If you drive with a 0.07, which is marginally close to illegal, you should be in the backseat of a cab. dont pretend this makes no sense to you. that's like arguing attempted murder vs murder..
It is absolutely nothing like that distinction. One is completely legal and the other completely illegal whereas both attempted murder and murder are completely illegal.
I do not suggest anyone drive at 0.07 any more than I suggest driving and applying make-up at 80 mph. They are both legal (and the one “closer” to illegal is the lesser of the two evils).
Yes, that says that your license will be revoked on the spot if you refuse breathalyzer or other intoxication test.
You can sign anything you want saying you will consent to something in the future, but there are no criminal penalties for revoking that consent in the future. (But that means that you need to be prepared for a lawsuit.) The state however does not need to justify its revocation of your driver's license and they remove any such implication by requiring you to sign such a document.
However, if there is probable cause, the police can demand an immediate Breathalyzer, with or without your consent, and refusing that can (and most likely will) lead to criminal charges, too. (And kiss your license goodbye.)
Normally, police cannot order a blood test unless the Breathalyzer is over the limit.
The Fourth Amendment is part of the federal Constitution, but its protection is applied to the states, too, by the Fourteenth Amendment.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Florida State Constitution is also rather particular about this type of thing. From their state constitution:
Art. 1 12.–The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted and the nature of evidence to be obtained.
Most state constitutions in the U.S. have a far broader bill of rights than the one everyone's familiar with in the federal constitution (but state courts also tend to be looser in interpreting them).
Have you ever looked at a Canadian Conservative Party Platform? On some things they're further to the right than American Republicans. Canadians are in a completely different political context than American counterparts and there are no direct equivalencies. Canada is a large petroleum exporter and petroleum producing companies are much more influential there than in most of the U.S. Canadians may share more of a cultural affinity with contemporary Democrats, but their issues are nowhere near the same and that affinity would be gone if they had to come up with a common platform. Yes, there'd probably be a little less evangelicalism in politics overall (again, that's more the political culture than the politics itself).
Again though, this is all assuming that an annexed Canada would be granted statehood in the Union, and there's no precedent for that happening when the U.S. government decides to annex a territory without sufficient support already in place. (Out of 50 current states, 31 were territories first. The thirteen colonies, Vermont, Kentucky (started off as southwestern Virginia, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Maine (split off from Massachusetts in 1820, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Texas (invaded by Americans that fought to keep it independent from Spain first, and then from México, established a government similar in form and principle to other state governments, and uniquely annexed by treaty), California (Compromise of 1850, and again with a sudden influx of Americans establishing a government similar to other state governments).)
Canada, even in this bizarre scenario, meets none of those criteria. Were it annexed, it would likely be an unorganized (Congress not creating a new government for it; not even a non-voting delegate sent to Congress) unincorporated (limited application of U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights) territory.
However, even should Palin be elected in 2012, that nightmare scenario for Canada is just nonsense.
No, Anonymous Coward, your grand pronouncements aside, property, in American law, is grounded on the right to exclude.
See: Rakas v. Illinois 429 US 128 (1978) Kaisner Aetna v. United States 444 US 164 (1979) Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp 258 US 419 (1982) Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 US 825 (1987) PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 US 74 (1980) Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM 353 US 232 (1957) Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994) Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy 367 US 888 (1961) Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Corp. 467 US 986 (1984)
<sarcasm>Yes, you're absolutely right: nearly a millennium of common law development has suddenly been shaken by your grand pronouncement.</sarcasm>
Sorry, but as this is about American property law, which for the U.S. Supreme Court, has centered on that attribute that the owner has the right to exclude others (especially “the public”), and that that is the most definitive characteristic of private property. Without that right, it is not property.
An easement is property; it is not a refutation of it. That's like saying that the existence of debt means there's no such thing as money.
An easement is the right to use the real property of another without possessing it. Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions.
An easement is a specific grant of a limited use right by a (present or historical) property-owner (for some other consideration); easements are specific and do not allow for universal access to one's property. Easements are a property right, not some contravention of property rights.
That is ridiculously absurd. There are probably a few municipalities with rules like that in the U.S., but there is certainly no federal prohibition on fences of any given height (or any federal law relating to zoning), but in areas where a private driveway is likely to be mistaken for a road (i.e., out in the sticks), zoning is not generally an issue. They probably could have had a 12-foot fence if they had wanted it and saved the lawyer's fee.
I don't see how not voting is somehow “validated” by running for office (or needing “validation” for that matter). Running for office and not voting is just stupid (and I make no excuses for that).
Voting isn't that hard to do, so if it allows you to complain guilt-free, why not just go ahead and do it?
Because someone online purporting that one should feel guilty about not doing something is patronizing and irritating. How does it remove guilt?
I have a right to worship a lint roller dipped in macaroni and cheese and to vote. As the productivity of the latter approaches the former, the likelihood of me voting decreases.
