Don't I actually have to be wrong first before this term applies? I've heard the ZOMG Federal Reserve argument before. The Fed is an institution created and backed by the power of the US government. The US government runs the top level of the Fed and happens to control in other ways what policies the Fed can implement (for example, via pressure on bank members).

The whole scheme of money creation was created and endorsed by the US government who backs it up with a variety of means. As an example of that last statement, I suggest you actually look at a US bill. It has on it "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Being required to pay your US taxes, both federal and state, with US dollars is yet another way the US government backs its currency. You can also pay debts and public charges with currency.

Like any other transaction, it is a mutual act of two or more parties. This is an act of the bank and an act of the government.

Because they have to design for being a lot closer to a nuclear blast than 400 km.

That adds mass to the warhead. Plus most of the energy of the weapon is already in the form of gamma rays.

Or you deliver by boat and skip those annoying defenses altogether.

Note that the infrastructure which is to be hardened is much bigger in cross section than a car or a PC. A power grid can actually intercept a lot of energy from a space-side nuclear blast or an exceptional solar flare. I agree that it is prudent to harden such infrastructure.

So mpapet observes:

Why would mpapet make that observation? He implies here that it's just another case of a business interest turning to government to "maintain their profits". That in turn implies that the business has other choices contrary to the original poster's assertion that these electricity companies have a sole target to game.

At this point, I became curious about what mpapet actually thought and believed compared to what he wrote. My question in hindsight was not a good one, but there's still a problem with his reasoning.

This scheme predates neo-con ideology by at least centuries. A number of businesspeople and adventurers borrowed with an eye to making more than enough to pay off that debt. And debt-fueled growth doesn't respect ideological lines. For example, the USSR and modern Venezuela did this trick with mediocre results.

I don't have any complaints about the post outside of that.

So do regulated utilities. You need some way to distinguish between the two.

So you disagree that there is a stronger incentive to turn to government to enhance your business model when the government is the primary factor determining how profitable you are?

cold fjord, he already mentioned actual evidence, Starfish Prime. We already have a good idea of how much damage such a bomb can do on the ground and hundreds of kilometers above Earth. Starfish Prime just didn't do that much.

So the answer appears to be that hitting one large city like New York City with a nuke causes more damage. Further, the 1.4 megaton size of Starfish Prime is rather large for a bomb. Shrink the bomb to tens of kilotons and the math is even stronger in favor of hitting cities.

You're probably right. I'm sure this idea will be a huge stretch for everyone here, including me, but maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't use the worst of us as our role models? Nor excuse others who do so?

Why admit something that isn't true? Would I love to have more control over my government, the US government? Absolutely. Would I like to have a much smaller government which can be controlled easier? Absolutely. Would I like constitutional rule changes, like abandoning the first past the post, that undermine the current political oligopoly? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that no control currently exists, but rather what control does exist can be greatly improved.

Doesn't look like that to me. Looks like they made the rule, but are going through a legally required public hearing before they implement it (note that they don't actually have to pay any attention to the outcome of the hearing). If they didn't have to go through those motions, I think the rule would already be implemented.

Now, I suppose they might be honestly trying to implement regulation on a public health basis, but it could also be a rule to favor large feed producers or major breweries who happen to have the economies of scale to deal with yet another frivolous but obstructive rule.

Without violating the First Amendment? I think it's much harder to do that than you do. Political messages fall into two protected categories of the First Amendment - speech and petition for redress of grievances.

I didn't split that hair. Looking back through the thread, no one else did either. We were responding to the original claim that Congress could pass a law to reverse Citizens United. It can't. All the talk of constitutional amendments (which aren't legislative law) doesn't change that.

Government does. Notice that every major currency in the world is backed by a government or in the case of the Euro, a group of governments. You have to go pretty far down in scale before you find currencies that aren't government-backed, such as BitCoin or currencies in MMOs.

A truism isn't a tautology. In the US, there exists those who are law abiding, complying with regulations and common sense with respect to fire arms, whether they own them or not. They make up the vast majority of the population. And there's a fair sized group of people who commit crimes with hand guns most which are already illegally obtained.

Of course, I am. The US experienced a similar decline in violent deaths from firearms and for the most part, didn't tighten gun control laws.

Keep in mind that these are laws which constrain the actions of the law abiding while doing nothing to change the behavior of those already committing crimes.