the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention.
Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.
That's an interesting idea you have there. Since the planet's maximum capability of humans is about 500 million, and we're at 7 billion and growing, what would be your solution? I like your "just get over it" solution. How can we make this work?
Do you have a source for that claim? Because it seems to contradict the point that we have survived for several thousand years with quite a larger population than 500 million
The sky did fall. The protestors of the 1800's were correct. The people displaced by technology in the 1800s fell into poverty and early death, and England, for instance, was home to immense poverty and despair.
Do you have any sources for that claim? From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment "The Luddite events of 1811 were the beginning of humankind's analysis of whether it is possible for technological unemployment to be other than temporary and confined to particular industries and firms. Contrary to the Luddites' fears, technological advancement did not ruin Britain's economy or systemically lower standards of living throughout the following decades of the 19th century. In fact, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the opposite happened, as technology helped Britain to become much less impoverished than before. For this reason, some economists think that the general Luddite premise is fundamentally flawed, and thus they apply the term Luddite fallacy to it."
not everybody will be in the top 1%
In fact, I'd be willing to say about 1% of people will be in the top 1%
Unless there is a tie.
It's not long. And I don't think people will be ready to cope with the change. They haven't thought about what a tool which completely replaces a human and which costs less than a human salary means.
You mean like computers? One computer can do the math that it used to take large groups of manual labor to accomplish. So, now we have tech industry that employs far more people than the ones it replaced. And railroads put a lot of wagon drivers out of work. And yet, I'm sure the shipping industry spends billions of dollars per year. Historically speaking, replacing human labor with something more efficient has happened quite a lot.
Should we dig ditches using tea spoons? Because after all, using a shovel replaces dozens of workers using tea spoons...
Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells. As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
Is the summary misleading, or are they taking about 3rd party partners and not "affiliates" like the summary said. Amazon Affiliates just put a banner add on their web site. It is more like running an advertisement inside the state than it is like a car dealership.