Sheeple

[LockH]

ES Bible "Search found 89 matches: +Sheeple"...

One definition: People unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own.

... watt word might come to mind from recent news reports:

Bottlenecks creating massive delays in major Canadian cities: study:
http://ca.motor1.com/news/133489/bottlenecks-canadian-cities-traffic-study/

Starts:

Jeff Walker, vice-president of Public Affairs for CAA National, says that some bottlenecks can increase commute times by up to 50 percent.

Longer travel times? Check. Increased fuel consumption? Check. Seething anger and a feeling of complete helplessness? Double check. These are just some of the negative byproducts of traffic bottlenecks - something you've likely experienced at some point in time, if not daily - and a new study by the Canadian Automobile Association has identified the 20 worst offenders across Canada.

The study, titled "Grinding to a Halt, Evaluating Canada's Worst Bottlenecks," shows that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver dominate the undesirable list, with Ontario's capital earning five of the top 10 spots, and 10 of the top 20. Montreal figures in five of the top 20, while Vancouver has four. Some of the most notable offenders are actually comparable to the worst roads in North America, not just Canada.

Anyway. Might occur to some that operating ("driving") large, heavy vehicles full of (empty) seats, with lots of (empty) cargo space, designed to operate at speeds much faster than most urban speed limits may not be the "best" way going forward? That the millions of animals injured and killed every day (many human) may not be "ideal"? That more and more places and cities around the world are now moving to actually ban the use of the private vehicles...

But we may have a "problem" with "sheeple"...

One person votes for no more empty seats.

 

[whereswally606]

New word, Wople, antithesis of Sheeple, thrive off the stupidness of Sheeple. Wolf-people.

 

[The fingers]

New word, Wople, antithesis of Sheeple, thrive off the stupidness of Sheeple. Wolf-people.

Sounds like the church today, full of Sheeple led by Wople.

 

[Izits]

Speed and volume data was compiled by mapping data company Here, which is owned by several German car companies, including Audi, BMW, and Daimler.

So a non-profit somehow obtains for-profit data that a company owned by car companies quietly obtains by tracking app users in the hopes the government will start to give a hoot about the roads?
The government simply has no real incentive to make the roads work well or efficiently. If the roads were privatized, problems like these perpetual bottlenecks would vanish because people would have an actual economic incentive to make them vanish.

 

[Chalo]

If the roads were privatized, problems like these perpetual bottlenecks would vanish because people would have an actual economic incentive to make them vanish.

Dream on. Maximum short term, low overhead profit does not equal maximum efficiency. Guess which values private businesses optimize for?

What you're saying in essence is that Walmart's methods would result in the highest quality possible consumer products. The opposite is in fact readily observable. Don't kid yourself that privatized roadways would be different in that regard.

 

[Izits]

What you're saying in essence is that Walmart's methods would result in the highest quality possible consumer products.

I didn't say that at all. Walmart simply provides it's market with what the market demands, low cost goods. But Ferrari does the same thing, I don't know why you didn't cite them as an example as well. The fact is if Walmart had no competition, it could charge 10x as much for it's goods. And that's exactly the problem with government roads is that no one is allowed to compete with them. Even if they were allowed, we're forced at gunpoint to pay for the crappy government roads whether we like them or not.

Support for violent socialism has been destroying western civilization for decades. Everywhere socialism goes, misery, starvation and economic collapse follows.

 

[1JohnFoster]

The fact is if Walmart had no competition, it could charge 10x as much for it's goods. And that's exactly the problem with government roads is that no one is allowed to compete with them.

The fact is Walmart has no competition. It's eaten all it's competition but still charges 1/10th as much for it's bads. It's appetite to keep on eating is one and the same as the soul-less hunger of the Sheeple. Monopolies are just as natural as competition, and are the result of it. Capitalism creates monopolies just as handily as socialism. Infrastructure is really hard to create and operate without sharing and co-operating... which is the definition of socialism... Monopolies created by capitalism dress differently from those created by socialism, but both are naturally corpulent.

