If Trump quits campaigning for president (because his campaign is insolvent/broke or for any other reason) weeks or months ahead of the election date in November, then what would that mean – for the country and for the presidency? Would it be like the later state primaries where voters could still tick a box for Rubio even though he wasn’t running anymore? What would it mean for the two-party system for one of the parties/choices to essentially have been seized and then squandered/demolished? Could Clinton even claim a proper victory/mandate if on election day she functionally/practically runs unopposed?
The billionaire’s political operation is running a record $45 million deficit.
however. He owes nearly all of it to himself.
Does giving up expectations of control necessitate giving up expectations of agency? Is a loss of control equivalent to a loss of agency?
San Francisco taxi labor groups called for the eradication of car ride-sharing startups and the imprisonment of some of their members at a protest in front of City Hall yesterday. “We want to see these illegal cabs to go away. We want them to be ticketed, cited, arrested, if necessary. They should not be allowed as long as you have a regulated taxi force,” said Barry Korengold, President of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association, who helped organize the protest.
Is it possible to ‘steal’ work? Do you ‘own’ your job? Your customers? Your sales? At what point is a contemplated or incomplete transaction ‘yours”?
I like the concept that something must be “property” in order to be stealable. Is all property stealable, or is “is property” a necessary but insufficient precondition to “is stealable”?
Historically, it could be said that union shops — businesses which could only hire members of a specific union / businesses whose employees were forced to belong to a specific union and pay its dues — represented jobs “owned” by the union(s). Or is that a stretch?
What factors could/should be considered in determining if something is/could/should be “property”?
“A person that loses a partner is called a widow [or widower]. A child who loses a parent is called an orphan. But there is no word for a parent that loses a child”
A very interesting point, that there is no word in English for a parent who has lost a child. Since our language affects how we think about things, does English need such a word? Could such a word bring greater understanding to and sympathy from those who know no such experience and cannot possibly relate, or would naming it risk reducing the seriousness with which we react to that which we cannot even name?