I'm not spinning anything. Without enforcement laws are pointless. Here I'll show you. Right now I am enacting Personal Order 0001. PO-0001 States "You shall hand over to me any and all monies, assets, and posessions as of November 6th 2006 and deed them all over to me, NDPTAL85." See? Thats a law. I just made it up. Can I enforce it? No. So is it really a law then? No.
Knowing a law is unenforceable yet enacting it anyway means the creator has alterior motives at heart. Good PR, international good will....etc but no one in their right mind is supposed to take these unenforceable laws SERIOUSLY.
All any of that means is that the rest of the civilized world is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. There's nothing immoral or inhumane about killing a remorseless mass murderer. NOTHING.
On the other hand, there is something inhumane about providing sympathy and misguided outrage over the wellbeing of just such an individual.
You just had to get that little zinger in there didn't you? Like it matters.
The United States of America is not beholden to international law.
Want to know why?
Simple. Because no one can make the US do anything it doesn't want to do.
One very basic thing about law that everyone should learn is that it is not enough to simply make a law. You also have to back it up with enforcement. Seriously. You can see this in the Constitution where each law is backed up with methods to enforce it. There's no point at all in creating laws without enforcement save one, international goodwill. Thats it. The only reason we have international laws is to make people "feel better" about global geopolitics. But they're not actually real laws. They're more like "the best of intentions."
I really REALLY wish the people who continue to spout off "but the US broke international law" would learn that for once.
Regardless of what he's done? Do you even understand how idiotic this sounds?
The point of the death penalty is that society has its limits on what it will allow anyone to do. Saddam has killed a LARGE amount of people and started numerous wars, used chemical weapons on his own people, setup death/rape squads, terrorized his own country....etc.
Just because he's defenseless NOW we're supposed to just not kill him? Are you on crack cocaine or something? Like the really pure stuff straight out of Columbia not the watered down stuff that they try to sell us here in the US?
The criminal justice system comprises two components, one is to protect the innocent and the other is to punish the guilty. Its nota bout "vengence". Its about making the person understand that what they did was wrong and will not be tolerated.
What would YOU do with someone who is a habitual theif? Theifs don't always harm people. What are you going to do, constantly slap him on the wrist and tell him "Bad man. Bad bad man! Ok now you're free to go."?? What about someone who commits fraud repeatedly? Or someone who constantly pulls fire alarms?
There's a ton of non-violent crimes out there. If we are not to imprison these folks how else are we to deal with them?
Man you still just don't get it. As someone in an earlier reply to you has already said most people just want their computer to be like every other machine in their house, an appliance. Most don't care how it works or even want to know how it works. They just want it TO work. As long as Linux requires a higher level of thinking to use than Windows its appeal will remain limited.
The first paragraph of both definitions references "good and evil". When you assign responsibility you clearly have a goal in mind. The goal is obviously not to increase EVIL behaviour but to increase GOOD behaviour. So therefore in this context and in wider contexts morals = ethics. An ethical person is a good person. An unethical person is a bad person. There's no way you can convince me that an unethical person could be good or a ethical person could be bad.
Now back to the discussion, I still do not see the point of denying yourself business because someone else hobbles themsleves with a naieve sense of honor that most would regard as "quaint and provincencial"
I have read the Constitution. I know what it says. It doesn't matter if what I'm talking about isn't in there or not if not enough people care at the same time. The powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal government are reserved by the states. Yes yes I know. Now find me a group of people large enough to care. If the issue were forced the Constitution would simply be amended to give the Feds supreme never ending power over the states (which they pretty much already have) officially.
Its not a failing of western or American culture at all. Our economies would be absolutely paralyzed if we had to stop to consider the sentiments of every useless over emotional/idealistic person in existence. It just wouldn't be practical at all. While trying to do the "right" thing should always be a constant and never-ending goal at the end of the day if it is too uncomfortable to do or too inconvienent then its just not going to happen.
There's also the fact that you can be successful monetarily and bea good person but even if not I'm not going to willfully pass up the good life so that the seriously self-conflicted will think well of me. Being a lifestyle masochist does not make one a good person. It just makes you kinky. Really really kinky.
