I like that you complain about Laissez Faire and prohibition in the same post.
You realise that those that want properly free markets are generally against prohibition, right?
How many contractors do they use?
Just because there are few employees does not mean they are not creating jobs.
Are you suggesting they steal the use of "wholesale" from NBCUniversal?
It gets worse: technically, under the European Arrest Warrant rules, any EU country can have you arrested and sent to them for acts illegal in that country (e.g. Hungary) but "committed" in another (e.g. Britain).
Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
Hu? ong? Who? ang?
Who would have thought that it would be copyright, not patent law, that would be the "incentive to create" timetravel.
I meant common law, of course. Judicial law is basically what I was complaining about with regards to Supreme Courts.
Ah, but in a judicial law system traditions and precedents can be overturned in one ruling by a judge deciding that it no longer, or never did, make sense.
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets.
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
The only reason they exist at all is so they can *claim* to be self-regulating whenever external regulation is discussed.
Perhaps because the press SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED!
The phone hacking scandal has actually shown that newspapers are regulated - by the market and laws unrelated to journalism.
The newpaper that was primary culprit no longer exists - that's the market at work.
Most of the "hacking" that took place is hardly worth the name. Is what has been done unethical? Yes. Should it be illegal (with the government dictating journalistic behaviour)? No.
Does anybody really then government and, therefore, police, involvement in journalism and newsworthyness is a good idea?
Seriously? You're using GM as your example? A company that is only still in existence due to a government bailout.
Urgh, I guess I didn't close the tag properly; sorry.
I was going to say that where the US has Mickey Mouse the UK has Peter Pan. However, Peter Pan is now a special case within UK copyright law.
Unfortunately I was correct in my other assumption: the EU. The EU/a> now controls the term lengths in the UK. I think there is a possibility of shortening (slightly) the length of copyright on works published prior to 1995 - but that is all.
No, it is the country that didn't bail out its banks but instead let the market do its work. If the rest of the world had followed Iceland's example we'd all be better off.
It looks like they're going for the current trend of writing constitutions outlining all the things the government should be doing for it's people. i.e. the granting of social, legal, rights.
A constitution should be about restricting the power of government. i.e. safeguarding natural, inalienable, rights
The latter is far, far more important than the former.
If you want to hold up the BBC as something to emulate in a "Ministry of Truth" you might want to find out how true people think there "truths" are. Googling "bbc truth" returns a link to http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ on the first page.
I don't want to have to explain to my wife that I read the blog of man who had Judge Judy cancelled.
I wonder what category their DNS provider fall under.
Also, beheading, stake through the heart and silver bullets... oh wait, "context". Never mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
As has already been stated charitable giving is higher in countries with lower taxes - the larger the welfare state the less likely people are to give to charity.