That you can string words together does not imply that you can form a coherent thought.
For instance:
The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.
If the average were the minimum, then all work for pay ("wage-labour") would be exactly the same. (You are bright enough to do the math, aren't you?) But living expenses vary with location (for instance, by necessity, someone in Manitoba pays more for heat than someone in Florida). So if the person in Manitoba earns just enough to live, that same amount of money provides the Floridian with money to spare. Conversely, if the Floridian gets just enough to live, the Manitoban dies and nobody could live there.
Flaws in your excuse for logic notwithstanding, you are completely divorced from reality. Very few people live in a place without a TV, and of those fewer still can't afford one. Same for telephones. Neither is a necessity for life. Thus even if your argument for "bare existence" were valid, the number of people to whom it could apply is vanishingly small.
You need to know what is real and how things work before you spout off. You need to use your mind to observe and test your theories, not blabber whatever your biassed teacher has pumped into your skull.
While you're at it, look up the definition of "quantum"
So, let's say an artist, a painter, incorporates to protect herself. She's the only one who can legally sign her name to her paintings, so she must be an evil monopolist. She must be chained with regulations and oversight, heavily fined, or divided into sections to satisfy your ideas of efficiency, economics, democracy and capitalism.
Uelsmann is sort of a hero of mine. His images are boldly imaginative and technically impeccable. That he was able to create what he did in the pre-digital era is astonishing.
All government activities are enforced, eventually, at gunpoint. Some day, some policy that you don't like is going to be enforced by a governmental gun pointed at you.
Think twice before saying that the government should be doing something.
Heat pollution from running all those electrical devices.
You can't be that stupid. The water runs out of the dam sooner or later, turning its potential gravitational energy into heat energy either in the air or in the water.
There are three possible reasons for falling prices, sans the use of force/intimidation: increased supply, decreased demand, and deflation (increasing the value of money deceases the nominal price of everything.) Deflation and decreased demand aren't happening.
The secret ballot wasn't in use anywhere in the United States until it was first adopted by the city of Louisville, Kentucky, in 1888.
To the contrary: " Before 1801, the nominations for Assistants were made secretly and in writing" http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm Referring to Connecticut.
Secrecy in elections apparently was not the rule, but it was not unknown. Furthermore, the situation was very much different then: the ability to vote was restricted, and those who could vote had good standing in the community, and thus were less susceptible to bribery or intimidation. As the franchise was expanded, safeguards were needed to protect the vulnerable.
By your argument, freedom of the press and freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to type ideas on the internet, without a Constitutional Amendment. Not every trivial refinement, nor even major advances, needs to be encoded into the Constitution when it is an obvious requirement of the principles set forth therein. Insisting that all aspects of all protections against all forms of injustice be codified into the Constitution is a sure way to make all protections disappear.
But the Constitution doesn't say the President can't have you shot on a Wednesday.
If the Supreme Court can claim abortion is a right because of privacy (the argument in Roe v Wade), the more obvious and more important case of secret voting is an easy deduction.
Of course, the idea that precedence should be followed when it opposes obvious truth is absurd, but that's where we are.
Logic among judges in politically important cases is a laugh. A case could be made that the Fourth Amendment protection against searches without a warrant guarantees a secret vote. A case could be made that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination guarantees a secret vote. The judge could have considered such possibilities, or could have claimed that the secret ballot came under the protections of the 9th and 10th amendments, but she did not. She did not because she is no friend of liberty or the best interests of the people of the United States.
An excellent idea. The best objection I can think of is that is possible to create the appearance of fraud when none exists. Let's say that in an election where 1000 people are expected to vote, vicious candidate Foobar knows he's only going to get the votes of 15 close friends. He goes to those friends and says, "Vote for Smith and make shadow votes for me." In the election, he gets 2 votes, calls a press conference with his friends and shows 16 shadow receipts for him. "Election fraud" he yells, and the press may echo his yell. Disproving his claim requires making public the records of those persons' ballots, which in all likelihood Foobar will claim are fakes. He may even demand that all ballots be made public, to the disadvantage of those who wanted verification but assumed that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Alternately, once the 16 ballots have been exposed, Foobar may say "See, these ballots have been made public. Your votes are not private, unlike what officials say."
A second objection is complexity. There will be people who won't understand the difference between the real ballot and the shadow. In the case of a close election with contested results, many liars will come forth claiming their shadow ballot was counted instead of their real vote. "I was confused. I submitted the wrong ballot." No matter how clear the instructions, there are going to be people who get it wrong, and another overlapping set of people who think they got it wrong.
