He's still in his job because said job is funded through State force/aggression/violence (or threat thereof) and the victims of said plunder cannot voluntarily take their business elsewhere.
Until we abolish State theft backed by threats of violence (euphemistically known as "taxation"), we will continue to see asshats such as the current Director of National Intelligence within government.
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
"Remember that every act of government ultimately reduces to an act of violence against person and property. When you see the word regulation, think of cops with clubs and tasers. Think of fines, courtrooms, jails. These are the essential means by which government operates to control society."
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
As I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange (as opposed to the State's monopoly on force/aggression/violence), I emplore you to not use the all encompassing "our" when referring to the people that claim ownership over others (see organized theft/"taxation") and call themselves "government"...in this case, the Attorney Genital.
Complex social issues cannot be solved through State force/violence (or threat thereof), it only makes the issues worse in the long run.
They argue that online retailers, which in some cases aren't stolen from through force (or threat thereof) at checkout, enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over big box stores that do submit to said theft/coercion. Like a good and obedient slave, instead of speaking out against the immorality of State theft/coercion, the individuals who run the big box stores are advocating for the State to engage in the same theft/coercion against the individuals running online retail business's that the big box stores are subject to.
If the individuals who run the big box stores truly wanted "fair competition", they would speak out against all forms of theft and allow individuals to engage in consensual voluntary exchange.
Reading the government response to the memes immediately brought to mind the dialogue from the absurd final battle in the video game 'Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance" and the following animated .gif/meme referencing it:
The politician has no incentive to be informed as he receives his paycheck through state force/aggression (or threat thereof).
Until we're interacting with individuals on a consensual basis and through voluntary exchange, we will continue to see the ignorance and absurdity that results from state aggression expand like highly aggressive cancer.
Howver, this is most certainly not the result of "capitalism" (defined as an economic system based on the respect for self-ownership derived property rights and voluntary exchange, in a market free from government force/aggression).
In a voluntary market, prices are made up of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of voluntary exchanges occuring constantly. Thus providing an immense amount of knowledge that no one person, or bureaucrat, could ever know. As soon as State force enters the equation (i.e.,"regulation"), said knowledge is corrupted and perverts natural market incentives.
The current healthcare prices are forced by government through Medicare, keeping said prices insulated from natural voluntary market forces. They have no incentive to lower prices and compete since the Medicare prices are back by State aggression/violence (or threat thereof).
I highly recommend the two following articles to gain further understanding into why the healthcare industry is the way it is (one article touches on the history, the other on why prices are so high).
I agree with Anonymous Coward. Unless these drones are being fully funded through private/voluntary means (without any government intervention/force involved), then I am wary of what may result from their implementation. If anything, it'd be a form of acclimation to the use of drones in the sky always watching.
On a side note, if we truly wants to help preserve endangered species, we should be advocating for individual property rights (rather than government regulation/legislation).
A big part of why some animals become endangered, especially with many types of fish populations being depleted, is due to what is termed the "tragedy of the commons".
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will lower the yield a shared limited resource, even to the point of ultimately depleting it, even when it is clear that it is not in everyone's short or long term interest for this to happen.
There is nothing wrong in selling merchandise to help promote Ron Paul/the "rEVOLution"/ideas of liberty. It's a way to use merchandise to spread support via word of mouth. Even if their intent was to solely profit by selling the merchandise, it is a perfect example of voluntary exchange (which, at least in the past, Ron Paul has been a strong advocate of). If people are voluntarily purchasing the merchandise resulting in a profit for the domain name holders, then they are clearly meeting a market need.
However, in this case it appears that Ron Paul & company is saying to hell with the non-aggression principle and instead has decided to employ State force/aggression in an attempt to take the justly acquired property of the RonPaul.com domain name holders.
With the type of logic displayed by the government in this case, in the near future could we see single mothers going after condom manufacturers for child support?
Maybe the government should go after printer ink manufacturers in libel/defamation lawsuits.
This is the result of the so called "justice system" being a government monopoly funded through theft. Any "service" that, through aggression/violence or threat thereof, gets paid no matter the results while holding a monopoly...is going to be a dismal "service".