"So my entire original point was that if I buy whisky, legally, in Colorado, while it is illegal to buy it in Utah, it is unreasonable for the original poster to conclude I am a criminal picking an opportune State in which to commit my dastardly crime.
You seem to think that because the current balance of federal vs. state power is what it is, that's what it should be; or that the current balance is desirable because of your opinion of how cohesive a nation we are or how much we identify with the nation vs. state or something. None of this is very interesting to me.
In relation to states rights the interesting question to me is, when federal authorities overide states, is it legal according to the constitution? In the Oregon Assisted suicide, or California Medical Pot examples you cite, I would argue it clearly is not. (Please don't tell the Supreme Court disagrees with me; I know that) I would specifically reject your equation of cohesion with strength; enforced uniformity means a lack of competition, stagnation, and weakness. "
Clearly a distinction needs to be made between serious crimes and frivolous crimes. There hasn't been a national debate on alcohol since the prohibition and the repeal of prohibition. Unless the feds are trying to get you on something else they really aren't going to waste their time with stopping you from buying whiskey and transporting it across state lines.
Yes federal over-riding of state authority is constitutional. The federal laws are the laws of the land. Not just whats in the Constitution, but any law Congress passes even if not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Its a mere formality. If the states really had a problem with it we'd have another civil war. Since we don't, you can accept the legitimacy of the mandate of federal laws.
As per the equation of cohesion with strength, I don't see how you could disagree with me here. Countries that strong national cohesion are the strongest on this planet. The United States, England, France, Japan, Germany post reuniting, China...etc. Take a look at countries that have strong autonomous regions and you'll find weak nations. That whole Serbia/Croatia mess. Georgia with its breakaway provinces. Iraq. Brazil, Columbia and Peru all have out of control huge swaths of their countries and their people's are suffering as a consequence. Even Mexico has this issue with the Zapatistas. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan. Come to think of it I don't envy anyone who advocates for strong independent states here in America because they have these overwhelming negative examples to overcome.
Out of curiosity can you tell me of any countries that are doing well with the whole strong states/provinces/region weak federal government thing?
As per evidence no I don't have any concrete evidence. Just a lot of anecdoteal evidence in the observations from European friends who all remark how often Americans move around compared to Europeans. This is not hard to understand considering various nations in Europe were at war with each other only 50 years ago whereas the US only had a civil war over a century and a half ago...
As to the whole people from other states having an impact on the laws in your state....well they do. Always have and always will. In the US a person's identity as an American is stronger then their identity of their state (except for folks from Texas...seriously they still think they have a legal right to scede from the Union because of their unique circumstances coming into the Union..). In Europe people consider themselves to be much more British or French or German than European, at least the older generations. So what does this mean? Well it means that when it comes time to voting in federal laws most Americans take into account that they don't really want a part of their country falling TOO far behind the rest. And there is still quite a bit of leeway by the way. The aforementioned list of southern states that I listed run quite lose with effective government and taxation. They take in very little tax revenue and let their states rot to shit as much as they can within Federal law. And thats fine. But there's a limit and the rest of the country has decided that they just don't want it to go much farther than that. Another example is California's medical weed law. The state of Cali may have approved it but the rest of the country (i.e. the feds) said no way. So its still illegal in Cali even though Cali voters don't want it to be illegal. Same for the assisted suicide law in I think Oregon or WA state. I could go on and on. There wouldn't be much of a country if any one state (or small group of states) was allowed to become TOO different from the other 49 states. You either have a cohesive nation or you don't. Seeing as how there's a lack of rioting in the streets over the issue I can only infer that most Americans are just fine with having a cohesive and strong America instead of fiercly independent nearly fully autonomous individual states.
You do not understand the "American" thing. You see, we move around in our own country a lot more than people in other countries do. That means the sentiments of someones' birth state follow them around the country making us all more similar than we are different. Thus since I am born in MA if I move to Utah or Wyoming or Texas I'm going to try to make those states more like MA. Likewise for someone from any other state going to another state. In order to stop that process you'd have to stop Americans from moving around.
