[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Jan 28, 2023 - 10:19pm
 
The strange tale of KFAT - oldviolin - Jan 28, 2023 - 8:57pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Steely_D - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:42pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - islander - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:25pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Bill_J - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:24pm
 
The Obituary Page - haresfur - Jan 28, 2023 - 4:58pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jan 28, 2023 - 3:57pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Manbird - Jan 28, 2023 - 3:55pm
 
Today in History - Isabeau - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:39pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Isabeau - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:34pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:00pm
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:07pm
 
Guns - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 10:57am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - geoff_morphini - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:43am
 
Music Requests - Ralf - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:39am
 
last.fm-scrobbling - hans-juergen - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:25am
 
Immigration - westslope - Jan 27, 2023 - 4:13pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2023 - 3:39pm
 
Linking to "What's Playing" - fraenki - Jan 27, 2023 - 2:18pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - black321 - Jan 27, 2023 - 12:42pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Jan 27, 2023 - 10:19am
 
The Monks of Zagorsk - cathyetsylvain - Jan 27, 2023 - 9:16am
 
Having a Bad Day??? - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:27pm
 
Living in America - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:16pm
 
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:53pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2023 - 4:58pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 26, 2023 - 4:56pm
 
Trump - haresfur - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:59pm
 
OUR CATS!! - Isabeau - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:02pm
 
Oil, Gas Prices & Other Crapola - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:44pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:20pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 10:07am
 
21st century technology - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 9:44am
 
Florida - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:10am
 
The end of the world - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2023 - 6:38am
 
Joe Biden - kcar - Jan 25, 2023 - 9:21pm
 
Love is... - Isabeau - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:03pm
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - Proclivities - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:35am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jan 25, 2023 - 5:12am
 
a thank you for the team - guy-wernher - Jan 25, 2023 - 3:05am
 
Are you ready for some football? - GeneP59 - Jan 24, 2023 - 5:45pm
 
COVID-19 - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 3:41pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jan 24, 2023 - 11:30am
 
Todd Rundgren - Steely_D - Jan 24, 2023 - 11:08am
 
Republican Party - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 24, 2023 - 8:35am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jan 24, 2023 - 6:44am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - JrzyTmata - Jan 24, 2023 - 5:14am
 
Surfing! - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 2:15am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 23, 2023 - 9:00pm
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 3:09pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 2:00pm
 
Russia - cc_rider - Jan 23, 2023 - 8:14am
 
NOT Main Mix - ScopPics - Jan 23, 2023 - 4:25am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2023 - 9:14am
 
News of the Weird - Bill_J - Jan 20, 2023 - 7:51pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 20, 2023 - 2:57pm
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - R_P - Jan 20, 2023 - 1:48pm
 
The Bucket List - miamizsun - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:38am
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:02am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - haresfur - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:14pm
 
What music have you paid real money for recently? - kurtster - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:30pm
 
Twitter's finest moment - westslope - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:03pm
 
Tidal / Spotify - bigbargain - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:33pm
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - black321 - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:06pm
 
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc) - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:17am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:13am
 
Covers that are better than the original - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2023 - 9:01am
 
Wardrobe malfunction - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:42am
 
Climate Change - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:26am
 
Name My Band - islander - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:58am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2023 - 4:25pm
 
Happy holidays, everyone! - Manbird - Jan 18, 2023 - 1:49pm
 
Switching 'channel' in app - phil_the_blues - Jan 18, 2023 - 11:58am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - GeneP59 - Jan 18, 2023 - 8:57am
 
Martin Luther King day - cc_rider - Jan 18, 2023 - 8:14am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » The War On You Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 18, 2022 - 10:40am

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 12, 2021 - 9:18am

 Ohmsen wrote:


Funny how this s#$t been going on throughout history, but only recently making headlines...and of course, everyone is lining up to pick a side (because they've been brainwashed?)

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 2, 2021 - 9:20pm

 sirdroseph wrote:
It is a shame this American hero is still not allowed in the US
{#Sad}
  

Yeah, I thought that Sweden should have given Snowdon refugee status, just to piss off Assange

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 2, 2021 - 4:53am

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 2, 2021 - 4:49am

It is a shame this American hero is still not allowed in the US{#Sad}
 
 
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 3:43am

It will be even easier for them to do this now that the undesirables are being weeded out of our healthcare and military institutions replaced by the compliant who will just follow orders.  It is always for our own good, for public safety:{#Sad}
 
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 3:24am

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 27, 2021 - 5:26am

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 26, 2021 - 5:37am

Now that Ron Paul has been at least legitimized to the point to where at least some of his opinions matter, here is another one:
 

Vaccine Mandates and the 'Great Reset'

 
 
In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d'être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state's interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 18, 2021 - 10:46pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

That hammering—the arguing over what we are entitled to from each other—is the central problem of moral philosophy, and implementing it ought to be the central problem of governance, so we may not be as far apart as you seem to think. Just pondering how any of this translates to abolishing government.
 
