sorry, I've simply ignored the most substantive criticism you raised.
you are incorrect that existing statute provides no relief. Theaters can make (almost)whatever rules they want ans kick out anyone who isn't following them.
Well, it's more likely contract than statute law, but, jurispridential pedantry aside, the point is well made. Of course you'll remember that the doctrine of 'privity of contract' ensures that the remedy is available only to the theatre, but not the patron. Not that criminalising such behaviour provides the patron with any remedy either, mind you. The hope rather, is that it simply removes their need for one.
Again, let me emphasise that I never intended to express support for the position that common curtesy should be enforced by means of the criminal law. The point is that the law, and the legislature, do have a role in balancing the contending freedoms of citizens.
There is no "right" involved here. There is no issue of life, liberty or property in the balance here. This is just about a bunch of hypocrites that are happy to impose their will upon others.
You are quite possibly correct. Indeed nothing I said is meant to express support for the law. I was merely making the point that this law does not, in the abstract, offend against the basic ideology of the liberal-democratic state (and please don't read 'liberal' in the modern US colloquial use here).
It is, however, at least arguable that where patrons have incurred an expenditure for the purposes of enjoyment, an interference with that enjoyment constitutes an expropriation. You'll notice the obvious parallels to the reasoning of Lord Denning in the Mikhail Lermontov here.
The statement is absolutely true as a categorical imperative.... That particular categorical imperative is true with a few limited exceptions.
I'm confused as to which of these contradictory positions you actually wish to espose. Do you insist that government has no role in stopping (or disuading) citizens from engaging in violence towards one and other?
I though you were a moron for comparing cell phones to rape and murder
You evidently misread what I wrote. What I said was that a statement 'it is not the government's role to change people's behaviour,' fails as a catagorical statement. eg. 'It is not the government's role to stop people killing other people.'
You might note that this was completely separate from the particular issue of cell-phone bans addressed in the previous paragraph. There was no comparison of "cell phones to rape and murder." That would be comparing apples and oranges, rape and murder after all, are crimes, a cell phone is an appliance.
... then I read your sig and realized it must be an attempt at irony
I'm not completely satisfied that you have comprehended the point Goethe was making either.
It is not the government's role to change people's behavior.
It IS the legislature's role to amend the law where people suffer through other's malfeasance, and where neither the common law, nor existing statute law provide any them with any legal remedy nor relief. This seems to be exactly what is happening here.
Moreover, as a categorical statement, your statment fails more generally. People's behaviour has long included violence (assault, rape, murder). In regard to such behaviour, it is generally accepted that it is the role of government to change (and indeed halt) it.
For a better sense of proportion...500 people in a theatre at $25/ticket, having had the performance ruined by a cell phone ring.
A $50 ticket is reasonable.
Huh? On those figures a $12,500 ticket would be reasonable. Or are you saying those 500 people were only deprived of less than a half a percent of their enjoyment of the performance?
a whole slew of checks made payable to Aussie politicians insuring that those "silly" pro-consumer laws get fixed
The way it's done is this:
Megacorp use the representatives they already own in the US, to put up some international agreement written by their in-house lawyers.
Using its international economic and media clout, MegaCorg lobbies hard to have that agreement tied to some other international club so that all countries will have to ratify it to be members. (Real World example TRIPS -- the IP agreement attached to WTO membership -requiring certain minimum copyright, trade mark and patent provisions from WTO member countries -- called the DMCA in its US version, and the Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act in Australia -- whose agenda is that anyway?).
The Australian Federal Govt, passes a law bringing the agreement into federal law, and s109 of the Constitution means that Victoria's law is overridden insofar as it is inconsistent with the laws drawn up by MegaCorp.
International law only applies to the losing side of a war.
Nope. Only a small area of international law deals with war, or human rights. Check out the kind of cases decided by the International Court of Justice, mainly disputes involving off-shore mineral and fishing rights and the like.
You incorrectly presume that the other party's insurance company is interested in liability actually attaching to the person whom the evidence identified as being at fault rather than just being interested in not paying the claim.
I presume what?! Do you think I came down in the last fall?
You know, lawyers aren't interested in finding the truth either, just getting a win for their client.
Wow, how insightful! You know I got through law school without even realising that we work in an adversarial system, gee thanks for enlightening me. You're a great one for stating the bleeding obvious, aren't you?
What should be just as obvious is that in the presence of clear evidence indicating the malfeasance of one's client, that job is made all the more difficult, which was my point.
If you are in an accident and the other party's insurance company takes the vehicle, they will check the black box to try to shift the liability from their client onto you.