...we're forced at gunpoint to pay for the crappy government roads whether we like them or not. Support for violent socialism has been destroying western civilization for decades. Everywhere socialism goes, misery, starvation and economic collapse follows.

Have you personally or anyone you know ever literally had a gun pointed to their head to pay taxes? Out of respect to people to have that happen all the time (in other countries as well as ghettos in our worlds) please have some gratitude that you live in such relative safety.

All governments are a blend of socialism and capitalism. All maintain rule by a blend of benevolent coercion and violence. The only correlation of violence to either socialism or capitalism is to the rate of change between the two. _Benevolent_ socialism or capitalism evolves more slowly.

 

[1JohnFoster]

...Might occur to some that operating ("driving") large, heavy vehicles full of (empty) seats ... may not be the "best" way going forward? ...

Well good on you for still putting it out there LockH ... I try jeering the herd now and then a bit too. So now far away cities are *considering* banning cars because of their very recent exponential smog clouds. Would that really veer the obediently clean TO herd off the direction its been baaaaaaahing in for 60 odd years?

The problem with labeling people as sheep is we really hate it! It makes us say "Screw you, I'm going out to buy something really BIG, something really FAST, and show you!" Another problem is that when we're on transit, we really do feel (and look) like sheep. We don't like that either. And personally, my fluffy little tum-tum gets sick from the vibration and the swaying. And I don't like freezing my hooves for _hours_. Frequency of service and better technology; simple problems of critical mass that has failed to grow over the last 60 years. Not enough votes, not enough mass; either our democracy is biting us in our socialism or the other way around. Either way I'm sick of it.

So what I want is a capitalist solution to transit. I'd happily pay what I can for a super smooth quiet ride in a comfy seat with a built-in coffee maker. Express lanes everywhere and 10x the frequency of current service. Then us Smart Sheep(TM) would be whipping past the frustrations of the look-at-me SUV sitters. I'd vote for that!

Are you hoping the herd will transform into ebikers?

 

[Izits]

The fact is Walmart has no competition.

Your "facts" are clearly in error. Target, K-mart, Albertsons, Ross, H&M, Kohl, NAPA. There are literally thousands of businesses that directly compete with Walmart. You think no one but Walmart sells pants?

Capitalism creates monopolies just as handily as socialism.

This is completely false, to the point of comicality. Genuinely free markets almost never have monopolies. On the very rare occasions in history when one managed to form, they are either not harmful or weak and fragile and usually broken by a single person.

Contrast that with socialism which by it's very definition creates strong monopolies enforced by government guns. Monopolies are created for everything and no competition is allowed. Competition goes to jail. There is NO comparison on this, you might as well be claiming all humans have green blood.

Have you personally or anyone you know ever literally had a gun pointed to their head to pay taxes?

You just try not paying your taxes in any form and see how many guns show up at your door. All government taxation is collected on threat of death. This is a stark reality that statists like for people not to realize.

 

[Chalo]

Road systems are inherently monopolistic, or at best socialist, if they are to work. You can't have functional, separate but somehow colocated roads serving the same areas. Whoever gets first dibs on street and highway layout wins. That might as well be the public, no?

Izits, You conveniently ignore the fact that our worst and most abusive monopolies weren't public, but commercial. Railroads, telephone, cable television, etc.-- they have been synonymous with poor service and systematic abuse of their customers for profit. Where I live, the power utility is owned by the city but the gas utility is private. Guess which one is easier and fairer to deal with, and way more cost-effective?

When greed is the guiding principle, everything fails to live up to its promise, turns sick, blows bubbles and then bursts. Capitalism is greed-based. If you embrace its strengths, you should do us all a favor and acknowledge its weaknesses.

