Before there was a 2nd amendment there was a concept of Natural Law, that held that all men had an inalienable right to self-determination. Government got its authority from the will of the governed.
What We The People brought into this world, We The People can redesign or dissolve. Peacefully. The States can convene a Constitutional Convention and amend or rewrite the federal charter as we see fit. If congress doesn't go along, states can recall the critters and replace them.
This idea of shooting our way into a better world is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Nobody says anything about what's supposed to happen when the smoke clears.
> The "trust us" defense isn't good enough It's not, because we are unsatisfied.
But it is enough, because what do they even need a defense for? What threat must they defend themselves from?
Congress? If Congress does anything, it will expand NSA powers, not reduce them.
SCOTUS? Somebody has to sue the gov first and prove harm. But it's all secret, so nobody can do that. If anyone managed to get proof, they'd end up in a jail cell with Bradley Manning.
It is a FACT that there are an average of 89 traffic fatalities a day in the US. There are bad days and worse days...
Honestly, we need to stop worrying about Drivers having accidents, and just accept that they WILL happen, just like they did back in the 60's.
From the driver's seat we are at an interesting place to watch it happen, but can't really do much except watch it happen. Ok, maybe we could also slam the accelerator to the floor and have another beer - it's not like we can stop accidents.
You're right that the size of the human population is the basic problem.
But implementing mandatory population control requires something akin to a police state, and it would be too little, too late.
Nature has a lot of experience with cutting excessive populations down to a manageable size. It's not a pleasant process for the overpopulated species, but ecosystems have rules we can't flaunt forever. Our population is in the hands of nature now, at the mercy of a climate that we ourselves have made more severe.
What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like: "We need to give people a living wage" "Everyone has the right to free health care" "Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"
You seem to be coming from a purist libertarian philosophy. Which is cool.
I think society will always want a sense of fair play that they're unlikely to get from unregulated tycoons of industry behaving as they wish. Hence come legislative hacks like minimum/living wage laws.
Taxing externalities appeals to my own libertarian sensibilities - I've never fully understood why most libertarians rankle at them. Leaving the common good out of the math is dishonest and unsustainable. Taxes like oil royalties and pollution sin taxes are necessary to pay for costs otherwise borne by society. Done well they keep the free market in better balance and ensure its health and longevity.
There's nothing in that "right to free health care" line that says it has to be provided by employers. I think most libertarian leaning people would agree that employment and health care should not be as tightly coupled as they now are. So you can object to "free health care" on many levels, but in general, "free enterprise" can occur even if the government is a consumer in the market.
No amount of bad legislation and resultant recession/depression can be worse than replicating Venus' atmosphere on Earth (Hawking, Sagan) or even the non-extinction level catastrophes mainstream climatology predicts.
But just because the cops could get a warrant doesn't mean the suspect really has their evidence.
They can "compel" Professor Plum to produce the candlestick, but if he can't, he can't. And if he can, he's probably sealed his own fate.
So I'm with GP - I don't see how compelling one to provide evidence against herself is anything but compelling self-incriminating testimony. If the cops can't crack the password, their evidence that she had the password should be all they can produce at trial.
senteance, n.
1) Grammatical structure composed by cognizant individual.
2) Punishment wherein the punished is confined to a dim candle-lit room inhabited by disembodied souls.
By that do you mean that it is both undesirable and impossible?
The impossible I can't speak to, but justice seems desirable no matter what adjective you stick in front of it.
I think a just society would not produce homogeneity of outcome, but it would produce a distribution of outcome where most of the wealth is shared by most of the people.
In other words, wealth distribution should look something vaguely similar to a normal (bell) distribution. America's, though, looks like an exponential function (hockey stick).
We love to gush patriotism and congratulate ourselves on being the land of freedom and a meritocracy where anyone can make it. That's been true for a few individuals, but collectively, the cold empirical facts tell a different story. A story of wealth being siphoned from the masses to the few. A story of social injustice.
" I don't know if they actually did or not. Or if you're just making shit up"
Having deduced that you lack the character to do a google search, I provided a link to get you started.