The reason why people prefer centralized authorities is because they are more effective. For instance you could have either all 50 states outlaw something or just have a federal law outlaw something. Even if the states and feds outlaw the same thing with the states you'll get 50 different versions of the law with varying penalties. Its stupid. I understand the whole "states rights thing" but many times it just ends up allowing loopholes for criminals to pick one state over the other to commit their crimes. Seriously though, I get the whole anti-federalist argument. The only problem with that argument is it really breaks down when the country balloons to 300 million people. If you want to be vigiliant about states rights and their soverignty then you've also got to put in more EFFORT. And by their votes and actions delegating power to the Federal Government the people have spoken loudly and clearly that they have better things to do with their time than impliment in their state the 50th version of some law that could have been handled more simply with a federal law.
Separately there's also the issue of association. I as an American in any part of the country am associated with Americans in every other part of the country. Some states may feel its their right to chose a path that sets them up to basically consistently perform worse than the rest of the country and become the backwater region of the nation but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is happy about it or wishes to allow it to happen. States like Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oaklahoma and Louisianna are already bad enough as they are. There's no need to allow them to get even worse under the mantra of "states rights." If folks are THAT intent on maintaining third world conditions in a first world nation lets just give them a carribean island and let them name it "BackwardsFuckistan" or "HeadInTheSandLand" or "WeLikeBeingAssBackwardsLand".
If Bill Gates shoved Millions of dollars in cash under your nose, I'm talking tens of millions of dollars for you and your co-partners, wouldn't you too say "Buh-bye" to Slashdot ethics of cross platform this and open source that and say yes so you could start living the Good Life(TM)?
You know, the one where you have a house on each cost, frequent trips over seas, a massive yacht, girls who look so good that EVERYONE is in general agreement you wouldn't have them if you didn't have the money you now have, and most importantly, All The Computer Gear You Could Ever Want!?!?!?!?
Or would you, seriously, tell Gates "You know what, that $30 million you are offering me looks real tempting, but uhhhh you know I just know this wouldn't sit right with teh Slashdot and Open Source crowds so even though those two camps wouldn't give me so much as a pot to piss in I'm going to have to say no and stick to working two fast food jobs to make ends meet and support my computer/internet habits."??
Please people be honest in your responses here. No matter which way you choose, be true to yourself.
So you have to threaten to murder a politician to keep them acting on their best behavior? Whatever happened to simply voting them out of office? Or should we just do away with the whole voting thing and just threaten to shoot our leaders?
Look, no law is written in stone. Our democratically elected senators and represenatives have decided many times to change the copyright laws to give longer duration and more power to the copyright holder and I have yet to hear of ONE politician who has lost re-election over this copyright issue. You know what that means?
It means We The People are A-OK with how things have progressed as far as copyright is concerned. So this "geek" outrage over the way copyright has turned out represents a tiny teeny percentage of the overal US population. And in a democracy such small groups of people almost never get their way.
You make it sound like enormous, faceless corporations don't deserve the profits that are being made with their copyrights. I bet you the employees who aren't faceless like being able to pay their bills. And furthermore, the good or bad of an instance of theft is not contingent on "need". Whether the corporation needs the money or not its still wrong to steal from it or anyone or anything.
Have you figured out yet that you hurt the pro-gun cause when you come out with bullshit excuses for owning guns? There ARE legitimate reasons you know....like simply wanting one.
Majority of the population? You mean those folks currently evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans? And what exactly would the marjority of the population be angry about? The country's extremely low unemployment rate? The high standard of living? Please what would get folks angry enough to get them to miss their TV shows and come together as one.
The FDA's job is to make sure potential treatments and medicines are safe and provide less danger than the disesase itself. Thats nowhere related at all to the wholesale prevention of pursuit of an entire field of medicine, such as embryonic stem cell research.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not spinning anything. Without enforcement laws are pointless. Here I'll show you. Right now I am enacting Personal Order 0001. PO-0001 States "You shall hand over to me any and all monies, assets, and posessions as of November 6th 2006 and deed them all over to me, NDPTAL85." See? Thats a law. I just made it up. Can I enforce it? No. So is it really a law then? No.
