The primary Hitler-Frick innovations to the 1928 Weimar law were the exclusion of Jews from firearms businesses and the extension of the exceptions to the requirements for licenses to obtain and to carry firearms to include various National Socialist entities, including party members and military and police organizations. Although the 1938 law no longer required an acquisition license for rifles and shotguns, but only for handguns, any person could be prohibited from possession of any firearm based on the broad discretion of authorities to determine that a person was “acting in a manner inimical to the state,” had been sentenced “for resistance to the authorities of the state,” or “it is to be feared that he will endanger the public security.” An innovation of the 1938 law was to ban
.22 caliber rimfire cartridges with hollow point bullets, which were mostly used for small game hunting but which could be lethal to humans.
Sounds like it removed a lot of restrictions on firearm ownership for Nazi supporters, as well as a few specific restrictions to everyone, but also gave broader power to the state to confiscate weapons on a whim.
11.3 concussions per 100 player-seasons.
15.3% players sustained concussions per season.
These numbers are not comparable.
Are you serious? They're not trying to save a few bucks on the support staff -- that's what students are for. They have a large number of international employees because they hire researchers, lecturers, and professors from overseas to promote the exchange of ideas across cultures. Since that is, you know, the entire point of a university.
It is you that should be investigated for criminal dipshittery.
I'm almost always in favor of more open markets over regulation and control, so, IMHO, non-competes are stupid and a restraint of fair trade. In addition, "IP theft" can be dealt with in other ways, since that's what courts are for.
I was thinking along the same lines. In this case, it seems like less regulation by government actually causes a reduction in freedom of employment. Seems a bit contradictory -- I'd like to hear someone well versed in Austrian economics to help work it out.
Firstly, I would say that the company implementing non-compete clauses would immediately have to increase salaries -- since each employee would doubtless prefer to work without, and given two equivalent positions always choose the non-competeless (competeful?) job. Secondly, in the long term a non-compete clause would create a reduction in labor available to a sector (as the employee is forced to work another area), which if it happened enough would lower the supply of labor and increase all salaries. Of course, this cost would be borne by an entire industry.
Anybody else with a libertarien/free market approach?
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
I would suggest that this is completely in line with free-market idealism. They found a better solution and decided to go with it. The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion (i.e., punishment). For example, if they found a better solution but were prevented by law. In that case the punishment is fines or imprisonment. And that is exactly what TWC is doing: using the government to punish the free-marketers who found a better solution.
The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion.
(repeated for emphasis)
Wow, yeah, thank you for that. Here are the thoughts that went through my head as I read the GP:
Anyways, you definitely made me laugh, and succinctly summed up my thoughts:
In fact, virtually everything you have said is wrong in some way.
Yeah, just like how 1 is the least of ( 1, 2, 3 ) therefore it is a negative number.
I totally agree. I mean, these caps don't apply to existing customers, who Charter already agreed would get unlimited service, so what's the problem?
They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos