If they gain more skills to become more competitive in the job market that means that their fancy new job comes at the expense of someone else. Meanwhile both people are still paying the same tolls. Also gaining new skills costs time and money which is a form of rent all by itself.
And what if you can’t downsize anymore?
A twenty page circlejerk on a gaming forum. Definitely the most poseur thing since hanging out at a Hot Topic at the mall.
Someone was wrong in the internet. It needed to be fixed. If I do well Harlan Ellison will let me go to Heaven when I die.
I'm literally arguing against that in this thread...
Your opinion of this regulation exactly matched that of a giant corporation... go figure.
I look forward you your blatant hypocrisy when conservatives start pushing their consumer protections.
- - - Updated - - -
It is, welcome to the conversation. Its making government bigger, more invasive, and more expensive.
Let's start small, by getting g rid of thus single regulation.
What you think you’re doing and what you’re actually doing are two totally different things.
Your opinion matched that of a much larger, less ethical corporation.... go figure.
Each individual regulation should be judged on its own merits. Nothing hypocritical about that.
What you think you're doing, and what you are actually doing, are very different.
Fucking corporatists...
Conservatives control the courts in the United States. I know you don't really give a shit, because you're a Brit or European. But, liberals and progressives actually in the United States should be very concerned.
In the next 20-30 years, you're going to see a great many shifts in policy due to those stacked courts. Now, I'll lament the loss of liberty, just like I lament it when progressives do the same. When that happens, progressives will have no cause to complain, because they do the same shit. The one silver lining for me, is that I will get to enjoy the abject misery of liberals and progressives as those losses stack up, and they see how shitty that medicine tastes.
I enjoyed the same when conservatives and Trumpsters got kicked to the curb. In the end, you guys are all about the same.
A both sides are the same argument. The true sign that you’re ashamed of the behaviour of your fellow conservatives. And yes you’re a conservative. Easily one of the most conservative posters on this board. For all of your big talk of liberty, the only liberty you ever advocated for is the liberty of the powerful to exercise their power.
When it comes to attacking liberties, there's not much difference between progressives and conservatives. The only real difference, is which freedoms you guys prefer to target. And yes, I am ashamed of my fellow so-called conservatives, because like you, most don't give a shit about liberty.
When I was wholeheartedly supporting legalizing gay marriage (for more than 20 years, now), which powerful entity was I advocating for?
The same goes for legalizing drugs.
And prostitution.
And abortion.
Are you saying I'm a corporatist for Planned Parenthood?
It's an interesting dichotomy that is going to inevitably come up, and really demonstrates why concepts like "liberty" or "freedom" are inherently impossible to use collectively.
Some people like to argue for the liberty and freedom for exploiters, to fully enact their will upon their lessers. Any restriction on their capacity to do so, clearly, reduces their freedom to act as they so choose. They will then suggest, generally, that "the market" is who chooses winners and losers, and should not be considered as a factor in discussing liberty and freedom to begin with.
Other people take the position that maximizing liberty for all cannot be done without restrictions on those who would so exploit those beneath them. Allowing that exploitation necessarily reduces the freedom and liberty of those who are exploited, and pointing to freedoms they cannot access due to poverty is not a functional counterargument.
There's no middle ground, there. And both are concepts based on "liberty", at least in some sense. The real discussion is on whether your vision of a "free society" is an exploitative one where the unworthy are metaphorically ground up by the system to make the bread for the wealthy, or if it's a society where everyone shares equally in the benefits of freedom from exploitation and oppression, even if constraints are placed on those who would engage in that very exploitation and oppression.
Some people would be perfectly fine with wage slaves being worked to death in the mines so that the billionaires can ensure their yachts are made from solid gold, just not gold plate, as long as those wage slaves are offered the option of which billionaire and which mine they die in. They would call that choice "freedom and liberty", and expect you to agree. I'll leave it up to you whether that's reasonable.
Which required a constitutional amendment (ie a regulation) and 150 years of legal battles.
The unscrupulous will still sell drugs illlegally and would sell tainted drugs legally if allowed to. The opioid epidemic exists because legal drug use was not well regulated and weakly enforced.
Hope you don’t get AIDS from unregulated prostitution.
Abortion was made legal so it could be performed safely by regulated professions at regulated clinics.
I’m saying you’re a corporatist because you advocate for the removal of regulations which will only benefit the powerful.
And yet, abortion is at risk... and liberals and progressives have nobody to blame but themselves. Until you correct me, I'll just assume you're British. Abortion rights in Britain aren't really in danger, so this is largely academic for you. But, in the United States, they are in real danger.
Liberals fucked around, and alienated voters. They lost an easy election, and it changed the direction of this country try for more than a generation. You alienated people not much different than me.
Abortion is in real danger because powerful interest groups pushed for deregulation of other areas of the American legal system and were able to seize power. They’re now abusing that power. Generally they push for further deregulation with a few notable exceptions.
The American left did not fuck around. They lost because they have to fight in a game that was rigged against them. No one was alienated. They’re previously restrained poisonous beliefs were left off the leash.
They already exist in some major cities like NYC, it's someone's closet : |
https://abc7news.com/sf-closet-house...quare/5422628/
450 square feet of closet for $1.2K
Abortion is at risk, because Trump won in 2016. It was easily the most important election of my lifetime, and led to a gigantic shift un power in the courts. That wasn't deregulation, that was an election.
As for the election system being tipped against Democrats (and far more tipped against third parties), that's the results of regulations, not deregulation
- - - Updated - - -
The Dems should gave easily won in 2016, but they pissed it away.
If you don't like it, blame all those regulations and laws that tipped the competitive playing field in favor of the GOP.