Morning (a cold grey day here for mid-summer  - got my hiking boots out of the cellar for a four-day jaunt in the alps.. can't wait).

Ok, I'm happy to cede the point that I overstated your position and that "pare back government" is not the same as "abolish government".

My point was more that we all (the universal collective we) tend to concentrate too much on the structure of government and overlook the cultural factors that make a government (of whatever form) "good" or not.

Our discussion was in the context of my line, "the government you deserve" (the collective plural) and you stating you got the government that "panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable".
My point is that, even if you were to pare government back to mere protection of its citizens rights, you would still have those panicked mobs defining those rights to mean something like "freedom from immigrants streaming across the southern border and the right not to get vaccinated and the right not to wear a mask in the middle of a deadly pandemic so I can spit in your face".

Consequently, we need to reach out to these mobs (your point at the outset) and hammer out what rights and duties we actually have and why they don't need to be so damn afraid about everything.

So yeah, I guess we are perhaps not too far removed from each other in our line of reasoning, at least at this point. 


 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 18, 2021 - 1:30pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
uff... we are back to this again. You cannot keep returning to the "rights of the governed" as though they were etched in stone and there were unanimous agreement on what they were. Regardless of what you or I personally believe, the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on what these rights are. Not even among a group of boringly homogenous racially profiled proud boys from some godforsaken citadel of inbred humanity... Not even they will agree on what their rights are. Ergo you can't credibly argue for limiting government to merely protecting the rights of the governed, for that tacitly implies only your understanding of rights. Conversely, if we open up the concept of "rights of the governed" to some more general consensus of what those rights might be, we end up pretty well with what we have now, a bit of a mess. But it works, sometimes.

Edit:
In other words, your reasoning is circular. You already posit a defined set of rights as though we all agree on them - which we don't - before stating you want to pare government back to merely protecting that particular set of rights you have set your mind on. Yet government is nothing but the hammering out of some sort of agreement on what kinds of rights we want to enforce, when and why. It is actually a very fluid thing and all the better for it.


That hammering—the arguing over what we are entitled to from each other—is the central problem of moral philosophy, and implementing it ought to be the central problem of governance, so we may not be as far apart as you seem to think.

Just pondering how any of this translates to abolishing government.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 3:04pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

You can continue to argue this line but you aren't arguing with me. My position is not  for removing government and creating a power vacuum, I'm arguing for restraining government to a role limited to protecting the rights of the governed. As for your last point...no, that's not what I'm arguing. I don't know how to make it any plainer. That not only isn't my position, it isn't a question I find particularly interesting.

uff... we are back to this again. You cannot keep returning to the "rights of the governed" as though they were etched in stone and there were unanimous agreement on what they were. Regardless of what you or I personally believe, the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on what these rights are. Not even among a group of boringly homogenous racially profiled proud boys from some godforsaken citadel of inbred humanity... Not even they will agree on what their rights are. Ergo you can't credibly argue for limiting government to merely protecting the rights of the governed, for that tacitly implies only your understanding of rights. Conversely, if we open up the concept of "rights of the governed" to some more general consensus of what those rights might be, we end up pretty well with what we have now, a bit of a mess. But it works, sometimes.

Edit:
In other words, your reasoning is circular. You already posit a defined set of rights as though we all agree on them - which we don't - before stating you want to pare government back to merely protecting that particular set of rights you have set your mind on. Yet government is nothing but the hammering out of some sort of agreement on what kinds of rights we want to enforce, when and why. It is actually a very fluid thing and all the better for it.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 2:13pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
No, it is not a strawman argument at all. (unless you are merely referring to the "live on island thing" which is not material to the argument).

History has shown that almost invariably when you remove the established power base (in this case "The Government" of whatever form), it will be filled by opportunists moving into the power vacuum. Your only argument against this is to rely on having enlightened neighbours who realise we might all be better off if none of us do that. (This is the cultural factor I was referring to).
Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think history is on my side on this one. I wish it were different, I really do.

In effect you are blaming the institution of government for the cultural failings of a society and I am blaming the cultural failings of society for the institution of government.

You can continue to argue this line but you aren't arguing with me. My position is not  for removing government and creating a power vacuum, I'm arguing for restraining government to a role limited to protecting the rights of the governed.