Note that to the world outside of the United Kingdom, Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democratic parties seem indistinguishable, and outside of France, the Parti Socialist and UMP seem indistinguishable, and an outside observer would struggle to identify key points of contention between the Australian Labor and Liberal parties, etc. This phenomenon, that outsiders see the major political parties in another country as indistinguishable, is not unique to the United States. The concerns of public debate of one nation nearly always seem trivial to another.
Left and right, when used to refer to political beliefs and associations, are relative terms. That's why they're apt metaphors. Without a singular frame of reference, they're meaningless. (And, if you have the sense to see the metaphors for what they are, disoriented. Then you can look at individual policy issues, and realize that we have two fascist parties.)
I did not misread it. I did not address sustainability, only availability. However, since you brought the point up, market expectations of future supply (i.e., production sustainability) are part of demand.
Keeping the air clean is a transaction, though (or rather a series of transactions). It requires exchanges of value (trade-offs). The positive and negative in externalities is not about some perceived social value; in that sense, economics, like any other serious scientific discipline, is value free. (Well, unless you're Paul Krugman.)
Using the word transaction was probably not the best; in economics, it has a meaning different from its common use.
From the Wikipedia article, you cited:
In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices[1], incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit.
The negative in negative externality is not a value judgment in the sense of moral or ethical values (for which economics, like any scientific discipline, has none), but an assessment of increased cost (including lost profit or lost potential profit) from an action to which you are not party. A positive externality is decreased cost or increased profit from an action to which you are not party.
Some examples: 1) I run a café and someone just saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, and now my café is full every day for three weeks; my positive externality is my competitors' negative externality.
2) The pious Marians in the previous example crowd out my regular customers and once they're gone, some of my previous regulars don't return, a positive externality for my competitors.
While the same action does not always have positive and negative externalities, and they do not in any sense balance, the same action, decision, or market influence can act as both a negative and positive externality.
Because of the political process though, the factory operator does not have control over the decision to pollute certain substances; he was not given that decision: the very definition of an externality; it most definitely is an increased cost and therefore a negative externality for him. I'm not saying he should have that decision; I'm saying he doesn't have the decision. It is external to him.
Slashdot Mirror
And pollute our air with their crap? No thanks.
If you drive with a 0.07, which is marginally close to illegal, you should be in the backseat of a cab. dont pretend this makes no sense to you.
that's like arguing attempted murder vs murder..
It is absolutely nothing like that distinction. One is completely legal and the other completely illegal whereas both attempted murder and murder are completely illegal.
I do not suggest anyone drive at 0.07 any more than I suggest driving and applying make-up at 80 mph. They are both legal (and the one “closer” to illegal is the lesser of the two evils).
Yes, that says that your license will be revoked on the spot if you refuse breathalyzer or other intoxication test.
You can sign anything you want saying you will consent to something in the future, but there are no criminal penalties for revoking that consent in the future. (But that means that you need to be prepared for a lawsuit.) The state however does not need to justify its revocation of your driver's license and they remove any such implication by requiring you to sign such a document.
However, if there is probable cause, the police can demand an immediate Breathalyzer, with or without your consent, and refusing that can (and most likely will) lead to criminal charges, too. (And kiss your license goodbye.)
Normally, police cannot order a blood test unless the Breathalyzer is over the limit.
The Fourth Amendment is part of the federal Constitution, but its protection is applied to the states, too, by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Florida State Constitution is also rather particular about this type of thing. From their state constitution:
Most state constitutions in the U.S. have a far broader bill of rights than the one everyone's familiar with in the federal constitution (but state courts also tend to be looser in interpreting them).
Have you ever looked at a Canadian Conservative Party Platform? On some things they're further to the right than American Republicans. Canadians are in a completely different political context than American counterparts and there are no direct equivalencies. Canada is a large petroleum exporter and petroleum producing companies are much more influential there than in most of the U.S. Canadians may share more of a cultural affinity with contemporary Democrats, but their issues are nowhere near the same and that affinity would be gone if they had to come up with a common platform. Yes, there'd probably be a little less evangelicalism in politics overall (again, that's more the political culture than the politics itself).
Again though, this is all assuming that an annexed Canada would be granted statehood in the Union, and there's no precedent for that happening when the U.S. government decides to annex a territory without sufficient support already in place. (Out of 50 current states, 31 were territories first. The thirteen colonies, Vermont, Kentucky (started off as southwestern Virginia, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Maine (split off from Massachusetts in 1820, i.e., one of the 13 colonies), Texas (invaded by Americans that fought to keep it independent from Spain first, and then from México, established a government similar in form and principle to other state governments, and uniquely annexed by treaty), California (Compromise of 1850, and again with a sudden influx of Americans establishing a government similar to other state governments).)
Canada, even in this bizarre scenario, meets none of those criteria. Were it annexed, it would likely be an unorganized (Congress not creating a new government for it; not even a non-voting delegate sent to Congress) unincorporated (limited application of U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights) territory.
However, even should Palin be elected in 2012, that nightmare scenario for Canada is just nonsense.
No, Anonymous Coward, your grand pronouncements aside, property, in American law, is grounded on the right to exclude.
