Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wealth Distribution in the USA
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59240
Everyone is an infidel to the believers of all huesBoth sides can be guilty of that. Go into a random unrelated thread and chances are someone will be spouting off about evil libertarians. Or if something goes wrong, it's "that's how it'd work in libertarian world", regardless of whether any libertarians have actually posted on it or not
We're the infidels!
Well that kinda thing from any "ism"(and they all do it) can come across as polished, emotive, a meme, a "parable" as it were, trotted out often more for the "faithful" than for the debate at large.I think real world examples of how things would/do work, which is what libertarians are often asked for, are reasonable enough to provide. Sneering at it for "parables" is really pushing it. Heaven forbid a group of people who have the same outlook on something... agree on the same ideas.
Plus as I replied earlier it's not a very good one. Grand on first glance, not so grand when you get down to specifics and it even twists those specifics*. Again not just a Libertarian thing by any stretch. The Left and Right do this too.
*Run the same story again, but remove the restaurants lobbying local government bit entirely. So no government interference, no special interest groups involved. So the market now decides, right? But wait... if there exists a public health and safety body, they will look at any food producer and ask to see if they're following the proper food preparation codes. If the restaurants are complying, then so must the street sellers. Same result. Unless of course you remove the public health and safety body and let the chips fall where they may. Would a Libertarian have public health and safety bodies?Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Thing is, nobody identifies as 'statist', and (like the 'socialist' label), it's so broad that it can be made to apply to anyone (even Libertarians - since most advocate a minarchist state).Both sides can be guilty of that. Go into a random unrelated thread and chances are someone will be spouting off about evil libertarians. Or if something goes wrong, it's "that's how it'd work in libertarian world", regardless of whether any libertarians have actually posted on it or not
We're the infidels!
(Right-)Libertarian views generally seem to be well-defined, as involving unregulated free-markets, and people openly self-identify with Libertarianism and those views - it's those views that get criticized normally, rather than just dismissed as Libertarianism.
These examples never cover the bigger picture, of showing the overall system working though, they are usually cherry-picked examples of small-scale things - what is usually in question, is if the bigger picture system can work in reality.I think real world examples of how things would/do work, which is what libertarians are often asked for, are reasonable enough to provide. Sneering at it for "parables" is really pushing it. Heaven forbid a group of people who have the same outlook on something... agree on the same ideas.As loony as I think KB's "just print infinite money" ideas are, I don't sit around going "lol religion lol" That's not my view though: It is to print money and also to remove money from circulation. You can keep the overall amount of money static this way, or you can grow the overall amount, or decrease the overall amount.
It's just a way of doing things, that more accurately represents what funding/spending options are really possible - you could (if you like) make it run identically to the current system.
Here is an article from a Libertarian (who once ran as a nominee for presidential candidate in the US Libertarian Party) Bill Still, who describes this system being used in reality, providing past precedent of it working (so indeed, not all Libertarians hold the same views
):
http://kentfreedommovement.com/profiles/blogs/the-magic-isle-of-guernsey-by-bill-still-director-of-the-best-doc
People like to discount that with special pleading, that it's a unique case or too small of an economy, but that's a successful real world example, which gives it much stronger precedent than what Libertarians here advocate (where past precedent shows moving towards the preferred free market system, doesn't end well).0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
It depends on context. In the western world wealth is a damned good indicator of happiness. The poor have far fewer choices, less access to the basics. Yea if you're living on a tropical paradise and the ocean is your larder then cash money means feck all, but vanishingly few people are in such a position. Plus if you're wealthy enough you even have the choice to live on a tropical paradise with the ocean as your larder.donegal__road wrote: »Wealth is not a true measure of success, real success is about happiness not wealth.
And with no regulation at all the monopoly would simply use another tactic achieving the same result.It's interesting you think so, I recall a monopolistic food group lobbying to have its competitors forced to label their products with something like "contains x", where x is harmless but makes them look worse. Must go look up the details. Point is, it's not pulled out of nowhere.
