<sarcasm>Nothing says "successful multi-billion dollar company" than bringing a product to market that you can already get as a cheap Chinese import and that is going to be obsolete in three years because every TV is going to have it built in at no extra cost.</sarcasm>
Can't you see the unholy hell that immortality would unleash on a civilization that is just starting to wake up to ideas of conservation and natural resource management?
No. Birth rates generally adjust to match mortality.
Or on a related note, how immortality would be handed out, managed and exploited under capitalism?
I wouldn't worry about capitalism, capitalism is self-correcting. I'd worry about a tyranny of well-connected "experts" that tell everybody how they should live and what they should think, without actually having any clue what they are doing. The Washington Politburo without even the benefit of age-based replacements.
It becomes my business when the redneck owning an assault rifle increases the likelihood of me being shot.
That reasoning is rooted in the assumption that your redneck neighbor is a potential criminal. That is a risk we deliberately ignore in a free society; it is an unacceptable assumption, incompatible with the Constitution. Once you assume that your redneck neighbor is not a criminal, there is zero increase to your likelihood of being shot from his ownership of a gun. (On the other hand, if your neighbor has the intent to kill you, gun control will not prevent him from doing that or even be a serious obstacle.)
There is a second, more practical reason why your reasoning doesn't work: when you look statistically, there simply is no relationship between the rate at which your neighbors own firearms and your risk of getting shot. Some of the highest risk neighborhoods in the US have comparatively low gun ownership rates. Your neighbors don't randomly turn into homicidal maniacs and shoot you only if they have a gun; rather, someone who develops the intent to kill with near 100% efficiency will acquire the means to do it.
Well, this in principle is wrong. To use hyperbole, there will never be a large, functional society that allows you to posses weapons-grade uranium without justifying it.
No, the principle is right. Saying "I shouldn't have to justify" isn't the same as saying "government can impose no limits". Of course it can impose limits, but those limits should be unrelated to my "justification", they should apply equally to everybody.
Generally items should be banned when their danger to society outweighs both their usefulness to individuals, and the rights of individuals to "have stuff" without being bothered about it.
That's a completely different argument, but one I also disagree with. You argue that banning should be based on a balanced cost/benefit analysis that gives equal weights to both sides. But that's open to political abuse, and it doesn't increase safety.
I think the burden of proof for limiting something by law should be stronger: proponents of limits should have to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that what they want to limit is harmful and that the limits will be effective.
Problems occur when things cause a perceived risk to society, and where the perception is not universal. Lots of controversial issues are not an issue in principle, only an issue of degree.
That's easy: if it is controversial, the risk generally isn't clear and obvious enough to warrant legislative restrictions. People still have recourse through the courts, and if the public underestimates a risk, court cases over time will shift the perception until legislation is passed. But unlike politicians, courts operate much more based on facts and evidence.
Are you claiming that blacks are not disproportionally poor? Or are you claiming that criminals are not disproportionally poor?
I'm saying that the factor "poverty" is insufficient to explain the variation in gun violence between young African American males and other groups; poverty statistically cannot the sole (or even primary) cause of their extremely high homicide rates. Another way of looking at it is that other communities experiencing similar levels of poverty still have much lower homicide rates.
In addition, the median African American household in the US has about as much disposable income (PPP) as the median German or French household, so material privation obviously cannot be the cause of the excessive violence.
The reason why the problems aren't getting addressed is because poverty eradication is a contentious political issue in the USA - because half of the country seems to believe that it's either unavoidable in a free society
"Poverty" in the US can't be eliminated at all because it is defined in relative terms: if everybody were 10x richer, the poverty rate would not change at all. Absolute poverty in the US is already negligible.
because half of the country seems to believe that it's either unavoidable in a free society ("let them suffer the consequences of their choices")
The "consequences" of bad choices in the US are, at worst, that you live on public assistance and have to jump through some hoops to get health care and other services. That still makes you better off than the great majority of people on this planet. What is the problem with that? Why do you think it is desirable for society to provide more?
And "socialism" and "welfare" are dirty words that any politician would do best to avoid.
Part of my family lived behind the iron curtain, and I spent some time on and off visiting them. They lived in societies with low inequality, low poverty rates, low crime rates, free education, and government supported health care; socialism does indeed deliver those societal benefits as promised. But they also had little freedom and were quite poor in absolute terms, and in the end were much worse off than even poor Americans. Several risked their lives to flee and make a better living in the West. Many preferred blue collar jobs in the US to white collar jobs in the East Bloc.
Arguments for socialism in the US are based on the erroneous assumption that you can have the benefits of socialism without paying the (steep) price, but tons of history and economics say that you cannot. In the end, free markets make everybody better off, even "the poor".
Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason for anyone to have such a weapon, other than to cause mass mayhem.
Ah, that principle is so popular both on the left and on the right:
"Sounds reasonable to me. Women just shouldn't have abortions, they should be careful. Let's outlaw abortions."
"Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason anybody would want to stick their penis up someone else's behind. Let's throw them in jail."
"Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason for anybody to take drugs, and it causes lots of harm. Let's just outlaw it."
"Sounds reasonable to me. Nobody needs to build electronic devices in their home or do chemistry. Let's just outlaw it."
In a free society, I shouldn't have to justify what I want to do to you or why I want to own something to anybody. It's none of your business. And it's none of your or my business why some redneck in the middle of Tennessee wants an assault rifle.
This is a classic example of correlation != causation.
Nowhere did I claim that race caused high homicide rates. What is wrong with you that one even has to point that out?
More importantly, though, they're also disproportionally poor. And guess what? In general, blacks in US are disproportionally poor.
No, that doesn't work as an explanation either (you can look at the correlations, or you can simply look at income distribution data and see that it doesn't even come close to an explanation).
It's unreasonable to jump to conclusions like you do. If there were simple explanations like that, we'd already have addressed these problems.
That doesn't change the observation that the differences in homicide rates between young African American males and the rest of the population are so staggeringly large (two orders of magnitude) and that, whatever the cause may be, that is the population to intervene. Intervening in other populations is going to have little effect in comparison.
That's the naive model many people have in their heads: if we cut the number of guns in half, the problem is cut in half, as if guns and craziness were assigned independently by lottery ticket, but the only number that really matters is what fraction of potential murderers can get a gun when desired, and that fraction is going to remain close to 100% no matter what you do.
Improved mental health is a good thing. But it won't make a difference. Nearly half of the murders in the US are committed by young African American males. Fix that and US murder rates would return to normal levels. Neither mental health efforts nor gun control look to me like they would make much of a difference there.
Nope, sorry, you're the guy who's paranoid here. Your reasoning has been that if were no law prohibiting homeowners from shooting trespassers who refuse to leave, even innocent people seeking help after an accident would be "executed".
On the other hand, I'm happy to give homeowners a lot of discretion in the use of deadly force in response to clear trespassing violations because I trust people to use it responsibly and because avoid such situations is easy. Most people will exercise that discretion like I do, by not even buying a gun.
I note you still haven't provided an example of a state where violating a "no trespassing" sign or refusing to comply with a homeowner's order to leave is not considered trespassing.
From that, I can assume you shopped law for the 1/50 that you think best agreed with you. Lets have a look
No, I just picked the first law I found. I've lived in a half dozen states and they are all roughly the same. Tell you what: why don't you show me a state law under which entering someone's property is legal despite clear signage or an order to leave.
that means they are only trespassing if their entire body enters the house in question.
I don't know what signs he actually posted or not. But he could certainly post a sign at the fence, and anybody entering his property (not just his house) would be guilty of trespass. Even if he doesn't post anything, all he has to tell them is "leave my property now".
If there was a crash outside your door, and nobody had a phone (or the crash was so serious everyone with one broke or lost it), and someone comes to knock on your door to ask for help, should they be executed for trying to get help for injured people?
Legally, people are under no obligation to help in most places in the US even in the situation you describe. I might well refuse to help if the people look dangerous or if I know there are escaped convicts in the area. In reality, almost everybody helps other people in an emergency and behaves calmly when faced with trespass. Giving people the right to make a choice on their own doesn't mean they are going to go around "executing" people. What kind of twisted world do you live in in which you assume, that unless people are restrained by law, they are all going to turn into mass murdering maniacs?
