Now I know it's a *horror* for your standard capitalist these days, but what about, like, PLANNING (omfg, he's said the *P* word!) a bit ahead?
How do you propose to "plan"? We don't have any use for recycled materials in orbit. There's a lot of infrastructure that would need to be in place first before it makes sense to recycle.
Think about some standards which would make those things as recyclable as possible (like trying to keep a set of agreed-upon materials, standards for easy deconstructibility -- all things which, you know, *might* help us down here too), working towards a LEO factory of the future?
Let us note that those sorts of recycling standards routinely create a big mess on Earth, including lower quality electronics (such as tin whiskers) and more effort spent recycling than would be saved in materials. I don't see the point of having expensive satellites follow some recycling standard that isn't justified, lowers the effective lifespan of the satellite, and won't actually be useful for decades until someone gets around to putting the necessary recycling infrastructure in space (by the time they do, they probably will be able to handle most of the current satellites and large space debris aside from nuclear reactors).
So you think it is okay for a company to close a plant in a state where workers have rights and moved to a state where workers can be abused with twice the hours at the same rate of pay?
Of course. I don't respect abusive labor unions, particularly in times when labor is under stress.
In 30 years 90% of manufacturing will be done by robots in the USA. this will be good for a few and horrible for many.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. We can implement employer-friendly social policies before then and keep that from happening.
What ideals? If I play chess in "semi-private" with the usual rules, does that mean I have the ideal that white should go first?
Last time I heard, he was let go for that reason and for unspecified "other reasons". If you have a citation as to what those "other reasons" are which does not boil down to speculation, I'm interested in reading it.
Sorry, I don't buy that those "unspecified reasons" exist. Dries Buytaert had no problem talking about Larry Garfield's alleged "ideals", but refused to mention any other reason. What makes discussion of Garfield's bedroom proclivities even of remote relevance to the decision to end Garfield's participation in Drupal?
These values are incompatible with the values of the Drupal project. No platform.
What values? You conflate a fantasy world with real human beliefs. And I'll note that even if Larry Garfield truly does buy into "Gorean values" rather than just have some sex fantasies, values != behavior and harm. We should be speaking of his behavior and harm that causes problems for Drupal, not values that do not.
but a core part of the Gorean lifestyle is believing that females are genetically inferior
The obvious rebuttal is that no, the "Gorean lifestyle" has no such beliefs. It is a game - make believe.
Harmful behavior is what we should be focusing on and which is remarkably absent from this discussion. There is no indication that Garfield has behaved in a way that is misogynist or encourages other discriminatory behavior. There is similarly no indication that Garfield has harmed anyone through his behavior.
Then where is this misogyny and social Darwinism? Getting fired because you get off in private on male-dominant role playing games has nothing to do with that.
This is justified social ostracism from a society that rejects his values.
What are his values? Funny how you failed to discuss those.
Wait a minute, Quantum. Did you in seriousness write:
So-called amateur "astronomers" are a sorry bunch of autistic, antisocial losers who don't know what they are supposed to be doing. The media is also to be blamed for overplaying their questionable "contributions to science". The fact is, the ordinary citizen has no business owning and operating a telescope. Time to put an end to this.
Imagine there were a law that you are required to gamble! So you go looking for the least-worst game. (Craps, I guess?). Eventually all the non-gambler-type personalities are playing craps, because they're forced to. Then the craps houses have to compete, so one of them offers "free" drinks, another one offers a subtle rule change that you have to analyze carefully, and another one has cool animated wallpaper. Are you sure, even as a non-stupid person, you're going to get that choice right? Will you even remember what value you're trying to optimize? There's a law that you have to lose money, so are you trying to minimize that loss, or are you maybe trying to find the one with the best drinks, or the least travel time from your house? The more the houses compete, the more complex the problem will get. Eventually you will be up against people who a very good at making the choices be hard. You'll be thinking travel costs you $0.180 per mile when it's really $0.188, or drinking "free" drinks that are worth $2.91 to you, but they got their cost down to $2.78. You'll think their Fizzbin game's Tuesday rule is an advantage, but actually it puts you up against better players, and two of them (which two?) are agents of the house.
The simple answer is that you don't try to optimize paperclip production to that degree. Overthinking is a cost in itself.
If you kill 90% of the 'lowest carbon dioxid' producers, then CO2 production is not dropping by 50%.
Read the title of the link.
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam
Why do you assert things that aren't true? Could it be that some other things you asserted in this thread without a thread of support aren't true either?
