I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
That's an argument against drug laws though, not the existence of a police force.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
That's an argument against drug laws though, not the existence of a police force.
I was alluding the the larger point that police officers get a lot worse, even tyrannical, when they are enforcing bad laws.
I agree. But on the the issue of drugs, if drugs were legal, then using them of course wouldn't be a crime.
Drug laws are detrimental to the economy and not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars and ruin lives by tossing people in prison but also create a violent black market where there are no cops to enforce anything, which leads to other kinds of crime.
That's an argument against drug laws though, not the existence of a police force.
I was alluding the the larger point that police officers get a lot worse, even tyrannical, when they are enforcing bad laws.
Whether that's a function of the laws or of something else is pretty impossible to prove, or even really effectively argue as far as I'm concerned. I think no matter the laws, people in positions of power are going to end up suffering from some corruption.
I was alluding the the larger point that police officers get a lot worse, even tyrannical, when they are enforcing bad laws.
Ethics reforms and legal reforms. The fact is there's enough laws any police officer could bust people for so many stupid things it is outrageous. Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown. The thing is, while police officers can be assholes they can also be helpful to society. All it takes is 1: cut down on bad laws (easier said than done I know) and 2: ethics reform and additional transparency. (videotape them whenever they're on the job)
The police act on a whole as a net benefit, so it's simply more practical to reform the law and police policy rather than do away with the police. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. A layperson's reading of Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Nevada would suggest that there needs to be a rational and practical reason for a police officer to ask for your identity; they can't just do it arbitrarily and they certainly can't haul you to jail for refusing.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I was alluding the the larger point that police officers get a lot worse, even tyrannical, when they are enforcing bad laws.
Ethics reforms and legal reforms. The fact is there's enough laws any police officer could bust people for so many stupid things it is outrageous. Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown. The thing is, while police officers can be assholes they can also be helpful to society. All it takes is 1: cut down on bad laws (easier said than done I know) and 2: ethics reform and additional transparency. (videotape them whenever they're on the job)
The police act on a whole as a net benefit, so it's simply more practical to reform the law and police policy rather than do away with the police. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But seriously though, having lived in a few (left-leaning) areas that actively discourage the police from such things as random stop and searches, they attract a certain vagrant population that has created a huge animosity between the local businesses and the lawmakers because the businesses are sick of cleaning human shit out of their doorsteps at open and having customers avoid their shops because of the constant requests for spare change, and the civil libertarians who want to protect the rights of the down-trodden.
So basically I'd respect the down-trodden more if they didn't shit in storefronts, but as it stands I've actually been in some communities where I (and basically all the local businesses) wished the cops had stop and shakedown power.
Of course I've seen it abused on the other end of the spectrum as well, sooo....
Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. A layperson's reading of Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Nevada would suggest that there needs to be a rational and practical reason for a police officer to ask for your identity; they can't just do it arbitrarily and they certainly can't haul you to jail for refusing.
They can basically invent any reason they want, though, Feral.
I don't mean to be like spoiling anything for you or anything, but uhhh cops lie. A lot.
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. A layperson's reading of Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Nevada would suggest that there needs to be a rational and practical reason for a police officer to ask for your identity; they can't just do it arbitrarily and they certainly can't haul you to jail for refusing.
They can basically invent any reason they want, though, Feral.
I don't mean to be like spoiling anything for you or anything, but uhhh cops lie. A lot.
But you can still challenge it in court. It's difficult, but it's become easier to succeed since profiling has become such a contentious issue.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
Well I agree but they often seem to enforce merely by existing rather than actually chasing down criminals. Almost all of my interactions with cops are either negative (tickets) or neutral (thanks for looking into it officer).
What sort of positive interaction are you looking for with cops? Given the nature of their jobs it's natural for your interactions with them to be neutral at best, unless someone attacks you and they save you or something. It's not like they can go have some drinks with you at a bar while they're on duty or anything.
But you can still challenge it in court. It's difficult, but it's become easier to succeed since profiling has become such a contentious issue.