Of course proper food preparation codes are beneficial and have a point. Are you seriously debating that? This is not "the government said we should eat more bread and pasta so of course we should, it doesn't matter what anyone else says they're the government,". They're not equivalents. In your example the jury is out all over the place and could go back to "pasta for all" next week. Any hard and fast rule on the subject of "healthy food" is open to debate and interpretation.I think you're getting hung up on "proper food preparation codes" and assuming that in the story they're definitely beneficial and have a point, when rather the lobbying was more to introduce something completely artificial that either had no effect or negligible effect on hygiene, but only purported to, to cover the fact it was a cost-adding measure on the smaller groups. Think "dettol hands free soap dispenser" for "sounds hygienic, but useless and expensive". And as I said, it's not unheard of.
However food hygiene is pretty much nailed down. We know what are clear threats to health in actual poisons and pathogens and we know how to seriously minimise the risks and have done for a very long time. There is no debate that chicken should be cooked through. There are no food scientists saying "well maybe pink chicken is OK you know". We know that having raw meat and cooked meat together is a major no no and there is no debate over it. We know those handling food should wear gloves to prevent contamination and there is no debate over that either. The list is very long.
My point still stands. If you have public food health and safety oversight all food producers and providers will have to abide equally. It requires no lobby group. In the example given it also neglects the point that in order for the restaurants to lobby for standards they have to abide by those standards themselves. They have to be regulated themselves. Otherwise their lobbying would fall on it's arse. Plus their costs also go up on the back of such regulation. The street sellers* have far lower costs in the first place. No rent for a start. No staff. Upkeep of their stall is of a magnitude lower than the upkeep of a bricks and mortar premises. They're also more mobile and can change tack with their products and stall design far more quickly.
In short the regulations are a red herring. With none in place, both the restaurants and the stallholders can afford to provide cheaper grub, but the stallholders food will be cheaper. With regulation prices go up across the board, but the stallholders food will still be cheaper. People if they want cheaper food will still patronise the stalls over the restaurants. In both cases it's a level playing field, only with regulation you're less likely to end up with salmonella.
We've already discussed how companies will lobby and spend billions doing so to avoid regulation. Do you seriously believe that those same companies would willingly and magically self regulate if the brakes were off?As for your question, I suppose a self-regulating group could be set up where it's in the interests of the producers to have full disclosure and compliance as an advertising point. You can trust us, we're approved by x and haven't paid them anything to say so. Here's x's methods and a path of escalation if you're unhappy.
*I'm not American so I'll not write vendors though it's a nicer word in some ways. Diaper instead of nappy is also nicer IMH, but I digress.
: Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Both sides can be guilty of that. Go into a random unrelated thread and chances are someone will be spouting off about evil libertarians. Or if something goes wrong, it's "that's how it'd work in libertarian world", regardless of whether any libertarians have actually posted on it or not
We're the infidels!
I think real world examples of how things would/do work, which is what libertarians are often asked for, are reasonable enough to provide. Sneering at it for "parables" is really pushing it. Heaven forbid a group of people who have the same outlook on something... agree on the same ideas.
It would be a lot easier to even attempt to understand Libertarianism if they dropped the constant Strawmen. Most people, probably everyone, accepts the current system is flawed. Democracy isn't perfect, it's a work in progress that often regresses, but until someone comes up with a better system and better set of alternatives it's the best thing we have. We're a republic and that gives minorities rights. It's protects them in many cases actually. Thus far, EVERY discussion of libertarianism I've read on boards has consisted of the phrase "Big Gov" or "Big <Whatever>" and pointing out problems. Great, the thing is most people accept them. This is probably the only utility I see in the libertarian movement at the moment they have the flaws and mistakes of current goverment systems loaded in the magazine ready to fire at any time. What they don't have, or at least, never bother to actually mention is how their alternative ideal WOULD work. It's great to point out flaws in a system. That's easy, actually given the expanse of history and abuse of authorities throughout the world that's ridiculously easy. What's not so easy is providing a framework to a viable alternative and actually answering queries on it.
On FOUR separate threads now I've observed this pattern.
:Government done this wrong. Therefore we should never have a big overarching goverment.
:Free market should reign.
: If you oppose this idea it means you defend GOVERNMENT under EVERY circumstance.
If you want to communicate your ideas to people, then please, please drop this strawman. It's rather tiring.
