tossacct

They could go into other illegal fields, or they could move somewhere where their illegal drug expertise is useful, or they could become farmers or teachers or simply retire.

There are other countries and other states in the USA that have legalized certain drugs, have they had a comparative rise in other illegal and dangerous activity like you have claimed?

Or are you just hypothesizing one possible outcome that has no evidence or bearing on reality, "whatsoever".

Some cultures have retained traditional diets, some cultures have not retained traditional diets.d

controls = natural selection, survival of the fittest

oversight, monitoring = culture, language, history

Science has the potential to speed up the process of knowledge acquisition. Our current human diet is the result of thousands of years of trial and error. A scientist attempts to follow cause and effect, minimizing confounding variables that obscure cause and effect.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_...

In the article it stated that names and events were changed to protect people from the crimes committed.

Maybe he was breaking the law, maybe he was helping children, maybe he was the victim of a crime like the other fellow who had his face smashed in and had reasons not to go to the hospital.

seanmcdirmind did not accuse you of saying anything. You asked a question and then he answered it. Are you replying to the right thread?

>I only observed...

You didn't ONLY observe, you observed and then asked a question, and then the question was answered:

r0h1n>>"I'd be more interested in why two such different countries as the US and China seem to have independently arrived at the same problem"

Seanmcdirmind asked you if your question was genuine, you responded that it was, then he answered your question. There is no conflict here.

>>>However, I see no point in arguing about definitions. I propose that we just use the terms "complete deregulation" and "partial deregulation" from here on out, so as to be non-ambiguous.

Agreed. All dictionaries disagree, but I'm not talking to any of them.

I believe that all reasonable people agree that history has shown that monopolies are inefficient in a capitalist system(see the 1920s for example). I feel that government-granted regulatory monopolies are also inefficient in a capitalist system. From your comments, I assume that you agree with both of these things, please let me know if you have a different view.

My understanding of the invention of regulations is this: Full deregulation of business seems like the best possible solution, until the point that companies become so big that they form monopolies that stifle competition. Then the government has to come in and regulate them until they are no longer monopolies. From your comments, I assume that you agree with this, let me know if you have different views.

I have to go eat but I have a comment written up about natural monopolies with relation to telcos ready to be edited and then posted.

>>>Given that the telco industry is 100% made up of government-granted regulatory monopolies, this act clearly did not implement deregulation.

I do not think it is controversial to say that deregulation is the act or process of removing or reducing state regulations. I have checked several dictionaries and encyclopedias, on line and dead-tree.

So a slight reduction in the regulatory laws that contributed to the formation of "government-granted regulatory monopolies" is deregulation. Therefore, the 1996 telecommunications Act of 1996 is deregulation, since it reduced and removed some, but not all, regulatory laws.

If we can agree on this, I will reply to the rest of your comment. If we disagree I can still reply, but the definition is really important to my argument.

I agree with your point 2).

I disagree with your point 1): very many Americans are unemployed or underemployed, and being supported by welfare initiatives such as unemployment, medicare, and food stamps. Some significant fraction could be employed doing basic research instead of sitting at home watching TV and looking for jobs that aren't being offered by corporations that are making more profits than ever through fractional reserve lending and bailouts.

An example of underemployment in our industry: there are very many individuals with government funded computer scientists with BS, MS, and PHD degrees, that are employed in lucrative positions as code monkeys and computer janitors. These people should be inventing the next UNIX and IPV8 and advanced networking algorithms and image recognition and self driving cars. I'm not educated on whether strong AI is a pipe dream or not but weak AI has helped with image recognition and encryption breaking and genetic learning and spam filtering and web searching.

I think your initial point that "citizens acknowledge and accept that most government funded research won't pan out" is highly highly controversial in the US among some democrats, republicans, and most libertarians. Many want to cut non-military blue-sky research completely. These people call themselves neo-conservatives, President George W. Bush was a champion of the ethos. Liberals and normal conservatives are a bit sneakier on their wishes to de-fund research.

Agree for the current US, which is likely a large part of why they have food stamps, but no "living wage for doing whatever suits your fancy".

An argument could be made that much of the government funded research done at Bell Labs is worthless. An argument could be made that of the worthwhile things that have come out of this government research, transistors, lasers, and CCDs are the most far reaching (since transistors begat miniaturized electronics begat cell phones and computers begat the internet).

These government researchers were largely doing "whatever suited their fancy" and most of it was wasted effort and tax money. An argument could be made that the money and effort wasted was worth the amazing results.

