It created a new Administration Controlled Substances Code Number (#) for “Marihuana Extract” as the DEA previously had codes only for. FREE – in Google Play He walked through the store, picking up the same items he had purchased most of which were related to traffic violations, including a DUI. Lawson's attorneys admitted that Lawson had a drug addiction and previously had been banned from the relevant store, a questionable. Liberals and conservatives do not agree with each other, as a matter of general principle. If one side says something is true, then the other side.
and Prohibited Walmart to Substance? Co-Conspire a Google Did Traffick
Given the numbers that I'm seeing thrown around here, it looks like I'm actually living on a post-tax income that these folks are being given. I live quite well, actually. It would take an awfully big cut to get me to starve. First I'd have to give up a few things, like the cable and cell phone bills, home improvements, Fido and Fluffy. Maybe a much smaller house without so many bathrooms and bedrooms, not live alone, etc. The "poverty" level is set so high that any of my grandparents who lived quite well would now be considered poor for their lack of "necessities" such as many of the things that did not even exist 75 yrs ago.
The richest country in the world has "no starvation" without even trying, and they do even better at providing for themselves when your ilk aren't waiting in the wings to seize, destroy and control what others have produced. Just what every capitalist wants- starving disgruntled employees The problem Tony isn't how much the employer pays - its how much the govenment takes. All these taxes reduce the bottom line and reduce the amount that the company can pay its employees. That is why their NET income is low.
Government loves to come along and give the money to non workers in order to A. Im sure they can find a rotting hut where you can park your lezy socialist ass. He was expecting a magic solution that eliminated the problem without giving up the part where you hand out free stuff. So if you're discussing the issue with him and assert that there are no solutions to the problem he delineated that don't involve no longer giving out free stuff, he will not accept that.
It's YOUR job to give him another solution, even after you tell him that there isn't one. In fact, placing any restriction whatsoever on the range of possible solutions makes you a nihilist, because you just don't believe enough. They only have him on the show for "balance" - in other words they have four reasonable rational people and one liberal who does little but spout the party line.
Same with Alan Combs and Juan Williams. Well you can't be too hard on Beckel and Williams. Compared to say "Meet the Press with Chuck Todd", they are right leaning centrists.
This is why Republicans and Libertarians fail. They let the Left get away with claims of "good intentions". Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture.
The object of power is power. The left is mad at Walmart because they're making obscene profits off the back of their workers, evidenced by their eligibility for public assistance, and it is the duty of government to force Walmart to pay more.
If they are able to collect benefits at that rate, the problem is not with Walmart. With rainouts and slowdowns, they're lucky to make hours in a year. But, they only have to stay unskilled for about 2 years. Same with Walmart employees. The left is mad at Walmart because they're making obscene profits off the back of their workers. The Walton family is fairly conservative, and based out of the South.
This triggers a lot of the lefty attack dogs. If each and every Walmart had a rainbow flag hanging over their entrances, we would read a lot less about them. Lefties want the country's largest employer subject to the unions, and Democrats lust after the unions' money. The Last American Hero 3. As has Target, Lowes, and Home Depot - except those places are frequented by college-educated suburbanites, you know the "right sort of people" as defined by the Left.
Walmart is frequented by people in rural areas, the "bitter clingers" as defined by the Left. The profits are not as obscene as people think.
Walmart as well as most American corporations that size make money off of being that big, - in other words volume not margin. Its called economies of scale. Wages must stay reasonable in order to maintain quality employees because if a competitor in the labor market pays more they the best employees leave. So the bottom line is that the "big" profits are because the corporation is large in scale, not because they are ripping their consumers or employees off.
Of course economics is no longer taught at the high school and often college level anymore so most people haven't a clue as to how this works -or progressive taxation- or redistribution policy either. This is an unintended consequence of the welfare state.
You people don't ever get unintended consequences. Why on earth would Wal-mart pay people more when these benefits are available? The government should not have a say when it comes to pay! And the consequences are a carefully crafted strategy. Obama knew what the consequences of Obamacare was - he just doesn't care whether someone suffers or potentially dies because their healthcare and or treatment was interrupted. All he cares is that his agenda wealth redistribution, government control and expansion gets advanced.
The left wants to destroy private ownership of the "means of production". Its a central tenet of their ideology. Welfare is a tool to destroy the spirit and will of the American worker. Class envy is used to lower the control of business owners and buy votes. First, how about conservatives stop lecturing everyone about how to behave morally? Never trust it when the people with all the money are dictating morality for those with none.
In this country, the harder you're actually working, the less you're probably making. So they can take that self-serving work ethic bullshit and either submit it to the rigors of science or they can shove it up their fat asses. Second, the fact that companies exploit the safety net by paying low wages and having government pick up the slack ensuring enough demand for their own products is not an argument against having a safety net, but for having a higher minimum wage.
The reason we have a safety net is so that people don't starve to death for the crime of not living up to conservative work ethic moral bullshit. Or, say, for having no legs or being 90 years old and being unable to work. And if someone writes the word "charity" I'm going to vomit. I prefer a judgment-free system of buttressing a middle class with tested policies over social darwinism dressed up in cynical moral preening.
On a per hour basis, after taxes, this is actually true! Give me a C! Give me an H! Give me an A! Give me an R! Give me an I! Give me a T!
Give me a Y! What does that spell? The belief that blacks and others are inherently inferior and in need of a helping white hand from government, while anyone who disagrees is accused of racism. Doublethink is an amazing thing. When assholes like you start doing so, I'll be happy to quit lecturing you on it.
Until then, you continue to act like an adolescent, I'll continue to call you on it. I do know that when conservatives lecture me on how to act morally, I can usually ignore them, and certainly the arc of history is moving in a way that the morals they lecture about are not something I need to spend much time on.
I do also know that when liberals lecture me on morality, it is almost certainly going to be followed up by a push for a law or regulation that will force me to act according to their definition of morality "for my own good" or, worse, "for the greater good". I think we're all indebted to Tony for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier derp, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
Please upload video of yourself vomiting to Youtube and provide the link, unless that's one more thing you're lying about. Soda bans, public shaming of people who don't accept the gay agenda, etc. Sure the right has it's preachers, but they came from and still belong on the left. And labor theory of value? Yes, tell me how that is applicable in a modern society where machines make most things and labor use is at all-time lows.
Wow amn, ignorance here is astounding. He's insanely easy to analyze. Yet another homosexual, petulant at God who he claims isn't there. I will grant you that there are some rare occasions when a person might fall on hard times and really have no help available.
But in most cases there is help from someone, either by the extended family or some other group. The thought of helping your own 90 year old relative instead of relying on the guvt to do it for you? Tony has already made it clear that he feels no parent would take care of their child without laws saying that they must. Based upon that I seriously doubt he would ever voluntarily help a member of his family under any circumstance.
That's what government is for. It is telling to me that people like Tony are so mortified of living with their parents. What sort of relationship did they have growing up? Multi-generational households are the historic norm. And after a two generation gap, its coming back.
But why choose that system when a safety net makes everyone freer, the market fairer, and economic outcomes better? On the one hand you want to claim that personal prosperity in the free market is a product of good choices and hard work.
