You are not logged in.
It came from FDR's many terms in office. They did not want a monarchy-like presidency. That's when the law was passed. 1947 (ratified in the 50s). I think it is interpreted as consecutive terms, however.
How? Last I checked, it's two consecutive terms. I'd like to see that amendment. As far as I know, after an interrupting term, Clinton could very well run again.
I believe Clinton can run again. In fact, I believe Dick Gephradt had said this last night. Boy, he would make a good president. I believe he's running, too.
Okay soph... tell that to third world countries whose wealth went from being their own to someone elses overnight with the advent of globalization. Oh, and centralization of power weren't socialistic by Orwell's personal definition, which was the point of his books.
Like Ghana? No wait, they are thriving now in a capitalist system. Or China? No....see above. Or Russia, now emerging from a rough transition? No, they are moving on up.
Yes, there are third world countries where capitalism doesn't work, but that isn't the fault of the system, it is the result of repressive regimes that twist the system to serve the government. This is not capitalism, in any reasonable sense.
Bank of Mars? Why only one bank? Private enterprise allows many competing banks, as long as there is demand.
A branch on Mars could be affiliated with an Earth bank chain, which can backup transactions. Really, there's no reason to believe it can't or won't be done.
It's like putting cash in the bank. Lost or stolen? They cancel the payment-nothing is lost. The same way a check can be voided, stop payment.
Then why do a good 1% of all people in the world own most of the resources? You call that decentralization?
In America, in regulated capitalism, it is far less polarized. Kinda funny-in socialist economies, it's far more polarized.
No, what I meant by decentralization is that there is no one concentration of resources. Money is spread around the world, and most money does not exist.
As I said, you haven't demolished anything. You made a one sentence attempt at a rebuttal, which really didn't address the issue, and in no way debunked the fact that capitalism, especially regulated capitalism allows everybody the opportunity for social mobility.
And you really haven't done much at all to poke holes in my position. When I make a point, you just try to throw out Proudhon comments and revert to laissez-faire capitalism.
I was thinking me might be able to "spark" the reaction from an offboard source ("plug it in" to an orbital reactor), and keep the ship fission-free.
It is decentralized.
Josh, arguing with you is pointless. You assume that you demolish any point you comment on.
When you're done tooting your own horn, I'll be ready to discuss this again. You haven't demolished anything, just thrown some Proudhon ideas into the conversation.
Josh, there will always be a market for both. And I think RLV costs could be brought down tremendously.
The SE will take days to get to orbit, for people, a launch vehicle is far more desireable.
You missed the point of my post. Most "money" is really just electronic numbers. The cash we see is the tip of the iceberg.
We know it can, it's just a matter of attaining it. You probably wouldn't need a fission reactor, but it would probably be beneficial.
If a fusion reactor is sufficiently efficient, it could power itself, the engine, and the ship (as an NTR can do).
A fusion reactor without fission gives the benefit of less radiation and waste. But waste is less of an issue, we can always eject it with the exhaust.
Josh-how much of Bill Gates's net worth will he ever actually see in cash? How much of the entire value of the world's economy will we ever see in cash? If everybody in the world (and probably just about every country) tried to cash in their net worth, the world would go into chaos.
That's my graduation year. Maybe I could show up and talk a little about my views. I'm planning on going into Astronautics.
Debit is good. It allows an easy means of carrying money, without nasty credit spending. It's easy to recover stolen money, too-just call your card company.
I think that eventually, especially with the development of multiplanetary economies, we'll see electronic money transfer become more prevalent, and perhaps even the norm.
Chemical rockets: H2 + O2 can't be beat to reach LEO, and they're chemical.
Okay-NERVA-1000 seconds isp, chemical, 450. Yup, chemical can't be beat.
And yes, nuclear Earth->orbit. Maybe not orion, but NTRs are viable, if the political climate continues to change as it has been towards nuclear power.
Or maybe e-money. That's what half of the money is nowadays anyway.
Yes, the right stuff meaning, ?Being born to a rich household.? Don't be delusional here, not ?everyone? is potentially rich. Not even close. We've been over this before.
Martha Stewart was born poor. Bill Gates was middle class. Come on Josh, this is pretty damn silly. It helps to be born rich, but this doesn't preclude social mobility.
Show me one case of laissez-faire capitalism successfully existing in the world where this is not the case.
France in the early 1800s. Now show me one where it is the case.
Um, no it's not. You're twisting contexts. We're not restricting property a little, we're basically arbitrarily denying the right whenever we chose fit. I can ?sometimes? do what I want with peoperty. I can own a house and do what I want in that house, but I can't own a hundred houses and make all of my tenants do what I want. What good is a property right if it's defined by society arbitrarily whenever it saw fit? I'd rather have a consistant philosophical definition like possessions than a random ?idea? which is as consistent as the latest property law.
Marx said it best when he connected society to economy. If society and economy are not in sync, neither can work. Society changes, and the economy changes with it, or vice versa.
The argument is that if property wasn't robbery, basic usage of it, using general laissez-faire concepts, shouldn't be ?unfair.? It shouldn't be ?unfair? of me to appropriate until my head exploded!
If you want to tunnel down to a single concept of capitalism, your argument is pretty damn weak. If the solution to this issue negates your argument, then it isn't valid, no matter what borders you try to put around the concept. Property existed long before the idea of laissez-faire capitalism (indeed, capitalism existed before the ideas of capitalism were written). They are not one and the same.
Is that your random comment of the day?
No, I was just preempting the inevitable, "minority" approach.
No. Laissez-faire capitalism never led to a signle, all-encompassing monopoly. Sorry.
If property is not robbery, why is it that I must be restricted how I can use it?
That's like saying that humans are robbery, because there are laws regulating your behavior. Property in the wrong hands can be used for the detriment of society, but this does not make it inherently robbery. Money is not racist-people are. Everybody can access as much money as the next person, if they are in a suitable environment, and have "the right stuff."
And so did 1441, and the Gulf War.
Property is not robbery. Property is an earned good.
Talent is intelligence, aptitude for a certain profession, physical strength, and so on. Talent inequity is a real element, caused by nobody but nature.
Maybe he just doesn't want to throw money at NK to resolve a treaty violation, an international treaty.
And if social mobilitiy allows anybody with the talent, motivation, etc. to reach a higher class, then this fairness does exist.
but fusion is much faster. Thinking on it-fission powered fusion engines sound great-power for the ship, water propellant for sheidling, and fast speeds. Huge mass ratios too.