Yeah but like a real life example is my friend who got arrested for having some beer in a 7-11 cup when they were 20 years old in Santa Cruz, and the cop basically saw they were drunk on the beach and approached them to write a ticket. He just approached them and started demanding to see what was in their cup, probably because he made from a distance that they were young people on the beach nursing a large 7-11 cup, but that's not necessarily probably cause.
So in the official police report? Suddenly he noticed from a distance that one of them had beer sticking out of their backpack (absolute lie, they didn't have any beer besides what was in the 7-11 cup) and that's why he initially approached them to check their age.
So it's not like rocket science to invent a reason once you've arrested someone.
But you can still challenge it in court. It's difficult, but it's become easier to succeed since profiling has become such a contentious issue.
Yeah but like a real life example is my friend who got arrested for having some beer in a 7-11 cup when they were 20 years old in Santa Cruz, and the cop basically saw they were drunk on the beach and approached them to write a ticket. He just approached them and started demanding to see what was in their cup, probably because he made from a distance that they were young people on the beach nursing a large 7-11 cup, but that's not necessarily probably cause.
So in the official police report? Suddenly he noticed from a distance that one of them had beer sticking out of their backpack (absolute lie, they didn't have any beer besides what was in the 7-11 cup) and that's why he initially approached them to check their age.
So it's not like rocket science to invent a reason once you've arrested someone.
I think being drunk in public is plenty of cause for a passing investigation in every city in the country except New Orleans, but the report sounds like he invented a reason. If they had some other unassociated witnesses they could have pulled them in, challenged the cop, and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree'd their way out. They shouldn't have to do that in the first place though, so yeah, the cop's a dick.
But you can still challenge it in court. It's difficult, but it's become easier to succeed since profiling has become such a contentious issue.
Yeah but like a real life example is my friend who got arrested for having some beer in a 7-11 cup when they were 20 years old in Santa Cruz, and the cop basically saw they were drunk on the beach and approached them to write a ticket. He just approached them and started demanding to see what was in their cup, probably because he made from a distance that they were young people on the beach nursing a large 7-11 cup, but that's not necessarily probably cause.
So in the official police report? Suddenly he noticed from a distance that one of them had beer sticking out of their backpack (absolute lie, they didn't have any beer besides what was in the 7-11 cup) and that's why he initially approached them to check their age.
So it's not like rocket science to invent a reason once you've arrested someone.
I think being drunk in public is plenty of cause for a passing investigation in every city in the country except New Orleans, but the report sounds like he invented a reason. If they had some other unassociated witnesses they could have pulled them in, challenged the cop, and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree'd their way out. They shouldn't have to do that in the first place though, so yeah, the cop's a dick.
But he didn't check their BAL or anything, he just got them for being under-age with alcohol, and like people said it's "illegal" to just approach someone and check their ID.
So you invent a reason in the police report. It's like having 31 days in August, the shit is just automatic for most cops.
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
As has been pointed out, one of the problems with things like police forces is that cops abuse their power, lie, plant evidence, etc. If you read a lot of 4th amendment cases like Terry and whatnot you start to realize pretty fast that the facts as stated aren't really what happened. Still, cultural traditions, transparency and accountability have had positive effects on police forces in this country.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I think that some of this thread (or a lot of it) is confused. The ire against particular policies is misplaced. As the OP said, there is no single thing called "libertarianism." There are many different sorts of libertarian and nearly as many disagreements over policy. The disagreements tend to be epistemic. One group thinks that government regulation of markets is unjust while another might focus on the use of force against citizens at home and abroad.
The disagreements here aren't based on any fundamental tenet of libertarianism, but rather on the best way to express a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, i.e. liberty. Who doesn't love liberty? We are (I assume) all interested in living a good life that is free of harmful and/or unnecessary government intervention. What we disagree over is the method of securing this life.
So, when you say things like "fuck libertarianism" it turns out that you are fooled by the red herring of whatever particular libertarian person or policy that you are addressing.
So instead of saying "fuck libertarianism" perhaps you should turn your epithets to the real issue that you object to. "Fuck free-market capitalism!" "Fuck non-interventionism!" "Fuck XYZ!"
Hooray for liberty! Let's figure out how to get us some of that!