On the other you want everyone to be subject to random forces of luck, such as whether they'll have to spend much of their income taking care of elderly or disabled relatives. Since dependent people elderly, disabled, children are a fact of human life, why doesn't it make sense simply to incorporate them into an economic system instead of pretending with absolutely no justification that the charity unicorn will take care of it all? Krugman explicitly notes that an economy with broad prosperity doesn't happen naturally.
And nowhere in history can you point to evidence of when it has. But presumably you're OK with government intervention if it means protecting your home and possessions from being taken. But securing the basic biological needs of human beings is evil socialism. It is not coherent. Sure, as long as you ignore the opportunity cost of forcibly extracting money from the economy that could have been put to productive use. Actually it's quite coherent. If, in the name of social justice and equality, I steal some of your possessions because you have more stuff than me, government has a duty to help you get your stuff back and punish the thief.
Krugman has long abandoned the position of an honest economist back when he started carrying the water for the Hillary campaign. He was quick to switch sides to Obama when he saw which way the wind was blowing.
Look into some Paul Krugman, but nothing recent. Paul Krugman stopped writing seriously about economics the day he got his column in the New York Times.
Krugman has admitted to being a complete and utter shill in the past; it's one of the reasons he was so excited for Democratic administration.
Old habits die hard, I guess. Krugman is a slug - nothing more - no one with two brain cells to rub together actually takes him seriously. Do I individually possess the moral right to kill anyone who tries to kill me or steal what I have labored to produce? The reasons behind those two answers might take us considerable debate to cover, but it's certainly straightforward and coherent. You like socialism for some things, not for others, and your arbitrary opinion on this matter is not up for debate because you say so.
Would you not agree that Walmart hires people that nobody else would hire? And if you disagree with my implication, please shop at a Walmart and then head to another retailer Nordstrom's, Macy's etc and tell me if you see a difference between these groups of employees. My point is that places like Walmart greatly reduce the need for a govt net in the first place. Not acknowledging this is disingenuous. Their employees can and do work for other employers, generally at the same skill level - mostly other retailers.
Many are people who work for Walmart while gaining job skills for a better career. Thats what I did - worked lower end jobs while gaining skills that enabled me to work for better paying jobs. I think my point still stands and really echoes one of the article's points. The idea that Walmart is exploiting the welfare state is completely wrongheaded. As Hinkle points out. Also, you said that "Many are people who work for Walmart while gaining job skills for a better career. The one person who I knew who worked at a Walmart ex-gf's mom definitely was not working there to advance her career.
Also, a lot of the Walmart employees I've come across on Ohio an Missouri do not seem to be in the age range of someone who is advancing their career. Producing value should make you money. I don't care the level of effort you put out, if you produce value equal in my estimation to the price you're charging. Precisely because there IS a safety net, working for a lower wage can produce a viable value for the worker.
Put another way, let's say I'm guaranteed my subsistence maybe I still live with my parents or something. A job that paid me minimum wage would produce my disposable income.
If you price me out of the labor market by making it a criminal act for my employer to offer, and for me to take, employment at those terms, you're eliminating my disposable income.
The person who eliminates me disposable income isn't helping me. They're being a dick. Nail on the head about value. Liberals just can't seem to get that in their little pea brain heads.
How is the NYT screaming that Walmart should further increase wages, through government mandate, to pay a moral minimum wage not lecturing everyone about how to behave morally?
The argument for a higher government-mandated minimum wage can be made on entirely economic grounds. Sure, at heart there is a moral case: But if we're not caring about that then what's the point of having an opinion about how the economy should work at all? Yes, making it harder for the unskilled to find a job is totally the moral thing to do. After all, it's clearly in both society's and the Federal government's best interests for the underclass to be liabilities instead of productive assets.
That way it'll weigh less upon your conscience when you march them to the camps in order to reduce our carbon footprint. That's a dubious fucking case to be sure. If I sell you a banana, is there a moral obligation to cut the banana up into a hundred pieces and hand it out to everyone in your neighborhood to maximize the number of people who benefit?
If we're not caring about that, it seems like we're taking the first step to actually understanding the rational phenomena of human interaction. Versus your position of tossing irrational shit at the wall to see what sticks. T he argument for a higher government-mandated minimum wage can be made on entirely economic grounds. If the safety net merely provided for these extreme examples, few would be arguing to pare it back or end it. Conservatives would vehemently protest an increase in the SS eligibility age Fine Tony, let's cut welfare off for able bodied adults between the ages of 18 and Don't want the 90 year olds or the legless to have to slave away in the mines.
That's a lovely feeling you have there. Is this where you argue that the janitor deserves to be paid more than the CEO? Ahhh the rigors of science support your position?
Or better yet,will you be gathering data in the tradition of Marxist regimes everywhere, in order to "scientifically" validate the superiority of the planned the economy? Not sure why I'm responding to Tony, but the opposite is true. Not for everyone of course, there are plenty of poor people busting their butts, and plenty of rich people sitting on theirs.
But by and large the harder working you are, the more money you are making. There is a multi-millionaire in my family. He's also the hardest working guy in the family. I'm looking around at the execs in my company, and they're working much longer hours than I ever will.
Ditto for my previous companies. In fact, the only rich person I know who doesn't work his ass off is someone who inherited his money. It's not necessarily back breaking manual labor, but they definitely put in more than a 40 hour week to get to where they are. Their moral standard says "If they are giving it out, I'm taking it. Their words, not mine. I didn't spend all that time getting really fucking smart so that I could dig ditches all day. How about the Progressive Theocracy stop using guns for force people to behave according to the dictates of the Progressive Catechism?
Well, technically, WalMart could pay more. By moving up market and shifting product mix towards higher margin luxury goods. Of course, stores in poor areas would have to close as poor people can't afford luxury goods, leading to unemployment increases in poor areas. But that's a benefit to the leftists because now they get to claim that WalMart is racist. I don't think it would play out like that at all. I think it's far more likely that WalMart would automate about half of their jobs out of existence and shut down marginal stores.
In any case, there would be fewer WalMart employees and more people completely dependent on government. Oh, also higher cost of living for the poor and working class folks like me who tend to shop at WalMart and other discount retailers.
Please read what you just wrote to find out if you were judgment-free and avoided "cynical moral preening. How many times would I have to say charity to make you puke blood? As for everything else you said, citation needed. I worked at Walmart the summer I graduated high school in I wore a blue vest with the words "How may I help you? The most common question I got was "do you work here? They immediately switch to calling me a class traitor, false consciousness, voting against my own interests, herp herp herpaderp.
On a recent Walmart trip, I asked someone where the batteries were. As a Verizon sales rep doing a one-day-demo-thing, he did not know. Red shirt with the Verizon logo on the breast and everything. Usually I'm not retarded. I am a legend in my own mind, even before I journeyed to a secluded monastery in Shangri-derp to study with the elite League of Derp. I was cut from my mother's belly like a malfunctioning gal-bladder. The surgeon gave a firm slap to my backside and I acknowledged him to reassure him that I was not still-born.
In high school I had a job working as a gopher at a Holiday Inn. I had two name tags. One with my real name, and another that I put on after the management went home at 6 that said "Sir". It was funny to watch people scan your shirt so they could give you a really good dressing down. Others and they were almost always old people would actually sputter with indignation at the fact I had tricked them into calling me Sir.