In a more practical sense, they aren't trespassing until a police officer asks them to leave.
The law is clear on this. Here is Texas state law (others are similar):
30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. (b) For purposes of this section: (1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body. (2) "Notice" means: (A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; (B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock; (C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are: [... it goes on...]
These laws are valid and widely enforced and carry steep fines and jail terms. Penalties are enhanced in many circumstances, such if you carry guns or use force to enter. If there is a sign "no trespass", don't enter. If someone tells you to leave private property, leave immediately. If you don't, you face steep fines or jail time. People can even detain you until the police arrive.
A single warning followed by lethal force seems absurd. If your life or property is under no risk
It's absurd in some circumstances, not in others. If people ignore clear "no trespassing" signs posted around your private home and refuse to leave when told to do so, you probably have good reason to believe that your life is at risk. It's not an automatic license to kill, but courts will generally side with the homeowner.
Yes, in the US, it is trespassing to ignore a clearly visible "no trespassing" sign. It is also trespassing if the property owner or his agent tells you to leave and you refuse.
If you don't know what "trespassing" means, that's your problem; ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Intent is crucial to determining guilt for many crimes, especially the non-trivial ones.
I think you misunderstood. I was saying that you shouldn't be punished or limited for your "intent", "propensity" or "capacity" to commit a crime until a crime actually has been committed. Once a crime has been committed and you have been charged, during the court case, many of the normal protections against government intrusions into your private life and mental state are suspended. Before and after, you should be protected against such intrusions.
However, legal "intent" isn't about the morality or other consequences of your act, it is about whether you desired the outcome of your actions. What makes a murder a murder is that you kill someone and took steps ahead of time to make that outcome happen; you had the "intent" to kill. That is not the same as determining "good heartedness" or "improper thoughts".
We can protect both, but lying idiots like you would prefer dead teens to any requirement that you attempt to resolve the misunderstanding before shooting unarmed people standing near your home.
That's not the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about a situation where the homeowner posts a sign telling people to stay off his property, then tells them to leave, and they become argumentative and refuse to leave. There is no further "misunderstanding" to resolve beyond "get off my property" and the person refusing. Yes, I think in that case, the homeowner should have a right to shoot to kill. And there should be no burden on the homeowner to determine whether the other person is armed or dangerous, or inquire into their psychological state or linguistic ability, because that is impractical.
I would hope homeowners would exercise that right carefully, but legally, that's the balance I would like to see. If you fear that sort of thing happening to you, don't wander onto other people's private property.
And personally, I hate guns, don't own one, and I would never shoot an intruder (or anybody else). But that is immaterial as to what I think the law should be.
Except that most people don't know the difference between the different location technologies and just call them all "GPS".
The only time the address of the cell tower would come into play is if the owner or the thief shut off the GPS.
Well, gosh, might a thief have any reason to do that... let me think about that.
Neither Sprint nor Clark County can be responsible here,
Sprint has their own location service; that's probably involved here.
And for government records to list things at your address that aren't there is a problem, whether it's a nightclub, a waste processing plant, or a cell tower.
(as an amusing aside, check out the violent crime breakdowns by race. What if it was politically correct acknowledge the groups that are outliers by several orders of magnitude, and try to focus on fixing the cultural problems that cause it?).
It's not amusing at all, it's deeply disturbing: about half of the homicides in the US are due to a group that makes up about 10% of the population. If that rate were reduced to the rate of everybody else, US homicide rates would be within European ranges. Furthermore, legal gun ownership among that group is actually lower; they neither have the money to buy a lot of guns, and many are legally prevented from doing so. That's one of the reasons any form of gun control is likely going to be ineffective in reducing US homicide rates: the people owning the guns are not the ones committing the murders.
Progressives ignore this difference because they believe firmly that the difference in homicide rates is due to a racist justice system that lets whites get off the hook and convicts blacks for murders they don't commit. While that may happen sometimes, it is impossible for it to occur at a rate that makes any difference in explaining these huge differences in homicide rates.
