He's saying that many judges take into account more than just the law, but also what the ramifications upholding or striking down a particular law would be. That is, they rule based on how much damage they think their ruling might do as well as whether the law upholds a particular action.
Maybe... we shouldn't rebuild those neighborhoods. Or any destroyed by the flooding of Katrina.
It was a terrible design decision to build the neighborhoods in New Orleans where they did. They were especially susceptible to flooding, and flood they did. Why should we rebuild there? So we can "make everything as it was" 5 years ago? Why repeat a horrible mistake from the past when we could instead learn from it?
Put the Katrina money towards relocating and rebuilding elsewhere instead of clearing the old land and building there.
I almost never ever say this sort of thing, but...
Please mod the parent up!
The problem is not having too little food. The problem is transporting the food to the correct place and breaking the power of the warlords who use food and starvation as weapons and ways of keeping their own people in line.
I'm saying companies shouldn't be rewarded for seeking to exploit the citizens of another country in a manner that would have the executives thrown in jail if they tried the same thing here. Very clever of you though to frame that as a greedy philosophy.
I don't have a problem with hiring labor overseas because giving them the same standard of living is cheaper. It's pretty close to moving your operations from, say, San Francisco to Utah. Employees get half the salary but can probably afford a better house since SF is such an expensive place to live. But when, say, Shell Oil pays into a police force to shoot protesters at an oil well in Nigeria, or a certain shoe company lowers its costs by employing youngsters in an asian country for 12 hours a day, that crosses the line into exploitation, and the company should not be benefiting from that.
It takes no special ability to follow the instructions given by the coach on how to play against the limited number of tactics used in football or other sports, all it takes is training.
Much the same could be said about programming and following the instructions your professor gives you in algorithm class.
I don't have a problem with technology replacing some jobs. What I do have a problem with is one country exporting jobs to another because the home country believes that some rights (organizing, living wage, etc) are inherent while the other country does not.
Are you for real? Do you actually work for a living at a place more advanced than, say, Taco Bell? At a company where sometimes, employees need to attend meetings?
So you're assuming that they only offer one version of Windows? Have you heard of the six different versions?
They're still Windows Vista. The differences (that the end-user would care about) are far smaller than the differences between Fedora and Suse or Debian or Ubuntu or.. etc. Now maybe if all those distros used the same packaging system, desktop/library layout (that situation at least has gotten better in the last few years), packages from one could be used on another..
It doesn't matter what people want to do later, if they live in the town and object to your barrier, because the very first time they realized they were trapped and had to cross your land, the toll would not only include cash, but a signed contract stating they'd never compete with you. Also, you'd block all food shipments into the town, selling only your stuff to people who agree to the same terms. And, while you're at it, if they happen to own land near any other towns, that's yours also, or at least a strip of it.
Some libertarian is about to come up with a reason that this specific example would not be allowed, but specific examples aren't the problem.
Eh, better yet you should come up with are examples that are actually grounded in reality and could, even theoretically happen. Your prostitution example is a better arguement, but if you want to undo a 'pure' libertarian's arguement, ask him what happens to the FDA and food inspectors. The answers they'll give will make most sane people blanche in horror.
And Britain didn't try to play the appeasement/non-involvement game when its allies were attacked too? They thought they could have "peace for our time" after the signing of the Munich Agreement?
No, I mean, if government can auction off the ability to speak by radio on certain frequencies and impose controls over what can be said (see eg. the "Fairness Doctrine"), then why don't the same justifications used for radio also justify controls over normal speech?
Speech has a far shorter range than radio. The problems of audio conversations interferring with each other and radio broadcasts interferring with each other are pretty dissimilar.
The USA did not enter the war until first Japan, then Germany declared war on it, leaving it no alternative but to fight. Yes, Hitler supported his ally even though he didn't have to, and it was greatly to his disadvantage - something the USA had consistently refused to do for Britain or France (or anyone else).
That's not quite accurate either. The US did everything short of sending troops to support the Allies in Europe, sending billions of dollars of war materials (mostly to Britain, from my spotty memory), escorting merchant ships across the Atlantic (and declaring those ships under US protection), and other things like attempting to cut off the supply of oil to Japan. The popular support for World War II just didn't exist in the US at the time, but the Roosevelt administration goaded the axis powers into making a first military strike to break the isolationist mindset at home.
