The bill has no severability clause. If the mandate is struck down, the whole thing dies (almost certainly--the court could strike down just the mandate, but they won't, for just the reasons you've identified).
I'm actually in favor of an individual mandate, but not this steaming pile of a "pass it to know what's in it" power grab by federal bureaucrats that will politicize every medical decision into the foreseeable future. Don't believe that? Think back to how politicized the mammogram report became when this bill was under discussion. (A taste of that.) We had Congress Critters lining up to denounce the science on both sides of the aisle. That's a preview of what will happen on every medical decision if this law stands as it is. A mandate to carry a high-deductible catastrophic plan makes sense; having the government micromanage healthcare is stupid when there are other options that don't assume godlike knowledge on the part of bureaucrats and politicians. At least, that my judgment now; I'm willing to put it to an experimental test.
Let's experiment with 50 systems and see what all the unintended and unexpected consequences are. Then, if you want to expand the power of the feds to impose such a mandate, there is a procedure for that: constitutional amendment. If the idea is so great, why not put it to the test in a few states before imposing it on everyone? That's how we actually learn something.
To a related point: Wasn't it Barry who said we can't expect to pass something as huge as healthcare reform with 51%?
There was no real "deregulation" of the derivatives market. It emerged without real regulation in the 90s. And the lack of regulation in derivatives would have had relatively little impact were it not for the longstanding incentives of cheap money and pushing mortgages with the implicit incentive of a bailout to Fanny and Freddie.
People have to stop looking for simple "it was their fault" answers to these extremely complicated matters. There is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, and the correct lesson is this: No one is smart enough to manage and plan an economy; everything they (and it doesn't matter who "they" are) touch is therefore liable to go to hell. That doesn't mean no regulation; it means regulation has to set clear, enforceable rules that cannot be easily gamed or interpreted away and stop trying to pick winners.
You're profoundly confused. There's no magic here; Mises and others of the Austrian school simply understood a few things about chaotic systems better than anyone else, especially in economics, long before it was cool. Hayek was predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union while others, e.g., Galbraith, were predicting their victory over capitalism based on their great efficiency. Hayek also predicted the Great Depression. This is not magic; it's just a matter of actually understanding economics instead of imagining we've understood it when we model a toy world.
Naomi Klein is a vicious, hateful liar. Her absurd claims are exposed here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128903.html. Seriously, she can't be stupid enough to say of the crap in that book, so one can only infer she's maliciously lying. And you're buying it. Disgusting.
Huh? Why wouldn't something work "under bootcamp"?? Bootcamp is not emulation or anything. It's just Windows running on Apple branded PC hardware. Is there a conflict with the drivers or something? That's the only angle that could make any sense, and even there, it seems like there would be a workaround (e.g., most of the Mac hardware is off-the-shelf, and you could install alternative drivers?) I don't get your claim.
Those who invest all that time in something inevitably justify it to themselves. The fact that everyone who tries it claims to be better off for it is no proof at all.
In contrast, the folks who care about the objective facts (e.g., those who could pay to train typists on an alternative and thereby stand to gain/lose based on the truth) have not judged there to be any benefit to alternatives, based on evaluations of actual performance. If they were all wrong, then the first company to get it right would enjoy a competitive advantage and eat their lunch. In the market, you can't just go by your (often distorted) gut feeling on these things, because the truth will be found out and you will literally pay for it!
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens. The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.) Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.
When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.
More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Preamble?? Huh? You seem to have gotten your Declaration of Independence mixed in with your Constitution there, son. If you're going to be a jackass about the text, at least get it right!
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.
As to the substance of your point, the ideals expressed in the Declaration are in no way abridged by treating those who stand outside the law as with respect to us, operating in a declared State of War, in a summary fashion. Civil courts exist when we have mutually accepted their role in civil society. Plainly, lawful combatants do not fit that description. Take a gander at Locke's Second Treatise to get some semblance of a clue on this:
"The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power." -- John Locke
In short, you CANNOT "prove" a scientific theory. There is a fundamental logical problem with the very idea: We make predictions, and sometimes the predictions come true. But 'If H, then P ; P; Therefore, H' is just plain invalid. However, if a prediction fails to come true, we have: 'If H, then P; not-P; Therefore, not-H.' So, hypothesis testing CANNOT prove that a theory is true, but we can submit a theory to testing and prove that it's false, and that's enough to give us confidence in the truth of hypotheses that we haven't been able to falsify. This, in highly abbreviated form, indicates why Popper's view that scientific claims are never proved but must be susceptible of falsification has been so very influential. It's not the last word in philosophy of science, but it's an important point, and one that you should at least understand and take seriously.