We have a system now where if you have nothing, you don't pay for the right to use the right-of-way. For all the faults of that system, for all its deranged emphasis on personal car travel, it has virtues that a privately owned system would not. Nobody, no matter how poor, is trapped without access to movement. If the roads were owned and administered by Bechtel or Halliburton, do you think that would still be the case? Do you think that the average person would pay less for the use of roads? The very idea is insane.

 

[Izits]

Izits, You conveniently ignore the fact that our worst and most abusive monopolies weren't public, but commercial. Railroads, telephone, cable television, etc.-- they have been synonymous with poor service and systematic abuse of their customers for profit.

This is absolutely untrue, not even close. Throughout American history there have been only a handful of genuine near-monopolies. To name one famous one, there was the German Bromkonvention monopoly on bromine. This was a harmful and thereby fragile monopoly. You have no idea how very difficult it is to establish or maintain a monopoly in a free market. This is because in a free market competition is pervasive and relentless. In this case the monopoly was broken by a single man, Herbert Dow. It's actually a funny story, you should read about it sometime.

What you're thinking of are monopolies that are not born of a free market but of government meddling. This is how it always happens. A free market works well and serves everyone. Then the government sticks it's fingers in there and sets up barriers to entry, market protections and partial monopolies. Costs go up and service goes down. Then people like you come along and yell "See, the free market doesn't work!".

You're only saying these things not because you've studied the case histories of monopolies, but because the public schools and media have programmed you to demonize liberty and freedom so you'll think you need the government to run everything. Your constant support for more and more government are exactly why electric bicycles are being confiscated in New York.

Where I live, the power utility is owned by the city but the gas utility is private. Guess which one is easier and fairer to deal with, and way more cost-effective?

You can be absolutely certain that if your gas company provides poor service and you have no alternatives, it's because it is NOT a free market, but a government protection racket. Ask yourself, would you be legally allowed to start a competing gas company and sell gas to the people getting bad service? Of course not. You'll find out that the city has to "designate" which companies are permitted to sell gas. Sure, they're privately owned, but they enjoy government market protection and so they have little or no competition and thus little or no incentive to provide low prices or good service.

When greed is the guiding principle, everything fails to live up to its promise, turns sick, blows bubbles and then bursts. Capitalism is greed-based.

This is standard fake-news mush of leftist media and public schools. Totally untrue. These people are just using you to push the agenda of globalism. There is nothing wrong with greed, it's just a natural desire to better one's station and lot in life. It is in no way incompatible with compassion or morality or selective generosity. But here's the thing. Socialism channels greed into corruption. In other words, the only way to exercise greed or get ahead under socialism is to be corrupt. In a free market however, greed is channeled into serving the needs of others. In a free market, the only way to make money is to serve the needs of other people.

If the roads were owned and administered by Bechtel or Halliburton...

"Halliburton" couldn't operate in a free market if their lives depended on it. You're talking about a so-called company that only functions hand-in-hand with government favoritism and protectionism. Halliburton is your company, not mine.

The case of road networks is no different from any other market. Being a government monopoly with no competition means it has zero incentive to do a good job. If the roads are unsafe or have perpetual bottlenecks, they don't get fired, they don't take a pay cut. Their income stream is collected at the point of a gun, it is not results dependent. Why work harder?
Privatized roads will offer any service or feature that the people demand and is economically feasible to provide. Because doing that makes the most money. Their greed is satiated only by cutting costs and improving service. No government system on earth can match that power.

 

[Chalo]

What you're thinking of are monopolies that are not born of a free market but of government meddling. This is how it always happens. A free market works well and serves everyone. Then the government sticks it's fingers in there and sets up barriers to entry, market protections and partial monopolies.

Why do they do these things? Because capitalists demand it. It's not a malfunction of capitalism; it's an intrinsic feature of it. That's what libertarians refuse to acknowledge. They're so enthralled by their half-baked economic theory that they refuse to observe that the world never actually behaves as they say it should.