You're talking about laws that reduce poor judgment or carelessness. They enforce proper action in good-hearted people
I don't want to live in a country in which the government makes decisions about who is "good hearted" and who is not, and in which the government regulates everything that I might do to harm myself or others. People should be punished for actual harm they do to others, not for improper thoughts or their capacity and resources for committing crimes. I shouldn't have to worry about whether buying hardware or glassware will arouse the suspicion of government and cause me problems; once that's the case, we have moved from a free society into a totalitarian one.
Once someone decides that (mass)murder is their goal, there aren't a whole lot of laws that will stop them. Maybe serve as a bar by which to judge and punish the murderer, yes, but precious few laws create an environment which will stop them.
And that is something we will simply have to live with if we want to live in a free society. Because once our government tries to prevent people from committing crimes based on analyzing their behavior, we no longer live in a free society.
Slashdot Mirror
<sarcasm>Nothing says "successful multi-billion dollar company" than bringing a product to market that you can already get as a cheap Chinese import and that is going to be obsolete in three years because every TV is going to have it built in at no extra cost.</sarcasm>
No. Birth rates generally adjust to match mortality.
I wouldn't worry about capitalism, capitalism is self-correcting. I'd worry about a tyranny of well-connected "experts" that tell everybody how they should live and what they should think, without actually having any clue what they are doing. The Washington Politburo without even the benefit of age-based replacements.
That reasoning is rooted in the assumption that your redneck neighbor is a potential criminal. That is a risk we deliberately ignore in a free society; it is an unacceptable assumption, incompatible with the Constitution. Once you assume that your redneck neighbor is not a criminal, there is zero increase to your likelihood of being shot from his ownership of a gun. (On the other hand, if your neighbor has the intent to kill you, gun control will not prevent him from doing that or even be a serious obstacle.)
There is a second, more practical reason why your reasoning doesn't work: when you look statistically, there simply is no relationship between the rate at which your neighbors own firearms and your risk of getting shot. Some of the highest risk neighborhoods in the US have comparatively low gun ownership rates. Your neighbors don't randomly turn into homicidal maniacs and shoot you only if they have a gun; rather, someone who develops the intent to kill with near 100% efficiency will acquire the means to do it.
No, there isn't a clear pattern. Here is a plot of gun ownership vs homicides across the world:
http://minus.com/lbnnTmSIVLyfXC
Here is a plot of gun ownership vs firearm (!) homicides across US states:
http://minus.com/lbeZ6DX7wnTs87
As you can see, there is no clear pattern. There are some outliers, but nothing more.
(The data is from Wikipedia and the Guardian. If you don't believe me, you can recreate the plots in a few minutes yourself.)
No, the principle is right. Saying "I shouldn't have to justify" isn't the same as saying "government can impose no limits". Of course it can impose limits, but those limits should be unrelated to my "justification", they should apply equally to everybody.
That's a completely different argument, but one I also disagree with. You argue that banning should be based on a balanced cost/benefit analysis that gives equal weights to both sides. But that's open to political abuse, and it doesn't increase safety.
I think the burden of proof for limiting something by law should be stronger: proponents of limits should have to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that what they want to limit is harmful and that the limits will be effective.
That's easy: if it is controversial, the risk generally isn't clear and obvious enough to warrant legislative restrictions. People still have recourse through the courts, and if the public underestimates a risk, court cases over time will shift the perception until legislation is passed. But unlike politicians, courts operate much more based on facts and evidence.
I'm saying that the factor "poverty" is insufficient to explain the variation in gun violence between young African American males and other groups; poverty statistically cannot the sole (or even primary) cause of their extremely high homicide rates. Another way of looking at it is that other communities experiencing similar levels of poverty still have much lower homicide rates.
In addition, the median African American household in the US has about as much disposable income (PPP) as the median German or French household, so material privation obviously cannot be the cause of the excessive violence.
"Poverty" in the US can't be eliminated at all because it is defined in relative terms: if everybody were 10x richer, the poverty rate would not change at all. Absolute poverty in the US is already negligible.