I like the idea I really do, but even on the level of the idea it seems shallow. There seems to be no purposed mechanism on how things might work when it's implemented and in this thread and others so far, any chance to even address that is just brushed off into a haze of some non existent polarised debate. It really does actually seem like fundamentalist religion at times. That seems harsh though so perhaps just a terribly communicated idea? Please stop pointing out flaws in the current system. We know most of those and it's ridiculously easy to do. Explain, how the alternate you support would work. And the "Big" expressions really don't help create a rational argument. If anything they sound overly emotive and persuasive.
Just my two cents.0 -
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
That IMH would be a very good idea, nay a given for politics and politicians. Remove the influence of lobbyists as much as possible. For me it's akin to insider trading in society. you'll never be able to remove it fully but societies should try.clairefontaine wrote: »Perhaps what is needed is some kind of separation of church and state type of thing, where if you are in the white house you can't also sit on boards of directors, you must make your stocks and investments very transparent, etc etc.
You forgot society. The individual is paramount, except where they butt up against society. The state should serve the society. Not the other way around. Vaccinations are an interesting one. In order for them to work in a population you need to have a certain percentage who are vaccinated/immune, or the virus can hide in the non vaccinated stock. It's quite a high percentage too, so what is good for an individuals right of choice impacts wider society. A conundrum indeed.Childhood vaccinations imo, really embody all of the conflicts at work in the state vs the individual vs, pharma vs the medical cartel, vs patents, etc.
You mentioned earlier about how America has different approaches culturally. I have noticed that in convo with American folks over the years, a fair number seem to equate society with the state for some reason. They're both "the man" and to be kept at arms length kinda thing. I'd see society as entirely separate a philosophical entity from the state. Then again America is such a diverse country. The "average American" is almost a contradiction in terms I can't abide when non Yanks come out with "oh Americans are like X". Eh no. No matter what X is, you'll certainly find some Americans like that, even if the majority are nothing like that. So I can see why the notion of the individual American and the idea of America overall could bypass the Society bit in the middle. There are too many societies competing I suppose?
+1000I also believe, and have said this many times in feminist threads, that ideologies are dangerous if you tie yourself to one in any absolute terms.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
On FOUR separate threads now I've observed this pattern.
:Government done this wrong. Therefore we should never have a big overarching goverment.
:Free market should reign.
: If you oppose this idea it means you defend GOVERNMENT under EVERY circumstance.
If you want to communicate your ideas to people, then please, please drop this strawman. It's rather tiring.
I like the idea I really do, but even on the level of the idea it seems shallow. There seems to be no purposed mechanism on how things might work when it's implemented and in this thread and others so far, any chance to even address that is just brushed off into a haze of some non existent polarised debate. It really does actually seem like fundamentalist religion at times. That seems harsh though so perhaps just a terribly communicated idea? Please stop pointing out flaws in the current system. We know most of those and it's ridiculously easy to do. Explain, how the alternate you support would work. And the "Big" expressions really don't help create a rational argument. If anything they sound overly emotive and persuasive.
Just my two cents.
I'm not strawmanning anything imo. I started off closer to a minarchist, and the more I read the more I saw alternatives to most of the public functions
if you are interested in reading material I can find some when I'm back at a computer.
Don't misunderstand: it's not all anarchy. There's a range of opinion on the subject from a lib perspective as there is with anything else.
my reading has tended to look at sector by sector when seeing the problems and possible alternatives. So it's easier to start off identifying problems in specific areas and tackling them one by one than just flash presenting a whole new system top down.
I am laughing at being called emotive by comparison with posts from the other side
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
That IMH would be a very good idea, nay a given for politics and politicians. Remove the influence of lobbyists as much as possible. For me it's akin to insider trading in society. you'll never be able to remove it fully but societies should try.
You forgot society. The individual is paramount, except where they butt up against society. The state should serve the society. Not the other way around. Vaccinations are an interesting one. In order for them to work in a population you need to have a certain percentage who are vaccinated/immune, or the virus can hide in the non vaccinated stock. It's quite a high percentage too, so what is good for an individuals right of choice impacts wider society. A conundrum indeed.
