Not really a definition, but there's an example for you.
This is not a thread about idiots, and actually these guys were trying their hardest to be conscientious employees... It was just a noisy and stupid way for several people who should have known better to learn how to do a simple and fundamental part of their job. (The one who falsely diagnosed the bad locking code was a 15 year veteran "senior" engineer. <scoffs>)
They have been at the company too long and aren't really happy about it. They don't get a new job because it's viewed as far too distruptive to their life. Again, they are probably 100% correct.
I remember then in March, a French newspaper highlighting how PRC hid the severity of the virus... I mean if they took these extreme measures in Wuhan, it's certainly not for a mild virus.
Institutions like healthcare, education, public transport, prisons(!) and so on are more efficient, less corrupt and of higher quality when they are in large parts collectively and democratically organized and funded. The "in large parts" is important here: A community should agree on what that means and let the market play out on the edges, or the bureaucratic costs become too heavy _and_ unfair. Decentralization is key here.
I've never received significant health care in another country, so I can't say how the US system differs from others with any expertise. But I can say how US health care differs from just about anything else I spend money on:
1. I don't really get to shop for health insurance providers. My employer picks one, maybe two plans, and I can take it or leave it. If I leave it, I am leaving at least $10,000/year on the table, so I generally take it.
2. Even when I am on the market, the phenomenon in #1 does weird things. Once upon a time, when I was choosing my own health insurance, I started a new job with health insurance benefits that I did choose to take. But my start date was toward the beginning of the month, my old insurance wouldn't let me do a partial month, and the new employer wouldn't let me delay opting for coverage. So I was essentially forced to own two health insurance plans simultaneously for a period of time.
3. Nobody knows what care will cost ahead of time, which makes it impossible for me to make any informed economic decisions. I need to see a physical therapist. I called a few places to shop for prices. They all know what the rate for uninsured people is, but the only way we can find out what it will cost with my insurance is if I receive care, they submit a claim, and then we all find out together what the price was, after the fact.
4. #3 creates a situation where they can hide all sorts of excessive charges. When my first child was born, I got lessons on how to give him a bath and change his diaper. Both of which I already knew; I was really just going along with the lessons to be polite. I certainly wouldn't have said yes if the hospital had been transparent and up-front about the price tag on this lesson: about $2,000.
5. And sure, insurance covered most of it... but that didn't make it free; it just means the price was amortized over a large number of health insurance premiums. Unfortunately, I think that this setup makes it all too easy for us to think of these things as free, which, in turn, reduces public scrutiny over where the money comes from or where it goes.
And it just keeps going like that. Compare with signing up for cell phone service. It's a famously sleazy business, but, even with all the hidden fees they like to tack on, at least they're up-front about the basic price of service. With US health care, every fee is a hidden fee. That makes it impossible for consumers to make free, informed decisions, which is the most fundamental precondition that must be satisfied in order for a capitalist market to form.
First we received a bill for the stay in the hospital. And then we received a bill for the doctor performing the delivery. Okay, fine, it makes some amount of sense, that doctor supports multiple hospitals and isn't technically part of the hospital and staff at that maternity ward that is there 100% of the time.
And then the separate bill for lab work, and another for the pediatrician, and another for our baby's stay in the hospital (this one really got me, why?! we were all in the same room), and then another for the lactation consultant, and, and, and...
I don't remember each one specifically at this point, but I believe it was 7 separate bills.
The way this plays out is that if I hand over my insurance card, the provider will attempt to extract as much money as possible and bill an outrageous amount. The insurance provider has maximum limits it's willing to cover for each billing code and so only covers some lesser amount. You pay the difference.
This is such scumbag behavior.
Apologies for asking, but when faced with a medical situation do you have any idea when you have insurance what your maximum liability could be?
NB I'm not from the US so I very little understanding of how the system works.
It looks like all plans sold through the healthcare.gov marketplace is required to have out of pocket maximums.
Is that a hard limit and you'll never have to pay more than that?
- Balance billing - there is no guarantee that the insurance provider will actually pay what the hospital bills. Insurance companies usually have negotiated rates with some providers. So, if you end up at an ER that's out of network (no negotiated rates), your insurance might pay what they think is reasonable and the hospital bills you the excess. Several California-based hospitals are notorious for this. It also happens with helicopter ambulance transport - frequently, they'll bill $50,000 for a ride, insurance covers $25,000, and the patient is stuck with a $25,000 balance (again, made up numbers).
