Saffire

Require that people with alcohol poisoning pay for their own medical care - just send them the bill in the mail. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize that behavior.

How much time do men spend thinking about sports? :P

That's according to Ben Bernanke, our chief counterfeiter. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100408/ts_alt_afp/useconomybankdeficit_20100408091746 Yes, it turns out the only reason this country appeared so prosperous (while having relatively low taxes) was due to insane amounts of borrowing from other nations. And you'll start your diet tomorrow. And you'll start waking up at a good time... next week. And you'll start regularly exercising, just as soon as that new gym opens up that's across from the mall. :laugh3:

There are no "losses" from internet piracy (as the wikipedia page seems to claim). Music sales have climbed steadily post-MP3. This is the great myth the government relies on to be able to pass bills like this. Like Bono and Lady Gaga will quit writing music unless someone's offering them tens of millions to do it. There should be a "busking" website that lists all musicians, and allows you to send them money directly, bypassing the RIAA entirely. It could be linked on all the torrent sites. If it is even marginally popular, artists might abandon the RIAA and other similar agencies.

Deer burgers are actually pretty good.

Here's a picture of the internet: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Internet_map_4096.png And I should point out that this ruling has only slowed down the FCC. I fully expect it to eventually use a backdoor method for regulating the net.

Too bad none of his links worked. I was ready to shell out some serious moolah for gold hair straighteners.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4 "Net Neutrality" is a way for the government to assert authority over the business decisions of ISPs, which would effectively make all ISPs the same, destroying the possibility of competition and innovation. Governments also like to argue taxpayer money be used to expand ISP coverage in rural states, but it's unnecessary - the ISPs should be required to grow their customer base organically (using the profits from existing customers, as well as other means), just like every other business. Government handouts and regulations lock existing structures into place, which slows progress.

Is your cock bigger as well?

I like the original Nathan better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack Not that any major policy changes will come of this, but it gives you some insight into the mind of a brainwashed soldier and his sociopath commanders who tried to keep it a secret. Go WikiLeaks!

It's not commission or quota. I don't think you understood what I posted. I said the rewards would be given out by the victims/potential victims of violent crime. Drunk people don't have victims. What you're describing is a mindless system similar to what we already have. This is a crime. You don't think there would be people on the lookout for fraud if there's a financial incentive to prevent it? Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to brick walls. Statists just assume that everybody is retarded.

lol well what most western democracies currently have is a quota system that isn't focused on prevention of violent crime & theft, but on petty victimless 'crimes'. And it's understandable that cops would rather arrest a drunk guy than a furious knife-wielding fellow. It's sort of anthropologically interesting to me. Because the reality is, police don't actually have to help you at all. The only reason they do it is because society expects them to. It's primarily a cultural thing...

So the question is: How do we align the interests of citizens with the interests of the police? In other words, how can we ensure good "customer satisfaction"? There are many ways a society could do this. I advocate privatizing all security services, but some people consider that too extreme. But here's an idea we could all be able to agree on: set up a pool of money that can be used to reward officers for preventing or stopping crimes-in-progress. The victims of crime are allowed to decide which officers get the rewards. In this way, the police have a financial incentive to provide the best quality service while treating citizens with the utmost respect. There can still be a base salary, but you want some portion of their pay to be directly tied to their effectiveness. You could also set up an algorithm that adjusts base pay relative to a benchmark for violent crime - so the salary goes up as violent crime is reduced. It wouldn't be hard to do, but implementing this might be politically difficult.

If you un-ban kissing, we'll un-ban the burka.

Basically the difference is who will be lending you the money (the government or the bank). So you don't need to worry - you'll still get a loan, and the cost of your college won't be very different. But the law will change the economics of the loan business in the next ten years. It just won't be instant.

If it's not appropriate attire, people will treat them like it's not appropriate attire. We don't need the government to create a second layer of consequence here. It's already a stupid wardrobe.

A fool and his money are soon parted... in other news, anyone should be allowed to start a lottery. This is another thing the government monopolizes. If anyone could start a lottery, there would be dozens to choose from, and none of the jackpots would ever get very big (or tempting). In this way, lotteries either couldn't exist in a free market, or would simply never be attractive to the dummies who don't understand the probabilities involved: Your odds are like picking a single correct coin out of this many.

Right, but your views are your own. Your path to happiness might be different from other peoples'. It is the task of the individual to use trial-and-error action, as well as a priori reasoning, to discover the best way to achieve personal satisfaction, or happiness. If you conclude that the pursuit of money for its own sake won't make you happy, then you can realign your future actions with that in mind. You can even recommend that others try the same course of action, but you cannot force it on others, or even deride others for not making a similar decision to yourself. It is the same as choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. And I enjoyed Avatar also, because it attacks the use of force/coercion in exchange, and upholds private property rights. Even if James Cameron didn't intend it to send that message.

Future leaders of Great Britain.

To quote Ayn Rand: "When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

They should ban bans.

Good dog. :) I think all police officers should be required to wear a "special tag" designating them as possibly dangerous, too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1FX20100330 In a move sure to please idiots who don't understand basic economics, as well as college presidents, Our Glorious Leader monopolized the student-loan business:

If this guy were my dad, I would be horribly embarrassed.