People impose their will on you via the state because historically it has proven better than everyone trying to impose their will on each other via threats and violence.
People impose their will on you via the state because historically the state has been shown to have the power to impose its will on others, and to be able to beat off competitors. If the state had not been able to beat off its competitors, we would not have the state because its competitors would have beaten it.
The founders wanted people to have firearms so that people could kill tyrants. Semi-automatic weapons fill that role admirably, and the reasoning is as good and as applicable today as is was then, and will remain so forever.
A person has human rights because of his presumed properties as a human being, those properties being (among others) being an animal and having a rational faculty. Furthermore, rights are related in degree to the possession of human properties. The right to vote is not granted to those too young to use it rationally. The right to drive a car (yes it's a right, government claims to the contrary notwithstanding) is not granted to people incapable of driving safely (the ability to drive safely being a property of trained human adults.)
A person who (for instance) murders an innocent has lost some portion of his humanity, and when that loss has been proven the state is justified in applying the penalties that apply to the crime, that would violate his rights as a human being, because to the degree that his crime indicates he has not acted as a proper human, he loses the portion of his rights associated with those aspects of humanity he lacks.
To conclude: yes, there are inalienable human rights, and someone who loses his humanity loses his human rights.
People who commit crimes (I'm talking about obvious crimes, not tripping over stupidities in the criminal code) understand that they are risking being caught, and that the likely result of being caught is the loss of their freedom or worse. They act voluntarily, understanding the risk. To say "They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights." is to say their stepping outside of reality in their mental processes is something we should give serious legal attention to. It's not.
You are arguing that a burglar carrying a gun has that gun to protect his life, i.e. for defensive purposes. It is transparently obvious that he's carrying the gun for offensive purposes, to make his attack stronger.
John Lott started studying guns and crime with the intention of linking the two. No gun lobby tried to end his career, and his research has demonstrated that gun ownership reduces crime.
Unlike stories from the NYT, Lott's data isn't cherry-picked to make gun owners and the US look bad.
Gun ownership in urban areas is very different from gun ownership in rural areas. Crime rates in cities are 74% higher than in the countryside, and gun ownership (especially legal gun ownership) is higher away from population centers.
There are many people who would gladly kill someone who performs an abortion (if they could get away with it), and they'd probably be happy to kill the woman, too. I know someone who spent jail time due to activities against an abortion clinic, and (in my opinion) he wasn't too far from more violent activity. Publishing a list of women who have had abortions risks their property, their jobs, and their lives.
That information is "protected" is not sufficient to prevent it from being published. Just ask Bladley Manning or the Rosenbergs or those who leaked the "Pentagon Papers". The only way to prevent a government from exposing data is to prevent the government from having that data.
Of course you don't realize that you've just revealed yourself as a racist.
The US won't attack itself, Canada, Australia, Europe/Great Britain, or the Union of South Africa, because none of them are giving us trouble. We're not likely to attack Russia any time soon. Guessing at what you mean by "brown", I've just covered everybody that isn't "brown", about 20% of the world. It looks to me like your blinders have obscured the root of US military action.
People who think they are voting in their self-interest when they vote left are usually mistaken: they are voting to limit what they can accomplish, and voting for short-term gains without thinking of long-term consequences.
You are ignorant of the Laffer curve. At current levels, increase of tax rates (in most cases) will not increase government revenues, and will greatly decrease private wealth.
And when the rich don't have any money left to feed thieves like you, you'll eat the rich. And with everyone living off $30k a year and nobody producing goods, food and clothing will come from -- blank out. Your mind obviously can't think that deeply.
Bush's Social Security plan was unpopular because leftists misrepresented it in a breathtakingly dishonest manner. They so poisoned the political discourse that few people had any clue about the actual content of the proposal.
What makes you think Republicans can't afford to cut Medicare/Medicaid?