Greed never recognizes any principle except "more". Everything else-- common decency, the rule of law, even the mythical free and fair exchange you seem to think exists on more than a case-by-case basis-- is subordinated to and destroyed by greed's relentless demand to take more and give less. The only single thing we have to stand in its way is our collective effort to resist it. Emphasis on collective.

Are you in your twenties? Teens? Because it sounds like you haven't done very much participating in the real world.

Tell me this. How can a free and fair market exist in a world where some people are allowed to literally invent money and others are not? Because that's the capitalist system you've got, unless you think we can run a modern economy by barter.

 

[Izits]

What you're thinking of are monopolies that are not born of a free market but of government meddling. ... government sticks it's fingers in there and sets up barriers to entry, market protections and partial monopolies.

Why do they do these things? ...

This is actually a good question. You just have the wrong answer. You're asserting that for business to leverage government economic power is somehow an intrinsic property of a free market. This is not only totally and utterly backward, but logically impossible. A free market does not require or even permit government to have economic meddling power. This lack of government power means there is nothing to be corruptly purchased in a free market.

What really happens is that socialists come in and call for the government to meddle and assert power over the market. This is no longer a free market, it is a partially socialized market. Corporations then leverage this power to reduce their competition and then prices can go up. But it all starts with the government power you keep calling for more of.

So we can clearly see that your call for more government power and regulation is exactly what permits and causes the specific ills like monopolies that everyone suffers from.

Greed never recognizes any principle except "more". Everything else-- common decency, the rule of law, even the mythical free and fair exchange you seem to think exists on more than a case-by-case basis-- is subordinated to and destroyed by greed's relentless demand to take more and give less.

You have to understand that all these complaints about greed are only relevant to socialism. Yes, under socialism greed causes problems and corruption. However in a free market greed has only positive effects. It is what drives people to work harder to make more money. And as I said, in a free market the only way to make money is to meet the needs of other people. So greed causes people to go around looking for any possible opportunity to meet some unmet need and turn a profit by fulfilling that need. The result is a thriving economy and a high standard of living where every need that can be fulfilled, is fulfilled.

"Collectivism" is just a tool for the subjugation of liberty and the focusing of power in the hands of the elites.

Tell me this. How can a free and fair market exist in a world where some people are allowed to literally invent money and others are not? Because that's the capitalist system you've got, unless you think we can run a modern economy by barter.

The ability to print money out of thin air occurred when president Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. He put us on unbacked fiat money so the banks and your Federal Reserve can play games and have their way with us.

The problem of fiat money isn't really related to whether you use a free market or a centrally planned market. It's just another bad thing that happens when governments get too much power. To answer your question, one way you could have a market without those problems is to go back to a gold standard. That's why cultures and strong economies throughout history have used gold and silver coins as currency.


My turn for a question. If socialism is so wonderful and good for everyone, why does it always have to be imposed on people at gunpoint? Why is it never offered as an optional system for people to join? "Mail us your paycheck every week, and we'll deliver to you the amount of money we think you deserve"

 

[Chalo]

OK, you go live in Somalia or some lawless mafia (you know, "unregulated free market") land, but leave the rest of us to do the best we can with limits on how far we'll let greed beat us down. We need a lot more checks on the rich, not fewer.

Personally, I think Denmark or Netherlands looks like a much better example of progress than Somalia.

 

[Izits]

I notice you weren't able to attempt an answer to my question. The answer is, socialism has to be violently forced on people because otherwise the only people who would sign up are the ones who want a free handout. The people willing to work for a living would all choose a free market. People intrinsically know that socialism is untenable and will avoid it if they are given a choice.

OK, you go live in Somalia or some lawless mafia (you know, "unregulated free market") land, ...

Somalia is not able to maintain a civilized society largely because the average IQ there is about 68. It has nothing at all to do with government regulation or market systems. It's been established that an average IQ of about 100 is required to naturally develop a society with the properties that make it civilized; rule of law, separation of church and state, equal treatment of genders, etc.