Oh no! Imagine that, liability actually attaching to the person whom the evidence identified as being at fault, how simply awful.
he'd make more difference contributing his time to free software projects (coding, testing, or documentation) than trying to create weapons.
For goodness sake, it's not really a weapon, anymore than a hobby rocket is. Sure he could hurt someone with the little copper disk, as he could with a blunt stick, but I really doubt his motivation is to create feasible weapon.
People already know that God exists, everyone has a firm, affirmative knowledge that God exists, but we have developed so many ways to push this out, fuelled by the way we live.
I want to believe that there is some God-like intelligence to the universe. But no matter how hard I try, I keep on coming back to the problem that any attempt I make into fooling myself that there is a God, is simply an egregious act of bad faith.
Maybe people who have been indoctrinated (in the most literal sense of the word) from childhood have this 'affirmative knowledge.' Those of us who were not fortunate enough to have been subjected to such indoctrination, however, are left in a universe, where despite our best efforts, where compelling (or even pursuasive) evidence for the existence of a deity is simply lacking.
Re:Doesn't the earth receive more?
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
3. Power distribution will kill you, a massive project like this in Arizona will really (at the very most) just help North America. And that wouldn't be exactly great PR would it?
Given that most of the world looks with horror on the 'fact' the US consumes ca. 30% of the world's fossil fuels, it would be great PR!
Nothing must (or should) be absolute. Not even in the US where freedom of speech is used to protect kiddie porn, is it absolute. Amazingly some people are able to function in a system which does not privilege merely one freedom at the expense of others.
Note: I am not saying that freedom of speech is not invaluable and must be protected, just there's other freedoms that need protecting too.
However, it can still be capitalism with no competition.
Exactly, and that is what we have in this case. If we want to preserve competion in a capitalist economy we require state intervention.
Capitalism refers to private ownership of capital.
That depends on your definition of capitalism. Some might object that the fact that capital was privately owned in Ancient Rome, or in Feudal Europe is not sufficient to label those societies as 'capitalist.' Indeed marxists would tend to define 'capitalism' as a specific set of 'relations of production,' which contrasts on the other hand with Braudel's thesis that "there have always been capitalisms."
Capitalism? What Microsoft engages in isnt capitalism.
Oh sure it is. Companies in a capitalist system work under the imperative to tend toward monopoly in their relevant markets, that's what we call competition. Sell more product than your competitor, make more profit, gain more market share.
The paradox is that if companies are too successful at this then there is no competition anymore. This is why anti-trust law is necessary, after all. Problem is that Posner and all his Chicago School cronies have so emasculated Anti-trust law that it has to struggle even to deal with a monopolist such as M$
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, I've simply ignored the most substantive criticism you raised.
you are incorrect that existing statute provides no relief. Theaters can make (almost)whatever rules they want ans kick out anyone who isn't following them.Well, it's more likely contract than statute law, but, jurispridential pedantry aside, the point is well made. Of course you'll remember that the doctrine of 'privity of contract' ensures that the remedy is available only to the theatre, but not the patron. Not that criminalising such behaviour provides the patron with any remedy either, mind you. The hope rather, is that it simply removes their need for one.
Again, let me emphasise that I never intended to express support for the position that common curtesy should be enforced by means of the criminal law. The point is that the law, and the legislature, do have a role in balancing the contending freedoms of citizens.
You are quite possibly correct. Indeed nothing I said is meant to express support for the law. I was merely making the point that this law does not, in the abstract, offend against the basic ideology of the liberal-democratic state (and please don't read 'liberal' in the modern US colloquial use here).
It is, however, at least arguable that where patrons have incurred an expenditure for the purposes of enjoyment, an interference with that enjoyment constitutes an expropriation. You'll notice the obvious parallels to the reasoning of Lord Denning in the Mikhail Lermontov here.
The statement is absolutely true as a categorical imperative.I'm confused as to which of these contradictory positions you actually wish to espose. Do you insist that government has no role in stopping (or disuading) citizens from engaging in violence towards one and other?
You evidently misread what I wrote. What I said was that a statement 'it is not the government's role to change people's behaviour,' fails as a catagorical statement. eg. 'It is not the government's role to stop people killing other people.'
You might note that this was completely separate from the particular issue of cell-phone bans addressed in the previous paragraph. There was no comparison of "cell phones to rape and murder." That would be comparing apples and oranges, rape and murder after all, are crimes, a cell phone is an appliance.
I'm not completely satisfied that you have comprehended the point Goethe was making either.
It IS the legislature's role to amend the law where people suffer through other's malfeasance, and where neither the common law, nor existing statute law provide any them with any legal remedy nor relief. This seems to be exactly what is happening here.
