The people can assemble. Having assembled they have their other rights. You do not have to allow corporations at all. Bad idea, but you could ban them. You couldn't ban group economic activity altogether though. Nor could you ban group protests, political parties, community groups, etc. You also can't ban a group from getting together to be a social club and also to be a political. All a corporation is is a group of people getting together to do some economic activity. You don't have to permit that group the various extras like limited liability that corporation get. But you can't take away the rights that those people enjoy individual or collectively either.
Lack of corporations doesn't deprive anyone of liberty in the same way that failure to exist doesn't deprive the person who never existed his liberty. There's nothing tortuous or fantastic about this reasoning. People have rights. People organize. People still have rights. Pretty simple. Corporate personhood doesn't matter. A corporation doesn't have rights because it is a person, but because it is a group of people. The whole personhood thing is just a useful abstraction because the corporation acts as a unit.
As I said I know nothing other than what you've stated about the farming laws. I assume there's a lot more to it that "corporations can't run farms" since that would be unconstitutional. And no, I have no idea what that might be.
You could legitimately get rid of limited liability for corporate shareholders. I don't know whether that would be wise, but you could do it. You cannot legitimately restrict the rights of the people on the basis of their having organized themselves.
As for your Nebraska example, I don't know anything about such laws. If they are as simple as you imply, corporation can't farm, then not only would it be a reprehensible and arbitrary restriction on liberty, it would be pretty obviously in violation of the 5th abd 14th ammendments.
You accidentally bring up a good point. I didn't address the "should." In principle I think these things are right. You do have a freedom to speak your opinion, and you do have the opinion to get together with others and speak your collective opinion collectively. It is bad when people try and prevent these things in the general case. (Of course there are times when it is reasonable to do so, like kicking people out of your restaurant for being a nuisance.) It is particularly bad when the biggest bully around, government, tries to do it. This is a nice feature about the US constitution. While your thesis that the constitution isn't as good as most think may be valid, this example is definitely not evidence of that.
The first ammendment of the constitution of the US, among other things, recognizes: 1) A freedom of speech, 2) A right of assembly, and 3) A right to petition the government
It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
You may be right that we don't need the cheaper food. But that isn't your call to make. If a person wants to eat himself to obesity, that's his business, and you are wrong to deny him the opportunity just because you disagree with it.
If that gene transferred to weeds we wouldn't be in a very different place than we were before the modification to begin with. A roundup resistant weed isn't some super predator that kills all your plants. It just doesn't cooperate with the fancy new tool you've invented.
It was insensitive? Does the IRS think that the issue is that they insulted a particular group by singling them out? That's what it would have been if you'd just called them mean names. Actually using your authority as part of the government to target them is bit worse than "insensitive."
I've had two projectors. The first had $400 replacement lamps, while the second had $300 replacements. That was MSRP, comparison shopping yielded $300 and $250 respectively (knock another $100 off for knock-offs with extremely bad reviews). At the time mackcam offered lamp replacement warranties for $110 that covered two replacements during the first two years. Both times I got two replacements lamps out of the warranty with no hassle at all. Definitely worth the price.
The value of the warranty was so great it was a major reason I bought the second projector when the third lamp wore out. The next two lamps would have cost $700. Instead I bought a $600 projector, a $110 dollar warranty, and got an extra lamp and an upgrade to 720p for $10.
The information is asymmetric both ways when accidental damage is covered. They are going to charge enough to make a profit overall. That is true. But if you know you are accident prone, or have kids that break everything, or something to that effect that is covered, and the warranty company does not know that, you can still have an expected positive return.
It's discrimination in the sense that a distinguishment is being made. But it's not really being made on the basis of sex, which would be wrong. It's being made on the basis of differing biological roles. They'd probably give those benefits to men who gave birth too. As a father I'd be happy for such a generous leave, and I wouldn't mind getting one equal to a woman's. But I aslo wouldn't begrudge the mothers their larger leave or get up in arms about it.
Do the benefits between men and women differ for adoptions? That would actually be wrong in my opinion.