You mentioned earlier about how America has different approaches culturally. I have noticed that in convo with American folks over the years, a fair number seem to equate society with the state for some reason. They're both "the man" and to be kept at arms length kinda thing. I'd see society as entirely separate a philosophical entity from the state. Then again America is such a diverse country. The "average American" is almost a contradiction in terms I can't abide when non Yanks come out with "oh Americans are like X". Eh no. No matter what X is, you'll certainly find some Americans like that, even if the majority are nothing like that. So I can see why the notion of the individual American and the idea of America overall could bypass the Society bit in the middle. There are too many societies competing I suppose?
+1000
One of the fundamentals of the 50 states is the idea [e pluribus unum] that if you don't like the laws in one state, you can move to another where you do like the laws. This why keeping as much control at state level is paramount imo. It also, given the size and scope of the nation, with so much diversity, an abhorent idea to be ruled from afar from DC, which is full of cronyism and they live in their own little bubble.
On the other hand, the idea that a state can be friendly to the likes of NAMBLA because they have enough consituent support it utterly repugnant to me, and this is where I hit a wall with libertianism.
The thing is in the US, the people ARE the state, we are not that seperate from governance, we are equal. For example, you know on the US Open courts [tennis] anyone can play there? Its not an elitist space like Wimbledon. Same with public school playgrounds, they are open to anyone to play in even after school as closed or during holidays. It's an essential component of citizesnhip. As my six year old said to me the other day "America is about freeedom and happiness and its OUR job [did you hear that...OUR job] to keep it that way. :-)
There are competing histories, competing cultures, but at our heart is the individual and its relationship with community is a constant debate, see Walt Whitman, and the Witch Trials would be a good morality tale in the dangers of community. Also check out Shirley Jackson's story "The Lottery."0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
Eh yea different wavelength indeed. All you're seeing is abuse of power by one mechanism, but will refuse to deal with the idea that removing that mechanism is nowhere close to a guarantee that abuse of power will cease by the mechanism you favour. Indeed it's highly arguable it could be worse.Wibbs who is talking about assuring safety?
It is strange to be accused of avoiding a point when you are so spectacularly missing the point of the story about abuse of power which is designed to harm consumers, not help them. You are describing lovely scenarios where people can work together to spread costs but what has it to do with anything? We talk about lobby group getting stuff designed to aid them and you're calling it 'assumptions'?
Link please, because every study I've so far looked at showed it increased concentration and short term memoryMany people are under the common misconception that nicotine isn't that dangerous. It's probably the most addictive substance ever. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a health risk. It unfortunately is. The reason why it's effective for ADHD is because it actually affects learning faculties.
IBD is a catchall phrase for many conditions. Often used as a diagnosis when all other clinical conditions are tested for and discounted. UC and Chrohns are different conditions. The mechanism whereby nicotine seems to help in UC is gut motility. I can certainly attest that when I gave up the ciggies my daily *ahem* ablutions were awry for weeks. Needed to really get bet into the roughage.UC is a really strange one because it's IBD. And IBD in the form of crohns diseases is known to be intensified by smoking (whether that's nicotine or not is another question.) and UC is known to be alleviated.
Not the gateway drug notion? It is significantly more likely that those with addictive biochemistry will develop multiple addictions. It can even have a simple explanation. Smoking dries out the mouth and makes you thirsty, so you'll drink more to alleviate that. Just like pubs will put out salty snacks to make you drink more. It doesn't mean dry roasted nuts are a gateway to being Oliver Reed. I didn't drink for most of my twenties, yet I smoked and in a pub would go through the minerals like they were going extinct.Perhap's nicotines biggest side effect though is that it promotes addictions to other substances. In other words, if you're taking nicotine it's much easier for your brain to develop an addiction to alcohol.
Eh wut? Ehhhhhh No. really? You don't drink the smoke* from a vape, you inhale it through the lungs exactly like smoking tobacco. That's why it's so popular as a replacement, because unlike all the others it feels the same as smoking. Vapourised nicotine is absorbed primarily through the lungs and some through the mouth tissues and yes a small amount will be swallowed. Just like tobacco smoking. Maybe if you shoved the e cig up your arse... but that's the only way it's getting near the intestines J.Now, the catch with e-cigs is the delivery method means it's easier to promote nicotine addiction because it's mostly gastro-intestinal absorption. As opposing to cigarettes which are absorbed in the lungs.
