I think you have a mistaken view of where capitalism really differs from previous systems. In a capitalist system, money is used to induce changes instead of other tools. Feudal societies had systems of obligations where the poor gave to the rich. Communist societies had their own systems of obligations and control. In a capitalist society, at least you get paid and you get a choice of where to spend the money you are paid. Is it always amazing? No. It's just much better than what preceded it, and it is looking like enough people feel the way you do that it is probably better than what will follow as well.
Also, I think most of the problems that people have with capitalism has to do with "mega corporations" doing nasty things. I think you might find that these mega corporations are often enabled by governments to do the nasty things they do, whether that is building backdoors in their tools or getting corporate welfare. Big business and big gov are hand in hand, and that's not a problem specific to capitalism.
I've been wondering about whether the nationwide injunctions would come up. It's not something I had seen before, and I had the impression that federal courts other than SCOTUS generally didn't have nationwide jurisdiction, but I am also not a lawyer.
That statute is clear, but there is the later statute of 1965 that seems to prohibit using national origin as a determinant for immigration. Does the 1965 statute supersede that clause of the 1952 statute?
Also, I've noticed that older laws seem to be written more clearly. Probably just a coincidence.
Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.
Yeah, when you start comparing earth to every other place we know of, earth looks pretty darn good. Even if things go hellishly wrong horribly fast, it will almost certainly still be a more habitable place than Mars.
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats.
But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?
Finally, a voice of reason. The truth of the matter is (I think) that we like to feel good about ourselves "doing something". If all the whaling in the world stopped, it would have no effect on most humans. If all of the factory farms in the world stopped raising animals in the inhumane conditions that they are raised in, it would have a huge effect on many humans. People want to be seen as pro-environment, but most people aren't actually willing to sacrifice their own comfort to do so. Hence the hypocrisy.
What's so much better about eating pigs than dogs? People in the US think it is somehow odd or disgusting to eat dogs, but we are just fine with eating pigs which are arguably more intelligent animals.
Well said. Apparently, the price of freedom (where smartphones are concerned) is only 2.6 billion dollars. That's a lot cheaper than the TSA, Homeland Security, or the wars we are waging right now.
Hit the nail right on the head. As long as SCOTUS is willing to let Congress get away with things, and people aren't holding Congress responsible, there is basically nothing to be done.
Agreed. If this is such a great feature that consumers want, someone will build a handset with it and it will be popular. The feds are getting their fingers in way too many pies these days... that's what happens when the Commerce Clause gets interpreted ever more broadly.
You make a good point. I hadn't thought through the implications of the flipside, which is requiring all occupants, present or not, to be present and assenting to any search. I guess I would rather have searches limited than otherwise though, so the thought of it being more difficult to search doesn't bother me too much.
I'm the AC above - I agree that Congress is unwilling to legislate and would rather pass the buck... hence why Congress hasn't declared war in a while. Every senator and representative wants to "keep their hands clean" of these sorts of things. I think though that if enough people started making noise about these infringements, it would force them to pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have a mistaken view of where capitalism really differs from previous systems. In a capitalist system, money is used to induce changes instead of other tools. Feudal societies had systems of obligations where the poor gave to the rich. Communist societies had their own systems of obligations and control. In a capitalist society, at least you get paid and you get a choice of where to spend the money you are paid. Is it always amazing? No. It's just much better than what preceded it, and it is looking like enough people feel the way you do that it is probably better than what will follow as well. Also, I think most of the problems that people have with capitalism has to do with "mega corporations" doing nasty things. I think you might find that these mega corporations are often enabled by governments to do the nasty things they do, whether that is building backdoors in their tools or getting corporate welfare. Big business and big gov are hand in hand, and that's not a problem specific to capitalism.
I've been wondering about whether the nationwide injunctions would come up. It's not something I had seen before, and I had the impression that federal courts other than SCOTUS generally didn't have nationwide jurisdiction, but I am also not a lawyer.
That statute is clear, but there is the later statute of 1965 that seems to prohibit using national origin as a determinant for immigration. Does the 1965 statute supersede that clause of the 1952 statute? Also, I've noticed that older laws seem to be written more clearly. Probably just a coincidence.
Do we get much tourism from those countries?
Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.
Yeah, when you start comparing earth to every other place we know of, earth looks pretty darn good. Even if things go hellishly wrong horribly fast, it will almost certainly still be a more habitable place than Mars.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that with Costco's special relationship with Amex, that they are not getting hit by the normal processing fees.
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats. But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?
Finally, a voice of reason. The truth of the matter is (I think) that we like to feel good about ourselves "doing something". If all the whaling in the world stopped, it would have no effect on most humans. If all of the factory farms in the world stopped raising animals in the inhumane conditions that they are raised in, it would have a huge effect on many humans. People want to be seen as pro-environment, but most people aren't actually willing to sacrifice their own comfort to do so. Hence the hypocrisy.
What's so much better about eating pigs than dogs? People in the US think it is somehow odd or disgusting to eat dogs, but we are just fine with eating pigs which are arguably more intelligent animals.
Well said. Apparently, the price of freedom (where smartphones are concerned) is only 2.6 billion dollars. That's a lot cheaper than the TSA, Homeland Security, or the wars we are waging right now.
Hit the nail right on the head. As long as SCOTUS is willing to let Congress get away with things, and people aren't holding Congress responsible, there is basically nothing to be done.
Agreed. If this is such a great feature that consumers want, someone will build a handset with it and it will be popular. The feds are getting their fingers in way too many pies these days... that's what happens when the Commerce Clause gets interpreted ever more broadly.
You make a good point. I hadn't thought through the implications of the flipside, which is requiring all occupants, present or not, to be present and assenting to any search. I guess I would rather have searches limited than otherwise though, so the thought of it being more difficult to search doesn't bother me too much.
I'm the AC above - I agree that Congress is unwilling to legislate and would rather pass the buck... hence why Congress hasn't declared war in a while. Every senator and representative wants to "keep their hands clean" of these sorts of things. I think though that if enough people started making noise about these infringements, it would force them to pay attention.
Hit the nail on the head.