*gay

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Upvote because I want to see you make your case like this more often, and less like the guy I normally butt heads with.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

Upvote because I want to see you make your case like this more often, and less like the guy I normally butt heads with.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

This is what i was thinking.



>> ^messenger:

Dan Gilbert doesn't understand Daniel Bernoulli's theory. He has over simplified it and removed the value of expected utility. Poor people make much better usage out of a lottery winning than rich people do. This utility value has to be factored into any equation placing a value judgment on an investment, even a lottery ticket.
When Dan insults lottery players, from a strictly numbers point of view, he's right, of course, but playing the lottery is not a strictly numbers kind of game; it's about utility. He doesn't take into account the actual value of winning and losing to the people who play.
Here's a demonstration of the difference utility adds to the simplistic equation of expected value:
You bet on a coin toss against an outstandingly wealthy opponent. If you win, your opponent will instantly triple your net worth, including your cash, assets, and salary. If you lose, you lose everything, including your job and employability.
The odds of winning are .5, and the reward is 3. Multiply these together, and you get 1.5, which means that you are getting 2:1 on your money. Looks good on paper. But of course not even economists would play this game --not even if the reward were raised to x10 or x100-- because the consequence of losing everything, though less in monetary value than the reward, is unthinkable, even compared to the relative gains from having x100 your wealth. The expected utility to you of your first "net worth" far exceeds the utility that the second and third would give you, so it's a bad bet.
Back to the lottery: if you lose a dollar, you don't noticeably lose any economic power, even if you play every week and lose $52/year. In other words, you lose a negligible amount of utility. You may even get $52 worth of enjoyment out of waiting for the results to come up, talking about it and bonding with your pool of coworkers, or daydreaming about the good life and getting distraction from the reality of your trailer park McJob life. But if you win something big, it will instantly end all money troubles for you and your whole family, maybe for generations to come. In other words, massive utility. It's not a stupid decision at all to buy a lottery ticket if you factor in utility.
Edit: Oh, and now that I've actually watched to the end, I see that someone in the Q&A made one of my points, but they both still missed the boat on the strictly financial utility of losing $1 to winning millions when you're poor.

(self post for archival reasons)

You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831>> ^blankfist:

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.
I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.
If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).
If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.
I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.
I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.
I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.
If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.

The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.

I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.

If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).

If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.

I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.

I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.

I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.

If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.


The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

as far glass ceilings and sexism being a nonissue in western society, @blankfist ...... and others for that matter.

i lived in so cal for a while, but i never worked there... so maybe you do live in a mecca of enlightment or some bullshit... but...

have you ever been threatened and written up for telling your boss you weren't going to press charges, but you also weren't going to work 12 hour long graveyard shifts alone with the dude who pins you to the wall and tells how he likes to be touched and constantly tries to fuck you in between patients?? have you ever found out that your male coworkers were given raises because they "had families to support" ??? have you ever been written up for not attending a meeting due to child care issues and then found out 2 of your male coworkers were exempt from attending any meetings ever because they watch their kids during daytime hours??? ever been patted on the head like a dog when you figured out how to fix a technical malfunction that your opposite gendered coworkers couldnt?? ever been treated like some kind of freakish savant when the dudes you work with figured out you were really intelligent??? ever find out that all of your female friends have been victims of rape, molestation or incest??? ever had a "friend" give you some "tylenol" at a concert and wake up 3 days later?? ever see television reports about the outrageous number of teen fathers, or are they all about teenage mothers?? ever hear derogatory remarks about "welfare fathers", or is it all about "welfare moms"?? ever have people assume that you must be a poor, slutty, uneducated, night shift denny's waitress because you're divorced???

sexism is alive and well, it might look differently than you imagine it, it may not effect your bubble of existance, and it's probably more likely the result of 6000 years of systematic female subordination and oppression than advertising executives with boners for hot skinny models. but it's real and pervasive and it exists.

I've gotten so used to partisan bickering that I was half expecting Reagan to make some offhand remark about it being the fault of those damned dirty liberals.

I was just telling an older coworker of mine how we grew up during this. When Reagan was addressing the kids, that would have been me at the time. I was telling my coworker how I grew up believing that our generation would be spending a lot of time in space by the time we were the age I am now.

I think we're all a little peeved that it didn't turn out that way.

I'm more inclined to believe this narrow view of politics that anything else.

People do vote on narrow issues. When their union is saying that party X will prevent their job from being outsourced, the choice is clear. When party Y offers generous handouts to a particular constituency they lap it up. Last election here in Australia, a coworker told me she voted singlehandedly for a particular party because they provided more generous maternity benefits. When it comes down to it, people have neither the time, effort or often the desire to analyse and determine the utilitarian option. Cynical sure, but just about everything from my experiences has supported this view.

Capitalism as a system, is built on incentives. Correctly calibrated with the right regulatory adjustments to prevent malfeasants like pollution, moral hazard and other negative externalities, it works incredibly well.