Why? If it's not causing disease, why not?Medicinally it can have its uses. I agree there, but I don't think it's in our interest for there to be mass consumption of nicotine for recreational reasons.
Suggesting shoving e cigs up your bum? That's how you go off topic folks.
*interestingly or not... when tobacco came to Europe first smoking was described as "drinking smoke".Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
Exactly. Nail meet hammer.Carlos Roca wrote: »Isn't it funny too how people who practice libertarianism (peace be upon Mises) believe that cabals of self-interested persons, who will seek to manipulate markets to their own ends, will magically disappear if they actually managed to wish away the state.
Good God that's almost socialist. Burn her for she is a witch.clairefontaine wrote: »The thing is in the US, the people ARE the state, we are not that seperate from governance, we are equal. For example, you know on the US Open courts [tennis] anyone can play there? Its not an elitist space like Wimbledon. Same with public school playgrounds, they are open to anyone to play in even after school as closed or during holidays. It's an essential component of citizesnhip. Long may that continue too. That would be my problem with the more full on Libterarian thought. Such spaces would be seen as having a value in monetary terms, so would need to be earned/paid for. Well the public school would be gone in the first place.
Well the dangers of wacky religious nutter societies. You really got a load of Europes nutters on that score. The Reformation really brought out the loons. Every second street in Europe you'd find another sect different from the ones two streets back. Over time Europe reduced their number, by natural attrition and by suggesting "head to the new world, it'll be grand Ted". So that legacy can still be felt today. You poor poor bastards.the Witch Trials would be a good morality tale in the dangers of community I mean in the nation that once landed a man on the bloody moon*, you now have a huge chunk of people who think the old testament is a work of science. That's scary and even more scary how fast it spread and how much it seems to be spreading today.
* and people forget that the lads and lasses who got man on the moon(with some help from Ze Germanz) weren't effete WASP Manhattan types, but a bunch of talented, nutty and driven good ol boys with beer, welding gear, sliderules and pickup trucks(Vettes for the astronauts). Them's my kinda Yanks. Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Exactly. Nail meet hammer.
Good God that's almost socialist. Burn her for she is a witch. Long may that continue too. That would be my problem with the more full on Libterarian thought. Such spaces would be seen as having a value in monetary terms, so would need to be earned/paid for. Well the public school would be gone in the first place.
Well not really, it may seem that way, but the more socialist you get, the more US and THEM and classict you get. You won't get the same thing in French schools for example. Even though your money is paying for it, those school gates close at 9 am and no one is getting in. No way would that fly in the US. We paid for it, its ours. End of.
I think a Libertarian idea of school [but I could be wrong] , would be to have all private schools, and something like vouchers for people to choose which one they wanted to go to. As of now, in public schools you are restricted to district, some are good, some are not so good, some have weird ideological blips. So it can be argued they create MORE stratification. Some are absolutely terrific. Some are outrageously dangerous. But Libertarians would not want the government feeding or educating their kids because of the idea of independence and also because they don't trust the government, and I cant blame them when I hear sometimes of the ideological carry on in some public schools.Well the dangers of wacky religious nutter societies. You really got a load of Europes nutters on that score. The Reformation really brought out the loons. Every second street in Europe you'd find another sect different from the ones two streets back. Over time Europe reduced their number, by natural attrition and by suggesting "head to the new world, it'll be grand Ted". So that legacy can still be felt today. You poor poor bastards. I mean in the nation that once landed a man on the bloody moon*, you now have a huge chunk of people who think the old testament is a work of science. That's scary and even more scary how fast it spread and how much it seems to be spreading today.
And I support those nutters to be nutters if they want to be nutters. Its a big big country and our nutters come in all shapes and sizes. It makes for a lot of interesting village wisdoms and never allows a dominance in philosophy.* and people forget that the lads and lasses who got man on the moon(with some help from Ze Germanz) weren't effete WASP Manhattan types, but a bunch of talented, nutty and driven good ol boys with beer, welding gear, sliderules and pickup trucks(Vettes for the astronauts). Them's my kinda Yanks.