There are a few flaws, e.g. there is no carbon sink that is relevant on that scale.
A large portion of human-produced CO2 is no longer in the air. I've heard about half. That sounds quite relevant to me.
And to have those benefits you mention, you have to kill all of the western civilization and leave upstarts like India and China alone...
For a 90% drop in population, you can't leave a third of the population alone. Even if we killed off the people with the smallest carbon footprint first, we'd still substantially reduce the amount of CO2 emitted (by half). 90% is a huge drop in CO2 emissions no matter how you do it.
But I think it was obvious that I was speaking of a proportionate drop in population for all not a kill the Western World first which would be much greater drop than 90%.
25 -35% % of the planets population is creating 90% of the CO2.
That's still 2 billion or more people.
NO WE COULD NOT. It only would take longer to get the atmosphere into a "critical" state. It would not change the fundamental problem in any way!
Even delaying by several centuries would change the problem (for example, the non-human part of the world would adapt more readily with a slower pace of change). And the Earth's ecosystem sinks carbon so producing less means a more than proportionate drop in how much builds up in the environment.
And there's other huge benefits. There's less habitat destruction, there's less normal pollution, and there's less use and consumption of natural resources. Those would play a role in mitigating or adapting to the harm of climate change.
It's remarkable how this keeps going on and on. If only you would think instead of running your mouth.
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
My reply:
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.
That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.
That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
It wasn't part of the question so no, I disagree. That post was just two sentences with a very important point you continue to ignore. It's amazing how you keep digging this hole deeper.
You're assuming an abuse of power from the courts, while glitch! was remarking on the abuses of the legislature
Of course! You should too. Just because other branches have their own opportunities for abuse doesn't mean that we should escalate by creating a very abusable power for the courts as well.
To use a car analogy, if some part of your control system: steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, etc is too responsible, you don't fix it by making another part too responsive as well. Two broken components don't counter each other.
The solution is not really one most of us would like to stomach though since it amounts to "kill off a couple billion people," either directly or by leaving them to starve or die of disease.
There is another solution. Wealthy societies are low fertility societies. Current mitigation efforts run counter to generating wealth (particularly, generating higher energy costs and moving wealth around ineffectively).
My view is that in the long term, moving the standard of living of the Somalian to the standard of living of the Minnesotan is a better strategy even from the point of view of climate change than implementing policies that degrade the standard of the Minnesotan while doing nothing positive for the Somalian.
Wealthier societies can more easily adapt to the modest climate change than poor societies can adapt to no change at all. And it is better to have better control of overpopulation than to have continued population growth and thus need for harsher and harsher control over environment impact of humanity.
The US doesn't have the only court system. According to Wikipedia, the UK and the Netherlands don't have judicial review.
Some countries do not permit a review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks.
Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me." Instead it means
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
What is being assumed in my question:
Why have the other branches then?
Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts. And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).
And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.
As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that. A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?
glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.
No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.
How is that different from now? We have highly inconsistent ruling and a legal system more or less that fails to serve any useful purpose other than to serve the people who already have the money and power. I would prefer that the judicial system interpret the laws with this in mind, and not blindly suport the general philosophy that he who has the gold makes the rules.
That's not the job of courts. That's the job of voters to police.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
Not everyone does judicial review. And it seemed to me that glitch wasn't interested in judicial review or anything else that obstructed any justice the courts could mete out.
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Well just how devastating can local effects be? Sure, if you have huge numbers of desalinization plants running up the coast of say, California, dumping very salty water right off shore, it's going to cause problems for that region. But we have rather simple and low energy technologies for mixing salt into water that can greatly reduce the problem.
I still suggest that. This is a typical semantics shift. "Decent product" means different things to each of us. The original post stated that some businesses create "brand-destroying" products. That's not decent product. And customers can put two and two together when all the stuff they get from a retailer is crap.
For whatever reason, a lot of people prefer low price over quality. I've seen nothing in this thread to even show there is an actual problem. If instead you want quality, you don't buy it at the retailer shaving all these costs.
For example, from a much earlier post:
Look at a rubbermaid mop bucket at Home depot. Then look at a rubbermaid mop bucket at Walmart. Then tell me their is 'no evidence'.
In other words, one can buy a better product presumably for more from Home Depot. There are probably other mop buckets sold online or via catalogue of far higher quality, if you're willing to shop for them too. So it is not an actual problem that Walmart sells flimsier mop buckets. Just pay more for what you really want.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I know it's a *horror* for your standard capitalist these days, but what about, like, PLANNING (omfg, he's said the *P* word!) a bit ahead?