Luckily the night manager was cool and knew what I was doing and would cover for me when the uptight bastards went to the front desk to complain. One of my jobs as a busboy was setting up the breakfast buffet. The tray they gave me was too small for all the donuts and danishes, so a piled them into a scale model of a ziggurat.
I placed the prized cheese danishes in the center so the patrons would be forced to carefully disassemble to the structure in order to reach them. Most were impatient and took a lesser pastry from the outside instead.
Can I dick your daughter please? Also, my name tag said "McDick. One time, I said my name was Yuri and pretended to not speak English in order to avoid talking with a rude customer. You know who really needs a raise? Not those fuckers working at Walmart, no we have to give welfare recipients a raise. After all Minnesoda welfare recipients haven't gotten a raise since and dammit they need one!
This, of course, is an illustration of how far the US welfare state has expanded, rather than any statement about employers and wages. But the NYT isn't about to examine that alternative. How much did Walmart pay just in payroll taxes?
That looks like a wash to me. And a temporary one, asshole: So Congress started appropriating more generously to safety net programs at some point since then? I think the most recent obvious example would be subsidized health insurance, otherwise known as Obamacare.
Raising the income eligibility for food stamps, expanded Medicaid roles in many states, more "affordable" housing projects, the list goes on and on Whenever I hear the old lie about starving poor people, I am reminded of Thomas Sowell's takedown of hunger stats:. I have pointed out that poor people in the US tend to be fatter that the national average. I ask progs how is it possible that poor people are starving is they are fatter than the general population?
They say poor people are fat because they live in food desserts and have to eat fattening food. I say to them so how is it possible for them to be fat and starving at the same time? When food is cheap and abundant in a society the rich are thin and the poor are fat.
This is caused partly because the cheapest food is also the least healthy you can blame corn subsidies for that if you like , and possibly for subtler biological reasons such as the role stress plays in obesity. The point is, in developed countries, obesity is just another pathology of poverty.
It may seem counterintuitive, but perhaps not so much as the idea that the poor are actually the most overindulged members of society, you know, cuz they're fat. People get fat because they consume more calories than they use. They maintain weight when calories in equals calories out. It's possible to be fat and malnourished at the same time.
What argument are you trying to make? That our poor aren't as bad off as the skin-and-bones poor of Tanzania, thus we've done enough and we have a great society? Because I'm trying to say that obesity among our poor is actually a problem in itself.
We're very fat overall. Since we're a developed country that means we're also too poor overall. Unless you have a very strange diet, it is very hard to be fat and malnourished at the same time. Yes, of course they can be. Malnutrition can itself contribute to obesity. You really don't want to hang your opinion about the utility of the welfare state on the assumption that we don't really have poverty because poor people can't get fat.
It's false, as in the opposite of true. Asshole, doesn't all that spinning make you dizzy? How long did it take you to learn to duck and weave and avoid an honest answer?
Your sort of sliminess doesn't come easy. I'd love to see the reaction from some of those starving Tanzanians. They'd likely murder you, and with good reason. Poor as Tanzania is, just about everyone has enough to eat. Secondly, Tanzania is the easiest place on earth to get a free meal, especially if you are a foreigner. They take great pride in hospitality. The meal would be simple, but it would fill you up.
For this reason, Tanzanians and people in sub-saharan Africa in general, get very angry about theft. Thieves who are caught red-handed in public are often beaten or stoned to death. Sometimes they are doused with gasoline and set on fire. I helped save a thief from such a fate. However, homosexuality and abortion are both illegal there and almost everyone is religious. I suspect Tony would not along with such people.
So you're saying that Tony's message of using government to steal on your behalf wouldn't find many receptive ears? One time, a Tanzanian asked me if it was true that the US govt would pay people even if they didn't work.
He said that was the dumbest thing he'd ever heard and if the govt of Tanzania did the same thing, most people would quit their jobs. If we got rid of government assistance then we wouldn't just have poor people who can only afford cheap empty calories and get fat, we'd have people who couldn't afford to eat at all. Then we'd have the skinny poor, and you guys would still have some bullshit excuse for why they don't deserve any assistance.
If we coupled getting rid of government assistance with getting rid of the multitude of government barriers to engaging in economic activity, then those poor people would have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.
That's what I as a libertarian would like to see. Ditto for fresh fruit and veggies. Hey punk, no one owes you anything, no one owes anybody else unearned food or shelter or whatever absurdity the left is going to push next week.
There is no such right as the right to exist as a human parasite. Any adult knows this, which is why leftoidism is for children and idiots and other assorted weaklings. And if you eat fewer calories you will be less fat, it matters little, if at all, where the calories come from. Again, the most counterintuitive claim of all here is that the poor have it sooo good in this country.
It's counterintuitive because it doesn't make any damn sense. Underlying all conservative economic thought is that the poor are privileged and the wealthy are put-upon. It's so brazenly contradictory and mean-spirited that I guess it has the effect of turning people's brains off so they buy into it. Most poor people in this country have so much food to eat that they're fat, they have a roof over their head, a smart phone, new shoes, cable television, a computer hooked up to the internet, and enough spare cash to buy booze, cigarettes and drugs.
I love when you spin around so much that you get caught up in these crazy narratives. This is the underlying conservative assumption? How can it even apply to conservative economic thought? Here's the controversial conservative argument you can target: They make bad decisions. There's little chance they will ever make good decisions. If they do make good decisions, it won't be because they've had more money thrown at them.
The rich are rich and relatively healthier because they make smarter decisions. Not because they're able to afford organic kale and cage free chicken. You would not believe how stressful it is to be on public aid. There are about fifteen different programs with different requirements often changing from month to month , and a small mistake in paperwork can lead to a cascade that stops your benefits for 3 months before the bureacrats sort out what happened. You live in constant fear that you will have too much savings, and get kicked off SSI, or that you will have too little savings, and will get evicted from your SRO.
Responsible saving isn't merely discouraged, it's forbidden. Moreso than symptoms for the one that are capable of working. Red Rocks Rockin 3. Healthy eating is cheaper than junk food any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and I ought to know because I grew up near the poverty line for most of my childhood.
You just have to have a basic knowledge of cooking and how to make enough for leftovers. It's even cheaper if you get the frozen fruits veggies, which are just as healthy. The reason poor people here are fat isn't because of cheap junk food, it's because cooking a nutritious meal takes effort and planning, and they either lack the mental acuity or desire to do that.
When I was a bachelor in Memphis we would often end up having to eat red beans and rice for the last week of the month because we were all broke and had to make rent.
So we would put on a big pot of beans and rice. We'd also stop by the local bakery and buy day old bread to go with it. Wasn't very tasty, but it was what you did when you were out of money. But, but, but those evil corporations are creating food deserts, denying the poor access to healthy food! It's not that the stores don't carry it because it's not profitable since poor people don't choose to buy healthy food!
They're forgoing profits so they can hurt the poor! Damn those evil rich people! The only reason there are what liberals call food deserts is because of low demand in an area and secondly because of crime. If there was enough demand the extra secusrity could be afforded. The cheapest food is not the least healthy. If you are really poor, the food you can afford is actually pretty nutritious.