Agree for software people, agree for middle class people with no children. Vast swathes of the population are not included. 30% of the population has less than 10k in net wealth. Think someone with a mortgage but no equity(or even underwater) and no assets. For this person, money is a very key issue since they are one non-emergency medical issue(cancer, heart disease, diabetes) away from death assuming they have insurance. If they don't have insurance, they will die if they develop a medical issue due to lack of ability to pay for their treatments or medication.

For those with money, don't forget luck. Also don't forget timing, but I repeat myself.

The money thing comes into play for the lower 30% of the population which has 10k to -infinity in net worth. Here's a tip: price out some business plans, then look up the percentage of the US population has enough net worth[1] to fund or convince a bank to fund their plan.

[1]http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/study-american-hou...

>>> It's not like I've never heard of [the concept of natural monopolies].

You have the benefit of the doubt from me, but your specific arguments leave out the installation phase of the electrical grid, which I'm sure you are very familiar with.

>>>First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines.

Agree, but capital isn't the only thing. You have to put the electrical lines into the ground, disrupting traffic. The costs and capital of the electrical system are not what makes it a natural monopoly, the physical reality of our current technology does (pending wireless transmission as you mention later).

The current physical reality is solved by having the government own the last mile(for some definition of mile), while electrical providers can connect at hubs. This is how it works in places where the population understands the specifics of natural monopolies.

>>>Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something.

The biggest problem is that these technologies do not yet exist. Maybe in the future they will be stymied by regulation, but if they were invented today I can't think of an electrical grid regulation that would stop them. Remember, consumers can hook up power generating technology to the grid already: solar panels.

>>>Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.)

Businesses are in the business of making money. When a corporation thinks it can make money by suing municipalities that form broadband networks, they do so. Like in Lafayette.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60150 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/...

Want to know why this isn't all over the news, with the competing ISPs and cable companies badmouthing these bad corporate actions? Because the cable companies and the ISPs and the media companies are largely owned by the same people, and collude monopolistically. This is a very recent accomplishment: regulations existed to prevent it but were overturned by the deregulation achieved through the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownershi...

I gotta tell you: not everyone is on the internet. In the US, publicly usable internet usually comes in the form of wifi, or terminals at the library. Not everyone has a library near by. Not everyone has enough money for a cheap cellphone or cheap laptop to take advantage of free wifi. Internet cafes aren't a going concern here.

And some people are legitimately scared of computers! Is it their own problem? Emphatically yes. Is it also society's problem? Again, emphatically yes. Is it their own fault? Well that's a matter of opinion. I think we should solve the problem and then argue over blame if there is time left over.

Just because naive libertarian polemicists use an argument doesn't make that argument incorrect.

>>>It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.

In my experience, libertarians universally agree with me when I say "artificial property rights are completely protected and propped up by the government's threat of violence". It is their favorite part of the how governments operate, because they do not recognize the benefits of collectivism (socialism, communism, prisoners dilemma, tragedy of the commons).

Notice how I have not told you anything about my personal political views.

I agree that the governments typically don't need to "use violence". Do you agree that the "threat of violence" is sufficient?

I can't speak to Europe as a whole or the specific country you are from. In the US, you can be put in jail for non-payment of taxes. We have good old debtors' prisons. Also, if you are hungry and take food that does not "belong to you", there are certain criminal laws that can result in imprisonment. How do European governments deal with non-payment of taxes and the taking of food?

By the way, US "foodstamps" are now called "EBT" and you get a normal looking debit card that has certain restrictions on how it can be used (no buying shoes, only food ingredients).

>>>The context of this discussion is this comment by olliesaunders:

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, I will try to explain my original comment for you.

I agree with you that starting a business is possible in the legal sense and it is a culturally acceptable thing to do. The US government and the general socio-economic climate of the US makes it morally, legally, and socio-economically possible to start a business. Agreed.

Here is my response to olliesaunders:

>>>Most people in the United States do not have this option [starting a business] because they do not have enough money to do so.

If starting a business takes X amount of time, Y amount of money, and Z amount of skill, my contention is that most Americans do not have sufficient levels of each. To say nothing of the luck involved.

So with that in mind, let me reply to part of your most recent comment:

>>>You are making the argument that people in the US don't have options. Of course they have options.

This I agree with, as stated above.

>>>The costs may be high to exercise those options, but that doesn't mean they don't have them.

This I do not agree with. Starting a business costs Q amount of money. A certain segment of the population will never earn that much money in their entire lives.

To be snarky, I will likely never earn enough money to buy an island. The fact that it is legal to buy an island does not make buying an island an option for me.

