tokenizer

IMO gnaritas lacks the understanding I'm sure we both share in his reply to this message:

That con men don't disappear with regulations. They simply become regulators and monopolists.

> The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good

So let us give control over some people, to others! That fixes the problem with the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition)...

> without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load.

I'd take thousands of small, grassroot scams, that can be corrected through communal means (boycotting and community awareness) than by one huge one. If the Fed sanctions a pharmaceutical drug that kills thousands, is that worse than a few peddlers selling whatever drugs they want like what currently exists under the nose of the Fed? If you ask me, some illegal drugs are less harmful than legal ones! And that's pure free market with a dash of mafiosa government resistance (guns, extortion, other things to become powerful to fight the powerful).

> For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save.

And yet, while the FDA didn't exist in the centuries preceding 1906, the formation of the FDA, we see innovations saving lives, and more and more people living meaningful existences. I doubt any community of people would be stupid enough to continue to consume harmful chemicals to degree that harms more than of it harms us now. These organizations exist, yet childhood obesity is the highest it's ever been. Americans consume alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and drugs live they always have. These things haven't be struck a blow one bit by regulation. They've simply become more expensive, and the big man in town takes their cut.

> Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people.

Big red flag that we're not arguing with someone logical. "Bad people"... Like who? The Nazis? Or maybe the Jews? You can use this hatred/disgust/mistrust/contempt/negative energy for so much evil/bad/badder/worse!

Why is lessening risk more important that innovation? We've reduced a tremendous amount of risk in the last 100 years. From labour laws to life expectancy to homicide. Can we please stop feeling like we need bureaucrats to run our lives? I'd love to ask gnaritas whether they would prefer a society with no risk and innovation, or a society with massive risk and massive innovation. Arguing even for the status quo puts you in the more favourable side IMO at the get go.

I also love how they class people as either bad, or innovative, as I'm sure they dream of some sort of utopia where you either create something of worth before the age of 12, in which you would become a part of the ruling, innovative class, or not, in which case you are controlled by that class.

But yes gnaritas you're right. Please pass more laws, more regulations, and create more prisons and fines so we can deal with all of these bad people! In fact, I think I just violated regulation g.r.a. 101 - You cannot challenge the authority of someone who knows whats best for you!

That said, I do have a problem with it's conclusion.

We gave up the monarchy system (to a degree in Western Politics) because a privileged class can never truly choose the correct course of action for subclasses.

We replaced this with a pseudo monarchistic, pseudo technocratic, representative democracy, yet all our problems with War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay continue unabated.

We're at a pivotal point in our history, where we're coming to the realization that democracy doesn't work, and that we're either going to have to commit to some consistent narrative, or perish while we convulse with confusion over the increasing chaos.

If you ask me I wasn't saying this system was by any means proficient in it's duties to any degree. I was just pointing out that some/many people simply don't care, in other words, they are apathetic. And why not? Individuals can't communicate at the communal level like they used too, and we have no power against bureaucracy.

That said, we only live once. It's no use trying to make the world a better place for the next generation, the one after that, or the one after that. Humans will go extinct in the future. Nothing will remember us on this mortal plane after 1 million years. The things we bicker about are profoundly insignificant to the universe. IMO, we don't merit existence outside of this planet if we can't feed the people we have on this one. Let's not spread suffering amongst the stars with us.

Or any agency. A mother state isn't wrong. It doesn't do things without some merit for some people. It's just that the hand holding is frustrating to the more independent of us (including me) who would rather take risks and be freer.

Well to me, I'm simply highlighting the fact that not ALL pedofiles are rapists.

It doesn't surprise me that some/most people believe this, but I believe that defending simple truths to be important.

Again, pedantic. But necessary. Especially if people who go by social justice warriors, believe in the persecution of pedofiles who've never commited or will commit a crime.

Sorry for being pedantic, but pedophilia is psychiatric disorder. I'd imagine all pedofiles WOULDN'T think child abuse is good.

That said, the word you were looking for, is child molester. People need to realize that not all pedofiles act on their attractions, nor that all of them would want to. It's important to note that the feelings of attraction, do not automatically mean they want to rape all children...

But funnily enough, all you'd need for erikig's program.

A program runs through your git/svn and tracks the user, date, commit, and reversion.

While analysing reversions vs commits and all the in between, I am confident it would be somewhat easy to tweak the analysis to be accurate.

