After using minidisk I was sure that LS120 would succeed. The formats of cartridged optical disks mostly removed the annoyance of scratched disks. Now the only place I see optical disks in a cartridge is at the library where they put some CDs in a cartridge to use in a special drive.
They would need quite the bankroll. The most powerful congressional committees are pay to play and lobbyists usually foot the bill to get their guy on a committee.
I don't think that price fixing by government should be allowed in any situation. Reducing barriers to entry and a tough stance on monopolies has the result of lowering prices without distorting the market with an artificial set price.
> I don't think that price fixing by government should be allowed in any situation
You're confusing fixing with negotiating.
The govt provides healthcare. They pay for the meds. Are you saying the government shouldn't be allowed to negotiate what it pays for it's own insurance????
I was responding to a comment that said "regulating insulin prices". Regulating and negotiating are not the same. Regulation is the government using its power to dictate the price a seller is allowed to sell a product for (price fixing). Negotiation means the pharmaceutical company can just say no if the government offers a price that is too low.
Or maybe you are thinking that government force is "negotiating". Something along the lines of give us this price or we make it illegal for you to do "x". Or, alternatively, we will allow you to do "x" if you give us this price. While that is technically negotiating it is malignant government behavior known as coercion.
There is a ridiculous perception that privately run high occupancy housing is abusive. I don't understand that at all. They are running a business that is compassionate enough to offer, at the bare minimum, shelter from the elements. If there is competition in that market, as there used to be, then the bad actors go out of business.
Like many things I think the answer is less regulation to prevent possible bad things from happening. Accept that bad things might happen and punish the people that do bad things.
I agree, this kind of renting needs to be allowed. If I rent a bed to somebody for 10 bucks a night in my home nobody is harmed and somebody had a warm place to sleep.
>If I rent a bed to somebody for 10 bucks a night in my home nobody is harmed and somebody had a warm place to sleep.
Disagree, you can have impact on your neighbors. We had SFH doing that near me, they had 9 people in 4 BDRM SFH. That was 9 cars so all street parking was occupied. Trash Company sent notice to our HOA wanting price increase since they were generating a ton of trash (some of it commercial I believe) It was much noisier than average home since they would do more outside bringing noise like listening to music inside, outside with noise problems that develop.
County finally shut it down and most of neighbors were thrilled.
There is a reason for zoning laws and it's not 100% NIMBY but yes, your actions can have impact on your neighbors.
What different worlds we live in. If I had a problem with my neighbors making too much noise during "quite hours" I would go talk to them. But, my neighbors are only blasting music for occasional personal parties, 4th of July and New Years. Everybody likes to celebrate, I'm not going to begrudge them for having some fun.
On the trash I'm a bit confused. The HOA should have paid more if the neighborhood was generating more trash than the trash company had negotiated to take away. If everybody didn't like this house why didn't the HOA make rules to restrict it. Isn't that the point of an HOA?
The compromise should be on the content of the bill specific to the subject. It is not a compromise to allow a rider that funnels money to some pet project. That is buying votes.
Oftentimes there can be no compromise on the specific subject. So the bill is either DOA or just immediately passed without any debate.
Allowing several issues to be passed as a singular unit provides opportunity for an agreement to be made about several issues at once. Think of it like a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Single subject bill amendment. Several states require single subject bills in State legislature. The same must be required at the federal level. The pushback has always been "then nothing will get done". From where I am standing that would be a good thing. No more sneaking shit in at the last minute. Vote on every single issue. People will still try to sneak stuff in. I remember seeing a video of a Minnesota legislator admonishing his colleges for trying to do omnibus bills after they passed a single subject amendment.
To get such an amendment passed it would have to come from the States. Nobody that is already in congress is going to vote for this. It is a huge restriction on their power to spend our money.
Here is Alaska's single bill requirement:
The Alaska Constitution Art II, Section 13. Form of Bills reads:
Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or
one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws. Bills for appropriations
shall be confined to appropriations. The subject of each bill shall be
expressed in the title. The enacting clause shall be: “Be it enacted by the
Legislature of the State of Alaska.”
Hmm, I've never heard of this. My initial gut reaction is that this sounds good but the definition of 'single subject' is dubious. With enough leeway and creativity, anything can be a single subject.
Frankly, there are a ton of laws that seem dubious and underspecified to a person with an engineering mindset. This is by design, and it is the reason we have so many judges - because writing laws that clearly specify how they apply to every possible situation is often impossible. The law tries to make its intent clear, tries to lay out reasonably specific outlines, but necessarily must rely on the interpretation of those who judge the application of laws to cases.
Alaska is effectively a one-party state. At the federal level, you almost always need compromise to clear a filibuster, and it's easier to find compromise if you can draw on more subjects. Maybe the Democrats get cheaper health care while the Republicans get a giant bust of Trump installed on the former site of the Lincoln memorial. Neither measure would pass in isolation, but together they might.
So they could agree to pass two bills. This would require the two "sides" to trust each other, but it could (ideally would) also function to build trust, which would be a good thing.
Assuming there was enough trust to "guarantee" that one bill would pass right after the other, then what's the point of having the single subject rule in the first place? Sounds like you still have riders but with extra steps (and an opportunity to betray trust).
Because it becomes harder to "hide" things - like, the provisions being bargained for, or politicians' actual convictions about particular measures. There are items which now get passed in omnibus bills, bargained for behind closed doors by leadership, which couldn't (whip votes as ye may) be passed in up-or-down votes on their own merits. Those are, in my opinion, corrupt bargains, and shouldn't happen. I like legislative horse-trading - it's an important part of the democratic process - but I'd like it to be open and above board.
You say that like everybody that is in one party agrees on everything. That is absolutely false.
It is also an inaccurate portrayal of Alaska state politics. While historically the State Legislature has been majority republican it has been more even since 2015ish. Which is coincidentally when weed was made legal.
Of course you don't have to agree on everything, but the whole point of joining a party is to coordinate action to maximize power. Whether you agree with the party policies doesn't matter if you vote for them anyway to gain political currency with your party that you can hopefully spend later on your own priorities.
That said, I guess the Alaska legislature is a lot more balanced than I assumed. If the single subject rule works there, bravo. Congress is a different beast, though.
The biggest benefit of single subject bills is that it is infinitely easier for citizens to understand what is being passed and hold legislators to account on the next election if necessary.
It makes things like the Patriot Act and Inflation Reduction Act impossible.
reply