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
If you don't think the libertarian and federalist movements are pretty much hopelessly intertwined at this point, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with reality.
Does Federalism have any real meaning or value nowadays? It seems like it was just a necessary reaction to the states not wanting to give up power, but now that we're all one big (mostly) happy country that finished having any real semblence of state independence over a century ago, do we still need to even pay lip service to it?
I think that some of this thread (or a lot of it) is confused. The ire against particular policies is misplaced. As the OP said, there is no single thing called "libertarianism." There are many different sorts of libertarian and nearly as many disagreements over policy. The disagreements tend to be epistemic. One group thinks that government regulation of markets is unjust while another might focus on the use of force against citizens at home and abroad.
The disagreements here aren't based on any fundamental tenet of libertarianism, but rather on the best way to express a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, i.e. liberty. Who doesn't love liberty? We are (I assume) all interested in living a good life that is free of government intervention. What we disagree over is the method of securing this life.
Change that part to 'free of harmful and/or unneccesary government intervention' and I'd be willing to agree with you.
Does Federalism have any real meaning or value nowadays? It seems like it was just a necessary reaction to the states not wanting to give up power, but now that we're all one big (mostly) happy country that finished having any real semblence of state independence over a century ago, do we still need to even pay lip service to it?
Kinda sorta. Here in the great state of California we very much resent sending our taxes to the yokels in Mississippi. Also we want our clean air and shit. Plus maybe slavery.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
If you don't think the libertarian and federalist movements are pretty much hopelessly intertwined at this point, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with reality.
The people at the CATO institute and Reason magazine would disagree with you. I happen to be a federalist AND a libertarian and RP falls into the same category (he's more federalist than libertarian however).
But most libertarians like incorporation, roe v wade, and want drugs legalization at the federal level and incorporated as opposed to simply decriminalized.
That being said based on his ideology that even if RP was running for say Governor he'd run on a platform of drug decriminalization, prostitution legalization and work to ensure privacy rights at the state level, which reinforces the reality that while he's a federalist first, he still believes the libertarian line. The issue however is that since he's a federalist first and because he's running for President and not Governor instead of saying "Legalize Drugs" he says "Decriminalize and let the states decide".
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
If you don't think the libertarian and federalist movements are pretty much hopelessly intertwined at this point, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with reality.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Does Federalism have any real meaning or value nowadays? It seems like it was just a necessary reaction to the states not wanting to give up power, but now that we're all one big (mostly) happy country that finished having any real semblence of state independence over a century ago, do we still need to even pay lip service to it?
The federalist student group here was the one that sponsored a lunchtime talk against immigration that featured free tacos. They also had a lunchtime talk by John Lott, the lovely book cooker author of Freedomnomics. (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott) They advertised this talk with flyers that touted to show why women's suffrage was a bad thing (because it correlated with the growth of government).
So I guess what it means now, at least on my campus, is hey we're a bunch of stupid assholes that like to inflame.
Change that part to 'free of harmful and/or unneccesary government intervention' and I'd be willing to agree with you.
Done.
That's not much of a statement though. Everyone's opposed to that, they just disagree on what harmful and/or unnecessary intervention is.
More to the point, something that is "harmful" to me can be beneficial to society at large.
If a policy harms you, why should you support it?
It seems like a bad idea to quote milton friedman in this thread, but "using one person to help another uses one person and helps another--no more, no less."
Oh god this is so funny. The head of the Feds group just walked into the student lounge where I'm sitting and complained loudly about how they spent HER money on "this stuff."
Same lady who doesn't want to give 25$ a semester to the loan repayment assistance fund for people who take shitty public sector jobs after they graduate.
Oh god this is so funny. The head of the Feds group just walked into the student lounge where I'm sitting and complained loudly about how they spent HER money on "this stuff."
Same lady who doesn't want to give 25$ a semester to the loan repayment assistance fund for people who take shitty public sector jobs after they graduate.
MY MONEY! MINE.
