This isn't about your friend specifically. In elementary school, it's common for kids to only have two teachers for the entire school year. My sister, on one occasion, moved up in the grade she taught and ended up teaching the same kids for two years. Many of these kids spend more awake time around their teachers than their parents. Given how the government forces kids to attend schools I don't see how one can't think that they and their employees share a huge part of the burden.
On the other hand, my sister makes it seem like there are just a lot of bad parents out there. Even the ones that mean well, will often act in a way destructive to their child's education. Many of them are rude and self-righteous. Honestly I no idea what to do about that.
You cannot be a proper parent to 20+ kids (hell, I'd argue 5+ kids of elementary school age would be difficult) simultaneously. I just don't know what more you expect out of teachers. Additionally, teachers only have children for 3/4 of the year and then the parents have them, and then a new teacher has them.
Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?
> You cannot be a proper parent to 20+ kids (hell, I'd argue 5+ kids of elementary school age would be difficult) simultaneously.
Agree wholeheartedly. But that's the sorry reality today.
> Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?
But you're missing my entire point here: parents nowadays spend very little time with their children compared to a half century ago. Where they used to get half a day of parenting (typically from house moms), kids are now only getting a few hours per day -- and that's provided whichever parent comes back from work first don't sit them in front of a TV while making dinner.
Blaming bad society or whatever is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. The kids need to be parented somehow, and it's pointless to blame the parents considering they both need to work in both households to make the mortgage, tax burden, and various other fixed cost work out; but nobody has stepped in to fill the gap left by societal changes. Who should?
Have you considered that those rules and regulations will cause people to optimize PEDs for undetectablility rather than effectiveness leading to people taking even more dangerous drugs than if they were legal? You see a similar thing with recreational drugs where people can't get a hold of or can't risk a failed drug test for relatively harmless illegal drugs so they use much more harmful legal substances.
Look at Pride Fighting Championships(basically japanese UFC) which was around for 10 years without any doping tests. Where were all the problems we're supposed to be afraid of? Or hell, look at pro wrestling. The fear mongering over PEDs is absurd.
edit just to make it clear: This is not my opinion. This is the legal definition. The study includes citations as arrests. This is why they make sure to point out that they do not include minor traffic offenses.
There is a such thing as a non-custodial address, but that does not make every detention encounter with the police that doesn't result in you being taken into custody a "non-custodial arrest". By way of example: if you're issued a speeding ticket, the police do not gain the right to search your vehicle. But they do have that right if they arrest you.
Not every detention encounter with the police results in a citation. If it does result in a citation, they have preformed a non-custodial arrest. If they want to search you, they can perform a full-custody arrest even if it's for a misdemeanor that is only punishable by a fine(Atwater v. Lago Vista).
> the police do not gain the right to search your vehicle.
Depends. Just need probable cause. Motor vehicle exception.
>But they do have that right if they arrest you.
Depends. Search incident to arrest exception with automobile caveats. After Gant, if the arrestee no longer has access, or no reason to believe that evidence of the arrest offense will be found, not ok. (But still maybe ok to impound and inventory.)
Right, but the "probable cause" is technically different -- for a search without arrest, they need probable cause to believe that there is contraband in the car, for arrest they need probable cause to believe you have committed a crime. Given that possession of contraband is itself a crime (though generally one with a mental state requirement), there is quite a lot of overlap between the two kinds of "probable cause", but they aren't equivalent.
I won't repeat dragonwriter, but I wasn't criticizing, just pointing out that your statements aren't absolute rules. They just tend to be the simplest statements of the rules that exist.
Also with arrest, lower standard for if they think evidence will be found. It's the RAS-like "reasonable to believe" that evidence of the crime will be discovered.
ok, that's a little weird. I got a ticket once for cutting through a park after dark. I would never have considered that being arrested, but hurray, today I learned I'm part of the 40%. I have also received a ticket for speeding, which all things considered, was a more serious offense/penalty. It's weird that the speeding ticket is excluded but not the walking ticket.
I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your political preferences.
Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which is the easier route to electoral success.
