easily bribed.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
