Yes, it is.
The only free market is one without any rules. So no property rights, no contracts, no money, no fraud, no standards, nothing.
Anything else and all you're doing is arguing about the extent of regulation you want in your market.
It shouldn't take long with a history book to conclude where "no rules" inevitably ends up.
Taxes don't need to be raised on the highest income earners; they can be lowered on businesses, notably on payroll (tax taken based on how much wages you pay).
What would this achieve ?
Believe it or not, there are a number of high profile libertarians advocating basic income over the sprawling welfare state we have.
Of course they are. A UBI is a subsidy to business. If the Government is paying their employees a wage, they won't have to, which means more money in their pocket.
What's "a LOT" to you ? Half a percent of the population ? One percent ?
The ironic thing is that this is basic investing, that businesses should be glad to be doing. I don't get why this is not done more often.
Socialise the costs, privatise the profits.
Why would businesses pay for something when they can get everyone else to pay for it instead and take the money they would have spent in CxO bonuses ?
90% of the work we're doing now (and probably closer to 100% of slashdotters' work) doesn't *need* to be done, but we do it anyway.
That's because the alternative is to just give them the things they need to live, which bothers a lot of people who like to take the position that the only moral way to survive is to work.
It has nothing to do with Maslow. If people's time wasn't taken up with bullshit jobs, and they instead were able to do work they found personally fulfilling without having to worry about working to survive, then their esteem and self-actualisation would be taken care of.
Why would people not be aware of drugs available to them without drug ads on TV ?
Do you not have doctors and pharmacists in your country ?
Liberalism ("Progressivism") is precisely what has led to the creation of the US prison state and fomented the spread of fascism in the US. I've personally watched it happening in real-time over the last 5+ decades.
Fuck that's funny. Even more so if you actually believe it.
There hasn't been a progressive Government in the USA for the better part of half a century, and 30-40 years for most of the rest of the western world (a handful of European countries aside, and even they've shifted significantly rightwards).
Right-wing Fascism evolved into right-wing Neoliberalism and it has been running the world since - at the absolute latest - the '80s. So the modern world shouldn't surprise anyone - the political right is the side of royalty, corporations, the church, the military, and other similar hereditary, conformist, strictly hierarchical, stratified, undemocratic organisations.
Hi, Brian,
What kind of sustained network Tx/Rx do you see to your nodes. Or - if you keep track of it - what sort of numbers do you see for disk utilisation (in terms of performance) ?
I'm curious how hard those drives are working, in the context of the temperatures you see.
You can't (easily and reliably) stretch a RAID across hosts.
Backblaze take a chunk of data and break it up into 20 smaller chunks (17 data + 3 parity) and then spread those 20 chunks across 20 different physical servers. You can't do that with RAID.
It would also reduce the overall load during disk rebuilds as well.
Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
*sigh*
But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.
Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
These are religious statements.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same?
Yes.
I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
At its core, Brexit is about clamping down on the free flow of people and capital.
At its core, the EU is about unhindered flow of people and capital.
The things the people don't like about Eu are the things that lie at the core of the EU project.
They're not getting "reformed". Literally, doing so would defeat the purpose and objective of the EU.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
