MarcusVorenus

Perhaps people over 30 just prefer quality over quantity in personal relationships.

The article says it will replace some other benefits that Finns currently have. If the project works then I assume other welfare programs will be folded into the basic income over time.

Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

I think it's fascinating how hostile some people can get towards Soylent. It's like they think the mere existence of it is an attack to the core of their identity. I wonder if it's just insecurity triggered by people liking something that they don't like or some other type of psychological defense mechanism.

> A system that allows insider trading discourages participation by amateurs

Not really, amateurs mostly make long term investments, they are not buying and selling based on quarterly reports. The only ones who would be affected by legal insider trading are the gamblers.

>Protectionism is how every nation on the planet developed

You must be joking. Countries with open markets develop way faster than protectionist countries. If mercantilism is so good then why are the Asian Tigers doing so well and communist countries doing so bad?

Common sense.

They can be professional all they like but if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Motivation is just not something that you can command at will.

Cultural fit can definitely impact performance. Imagine a luddite working for a biotechnology company, or an anarchist working for the government, or a muslim working for an atheist non-profit. These people would never find the motivation to perform better than the absolute minimum required to keep their jobs because their goals and the goals of the organization are complete opposites. They could even go as far as sabotaging the performance of others by creating a toxic work environment.

Unions don't donate directly, they make independent campaign expenditures through Super PACs. Look in the Independent Expenditures tab in the page you gave me.

> I'm just saying the result isn't representative and shouldn't be framed as the will of the people.

Fine, but then you can't really frame anything as being or not the will of the people as there's no point of reference. You can't say that TTIP and TPP and TISA are not the will of the people just because Reddit and a bunch of news sites like to hate on them, for instance.

Obama is a union-sponsored king actually, so it's all good I guess.

There are primaries and third parties, you know? That the final choice comes down to two mediocre individuals says more about the intelligence of the average voter than any sort of corporate conspiracy.

I'll give you though that the first-past-the-post system is terrible and you would be better off with a proportional system.

Sound like sour grapes and No True Scotsman to me. The president, who is leading negotiations, was elected democratically, and Congress, who decides whether this treaty becomes law or not, was also elected democratically. If the people dislike how the government is doing things they have only themselves to blame for electing these representatives.

To be honest I don't believe anybody really cares about the ideals of democracy. If the same secrecy was being used to push legislation you supported you wouldn't be whining at all, you would probably be defending it instead because you would rationalize that passing the law is more important than the method used to pass it.