No true Scotsman is a form of begging the question where a person redefines his terms to mean the thing he needs it to mean to exclude counterexample to his claim. That doesn't mean that any time someone points that a term excludes a given example they are committing that fallacy. In particular GP pointed out that the general characteristics of libertarian thought are counter to GGP's claims. That's not fallacious. Further, when discussing large heterogeneous groups like political parties you should expect that many pertinent claims will not be universal and instead be only a significant majority.
Last I heard the jury was still out on the earthquake issue. But if fracking does actually cause earthquakes that's an unintended benefit not cost. The amount of energy being put into the ground during fracking is minuscule. The energy released in a quake is already stored there, and it is going to come out via earthquake (or eruption if that avenue is available) eventually. It's generally less damaging to have more smaller earthquakes than fewer larger ones.
An interesting side effect is a more forgiving society. The earliest examples of these types of "look what I saw X doing on facebook" revelations came across as much more scandalous in the media. Now it's ho-hum. Maybe it's just old news. But maybe we're coming to realize that everyone does some dumb stuff from time to time, and we need to deal with that fact proportionally rather than be shocked at any old thing. There's an old saying about the remedy for bad speech being more speech. Maybe we're seeing something similar.
You do not have a right to be forgotten. Think about what that means. That means you do something and I witness it. Do you have a right to compel me to forget it ever happened? Of course not. My right to be secure in my thoughts, the written expression thereof (which is what they really mean by forget), and my effects is a real right. Your desire for me to forget something you did is not.
You have a right to privacy. Exercise it by not publishing information you want kept private. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and short of fraud or some other malfeasance being responsible for the breach of privacy in the first place, you have no right to command that anyone try.
I didn't mean undervalued by pay. I meant undervalued by the education system, which goes hand-in-hand with lack of respect (again that's actual respect as in admiration not money). I suggest that we'd be better off if these sorts of trades were treated as worthwhile goals for a student instead of it being "college or nothing" in high school. College is great for some people. College is a waste of time for others. Not everyone is well suited to it, and we don't need as many college graduates as a percentage of population as we seem to want to educate.
It's mildly ironic that the lack of respect causes fewer people to pursue those careers, which causes scarcity and thus the higher pay you mention.
It would help a lot if we respected blue collar labor more. Your plumber, your carpenter, your steel mill worker, and anyone who knows what the heck he's doing on a factory floor are skilled, valuable workers doing important things that have to be done. We need to stop treating high school like the only valid thing it does is train people for college. We don't have the college capacity, we don't have enough qualified students, and the job force doesn't have the need for as many students as we try to push through to university. Vocational high schools used to be a thing (probably still are some left).
I don't like dealing with the smoke either. I prefer non-smoking restaurants. But I can take my business to places that support my preferences without demanding that everyone conform to them. By all means ban smoking in your store, your office building, or your home. Ban it in places that are actually public, like a school, library, or court. But it's wrong to command people to ban it in their own privately owned and operated businesses just because they are open to the public.
In the 1950s "single-income" meant the man worked and the woman raised the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that setup. That's my family, too. But increasingly women have been finding the opportunity to work outside the home available to them. Is it any surprise that some would avail themselves of that opportunity? I think it's incorrect to assert that the rise in dual-income households is not partially attributable to an increase in equality between the sexes.
How do you get from no COPPA to no red lights? You attacked Darkness for being "Slippery Slope Internet Guy(tm)" when he suggested that COPPA is a step on the path to killing the internet with regulation. But at least those two things are dealing with regulation of the same thing.
Usage fees, maybe. But GP isn't necessarily saying you should run a government without taxation. Just be cognizant that taxation takes money directly from the people whenever you consider where you spend and raise your revenue or vote for your representatives. I think it would be pretty good if congress really internalized the fact that the money they're collecting and spending belongs to the people - assuming they care, of course.
I think (I hope?) that everyone knows the context and what he actually said. The jibes continue because the claim he actually did make was also pretty out-of-proportion to what he actually did, and hyperbolizing something as satire or comedy is a pretty common thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The people can assemble. Having assembled they have their other rights. You do not have to allow corporations at all. Bad idea, but you could ban them. You couldn't ban group economic activity altogether though. Nor could you ban group protests, political parties, community groups, etc. You also can't ban a group from getting together to be a social club and also to be a political. All a corporation is is a group of people getting together to do some economic activity. You don't have to permit that group the various extras like limited liability that corporation get. But you can't take away the rights that those people enjoy individual or collectively either.