The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the 50k?
We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence over public policy.
You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we have, not by design but by reality.
You're right, it's a self-reinforcing loop: incumbents win most elections, so they raise the most money, so they run the most effective campaigns, so they win the incumbency.
The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop. Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).
The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear, weakening the feedback loop.
@2 Not really a coherent argument there. Hoarding due to appreciation is balanced by the wealth effect. You can't just assume catastrophic runaway feedback due to upward price trends. That kind of human behavior is unknowable a priori. One could easily argue that an upward price trend will encourage buying, which increases adoption. This creates a feedback loop, which will help establish a transaction volume large enough to give bitcoin enough stability to appeal to the average person.
Why is this person renting or buying an apartment in a building whose management allows their residents to rent their apartments out like hotel rooms? Why can't this function through contracts with disputes being adjudicated through a court system rather than through comparatively blunt statutory regulation? For example, replace "run a hotel with strangers coming and going at all hours" with 'smoke cigarettes' or 'own a pet.'
The answer is, management usually doesn't allow this, and they flaunt the rules anyway. Which is why the guy in the story I posted below is getting evicted. And how many AirBnB types pay taxes on the income either?
My response is, statutory regulation usually doesn't allow this, and they flaunt the rules anyway. I don't see how statutory regulation solves the problem you're arguing it's supposed to. Is your concern that courts do not punish contract violators as harshly as those who violate statutory regulation? Or maybe that allowing different management policies places too great a burden on consumers? Alternatively, I can see why hotels would favor blunt statutory regulation and that anti-competition aspect of it is of concern to me.
How many stay-at-home parents pay taxes on their income? Or would you be ok with AirBnB if payment mostly occurred through barter or a "gift economy?"
I'd be OK with it if the people who wanted to do it got the rules of their building association changed! Usually the residents would vote. Strange how that never seems to happen. The hotel regulation gives people who play by the rules they freely accepted when they move in a tool to use against those who flout them.
Absolutely, it would be awesome if people utilized voluntary collective action rather than coercion or fraud to assert their preferences. But why create a new, coercive tool that carries additional negative consequences instead addressing the inability/inefficiency to deal with the problem through contracts and the courts? What do you think causes the inability/inefficiency? I can't help but get the impression that people think that issues can't be addressed without statutory regulation such that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Illegal Units are covered by rent control. Illegal units, such as in-law apartments, are covered by rent control.
Tenants can only be evicted for one of 15 "just causes." Most of these deal with allegations the tenant can dispute (e.g., tenant is violating the lease) but some are "no-fault" like owner move in or Ellis.
Historically, the largest debtors are governments followed by corporations, the rich, the middle class, and then the poor. You may be thinking of net worth as the poor and middle class are more likely to have negative net worth due to debt than the upper classes. However, this makes inflation even worse for the lower classes as the assets owned by the upper classes which offset their debt are rising in price due to inflation, further benefiting them. As well, the upper classes have greater access to investments that allow them to protect their wealth from inflation unlike the lower classes. In addition, the lower classes tend to have less bargaining power with which to keep their real wages from falling in an inflationary environment.
Inflation most definitely favors the upper classes relative to, if not at the expense of the lower classes.
This is such an asinine argument against loanable funds theory and is equivalent to saying, "Actually, it's the other way around. People drive their cars first. Only then do they worry about the amount of gas they have in their tank." You see the same kind of nonsense from MMTers who use their confused understandings of accounting identities to justify their policies. In addition, the notion that entities that have excessive amounts of wealth, ie they have accumulated capital through successful investments, would be less likely to put their money to good use is silly. It's not capital accumulation that leads to bubbles. Historically, it's been caused by an influx of money not supported by production due to currency debasement, precious metals stolen from the new world flooding into the Holland, various precious metal rushes, excessive printing of paper currency or bank money, or suppression of interest rates.
On the other hand, my sister makes it seem like there are just a lot of bad parents out there. Even the ones that mean well, will often act in a way destructive to their child's education. Many of them are rude and self-righteous. Honestly I no idea what to do about that.