That you lack the will to copy and paste that URL into a browser window goes a long way towards explaining how you've managed to insulate your mind from the reality that we are throwing sand in the gears of our own life support systems.
The idea that the increase in temperature is "slight" comes from where? IPCC predictions that every climatologist calls "very conservative?"
"Poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing" are all amplified by the changing climate. Climate change is a 3rd world problem before it's a 1st world problem. Otherwise, the 1st world would already be stopping their pumping carbon by the tons from the bowels of the earth into the atmosphere, as the 3rd world is pleading for them to do.
The man who currently holds Sir Isaac Newton's old job, one Stephen Hawking, appears to be convinced that by the year 3000 Earth will have the climate of Venus. Carl Sagan predicted runaway warming as well. (https://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/)
If you know better than they, please show your work.
"If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted. "
It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid. If the goal were to give me a 99 cent advantage, It would be cheaper to give me ($0.99 * 10) than to shell out that for me plus ($0.01 * 10,000) for you.
That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers. Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?
As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with "per megawatt," and everything to do with "per campaign contribution."
It's the job of a physician to understand what systems do, how they work, and how to work around their problems. Defeating problematic obstacles should come to them naturally.
Why would you trust your health to doctors who willingly sacrificed their own productivity in order to allow inept and gullible bureaucrats to sit on their asses, or have orgies with security vendors who are robbing the hospital blind?
"How'd that occupy wall street thing turn out?" How could it turn out? They had a vague complaint that things weren't fair and whatever was wrong was Wall Street's fault. Their complaint was noted.
By disobedience I don't mean sitting in the street or camping out in the park. I mean getting large groups/flash mobs to flout whatever law they find inappropriate.
For example, don't stand when the judge enters the courtroom. Film/photograph cops where illegal. Take an extra ounce of water on a plane. Have one motorist after another after another drive (safely) past DUI checkpoints without stopping, Get an entire farmers market to refuse to accept federal reserve notes as payment. Whatever law seems to serve government and repress the people.
"A few new jails will be built to house all of you" Yes. We may also get shot. That's what happens when the people buck the rulers.
"You won't get more than 5 minutes of media coverage" You may have a point about the corporate media. But today we also have telephones and email and youtube and blogs. In this environment MSM can't ignore the events and retain credibility.
"getting run over by tanks and getting shot in the face"
Taking up arms against Uncle Sam won't reduce your risk of getting killed, my friend. If you aren't willing to die, don't challenge the government. If you are willing to die, die smart..
Toppling a nominally civilized government by force of arms is stupid. Who should we shoot? Our local congressman? Our neighborhood cop?
A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.
The last time we threw out a government (our independence from Britain), was a bloody drawn-out affair in which our people were fighting Britain and each other, neither the loyalists nor insurrectionists had an objectively clear moral high ground, and were it not for some fortuitous flukes of happenstance, England's victory was assured.
India's independence was a bloody drawn-out affair in which one side was the clear aggressor, the people didn't kill each other, and England's ouster was inevitable - just a matter of time.
Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.
"This is why I hate the climate debate. It ceased to be science a long time ago, it's all about politics nowdays. "
There is no debate. Among scientists the basic theory is not in dispute and hasn't been for many years.
The only "debate" consists of republicans dissing famous activists, and commissioning fraudulent convoluted obfuscations that come across to their less discriminating constituents as scientific dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are you going to shoot?
Before there was a 2nd amendment there was a concept of Natural Law, that held that all men had an inalienable right to self-determination. Government got its authority from the will of the governed.
What We The People brought into this world, We The People can redesign or dissolve. Peacefully. The States can convene a Constitutional Convention and amend or rewrite the federal charter as we see fit. If congress doesn't go along, states can recall the critters and replace them.
This idea of shooting our way into a better world is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Nobody says anything about what's supposed to happen when the smoke clears.
> The "trust us" defense isn't good enough
It's not, because we are unsatisfied.
But it is enough, because what do they even need a defense for? What threat must they defend themselves from?