Knowing a law is unenforceable yet enacting it anyway means the creator has alterior motives at heart. Good PR, international good will....etc but no one in their right mind is supposed to take these unenforceable laws SERIOUSLY.
All any of that means is that the rest of the civilized world is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. There's nothing immoral or inhumane about killing a remorseless mass murderer. NOTHING.
On the other hand, there is something inhumane about providing sympathy and misguided outrage over the wellbeing of just such an individual.
So killing bad guys and not allowing them to live is a sign of cultural inferority? I have to say, you have an interesting thought process.
Just for the sake of argument. Whats wrong with revenge?
You just had to get that little zinger in there didn't you? Like it matters.
The United States of America is not beholden to international law.
Want to know why?
Simple. Because no one can make the US do anything it doesn't want to do.
One very basic thing about law that everyone should learn is that it is not enough to simply make a law. You also have to back it up with enforcement. Seriously. You can see this in the Constitution where each law is backed up with methods to enforce it. There's no point at all in creating laws without enforcement save one, international goodwill. Thats it. The only reason we have international laws is to make people "feel better" about global geopolitics. But they're not actually real laws. They're more like "the best of intentions."
I really REALLY wish the people who continue to spout off "but the US broke international law" would learn that for once.
Regardless of what he's done? Do you even understand how idiotic this sounds?
The point of the death penalty is that society has its limits on what it will allow anyone to do. Saddam has killed a LARGE amount of people and started numerous wars, used chemical weapons on his own people, setup death/rape squads, terrorized his own country....etc.
Just because he's defenseless NOW we're supposed to just not kill him? Are you on crack cocaine or something? Like the really pure stuff straight out of Columbia not the watered down stuff that they try to sell us here in the US?
Says who?
The criminal justice system comprises two components, one is to protect the innocent and the other is to punish the guilty. Its nota bout "vengence". Its about making the person understand that what they did was wrong and will not be tolerated.
What would YOU do with someone who is a habitual theif? Theifs don't always harm people. What are you going to do, constantly slap him on the wrist and tell him "Bad man. Bad bad man! Ok now you're free to go."?? What about someone who commits fraud repeatedly? Or someone who constantly pulls fire alarms?
There's a ton of non-violent crimes out there. If we are not to imprison these folks how else are we to deal with them?
Man you still just don't get it. As someone in an earlier reply to you has already said most people just want their computer to be like every other machine in their house, an appliance. Most don't care how it works or even want to know how it works. They just want it TO work. As long as Linux requires a higher level of thinking to use than Windows its appeal will remain limited.
I think you are really splitting hairs in the differences between Morality and Ethics. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
The first paragraph of both definitions references "good and evil". When you assign responsibility you clearly have a goal in mind. The goal is obviously not to increase EVIL behaviour but to increase GOOD behaviour. So therefore in this context and in wider contexts morals = ethics. An ethical person is a good person. An unethical person is a bad person. There's no way you can convince me that an unethical person could be good or a ethical person could be bad.
Now back to the discussion, I still do not see the point of denying yourself business because someone else hobbles themsleves with a naieve sense of honor that most would regard as "quaint and provincencial"
I have read the Constitution. I know what it says. It doesn't matter if what I'm talking about isn't in there or not if not enough people care at the same time. The powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal government are reserved by the states. Yes yes I know. Now find me a group of people large enough to care. If the issue were forced the Constitution would simply be amended to give the Feds supreme never ending power over the states (which they pretty much already have) officially.
Its not a failing of western or American culture at all. Our economies would be absolutely paralyzed if we had to stop to consider the sentiments of every useless over emotional/idealistic person in existence. It just wouldn't be practical at all. While trying to do the "right" thing should always be a constant and never-ending goal at the end of the day if it is too uncomfortable to do or too inconvienent then its just not going to happen.
There's also the fact that you can be successful monetarily and bea good person but even if not I'm not going to willfully pass up the good life so that the seriously self-conflicted will think well of me. Being a lifestyle masochist does not make one a good person. It just makes you kinky. Really really kinky.