I'm talking about staples like rice, beans and vegetables. The one thing that real poor people tend to drop from their diets is meat. You are right a lot of poor people do get fat because they eat unhealthy foods. The processed foods and junk snacks, though, are not the only thing they can afford.
They are cheap, tasty and convenient though. And yet, the vast majority were healthy and strong. I wonder how Tony accounts for the survival of the billions of people in the world who are generally much poorer than even the poorest Americans. I like the way that the one possibility it's absolutely impossible for you to consider is that stupid people with poor impulse control will be likely to overeat.
It's got to be "the role stress plays in obesity". Poverty is another government pathology, particularly the brand of socialist government you advocate. Produce at Walmart is cheap, plentiful, and not at all what you progtards imagine it to be as far as looks.
When you worry all day about where your next meal is going to come from, I bet you do a lot of stress eating. Because for them "the poor" are smelly brown people on TV that you only claim to care about as a social signaling exercise, not people you actually spend time around trying to help. I'd also like to point out that I would rather subsidize low wage workers than just giving money away to people who are sitting at home doing nothing?
If they are working a low wage job, most of them will eventually learn enough to get better jobs and no longer need to be subsidized. In fact, I'd like a program where companies that were willing to give starter jobs to people with no skills, would be able to hire at less than the minimum wage.
That would give them an incentive to hire more low skill workers and get them on the roadway to getting better and better jobs. Unpaid internships are only OK when they are at a large media company. All others are evil plots by the nasty people at big corporations.
You'd understand that if you weren't a poor hating, top hat and monocle wearing right wing nutsack. Why doesn't the Fed Gov sign all the welfare recipients up for one of these programs where they can make US 93 Dollar Hour and they would never see another poor day in their lives? Even the 90 year old legless people that the fatherless Tony says that make up the welfare rolls do do this.
It's the General Theory of Liberalism again: The difference was night and day. One was kind of grubby, run down, the produce never looked good. It was also slightly more expensive than the one just a few miles away. The one in Plano even had a sushi chef. No guns or ammo though, but the grubby one did. No, the implication of the word is using more than you need, and that is s moral judgement, not an objective measure.
For example, the one example was that of the obese. If the assumption is that they get that way by eating too much, then the food is getting eaten, not thrown in the trash. FWIW, I think the idea that people are obese because they eat too much is rather simplistic, but that is very much off topic. I think that pretty much defines it.
One thing not mentioned here about Walmart and similar stores concerning their pay scale: We, the taxpayers, are subsidizing them. If not for that, Walmart would have to pay them more, and raise prices.
Thanks to our progressive income tax, at least we can take some satisfaction in the notion that those rich critics are helping the stores they criticize. I remember when a Wal-Mart came to north Boston, and I got a full-on picture of redneckism. By the way, if anyone remebers Caldor, Ames, or the equivalent stores from other parts of the country, they were just as seedy as Wal-Mart.
My impression, after living a lot of years, is that Europe and England specifically has an attitude that good things should be restricted to those who have a lot of money. Contrariwise, the USA is seen by me as a place where there is a belief that good things should be made available and affordable to everyone, so that no one has to envy the privileged.
Brerarnold made the point more gracefully than ever could. Suffice it to say, Wal-mart is a god send to the poor. Yes Wal-mart will put stores that sell basic consumption items on Main Street out of business. In their place specialty boutiques crop up. Why should people pay more than they need to for a t-shirt?
With the savings you can do more interesting things. Either way, more money goes to create more lucrative opportunities for others. I loved seeing the old and disabled greet me at the door at Wal-mart because I knew they were given a job they would not have otherwise. Besides, low wage jobs are not meant to support an entire family of four by themselves. All those extra wages and benefits that people want Wal-mart and other low wage employers to pay just denies more opportunities for the working poor.
Gosh, I am way out of tune with you, that is for sure. I liked Sharper Image, I thought they had some fun interesting products. So what I get from what you are saying is that over-consumption consists of the consumption of luxury goods? What a sad way to look at life. And how ironic given that Walmart stores have a lot more Fords than Lexuses in the parking lot. You seem to delight in the idea that Walmart would raise prices — do you know how destructive that would be to the poor — the people you seem to be advocating for?
I might add that I object to the characterization I have heard over and over again here that Walmart is for the poor. The town I live in has practically no poor people, and the Walmarts here do a roaring trade. It is also a plain fact that many low skill workers get a step onto the ladder of work at Walmart. Some of them just learn basic skills like get to work on time, and do what the boss tells you , others go on to make a career at Walmart moving up the ranks.
I think that really rocks. Employers are a benefit to the unemployed, not a burden. This is obvious from the plain fact that ever Walmart opening I have heard of has a vastly more job applicants that jobs available. I believe his idea was from a consumption point of view. Who ever dies with the most toys, wins. There is a left wing movement against Wallmart and other low cost retailers.
It is organized and funded by unions and their democratic party yes men. This in an area with double digit unemployment before the good ship Wall Street hit an iceberg in Wonder how that worked out?? The problem is in blue states we are governed by baboons. We have lost control of the fiscal process to liberal doyens who prattle on about green jobs and stem cell research while real innovation is stifled by unions and local graft. Anybody want to hazard a guess why any government organization or their affiliates teachers union, college administration, municipal employees, etc.
What would happen if the teacher union applied the same analysis and problem solving to instruction Sam Walton did to retail? Especially if they are able to extend that to prescription drugs, eye and medical care! With technological innovation someones ox is gored every day. In the retail business Wallmart by supply chain optimization is doing the goring. Possibly Amazon or someone else will in turn gore Wallmart. No Internet sales tax would help.
In the end the consumer probably wins. Mom and Pop, the grocers union and local politicians. Again, it is not clear to me why that is a bad thing. However, there is a bigger point here. All that putative over-consumption generates a constant pressure to create new and innovative things.
Often the new and innovative things consume less resources than the ones they replace. Would we really be better off as a society if people changed their cell phones less frequently? Would we be better off if people kept their old gas guzzlers rather than buying new more efficient cars? Oh, and one other thing, about Sharper Image… if you guys buy those life sized models of Star Wars Storm Troopers and put them in your apartment, then you are obviously much less likely to get laid.
And that means less babies. I judge my Toyotas by how many hundred thousands of Kms I can get out of them… my latest Corolla has only , but it is a and has a great engine and great-feeling suspension — for Toyotas at least older ones it is just nicely broken in. However, I did get married and had two brilliant twin kids — I bailed out of the marriage after about 13 years. I question the economic value of massive consumption of stuff that is thrown away or ignored weeks or months later. Except nothing lasts for twenty years anymore.
Another example… this is a matter of taste to some point, and I gather from the blogs that ESR takes a somewhat different view, but I think cell phones are great.
I have a phone with which I can phone people and I use it to tell the date and time. I have a computer from which I do many things. I feel no desire to combine the two. I think super consumption involves a tremendous amount of waste — waste of time, waste of resources, waste of talent. Are the people that develop enough new toys to make people buy new smart phones really employed, in a true economic sense, more than government employees that have jobs that revolve around sending memos to each other?