Lack of corporations doesn't deprive anyone of liberty in the same way that failure to exist doesn't deprive the person who never existed his liberty. There's nothing tortuous or fantastic about this reasoning. People have rights. People organize. People still have rights. Pretty simple. Corporate personhood doesn't matter. A corporation doesn't have rights because it is a person, but because it is a group of people. The whole personhood thing is just a useful abstraction because the corporation acts as a unit.
As I said I know nothing other than what you've stated about the farming laws. I assume there's a lot more to it that "corporations can't run farms" since that would be unconstitutional. And no, I have no idea what that might be.
You could legitimately get rid of limited liability for corporate shareholders. I don't know whether that would be wise, but you could do it. You cannot legitimately restrict the rights of the people on the basis of their having organized themselves.
As for your Nebraska example, I don't know anything about such laws. If they are as simple as you imply, corporation can't farm, then not only would it be a reprehensible and arbitrary restriction on liberty, it would be pretty obviously in violation of the 5th abd 14th ammendments.
You accidentally bring up a good point. I didn't address the "should." In principle I think these things are right. You do have a freedom to speak your opinion, and you do have the opinion to get together with others and speak your collective opinion collectively. It is bad when people try and prevent these things in the general case. (Of course there are times when it is reasonable to do so, like kicking people out of your restaurant for being a nuisance.) It is particularly bad when the biggest bully around, government, tries to do it. This is a nice feature about the US constitution. While your thesis that the constitution isn't as good as most think may be valid, this example is definitely not evidence of that.
The first ammendment of the constitution of the US, among other things, recognizes:
1) A freedom of speech,
2) A right of assembly, and
3) A right to petition the government
It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
You may be right that we don't need the cheaper food. But that isn't your call to make. If a person wants to eat himself to obesity, that's his business, and you are wrong to deny him the opportunity just because you disagree with it.
If that gene transferred to weeds we wouldn't be in a very different place than we were before the modification to begin with. A roundup resistant weed isn't some super predator that kills all your plants. It just doesn't cooperate with the fancy new tool you've invented.
It was insensitive? Does the IRS think that the issue is that they insulted a particular group by singling them out? That's what it would have been if you'd just called them mean names. Actually using your authority as part of the government to target them is bit worse than "insensitive."
First thing I looked for. Astounding when you consider the scale of it.
I've had two projectors. The first had $400 replacement lamps, while the second had $300 replacements. That was MSRP, comparison shopping yielded $300 and $250 respectively (knock another $100 off for knock-offs with extremely bad reviews). At the time mackcam offered lamp replacement warranties for $110 that covered two replacements during the first two years. Both times I got two replacements lamps out of the warranty with no hassle at all. Definitely worth the price.
The value of the warranty was so great it was a major reason I bought the second projector when the third lamp wore out. The next two lamps would have cost $700. Instead I bought a $600 projector, a $110 dollar warranty, and got an extra lamp and an upgrade to 720p for $10.
The information is asymmetric both ways when accidental damage is covered. They are going to charge enough to make a profit overall. That is true. But if you know you are accident prone, or have kids that break everything, or something to that effect that is covered, and the warranty company does not know that, you can still have an expected positive return.
It's discrimination in the sense that a distinguishment is being made. But it's not really being made on the basis of sex, which would be wrong. It's being made on the basis of differing biological roles. They'd probably give those benefits to men who gave birth too. As a father I'd be happy for such a generous leave, and I wouldn't mind getting one equal to a woman's. But I aslo wouldn't begrudge the mothers their larger leave or get up in arms about it.
Do the benefits between men and women differ for adoptions? That would actually be wrong in my opinion.
No true Scotsman is a form of begging the question where a person redefines his terms to mean the thing he needs it to mean to exclude counterexample to his claim. That doesn't mean that any time someone points that a term excludes a given example they are committing that fallacy. In particular GP pointed out that the general characteristics of libertarian thought are counter to GGP's claims. That's not fallacious. Further, when discussing large heterogeneous groups like political parties you should expect that many pertinent claims will not be universal and instead be only a significant majority.