Each reversion you encounter, you check the five next and five previous commits. If any users stand out as being in the previous tree for additional/reversional...

Actually, it may be a little complicated...

Thanks. Good point on the trains, completely missed that.

I guess levitating a live frog seems more interesting to me however. To be able to use magnetics to simulate gravity for humans safely, is IMO, a huge barrier (of many) to space travel/living one day.

All the best!

So which accomplishment do you find more rewarding? While I see graphene becoming an extremely popular 21st century material, levitating a frog is the first step to levitating anything larger.

If I understand you correctly, I think it has to do with the fact that their narratives don't align with the information. And that's only if the sources are credible (to them), the bias isn't obvious/against the readers bias, and the facts are presented clearly to them (presentation).

So the major barrier to what you & I enjoy as the internet for people to adopt in my opinion, are the communication barriers we all face everyday. You and I most likely are somewhat uncommon because more people are more apt to do their socializing in real life.

That said, we are seeing global communication at it's best. For instance, I'm an anarchist. But more specifically, and libertarian-socialist. One of my many hobbies is to argue with other political theory enthusiasts. More specifically, other Anarchists.

For such a small group of people, it would make more sense to band together in common ideology to become stronger (like the internet), but humans have a way with creating division where there ought not to be none IMO.

Would love you opinion on if removing this division in ourselves is possible, or if you don't believe that's universally true.

It's great to be optimistic about this as well, because humans will find a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibacterial#Alternatives

The alternative section is the largest section in wikipedia. Also, as more people die (sadly) more money and time will go into these alternatives.

I think you miss one point about doom and gloom; people can sometimes build something better in the ashes of failure. Looking into antibiotics, this seems inevitable anyway...

So we might as well create many, many effective alternatives as we shift towards living in a world where they are necessary.

Well you've changed my mind. I definitely don't think you're a shill.

> OWS aren't terrorists, but ... were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support ... Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists ... they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements.

You're a sheep. You preach non violence and think that any protest with elements of violence as illegitimate. The main message of OWS was of solidarity, hence the whole complexity of the group. You missed that point entirely, even though you say most people you know identifies with their grievances.

So in summary, you don't believe in protests, as you don't believe in outliers or subverters as being separate from the core grievances of the whole movement. Because of this, you dismiss any movements or protests you or others may find hopeful, because others who share different philosophical underpinnings, are also involved in the narrative.

> Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already.

Absolutely. Here's something to mull over while you beg the government to reform itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It's extremely easy to shout terrorist and praise pacifism and trust your government. The hard thing to do is become outcasted by sheeple like you who think this massively powerful set of institutions has your interests at heart. I'd much rather go to /r/conspiracy then be told me someone like you that terrorism is the biggest problem towards social change and not government central planning of socio-economic development....

Excerpt: "Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense."

TLRD: You need to seriously rethink your sheepest trust in institutions based from Monarchy, and governed mostly be the elite. You need to stop dismissing theories and actions against oppression as negative and opposed to progress, as that pretty much enforces the belief that the government (US specifically) isn't the one creating/causing/permitting an enormous amount of negative events globally for special interest group gains. The War on Drugs, The War on Minorities (Prison System), The War on the Internet, and The War on Terror, are all legitimized by your sheepest trust in their creators continued success....

Oh Look... : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306

Trust them. Be peaceful. People like me are the problem. Definitely not the ones with the money supply and army...

Ultimately, the whole thing comes down to trust.

My point was that power corrupts, and that centralizing that power will only serve to expediate the process.

That said, if you trust your government, then the whole thing is awesome. Central planning leads to tough decisions being made to benefit the collective as a whole.

The problem with this is that I see this collective force being used to subvert the populace putting it's time/money into it. I know you're probably coming from a different perspective, but I'm talking about Western Politics in general.

I understand the goal of trying to make government work, but I just can't see people having any effect on the government's decisions in Britain and the US at present time.

Again, I'm mostly speaking in economical terms. The people do get social progress from time to time with protest and reform. But all economic policy since the labour uprisings of the 20's/30's/40's, the upper most classes have been tearing down all of what our (again general Western politics) ancestors fought for.

They also forgot to mention that at that time, the government branding them terrorists were killing them and their compatriots at many of the labour sit ins.