I dated a crazy person like this and she had her moments. If you got fucked by a company she would write a letter to the CEO and you'd get your money back double. These are valuable skills. I knew it was over when she flew us to a rock concert (she had money) and upgraded herself to first class on the way back leaving me in coach. To her credit, she had the flight attendant bring me back some champagne.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
There's a phrase for it, too. Probable Cause. I'm pretty sure it's required in every state because of things like the 14th amendment and federal regulations.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
If you don't think the libertarian and federalist movements are pretty much hopelessly intertwined at this point, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with reality.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
That's only because 98% of the time when it's brought up, it's because someone hates minorities and/or homosexuals (usually "and"), or wants to be able to ban abortion.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
That's only because 98% of the time when it's brought up, it's because someone hates minorities and/or homosexuals (usually "and"), or wants to be able to ban abortion.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
That's only because 98% of the time when it's brought up, it's because someone hates minorities and/or homosexuals (usually "and"), or wants to be able to ban abortion.
That's pretty much what I said, but with fewer words and references to anal rape.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
That's only because 98% of the time when it's brought up, it's because someone hates minorities and/or homosexuals (usually "and"), or wants to be able to ban abortion.
That's pretty much what I said, but with fewer words and references to anal rape.
Same lady who doesn't want to give 25$ a semester to the loan repayment assistance fund for people who take shitty public sector jobs after they graduate.
Is the scheme mandatory or something?
Because I might not give $25 a semester to that kind of scheme, and I had a shitty public sector job which paid little but was pretty damn important anyway. At the same time, I've met a lot of total mouthbreathers in public jobs who are either there because a) they choose to be, b) they're a bit mediocre at their job, and public sector gives an easy option of security + potential for laziness, or c) same as b) except they're decent enough but more bothered with things other than work.
None of those options inspires me to give them my money. I do, however, contribute to soldiers charities for the same reason. Perhaps she just doesn't trust that the scheme knows what to do with her money better than she does.
Posts
That's an argument against drug laws though, not the existence of a police force.
I was alluding the the larger point that police officers get a lot worse, even tyrannical, when they are enforcing bad laws.
Ethics reforms and legal reforms. The fact is there's enough laws any police officer could bust people for so many stupid things it is outrageous. Down here they can just stop you and ask you for ID for no reason, and if it's not there haul you off for a temporary stint in lockdown. The thing is, while police officers can be assholes they can also be helpful to society. All it takes is 1: cut down on bad laws (easier said than done I know) and 2: ethics reform and additional transparency. (videotape them whenever they're on the job)
The police act on a whole as a net benefit, so it's simply more practical to reform the law and police policy rather than do away with the police. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. A layperson's reading of Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v Nevada would suggest that there needs to be a rational and practical reason for a police officer to ask for your identity; they can't just do it arbitrarily and they certainly can't haul you to jail for refusing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So basically I'd respect the down-trodden more if they didn't shit in storefronts, but as it stands I've actually been in some communities where I (and basically all the local businesses) wished the cops had stop and shakedown power.
Of course I've seen it abused on the other end of the spectrum as well, sooo....
I don't mean to be like spoiling anything for you or anything, but uhhh cops lie. A lot.
So I guess what I'm saying is fuck libertarianism.
But you can still challenge it in court. It's difficult, but it's become easier to succeed since profiling has become such a contentious issue.
What sort of positive interaction are you looking for with cops? Given the nature of their jobs it's natural for your interactions with them to be neutral at best, unless someone attacks you and they save you or something. It's not like they can go have some drinks with you at a bar while they're on duty or anything.
So in the official police report? Suddenly he noticed from a distance that one of them had beer sticking out of their backpack (absolute lie, they didn't have any beer besides what was in the 7-11 cup) and that's why he initially approached them to check their age.
So it's not like rocket science to invent a reason once you've arrested someone.
I think being drunk in public is plenty of cause for a passing investigation in every city in the country except New Orleans, but the report sounds like he invented a reason. If they had some other unassociated witnesses they could have pulled them in, challenged the cop, and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree'd their way out. They shouldn't have to do that in the first place though, so yeah, the cop's a dick.
So you invent a reason in the police report. It's like having 31 days in August, the shit is just automatic for most cops.