Congress? If Congress does anything, it will expand NSA powers, not reduce them.
SCOTUS? Somebody has to sue the gov first and prove harm. But it's all secret, so nobody can do that. If anyone managed to get proof, they'd end up in a jail cell with Bradley Manning.
It is a FACT that there are an average of 89 traffic fatalities a day in the US. There are bad days and worse days...
Honestly, we need to stop worrying about Drivers having accidents, and just accept that they WILL happen, just like they did back in the 60's.
From the driver's seat we are at an interesting place to watch it happen, but can't really do much except watch it happen. Ok, maybe we could also slam the accelerator to the floor and have another beer - it's not like we can stop accidents.
"There is very little difference between NZ, Australia, Spain, or United States in the jihaddists' eyes"
Kind of like there's little difference between putting on a massive stage spectacular at the West End, Broadway, Vegas Strip, or the Aleutian Islands.
You're right that the size of the human population is the basic problem.
But implementing mandatory population control requires something akin to a police state, and it would be too little, too late.
Nature has a lot of experience with cutting excessive populations down to a manageable size. It's not a pleasant process for the overpopulated species, but ecosystems have rules we can't flaunt forever. Our population is in the hands of nature now, at the mercy of a climate that we ourselves have made more severe.
What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like:
"We need to give people a living wage"
"Everyone has the right to free health care"
"Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"
You seem to be coming from a purist libertarian philosophy. Which is cool.
I think society will always want a sense of fair play that they're unlikely to get from unregulated tycoons of industry behaving as they wish. Hence come legislative hacks like minimum/living wage laws.
Taxing externalities appeals to my own libertarian sensibilities - I've never fully understood why most libertarians rankle at them. Leaving the common good out of the math is dishonest and unsustainable. Taxes like oil royalties and pollution sin taxes are necessary to pay for costs otherwise borne by society. Done well they keep the free market in better balance and ensure its health and longevity.
There's nothing in that "right to free health care" line that says it has to be provided by employers. I think most libertarian leaning people would agree that employment and health care should not be as tightly coupled as they now are. So you can object to "free health care" on many levels, but in general, "free enterprise" can occur even if the government is a consumer in the market.
No amount of bad legislation and resultant recession/depression can be worse than replicating Venus' atmosphere on Earth (Hawking, Sagan) or even the non-extinction level catastrophes mainstream climatology predicts.
"(who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier"
Not sure I've ever heard a politician rail against free enterprise.
As to the rest, it's not clear to me that an ignorant global trade policy would cause more harm than an ignorant global environment policy.
Could I see your math?
You're awfully closed-minded as shamans go. Native american cultures held transgendered tribesmen in special regard.
Your particular culture isn't the end-all be-all of human relations nor some fountain of cosmic truth.
Nice clear answer, thanks.
But just because the cops could get a warrant doesn't mean the suspect really has their evidence.
They can "compel" Professor Plum to produce the candlestick, but if he can't, he can't. And if he can, he's probably sealed his own fate.
So I'm with GP - I don't see how compelling one to provide evidence against herself is anything but compelling self-incriminating testimony. If the cops can't crack the password, their evidence that she had the password should be all they can produce at trial.
senteance, n.
1) Grammatical structure composed by cognizant individual.
2) Punishment wherein the punished is confined to a dim candle-lit room inhabited by disembodied souls.
"Social justice is bullshit"
By that do you mean that it is both undesirable and impossible?
The impossible I can't speak to, but justice seems desirable no matter what adjective you stick in front of it.
I think a just society would not produce homogeneity of outcome, but it would produce a distribution of outcome where most of the wealth is shared by most of the people.
In other words, wealth distribution should look something vaguely similar to a normal (bell) distribution. America's, though, looks like an exponential function (hockey stick).
We love to gush patriotism and congratulate ourselves on being the land of freedom and a meritocracy where anyone can make it. That's been true for a few individuals, but collectively, the cold empirical facts tell a different story. A story of wealth being siphoned from the masses to the few. A story of social injustice.