Here's what to do: end medicare/medicaid immediately. For all people not already qualified to receive Social Security due to age, raise the age limit 1 year for every 3 years the person is below the current age limit. End Social Security disability payments immediately. Restrict the FDA to controlling purity only. Restrict the SEC to fraud only. End highway funding. Close the EPA, return its functions to the states. End farming subsidies, close the Agriculture Department. End all social programs run by the Defense Department. End all foreign aid. Sell off federal parks or cede them to the states they are located in. Close the Interior Department. Close the department of Labor. Close HUD, end all housing subsidies. Close Department of Health and Human Services. Close the Department of Transportation, end all transportation subsidies and turn airport control over to private or municipal organizations. Close the Department of Education and deport its higher level management. Close the Department of Energy and jail its higher level managers. Close the Department of Homeland Security and turn its few valid functions over to the FBI, CIA, or state organizations, as appropriate. End support of the UN and deport all foreigners therein. Close the Small Business Administration and turn its valid functions, if any, over to the states. Severely limit and cripple the Commerce Department. End federal restrictions on and support of payments to those unemployed. End ALL off-budget discretionary spending. End all emergency relief, and add a Constitutional amendment making it illegal. Close the National Infrastructure Bank.
The above will cut the Federal Budget by about 60%, and by more as the debt is paid off and Social Security is phased out. In about 60 years, the burden of federal expenditures will be about 20% of what it is now.
The alternative is universal poverty and despotism.
You frigging liar. Most of Bain's investments were successful and the companies prospered.One of the huge frauds in the election was the claim that Bain sucked money out of a steel company and left it to fail, when in fact they invested millions into a steel company that had already failed, and kept it afloat for a while. Take off your Obama blinders.
The Superman Shield ("S") may be a trademark. If so, and the owner kept the mark in use, no image of Superman showing the shield could be legally used in a manner violating trademark protection.
Slashdot Mirror
The hidden hypothesis is that the thicker the shake, the higher the ice cream to milk ratio, hence the better the shake.
People impose their will on you via the state because historically the state has been shown to have the power to impose its will on others, and to be able to beat off competitors. If the state had not been able to beat off its competitors, we would not have the state because its competitors would have beaten it.
Really. It's just that simple.
Gee, you've just told him he can't farm vegetables.
The founders wanted people to have firearms so that people could kill tyrants. Semi-automatic weapons fill that role admirably, and the reasoning is as good and as applicable today as is was then, and will remain so forever.
A person has human rights because of his presumed properties as a human being, those properties being (among others) being an animal and having a rational faculty. Furthermore, rights are related in degree to the possession of human properties. The right to vote is not granted to those too young to use it rationally. The right to drive a car (yes it's a right, government claims to the contrary notwithstanding) is not granted to people incapable of driving safely (the ability to drive safely being a property of trained human adults.)
A person who (for instance) murders an innocent has lost some portion of his humanity, and when that loss has been proven the state is justified in applying the penalties that apply to the crime, that would violate his rights as a human being, because to the degree that his crime indicates he has not acted as a proper human, he loses the portion of his rights associated with those aspects of humanity he lacks.
To conclude: yes, there are inalienable human rights, and someone who loses his humanity loses his human rights.
People who commit crimes (I'm talking about obvious crimes, not tripping over stupidities in the criminal code) understand that they are risking being caught, and that the likely result of being caught is the loss of their freedom or worse. They act voluntarily, understanding the risk. To say "They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights." is to say their stepping outside of reality in their mental processes is something we should give serious legal attention to. It's not.
Because the government never loses secret information (Benedict Arnold. Kim Philby.)
I always look through the window first.
You are arguing that a burglar carrying a gun has that gun to protect his life, i.e. for defensive purposes. It is transparently obvious that he's carrying the gun for offensive purposes, to make his attack stronger.
John Lott started studying guns and crime with the intention of linking the two. No gun lobby tried to end his career, and his research has demonstrated that gun ownership reduces crime.
Unlike stories from the NYT, Lott's data isn't cherry-picked to make gun owners and the US look bad.
