On the other hand, we have seen fiat currencies fail many, many times. The US has only been on fiat currency since 1971. It remains to be seen if we can manage it or not.
Sorry, but wrong. Deflation is indeed a bad thing. Deflation means that currency gets more valuable with time. This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it. That means less currency in circulation, which means it gets even more valuable with time, which means people hoard it more. This is a bad vicious cycle.
I want to point out that this is a hypothesis frequently used to justify inflation, but in fact there is little evidence to support it. There just haven't been many periods of deflation to really develop an empirical understanding of how people will react, so all we have is guess work. And somehow the guesswork always leans to the side that people wanted it to.
Scientists, for a few centuries, were also really big on spontaneous generation. But that also turned out to be false thanks to Francesco Redi and Pasteur. It gets better with time. It's certainly not perfect now, but the alternative is literally guesswork.
Nahhhh..... you are trying to frame it as "gets better with time" when actually it was scientists not being scientific. Newtonian mechanics going to quantum mechanics was progress. Social Darwinism was just plain wrongness, dressed up to look nice by scientific establishments. It was empirically unsupported, and we still see remnants of it today when people talk about the infinitely undefinable "natural talent."
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
Scientists, for at least half a century, were really big on social darwinism. That meant the scientific community would just assume black people were dumber, or Poles were naturally servile or whatever based on speculation. If there were any doubts, you could always cite some social scientist who did a study to 'prove' it. WW2 ended all that, but you can still see remnants with books like "The Bell Curve" or James Watson's fairly recent racist comments.
Science is hard, doing good science is harder (we can see this because of numerous mistakes in scientific papers), and doing good sociology might be the hardest of all. Because of this, there is a lot of space where we don't clearly know the answer, but unscrupulous people can take advantage of this and make it look like the science supports their agenda. It's hard to say, "We don't know" and it's hard to hear it.
The most important goodwill he squandered is that of the U.K. justice system
No great loss there.
The other goodwill he has now squandered is that of the public in the west who now generally see him as a fugitive from justice,
Which was already predominantly the case, if they knew of him at all.
likely a rapist
With all the confusion over the issue, I don't think they think it's that cut-and-dried, but I haven't seen polls on the issue. You?
and the mouthpiece of any dirt Putin wants to throw at politicians/organisations.
That's probably the most damning accusation, but it has nothing to do with the rape accusation, unless you know differently.
Given that Putin wants to destabilize Western democracies it is hard to see Assange as a victim.
America is not a Democracy. It is an Oligarchy. You were doing so well until this point! Why on earth would any world leader not want America destabilized? Right now we're doing our level best to run the whole fucking world as our empire. We have military bases everywhere and if you don't do what we say, we'll fucking bomb you.
The US system doesn't have a two-tier system and treats informal and formal arrest the same, requiring a trial charge and court order for keeping the person jailed during investigation.
Yes, here you actually need reason to believe a crime has been committed in order to incarcerate someone. That seems superior to me.
He has burned all his goodwill by jumping bail & the U.K.>U.S. extradition treaties make extradition a mere formality for any that the U.K does not wish to defend.
Burned what goodwill? His supporters still support him and the American government always hated him, what do you suggest has changed because he's stayed in the embassy?
Sweden have an embassy in London. Why would they not send a couple of their people up the road and interview him?
To be fair, they did do that once. To be equally fair, Assange was not permitted access to his lawyer on that occasion, a clear violation of his civil rights.
You make a mark on the ballot and as long as it is distinct that one can infer your intent,
You don't see potential problems with that?
They emphasize to make a clear mark to show intent
They emphasize it because people mess it up.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke