Expropriation is the theft of a company by the state with no compensation - or as a result of a court order in connection with something else. Nationalisation is the state taking ownership but paying the owners a fair price for the assets. There is obviously a spectrum here; many Asian owned businesses in East Africa in the 60s and 70s were 'nationalised', but the price was paid in government bonds in an non-convertible currency that promptly inflated to zero value.
In the Western context, the process of nationalisation is essentially the same as compulsory purchase of land with a similar expectation of fair value paid. To do otherwise does constitute the state stealing the asset, and would probably constitute a post facto law; this, of course is why we have constitutions...
In extremis. Of course you are right that laws change all the time, but at some level the constitutional principle has some significance. Certainly whole scale expropriation without compensation of things owned by corporations would be illegitimate. The issue is where to draw the line; the challenge is to resist being totally dogmatic in both directions!
Because people have the right, under law, to create corporations and benefit from them, they inherit much the same right to act in the interest of those people as those people have. [Yes, this has probably been over-extended in the Supreme Court case that lets them do political donations to their hearts' content]. However the core idea in the organisation of a society is that laws lock in rights and expectations; if I set up an organisation with certain rights, then I have to right to expect to see those right protected.
Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with. What you are proposed is to overthrow that principle - technically this constitutes a breach of the constraint on the Congress not to pass a 'post facto' law - see section 9 of the US constitution, Whilst you may regret this situation, to assert that the situation can be reversed is not legitimate.
It may be argued to have a moral duty to pay them, but 'owe' implies a legal obligation. The reality is that corporate lobbyists have created some loop holes that the corporations are legally using to avoid paying what they don't have to pay. However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.
Doesn't mainly focus on a fence - though that would be necessary - but on depriving Scots without rUK citizenship of the rights of rUK citizens to live and work in the rUK.
And yes, I have no doubt that Scotland will be excluded from the EU for a period unless it rolls over and plays dead on a lot of issues, the Euro, abandoning Maggie's rebate and any control on Spanish fishing boats being some of them.
Look at a map. The roads north out of England only exist to provide transport to and from Scotland. The question is whether the English will bother to maintain them once there's no union; we get relatively little benefit from them, since Scotland is a relatively small market for us. For Scotland it's a big issue. It's therefore entirely reasonable for us to look for a contribution from Scotland for the maintenance of those roads, whether as a toll or explicitly.
"There are and will continue to be plenty of banks in Scotland."
In order for banks to lend, they must have deposits. Given the risk of holding money north of the border, a 'Yes' vote will generate a stampede of cash south on Friday. There may be banks, but they won't have any money to lend
"There is and will continue to be freedom of movement".
Really? If Scotland has left the EU, then it will be necessary to impose border controls
"There is and will continue to be access to European markets."
Only if you get to renegotiate membership of the EU. Good luck with that until you've agreed to pay your share of the UK's debts, and then only if you are nice to the Spanish
"Scotland has and will continue to use The Pound, and there is nothing the UK government will be able to do to stop them."
Sterlingisation will result in substantially higher interest rates for all bank loans as the risk of holding money in a country without a lender of last resort is significant.
"Prices are will remain competitive; arbitrage and competitive pressures will prevent large price rises."
This, at least, is accurate because you admit there will be price rises. If you are very lucky there won't be a toll on the M6 north of Carlise and the A1 north of Berwick, but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.
"Russia will NOT invade Scotland... FFS! Why do I have to comment on this kind of purile shit?"
Given Putin's ambition and Scotland's oil, an attempt seems like an entertaining prospect. Not a visible invasion at first of course; Scottish socialists would start rioting as a result of the economic chaos following Scotland's ejection from the EU and then invite Russian peacekeepers to restore order. A referendum would be organised for Scotland to join the Russian Federation.
Of course that's not likely - but the idea that Scotland should become freeloaders like many other European countries, dependent on Uncle Sam to protect them from a bear that is demonstrably on the prowl is disappointing.
"If the remaining UK screws over Scotland out of regret for allowing independence, then it would hurt the UK just as much as it would Scotland."
Certainly not. Scotland is a small country whose screwing over would barely effect rUK, but who could bring the Scots to total chaos in days. We merely want to ensure that they pay their debts; they are the ones who raised the prospect of using that as a threat - we need to ensure that they don't even think about it.
1) Statement of fact: Norway is not in the EU
2) Scotland will not be independent on 19th September, it will have voted to seek independence. It will have no control of its taxation, until that is agreed. It would be logical for the rUK government to inform Alex Salmond on 19th that at an imminent date the cash from UK wide taxation will cease to be paid to the Scottish government that keeps it going until it agrees to accept its debt. 1st January 2015 or the start of the new fiscal year spring to mind.
3) Until full independence, all state power will remain in the hands of the UK government
In an ideal world, human beings could be motivated by appeals to great ideals. Some people are: I have to admire the 'red martyrs' of communism who accept death for their beliefs with no hope of resurrection, unlike the 'black martyrs' of the Church. However in reality most people will rapidly drift back to being selfish. Therefore the prospect of eternal reward and punishment provide an external goad that, within the religious worldview, is a reality that will encourage people to stay on the strait and narrow. Of course it may not be true - but if it is, it is a reality for the believers.
Atheism offers no such goad. It has to construct a vision for the future, and depend on politicians to evangelise for it. This has not gone well...
Given my need to live cooperatively, then it makes rational sense to live by these standards. However this doesn't offer any insight into the role or otherwise of Atheism in this debate.
Quite possibly true, but to do so requires an additional presupposition that 'rational systems' or evolution should provide a basis for morality. Why should they?
What I said did not claim that there was an atheist perspective, what I said claimed that it provides no basis for a value system. You argue there is no atheist perspective. We therefore agree that it provides no basis for a value system! However I guess I might have expressed the point more tightly...
"Are you trying to say that without a belif in some God, that it is not possible to understand what is good for a society, or an individual, or a collection of individuals?"
Did I say that? No. ALL I said was that atheism offers no basis for the choice, which is a completely different statement.
Your points about Sodom are interesting. Lot's attempt to offer his daughters instead of his guests reflects the high value that their culture put on hospitality, something which our society doesn't. In that context the offer does make sense. The rule about stoning non-virgin brides emphasises that the wayward women are being harlots. Given that the story of the incident would have been known, I suspect that their status would have been accepted as they wouldn't be doing so. However I admit I've never heard the point discussed before.
Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is, of course, a demonstration of the need to OBEY GOD. This is not fashionable today; the churches talk endlessly about the love of God, but actually the bible gives us 'the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. If we disobey God, we deserve to die ('the wages of sin is death'). Any fate short of that is pure grace - undeserved favour - by God. At some point we all die and then comes judgement; at that point the offer of grace has run out.
In practice the term 'agnostic' has come to mean 'doesn't have a belief about God', not what it means strictly. However, to confuse the point further, it can be argued that the person who claims not to have a belief about God proves by how he lives that he doesn't believe in God, at least on some definitions of God.
And that's the problem; it's impossible to justify a value system purely from an atheist perspective; you've got to add some value such as 'the good of society', 'the utility of the individual', 'the success of the species'. In practice atheists tend to absorb the dominant values of their society; thus often 'love your neighbour', usually defining 'neighbour' in the extensive way that Jesus offers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But actually there's not a terribly good reason for doing so, and it's been a minority view down the centuries.
And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao - which is not to argue we Christians haven't committed some appalling crimes, but that all need to be given the right to condemn some of those flying the same flag.
[Full disclosure - I'm a traditional Christian from a Christian background. I have one particular friend who had ended up a Christian from an atheist background, not least because it offers no value system]
Given that permission is given is to ' own only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.', taking steps to prevent noise on your property to ensure your enjoyment of it seems a reasonable use...
It's always been a more open question than the failure to find them reflects; the fact that Assad's Syria proved to have chemical weapons after denying it raises the prospect they inherited them from Saddam. There are claims wandering round the internet that IS now has some - the proof of that will be when they use them of course. The jury is out - let's wait and see!
FUD works because people don't think things through; we are very bad at proper risk assessment. The question remains whether we should trust our government to do better - or suspect it of abusing the opportunity this allegation makes. Recent history encourages the latter!
I remain conflicted; as a moderately competent STEM educated person, I am aware of any number of ways of reducing Western cities to chaos without a lot of effort and no risk. Yet our jihadi brethren never succeed in pulling it off. 7/7 in London and the Boston bombing seem to have been independent efforts, not carried out by people in the jihadi chain of command. Which leads me to suspect a lot of the hype is FUD by our government, or at least its security agencies, to milk the situation for as much as possible. OTOH it is totally clear that IS and HAMAS are committed to doing very nasty things to anyone who gets in their way. Something weird is going on; I look forward to discovering the truth, but I have nasty suspicion we won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Expropriation is the theft of a company by the state with no compensation - or as a result of a court order in connection with something else. Nationalisation is the state taking ownership but paying the owners a fair price for the assets. There is obviously a spectrum here; many Asian owned businesses in East Africa in the 60s and 70s were 'nationalised', but the price was paid in government bonds in an non-convertible currency that promptly inflated to zero value.