The "consequences" of bad choices in the US are, at worst, that you live on public assistance and have to jump through some hoops to get health care and other services. That still makes you better off than the great majority of people on this planet. What is the problem with that? Why do you think it is desirable for society to provide more?
Part of my family lived behind the iron curtain, and I spent some time on and off visiting them. They lived in societies with low inequality, low poverty rates, low crime rates, free education, and government supported health care; socialism does indeed deliver those societal benefits as promised. But they also had little freedom and were quite poor in absolute terms, and in the end were much worse off than even poor Americans. Several risked their lives to flee and make a better living in the West. Many preferred blue collar jobs in the US to white collar jobs in the East Bloc.
Arguments for socialism in the US are based on the erroneous assumption that you can have the benefits of socialism without paying the (steep) price, but tons of history and economics say that you cannot. In the end, free markets make everybody better off, even "the poor".
I may not want people like you to have Internet access either...
Ah, that principle is so popular both on the left and on the right:
"Sounds reasonable to me. Women just shouldn't have abortions, they should be careful. Let's outlaw abortions."
"Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason anybody would want to stick their penis up someone else's behind. Let's throw them in jail."
"Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason for anybody to take drugs, and it causes lots of harm. Let's just outlaw it."
"Sounds reasonable to me. Nobody needs to build electronic devices in their home or do chemistry. Let's just outlaw it."
In a free society, I shouldn't have to justify what I want to do to you or why I want to own something to anybody. It's none of your business. And it's none of your or my business why some redneck in the middle of Tennessee wants an assault rifle.
Gun control does not reduce homicide rates.
Increased penalties are unlikely to help, and existing penalties already veer close to cruel and unusual punishment.
I don't own guns, and I don't want to own guns. I still oppose increased gun control as a matter of principle.
Nowhere did I claim that race caused high homicide rates. What is wrong with you that one even has to point that out?
No, that doesn't work as an explanation either (you can look at the correlations, or you can simply look at income distribution data and see that it doesn't even come close to an explanation).
It's unreasonable to jump to conclusions like you do. If there were simple explanations like that, we'd already have addressed these problems.
That doesn't change the observation that the differences in homicide rates between young African American males and the rest of the population are so staggeringly large (two orders of magnitude) and that, whatever the cause may be, that is the population to intervene. Intervening in other populations is going to have little effect in comparison.
That's the naive model many people have in their heads: if we cut the number of guns in half, the problem is cut in half, as if guns and craziness were assigned independently by lottery ticket, but the only number that really matters is what fraction of potential murderers can get a gun when desired, and that fraction is going to remain close to 100% no matter what you do.
Improved mental health is a good thing. But it won't make a difference. Nearly half of the murders in the US are committed by young African American males. Fix that and US murder rates would return to normal levels. Neither mental health efforts nor gun control look to me like they would make much of a difference there.
Gun control isn't a way of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people at all.
Nope, sorry, you're the guy who's paranoid here. Your reasoning has been that if were no law prohibiting homeowners from shooting trespassers who refuse to leave, even innocent people seeking help after an accident would be "executed".
On the other hand, I'm happy to give homeowners a lot of discretion in the use of deadly force in response to clear trespassing violations because I trust people to use it responsibly and because avoid such situations is easy. Most people will exercise that discretion like I do, by not even buying a gun.
I note you still haven't provided an example of a state where violating a "no trespassing" sign or refusing to comply with a homeowner's order to leave is not considered trespassing.
No, I just picked the first law I found. I've lived in a half dozen states and they are all roughly the same. Tell you what: why don't you show me a state law under which entering someone's property is legal despite clear signage or an order to leave.
I don't know what signs he actually posted or not. But he could certainly post a sign at the fence, and anybody entering his property (not just his house) would be guilty of trespass. Even if he doesn't post anything, all he has to tell them is "leave my property now".
Legally, people are under no obligation to help in most places in the US even in the situation you describe. I might well refuse to help if the people look dangerous or if I know there are escaped convicts in the area. In reality, almost everybody helps other people in an emergency and behaves calmly when faced with trespass. Giving people the right to make a choice on their own doesn't mean they are going to go around "executing" people. What kind of twisted world do you live in in which you assume, that unless people are restrained by law, they are all going to turn into mass murdering maniacs?
