s1artibartfast

No handouts seems entirely reasonable.

I dont see how anyone extends that to the claim us government should forcibly be taking over companies.

drug companies themselves often have programs to offer them to the uninsured at copay or greatly reduced cost.

> That's a dumb argument.

nobody said that was the reason they were bad. that's a dumb interpretation.

The point is that seizing companies simply because you have the army and popular support to do so indicates that the government has abandoned respect for law, rights, process, and reason.

It is precisely the authoritarian behavior that defines an authoritarian regime - Taking companies or people with flimsy pretext because they can get away with it. Citizens who cheer and hope for such things are cheering for populist law of the jungle.

If someone is genuinely concerned about safety or disruption, there are 101 legal and boring options the government can take. Those just dont stimulate the the same petty emotions.

None of that matters for the French national spending and budget issue.

They arent the ones driving up pensions for the retired, or instituting the anti-growth policies.

Like I said, kill every single one and the problem would still be there.

Sounds like a reason not to advocate the government do such a thing.

I dont think it is that complex in this case.

Most on the left would consider it authoritarian despotism if Trump started "Confiscating" companies. Most on the right would consider it the same if Biden or whomever did the same.

In general, the US has strong opposition to the state unilaterally confiscating companies, and it is the kind of thing seen in Nazi Germany, revolutionary Cuba and Iran, or the Islamic state.

The last time the US government tried this was steel mills under Truman in 1952, and that was with compensation and struck down by the SCOTUS.

You could kill them all and take every penny they own and it still wouldn't solve the problem.

The proble. Is they dont do that. It is mostly going to retired pensioners. Now you have a conflict between the voting elderly masses and the workers paying taxes.

The billionaires are irrelevant. You could take every penny they have and it wouldn't make a difference

That is not the proposal. Negotiation is fine. Forced taking is not.

>Not loans, not bail outs. Confiscate and figure out how to wind them down in a way that benefits the taxpayers.

Some people find authoritarian despotism attractive as long as it targets their perceived enemies

How do you get that analogy. The proposal was no loan and take instead

Yes, it is theft.

If you dont want to provide a loan, fine. I dont see how you justify seizing the company.

Imagine asking the bank for a loan and they say "no, and we are also taking your car".

Robots are optimized for the problems people least want to do. Everything else is downstream, important or not.

What exactly is your objection? It seems you are complaining both the robots will take over tasks and that they won't take over the important tasks

Should elderly not have dishwashers because it isnt the most important problem?

I agree with most of that, yes. Chores people dont want to do and the elderly need.

Family can still do the parts they want.

You dont think he had to life weights or go to the gym?

That is generally what people mean by robot care for the elderly. Doing chores pertaining to the elderly.

Elderly need a lot of help with a lot of things. Maybe it's the trash, maybe it's helping them find their keys or remembering to take their medication.

What did you think they meant? I assume that if someone meant we need robots to provide companionship or emotional support for the elderly, they would say that instead.