It's Now Illegal to Declaw a Cat in Denver

submitted by dcjogger from fortune.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dcjogger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-depression-had-little-effect-on-death-rates-46713514/

https://www.insider.com/medical-tourism-americans-save-money-healthcare-2018-6

Americans are so enslaved that they think government agents are holy gods, but since the elites and the government are the same now, asking for government protection from businesses is like asking a thief to watch your house when you go on vacation.

FAA regulates airlines, but airplanes still fail.

SEC regulates stockbrokers, but markets still crash.

FDA regulates drugs, but drugs are still dangerous.

EPA regulates the environment, but the EPA pollutes.

The USSR was a Socialist utopia, but the Soviet Union was polluted.

Maybe the real reason there are food stamps now is because food and banking corporations lobby for them.

Maybe the real reason tax filing is so difficult is that tax preparation corporations lobby for complicated tax forms.

Maybe the real reason there are laws against ridesharing is because taxi cab companies lobby for regulations against competition.

Maybe the real reason there are mandatory vaccine laws now is because pharmaceutical corporations lobby for them.

Maybe the real reason the US is a police state now is because private prison corporations lobby for it.

Maybe the real reason the US is a warmonger now is because defense corporations lobby for wars.

Maybe the real reason there are mandatory health and auto insurance laws now is because insurance companies lobby for them.

Maybe the real reason there are bailouts and subsidies is because corporations lobby for them.

Maybe the real reason there are government student loans and grants now is because colleges lobby for them.

The government takes away your freedom, but won’t protect you.

The way to deal with danger today is to do what worked in the past.

Government needs to be small and people need to take personal responsibility and embrace freedom.

Being dangerous is not in the best of companies.

The big difference between private business and tyranny is that you can boycott the free market, but the government forces you at gunpoint to do something or not do something.

Look not to the politicians; look to yourselves.

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.

What do we need government for anyway?

Everything the free market does is better than what government does.

Would you rather graduate from Harvard or the University of New Mexico? Would you rather own a Yugo or a BMW?

If a private association like the MPAA can regulate movies, why can’t the private market regulate other things?

When the TSA fingers your asshole and pulls your cock, is the real purpose to protect you or to make you feel like a degraded slave?

When people smoke now, people just call the police on them, but people in the past either took some personal responsibility and ignored smokers, moved away from smokers, or asked smokers to go somewhere else. The problem with a police state is everyone now is either or a slave or a criminal. Who pays the taxes to pay for tyranny?

If smoking is dangerous, can’t nonprofits raise funds to pay for educational campaigns that warn of the dangers of smoking instead of outlawing smoking?

Can’t people use the BBB to verify if a business is good or not instead of forcing companies to pay fees to get a government business license?

Can’t private charities funded by volunteer donations provide homeless shelters and soup kitchens instead of being at forced at the point of a gun by the government to pay taxes that fund welfare?

Can’t people use guns to protect themselves instead of relying on the Gestapo?

Can’t neighbourhoods hire private security firms to protect their homes?

Can’t the free market provide toll roads?

Can’t the free market provide private airports?

Can’t the free market provide private schools?

Can’t the free market provide disaster relief instead of FEMA?

Can’t the free market run delivery services instead of the USPS?

Can’t the free market run railroads instead of Amtrack?

Think.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another one! You posted a thread about declawing cats; surely "real reasons" and "free markets" aren't too relevant here? Despite your sentiment being shared by many on this site, none have voted it insightful here.

Although, now that I'm here… People disagreeing with you isn't necessarily due to a lack of thinking on their part. (I learned that the moderately difficult way, and now you can learn it the easy way by reading a comment.) Ending your comments in "Think." or "Wake up." isn't going to drive your point home; it's going to drive away your target audience.

And, to answer your questions in order:

  • A solution to the prisoner's dilemma.
  • Neither.
  • Neither.
  • Numerous reasons, including monopolies resulting from "unions of companies" – unless by the "private market" you mean the "free market", in which case the existence of private associations like the MPAA is a counterargument in itself. (There are, of course, arguments for both sides and arguments questioning the validity of the question itself; I'm merely answering the question posed.)
  • Either taxpayers or nobody, depending on how you define "tyranny".
  • It depends on how effective their fundraising is and how willing people are to pay for these campaigns. So far, they've proven less willing than people are to pay the taxes required to support such campaigns, but there's insufficient evidence to draw a strong conclusion. I'm reasonably sure of this, though: when smoking was hip and cigarette manufacturers could pay for advertising, few would've been able to get the money to run a campaign to convince people to pay for a campaign to convince people to stop smoking.
  • Quite possibly.
  • Yes, but there'd be less money available to them; people are less willing to donate to charity than pay taxes. Quite possibly it would be spent better and so more value would be available for welfare; there are legitimate arguments for what you espouse in this rhetorical question.
  • False dichotomy. In most countries, people don't need guns to defend themselves from guns because nobody's shooting people with guns in the first place.
  • In theory. But who's a "neighbourhood"? Oh, a group of people living close to each other who get together to pay for a particular thing? Now, what if I don't pay? We'll still have enough to pay for the security, if everyone chips in an extra few ¢s. Now what if the next person doesn't pay? In fact, what's the incentive for anyone to pay? Prisoner's dilemma strikes again, and the government is the particular solution that's currently in use.
  • No; there's a monopoly on many, many roads, and no matter what price was put on those roads people'd have to pay it because there's insufficient public transport in the US and people need to travel vast distances daily to earn a living.
  • No; there's a monopoly on airports.
  • Yes, but that tends to result in only the rich having access to education, which isn't what anybody wants. (Except maybe the rich.) This is what used to be the case in much of Europe for a good few centuries, and it didn't work great; I can't remember when the US got state schools.
  • No. That isn't what the free market is. How would this even work, and how would it remotely resemble in the slightest way a free market?
  • Yes.
  • No; monopoly, so not a free market.