The law is clear on this. Here is Texas state law (others are similar):
These laws are valid and widely enforced and carry steep fines and jail terms. Penalties are enhanced in many circumstances, such if you carry guns or use force to enter. If there is a sign "no trespass", don't enter. If someone tells you to leave private property, leave immediately. If you don't, you face steep fines or jail time. People can even detain you until the police arrive.
It's absurd in some circumstances, not in others. If people ignore clear "no trespassing" signs posted around your private home and refuse to leave when told to do so, you probably have good reason to believe that your life is at risk. It's not an automatic license to kill, but courts will generally side with the homeowner.
Yes, in the US, it is trespassing to ignore a clearly visible "no trespassing" sign. It is also trespassing if the property owner or his agent tells you to leave and you refuse.
If you don't know what "trespassing" means, that's your problem; ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I think you misunderstood. I was saying that you shouldn't be punished or limited for your "intent", "propensity" or "capacity" to commit a crime until a crime actually has been committed. Once a crime has been committed and you have been charged, during the court case, many of the normal protections against government intrusions into your private life and mental state are suspended. Before and after, you should be protected against such intrusions.
However, legal "intent" isn't about the morality or other consequences of your act, it is about whether you desired the outcome of your actions. What makes a murder a murder is that you kill someone and took steps ahead of time to make that outcome happen; you had the "intent" to kill. That is not the same as determining "good heartedness" or "improper thoughts".
That's not the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about a situation where the homeowner posts a sign telling people to stay off his property, then tells them to leave, and they become argumentative and refuse to leave. There is no further "misunderstanding" to resolve beyond "get off my property" and the person refusing. Yes, I think in that case, the homeowner should have a right to shoot to kill. And there should be no burden on the homeowner to determine whether the other person is armed or dangerous, or inquire into their psychological state or linguistic ability, because that is impractical.
I would hope homeowners would exercise that right carefully, but legally, that's the balance I would like to see. If you fear that sort of thing happening to you, don't wander onto other people's private property.
And personally, I hate guns, don't own one, and I would never shoot an intruder (or anybody else). But that is immaterial as to what I think the law should be.
Well, obviously the law needs to protect stupid, aggressive, trespassing teens more than law abiding homeowners who get attacked by hooligans!
No, but it is probably trespassing if there are "no trespassing" signs.
Why don't you say "I admit it. I'm the person you're looking for. Now stop calling me."
Except that most people don't know the difference between the different location technologies and just call them all "GPS".
Well, gosh, might a thief have any reason to do that... let me think about that.
Sprint has their own location service; that's probably involved here.
And for government records to list things at your address that aren't there is a problem, whether it's a nightclub, a waste processing plant, or a cell tower.
Don't worry... gun control will fix that. It will let you stalk people who supposedly have your phone in complete safety and confidence!
It's not amusing at all, it's deeply disturbing: about half of the homicides in the US are due to a group that makes up about 10% of the population. If that rate were reduced to the rate of everybody else, US homicide rates would be within European ranges. Furthermore, legal gun ownership among that group is actually lower; they neither have the money to buy a lot of guns, and many are legally prevented from doing so. That's one of the reasons any form of gun control is likely going to be ineffective in reducing US homicide rates: the people owning the guns are not the ones committing the murders.
Progressives ignore this difference because they believe firmly that the difference in homicide rates is due to a racist justice system that lets whites get off the hook and convicts blacks for murders they don't commit. While that may happen sometimes, it is impossible for it to occur at a rate that makes any difference in explaining these huge differences in homicide rates.
I don't want to live in a country in which the government makes decisions about who is "good hearted" and who is not, and in which the government regulates everything that I might do to harm myself or others. People should be punished for actual harm they do to others, not for improper thoughts or their capacity and resources for committing crimes. I shouldn't have to worry about whether buying hardware or glassware will arouse the suspicion of government and cause me problems; once that's the case, we have moved from a free society into a totalitarian one.
And that is something we will simply have to live with if we want to live in a free society. Because once our government tries to prevent people from committing crimes based on analyzing their behavior, we no longer live in a free society.