Usually it's the elite that's quick to justify thousands of death for security, so I'd argue that while deplorable in a moral sense, the acts themselves when taken in context are understandable, as it was war.

Exactly. People put the ownness for grassroot movements to legitimize their use of force, AND that of their loose affiliates, but point to the government and question it's actions, and "that's different" /s.

The article makes one great point thought: Many people die, INCLUDING rich people in collapses. They're either extremely confident about this time, or extremely ignorant with how revolutions and power structures usually mix.

If you're arguing for syntactical purity than yes, they are terrorists.

Semantically, terrorism is violence against the state/privileged public, and "the legitimate use of force" is violence by the state, to the individual/disenfranchised public.

Are poor mostly black neighborhoods not under the duress of terror from the "Stop and Frisk" police in NY? What about Operation Northwood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Also, just because you find certain actions morally reprehensible, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure we're all missing TONS of context. Also, to quote Nietzsche:

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you can come up with a method for countering oppression that doesn't use force, but DOESN'T involve begging your oppressors, please let me in on the tactic.

Also, revolutionary anarchism is but a branch. You have many forms of anarchism. Most of which advocate peaceful coexistence without the use of force over individuals or communities.

I'd argue that dividing force into subsets of classifications is futile. You have force, you have coercion, and you have power. Anarchists inately believe that force/coercion is corrupting, which gives you a point, but many would agree that, "The war to end all wars is worth it."

So while the end may not justify the mean, The end that justifies all meaning - is something else entirely to look into.

Of course they are. Look at theire final paragraph tying OWS with terrorism. This person is a shill who's rewriting history.

The IWW and other mass union labour movements engaged in war with business elite, which was backed/run by the government. The concessions we were given were temporary, but amazing in terms of prosperity.

But they are right. Collections of Working Class people didn't die as heroes who ushered in an era of labour laws and minimum wages, but are rather terrorists who had ZERO effect on the world... /s

> I don't see the "obvious classism". Author isn't talking about demonstrations or protests, author is talking about extremists blowing things...

Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists. Without the movement, you don't have May Day in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919

Also, without context, you're argument seems reasonable, however WITH context, it does not. During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection. After years of struggles with police and politicians, I find it insulting to claim that any engagements are terrorism, and that all of it is under the pretense of war. Just look at the locations of these events...

> Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence.

Actually the labour movements had gotten the most concessions out of government between 1918 and 1940. If you disagree, again, feel free to explain how labour laws inhibit society from being truly free/prosperous.

> Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting).

OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed. http://www.iww.org/

While this was a decent article highlighting an interesting point about the impending collapse of the US, this part was obviously classist:

> There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists.

Yes. Terrorism gave us the 40 hour workweek, and in my country of Canada, single payer healthcare...

What ideals? The institutions' roles? The government's structure and architecture? The people working for the government? The policies being passed?

The ideals you reference are vague. Do you mean Democracy? Surely you don't think hierarchical/technocratic institutions legitimized in the use of force is a necessary arm of Democracy or Liberty?

The idea that any of these institutions commit any morals good is hilarious. There are people, and there is power. Some people commit acts of moral good with power (Some Police, Most Firefighters, Most Medics, Some Teachers, Some Doctors, Some Lawyers, etc..) but many abuse that power to dangerous levels.

But sure. Let's assume the people at the absolute top fight for our interests. I would much rather have a discussion on power/authority, and what the absolute minimum is we need to function.

Again, context is everything. You're missing the point entirely. OP's point was regarding the hypocrisy of one government, criticising another government, for extremely similar policies/goals/implementation.

That said, I'm sure if we were in Russia, and an anti-US article was published, you'd see a few persons argue that it's nothing special as well, with "stop criticising my country" demagogues coming out of the wood work just like you have.

Exactly. If anything I think that there's a certain level of habitat healthiness that is taken on a subconscious level. People regulate their own numbers one way or another at some point (hopefully).

Maybe when/if Japan is half of it's current population (http://japandailypress.com/people-prediction-tokyo-populatio...) [Tokyo's in 2100], then we'll see that number start to grow again.

The only problem I have with an analyzed/conditional tax system is the legitimacy of the party in charge of collecting it.

Everyone can nod their heads at taxing vehicles more than bicycles, but if that additional government income goes into tax breaks for certain corporations, or bad social policies (everyone thinks there's one!).