How do you propose to "plan"? We don't have any use for recycled materials in orbit. There's a lot of infrastructure that would need to be in place first before it makes sense to recycle.
Think about some standards which would make those things as recyclable as possible (like trying to keep a set of agreed-upon materials, standards for easy deconstructibility -- all things which, you know, *might* help us down here too), working towards a LEO factory of the future?
Let us note that those sorts of recycling standards routinely create a big mess on Earth, including lower quality electronics (such as tin whiskers) and more effort spent recycling than would be saved in materials. I don't see the point of having expensive satellites follow some recycling standard that isn't justified, lowers the effective lifespan of the satellite, and won't actually be useful for decades until someone gets around to putting the necessary recycling infrastructure in space (by the time they do, they probably will be able to handle most of the current satellites and large space debris aside from nuclear reactors).
So you think it is okay for a company to close a plant in a state where workers have rights and moved to a state where workers can be abused with twice the hours at the same rate of pay?
Of course. I don't respect abusive labor unions, particularly in times when labor is under stress.
In 30 years 90% of manufacturing will be done by robots in the USA. this will be good for a few and horrible for many.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. We can implement employer-friendly social policies before then and keep that from happening.
and not because his semi-private ideals
What ideals? If I play chess in "semi-private" with the usual rules, does that mean I have the ideal that white should go first?
Last time I heard, he was let go for that reason and for unspecified "other reasons". If you have a citation as to what those "other reasons" are which does not boil down to speculation, I'm interested in reading it.
Sorry, I don't buy that those "unspecified reasons" exist. Dries Buytaert had no problem talking about Larry Garfield's alleged "ideals", but refused to mention any other reason. What makes discussion of Garfield's bedroom proclivities even of remote relevance to the decision to end Garfield's participation in Drupal?
These values are incompatible with the values of the Drupal project. No platform.
What values? You conflate a fantasy world with real human beliefs. And I'll note that even if Larry Garfield truly does buy into "Gorean values" rather than just have some sex fantasies, values != behavior and harm. We should be speaking of his behavior and harm that causes problems for Drupal, not values that do not.
but a core part of the Gorean lifestyle is believing that females are genetically inferior
The obvious rebuttal is that no, the "Gorean lifestyle" has no such beliefs. It is a game - make believe.
Harmful behavior is what we should be focusing on and which is remarkably absent from this discussion. There is no indication that Garfield has behaved in a way that is misogynist or encourages other discriminatory behavior. There is similarly no indication that Garfield has harmed anyone through his behavior.
The issue is misogyny and Social Darwinism.
Then where is this misogyny and social Darwinism? Getting fired because you get off in private on male-dominant role playing games has nothing to do with that.
This is justified social ostracism from a society that rejects his values.
What are his values? Funny how you failed to discuss those.
So-called amateur "astronomers" are a sorry bunch of autistic, antisocial losers who don't know what they are supposed to be doing. The media is also to be blamed for overplaying their questionable "contributions to science". The fact is, the ordinary citizen has no business owning and operating a telescope. Time to put an end to this.
Imagine there were a law that you are required to gamble! So you go looking for the least-worst game. (Craps, I guess?). Eventually all the non-gambler-type personalities are playing craps, because they're forced to. Then the craps houses have to compete, so one of them offers "free" drinks, another one offers a subtle rule change that you have to analyze carefully, and another one has cool animated wallpaper. Are you sure, even as a non-stupid person, you're going to get that choice right? Will you even remember what value you're trying to optimize? There's a law that you have to lose money, so are you trying to minimize that loss, or are you maybe trying to find the one with the best drinks, or the least travel time from your house? The more the houses compete, the more complex the problem will get. Eventually you will be up against people who a very good at making the choices be hard. You'll be thinking travel costs you $0.180 per mile when it's really $0.188, or drinking "free" drinks that are worth $2.91 to you, but they got their cost down to $2.78. You'll think their Fizzbin game's Tuesday rule is an advantage, but actually it puts you up against better players, and two of them (which two?) are agents of the house.
The simple answer is that you don't try to optimize paperclip production to that degree. Overthinking is a cost in itself.
If you kill 90% of the 'lowest carbon dioxid' producers, then CO2 production is not dropping by 50%.
Read the title of the link.
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam
Why do you assert things that aren't true? Could it be that some other things you asserted in this thread without a thread of support aren't true either?