Plus, hey, I notice you jump on me rather than ESR although you might have been composing while he responded. And some of the sigs are wonderful. If you light a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life. Some stuff has basically been designed enough — as for fridges, I stopped liking the advances with automatic ice-cube makers. I think that qualifies as a major design advance. Yeah, I knew that point would be raised, and of course you are right. But if it breaks down within the next 18 months, I and Woodrow Willson Smith are also right — waste is one true evil.
Another that I forgot to mention is a policy of hurting children, dogs or, in any case, because it makes the hurter feel better. Back in my conscience was bothering me so I took a Saturday and priced rubbermaid garbage cans with wheels same make and model from five local Mom and Pop hardware stores and the closest Home Depot.
The Mom and Pops were at least 20 bucks pricier than the big box store. My conscience has not bothered me since and there are far fewer local hardware stores. The ones that survive specialize. Attempts to shame someone into a new life style are normally a political trap.
When oil was three hundred dollars a barrel the finger wagers were aghast at people daring to heat their square foot homes. They wanted legislation power to do something about the rich squandering resources. If you want to live like St. Francis be my guest but that choice is no more noble than living like Madonna. Francis took a vow of chastity. Madonna not so much. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather are expanding through human ingenuity. Both my wife and I are old enough to have parents raised during the depression.
The idea of an earned income credit and food stamps would be met with contempt. There is some truth to that. Walmart has been pushing florescent light bulbs for a number of years and had a green policy for a while. Which shows that even the best go wrong when they embrace progressive science.
Really, or the manufacturer in China says it does? Do you ever open the door? If the order of magnitude change is actually a fair comparison, that truly is an advance in the level of civilization — not a huge one in the grand scheme of things, but a real one. I remember really useless stuff for high prices, aimed at people with more money than sense. I have no objections to those who would buy a Lexus. Money spent on one is not wasted. I expected from your previous comments on this blog that you would oppose such subsidies in principle.
I have several cousins who work at Walmart. They do appreciate the employment and the hours can be flexible, say three 12 hour days with four days off for other things.
Personally, I think esr with his weapons workshops and gaming is living a privileged life of unbridled consumption ; Time is money, and not everyone has the money to buy time. The fact that he, and myself for that matter, can afford such things is a surplus of goods and mechanization.
Otherwise, absent a fortunate birth, we would likely be scratching a living from the soil. At least esr has the grace to appreciate his good fortune and not insult those who have less or would rather spend their spare time snowmobiling, water skiing, or hunting than fighting with medieval weapons. In a trip through the jungle, one of us was carrying an artifact machete, hand crafted from the truck spring of an abandoned truck by primitive natives, one of us was carrying an heirloom machete, and I was carrying a cheap machete from Walmart.
The Walmart machete was better than the artifact machete, and as good as the heirloom machete, probably better, though the artifact machete won on style and story. The Walmart machete was better than the artifact machete, and as good as the heirloom machete….
People talk about WalMart stuff being crap, and some of it is. But not, by any means, all of it, or even most of it. This is because WalMart actually allows you, nay encourages you , to take defective stuff back for a refund. They were for a while, but they gave up on the green policy because they were losing money on it. So they were just stupid for a little while ; Which is better than I can say for some academics.
The government is not subsidizing Walmart workers, they are subsidizing people, and when those people have a job at Walmart, the subsidize them less. I find your logic entirely twisted and backward. I certainly oppose the EIC as currently constituted, but it is just a small part of the larger mess that is our tax system. However, I suggest you read a little history on the EIC, it is a fascinating idea that went badly wrong. Does the fact that they do not sell hard core pornography offend you too?
Or will you grant that they have a right to put whatever they want on their shelves, based on what, as a whole, they think will sell the most? The police put you in jail if you do something wrong. In what sense are those two things equivalent?
Of course, said items do sell, and sell well. Um… If they have no alternative, then the alternative is nothing. Certainly Wal-Mart is better than nothing. Wal-Mart paying minimum wage, I seem to recall not long ago Wal-Mart supported an increase in the minimum wage.
It turned out the reason was that Wal-Mart was already paying above minimum wage to its workers, but their competitors — Target, K-Mart, what have you — were paying minimum wage. Presumably because that was the only way they could compete with Wal-Mart. By campaigning for an increase in the minimum wage, Wal-Mart could disadvantage their competitors without harming themselves.
Some years back, as part of an emergency-preparedness campaign for the Red Cross, I volunteered for a shift at our local Wal-Mart. My job was to tell people about the display that was set up in the store, and the prize drawing. He was proud of the fact that he was an original employee there, having worked at that Wal-Mart location since it first opened. The other unusual thing about that day…I was amazed at the number of Mennonites who shop at Wal-Mart.
This community has a substantial Mennonite population. Of course the real answer is, everyone has alternatives. In some cases though, wal-mart is the better alternative.
How can having an opportunity to buy stuff like food be worse than having no opportunity to buy stuff? As the poster above says, everyone has alternatives, but there is something seriously wrong with your concepts, here.
That means, ultimately, death. Of course, tmoney said that in jest…. The neighborhood had turned predominately black, and the local stores were run by Korean and Palestinian immigrants. The blacks wanted to see black workers in the stores. I believe the good and righteous Reverend AL was front and center in that campaign. That was before he demonstrated his verbal acquity with his famous resist we much speech.
I think a convicted killer Sonny Carson was also menacing the Korean green grocers. What was a killer doing leading demonstrations. You got a problem with that. I would be interested to see the examples of Evil Progressives Who Hate Walmart and all it stands for that Eric seems to be reacting against here. We must keep in mind, here, that we are talking about personal philosophies, preferences in how to live.
It is, in my opinion, a philosophy that promotes waste at many levels. It is a problem of philosophy. Not to put too fine a point on it, the problem is the morons-by-choice or, rather, the morons-by-not-choosing, the people who care more about toys and fashion than ideas. This is something none of us are going to fix. I frequently encounter the same conceit with respect to my favorite fast food establishment.
It is PC among the well-dressed riders in this city to disparage Taco Bell, but its my needs for cheap, tasty, and conveniently available all over town. Plus the new restaurants have an outstanding upscale decor that is very customer friendly. Corporatism meets my needs just fine thank you, and the elitist snobs can take their haughty arrogance and shove it.
But it could have been — clerk, learn the ropes, rise in the ranks. Why precisely do you think that ideas are objectively more interesting that fashion or toys?
They might be more interesting to you, but why do you have the right to project your preferences onto others? Life is short and frequently difficult. If ideas float your boat, then go for it. If a new pair of heels does it, then go for that too. Frankly that makes you a paternalistic patronizing jerk. The sneering toward Walmart is a pretty good indicator of a snob.
Often an unthinking snob. Walmart has done a lot for improving the living standards of lower middle class and lower economic classes by providing inexpensive food, clothing and other staples. Forty years ago I might have sounded rather like him. Many forces drove me to my present state of thorny libertarianism. One of the most important is that I grew up amidst the elite New Class. But I grew up among hypereducated expats and in the bluest bedroom suburbs of the postwar U.
Part of it is snobbery and an unearned sense of entitlement. Part of it is esthetic exhaustion, the kind of thing that shows up in art as one part excessive psychological involution to one part nihilism. Part of it was a hollowing out of moral reasoning, a gradual loss of both the will to make important judgments and the categories of thought needed to make them.