Moreover, as a categorical statement, your statment fails more generally. People's behaviour has long included violence (assault, rape, murder). In regard to such behaviour, it is generally accepted that it is the role of government to change (and indeed halt) it.
A $50 ticket is reasonable.
Huh? On those figures a $12,500 ticket would be reasonable. Or are you saying those 500 people were only deprived of less than a half a percent of their enjoyment of the performance?
Well I wouldn't want a BSOD, but I sure could do with a buck in royalties every time one popped up somewhere in the world ...
The way it's done is this:
- Megacorp use the representatives they already own in the US, to put up some international agreement written by their in-house lawyers.
- Using its international economic and media clout, MegaCorg lobbies hard to have that agreement tied to some other international club so that all countries will have to ratify it to be members. (Real World example TRIPS -- the IP agreement attached to WTO membership -requiring certain minimum copyright, trade mark and patent provisions from WTO member countries -- called the DMCA in its US version, and the Copyright (Digital Agenda) Amendment Act in Australia -- whose agenda is that anyway?).
- The Australian Federal Govt, passes a law bringing the agreement into federal law, and s109 of the Constitution means that Victoria's law is overridden insofar as it is inconsistent with the laws drawn up by MegaCorp.
problem solvedNope. Only a small area of international law deals with war, or human rights. Check out the kind of cases decided by the International Court of Justice, mainly disputes involving off-shore mineral and fishing rights and the like.
I presume what?! Do you think I came down in the last fall?
You know, lawyers aren't interested in finding the truth either, just getting a win for their client.Wow, how insightful! You know I got through law school without even realising that we work in an adversarial system, gee thanks for enlightening me. You're a great one for stating the bleeding obvious, aren't you?
What should be just as obvious is that in the presence of clear evidence indicating the malfeasance of one's client, that job is made all the more difficult, which was my point.
Oh no! Imagine that, liability actually attaching to the person whom the evidence identified as being at fault, how simply awful.
1. Adelaide is not yet in the U.S.
2. I can't see how his building the gun is reasonably related to the maintainance of a state militia. So the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply anyway.
For goodness sake, it's not really a weapon, anymore than a hobby rocket is. Sure he could hurt someone with the little copper disk, as he could with a blunt stick, but I really doubt his motivation is to create feasible weapon.
I want to believe that there is some God-like intelligence to the universe. But no matter how hard I try, I keep on coming back to the problem that any attempt I make into fooling myself that there is a God, is simply an egregious act of bad faith.
Maybe people who have been indoctrinated (in the most literal sense of the word) from childhood have this 'affirmative knowledge.' Those of us who were not fortunate enough to have been subjected to such indoctrination, however, are left in a universe, where despite our best efforts, where compelling (or even pursuasive) evidence for the existence of a deity is simply lacking.
Well he was an out'n'out socialist, which amounted to the same thing in the eyes of the FBI.
this means Al-quada countries And which countries, pray tell, are those. Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? Germany?
doesn't a year have 12, not 8 months? depends what planet you're on.
You mean to say that there have been no fatalities in which the automobile was involved?
Were they wrong?
If you are riding it on a crowded sidewalk do you really have any choice?
How is he a public figure?!
Given that most of the world looks with horror on the 'fact' the US consumes ca. 30% of the world's fossil fuels, it would be great PR!
Nothing must (or should) be absolute. Not even in the US where freedom of speech is used to protect kiddie porn, is it absolute. Amazingly some people are able to function in a system which does not privilege merely one freedom at the expense of others.
Note: I am not saying that freedom of speech is not invaluable and must be protected, just there's other freedoms that need protecting too.
Exactly, and that is what we have in this case. If we want to preserve competion in a capitalist economy we require state intervention.
Capitalism refers to private ownership of capital.That depends on your definition of capitalism. Some might object that the fact that capital was privately owned in Ancient Rome, or in Feudal Europe is not sufficient to label those societies as 'capitalist.' Indeed marxists would tend to define 'capitalism' as a specific set of 'relations of production,' which contrasts on the other hand with Braudel's thesis that "there have always been capitalisms."
What ought to be illegal about this is that it is being used as a strategy the purpose of which is to eliminate competition in a market.
Oh sure it is. Companies in a capitalist system work under the imperative to tend toward monopoly in their relevant markets, that's what we call competition. Sell more product than your competitor, make more profit, gain more market share.
The paradox is that if companies are too successful at this then there is no competition anymore. This is why anti-trust law is necessary, after all. Problem is that Posner and all his Chicago School cronies have so emasculated Anti-trust law that it has to struggle even to deal with a monopolist such as M$