"So my entire original point was that if I buy whisky, legally, in Colorado, while it is illegal to buy it in Utah, it is unreasonable for the original poster to conclude I am a criminal picking an opportune State in which to commit my dastardly crime.
You seem to think that because the current balance of federal vs. state power is what it is, that's what it should be; or that the current balance is desirable because of your opinion of how cohesive a nation we are or how much we identify with the nation vs. state or something. None of this is very interesting to me.
In relation to states rights the interesting question to me is, when federal authorities overide states, is it legal according to the constitution? In the Oregon Assisted suicide, or California Medical Pot examples you cite, I would argue it clearly is not. (Please don't tell the Supreme Court disagrees with me; I know that) I would specifically reject your equation of cohesion with strength; enforced uniformity means a lack of competition, stagnation, and weakness.
"
Clearly a distinction needs to be made between serious crimes and frivolous crimes. There hasn't been a national debate on alcohol since the prohibition and the repeal of prohibition. Unless the feds are trying to get you on something else they really aren't going to waste their time with stopping you from buying whiskey and transporting it across state lines.
Yes federal over-riding of state authority is constitutional. The federal laws are the laws of the land. Not just whats in the Constitution, but any law Congress passes even if not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Its a mere formality. If the states really had a problem with it we'd have another civil war. Since we don't, you can accept the legitimacy of the mandate of federal laws.
As per the equation of cohesion with strength, I don't see how you could disagree with me here. Countries that strong national cohesion are the strongest on this planet. The United States, England, France, Japan, Germany post reuniting, China...etc. Take a look at countries that have strong autonomous regions and you'll find weak nations. That whole Serbia/Croatia mess. Georgia with its breakaway provinces. Iraq. Brazil, Columbia and Peru all have out of control huge swaths of their countries and their people's are suffering as a consequence. Even Mexico has this issue with the Zapatistas. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan. Come to think of it I don't envy anyone who advocates for strong independent states here in America because they have these overwhelming negative examples to overcome.
Out of curiosity can you tell me of any countries that are doing well with the whole strong states/provinces/region weak federal government thing?
As per evidence no I don't have any concrete evidence. Just a lot of anecdoteal evidence in the observations from European friends who all remark how often Americans move around compared to Europeans. This is not hard to understand considering various nations in Europe were at war with each other only 50 years ago whereas the US only had a civil war over a century and a half ago...
As to the whole people from other states having an impact on the laws in your state....well they do. Always have and always will. In the US a person's identity as an American is stronger then their identity of their state (except for folks from Texas...seriously they still think they have a legal right to scede from the Union because of their unique circumstances coming into the Union..). In Europe people consider themselves to be much more British or French or German than European, at least the older generations. So what does this mean? Well it means that when it comes time to voting in federal laws most Americans take into account that they don't really want a part of their country falling TOO far behind the rest. And there is still quite a bit of leeway by the way. The aforementioned list of southern states that I listed run quite lose with effective government and taxation. They take in very little tax revenue and let their states rot to shit as much as they can within Federal law. And thats fine. But there's a limit and the rest of the country has decided that they just don't want it to go much farther than that. Another example is California's medical weed law. The state of Cali may have approved it but the rest of the country (i.e. the feds) said no way. So its still illegal in Cali even though Cali voters don't want it to be illegal. Same for the assisted suicide law in I think Oregon or WA state. I could go on and on. There wouldn't be much of a country if any one state (or small group of states) was allowed to become TOO different from the other 49 states. You either have a cohesive nation or you don't. Seeing as how there's a lack of rioting in the streets over the issue I can only infer that most Americans are just fine with having a cohesive and strong America instead of fiercly independent nearly fully autonomous individual states.
You do not understand the "American" thing. You see, we move around in our own country a lot more than people in other countries do. That means the sentiments of someones' birth state follow them around the country making us all more similar than we are different. Thus since I am born in MA if I move to Utah or Wyoming or Texas I'm going to try to make those states more like MA. Likewise for someone from any other state going to another state. In order to stop that process you'd have to stop Americans from moving around.