So it is not an absolutely hard limit in all cases, no.
Edit: originally wrote year twice.
There are probably ways that we could combine aspects of greater and lesser privatization to achieve the best of both worlds. I have some thoughts that I've been mulling around for a while:
1. Expand the government to achieve universal healthcare coverage.
-- a. ACA public option.
-- b. A conservative UBI, with the twist that uninsured individuals would be automatically enrolled in the public option and have their premiums taken out of their UBI. (Tangentially, for similar reasons, also pay out a portion of each UBI disbursement in the form of food stamps rather than cash.)
2. Shrink the government and quasi-public entities (insurance providers) to unshackle the invisible hand.
-- a. New regulation to ban copays and set a mandatory floor on deductibles (say, $10k). While major emergencies still need to be covered, and while there still needs to be an entity in between the patient and provider eating the risk of non-payment, it's also desirable from an efficiency perspective for patients to be kept aware of the costs of their care — and therefore incentivized to select more cost-efficient options. The market would then naturally find a more reasonable equilibrium without the need for price fixing, in theory.
-- b. Set up a system of tax deductions and credits for out-of-pocket medical costs. (Preferably such that the poorest would have their costs fully covered in most or all cases, depending on what's fiscally realistic.) This must strike a balance between non-disruption of market forces and ensuring that the poorest in society aren't shy about seeking the care they need. My thinking is that the annual nature of tax filings would be enough to address the former, as patients would still be be out of pocket for up to a year waiting on their refunds, representing an opportunity cost that would be difficult to ignore. To address the latter point, set up a standardized/regulated process for the insurer to send the patient something resembling a credit card bill, which they could pay either up front or up to a year later with accumulated interest.
Parts 1 and 2 are essentially unrelated, and could hypothetically be implemented independently of each other. However, #1 on its own doesn't attempt to address the efficiency issue (thus saddling the government with even greater new expenditures), and #2 on its own doesn't address what happens or who gets left holding the bag when an uninsured patient can't pay their bill (which wouldn't be an issue with truly universal coverage).
I also have a lot to say about what the state should and shouldn't be doing to maximize the general health/nutrition/fitness of the population, but we can leave that for another post :).
I like everything here except this. Won't a significant amount of healthcare (grouped by specialization, hospital, etc) still be funded by insurance and be outside the reach of market forces?
I am also curious whether there are barriers to producers of medicine, healthcare supply, etc from disrupting existing overpriced producers.
If I understand your last point, I really like this approach in the context of my proposal: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/rubio-s...
But that never actually happened. Externalities were never part of the market.
> But that never actually happened. Externalities were never part of the market.
But isn't the essence of an externality that it's a social cost not factored into the market price?
It may be that some of these cannot in principle be accounted for, and even more which cannot in practice be accounted for.
But I imagine the majority of externalities could be accounted for if we tried.
The irony is if you actually came close to achieving that (e.g. accounting for all externalities in the market price), you'd have something like central planning. That's why externalities are usually managed through other mechanisms.
Also, externalities are only one kind of market failure.
Edit: updated 1960s to 1950s per info in replies
Roosevelt also tried to institute a national scheme in the 30s but labor unions were split on notional vs. employer provided and it became a wedge issue that scuttled the plan. Truman's push for that same national health insurance plan was shot down in ~1949, partially killed by AMA lobbying.
Employers can raise wages, and have been able to for some time, so that's not why we still have it.
We still have it because of tax and other incentives, and because government keeps making policy decisions to protect, and even extend it (e.g., the ACA employer mandate), not because of the employers need to offer health benefits to compete because they can't offer more wages because of WWII-era wage controls.
The fear of losing healthcare coverage a severe fear that people in other countries don’t have to worry about.
Heaven forbid “wage inflation!”
Was the AFL pushing for employer-based and the CIO pushing for national? I don’t even know where to find history like this. It’s virtually impossible for an average person to learn about the history of the American labor movement.
I realized after double checking that it was actually a 1942 Roosevelt bill, and they were trying to figure out how to keep a lid on rising prices during the war. It's also not uniformly good if prices also rise quickly. Inflationary spirals are real, and very bad for regular people.
> Was the AFL pushing for employer-based and the CIO pushing for national?
I'd have to double check.