Being bought is a problem, but intimidation is worse. Vote the wrong way, get beaten to a pulp by a mob of select union members. Traceability means intimidation, and blackmail is a possibility also.
Persons losing elections because of fraud, persons who worked for those who lost elections because of fraud, are often highly motivated to stop that fraud. Those who like the results of fraud are going to make the sort of arguments you make, claiming without evidence that those opposing fraud are racist, bigoted, anti-poor, etc... You're only fooling yourself and your friends.
Easy. Call your local (Democrat, Republican) party headquarters and say "I want to vote for but I'm not registered. Please help me." If that doesn't produce results, your vote won't make any difference anyway.
People who should not vote: convicted felons while serving their term, because they do not have the best interest of society in their minds. Same for those convicted of treason whether in jail or released. Those not legal residents of the area in which the election is being held. Those who are too young, because they lack good judgement. Those with certain varieties and degrees of insanity, and those with severe mental defects (I mean to set the bar quite low here, if you can see but can't recognize your own face in a mirror, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.) Those who have already voted in the election in question.
The fact that you say "...so that no group is unrepresented." is a very bad thing. We're INDIVIDUALS here; minds and bodies and health and action belong only to individuals, not groups. Personal property, wallets, cars and bank accounts mostly belong to individuals, and the rest belongs to families or companies or other organizations, not "Latinos" or "Whites" or "Blacks" or "Native Americans" or "Women" or "Men" or "Gays" or whatever. When people are identified by groups, especially when such groups are spurious to genuine rights, it's a sign that someone is looking to create trouble and make ill-gotten gains.
In many places it used to be the case that only property owners could vote. This made it much more likely that only those with the best interests of their community could vote. There are obvious defects with that restriction, but the principle behind it has some merit.
One reason for expiration of photo IDs is that a person's appearance changes. At 1, 4, 10, 20, 40, and 60 years old it would be a tough challenge to say of me "that's the same person."
I've read that the vegetable forms of B12 are not identical to the animal (or synthetic) forms, and are either less effective or totally ineffective in humans.
That "a lack of certain meat proteins can make the condition much worse" does not mean that the lack of certain meat proteins is the ONLY thing that can make the condition worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be surprised what is illegal to sell in California, like certain varieties of house paint that are legal everywhere else.
That you can string words together does not imply that you can form a coherent thought.
For instance:
If the average were the minimum, then all work for pay ("wage-labour") would be exactly the same. (You are bright enough to do the math, aren't you?) But living expenses vary with location (for instance, by necessity, someone in Manitoba pays more for heat than someone in Florida). So if the person in Manitoba earns just enough to live, that same amount of money provides the Floridian with money to spare. Conversely, if the Floridian gets just enough to live, the Manitoban dies and nobody could live there.
Flaws in your excuse for logic notwithstanding, you are completely divorced from reality. Very few people live in a place without a TV, and of those fewer still can't afford one. Same for telephones. Neither is a necessity for life. Thus even if your argument for "bare existence" were valid, the number of people to whom it could apply is vanishingly small.
You need to know what is real and how things work before you spout off. You need to use your mind to observe and test your theories, not blabber whatever your biassed teacher has pumped into your skull.
While you're at it, look up the definition of "quantum"
You are proposing that an ignorant mob should kill Supreme Court Justices. Why don't you say so directly instead of using all the fancy verbiage?
So, let's say an artist, a painter, incorporates to protect herself. She's the only one who can legally sign her name to her paintings, so she must be an evil monopolist. She must be chained with regulations and oversight, heavily fined, or divided into sections to satisfy your ideas of efficiency, economics, democracy and capitalism.
IDIOT
Uelsmann is sort of a hero of mine. His images are boldly imaginative and technically impeccable. That he was able to create what he did in the pre-digital era is astonishing.
Have you seen the fnords?
All government activities are enforced, eventually, at gunpoint. Some day, some policy that you don't like is going to be enforced by a governmental gun pointed at you.
Think twice before saying that the government should be doing something.
You can't be that stupid. The water runs out of the dam sooner or later, turning its potential gravitational energy into heat energy either in the air or in the water.
How much power is being wasted by sites that do not honor "do not track"?
Think it through. You are arguing that people who own houses and rent them out should lose money.
There are three possible reasons for falling prices, sans the use of force/intimidation: increased supply, decreased demand, and deflation (increasing the value of money deceases the nominal price of everything.) Deflation and decreased demand aren't happening.
To the contrary: " Before 1801, the nominations for Assistants were made secretly and in writing" http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm Referring to Connecticut.