Alternatively maybe if the rest of the world pulled its head out of its ass they'd see the US was right.
The reason why people prefer centralized authorities is because they are more effective. For instance you could have either all 50 states outlaw something or just have a federal law outlaw something. Even if the states and feds outlaw the same thing with the states you'll get 50 different versions of the law with varying penalties. Its stupid. I understand the whole "states rights thing" but many times it just ends up allowing loopholes for criminals to pick one state over the other to commit their crimes. Seriously though, I get the whole anti-federalist argument. The only problem with that argument is it really breaks down when the country balloons to 300 million people. If you want to be vigiliant about states rights and their soverignty then you've also got to put in more EFFORT. And by their votes and actions delegating power to the Federal Government the people have spoken loudly and clearly that they have better things to do with their time than impliment in their state the 50th version of some law that could have been handled more simply with a federal law.
Separately there's also the issue of association. I as an American in any part of the country am associated with Americans in every other part of the country. Some states may feel its their right to chose a path that sets them up to basically consistently perform worse than the rest of the country and become the backwater region of the nation but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is happy about it or wishes to allow it to happen. States like Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oaklahoma and Louisianna are already bad enough as they are. There's no need to allow them to get even worse under the mantra of "states rights." If folks are THAT intent on maintaining third world conditions in a first world nation lets just give them a carribean island and let them name it "BackwardsFuckistan" or "HeadInTheSandLand" or "WeLikeBeingAssBackwardsLand".
If Bill Gates shoved Millions of dollars in cash under your nose, I'm talking tens of millions of dollars for you and your co-partners, wouldn't you too say "Buh-bye" to Slashdot ethics of cross platform this and open source that and say yes so you could start living the Good Life(TM)?
You know, the one where you have a house on each cost, frequent trips over seas, a massive yacht, girls who look so good that EVERYONE is in general agreement you wouldn't have them if you didn't have the money you now have, and most importantly, All The Computer Gear You Could Ever Want!?!?!?!?
Or would you, seriously, tell Gates "You know what, that $30 million you are offering me looks real tempting, but uhhhh you know I just know this wouldn't sit right with teh Slashdot and Open Source crowds so even though those two camps wouldn't give me so much as a pot to piss in I'm going to have to say no and stick to working two fast food jobs to make ends meet and support my computer/internet habits."??
Please people be honest in your responses here. No matter which way you choose, be true to yourself.
So you have to threaten to murder a politician to keep them acting on their best behavior? Whatever happened to simply voting them out of office? Or should we just do away with the whole voting thing and just threaten to shoot our leaders?
All of this is irrelevant against a government that has tanks and other superior firepower.
And only two hands.
Boy, you pro-gun people sure are smart.
Look, no law is written in stone. Our democratically elected senators and represenatives have decided many times to change the copyright laws to give longer duration and more power to the copyright holder and I have yet to hear of ONE politician who has lost re-election over this copyright issue. You know what that means?
It means We The People are A-OK with how things have progressed as far as copyright is concerned. So this "geek" outrage over the way copyright has turned out represents a tiny teeny percentage of the overal US population. And in a democracy such small groups of people almost never get their way.
Deal with it.
You make it sound like enormous, faceless corporations don't deserve the profits that are being made with their copyrights. I bet you the employees who aren't faceless like being able to pay their bills. And furthermore, the good or bad of an instance of theft is not contingent on "need". Whether the corporation needs the money or not its still wrong to steal from it or anyone or anything.
Yeah because thats going to happen.
Have you figured out yet that you hurt the pro-gun cause when you come out with bullshit excuses for owning guns? There ARE legitimate reasons you know....like simply wanting one.
Majority of the population? You mean those folks currently evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans? And what exactly would the marjority of the population be angry about? The country's extremely low unemployment rate? The high standard of living? Please what would get folks angry enough to get them to miss their TV shows and come together as one.
I'm all ears.
The FDA's job is to make sure potential treatments and medicines are safe and provide less danger than the disesase itself. Thats nowhere related at all to the wholesale prevention of pursuit of an entire field of medicine, such as embryonic stem cell research.