Social injustice is bullshit.
"The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit."
Going forward, they should weigh the payloads before accepting so many clients.
With such bandwidth they should be able to beam themselves straight from their transporter room to your MMORPG..
" Steve never made it to president, so that should tell you he's not quite as clever as he thinks"
Because Republican primary voters nominate only the brightest intellectuals.
" I don't know if they actually did or not. Or if you're just making shit up"
Having deduced that you lack the character to do a google search, I provided a link to get you started.
That you lack the will to copy and paste that URL into a browser window goes a long way towards explaining how you've managed to insulate your mind from the reality that we are throwing sand in the gears of our own life support systems.
The idea that the increase in temperature is "slight" comes from where? IPCC predictions that every climatologist calls "very conservative?"
"Poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing" are all amplified by the changing climate. Climate change is a 3rd world problem before it's a 1st world problem. Otherwise, the 1st world would already be stopping their pumping carbon by the tons from the bowels of the earth into the atmosphere, as the 3rd world is pleading for them to do.
The man who currently holds Sir Isaac Newton's old job, one Stephen Hawking, appears to be convinced that by the year 3000 Earth will have the climate of Venus. Carl Sagan predicted runaway warming as well. (https://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/)
If you know better than they, please show your work.
Sorry, that was $1.00 * 10 for me. I didn't mean to underreport that dime on tax day.
"If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted. "
It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid. If the goal were to give me a 99 cent advantage, It would be cheaper to give me ($0.99 * 10) than to shell out that for me plus ($0.01 * 10,000) for you.
If value means only purchase price, why would the industry with overwhelming market domination and the lowest retail price require taxpayer subsidies?
That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers. Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?
As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with "per megawatt," and everything to do with "per campaign contribution."
It's the job of a physician to understand what systems do, how they work, and how to work around their problems. Defeating problematic obstacles should come to them naturally.
Why would you trust your health to doctors who willingly sacrificed their own productivity in order to allow inept and gullible bureaucrats to sit on their asses, or have orgies with security vendors who are robbing the hospital blind?
"How'd that occupy wall street thing turn out?"
How could it turn out? They had a vague complaint that things weren't fair and whatever was wrong was Wall Street's fault. Their complaint was noted.
By disobedience I don't mean sitting in the street or camping out in the park. I mean getting large groups/flash mobs to flout whatever law they find inappropriate.
For example, don't stand when the judge enters the courtroom. Film/photograph cops where illegal. Take an extra ounce of water on a plane. Have one motorist after another after another drive (safely) past DUI checkpoints without stopping, Get an entire farmers market to refuse to accept federal reserve notes as payment. Whatever law seems to serve government and repress the people.
"A few new jails will be built to house all of you"
Yes. We may also get shot. That's what happens when the people buck the rulers.
"You won't get more than 5 minutes of media coverage"
You may have a point about the corporate media. But today we also have telephones and email and youtube and blogs. In this environment MSM can't ignore the events and retain credibility.
"getting run over by tanks and getting shot in the face"
Taking up arms against Uncle Sam won't reduce your risk of getting killed, my friend. If you aren't willing to die, don't challenge the government. If you are willing to die, die smart..
Toppling a nominally civilized government by force of arms is stupid. Who should we shoot? Our local congressman? Our neighborhood cop?
A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.
The last time we threw out a government (our independence from Britain), was a bloody drawn-out affair in which our people were fighting Britain and each other, neither the loyalists nor insurrectionists had an objectively clear moral high ground, and were it not for some fortuitous flukes of happenstance, England's victory was assured.
India's independence was a bloody drawn-out affair in which one side was the clear aggressor, the people didn't kill each other, and England's ouster was inevitable - just a matter of time.
Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.
"This is why I hate the climate debate. It ceased to be science a long time ago, it's all about politics nowdays. "
There is no debate. Among scientists the basic theory is not in dispute and hasn't been for many years.
The only "debate" consists of republicans dissing famous activists, and commissioning fraudulent convoluted obfuscations that come across to their less discriminating constituents as scientific dissent.