Part of it was toxic politics, a sort of soft totalitarianism creeping in by stealth in exactly the ways Alexis de Tocqueville warned us democracy might be prone to. All of these seemed tangled together in subtle ways; I suppose one might as well call the result the stench of decadence as anything else. I suppose the usual reaction to noticing decadence is to become a conservative.
I value classic science fiction in part because, in a very real sense, it showed me the way out of that bind. In what some think were related moves, gun sales were de-emphasized as well. It was a failure as a strategy. A lot of those initiatives have been allowed to expire or die other natural deaths. Heck, nowadays Walmart even is selling AR rifles in a lot of stores. The redneck Walmart is back. I was replying to a poster who said that Over-consumption was a terrible problem and the blame should be directed at advertisers and marketing.
I suggested that advertisers should not be blamed, but, to whatever degree this is a problem, the blame lies with the people responding to the advertising. Answering your question, of course, personally, I think that ideas are interesting and I replace them when I think that they are wrong, ie.
How interesting can something be if it is replaced just because something newer is available? The blight of that great betrayal is on us still. With M also a lot higher than N… The US of A and basically the whole industrialised West can afford to consume more because they produce more.
Since food is about 12 percent of GDP, multiplying. Oh, and by the way, Hausman finds that poor people get 50 percent more benefit from Wal-Mart than rich people. The link in that article is broken. But, a similar paper by Hausman lives at http: You can get a lot from that paper even if you skip the equations. Well, that last post segues nicely into my personal views on the subject. And no, debt is not power, debt is the lack of power. It is the impact of someone elses power on you.
Raised in Milner, Georgia pop. One local store, four miles distant, one Walmart twenty five miles distant, twelve years later one Ingles eight miles distant. Now, the experiential data. We shopped at Walmart regularly. My parents still do. For the first sixteen years of my life every dinner I ate, except when we were on the road to a craft show or fair, came from our own kitchen.
People willing to go into debt to purchase what they should be producing. This is the current US of A. Walmart is an excellent representative of the modern American Dream: Do you know where your food comes from? Not the store, but where the animal was born and raised?
Do you know how many animals are in that burger? Those tacos and I do love Taco Bell, but I only eat there once a year? If we actually produced basic goods we might have a competitive market for hand-made goods instead of a luxury market for hand-made goods. We purchase only what we must from Walmart because we wish we could get it from our neighbors. Too bad they never considered making things for themselves.
Right now a bunch of people would starve without Walmart because over the last few generations they forgot how to make their own food. My personal hope is that some of them will figure out how to take care of themselves and Walmart will become a luxury market, like it should always have been. That sort of thing goes way back. Before Carson s there was H. He was very famous — until he got locked up for armed robbery. You might also remember some demonstrations around or so.
A Korean greengrocer had a dispute with a black woman customer and put his hands on her. It caused quite a stir. The grocery was located about two blocks from where I used to live. Fortunately, I had moved away by then. Brooklyn was struggling its way through the crack epidemic at the time, and I got tired of hearing gunshots every week. But almost everyone there that had any political philosophy was communist. Why is it that as soon as you get to a place of higher learning, everyone is into totalitarianism?
As I said earlier, it is certainly natural for our Anglo Saxon memetics to shudder at such frivolity, however, one must also recognize there is a very big upside to this type of behavior. It encourages and rewards innovation. To repeat my earlier example, the pressure to buy new cars has been one of the pressures that has enabled the retirement of all our gas guzzlers with much more efficient vehicles. Innovation makes us all richer. Surely the wide availability of Angry Birds is a sign of progress for our civilization?
It is a very useful word, aside from the fact that no one knows what it means, and everyone things you are pretentious when you use it. But I would like to start a campaign to renew its reputation: Slashdot still has many libertarians, but way to many young people that figure that all we need is more laws. I am just more sensitive to the totalitarianism. I deeply appreciate the innovation in computers, for instance.
However, it is worth noting, again, that replacing something just because something new is out can entail a waste of talent. But this blog started out about philosophy of life, not economics.
This is, again, going to sound like my goal is to put other people down, but I am going to say it for a very important reason — I think it is funny: Eric, my parents were lower middle class in origin themselves … if they had the thumb on the scale. But my father pulled himself up from not having finished high school to a finish up retired from a city fire department as a battalion chief.
They were able to clothe me, feed me and eventually help me get through college with a CS degree that resulted in my ending up with a household income four times theirs.
If there was a Walmart when I was a kid, I can literally imagine just how much better our lifestyle would be. Its pharmacy cut hundreds of dollars out of our medical prescription costs. Unlike the intellectuals, they can be educated. Their fondness for death camps may be yet another example of projection.
I hate walmart because the ones around me suck. I too am willing to spend a little extra and shop a Tarjhee. The aisles are wider, the stuff better organized and the staff friendlier. The walmart in Orlando sucked a lot less…in as much as it had staff with a clue and checkout moved reasonably well despite being mobbed by disney tourists. So I guess user experience varies. And would the world be a better place were we all to follow your example, and purchase new computers on a 5 year cycle?
We flaky magpies are buying stuff so that when you laggards finally get around to purchasing a new computer ten years from now, it will really rock your world. If Wal-Mart is by a significant margin the closest store of its kind to you, as it is for many, we have no quarrel whatsoever.
I try not to look down on folks who do have better options but shop there anyway. It is, after all, a question of taste and standards, rather than morals. But nevertheless I feel some natural kinship with people who dislike the Wal-Mart experience.
I have a 40 GB hard disk that is only a bit more than half full. I went from Fedora 8 maybe to 10 to 12 to 14 and each time my computer seemed to get faster. Of course, in Mr. But I am the geek — I do practically everything other than web and email from terminal windows — when I am working, I usually have 4 open. I wrote the cutest little double entry book-keeping system that uses 2 text data files that I edit with vi — a chart of accounts and a file of transactions generally in pairs.
I have a handfull of shell scripts to produce the reports I need to do taxes and such. I use the Gimp like photoshop and can edit multiple screen-shots at once and still use Firefox and do email. The point is, we are all different and we all want different stuff.
If you like the latest thing, by all means buy it. To whom are you referring? If it is me, I may be using a 5-year old computer, but I am bragging about writing a double-entry book-keeping system, but using vi as the user interface.
So, I am not trying to be a snob, but I definitely claim to be an intellectual. I just like terminal windows and vi. This post contains characters. They advertise pretty much one thing: Thank you Wal-Mart for making cheap jeans available.
Why pay more for a jar of pickles? And their Great Value store brand — I know, it even sounds Chinese — is very high quality and hugely inexpensive.
And its more than an abuse of the language to try to pretend it is. They were a bit like sports cars, awesome when they worked, but you did need an oscope to tune them up occasionally. The linear voice coil could move all 4 heads 2 heads on each of 2 loaded floppies from track 0 to track 76 in under a tenth of a second.
Eric, the link http: Interestingly, their memory recommendations for Windows are smaller. Oh, but if those snobs only knew how recordings were made. Of course there are cases where you want or need lots of memory. But to just use Fedora for a general purpose computer, even for development granted, I like the command line , I am perfectly happy with my 1 GB.