Just because it is trite doesn't mean it is not right: because even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Would you care to share your measuring system for how do decide if it is 1:1 or not? It seems complex to measure health, "wealth", happiness, and security. I sure haven't found any actionable or reasonably complete metrics in my readings, maybe I am bad at searching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life

Note: Poverty in my post is intended to mean "low income". I understand that homeless means "without home". How does your post relate to the part of my post that you quoted?

Additionally, do you have any evidence for your assertion?

>>>It is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today.

I will strongly agree for consumer purchases by people at or above the median household income in America. Strongly disagree for medical purchases, since if you try to save money you may die.

I'd love to see some numbers or studies to prove your claim as it applies to Americans in poverty. Even some anecdotal math would be fine, using craigslist apartments and bus ticket costs and food costs and medical costs and etc. Poverty line is 23,050 for a family of 4.

November 2012: 20% of American children live in poverty

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

>>>Yes, looks like he chose to not have a kid

In the US this is not legally a man's choice.

Wikipedia>>>In some cases, men and boys that have been raped (statutorily or otherwise) by women have been forced to pay child support to their rapists.[1]

[1]http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

>>>So long as scarcity exists, [living without constraint] is fundamentally impossible.

Absolutely agree.

>>>They have the option to raise that money.

Absolutely disagree. They are working 2 and 3 jobs, my friend. They do not have the money to raise that money.

>>>You're searching for the ability to live without constraint.

Please explain where I indicated this, I did not mean to.

I think it is a good thing that individuals control their own money, and can choose to give it to whomever they want.

Can we agree that people with no money will starve to death unless they use violence to take food from someone, or the government uses violence to take food from someone on their behalf? The foodstamps of this great depression are equivalent to the soup lines of the old great depression: they prevent people from robbing, looting, and starving in the streets.

>>>Nowhere near proportional to the productivity increases, that's for certain.

What is the proper proportion?

>>>You could start your own company, be your own employer and work as much as you feel like.

Most people in the United States do not have this option because they do not have enough money to do so.

>>>Is there a good reason to believe that one of these effects is stronger than the other?

That's a great statistical question! If the data skew was proportionally equal in both directions, the two skews would cancel each other out, right?

Unfortunately, we don't know if the data skews towards accidents, or skews towards suicides, or skews towards them both equally. Here is the snarky one-liner answer to your question:

>>>Is there a good reason to believe that one of these effects is not stronger than the other?

>>>Stalin worked at TX/RX?

You have conflated the two uses of the word "they" in the gpp. And you are maddeningly close to having your pedantry card revoked pending discovery that you are in fact a native english speaker: so consider yourself on notice, [as they say](they refers to Steven Coldbear). Let's begin.

>>>As they say: Quantity has a quality all its own.

The word "they" occurred twice in the gpp. The first time was in reference to "The guys at NASA who came to TX/RX". The second occurrence of the word "they" occurred in the phrase "As they say" which is an idiom, or a turn of phrase [as they say](they refers to "people who use idioms"). Therefore it clearly was not referring to the only other use of the word "they".

A native english speaker would know this...but maybe you aren't a native english speaker! Watch your posts friend, maybe spice them up with some "ethnic" flair. Also, do not get into a land war in Asia, [as they say](they refers to the writers of The Princess Bride, as they wish).

I can't read the study, but lots of cultures in the US attach stigma to suicide(weakness) and to gun accidents(stupidity). Families in these cultures sometimes feel that they share the blame for not properly securing the firearm or not effectively mitigating the suicidal ideations of a depressed family member.

Consider a family with a youth who accidentally shot themselves. Rather than state that it was an accident, the family tells authorities that it was a "suicide".

Consider a family with an adult that chooses to commit suicide. Rather than state that it was a suicide, the family tells the authorities that it was an "accident".

This thread is how I wish all discussions were on this site. Disagreement that is just polite enough, tons of facts on both sides, both sides with reasonable opinions founded in reality. Thanks roc and protomyth.

The short answer is "be the change you want to see in the world"

The long answer is a consumer's collective. If you are in the US a good example are the credit unions, where fees (of all kinds) largely don't exist. In the US, Consumer's Collectives legally have a democratic corporate structure. Private corporations legally are more like a dictatorship. Public corporations have a board of directors and are legally more like an oligarchy (unless one single person constitutes most of the board).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_cooperative

>>> I almost made a comment similar to this, but I didn't know how to phrase it.

Really?

>>>I think seeing suicides from people in a similar situation to you almost reminds you that suicide is an option at your disposal

Seems like a pretty damn good comment. Make it a top level on the next suicide thread, maybe it will help someone think more rationally about WHY they are suddenly looking at suicide as an option.