See:
Rakas v. Illinois 429 US 128 (1978)
Kaisner Aetna v. United States 444 US 164 (1979)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp 258 US 419 (1982)
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n 483 US 825 (1987)
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 US 74 (1980)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM 353 US 232 (1957)
Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994)
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy 367 US 888 (1961)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Corp. 467 US 986 (1984)
(This list could go on almost forever.)
<sarcasm>Yes, you're absolutely right: nearly a millennium of common law development has suddenly been shaken by your grand pronouncement.</sarcasm>
Sorry, but as this is about American property law, which for the U.S. Supreme Court, has centered on that attribute that the owner has the right to exclude others (especially “the public”), and that that is the most definitive characteristic of private property. Without that right, it is not property.
An easement is property; it is not a refutation of it. That's like saying that the existence of debt means there's no such thing as money.
Well, no: as that article states:
An easement is a specific grant of a limited use right by a (present or historical) property-owner (for some other consideration); easements are specific and do not allow for universal access to one's property. Easements are a property right, not some contravention of property rights.
That is ridiculously absurd. There are probably a few municipalities with rules like that in the U.S., but there is certainly no federal prohibition on fences of any given height (or any federal law relating to zoning), but in areas where a private driveway is likely to be mistaken for a road (i.e., out in the sticks), zoning is not generally an issue. They probably could have had a 12-foot fence if they had wanted it and saved the lawyer's fee.
Normally yes, but this was in a private driveway (that Googlers probably didn't realize when they went down it).
OK, let's keep the internet out of it, since mention of the internet does not turn everything into something extraordinary.
Then there's no case. Problem solved.
just because something is your private property does not automatically mean you have a right to exclude the public.
No, that's exactly what private property means.
Yes, I can. Convenient that no one even suggested that, though.
That's why our public education was originally created - to have an educated electorate.
LOL, no. Our public education was created to decatholicize the children of immigrants.
Except that that also rebrands progressivism to mean anti-progressive or conservative (in the classical sense).
You must say whether that applies to everyone or only to fetuses that have committed no crime yet.
So you consider masturbation a massacre?
I don't know what species you are, but when humans masturbate, the ejaculate does not contain fetuses.
I don't see how not voting is somehow “validated” by running for office (or needing “validation” for that matter). Running for office and not voting is just stupid (and I make no excuses for that).
Voting isn't that hard to do, so if it allows you to complain guilt-free, why not just go ahead and do it?
Because someone online purporting that one should feel guilty about not doing something is patronizing and irritating. How does it remove guilt?
I have a right to worship a lint roller dipped in macaroni and cheese and to vote. As the productivity of the latter approaches the former, the likelihood of me voting decreases.
That's kind of hard to do if we have to throw out all the well-understood adjectives used to describe those issues and individuals.
Well-understood adjectives sure, but most of them, when applied to political principles, are not so well understood as some like to think.
Note that to the world outside of the United Kingdom, Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democratic parties seem indistinguishable, and outside of France, the Parti Socialist and UMP seem indistinguishable, and an outside observer would struggle to identify key points of contention between the Australian Labor and Liberal parties, etc. This phenomenon, that outsiders see the major political parties in another country as indistinguishable, is not unique to the United States. The concerns of public debate of one nation nearly always seem trivial to another.
That's complete bullshit.
Left and right, when used to refer to political beliefs and associations, are relative terms. That's why they're apt metaphors. Without a singular frame of reference, they're meaningless. (And, if you have the sense to see the metaphors for what they are, disoriented. Then you can look at individual policy issues, and realize that we have two fascist parties.)
I did not misread it. I did not address sustainability, only availability. However, since you brought the point up, market expectations of future supply (i.e., production sustainability) are part of demand.
Keeping the air clean is a transaction, though (or rather a series of transactions). It requires exchanges of value (trade-offs). The positive and negative in externalities is not about some perceived social value; in that sense, economics, like any other serious scientific discipline, is value free. (Well, unless you're Paul Krugman.)
Using the word transaction was probably not the best; in economics, it has a meaning different from its common use.
From the Wikipedia article, you cited:
The negative in negative externality is not a value judgment in the sense of moral or ethical values (for which economics, like any scientific discipline, has none), but an assessment of increased cost (including lost profit or lost potential profit) from an action to which you are not party. A positive externality is decreased cost or increased profit from an action to which you are not party.
Some examples:
1) I run a café and someone just saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, and now my café is full every day for three weeks; my positive externality is my competitors' negative externality.
2) The pious Marians in the previous example crowd out my regular customers and once they're gone, some of my previous regulars don't return, a positive externality for my competitors.
While the same action does not always have positive and negative externalities, and they do not in any sense balance, the same action, decision, or market influence can act as both a negative and positive externality.
Because of the political process though, the factory operator does not have control over the decision to pollute certain substances; he was not given that decision: the very definition of an externality; it most definitely is an increased cost and therefore a negative externality for him. I'm not saying he should have that decision; I'm saying he doesn't have the decision. It is external to him.
Malthusianism: scaring the shit out of ignorant do-gooders for more than two centuries now.
No, fuck that. They can stay; I'm going.