Oooh… am I an OS racist? Should I be punished for having a preference? Damn straight I have a preference! I just remembered a truly good one: You are promoting one of the most dangerous ideas to freedom that exists today: It is evil for the government to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, etc.
But somewhere along the line, the idea has been twisted to: It is evil for me to be racist — in some cases a tort or a crime. Personally, I think racism is stupid, but I have every right to discriminate in any manner I please — I am not the law. This particular issue has done more damage to the concept of rights than anything else that I can think of.
But there are many people who believe that it is morally wrong as opposed to stupid for people to be racist, which is to say, descriminating on the basis of race.
Like I said, if you were engaging in humor, I take it all back. I never had the alignment disk, let alone the scope, so I stuck with SARs like everyone else. I did write my own BIOS, though, back when you pretty much had to. I always heard the Persci drives were fine — as long as you never moved or bumped them.
If you did, it was alignment disk time. Never did C on that box. There are those who are great folks simply because they piss off the right people.
Sarah Palin heads that list for me; Thomas Sowell just got added to it. Will, you seem to be obsessed with confirming the impression that you are full of opinions that have no actual basis. Opinions that you willingly share not least because of their very lack of value. Somehow, the people who are entirely incompetent to decide for themselves what food to eat, beverages to drink, drugs to imbibe, smoke, inject, etc.
Jonathan Edward expressed the contradiction succintly in verse: Walmart does not censor. They exercise editoral discretion. Censorship is threatening force usually in the form of Men With Badges And Guns, but the badges are optional against those who would propagate those things you find offensive.
There is a huge difference between the two, and using the same word to describe them both is intellectually dishonest. I think we have a new meme. There is, however, a great deal of pseudointellectual snobbery in this country. Your unspoken assumption is that established businesses have some property right in their customer base. You seek to defend what are at best rentiers, at worst slaveholders. Walmart is more efficient than the established businesses. So they are cheaper. They also pay less to both personnel and producers.
As a result a Walmart in the neighborhood will reduce the number of businesses both retail and suppliers and the average pay level. Walmart can do this because they have only a single large store that services people living in a large radius.
The immediate impact of a Walmart on the neighborhood is that the average pay for low skill jobs will reduce and the shopping streets will be empty. Also, you will have to drive miles to do your shopping.
Which means less social life and problems for the elderly. Buggy whip manufacturers were in the same boat when cars became prevalent. Ideally, people will spend the money they save shopping at Walmart on other things, allowing other businesses to flourish.
But do we do not live in an ideal world. So, for some neighborhoods, a Walmart will be an angel of death, for others a godsend. I think the people in the former have just a much a right to complain as those in the latter have a cause for celebration. Winter, this has already been covered.
Walmart pays more to its employees, not less. And why should it pay more than it must to its suppliers? Is it possible to download a copy of this accounting system? Robert Speirs — It is a waste of time to argue with Winter unless you are actually just trying to reinforce a point to other readers.
Sounds like Will just argued in favor of both silenced global warming skeptics and gulp young earth creationists. I have not often found myself in agreement with Winter, but I find his arguments cogent, interesting, well presented.
I think he has interesting things to say, particularly about Europe, and has frequently shown me up for my ignorance of that motley continent, since I, like too many Americans, think if it as one homogeneous blob. Personally, I like listening to people I disagree with. Echo chambers are good for your ego, but rarely a place to learn and grow.
Will, on the other hand, has nothing interesting to say. There are plenty of sales channels for rap songs with obscenity in the lyrics. It is evil for me to be racist. There are many things that are bad that are not illegal. Not flossing your teeth for example. The problem you are identifying I think, is the idea that all wrongs in society should be remedied through the legal system.
There are, and always have been, alternative mechanisms society uses to cleanse itself. And it is a fact that as more and more of the decisions of our lives are made centrally, and more of the funding of activities in our lives takes a detour through the tax system, the more justification is manifest for these types of sanctions.
If the government pays for your dental work, they have a legitimate cause of action for your neglecting your periodontal health. For sure though, you are right that we all discriminate, in the sense we all make subjective judgements. And the plain fact is stereotyping is the core mechanism of brain function. But rationality demands we exceed our lizard brains too.
That makes me part of the lower class. Walmart has a terrible labor record: How can people be like this? Second, many are already so poor that they have no alternative: But it is still better to light a candle than curse the darkness so…. Natural resource usage is partially only a secondary issue and partially a red herring. The real problem is simply a culture where too much attention invested into buying toys and earning the money for buying toys diverts attention from other aspects and values of life, when we are afraid to take on a less paying but more satisfying job because we might not afford as many toys, when we are judging people based on how many toys the have, when young people choose what to study not based on what interests them but what is more likely to result in a well-paid job, and so on.
Of course a desire for comfort and material goods is perfectly justified and an important aspect of life, the problem is when it begins to displace all other considerations and values. I think this is the real root of the growing anti-consumerist attitudes, the general feeling that other important aspects of life are getting less consideration and attention because of this.
It is that when someone disagrees with him, he just repeats the same claim. Sometimes over and over again in the same thread. Yeah, I tend to do the same thing as Winter does. We share the hope that if we repeat the idea enough times, others will actually see the argument that we are making and understand it. The readers of this blog tend to be libertarian. You have to understand that Winter comes from an entire nation of collectivists. Their nation would not exist without it.
It does not depend on a welfare state. Over the long term? Without significant risk of catastrophic failure because of some idiot?
Equating collectivism with a welfare state is an interesting tactic. Especially given that the Neatherlands is ranked highly individualistic anyway. I was just a little kid in Canada during the civil rights movement, so maybe some of my non-crucial underlying assumptions are wrong. When I checked Dictionary. Discrimination is one of the primary things that brains do….
I think that being racist is stupid and highly offensive but it is not evil — everyone has the right to be stupid and offensive. But it is a different story for a government where everyone has the right to expect to be treated equally under the law… actually expecting this might be stupid, but….
The US is the only country that has ever been founded on the concept of human rights as limitations of the power of government. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting the power of government. Now it is illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, a variety of things. If they do so, the person subject to the discrimination can sue. This is a tragedy.
The concept of a civil right has been twisted from limiting the power of government to the government giving privileged status to certain groups. It is common for people to believe in their ignorance of what the word means that all forms of discrimination are morally wrong. People will morally challenge anything that looks like discrimination, that looks like choosing one thing as being better than another. The great tragedy is that the whole concept of civil rights has, generally, been lost..
I do have tears in my eyes.. As a person or business, it is my right to discriminate any way I please. As I said, I think racism is stupid and highly offensive, but it is a big improvement over civil rights being plums handed out by the government. We have absolutely no incentive to experiment in this matter.
Experience in our history shows that it the welfare state does work for us. The problem is often that we discuss from different contexts, which causes all kinds of misunderstandings. Your initial response to my comment on Walmart gave me the distinct impression you did not read through the end the wage argument triggered something? Because the point about the wages was immaterial for my argument. Which was that the opening of a Walmart can be a blessing or a curse for a neighborhood.
And the people for whom it is a curse have a legitimate right to complain. Just as we have a right to ignore their complains. The discussion about the Hypermarches like Carrefour in France is running here too.
