andrel wrote:
> There is a risk associated with cash. I think there is a tendency here 
> to pass regulation that minimizes the cost for the shop owner.

There's a risk to the shop keeper in accepting cash?

>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
>> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>
>>     I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have 
>> probably been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.
> 
> I am still in the dark what kind of abuse you are talking about.

Really!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

That's one of *many* abuses.

> No, what I think is that for at least the level of senator, but probably 
> even some levels below that, the big companies decide who you can vote for.

They unfortunately also determine how that politician votes, regardless of 
what they promised.

> Why don't you try the BBC model? Oh yes, because someone will pay the 
> senators to prevent that.

We have that. It's called "PBS". The problem is people hear we're in debt 
and taxes are too high, and they cut the funding for stuff like that. Even 
tho it's 0.01% of the funding for something completely unnecessary that the 
politicians want.

> There is no way that any John Doe could figure that out for 
> himself. 

I was amused at some of the stories here where the mortgage brokers and real 
estate agents get loans and later complain they didn't know they were 
adjustable. Come now, if you don't, who would?

> I am convinced our system will cost less on average than yours.

I have no doubt. Indeed, it's almost tautological, since the government is 
the source of money and thus doesn't need a profit.

>>     Well, either way is democratic, if the people supported it. Not 
>> sure what your point is.
> 
> It was an answer to Darren. Why I can not live everywhere that I want to 
> and why I think that is OK.

Yes. I just misunderstood how the rules were set and decided. If there's a 
democratic law about having to fulfill certain conditions, it seems quite 
reasonable. The idea that there's someone deciding on a case-by-case basis 
whether you, yes you, get to live in this particular city... that would be 
something else.

>>     Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be 
>> viewed as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, 
>> religion, etc). Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that already.
> 
> What makes you think we don't have such a history?

Dunno. Did you ever have a civil war over whether to get rid of slavery or 
not? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message