Or maybe you meant fuck federalism. You're getting them confused.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The disagreements here aren't based on any fundamental tenet of libertarianism, but rather on the best way to express a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, i.e. liberty. Who doesn't love liberty? We are (I assume) all interested in living a good life that is free of harmful and/or unnecessary government intervention. What we disagree over is the method of securing this life.
So, when you say things like "fuck libertarianism" it turns out that you are fooled by the red herring of whatever particular libertarian person or policy that you are addressing.
So instead of saying "fuck libertarianism" perhaps you should turn your epithets to the real issue that you object to. "Fuck free-market capitalism!" "Fuck non-interventionism!" "Fuck XYZ!"
Hooray for liberty! Let's figure out how to get us some of that!
Change that part to 'free of harmful and/or unneccesary government intervention' and I'd be willing to agree with you.
Done.
Kinda sorta. Here in the great state of California we very much resent sending our taxes to the yokels in Mississippi. Also we want our clean air and shit. Plus maybe slavery.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The people at the CATO institute and Reason magazine would disagree with you. I happen to be a federalist AND a libertarian and RP falls into the same category (he's more federalist than libertarian however).
But most libertarians like incorporation, roe v wade, and want drugs legalization at the federal level and incorporated as opposed to simply decriminalized.
That being said based on his ideology that even if RP was running for say Governor he'd run on a platform of drug decriminalization, prostitution legalization and work to ensure privacy rights at the state level, which reinforces the reality that while he's a federalist first, he still believes the libertarian line. The issue however is that since he's a federalist first and because he's running for President and not Governor instead of saying "Legalize Drugs" he says "Decriminalize and let the states decide".
That's not much of a statement though. Everyone's opposed to that, they just disagree on what harmful and/or unnecessary intervention is.
Thank you.
It's very unfortunate. And when it's not being lauded by libertarians, it's being ass-fucked by racists and homophobes as a way to weaken civil rights. It's impossible to promote federalism in the sense that wildly different regions should be able to tailor their own laws within reason, to the extent that they don't violate people's rights. You mention federalism, and suddenly everyone is all "why do you hate teh blacks/gays?!"
The federalist student group here was the one that sponsored a lunchtime talk against immigration that featured free tacos. They also had a lunchtime talk by John Lott, the lovely book cooker author of Freedomnomics. (wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott) They advertised this talk with flyers that touted to show why women's suffrage was a bad thing (because it correlated with the growth of government).
So I guess what it means now, at least on my campus, is hey we're a bunch of stupid assholes that like to inflame.
More to the point, something that is "harmful" to me can be beneficial to society at large.
You think they are that clever with the irony? I admit I spit up my coffee when I read it but no fucking way they really thought that through.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Oh yes, yes they did it on purpose. They are heinous in general, those lot.
Your biggest immigration worries are probably from California. They should have hot tub parties with teen sex and drug use.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
If a policy harms you, why should you support it?
It seems like a bad idea to quote milton friedman in this thread, but "using one person to help another uses one person and helps another--no more, no less."
Same lady who doesn't want to give 25$ a semester to the loan repayment assistance fund for people who take shitty public sector jobs after they graduate.
MY MONEY! MINE.
"Harms." Improving society is important to me.
I dated a crazy person like this and she had her moments. If you got fucked by a company she would write a letter to the CEO and you'd get your money back double. These are valuable skills. I knew it was over when she flew us to a rock concert (she had money) and upgraded herself to first class on the way back leaving me in coach. To her credit, she had the flight attendant bring me back some champagne.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And people wonder why it has a bad name.
That's pretty much what I said, but with fewer words and references to anal rape.
Is the scheme mandatory or something?
Because I might not give $25 a semester to that kind of scheme, and I had a shitty public sector job which paid little but was pretty damn important anyway. At the same time, I've met a lot of total mouthbreathers in public jobs who are either there because a) they choose to be, b) they're a bit mediocre at their job, and public sector gives an easy option of security + potential for laziness, or c) same as b) except they're decent enough but more bothered with things other than work.
None of those options inspires me to give them my money. I do, however, contribute to soldiers charities for the same reason. Perhaps she just doesn't trust that the scheme knows what to do with her money better than she does.
She may well be a cunt, but your example is odd.