Democrats understand the landscape right now and the prospects of this passing. They also understand that police unions donate to their reelection campaigns too. Is it possible they've proposed this bill knowing that it won't make it to a vote? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Have a look at the State of Kansas, they have been running an "experiment" for sometime now and their State is in a real state isn't it?
Are you referring to Kansas reducing taxes but not touching spending?
[privatized police and fire are] a very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
And what "obvious" reasons would those be? How many private police have shot unarmed people, have thrown flashbangs into baby cribs or have shot homeowners' dogs? What is your problem with the prospect of privatized fire and ems services?
That sounds a lot like tragedy of the commons, no? If everyone owns the roads then no one is responsible for maintenance and upkeep.
Did people not value police and fire services? Or did they not value them at the prices the police and fire were charging? Hard to say when the police and fire still maintained their gov-backed monopoly status.
It doesn't sound like Colorado Springs really ran a proper experiment and it's not that useful to draw conclusions like you did based on bad data.
All government should be funded voluntarily... then we'd really see how much people support X or Y policy.
I'm not the only one who finds it odd that ICE is even the gov't entity involved in these seizures, right?
And this is why you'll never see Ed Snowden come back to the US
Within urban areas, because of the limited number of places you can put a road.
Which has what to do with road maintenance? A company that can maintain roads is also very likely able to construct roads too... ergo there would not be a lack of competition surrounding the construction and maintenance of roads.
Making them "human rights" enables you being able to exercise your other rights.
How can you enforce a "right" to healthcare? I'll answer it for you -- by forcing someone else to either act directly (force a doctor to care for someone) or indirectly (force someone else to pay for the doctor). That's either slavery or theft, both of which violate the UDHR.
You can't access to such information unless you have to pay.
You can't access to it because there are hurdles that make it impractical.
This is why the UDHR is a nonsensical document... because you can't reconcile it against reality. There is no right to the internet or healthcare or food or housing because those are goods/services to be bought and sold. Making them "human rights" turns the concept of "rights" on its head and in effect supports theft and/or slavery, which violates other sections of the UDHR.
The very definition of 'privatizing roads' is that whoever builds the roads subsequently owns them.
Not necessarily. Businesses could band together to have a road built to their complex. The businesses would collectively own the road despite someone else having built it.
Now you have major traffic jams because people can't take alternate routes to help relieve some of the congestion
Why do you assume that's the only possible outcome?
Or say the company who built the road in front of your house demands a monthly payment for you to drive on it. Do you really think that's a positive thing?
If I hire a builder to build me a home does the builder continue to own the home after he's done? Why do you assume that the company that's hired to build the road continues to own it after the road is built? Aside from that you do realize there's such a thing as road maintenance, right? Part of our taxes now go to pay that maintenance. Why would homeowners not pay a company to maintain the road on whatever schedule the parties agree to?
This is, uh, wrong. If you're involved the court to silence a company then, yes, the gov't is involved, and First Amendment absolutely applies
FCOL how many times have I read on this very site that Free Speech protections under the 1st Amendment apply to protecting individuals from government actions and not from other individuals? Countless!
And for the 3rd or 4th time in this very thread I NEVER SAID the government wasn't involved. I don't know why so many people are reading things that I didn't write. I said the government wasn't going after Gawker, as in the lawsuit wasn't filed by the US Atty. Certainly the government will enforce the court's decision but that's entirely different.