Not to contest that having a Walmart is more efficient ie, cheaper than what existed before. That is not totally honest. I also have never insisted on facts that I have no reference for, or that I have not witnessed myself. I have opinions, and they might not be as fluid as they used to be.
But I do not seem to be in bad company here. Random Libertarian that it actually does work. Which all has to do with the environment we live in. But like Jessica, I am not here to convince, but to understand. That is well below the minimum you get in the Netherlands.
Even if you have no work and are on permanent welfare. Being based on Linux and at least one of the scripts geared towards Canadian taxes, I never made this an Open Source Project.
I just got busy, here, but I will put it up on my homepage this evening I hope and post when it is ready.. Therefore, while avoiding the first extreme force , I think men other as social beings owe it to each to comment on each others choices, to try to persuade them if they think their choices are wrong, and even exert non-coercive pressure like peer pressure, ridicule, shaming, exclusion or boycotting if and when they think it is necessary.
If you refuse to do so you basically support an autistic conception of the economy without any sort of social cohesion or even a concept of culture as we know it for culture is a shared set of value judgements maintained by persuasion, ridicule, exclusion etc.
This is correct, and your clarification is excellent. To be entirely fair, not only the general price level seems to be lower over there, the general structure of pricing seems to work differently in America.
I am a frequent reader of frugal. Take a look at that forum it seems very interesting and exotic too. In Austria it is not at all common that someone puts a used couch for free to the local equivalent of Craigslist, in America it seems to be the case. Well this is certainly interesting. Do more people send their stuff off to the local Salvation Army equivalent? Or do more people simply ask for payment for such items? The failure to distinguish between social pressure and coercive force seems to be fundamental to the leftist mindset.
Either that, or the failure to admit such a distinction is a necessary part of defending their position. Such distinctions are semantic at their very best. Social pressure and coercive force have the same results: Bertrand Russell wrote a book in which this was a major theme — it greatly increased the degree to which I despise him. The idea is metaphorically obscene — guns and jails are not in any in the same class as product selection policies.
At least as long as your existence is protected by others. Western Europe as a whole has fattened and their morals have rotted under the protection of the US military and taxpayers since they were rescued from Nazi Germany in World War Two. But only one has the power to deprive you of life, liberty or property for failing to fall in line.
It has no mechanism by which to enforce this. More than half of the U. The only other, non-pesthole country of which anything llike this is remotely close to true is Turkey. Virtually everywhere else in the civilized world, people have accepted the reality that science and reason have revealed. Only in Murka do they try to get bogeyman stories printed in biology textbooks. Oh, yeah… Even if social pressure produces some results that are identical to what coercive force produces, how you get there matters.
Ends do not justify means. So the Walmart in your area is going to control your mind and decree what you can say or think? Time to break out the tinfoil hat. I think I stole it from Mark Steyn.
Dunno where he stole it from. I can find no source for this. I would have to side with them. Meanwhile, Americans, like all other human beings, believe a great many things that I disagree with. Such as in what one can scientifically conclude from polls. The sad thing is, Will is not a kook. I would say that the brits, who essentially lost their empire and the better part of two generations defeating the germans twice, might disagree with your assessment.
A few years ago Dawkins wrote about a speaking tour in the US. He said that before he went to the US he was worried because of all the things he had read and heard about it. But he wrote that he had been pleasantly surprised that most of the people he talked to were polite and interested.
The biggest problem is that teachers are mostly professional incompetents and cowards who are more interested in sinecures than in actually, you know, teaching. And the Fundamentalist and evangelical wackos have too much of the rest of the country and media buffaloed. But I am sure I would have read if they had changed very much.
Duckspeaking the moral dogmas of Free Software and all that. Equating listening to top 40 and shooting yourself with a. I just said coercion by social pressure and coercion by force led to the same results. Someone have an extinguisher handy? Jeff Read, I find it fascinating that you attack people who believe things that are not so by … showing that you believe things that are not so. Why are you surprised? You need to take every factual claim he makes with a heap of salt, bearing in mind that he will constantly bend reality to make everyone like his parents look as stupid and evil as possible.
Here is one of the stranger things. And I shake my head. A waste of money. Paying more for something because you can. Why not just burn that money? I read your treason of the intellectuals. That is the problem I am talking about. They were schooled by people who were educated in an environment that is supposed to be dominated by intellectuals.
I found university to be a horrible place — I left early that worked out ok for me. Is it simply that they have always been a fairly tiny minority and the treason of the intellectuals now makes everyone else feel that it is OK to not care about ideas? Normally it takes disastrous external conditions — like a large-scale economic collapse or a serious defeat in a war — to make enough Four-Categories people vulnerable to the pitch that you can get a violent mass movement rolling.
So Jeff Read combines reflexive anti-Americanism and ignorance to create the perfect troll-emulator. And Will takes his faux-superiority to proclaim that white is black. The sad thing is that Jeff and Will are pretty much perfect representations of the American progressive leftist mindset, and they control the Democratic party. That oversimplifies the problem, because either Will nor Jeff are stupid in the normal sense of the word. This is tremendously more damaging than mere mental midgetry.
So the fact that thinkers are a small minority is just generally the natural state of the world… oh, yeah, I just remembered something — in sustenance level societies, the price of trying out new ideas can be death. Not familiar with that term. This activates a personal belief about the fundamental, underlying problems of society that I usually have trouble articulating cleanly: However, outside of courses in math, physics, chemistry, theory-comp, and debate, I believe that American schools successfully avoid addressing the skill of rational thought.
Of course not…and why should they? The schools are not designed to produce thinkers. Terry Pratchett, from Equal Rites: Morgan Greywolf I wrote the cutest little double entry book-keeping system that uses 2 text data files that I edit with vi — a chart of accounts and a file of transactions generally in pairs.
For a little while I was concerned that american politics was so polarized that everyone thinks that everyone on some other part of the political spectrum is an idiot. Then I remembered that pretty much this same situation existed in Only with duels allowed. Since this system has been working well enough for over years I stopped worrying about it. Swing the pendulum back a little. And that condition is likely to persist given this interesting graphic regarding the control over media by a small number of folks:.
William B Swift Says: That was when most of the land reclamation was done. This is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. As there is no way a country with 17 million inhabitants can defend itself effectively against industrial countries with hundreds of millions of inhabitants. But this is all uninteresting.
Why I love Walmart despite never shopping there
That's why I love the idea of Walmart, and will defend it against its enemies. .. 60% of the world's illegal drugs And a lot of industry and traffic. Poking at Google Maps, I find it's about comparable to driving from Hamburg to Naples. If someone is conspiring to kill people, this is quite obviously a. No slave, child, indentured labor, or human trafficking may be Walmart employees are prohibited from engaging with suppliers in any discharges, toxic substances and hazardous waste Handle, store and transport hazardous waste in a safe and . discrimination lawsuits do not occur in the first place. The conspiracy monger's YouTube channel is on the brink of a blackout Colorado; and Newtown, Connecticut were broadcast on terrestrial radio, But this time, YouTube did something different: It sanctioned Jones' channel news, Google and Facebook began to cut off search traffic and monetized.