I think the same thing should apply to politics. For all intents and purposes that's what (a representational) democracy is grounded in anyway. Elected officials act in the interest of their constituents because that's what gets them elected. When, as in the US, campaign contributions (as a result of the almost limitless campaign financing rules) play such an important role, incentives are skewed. Curtis seems to draw the distorted view that adapting politics to a more capitalist based system implies surrendering its authority wholly to private companies when this is simply not a fair representation of game theory which on its pure theory alone implies or suggests nothing of the sort.

I really like Curtis's work, it often provides a very well thought out philosophy grounded in reason but I think he tends to oversimplify and draw swathes in describing complex issues.

@GeeSussFreeK

I agree that it is a move in the right direction. It is a very important step to assist in harm reduction for citizens; however, it completely fails in some areas.

One area of harm reduction that it completely misses is the lack of quality control. Unless you do independent analysis of what you are buying (assuming you have some lab equipment, knowledge, time, and desire), you have no way of knowing the purity of the illegal(or decriminalized) substance is being bought. This is bad in two ways: (1) the can be cut with harmful (varying degrees) substances to increase overall profit and (2) this can greatly affect the strength of the substance - which leads to accidental overdoses.

The second area of fail for decriminalization is that it doesn't affect the criminal supply structure at all. It doesn't remove the drug dealers off the street and doesn't stop any money from being channeled back to the drug cartels.

The above two points (and I'm sure some other ones) are why you will find some people who strongly oppose decriminalization as a midstep towards full legalization and control. I think that some feel that decriminalization wouldn't be good enough or that it would be a false midstep (i.e. offered up to placate the people and kill the momentum for full legalization.)

Again, decriminalization is fantastic for helping those that are addicts. The government did a big study on veterans come back from Vietnam because a large percentage of them did various/multiple drugs while there because it was so stressful. They found that after a year of being home, less than half still used drugs. It was either 3 or 5 years later, a small percentage used recreationally and 1-3 percent still used them very frequently. I've read several studies on this phenomenon and it holds out that 1-3 percent of people that try a substance become an addict (varying degrees.) Most people just need a perceptual change if they start abandoning their responsibilities because of *insert object of obsession here* (i.e. kick in the pants.) Personally, I ran into this with NHL 2010 for the PS3. Seriously how much more fun can it get? But I started missing homework, missing deadlines from my personal projects, etc. I realized this and actually sold my TV and PS3 to some coworkers to get it out of my place. However because of brain chemistry or personality traits, addicts need professional help. Decriminalization can free a person from the criminal burden when seeking help for substance addiction. (Small side note to pre-address expected thoughts in some people's heads: most addicts get caught doing illegal things like breaking into houses, etc... The point is that most addicts get into this position to feed and because of their addiction. I'm not advocating ignoring the responsibility for those actions, but most reactions focus on dealing punishment instead of treating the root cause.) Over time, decriminalization can also help with removing the social stigmatization of seeking help for addiction. But to be honest, legalizing would be better at that.

I don't see decriminalization as very likely across the US. Fear is the daily diet here and drugs make great PR material for fear. Also there is a great deal of money and the government fighting it. Most government bodies get extra money in their budget to fight the "war on drugs" and don't want to give up that money. Lobbying efforts will mainly be against it: by pharma (why pay for something when you can just grow something that addresses your specific need?) and prisons (US's new slavery system - See how they learned! Now with less visibility and a few whites too! ^{I kid, I kid}) In this regard, I hope that California will take the lead in showing the nation that the world won't come crashing down when this happens. It will eventually as the older people die off. That sounds callous, but it reminds me of scientific advances. Typically a generation can only go so far because of the mental knowledge base that they grew up with. Future generations grew up build their knowledge foundation on the mid- to end-work of the previous generations and are able to look at it differently and advance it.

Well, that seems to be a subject that can make me type... I need to go some work done.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You are setting up a very poor straw man/false dichotomy fallacy. Blank is merely pointing out correctly that this is a private matter in which the law has no real place. If they had made an an arrangement/contract before hand, that is one thing. But for a judge to decide the fate of children is completely the realm of parents and not courts. That is me putting words in Blanks mouth, he may have other reservations.
Edit: I should add, that if parents wanted to go to court in the case of no contract being established to mediate an arrangement; there is a place for that imo (they would have to front all costs for that justice I think...but that is a different conversation). However, the way custody hearings work is the state handing down decisions that are legally binding against the will, at times, of a party. This isn't all cases, some cases are mutual, and easy. But this is one of those cases where the state is going one step past mediator and into "moral law"...akin to regulating marriage and drugs.
>> ^Bidouleroux:
As opposed to what? The guy having the right to kill/beat his wife since she's a bitch? That would certainly go towards the well-being of his kids. The state is the only impartial third party here that can legally act on behalf of children, so the problem is not "statism" but the judge that represents the state.