This is why I enjoy flat taxes, so we can focus more on the policies that money provides, rather than siderail that discussion with debates on what those taxes should be.

Obviously we should implement policies that become less expensive with time, but hearing that the Netherlands has a 21% tax rate on moped repair is insane. What does that money directly contribute to? The military? Tax breaks?

With flat sales taxes we can focus directly on policy. Everyone is equal in terms of the percentage of product consumers must pay in taxes, for their product.

It's pretty unprecedented (as far as I know).

I'm assuming they can just live normal lives? We have millions of males/females who choose to be single, so I don't see the entirety of this group being upset.

The bigger chilling effect is my situation. I would love to comment, but I'd rather not create potentially incriminating or embarrassing ties back to my personal life. People may think this is exclusively limiting trolling, but for me, it limits me discussing economics, politics, and controversial events that usually 30% of the population is always creating bad opinion about.

At least with pro username websites, you can opt into real names. I feel like this is the optimum approach, and that all others are subversive to a completely free conversation, which is what the internet first championed.

Yeah, I had always hoped this was the goal. It's not the leak that has the most effect, but the reaction to the leak.

Capitalism is a meaningless word. Does it mean currency based markets? Markets in general? The wage/labour model of business? Corporate Law?

Ultimately we as humans coin many words for real experiences. In my experiences, I exchange my services, in exchange for a representation of value, and in turn purchase my necessities with this representation of value (and in this modern era purchase wants as well).

Personally if you want to stick with idealism, I would coin Capitalism as "... an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods, and the production of goods and services for profit in a market economy."

We don't have that 100%. That's for sure. The government has a large part of of modern means of production. And the true public also has co-operatives, syndicates, mafias, gangs, and non-profits.

We definitely have a market economy though. So I definitely agree with your point. I just think Capitalism is nothing more than an ideal.

Because I enjoy this topic so much, my system classifications are as follows: The West: "Inverted Totalitarianism", EU: "Pre Natal Neo-Feudalism", China: "Party Monarchism". As far as I'm concerned, ideologies are great for discussions, but horrible at describing real things.

Good points. I definitely see both sides of the coin playing out: with some landlords and sectors increasing prices, but others holding steady. I personally have no evidence to assert that over time, the battle would be won by the landlords and sectors that maintain reasonable prices, but your counter argument makes a great point.

I just feel like BIG would be ideal in so many ways. We can cut all social programs that are BIG for specific groups, and use those savings to help offset the massive cost of the program. The BIG would allow disenfranchised/unemployed persons security in food and housing (hopefully, as our discussion brings up the concerns), tt would allow part-time workers a chance to save money, and participate in the economy, and it would allow full-time workers to supplement their income, again allowing them to make larger purchases and save.

IMO, the current economic climate warrants experimentation. Where I'm from, we've had a study in BIG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome), that showed promise not only in an economic sense, but a social sense as well. I truly think it could be a force of good. As a society, we need to either set the bar higher for our collective support towards to lower classes, or we need to come to grips with a class based reality that is projecting towards more inequality.

> I think at the crux of the matter is the supply elasticity of goods consumed by the least wealthy.

A very valid concern. I feel like landlords would be reticent towards increases initially, as their isn't any data to back your decision on the matter. Again, I feel like the holdouts combined with migration will pressure the groups wanting to raise prices enough to limit the increase. But then again, if everything raises in price by 15%, then you're not just paying 15% more, you're paying 100 dollars more for rent a month, 100 dollars more for food per month, etc...

We need to at least start implementing studies and experiments. I can't see any reputable economists dismissing the policy out of hand without proof of it's benefits/downfalls. Both you and I can only speculate. I'd love to change that and for us to talk about data regarding this someday.

What did you expect it would do? Genuinely curious.

It really sucks when this happens. It makes you look bad, possibly heralds others to the site at fault, AND most likely retains your contacts info. It really sucks when someone else gives your information away, even if it is only your name, email, replies, and received messages from the offender's account...

> My only worry about this program is if it will indirectly inflate the cost of everything.

I personally see this being too tricky for companies to try unless they're a monopoly.

If I run company A, and my competitors company B and company C raise their prices, I'm going to maintain mine, to increase my profit flow. Alternatively, company B and C don't even try raising their prices, for fear of competition doing what I mentioned.

Thoughts?