Secrecy in elections apparently was not the rule, but it was not unknown. Furthermore, the situation was very much different then: the ability to vote was restricted, and those who could vote had good standing in the community, and thus were less susceptible to bribery or intimidation. As the franchise was expanded, safeguards were needed to protect the vulnerable.
By your argument, freedom of the press and freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to type ideas on the internet, without a Constitutional Amendment. Not every trivial refinement, nor even major advances, needs to be encoded into the Constitution when it is an obvious requirement of the principles set forth therein. Insisting that all aspects of all protections against all forms of injustice be codified into the Constitution is a sure way to make all protections disappear.
But the Constitution doesn't say the President can't have you shot on a Wednesday .
If the Supreme Court can claim abortion is a right because of privacy (the argument in Roe v Wade), the more obvious and more important case of secret voting is an easy deduction.
Of course, the idea that precedence should be followed when it opposes obvious truth is absurd, but that's where we are.
Logic among judges in politically important cases is a laugh. A case could be made that the Fourth Amendment protection against searches without a warrant guarantees a secret vote. A case could be made that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination guarantees a secret vote. The judge could have considered such possibilities, or could have claimed that the secret ballot came under the protections of the 9th and 10th amendments, but she did not. She did not because she is no friend of liberty or the best interests of the people of the United States.
I think I see the problem here.
An excellent idea. The best objection I can think of is that is possible to create the appearance of fraud when none exists. Let's say that in an election where 1000 people are expected to vote, vicious candidate Foobar knows he's only going to get the votes of 15 close friends. He goes to those friends and says, "Vote for Smith and make shadow votes for me." In the election, he gets 2 votes, calls a press conference with his friends and shows 16 shadow receipts for him. "Election fraud" he yells, and the press may echo his yell. Disproving his claim requires making public the records of those persons' ballots, which in all likelihood Foobar will claim are fakes. He may even demand that all ballots be made public, to the disadvantage of those who wanted verification but assumed that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Alternately, once the 16 ballots have been exposed, Foobar may say "See, these ballots have been made public. Your votes are not private, unlike what officials say."
A second objection is complexity. There will be people who won't understand the difference between the real ballot and the shadow. In the case of a close election with contested results, many liars will come forth claiming their shadow ballot was counted instead of their real vote. "I was confused. I submitted the wrong ballot." No matter how clear the instructions, there are going to be people who get it wrong, and another overlapping set of people who think they got it wrong.
I can see religious objections to implanted RFID being legally effective. Your idea goes nowhere with an alert electorate.
Being bought is a problem, but intimidation is worse. Vote the wrong way, get beaten to a pulp by a mob of select union members. Traceability means intimidation, and blackmail is a possibility also.
Persons losing elections because of fraud, persons who worked for those who lost elections because of fraud, are often highly motivated to stop that fraud. Those who like the results of fraud are going to make the sort of arguments you make, claiming without evidence that those opposing fraud are racist, bigoted, anti-poor, etc... You're only fooling yourself and your friends.
Easy. Call your local (Democrat, Republican) party headquarters and say "I want to vote for but I'm not registered. Please help me." If that doesn't produce results, your vote won't make any difference anyway.
People who should not vote: convicted felons while serving their term, because they do not have the best interest of society in their minds. Same for those convicted of treason whether in jail or released. Those not legal residents of the area in which the election is being held. Those who are too young, because they lack good judgement. Those with certain varieties and degrees of insanity, and those with severe mental defects (I mean to set the bar quite low here, if you can see but can't recognize your own face in a mirror, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.) Those who have already voted in the election in question.
The fact that you say "...so that no group is unrepresented." is a very bad thing. We're INDIVIDUALS here; minds and bodies and health and action belong only to individuals, not groups. Personal property, wallets, cars and bank accounts mostly belong to individuals, and the rest belongs to families or companies or other organizations, not "Latinos" or "Whites" or "Blacks" or "Native Americans" or "Women" or "Men" or "Gays" or whatever. When people are identified by groups, especially when such groups are spurious to genuine rights, it's a sign that someone is looking to create trouble and make ill-gotten gains.
In many places it used to be the case that only property owners could vote. This made it much more likely that only those with the best interests of their community could vote. There are obvious defects with that restriction, but the principle behind it has some merit.
One reason for expiration of photo IDs is that a person's appearance changes. At 1, 4, 10, 20, 40, and 60 years old it would be a tough challenge to say of me "that's the same person."
I've read that the vegetable forms of B12 are not identical to the animal (or synthetic) forms, and are either less effective or totally ineffective in humans.
That "a lack of certain meat proteins can make the condition much worse" does not mean that the lack of certain meat proteins is the ONLY thing that can make the condition worse.
Still too small for Nancy Pelosi's mouth.