I agree that it should be a matter between individuals, in a perfect world. We are not in a perfect world, thus it is not a matter between individuals. There are plenty of reason why this is and why it should stay that way for the foreseeable future, but none of those reasons apply here. The problem here is that a guy was denied custody not based on facts scientifically proven to be related to his children's well being but on the irrelevant fact that he is agnostic. It would be the same if the mother herself, in an "individual" dispute, made the argument that she won't let him have the kids because he is agnostic. If the state could not intervene, there would be no recourse for him (except to challenge her in a duel I guess). In this case, you could say "the families on both sides will be the judge when they can't agree" or "their mutual friends/coworkers/attorneys/whatever will make the final decision", etc. but this all comes down to third party intervention. The only third party that (theoretically) has only the welfare of the children in mind is the state. It is the same reasoning that goes behind contractual laws: only the state has the moral authority and objectivity to legiferate and intervene when a contractual dispute arises between two citizens that they cannot resolve between themselves in a fair manner. You can argue all you want about what's "fair" or not, but unless you want to return to pre-social anarchy (the bad kind) then you'll need to at least tolerate the state for the time being and recognize the necessity of its intervention in the interpersonal affairs of men.

P.S. Marriage law necessarily needs to be regulated as marriage is a contract. Unregulated marriages (essentially, religious marriages) are rife with unfair clauses that give all power to men in exchange for basically nothing, not even physical security (the man can beat his wife whenever he pleases and can repudiate her while she can't divorce under any circumstances).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great Scott!


"This is heavy."

And it's over. I couldn't go since I couldn't find anyone to go with, but a coworker gave me the poster.

So true.

Personally, I became so aroused at this video that I started banging the desk, shouted loudly to defend my computer from other approaching males, and humped the screen until I was sated. My coworkers looked on in horror and I was fired moments later, but at least none of them mistook me for some kind of fag who learned something from a video with boobies in it.>> ^demon_ix:

Guys, if you actually manage to learn how to put on a tie from this video, I have some news for you about your sexual preferences...

The evolutionary potential is also there for it to fade into obscurity like other swine and bird flu's of years gone by. So the fact remains that it is less deadly than flu's that already exist, significantly so, and is less virility with each horizontal transmission. The potential is there, but the same potential exists with that of the cold and the media isn't in an uproar about that; nor are we here.

Guess what, Obama and other representatives have less training than a medical doctor of any age. Are you saying that less qualified people are more qualified? And medical issues are hardly issues I see as executive anyway. If anything those fall squarely in the realm of our own responsibly or that of the courts of congress. It is hardly a military or policing or diplomatic issue. Once again a problem of the overgrown executive branch.

You don't have to make things mandatory for people to want to do them. If there was a real epidemic, you would hardly have to force doctors to take it. And if it was a real epidemic and there was a shortage and a doctor wanted to forgo his treatment so that little Johnny orphan can have his, are we going to make him a criminal because that is what it boils down to. If you don't inject this serum, then you are a criminal. I can't see that as a precedent I want legally. However, I do agree with your sickness liability. If you cause someone else to get sick by negligence, then there is some culpability there as much as hitting someone with a car or something. The laws on this need to be more clear than they are because right now there is nothing. If by action of lack of action you make someone ill, right now there is nothing you can do about it legally speaking. If for example a coworker comes in sick with just normal flu and causes you to miss several days worth of work because of that, I think there is some liability there.

Like it or not though, market forces are the exact forces that you need for something like this. If there is some validity to the H1N1 threat, it won't be long before people are clambering for it. There isn't the same clambering for the cure for the cold, and as such no great effort to eradicate it...it just isn't want people want. Not that I would be against such private endeavors. Personally, I am all for trying to eliminate sickness like we did small pox from the face of the earth...I just don't think it is your right to inject fluid into peoples bodies (if only! Giggidy giddidy goo!). While I agree with your sickness culpability, I don't agree that the solution is you get to stab them with needles; it would tend to violate the premises of liberty all together.

If a woman's child posed a threat to public safety, could the government force her to get an abortion? While an absurdity of a situation, it represents the level of violation we are stooping to here. Especially since some vaccinations can result in side effects that can include death (but not pregnancy thank god!). Ok, rant over In the end, I don't think this should be any presidents job anyway, so I wouldn't even care if someone was completely bass ackwards on the views on vaccinations (like those anti-vaccination people), ultimately, it isn't a job the president should even be tasked with, he isn't our medical commander in chief.

>> ^demon_ix:

When your coworkers know exactly what type of soda can and what kind of snack you're going to walk in with in the morning... That's when you know you're too predictable.


I am too predictable and can see people's patterns (what did you expect from a geek/nerd?).

When your coworkers know exactly what type of soda can and what kind of snack you're going to walk in with in the morning... That's when you know you're too predictable.