... limits on how far we'll let greed beat us down. We need a lot more checks on the rich, not fewer.

This is just standard propaganda that television and public schools are dishing out. Greed doesn't "beat us down", that's just a victim mentality to support globalism. The desire to better one's surroundings is what drives people to work harder and invent things. Otherwise we'd all still be living in caves and foraging for berries.

Personally, I think Denmark or Netherlands looks like a much better example of progress than Somalia.

I'm sure you'll be surprised by this quote. This is Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen:
I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

Denmark, despite higher taxes, has more economic freedom than the United States. If you'll look more closely at the Scandinavian countries, you'll see that every time they embrace more socialism, they decline and every time they swing more toward free markets, they prosper. Indeed this pattern is true for any country in the history of the world that you care to look at.

Name me one country in all of history that collapsed from using too much free market?

Yeah, none. It's ridiculous. Every collapsed country in the history of the world that wasn't invaded, died from using socialism. Look at Venezuela, Czechoslovakia, Sweden is being literally destroyed right now by your leftist friends. The United Nations has said that Sweden will be a third world country in 15 years if nothing changes.

All of history and simple logic is clear, socialism is a complete failure every single time. The free market is the true engine of prosperity and liberty. This is why privatized roads would beat the living daylights out of a government run system.

 

[Chalo]

So you agree with me that high progressive taxation and serious regulation of business beats the alternatives?

How about you name a country with an unregulated free market unencumbered by government regulation, other than some miserable failed state? Heck, name one from any time in history. Go for it.

If you can't do it, then please admit that your pet economic theory is the equivalent of cold fusion or perpetual motion. Nice in principle, but....

P.S. - You didn't tell us how soon you're going to graduate from high school, son.

 

[Izits]

So you agree with me that high progressive taxation and serious regulation of business beats the alternatives?

No idea what you're getting at here.

How about you name a country with an unregulated free market unencumbered by government regulation, other than some miserable failed state? Heck, name one from any time in history. Go for it.

I know, it's easier to ask for an example than to cite them, like I've been doing all along. While there are no examples of pure free markets, there are several examples of mostly free markets that show how well it performs. Hong Kong is of course at the top of the charts for economic freedom. That's why it's the eleventh largest trading entity and one of the leading financial trading centers. Chile is another good modern example. A few decades ago Venezuela and Chile went opposite directions. Venezuela embraced socialism and Chile went more free market. Right now they're eating cats and dogs in Venezuela while Chile is prospering.

So why are there are no examples of pure free markets? Because the incredible prosperity and wealth it generates attracts everyone on the planet. So the socialists come in and start insisting there's plenty of wealth to have some forced welfare programs and everything starts slowing down. Socialism is like a handbrake that brings all great things down to the level of common mediocrity.

P.S. - You didn't tell us how soon you're going to graduate from high school, son.

There's no need for insults.

I was hoping we were having an intellectual conversation. I think I've shown through extensive real-world examples and logical arguments why all socialism is bad and by extension why privatized roads can be nothing but a good thing. But I'm getting very little back from you in the way of data or logic arguments. Do you have have fact-based or logical arguments to present? Anything other than personal attacks?

 

[Chalo]

There's no disgrace in being young. I'm trying to give you a valid excuse for being naïve and ignorant, and for promoting an attractive but very mistaken ideology.

This is a forum that is at its root about engineering, and you've traipsed in with a fixation about a clever machine that will never be made, because it doesn't work.

 

[Dauntless]

There's no need for insults. . . . Do you have have fact-based or logical arguments to present? Anything other than personal attacks?

There is a great need in that one. With some it is a religion that faith in insults can simulate a leg to stand on.

There are many whom I might try to prove that the sun does indeed rise in the east and set in the west. But they would argue I have a flawed compass. And insist they have won a great argument. Such a man you seek to have offer fact based logical arguments instead of personal attacks. While I realize your motives are good, I---er, ummm, I need a way to say this other than that your compass is flawed. . . .