As for your last point...no, that's not what I'm arguing. I don't know how to make it any plainer. That not only isn't my position, it isn't a question I find particularly interesting.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 1:44pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

All-powerful totalitarian dictatorships will inevitably lead to widespread oppression to control the inevitable dissent, which will paralyze society with crippling strikes and passive resistence.

What's the alternative? Slaughtering the populace with nukes?

See how annoying that is? This is called a strawman argument, and I've seen you do better than this. If I ever argue for getting rid of government you are welcome to trot out this trope; in the mean time kindly respond to the position before you, not the one it would have been more convenient to argue with.


No, it is not a strawman argument at all. (unless you are merely referring to the "live on island thing" which is not material to the argument).

History has shown that almost invariably when you remove the established power base (in this case "The Government" of whatever form), it will be filled by opportunists moving into the power vacuum. Your only argument against this is to rely on having enlightened neighbours who realise we might all be better off if none of us do that. (This is the cultural factor I was referring to).
Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think history is on my side on this one. I wish it were different, I really do.

In effect you are blaming the institution of government for the cultural failings of a society and I am blaming the cultural failings of society for the institution of government.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 17, 2021 - 8:46am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Those panicked mobs happen to be your neighbours that you are going to have to deal with some way or another. Get rid of government and you might find those same panicked mobs now less panicked, more emboldened and armed with pitchforks. What is the alternative? Living on an island?

All-powerful totalitarian dictatorships will inevitably lead to widespread oppression to control the inevitable dissent, which will paralyze society with crippling strikes and passive resistence.

What's the alternative? Slaughtering the populace with nukes?

See how annoying that is? This is called a strawman argument, and I've seen you do better than this. If I ever argue for getting rid of government you are welcome to trot out this trope; in the mean time kindly respond to the position before you, not the one it would have been more convenient to argue with.

Again, this is not a question of structure but a question of culture. A government composed of people who understand they are there to serve the public (of which they are a partI and not to enrich their family or use their position to their own ends, etc.) doesn't need limiting. But granted, this is a more utopian vision.

When you achieve this utopian vision limiting the scope and power of government won't be an obstacle. It is an obstacle to oppression; having a roof on your house isn't a problem when it isn't raining but damned useful when it is.

The checks and balances are there for a reason. Nevertheless, IMO fostering an inclusive, socially responsible and open society will be more cost effective than merely limiting the scope of government powers. But I understand, this will be where we always differ.

We don't differ on this, I just don't want to enact cultural change via coercive means. I also think an inclusive, socially responsible and open society happens to thrive better when it has maximum freedom to operate.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 11:36pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I do not get the government I deserve, I get the government that a long list of historical accidents and nefarious skullduggery have left available to choose from. I get the government that panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable. I get the government that panders to the basest instincts most effectively.
 
understood, though I was using the collective "you", not just you specifically. Those panicked mobs happen to be your neighbours that you are going to have to deal with some way or another. Get rid of government and you might find those same panicked mobs now less panicked, more emboldened and armed with pitchforks. What is the alternative? Living on an island?

Putin is a handy scapegoat but his reach is tiny compared to the damage we do ourselves.
 
Agreed, but he is a handy example of the damage that someone with more than a few resources at his disposal and a clear target can do to public opinion. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he tries to explain the resilience of western democracies. 

 Lazy8 wrote:
Limiting the power and scope that governments have does not make them trustworthy, it just limits the damage they can do.
 
Again, this is not a question of structure but a question of culture. A government composed of people who understand they are there to serve the public (of which they are a partI and not to enrich their family or use their position to their own ends, etc.) doesn't need limiting. But granted, this is a more utopian vision. The checks and balances are there for a reason. Nevertheless, IMO fostering an inclusive, socially responsible and open society will be more cost effective than merely limiting the scope of government powers. But I understand, this will be where we always differ.

(I do note that you want to foster that same sense of social responsibility and were we to have it, we wouldn't need the heavy hand of government. I think we pursue roughly the same ends, just different means).
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 3:09pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
And it has become abundantly clear over the past decade that there are various forces out there actively playing public opinion to further their own agenda (nothing new in itself, but the scale and form has changed). There are those sowing distrust in government. Those inciting racist tension. Those fostering animosity towards refugees and immigrants. None of this is new nor is it a left-wing / right-wing thing. Putin has aimed considerable resources at misinformation for what seem to be purely geopolitical reasons. What's amazing is how effective he's been. But there are many others. Powerful lobbies and global industries who would like to break down local regulations to tap into new markets, for example. The list goes on. Getting any kind of clarity amidst all these smoke screens is getting harder by the day.

But removing government and regulation is not going to resolve this. It will only make it worse as the signal to noise ratio continues to wane. Then people will be even more lost and disoriented and scared about who to trust and therefore even more vulnerable to snake oil salesmen.