In the Western context, the process of nationalisation is essentially the same as compulsory purchase of land with a similar expectation of fair value paid. To do otherwise does constitute the state stealing the asset, and would probably constitute a post facto law; this, of course is why we have constitutions...
In extremis. Of course you are right that laws change all the time, but at some level the constitutional principle has some significance. Certainly whole scale expropriation without compensation of things owned by corporations would be illegitimate. The issue is where to draw the line; the challenge is to resist being totally dogmatic in both directions!
Because people have the right, under law, to create corporations and benefit from them, they inherit much the same right to act in the interest of those people as those people have. [Yes, this has probably been over-extended in the Supreme Court case that lets them do political donations to their hearts' content]. However the core idea in the organisation of a society is that laws lock in rights and expectations; if I set up an organisation with certain rights, then I have to right to expect to see those right protected.
Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with. What you are proposed is to overthrow that principle - technically this constitutes a breach of the constraint on the Congress not to pass a 'post facto' law - see section 9 of the US constitution, Whilst you may regret this situation, to assert that the situation can be reversed is not legitimate.
It may be argued to have a moral duty to pay them, but 'owe' implies a legal obligation. The reality is that corporate lobbyists have created some loop holes that the corporations are legally using to avoid paying what they don't have to pay. However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Doesn't mainly focus on a fence - though that would be necessary - but on depriving Scots without rUK citizenship of the rights of rUK citizens to live and work in the rUK.
And yes, I have no doubt that Scotland will be excluded from the EU for a period unless it rolls over and plays dead on a lot of issues, the Euro, abandoning Maggie's rebate and any control on Spanish fishing boats being some of them.
The new Doctor Who is causing Americans problems because of his Scottish accent...
Look at a map. The roads north out of England only exist to provide transport to and from Scotland. The question is whether the English will bother to maintain them once there's no union; we get relatively little benefit from them, since Scotland is a relatively small market for us. For Scotland it's a big issue. It's therefore entirely reasonable for us to look for a contribution from Scotland for the maintenance of those roads, whether as a toll or explicitly.
"There are and will continue to be plenty of banks in Scotland."
In order for banks to lend, they must have deposits. Given the risk of holding money north of the border, a 'Yes' vote will generate a stampede of cash south on Friday. There may be banks, but they won't have any money to lend
"There is and will continue to be freedom of movement".
Really? If Scotland has left the EU, then it will be necessary to impose border controls
"There is and will continue to be access to European markets."
Only if you get to renegotiate membership of the EU. Good luck with that until you've agreed to pay your share of the UK's debts, and then only if you are nice to the Spanish
"Scotland has and will continue to use The Pound, and there is nothing the UK government will be able to do to stop them."
Sterlingisation will result in substantially higher interest rates for all bank loans as the risk of holding money in a country without a lender of last resort is significant.
"Prices are will remain competitive; arbitrage and competitive pressures will prevent large price rises."
This, at least, is accurate because you admit there will be price rises. If you are very lucky there won't be a toll on the M6 north of Carlise and the A1 north of Berwick, but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.
"Russia will NOT invade Scotland... FFS! Why do I have to comment on this kind of purile shit?"
Given Putin's ambition and Scotland's oil, an attempt seems like an entertaining prospect. Not a visible invasion at first of course; Scottish socialists would start rioting as a result of the economic chaos following Scotland's ejection from the EU and then invite Russian peacekeepers to restore order. A referendum would be organised for Scotland to join the Russian Federation.
Of course that's not likely - but the idea that Scotland should become freeloaders like many other European countries, dependent on Uncle Sam to protect them from a bear that is demonstrably on the prowl is disappointing.
Naw - there was a bill before Parliament that disappeared when war started, but no vote, unless you can provide me with evidence to the contrary
"If the remaining UK screws over Scotland out of regret for allowing independence, then it would hurt the UK just as much as it would Scotland." Certainly not. Scotland is a small country whose screwing over would barely effect rUK, but who could bring the Scots to total chaos in days. We merely want to ensure that they pay their debts; they are the ones who raised the prospect of using that as a threat - we need to ensure that they don't even think about it.
1) Statement of fact: Norway is not in the EU 2) Scotland will not be independent on 19th September, it will have voted to seek independence. It will have no control of its taxation, until that is agreed. It would be logical for the rUK government to inform Alex Salmond on 19th that at an imminent date the cash from UK wide taxation will cease to be paid to the Scottish government that keeps it going until it agrees to accept its debt. 1st January 2015 or the start of the new fiscal year spring to mind. 3) Until full independence, all state power will remain in the hands of the UK government
In an ideal world, human beings could be motivated by appeals to great ideals. Some people are: I have to admire the 'red martyrs' of communism who accept death for their beliefs with no hope of resurrection, unlike the 'black martyrs' of the Church. However in reality most people will rapidly drift back to being selfish. Therefore the prospect of eternal reward and punishment provide an external goad that, within the religious worldview, is a reality that will encourage people to stay on the strait and narrow. Of course it may not be true - but if it is, it is a reality for the believers.
Atheism offers no such goad. It has to construct a vision for the future, and depend on politicians to evangelise for it. This has not gone well...
Given my need to live cooperatively, then it makes rational sense to live by these standards. However this doesn't offer any insight into the role or otherwise of Atheism in this debate.
Quite possibly true, but to do so requires an additional presupposition that 'rational systems' or evolution should provide a basis for morality. Why should they?
What I said did not claim that there was an atheist perspective, what I said claimed that it provides no basis for a value system. You argue there is no atheist perspective. We therefore agree that it provides no basis for a value system! However I guess I might have expressed the point more tightly...
"Are you trying to say that without a belif in some God, that it is not possible to understand what is good for a society, or an individual, or a collection of individuals?"
Did I say that? No. ALL I said was that atheism offers no basis for the choice, which is a completely different statement.
Your points about Sodom are interesting. Lot's attempt to offer his daughters instead of his guests reflects the high value that their culture put on hospitality, something which our society doesn't. In that context the offer does make sense. The rule about stoning non-virgin brides emphasises that the wayward women are being harlots. Given that the story of the incident would have been known, I suspect that their status would have been accepted as they wouldn't be doing so. However I admit I've never heard the point discussed before.
Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is, of course, a demonstration of the need to OBEY GOD. This is not fashionable today; the churches talk endlessly about the love of God, but actually the bible gives us 'the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. If we disobey God, we deserve to die ('the wages of sin is death'). Any fate short of that is pure grace - undeserved favour - by God. At some point we all die and then comes judgement; at that point the offer of grace has run out.
In practice the term 'agnostic' has come to mean 'doesn't have a belief about God', not what it means strictly. However, to confuse the point further, it can be argued that the person who claims not to have a belief about God proves by how he lives that he doesn't believe in God, at least on some definitions of God.
And that's the problem; it's impossible to justify a value system purely from an atheist perspective; you've got to add some value such as 'the good of society', 'the utility of the individual', 'the success of the species'. In practice atheists tend to absorb the dominant values of their society; thus often 'love your neighbour', usually defining 'neighbour' in the extensive way that Jesus offers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But actually there's not a terribly good reason for doing so, and it's been a minority view down the centuries.
And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao - which is not to argue we Christians haven't committed some appalling crimes, but that all need to be given the right to condemn some of those flying the same flag.
[Full disclosure - I'm a traditional Christian from a Christian background. I have one particular friend who had ended up a Christian from an atheist background, not least because it offers no value system]
Or perhaps one of the others - the CIA would no doubt appreciate it.
Given that permission is given is to ' own only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.', taking steps to prevent noise on your property to ensure your enjoyment of it seems a reasonable use...
"This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas" So who's doing this populating remotely? We have a right to know...
It's always been a more open question than the failure to find them reflects; the fact that Assad's Syria proved to have chemical weapons after denying it raises the prospect they inherited them from Saddam. There are claims wandering round the internet that IS now has some - the proof of that will be when they use them of course. The jury is out - let's wait and see!
FUD works because people don't think things through; we are very bad at proper risk assessment. The question remains whether we should trust our government to do better - or suspect it of abusing the opportunity this allegation makes. Recent history encourages the latter!
I remain conflicted; as a moderately competent STEM educated person, I am aware of any number of ways of reducing Western cities to chaos without a lot of effort and no risk. Yet our jihadi brethren never succeed in pulling it off. 7/7 in London and the Boston bombing seem to have been independent efforts, not carried out by people in the jihadi chain of command. Which leads me to suspect a lot of the hype is FUD by our government, or at least its security agencies, to milk the situation for as much as possible. OTOH it is totally clear that IS and HAMAS are committed to doing very nasty things to anyone who gets in their way. Something weird is going on; I look forward to discovering the truth, but I have nasty suspicion we won't.