Slashdot Mirror
You would think that, say, after several hundred years we might have progressed a bit.
He's saying that many judges take into account more than just the law, but also what the ramifications upholding or striking down a particular law would be. That is, they rule based on how much damage they think their ruling might do as well as whether the law upholds a particular action.
Emeril had better watch it. If he keeps kicking it up a notch, he's going to have nowhere left to go but down.
Maybe this was the feature Linux programmers copied from SCO?
For God's sake, mod this up to 5.
Hey, they said we're overdue for an eruption. That volcano has -stamina-!
Hmmm, the quick death of the volcano, or the long, slow death of the "nuclear winter" afterwards? Decisions, decisions..
It was a terrible design decision to build the neighborhoods in New Orleans where they did. They were especially susceptible to flooding, and flood they did. Why should we rebuild there? So we can "make everything as it was" 5 years ago? Why repeat a horrible mistake from the past when we could instead learn from it?
Put the Katrina money towards relocating and rebuilding elsewhere instead of clearing the old land and building there.
Granted, he's not at all credible, but that's still no reason to ignore his message.
Please mod the parent up!
The problem is not having too little food. The problem is transporting the food to the correct place and breaking the power of the warlords who use food and starvation as weapons and ways of keeping their own people in line.
It's official! This is now a catfight.
I'm saying companies shouldn't be rewarded for seeking to exploit the citizens of another country in a manner that would have the executives thrown in jail if they tried the same thing here. Very clever of you though to frame that as a greedy philosophy.
I don't have a problem with hiring labor overseas because giving them the same standard of living is cheaper. It's pretty close to moving your operations from, say, San Francisco to Utah. Employees get half the salary but can probably afford a better house since SF is such an expensive place to live. But when, say, Shell Oil pays into a police force to shoot protesters at an oil well in Nigeria, or a certain shoe company lowers its costs by employing youngsters in an asian country for 12 hours a day, that crosses the line into exploitation, and the company should not be benefiting from that.
Someone mentioned Frank Ryan already, though my favorite player was Rhodes Scholar Steve Young
Much the same could be said about programming and following the instructions your professor gives you in algorithm class.
I don't have a problem with technology replacing some jobs. What I do have a problem with is one country exporting jobs to another because the home country believes that some rights (organizing, living wage, etc) are inherent while the other country does not.
Are you for real? Do you actually work for a living at a place more advanced than, say, Taco Bell? At a company where sometimes, employees need to attend meetings?
They're still Windows Vista. The differences (that the end-user would care about) are far smaller than the differences between Fedora and Suse or Debian or Ubuntu or.. etc. Now maybe if all those distros used the same packaging system, desktop/library layout (that situation at least has gotten better in the last few years), packages from one could be used on another..
Some libertarian is about to come up with a reason that this specific example would not be allowed, but specific examples aren't the problem.
Eh, better yet you should come up with are examples that are actually grounded in reality and could, even theoretically happen. Your prostitution example is a better arguement, but if you want to undo a 'pure' libertarian's arguement, ask him what happens to the FDA and food inspectors. The answers they'll give will make most sane people blanche in horror.
Because no one should have anything to hide, right?
And Britain didn't try to play the appeasement/non-involvement game when its allies were attacked too? They thought they could have "peace for our time" after the signing of the Munich Agreement?
Speech has a far shorter range than radio. The problems of audio conversations interferring with each other and radio broadcasts interferring with each other are pretty dissimilar.
So if I dual-booted a machine to run both linux and windows, I could write files to the windows share that would be readable when windows booted up?
That's not quite accurate either. The US did everything short of sending troops to support the Allies in Europe, sending billions of dollars of war materials (mostly to Britain, from my spotty memory), escorting merchant ships across the Atlantic (and declaring those ships under US protection), and other things like attempting to cut off the supply of oil to Japan. The popular support for World War II just didn't exist in the US at the time, but the Roosevelt administration goaded the axis powers into making a first military strike to break the isolationist mindset at home.
Sounds good to me.
Satire? Around where I live a great many people believe most of your points fervently.