> It’s virtually impossible for an average person to learn about the history of the American labor movement.
A bunch of this stuff is available in more popular history and online now. "The Devil Is Here in These Hills" is supposed to be good, but I haven't read it.
Emergency services aren't a good fit for markets. For markets to work, people really need the luxury to shop around with some leisure.
Wasn't there some Roman oligarch that ran a private fire department, and basically just used it to extort property owners when they had a fire? Truly market based emergency medical care without legal restrictions would likely frequently resemble that with some frequency.
Edit: Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome
> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground.
And that's the open market; it gets even more cloudy when we talk about employers being involved, so we have an agency problem as well.
It's a system unlike any other, and I don't think general theories really apply very well as such.
Hospitals increase rates to cover the overhead of dealing with hostile insurance companies. Insurance companies raise rates to match increased hospital billing. Ironically both industries are incentivized to raise rates on customers while trying to gouge each other.
Is it any wonder healthcare is a scam?
Another aspect is how quickly it becomes centralized and privately controlled. And then there is a whole story about social media hype and anxiety. It also had recent heavy real world effects: The protestors in Kazakhstan have shut down a large bitcoin facility.
It's an interesting experiment to say the least. Sure there are parallels to previous instances in history, which is why many of us have been very critical of it, but it seems to be a unique blend.
The debt that was imposed on you is inhumane and you shouldn’t have to pay it. The resulting attempts to solve it by selling public infrastructure only makes it worse.
Throwing crypto into the mix is pure insanity. It’s just gambling at a crippling ecological cost.
Let me guess... have you mostly experienced life in developed countries with relatively stable financial system, non-fluctuating consumer goods prices? There are a ton of people living under extremely corrupt and dysfunctional financial systems, whose #1 concern in life is to make sure their purchasing power does not disappear the next day. For them, land, gold, and bitcoin solve a problem. Americans with simplistic "I <3 Bernanke" opinions sure assume that will "worsen" stuff; true or not, it is irrelevant to the individual in such countries who will keep on trying hard to accumulate every non-cash asset they can get their hands on.
Those aren't the people using crypto, though. And to the extent that people are using crypto as alternative to their local currency, they're almost all using it for some form of laundering (e.g. wealth extraction from the PRC).
Objectively, crypto has been far more volatile than fiat currencies as a whole, not less. BTC is literally down 16% over the last three weeks! If you want stability just buy a bunch of diverse money market or national bond securities; that strategy survived the great depression and WW2, it can surely handle a pandemic recovery.
How do you know?
>>And to the extent that people are using crypto as alternative to their local currency, they're almost all using it for some form of laundering (e.g. wealth extraction from the PRC).
Laundering in a country like the PRC with extreme capital controls is not necessarily a moral evil. It could very well just be an attempt to guard wealth from a repressive government that is known to confiscate the wealth of those who fall out of favor with the political elite.
By arguing against crypto, you are arguing for the PRC having more control over the people of China. But I guess that's par for the course for the anti-crypto crowd.
>>Objectively, crypto has been far more volatile than fiat currencies as a whole, not less.
Stablecoins are not volatile, and their usage is skyrocketing:
The spread of private property and contracting rights, and the consequent rise in wealth, is credited for the largest reduction in poverty in human history:
Extreme poverty is a much greater evil than inequality.
In most situations, money is a zero-sum game. Any wealth you make is by taking it from others. That's not fair or desirable.
For a fixed money supply, money is zero-sum. Wealth is not. If more stuff is made, and you're envisioning a system where that money commands all the goods, then same money commands more goods. That is desirable. But regardless of money system, if you make more goods and services then there are more goods and services.
Inheritance acts against this principle.
What I think you mean is a fair world socializes the success by removing the ability for consensual trade/gifting of resources from a person of one generation to another. But that is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success.
If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on.
> But [socializing successes] is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success.
Coercion isn't always necessarily unfair. It depends on context and on what your society's values are. If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness.
If you believe that a fair and just world is one where, by the sheer luck of being born to wealthy parents, you get advantages that others don't; and that you get to build on that wealth by keeping everything you accumulate based on that and get to pass it to your children, where the cycle repeats endlessly -- well, then, you have differing values than the rest of us. But that doesn't mean that alternatives are "unfair."
> If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
Or, you could not be a dick and instead spend it while you're living on your children's education, or give your excess earnings to charity.