 

[Chalo]

Izits,

You still haven't told us if you're in your teens or twenties, as I have guessed based on your presumptions.

 

[LockH]

How about you name a country with an unregulated free market unencumbered by government regulation, other than some miserable failed state? Heck, name one from any time in history. Go for it.

I vote for Port Royal, Jamaica (before the earthquake in 1692).

 

[Dauntless]

I vote for Port Royal, Jamaica (before the earthquake in 1692).

Or any resort environment. I can hear the commercials: 'AAAAHHHHHH, Freeeeeee Maaarkeeeet!'

 

[Izits]

Getting back to bottlenecks, I keep reading how autonomous cars are going to solve the public road traffic problems:

https://ca.motor1.com/news/97447/autonomous-cars-make-traffic-obselete/

Generally speaking, to prevent this phenomenon, our goal as drivers is to stay the same distance from the car ahead as from the car behind at all times

Seems like a ridiculous driving strategy to me.


https://futurism.com/expert-self-driving-cars-will-eliminate-traffic-jams-by-2030/

City governments also tend to budget year-by-year, so they need to find more creative ways of unlocking the necessary investment in new infrastructure.

Force people at gunpoint to accept autonomous cars, great idea.


On the other hand the vehicle enthusiasts loathe the idea of self driving cars:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-01/it-wont-be-jetsons

the people dictating programming policy will almost certainly be “moms” and others of the female persuasion

Don't know of many moms that program computers.

What do people think? Do you want your car/bike/bicycle to drive you or the other way around?

 

[Chalo]

I want people to be prohibited from driving dangerous machinery in the presence of other non-consenting people. I don't have to trust automated driving systems completely to trust them to be better than human drivers 100% of the time. I believe they're already to that point.

Driving your own car on a public street should get the same treatment as shooting a firearm on a public street. Take it to a closed circuit track if you gotta do that. Human environments are for humans, not murder vehicles.

 

[Ianhill]

I want people to be prohibited from driving dangerous machinery in the presence of other non-consenting people. I don't have to trust automated driving systems completely to trust them to be better than human drivers 100% of the time. I believe they're already to that point.

Driving your own car on a public street should get the same treatment as shooting a firearm on a public street. Take it to a closed circuit track if you gotta do that. Human environments are for humans, not murder vehicles.

I not being argumentuve but i believe your wrong a car is a mode of transport not a weapon, I've drove 100,000 miles and never had an accident or injured anyone, I have been presented with loads of dangers and managed to avoid them all.

The problem we have is humans are not equal so what I can do doesn't mean that others are capable of, A machine or part fails if it's not to spec and gets rejected, Humans keep trying they test till luck is in their side and they pass.

Ai cars still have weather issues with heavy rain, hailstones, snow and fog can all play with the systems perception just like our own 2020 will be the first gen in UK, , the Ai car never gets road rage or experiences stress and fatigue so there's ups and downs no doubt it can beat me in some ways but I can beat the computer by not needing a software update to deal with an unincountered condition plus I feel the road and build a picture to avoid the bumps the next time I know the Ai cars has more sensors at faster inputs with more overall data but the data I have is more rich. I can feel touch hear and smell the road ahead and percive dangourous situations well ahead of any Ai.

But the are idiots out there that have no perception of risk assessment and crash cars weekly and they make the road what they are lethal, I have noticed the UK is now allowing mentally disabled people to drive I think this is dangourous it's on BBC and the guy is to impatient he drive through a red light and cut others up at a junction but still passed this is outrageous I never wish to pass this person in a parking space let alone on a motorway, this is where Ai cars make massive sence it can out drive them no problem.

I get travel sickness so if I don't drive I'm stuffed but I can feel the way the tide is dragging me and that's to the passenger seat but I don't like it.