There are a few flaws, e.g. there is no carbon sink that is relevant on that scale.
A large portion of human-produced CO2 is no longer in the air. I've heard about half. That sounds quite relevant to me.
And to have those benefits you mention, you have to kill all of the western civilization and leave upstarts like India and China alone ...
For a 90% drop in population, you can't leave a third of the population alone. Even if we killed off the people with the smallest carbon footprint first, we'd still substantially reduce the amount of CO2 emitted (by half). 90% is a huge drop in CO2 emissions no matter how you do it.
But I think it was obvious that I was speaking of a proportionate drop in population for all not a kill the Western World first which would be much greater drop than 90%.
25 -35% % of the planets population is creating 90% of the CO2.
That's still 2 billion or more people.
NO WE COULD NOT. It only would take longer to get the atmosphere into a "critical" state. It would not change the fundamental problem in any way!
Even delaying by several centuries would change the problem (for example, the non-human part of the world would adapt more readily with a slower pace of change). And the Earth's ecosystem sinks carbon so producing less means a more than proportionate drop in how much builds up in the environment.
And there's other huge benefits. There's less habitat destruction, there's less normal pollution, and there's less use and consumption of natural resources. Those would play a role in mitigating or adapting to the harm of climate change.
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
My reply:
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.
That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.
That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
It wasn't part of the question so no, I disagree. That post was just two sentences with a very important point you continue to ignore. It's amazing how you keep digging this hole deeper.
You're assuming an abuse of power from the courts, while glitch! was remarking on the abuses of the legislature
Of course! You should too. Just because other branches have their own opportunities for abuse doesn't mean that we should escalate by creating a very abusable power for the courts as well.
To use a car analogy, if some part of your control system: steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, etc is too responsible, you don't fix it by making another part too responsive as well. Two broken components don't counter each other.
The solution is not really one most of us would like to stomach though since it amounts to "kill off a couple billion people," either directly or by leaving them to starve or die of disease.
There is another solution. Wealthy societies are low fertility societies. Current mitigation efforts run counter to generating wealth (particularly, generating higher energy costs and moving wealth around ineffectively).
My view is that in the long term, moving the standard of living of the Somalian to the standard of living of the Minnesotan is a better strategy even from the point of view of climate change than implementing policies that degrade the standard of the Minnesotan while doing nothing positive for the Somalian.
Wealthier societies can more easily adapt to the modest climate change than poor societies can adapt to no change at all. And it is better to have better control of overpopulation than to have continued population growth and thus need for harsher and harsher control over environment impact of humanity.
How exactly does overpopulation make climate change a problem that wouldn't exist if not for overpopulation?
An order of magnitude fewer people with the same CO2 emissions per capita generate an order of magnitude less CO2 collectively.
Some countries do not permit a review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks.
Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me." Instead it means
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
What is being assumed in my question:
Why have the other branches then?
Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts. And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).
And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.
As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that. A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?
glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.
And the cap should be small.
Because nothing is more important than climate change. Not even the factors like overpopulation that make climate change a problem in the first place.
Unfortunately, you did not answer my question
No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.
How is that different from now? We have highly inconsistent ruling and a legal system more or less that fails to serve any useful purpose other than to serve the people who already have the money and power. I would prefer that the judicial system interpret the laws with this in mind, and not blindly suport the general philosophy that he who has the gold makes the rules.
That's not the job of courts. That's the job of voters to police.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
Not everyone does judicial review. And it seemed to me that glitch wasn't interested in judicial review or anything else that obstructed any justice the courts could mete out.
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Well just how devastating can local effects be? Sure, if you have huge numbers of desalinization plants running up the coast of say, California, dumping very salty water right off shore, it's going to cause problems for that region. But we have rather simple and low energy technologies for mixing salt into water that can greatly reduce the problem.
For whatever reason, a lot of people prefer low price over quality. I've seen nothing in this thread to even show there is an actual problem. If instead you want quality, you don't buy it at the retailer shaving all these costs.
For example, from a much earlier post:
Look at a rubbermaid mop bucket at Home depot. Then look at a rubbermaid mop bucket at Walmart. Then tell me their is 'no evidence'.
In other words, one can buy a better product presumably for more from Home Depot. There are probably other mop buckets sold online or via catalogue of far higher quality, if you're willing to shop for them too. So it is not an actual problem that Walmart sells flimsier mop buckets. Just pay more for what you really want.