But if I use it it is unfair. You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." That means I can't use Newton's work because that is not my own action or work. If I use it my sucess depends on his action and work too.
> If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness.
I don't follow how that is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5."
> instead spend it while you're living on your children's education
But that would be unfair as the child would benefit unfairly from my success rather than solely his/her own.
No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge.
> You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work."
I said no such thing.
> I don't follow how [redistributing candy among siblings] is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness.
Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place. Redistribution in this case is correcting for the original unfairness. Note the fact pattern I stated: one child "took the candy away."
> This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5."
So what you're telling us is that you don't actually have children and this whole thread is just some libertarian claptrap. Okay then.
Your rebuttal is outrage at the number of children I have?
>No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge.
The definition of fair presented on the thread we are on specifically said, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." If you want to change that definition then why are you arguing with me? My whole point was the absurdity. Newton's work was performed by Newton, not you or I or any other living person.
>Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place
That's far from a given. I was an only child but had best friends with a lot of people with siblings who commonly had scenarios with winner-take-all for certain goods because of chores they did, gambling, won a game, whatever. But it's true, unfairness does exist in the world. I never said unfairness doesn't exist at all.
>one child "took the candy away."
Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance.
>I said no such thing.
Sorry I was quoting the original quote we both responded to above, I didn't realize you were actually disagreeing with it. If that was not your belief then you aren't really even rebutting against me because my rebuttal was against this statement I replied to and then you replied to me.
[reproduced here ]
In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle.
BUT THE PERSON I REPLIED TO SAID, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work". What do you not get about that? You're AGREEING WITH ME that by the OP definition using scientific knowledge is "unfair."
If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair?
Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally selfish, while avoiding the free-rider problem?
The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.
Yes, that's back to one kid stealing from the other kid. Only the kid stealing is the government.
>Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes?
>And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally as selfish as you?
If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others.
>The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.
Exactly, you sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
I think most of us would prefer not to have to go back to pre-Roman times. We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen.
> You sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
Gee, you caught me!
Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law, and the law (to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed) saying everyone has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
I've never voted for a representative who was in agreement with taxation, and I've never agreed to be taxed. If you want to elect to do that voluntarily I have no problem with you doing that. I never even agreed that US government is legitimate. So nah, I don't agree.
>We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen.
I don't take this to be fact. Government monopolies tend to be inefficient and free-rider problem can be rampant.
> has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
If something is just and you want to pay for it there's nothing stopping you. Not a big fan of men with guns saying I have to pay to bomb brown in the middle east or fund nun-raping insurgents in Central America. I have looked into waiving my social security rights for instance, but that requires you to file a form 4029 and be part of a religious organization that has been around since about 1960. As an atheist I'm unable to file these forms to waive my rights. I would happily do so if the law is updated.
>Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law
So which is better, taxing someone to bomb brown people in the middle east, or robbing a guy in a suit and feeding starving children in Africa? To me they're both bad but the robber sounds slighlty better if not because less people are killed with the ill-gotten gains. So yeah there is a difference, I think the child-feeding robber is better than the tax-man.
Please, use this line if you ever end up defending yourself in court! I will bring the popcorn.
Sorry, but you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives. If you want to change the system, vote for someone who is aligned with your selfish views; but don't expect most civilized, equity-minded people to agree with you. Or if you really don't like it, there are probably other countries that would welcome you.
(To be clear, I also don't agree with many of our Government's policies and actions. There's probably not a single person in our country who agrees with everything our Government does, but disagreement combined with tolerance of imperfection is the price we pay for a system that's proved to be better than all the alternatives we've tried so far. But there's a big difference between trying to influence what we do within our Constitution, and complaining that modern society interferes with my rights to live at maximum individual efficiency -- everyone else be damned -- and that we should all just look out for ourselves.)
At least now we understand you take joy in suffering of others.
>don't expect most civilized, equity-minded people to agree with you
You say that what they vote for represents them. If what represents them is bombing little Afghani kids or staging coup in central and south America (and by your statements, it does), I have no desire to be in agreement with such savages.
>Sorry, but you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.
So your response is basically, fuck you do what I say and follow my political system, leave, or get gunned down by government agents if you resist inevitably being ordered to court. You sound like the selfish, others be damned one not I. Wow, how "fair" that sounds on a thread that was originally concerning fairness.