You and I will probably disagree to our dying day on the reasons for poor government. You see it as structural: government as a monopoly, with the lack of accountability fostering poor decisions or downright nepotism. I see it more as a cultural/historical contingency. The quality of government rises and falls like the tide. Things may change, governments come and go, but in the end, you get the government you deserve.

I do not get the government I deserve, I get the government that a long list of historical accidents and nefarious skullduggery have left available to choose from. I get the government that panicked mobs deem minimally acceptable. I get the government that panders to the basest instincts most effectively.

Putin is a handy scapegoat but his reach is tiny compared to the damage we do ourselves.

Limiting the power and scope that governments have does not make them trustworthy, it just limits the damage they can do.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 1:17pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Took a break from arguing over the internet for the weekend (which went splendidly, thank you, other than some bad news about being able to start dancing next month) and it seems a longer response to this went away. I'll try and flesh out what I was looking for a bit.

The first rule of credibility: If you want to be believed, don't lie.

Governments at all levels in many countries have squandered any credibility they ever had by lying, dissembling, and in ways large and small failing to trust their populations with the truth. One of the drivers of high vaccination rates around the world (distribution problems aside) is that people who trust what their governments are saying have generally trusted the vaccines. This goes beyond ideology or politics; if the prime minister (or whoever) gets in front of the populace and says "This is important, and we need you to roll up your sleeves and help out" and people don't have ample reason to think s/he's lying they will likely cooperate.

While the time to build credibility is before you need it the pandemic was an opportunity to build it. An opportunity squandered. And it will make the next emergency harder to deal with and the next disease outbreak deadlier.


Yeah I had to take a chill pill and some time out. 

It is worth noting the different performances of various nations to the pandemic and seeing the strong correlation between those countries that still have some semblance of faith in government and those where distrust has taken root. Seems having a government you can trust is great for vaccine uptake.

But I made the mistake of thinking this was a question of form (of government) but actually it is a question of culture, as you point out. 

You are quite right, the issue is credibility but this cuts both ways. Governments have to earn it and it doesn't even necessarily have to be performance driven. Clear communication seems to suffice as Jacinda Adern has shown. But "we the people" are also instrumental in the government we get. What compromises are we willing to accept, where are our redlines, what sort of society do we want, and so on. You can't govern a rabble that is neither willing to listen nor to reason and negotiate.

And it has become abundantly clear over the past decade that there are various forces out there actively playing public opinion to further their own agenda (nothing new in itself, but the scale and form has changed). There are those sowing distrust in government. Those inciting racist tension. Those fostering animosity towards refugees and immigrants. None of this is new nor is it a left-wing / right-wing thing. Putin has aimed considerable resources at misinformation for what seem to be purely geopolitical reasons. What's amazing is how effective he's been. But there are many others. Powerful lobbies and global industries who would like to break down local regulations to tap into new markets, for example. The list goes on. Getting any kind of clarity amidst all these smoke screens is getting harder by the day.

But removing government and regulation is not going to resolve this. It will only make it worse as the signal to noise ratio continues to wane. Then people will be even more lost and disoriented and scared about who to trust and therefore even more vulnerable to snake oil salesmen.

You and I will probably disagree to our dying day on the reasons for poor government. You see it as structural: government as a monopoly, with the lack of accountability fostering poor decisions or downright nepotism. I see it more as a cultural/historical contingency. The quality of government rises and falls like the tide. Things may change, governments come and go, but in the end, you get the government you deserve.






Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 16, 2021 - 9:22am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
reaching out and talking it through... ad nauseam if need be.. as one does... so how's your day so far?

Took a break from arguing over the internet for the weekend (which went splendidly, thank you, other than some bad news about being able to start dancing next month) and it seems a longer response to this went away. I'll try and flesh out what I was looking for a bit.

The first rule of credibility: If you want to be believed, don't lie.

Governments at all levels in many countries have squandered any credibility they ever had by lying, dissembling, and in ways large and small failing to trust their populations with the truth. One of the drivers of high vaccination rates around the world (distribution problems aside) is that people who trust what their governments are saying have generally trusted the vaccines. This goes beyond ideology or politics; if the prime minister (or whoever) gets in front of the populace and says "This is important, and we need you to roll up your sleeves and help out" and people don't have ample reason to think s/he's lying they will likely cooperate.

While the time to build credibility is before you need it the pandemic was an opportunity to build it. An opportunity squandered. And it will make the next emergency harder to deal with and the next disease outbreak deadlier.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Aug 14, 2021 - 5:59am

 sirdroseph wrote:

B I N G O and bingo was his nameo.

I also include how my actions may impact others in the cost-benefit analysis. 



Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 74, 75, 76  Next