Ghandi won because the British were civilized, and Ghandi exploited the British through their civility.
Gun ownership in urban areas is very different from gun ownership in rural areas. Crime rates in cities are 74% higher than in the countryside, and gun ownership (especially legal gun ownership) is higher away from population centers.
There are many people who would gladly kill someone who performs an abortion (if they could get away with it), and they'd probably be happy to kill the woman, too. I know someone who spent jail time due to activities against an abortion clinic, and (in my opinion) he wasn't too far from more violent activity. Publishing a list of women who have had abortions risks their property, their jobs, and their lives.
That information is "protected" is not sufficient to prevent it from being published. Just ask Bladley Manning or the Rosenbergs or those who leaked the "Pentagon Papers". The only way to prevent a government from exposing data is to prevent the government from having that data.
The 50% mortality estimate was based on absence of medical care and people not very healthy in the first place.
Of course you don't realize that you've just revealed yourself as a racist.
The US won't attack itself, Canada, Australia, Europe/Great Britain, or the Union of South Africa, because none of them are giving us trouble. We're not likely to attack Russia any time soon. Guessing at what you mean by "brown", I've just covered everybody that isn't "brown", about 20% of the world. It looks to me like your blinders have obscured the root of US military action.
People who think they are voting in their self-interest when they vote left are usually mistaken: they are voting to limit what they can accomplish, and voting for short-term gains without thinking of long-term consequences.
You are ignorant of the Laffer curve. At current levels, increase of tax rates (in most cases) will not increase government revenues, and will greatly decrease private wealth.
And when the rich don't have any money left to feed thieves like you, you'll eat the rich. And with everyone living off $30k a year and nobody producing goods, food and clothing will come from -- blank out. Your mind obviously can't think that deeply.
Bush's Social Security plan was unpopular because leftists misrepresented it in a breathtakingly dishonest manner. They so poisoned the political discourse that few people had any clue about the actual content of the proposal.
What makes you think Republicans can't afford to cut Medicare/Medicaid?
Here's what to do: end medicare/medicaid immediately. For all people not already qualified to receive Social Security due to age, raise the age limit 1 year for every 3 years the person is below the current age limit. End Social Security disability payments immediately. Restrict the FDA to controlling purity only. Restrict the SEC to fraud only. End highway funding. Close the EPA, return its functions to the states. End farming subsidies, close the Agriculture Department. End all social programs run by the Defense Department. End all foreign aid. Sell off federal parks or cede them to the states they are located in. Close the Interior Department. Close the department of Labor. Close HUD, end all housing subsidies. Close Department of Health and Human Services. Close the Department of Transportation, end all transportation subsidies and turn airport control over to private or municipal organizations. Close the Department of Education and deport its higher level management. Close the Department of Energy and jail its higher level managers. Close the Department of Homeland Security and turn its few valid functions over to the FBI, CIA, or state organizations, as appropriate. End support of the UN and deport all foreigners therein. Close the Small Business Administration and turn its valid functions, if any, over to the states. Severely limit and cripple the Commerce Department. End federal restrictions on and support of payments to those unemployed. End ALL off-budget discretionary spending. End all emergency relief, and add a Constitutional amendment making it illegal. Close the National Infrastructure Bank.
The above will cut the Federal Budget by about 60%, and by more as the debt is paid off and Social Security is phased out. In about 60 years, the burden of federal expenditures will be about 20% of what it is now.
The alternative is universal poverty and despotism.
You frigging liar. Most of Bain's investments were successful and the companies prospered.One of the huge frauds in the election was the claim that Bain sucked money out of a steel company and left it to fail, when in fact they invested millions into a steel company that had already failed, and kept it afloat for a while. Take off your Obama blinders.
The Superman Shield ("S") may be a trademark. If so, and the owner kept the mark in use, no image of Superman showing the shield could be legally used in a manner violating trademark protection.
It was John W. Campbell's dream first.
Not all sane people stay sane throughout their lives.