>and that we should all just look out for ourselves
This is a presumptuous and arrogant statement that ignores the charitable and personal contributions I've (and others) made to others without taxation. You think I haven't looked out for others with contributions performed outside of government? Not everyone is so selfish as you may be that they wouldn't help others if not forced at gunpoint.
>there are probably other countries that would welcome you.
Except I would still have to file US taxes and report bank accounts unless I renounce US citizenship, but that cost thousands and has to be done abroad. Even if you leave the US, you can't escape the coercion of US government nor US taxes (either at least filing, or paying the ~$2000 "exit tax" of renouncing). FATCA mean merely having US place of birth many worldwide banks are afraid to take me, US citizen or not.
Well, if you don't do these things, you are a criminal. That's pretty much the textbook definition.
> Wow, how "fair" that sounds on a thread that was originally concerning fairness.
You have a strange conception of fairness. Fairness doesn't mean you get to do what you want regardless of what the law says. Fairness is about having rules apply uniformly to everyone. Some, including me, also believe it means having a level playing field for competition (again, subject to boundaries to protect fairness), where new entrants aren't privileged because of who their parents were and all that entails. (This latter goal is nowhere near achieved yet, and I fully admit I'm a beneficiary of this privilege, as are all American citizens to some extent.)
> This is a presumptuous and arrogant statement that ignores the charitable and personal contributions I've (and others) made to others without taxation.
Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.
> Except I would still have to file US taxes and report bank accounts unless I renounce US citizenship, but that cost thousands and has to be done abroad.
Time to get started! It sounds like it should be worth it to you.
Nah you leave.
>Well, if you don't do these things, you are a criminal. That's pretty much the textbook definition.
I don't have any problem with criminals who operate non-coercively, like people who drop acid or don't pay taxes. I don't equate law with morality (or fairness). To me often to be a criminal is to be the good guy.
> Fairness is about having the rules apply uniformly to everyone.
Nah fairness to me means no coercion. If 51% whites vote blacks have to be their slaves, that's democratic but definitely unfairly and coercive. Same if 2 of 3 siblings vote their house is a country and the law is they get the marble of the third. Democracy here is some people voting for a representative who represents some bombs into others. How many old people do you have to put out on benefits to justify one dead Iraqi, in your opinion?
>Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.
Basically your flippant dismissal of private charity and your smugness of funding social programs at gunpoint. Not surprised though. Why don't you head up to the Red Cross office and tell them "good for you, I bet you have a Black [sic on 'B'] friend."
Did I even tell you what race I am, or are you just racist enough to think me having a black friend means something different? Or is it just you think no one who is black could possibly have an ideology that involves finding taxes illegitimate? Do you see the black mind as different or something? I want to get a real understanding of how deep your racism seeps.
I think we've reached the end of this conversation with a clear understanding of the type of person you are. This is a garden-variety description of egotistical selfishness -- a person who is totally unwilling to follow rules that seem subjectively unfair to him, regardless of objective fairness, and despite the fact that the vast majority of others are willing to follow these rules, even if they disagree with the details.
We create law to reflect what our shared morality and conceptions of fairness are, even though we admittedly don't have perfect laws yet. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the essence of democracy; you are fundamentally an anarchist. Worse, you are a hypocrite: You gladly take full advantage of the protections the law affords you, while expressing disdain for the protections and fairness-guiding that the law affords others.
I'm done with this thread.
(Not the GP, and don’t necessarily onboard with that perspective, but) this can’t be the only way forward, even if the majority of the time it should be. In fact, to keep it working you need to always consider the existence of the “opt-out lever” you outright reject here. The United States itself is founded on and asserts this principle. Of course you meet with resistance of the incumbent if you try to take that route, but that does not imply impossibility in the long arc of time.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
— Declaration of Independence of the United States
Otterley quote below is very instructive:
>The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed
Have you ever stopped to think about WHY no amendment was needed to ban intra-state produced drugs as done in the controlled substance act even though it was needed to ban intra-state alcohol by federal government? How it could possibly be interstate commerce for the government to control merely where you store non-commercial use goods in your own state a la gun-free school zone act?
The government has long since dropped the charade of following the constitution; they themselves have "opted out of democracy."
But if you follow this thread, most of it is him/her just trying to out me as an anarchist (something I've freely admitted anyway) as some sort of ad-hominem way of disproving my point of the absurdity of the definition provided of unfairness, under which scientific research would clearly be excluded from those acting fairly. It's the political version of suggesting I'm wrong because I'm gay.
The problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; and that anarchy is the solution to the problem that we collectively make decisions that they sometimes don't agree with. They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. And they don't see the countless ways in which anarchy is worse than democracy. The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls.
The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Banning and unbanning alcohol was an exercise in democracy in accordance with constitution. The lawmakers recognized for federal government to control intra-state commerce without any other constitutional nexus, they needed to amend the constitution.
Then the government decided to 'opt out of democracy because you [they] don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' Ever wonder why it took an amendment for federal government to regulate intrastate alcohol trade while no such amendment was passed for controlled substance act regulating intrastate drug trade? It's because the federal government decided to 'opt out of democracy' because it didn't like the 'tenets that bind everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' There's no constitutional nexus for the NFA regulating intra-state produced machine guns nor the CSA regulating pot grown in your own house for your own consumption. It's mere decision to opt-out facilitated between new-deal era corrupt supreme court and politicians who ironically ignore the 51+% in keeping pot illegal.
>he problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts;
Well the government has decided that by ignoring the constitution. I've decided we shouldn't accept pure democracy at all; not that we have that.
>The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls.
I'm not sure any pure political system has been tried if you're going to be pedantic. You don't need aggressive coercion to sustain 3 billion souls. Anarchy is an aim for 'society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.' For instance, I've both been to and fought/volunteered for one of our closest examples to anarchism in Rojava, and it is actually becoming one of the most stable and prosperous regions in Syria. Guess that was just me 'whinging and complaining' though, and it wasn't pure idealistic anarchism so I guess it doesn't 'count.
> that they are exempt from society's responsibilities;
Apparently defined by the 51%, like 1800 era blacks 'responsibility' to be slaves.
> They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense.
Guess the charity, volunteer teaching, donations, and actual fighting I've done for a more anarchistic-like region of world were all just me complaining and whinging. Oh and my oh so virtuous paying of taxes! If only we were all as virtuous as Otterley.
>The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Are you calling HN some safe space for anarchism? I've been derided nearly every time I've defended anarchism here. In this instance it's merely a democratic idealism clap-trap on your end to try and shame by ad hominem my showing the absurdity of OP's definition of unfair. A definition by which any use of others' scientific research is unfair, because fairness is in their words when 'the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work.' That's what this thread was about and this deep diving into politics is your own self-congratulations to regain whatever sense of pride you lost due to defending an ignorant and thoughtless statement.
When you live in a, for lack of a better word, "shithole country", you don't plan too long into the future; you play it by ear and find a way to live the next day. One thing to note, though, is that once a technology entrenches the black/gray markets in a society, the rulers and their sons and daughters are almost certainly participants too, and that reduces the incentive/ability to shut things down completely.
But no one cares about useful traditional financial products, as you can't create a ponzi scheme fueled by money laundering with useful traditional products.
>But no one cares about useful traditional financial products, as you can't create a ponzi scheme fueled by money laundering with useful traditional products.
You can't create a ponzi scheme or perform money laundering with traditional financial products? Really? That's your claim?
I'm not here to defend crypto, but let's keep the discussion factual.
> I'm not here to defend crypto, but let's keep the discussion factual.
You can’t speculate on the currency itself, driving its value up and down as part of your own ponzi scheme.
Or rather, for major currencies you can’t. Maybe you can manipulate tiny currencies of tiny nations that way, but those usually end up using the EUR or USD anyway.
and how is crypto better than gold or equities for this purpose?
(they have to convert it back to fiat in order to spend it is an incorrect assumption, increasingly so even in the US)
They transfer it to someone else/currency exchange location (if not totally banned) and get cash when they need to purchase something, or directly barter with crypto. You don't always need to exchange it with fiat. In such environments, often crypto payment would be superior to cash. (BTW this is not unique to crypto. People could utilize USD/EUR in countries with crappy currencies.)
- can't the government impose whatever rules they want at that step, like the US government does?
I suppose no one does something illegal ever. /s
This is the thing that is hard to comprehend for people in countries where "following the law" is somehow considered absolutely moral and also a reasonable burden. There are jurisdictions that you cannot survive without breaking some law every second. Using VPN to circumvent internet censorship is also illegal in countries with such conduct but regular people do that anyway.