Last I heard the jury was still out on the earthquake issue. But if fracking does actually cause earthquakes that's an unintended benefit not cost. The amount of energy being put into the ground during fracking is minuscule. The energy released in a quake is already stored there, and it is going to come out via earthquake (or eruption if that avenue is available) eventually. It's generally less damaging to have more smaller earthquakes than fewer larger ones.
I have no problem with Leia learning to pilot an X-Wing, and her animal friend already is a navigator.
What's the best Pluto emulator? And where can I get the roms?
I like the part where you discuss taking it upon yourself to find and punish people for taking it on themselves to find and punish people.
Scientific American
American Scientist
Nature
An interesting side effect is a more forgiving society. The earliest examples of these types of "look what I saw X doing on facebook" revelations came across as much more scandalous in the media. Now it's ho-hum. Maybe it's just old news. But maybe we're coming to realize that everyone does some dumb stuff from time to time, and we need to deal with that fact proportionally rather than be shocked at any old thing. There's an old saying about the remedy for bad speech being more speech. Maybe we're seeing something similar.
You do not have a right to be forgotten. Think about what that means. That means you do something and I witness it. Do you have a right to compel me to forget it ever happened? Of course not. My right to be secure in my thoughts, the written expression thereof (which is what they really mean by forget), and my effects is a real right. Your desire for me to forget something you did is not.
You have a right to privacy. Exercise it by not publishing information you want kept private. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and short of fraud or some other malfeasance being responsible for the breach of privacy in the first place, you have no right to command that anyone try.
I didn't mean undervalued by pay. I meant undervalued by the education system, which goes hand-in-hand with lack of respect (again that's actual respect as in admiration not money). I suggest that we'd be better off if these sorts of trades were treated as worthwhile goals for a student instead of it being "college or nothing" in high school. College is great for some people. College is a waste of time for others. Not everyone is well suited to it, and we don't need as many college graduates as a percentage of population as we seem to want to educate.
It's mildly ironic that the lack of respect causes fewer people to pursue those careers, which causes scarcity and thus the higher pay you mention.
It would help a lot if we respected blue collar labor more. Your plumber, your carpenter, your steel mill worker, and anyone who knows what the heck he's doing on a factory floor are skilled, valuable workers doing important things that have to be done. We need to stop treating high school like the only valid thing it does is train people for college. We don't have the college capacity, we don't have enough qualified students, and the job force doesn't have the need for as many students as we try to push through to university. Vocational high schools used to be a thing (probably still are some left).
Can you rephrase that in limerick form?
I don't like dealing with the smoke either. I prefer non-smoking restaurants. But I can take my business to places that support my preferences without demanding that everyone conform to them. By all means ban smoking in your store, your office building, or your home. Ban it in places that are actually public, like a school, library, or court. But it's wrong to command people to ban it in their own privately owned and operated businesses just because they are open to the public.
In the 1950s "single-income" meant the man worked and the woman raised the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that setup. That's my family, too. But increasingly women have been finding the opportunity to work outside the home available to them. Is it any surprise that some would avail themselves of that opportunity? I think it's incorrect to assert that the rise in dual-income households is not partially attributable to an increase in equality between the sexes.
How do you get from no COPPA to no red lights? You attacked Darkness for being "Slippery Slope Internet Guy(tm)" when he suggested that COPPA is a step on the path to killing the internet with regulation. But at least those two things are dealing with regulation of the same thing.
And could you please tone down the insults, some?
Usage fees, maybe. But GP isn't necessarily saying you should run a government without taxation. Just be cognizant that taxation takes money directly from the people whenever you consider where you spend and raise your revenue or vote for your representatives. I think it would be pretty good if congress really internalized the fact that the money they're collecting and spending belongs to the people - assuming they care, of course.
I think (I hope?) that everyone knows the context and what he actually said. The jibes continue because the claim he actually did make was also pretty out-of-proportion to what he actually did, and hyperbolizing something as satire or comedy is a pretty common thing.