If you want to stop having casual sex but feel you can't control yourself, maybe you can have yourself committed to some sort of clinic, instead of trying to take away the possibility from everyone else too? (Which probably wouldn't even help, since if you're not hideously ugly you will probably find more then enough men willing to have sex with you without craigslist.)
This is quite a good solution. It reminds me of public transport in some European countries. Yes, you can get on board without a ticket. But there will be a guard who will be on board maybe 1 in 10 times and the fines are substantial.
The problem is you can't really issue substantial fines in this instance. I suppose you could pay less for the first few runs where verification is more likely.
I really want this to succeed, and I think these problems can be overcome.
> Even Green’s 93-year-old father sometimes asks if he really wants to spend his time making life difficult for companies that employ thousands of Brits.
This is such a teriffic argument. The mafia also employs people. If a company that employs people that earns money with fraud, not by doing anything productive goes bankrupt, that just means that those people will now have to work for a company that does do something productive, which is a good thing.
You've got to be kidding. What about the cast system? Do you think that would be better or worse now if the british had never colonialised india? Would india be a democracy now?
> What about the cast system? Do you think that would be better or worse now if the british had never colonialised india?
The British aggressively codified, intensified and encouraged increased enforcement of the caste system in India in order to facilitate their divide-and-conquer strategy. Did you really not know that?
> In October 2008, Barclays was saved from collapse thanks to a $12 billion investment led by Qatar’s government. As part of the transaction, Barclays paid Qatar a secret $452 million fee for “advisory services” and loaned the country an additional $3 billion. To the SFO, the fee looked like a bribe and the loan an attempt by Barclays to illegally fund a purchase of its own shares. (The executives and the bank deny wrongdoing.)
Preventing stuff like this is essential to a working stock market. How can anyone invest in any company, if he has to fear that the companies assets he supposedly owns a share of, are given away in exchange for buying stock, so that the managers can get a bonus for the rising stock price, instead of the company getting raided and the managers replaced with better ones?
There's no detail about the other cases, but at least in this case it's clear that there's no dichotomy at all between the UK's economic interest, jobs, the free market and ethics, but rather between those things and the upper management of a single company.
> Bankers who manipulate markets ought to be charged, he said, but “simply ratcheting up ever-larger fines that just penalize shareholders, erode capital reserves, and diminish the lending potential of the economy is not, in the end, a long-term answer.”
"penalize shareholders" Shareholders are supposed to invest in sound businesses. There's nothing wrong with them being "penalized" by fines, anymore then there's anything wrong with them being "penalized" if a companies new product fails.