Effete WASP Manhattan types dont like to get their hands dirty. Up in Rockefeller Center [media centre,are a bunch of snooty liberals who like to put down the hicks. And proves you dont need the northeastern establishment to achieves something.0 -
Link please, because every study I've so far looked at showed it increased concentration and short term memory IBD is a catchall phrase for many conditions. Often used as a diagnosis when all other clinical conditions are tested for and discounted. UC and Chrohns are different conditions. The mechanism whereby nicotine seems to help in UC is gut motility. I can certainly attest that when I gave up the ciggies my daily *ahem* ablutions were awry for weeks. Needed to really get bet into the roughage. Not the gateway drug notion? It is significantly more likely that those with addictive biochemistry will develop multiple addictions. It can even have a simple explanation. Smoking dries out the mouth and makes you thirsty, so you'll drink more to alleviate that. Just like pubs will put out salty snacks to make you drink more. It doesn't mean dry roasted nuts are a gateway to being Oliver Reed. I didn't drink for most of my twenties, yet I smoked and in a pub would go through the minerals like they were going extinct. Eh wut? Ehhhhhh No. really? You don't drink the smoke* from a vape, you inhale it through the lungs exactly like smoking tobacco. That's why it's so popular as a replacement, because unlike all the others it feels the same as smoking. Vapourised nicotine is absorbed primarily through the lungs and some through the mouth tissues and yes a small amount will be swallowed. Just like tobacco smoking. Maybe if you shoved the e cig up your arse... but that's the only way it's getting near the intestines J.
Why? If it's not causing disease, why not?
Suggesting shoving e cigs up your bum? That's how you go off topic folks.
Let's ignore the stuff about IBD.
I think we need to be careful here first of all. Nicotine has benefits. Just about every drug and food does. But, they all carry an element of risks to various things. I'm afraid I don't have any links off hand. My subscriptions to all that stuff ended about two years back. So, for now I'll say you were right and I was wrong -except maybe about the bum stuff very certain e-cigs's nicotine goes GI.
(And, yep, it was the gateway drug theory. I was under the impression there was a good deal of support for that regarding Nicotine. But no links, so I'll leave it there. 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59240
I suspect the French example is more about security type stuff than anything else. Certainly a load of Irish public schools are open after hours, some private ones too, though it's been a loooong time since I was in school so...clairefontaine wrote: »Well not really, it may seem that way, but the more socialist you get, the more US and THEM and classict you get. You won't get the same thing in French schools for example. Even though your money is paying for it, those school gates close at 9 am and no one is getting in. No way would that fly in the US. We paid for it, its ours. End of.
More and more I reckon Libertarian type society in the west would only really fly in the US. That mistrust of government is near universal, but there is also more of a collective notion of society at large in the European mindset(as a generalisation of course and it varies).I think a Libertarian idea of school [but I could be wrong] , would be to have all private schools, and something like vouchers for people to choose which one they wanted to go to. As of now, in public schools you are restricted to district, some are good, some are not so good, some have weird ideological blips. So it can be argued they create MORE stratification. Some are absolutely terrific. Some are outrageously dangerous. But Libertarians would not want the government feeding or educating their kids because of the idea of independence and also because they don't trust the government, and I cant blame them when I hear sometimes of the ideological carry on in some public schools.
Oh philosophy I've no issue with, it's when a philosophy is considered unassailable, intrinsically right and god given(oh oh) and wields real power you're in trouble. Matt Damon summed that up pretty well in his take on Sarah Palin. You could have ended up with a "Soccer Mom" with no real proven track record, no clue about history or geography, who thinks the world was hit by Noahs flood in control of the Big Red Button. That's pants wettingly(should be a word) scary. Science is assailable and new explanations come out all the time and science expects to have things arseways, god botherers never do. I'd be right behind the Libertarians marching on that score, get god and all that stuff away from "public" life and certainly out of the schools.And I support those nutters to be nutters if they want to be nutters. Its a big big country and our nutters come in all shapes and sizes. It makes for a lot of interesting village wisdoms and never allows a dominance in philosophy.
I really dunno how J. Speaking as an smoker who went to vaping, it's exactly the same technique you use to inhale the smoke/vapour. With the stronger vapours you feel a similar "kick" in the throat and lungs. I really can't see how you'd get it into your gut unless you gulped and swallowed air a lot. Even then you'd have to deliberately avoid breathing it in.except maybe about the bum stuff very certain e-cigs's nicotine goes GI.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement