So? Should crimes be ignored because there are a lot of them? How would that work?
If police officers start shooting people at random often enough, should they be allowed to get away with it? Should murderers, rapists and drug dealers be set free because it's just too much of a hassle trying to arrest them?
If a crime is committed then the person responsible should be punished. It shouldn't matter if they are a cop or not.
If exposing an undercover cop put so many lives at risk, then why don't more of them get killed? After a person is arrested, they aren't kept from communicating with the outside world. And the cop probably has to testify against them at trial. So you definitely have people who both know the person was an undercover cop AND what he/she looks like.
On the other hand what rules are there against filming a cop maintaining his cover? The person filming can't know the person is a cop. It could be just a good citizen trying to help the police top the neighborhood gang.
Do you support arresting everyone then? After all, they could all be planning to commit a crime in the next few minutes.
There are rules about what the police can and can't do. Just like for everyone else. If they break those rules, they should be punished for it. If they thought the law allowed them to detain a person, but it actually didn't, then they should be treated the same as everyone else : Ignorance of the law is no defense. They should of course be offered a plea bargain, where they get reduced sentences if they testify against the person who gave them the order to arrest people taping them. And that person should be charged with conspiracy at least.
So make those responsible take responsibility for the disasters. If a nuclear plant is run unsafely, make the executives and shareholders responsible for any accidents. If people die, then put them in prison etc.
Just don't put all nuclear plants in one basket. After all, if one car blows up we don't have protests trying to ban all cars.
Convicts are a valuable resource anyway. Just look at the US. Private prisons rack in money keeping them locked up. And with death row inmates they get to keep them for a few years, then execute them when they would be likely to start costing more in health care. Much better then keeping geriatrics for decades, costing the poor prison SEVERAL dollars in doctor costs.
So I still don't understand why the organs shouldn't be harvested. If as you say the system can't be fixed anyway, then stopping the harvesting won't change anything. And if the system can be changed, why not stop the harvesting temporarily, fix the system and then restart the harvesting?
So which character on the ship do you want to be? If you enjoy putting out fires you're probably going to pick engineer. So the entire game will consist of you fixing machines. You don't need a space game for that. On the other hand if you pick captain, you'll probably just yell at your crew to put out fires, since you'll be too busy dealing with whatever hostile ship CAUSED your fire.
So what do you suggest? Make corporations immune to fines and damages? Yes, their customers will have to pay off the judgement. IF they stay their customers. There is nothing stopping them from going to the competition (which will of course raise their prices, due to the sudden high demand).
But what happens when the money for someone runs out? Let's say they are in hospital, on life support but still able to move and talk. They have no family an no assets. They've been paying into medicare their entire lives, but this final illness is just extremely expensive.
Do you support the doctors pulling the plug? Or should the hospital foot the bill?
Medicare is a long term mandatory insurance policy. Some people die young, some old people die in their sleep. But some people get sick and survive for a long time. So why shouldn't they get the care they need. Just like and insurance policy : If you have a big accident you get more money out of it then you paid in. However at the same time many people get nothing.
You have to also set minimum standards for the defense.
Right now the standards of adequate representation are pretty low. As long as your lawyer shows up he's pretty much done his job as far as the law is concerned.
Imagine if a prosecutor did the same? Walked up to the jury, said that his office thinks the defendant did it, then sat down and rested his case. Can you imagine the outrage? Then why is similar behavior tolerated for a defense attorney?
Why not have just one organization to defend everyone. Just like the prosecutors are employed by the state, do the same for criminal defense attorneys. Once someone is accused, his attorney is chosen randomly from those available. No more expensive lawyers for rich people. Equal justice for all. If that happened, I'm quite sure laws would suddenly be much stricter about what adequate representation meant.
Then why not restrict everything that harms people? Alcohol and tobacco? Both are addictive and have negative effects on a person. So ban them. Mountain climbing, skydiving,.. Those are dangerous too, so ban them. And let's not forget professional sports. Those can cripple the players so they should of course be forbidden.
Why does the government only target some vices, while actively encouraging others? Ban everything that can harm citizens or ban nothing. Don't pick and choose the things you personally like and ban the rest.
Perhaps society needs a little chaos. It seems to me that most western republics seem stuck. What you call a coherent policy is little more than ensuring the status quo. The only things that seem to matter are ensuring the politician's re-election. Which principally means keeping the big donors happy by making sure laws favor them.
And sure, people have the chance to elect someone else every 4 years or so. But who can they choose from? Only a small pool of candidates with enough money to get on TV. And after they are elected, they have absolutely no accountability to the people for the length of their term. So in 99% of the cases all of the promises they made before the elections go right out the window. And what happens to politicians that loose the elections? They get a job as 'expert advisors' or something like that, then step in at the next election, promising to 'fix' everything their replacement has done wrong. And the circle goes on. So people get discouraged and stop voting. Which is just what the powers that be want.
And you're right - there is a system of laws and customs to limit the actions of politicians. But it's written by previous generations of politicians, and there is little about it that is good for the nation as a whole.
And you're also right about the dangers of mob rule for minorities. But does a republic protect them? Just look at France and the Gipsy deportations, or at he US and their treatment of terrorism SUSPECTS. Or how much they listen to minorities like OWS. Of course there are some minorities that they do listen to - mostly the ones that support their campaigns, like the copyright lobby or Wall street. In the end it all boils down to protecting just one minority - themselves. And the rest of society can crumble for all they care.
What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians? Both will disregard the wishes of anyone outside 'their' group, and at least when you're trying to bribe the mob you have to give something to most of the nation, rather then just a few individuals.
It might also serve to promote simpler laws. Who needs a 500 page bill? Who can understand a 500 page bill? Who can follow all of the 1000+ 500 page bills in their daily lives?
It does : There is Ender's perspective, in which he has to defend himself from a bully that's likely to seriously injure him. And there's the bully's perspective, that hurting Ender is OK since he hurt his feelings.
It even shows a perfectly reasonable result of those two perspectives : Bully accidentally dies.
Sounds like a good way to deal with a bully. And it's probably also legal, since it was done in self defense. So why NOT read it to children? Might help discourage them from becoming bullies.
Slashdot Mirror
Education won't stop rape.
Reduced food production. So once the world stops sending them food their population will quickly drop to a locally sustainable level.
So? Should crimes be ignored because there are a lot of them? How would that work?
If police officers start shooting people at random often enough, should they be allowed to get away with it? Should murderers, rapists and drug dealers be set free because it's just too much of a hassle trying to arrest them?
If a crime is committed then the person responsible should be punished. It shouldn't matter if they are a cop or not.
If exposing an undercover cop put so many lives at risk, then why don't more of them get killed? After a person is arrested, they aren't kept from communicating with the outside world. And the cop probably has to testify against them at trial. So you definitely have people who both know the person was an undercover cop AND what he/she looks like.
On the other hand what rules are there against filming a cop maintaining his cover? The person filming can't know the person is a cop. It could be just a good citizen trying to help the police top the neighborhood gang.
Then why not punish the people who wrote the policy?
Do you support arresting everyone then? After all, they could all be planning to commit a crime in the next few minutes.
There are rules about what the police can and can't do. Just like for everyone else. If they break those rules, they should be punished for it. If they thought the law allowed them to detain a person, but it actually didn't, then they should be treated the same as everyone else : Ignorance of the law is no defense. They should of course be offered a plea bargain, where they get reduced sentences if they testify against the person who gave them the order to arrest people taping them. And that person should be charged with conspiracy at least.
So make those responsible take responsibility for the disasters. If a nuclear plant is run unsafely, make the executives and shareholders responsible for any accidents. If people die, then put them in prison etc.
Just don't put all nuclear plants in one basket. After all, if one car blows up we don't have protests trying to ban all cars.
Convicts are a valuable resource anyway. Just look at the US. Private prisons rack in money keeping them locked up. And with death row inmates they get to keep them for a few years, then execute them when they would be likely to start costing more in health care. Much better then keeping geriatrics for decades, costing the poor prison SEVERAL dollars in doctor costs.
So I still don't understand why the organs shouldn't be harvested. If as you say the system can't be fixed anyway, then stopping the harvesting won't change anything. And if the system can be changed, why not stop the harvesting temporarily, fix the system and then restart the harvesting?
So why not fix the broken justice system, but keep harvesting the organs? Why abolish the only GOOD thing about the whole situation?
So which character on the ship do you want to be? If you enjoy putting out fires you're probably going to pick engineer. So the entire game will consist of you fixing machines. You don't need a space game for that. On the other hand if you pick captain, you'll probably just yell at your crew to put out fires, since you'll be too busy dealing with whatever hostile ship CAUSED your fire.
If they could increase the fee without loosing too many customers, then they would have done it already.
So what do you suggest? Make corporations immune to fines and damages? Yes, their customers will have to pay off the judgement. IF they stay their customers. There is nothing stopping them from going to the competition (which will of course raise their prices, due to the sudden high demand).
Remember that the next time you record someone and there is a radio playing in the background.
But what happens when the money for someone runs out? Let's say they are in hospital, on life support but still able to move and talk. They have no family an no assets. They've been paying into medicare their entire lives, but this final illness is just extremely expensive.
Do you support the doctors pulling the plug? Or should the hospital foot the bill?
Medicare is a long term mandatory insurance policy. Some people die young, some old people die in their sleep. But some people get sick and survive for a long time. So why shouldn't they get the care they need. Just like and insurance policy : If you have a big accident you get more money out of it then you paid in. However at the same time many people get nothing.
You have to also set minimum standards for the defense.
Right now the standards of adequate representation are pretty low. As long as your lawyer shows up he's pretty much done his job as far as the law is concerned.
Imagine if a prosecutor did the same? Walked up to the jury, said that his office thinks the defendant did it, then sat down and rested his case. Can you imagine the outrage? Then why is similar behavior tolerated for a defense attorney?
Why not have just one organization to defend everyone. Just like the prosecutors are employed by the state, do the same for criminal defense attorneys. Once someone is accused, his attorney is chosen randomly from those available. No more expensive lawyers for rich people. Equal justice for all. If that happened, I'm quite sure laws would suddenly be much stricter about what adequate representation meant.
Then why not restrict everything that harms people? Alcohol and tobacco? Both are addictive and have negative effects on a person. So ban them. Mountain climbing, skydiving, .. Those are dangerous too, so ban them. And let's not forget professional sports. Those can cripple the players so they should of course be forbidden.
Why does the government only target some vices, while actively encouraging others? Ban everything that can harm citizens or ban nothing. Don't pick and choose the things you personally like and ban the rest.
It's still being followed. Due process of the law now means being accused.
Perhaps society needs a little chaos. It seems to me that most western republics seem stuck. What you call a coherent policy is little more than ensuring the status quo. The only things that seem to matter are ensuring the politician's re-election. Which principally means keeping the big donors happy by making sure laws favor them.
And sure, people have the chance to elect someone else every 4 years or so. But who can they choose from? Only a small pool of candidates with enough money to get on TV. And after they are elected, they have absolutely no accountability to the people for the length of their term. So in 99% of the cases all of the promises they made before the elections go right out the window. And what happens to politicians that loose the elections? They get a job as 'expert advisors' or something like that, then step in at the next election, promising to 'fix' everything their replacement has done wrong. And the circle goes on.
So people get discouraged and stop voting. Which is just what the powers that be want.
And you're right - there is a system of laws and customs to limit the actions of politicians. But it's written by previous generations of politicians, and there is little about it that is good for the nation as a whole.
And you're also right about the dangers of mob rule for minorities. But does a republic protect them? Just look at France and the Gipsy deportations, or at he US and their treatment of terrorism SUSPECTS. Or how much they listen to minorities like OWS. Of course there are some minorities that they do listen to - mostly the ones that support their campaigns, like the copyright lobby or Wall street. In the end it all boils down to protecting just one minority - themselves. And the rest of society can crumble for all they care.
What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians? Both will disregard the wishes of anyone outside 'their' group, and at least when you're trying to bribe the mob you have to give something to most of the nation, rather then just a few individuals.
Why should they have any more say then the other voters? Do retirees get to write laws about social security benefits?
It might also serve to promote simpler laws. Who needs a 500 page bill? Who can understand a 500 page bill? Who can follow all of the 1000+ 500 page bills in their daily lives?
It does : There is Ender's perspective, in which he has to defend himself from a bully that's likely to seriously injure him. And there's the bully's perspective, that hurting Ender is OK since he hurt his feelings.
It even shows a perfectly reasonable result of those two perspectives : Bully accidentally dies.
Sounds like a good way to deal with a bully. And it's probably also legal, since it was done in self defense. So why NOT read it to children? Might help discourage them from becoming bullies.
The rules only apply to flights that start or end in the EU. So it's still limited to the EU.