- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Every domestic a police officer is called to has the potential for extreme violence. Even in countries where gun laws are extremely strict (e.g. Australia) there is still the potential for a cop to be unlucky enough to be faced with a firearm when he knocks on someone's door. Police need the ability to face lethal force with lethal force. Taking a stick to a gun fight is a surefire way to end up lying on the floor in a bloody mess. Give the cops guns. Tightly regulate their usage, but make sure they've got them.
There are very few shows that are specifically "children's shows". Even shows that are aimed at toddlers are still written by adults. The person who is writing it, the actors who are performing, all the support staff involved in the filming and editing, each have their own input which places adult overtones into "children's shows". An adult may walk away with an entirely different message from a show than a child.
The use of uniforms, whether it be for work, school, or any other thing:
1 Allows for easy brand recognition (a huge plus for the parent organisation),
2 Lowers the wear and tear on non-uniform clothing,
3 Is often more affordable than non-uniform clothing (in some cases the cost may be totally defrayed by the parent organisation),
4 Allows colleagues to easily identify each other (this is especially important in sports)
5 Removes any external indication of social status (especially important in schools, where indications of low socio-economic status can lead to bullying).
Government is not a new thing. In fact, it predates the concepts that form the basis of modern science. Government appears in every culture in one form or another and is probably a natural extension of human social structure.
You need to support your claim that government can't run without technology.
So when the Pedge of Allegiance makes specific use of the term "God" in the singular, does this not endorse monotheistic belief over polytheistic belief? Or over non-theistic belief (and yes, some religions are founded upon non-theism)? This seems to me to clearly be the government endorsing one type of belief over another.
The difference between certification and licensing in Australia is that licensing is government controlled, certification is private and simply states the bearer of the certification to be competent. There's no actual legal requirement for certification, therefore people can cut their own hair at home with no legal ramifications, however if a trade requires licensing, it is illegal to perform that activity without the license. A person without an electrician's license cannot fix their own electrical fittings, for example. This is because of the potential for harm due to gross negligence.
Your post of Milton Friedman was interesting, however, the point made by the person about picking a physician at random was a valid one. I don't check a doctor's credentials. When I move to a new area, I pick the closest dotor to my house. This is much the same as a random choice. I don't NEED to check a doctor's credentials (especially not in the wake of Jayant Patel), because of the licensing involved.
This is a difficult subject, because I have differing views on this when considering the wealth of the country considering privatisation. Wealthy nations don't need privatisation, and generally already have the required infrastructure. I'm only in favour of privatisation if it benefits the population.
There are many third world countries which can benefit greatly from privatised water. When the infrastructure is lacking and the government is unable or unwilling to provide such services, privatisation of water can lead to a much greater quality of life and significantly lower infant mortality rates.
However, we must remain concious of some problems that can arise, e.g. as happened in Bolivia where even rain was considered to be owned by Aguas del Tunari. Added to that were the facts that the officials for the company were ignorant of Bolivian society and economics, so set prices which were higher than the average monthly cost of food, and that the consortium manager, in his ignorance of the complete picture, mandated that non-compliance of bill payment would result in the cessation of water supplies to the residence of the payee. This, quite naturally, led to massive amounts of protests, forcing the Bolivian Government into a state of emergency. The contract with Aguas del Tunari was revoked.
It's slippery ground, and companies must realise they can stand to lose a lot of money if they seek short term gain rather than working for long term profits. Governments seeking to privatise water supplies should make sure there is appropriate legislation in place to ensure that corporations don't overstep the mark.
I've seen Up, District 9 and Inglourious Basterds. All three are widely different stories. Out of the three, District 9 IMO would have a better chance than the other two. The graphics are seamless, the method of presenting the story was interesting, and it was very much a tale of segregation, though the setting was somewhat obvious.