- how is crypto better than gold or equities for this purpose?
Gold and equities, and most importantly land used to partially serve those purposes, depending on the jurisdiction. Crypto is an alternative with pros and cons. The major pro is difficulty of confiscation and ease of transfer across borders if the country destabilizes and you want to immigrate. It helps with geopolitical diversification of assets.
Prices and the financial market all boil down to communication systems. Inflation alone is extremely costly and keeps the poor poorer all around the world. I won't get into the carnage of how bankers live and their consequences to society.
Blockchain is costly to run, but I'd day it's way, WAY cheaper than what we have today.
There's the extreme example of Argentina and many others. Even the U.S. is starting to see the burden of this system.
And for how long do the Chinese people will work for pennies of a dollar to keep the American dream while the U.S. print fictitious money at will?
Talk about sustainability, but how sustainable this is? I don't think this system will evolve to something decent. Something new has got to rise and replace it.
In the end it is Argentinians who vote or not vote, protest or not protest. I was born in Italy after decades of extreme debt that we pay to this date to our creditors. It is the responsibility of the previous generations in the end and it falls on us.
Or rather the country should tell the creditors to get bent, and the private 'owners' of all the public infrastructure and resources that were stolen along with anyone surviving from the ford/carter administration (and anyone who inhereted it) should have all their assets seized and split up between the various countries they looted.
Your grandparents didn't vote for mussolini or almiranti and argentineans didn't vote for pinochet. The debt you 'owe' is likely being collected by the same groups of people as well as some in the UK and the rest of Europe.
If someone colludes with your corrupt government to steal something from you then rent it back to you, don't say 'oh well it's my fault, better pay up'. Take it back and lock them in a cell.
If I beat your parents to death, take your house, then claim you owe me for cleanup and have to be my indentured servant to pay the interest my government should give it back to you along with anything I own to pay for therapy and lock me in a cell. Countries should be no different, and we shouldn't let the murderers off scott free because they signed a piece of paper saying they were collectively 'Shell' or 'The US Government'
Cryto is fixing economic structural problems for the parent poster.
Plastic: do you really need a link for this one?
Obviously I stand by the rest of my statement (even if X is better than Y, that doesn't mean that we should oppose proposals to improve X)
I posted to point out that money isn't made out of paper. That's not really the same as condoning the impact of the cotton and oil industries.
100% rag content paper is still paper.
Where do you draw the line between paper and fabric? Is there a meaningful line to draw? Is cotton rag paper? Is spun rayon paper? Rice paper? How about yarn made out of spun recycled paper ( https://spinoffmagazine.com/how-to-paper-chase-spinning-pape... ) or paper made out of non-wood based sources ( https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/69880 )? How about paper made out of calcium carbonate ( https://www.stone-paper.com/en/why-stone-paper/ )?
What I'm saying is: why replacing a bad solution with a slightly less bad solution when you could instead adopt a good solution? Reminds me of those power plants being converted from coal to natural gas "because gas is clean".
 e.g. an electronic currency not based on proof of work or, you know, just print on paper, a renewable resource that is not as resource intensive as cotton and certainly better than petroleum based plastics. Hell, I'll even bring compostable bioplastics in the mix of possible solutions. These are all better than cotton and plastic.
Edit: made the comment slightly less snarky in tone. Forgive me it's been a long morning.
Look up the percentage of all drugs that were invented in the United States. Socialized medicine is subsidized by capitalist innovation overseas. There are so many problems with the US system, but they have more to do with regulatory capture (including difficulty of FDA approval + difficulty of becoming a doctor) and price transparency than anything else.
Otherwise, please work on entertaining new ideas and contributing with your own ideas/suggestions/explanations rather than being "that guy" who shits on people with low value comments lacking any reason or explanation (typically because they are wrong but don't want to admit their position for fear of ridicule by people like themselves).
Personally - I’ve had no issues getting a job. I’ve job hopped consistently since I started working in 2013. I haven’t had a single job last more than a couple years. I will be looking for a new job in 2022 as well. I don’t expect anything bad to happen due to my hopping. It’s a norm within the industry.
If companies didn’t want this to happen then they’d work harder at retaining talent.
If you are at the same company people want to at the very least see growth. Positional or responsibility wise.
I rather hire someone with multiple 2-3 year stints, than someone with one 8 year job. But it’s only a small part of the hiring equation.