As far as I can tell, neither you nor GP knows what counts as "real science."
I've heard this point from Australians before and it is annoying and pointlessly self-righteous. Waitstaff often make excellent wages with tips in US (and other places with tipping)--considerably better for a good worker on a good night than they would make without the practice. The gripe about "decent wages" is almost entirely a matter of accounting.
Not every worker prefers security of income over the opportunity to make more at the expense of security. To make one or the other practice out to be normatively superior is to declare the wish to lord it over others by substituting your preferences for theirs. NOTE: I am not saying the practice of tipping is normatively superior either. I'm sure there are waitstaff who would prefer to do without it. (All the same, I know plenty of waiters and waitresses who would be appalled by the idea that you or some other do-gooder wants to do them a "favor" by replacing their AWESOME income with merely "decent wages.")
Finally, to emphasize how this sort of payment practice is ultimately a matter of accounting: I rather like the fact that the waitstaff is being paid by ME for doing ME a service. Why should he/she be paid by the middleman who happens to own the establishment?? By what rationale would that be any morally superior?? (Remember, you don't get to substitute your preferences for income security for others' decisions. These people are grown-ups who can choose for themselves.)
You're assuming a highly dubious deep distinction between philosophy and science. To understand how dubious it is, just look at the terminal degree in Physics, or consider the full title of Newton's Big Important Book. If you'd have suggested to Newton that we not teach "philosophical" views in science class, he's have been quite puzzled.
Of course, none of this warrants making a readily refuted theory in natural philosophy (i.e., science) part of the curriculum. Then again, Palin didn't advocate making it part of the curriculum. Surely she hits it just right when she says, "You know, don't be afraid of information."
Actually, if I wasn't worried about how badly it would be taught, I would advocate for it being taught, for just these reasons [note added qualification]: "The only place Creationism has in a science classroom is as an object lesson of something that is not [good] science."
The whole concept of copyright is arbitrary. It was arbitrarily decided upon that, to offset the costs of creation, a short term monopoly would be provided on duplication of said creation so that the creator could attempt to recoup the costs of creation, if not make a profit.
Methinks you need to reflect on the precise meaning of "arbitrary."
What you're failing to account for is the fact that the rules of BSA state that these people simply cannot be a part of the organization What you're failing to understand is that a local troop's interactions with the BSA are practically nil.
Any large organization will have its share of idiotic nutjobs, especially in positions of bureaucratic authority. The question is whether the organization is so corrupt and inflexible that one does a greater wrong by engagement or by disengagement. This is a case where, for anyone not entirely ignorant of that actual character and values of actual troops in the actual world, it is obvious that engagement and respectful disagreement with official policy is the better course.
Only someone ignorant of what Scouting is actually like would dismiss it out of hand on the basis of what BSA says and does. It would be like hating all Americans on account of disagreements with the current administration.
By the way, for those who think there is something hypocritical about local troops overlooking certain of the rules from the BSA, there is nothing in the spirit or character of Scouting that endorses stupid rule-mongering. Quite to the contrary, Scouting encourages boys to think for themselves and become self-reliant.
For the record, I am an atheist, and my son is a Scout (which meets in a Church). When I was a Scout, there was a least one boy in our troop who was gay. Those with a knee-jerk reaction against anything that might be a bit wholesome and admirable need to be a bit more reflective and thoughtful.
By the way, Scouts were multiculturalists and promoters of racial and religious tolerance long before these were mainstream values. In fact, one can earn a religious awards in totally non-theist religions like Universalism and Buddhism.
Also, note that your analysis lays the premises for showing that these people are making an idol of the law. It seems that when religion becomes intermingled with law, idolatry directed towards the law itself is a fairly common outcome. Additional examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
The tired notion that a calorie is a calorie is demonstrably false. If it were true, we wouldn't worry about the efficiency of the machines we build! In the case of humans, if we encourage the inefficient use of calories, we can lose more weight while eating more calories. This is not just armchair stuff, it's been empirically demonstrated in more than one study. A few are mentioned here:
http://www.locarbrecipes.com/atkinsresearch.html
The myth that "A calorie is a calorie" is a matter of thermodynamics is rigorously debunked here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=506782
Before deciding who is the real quack here, perhaps we should look at some actual data.
Here's a summary from an AP story:
http://www.locarbrecipes.com/atkinsresearch.html
Many of these studies are easily checked more rigorously online. I challenge the other side to come up with real studies.
In general, this semantic dispute is pointless and silly, with everyone trying to gain some rhetorical advantage from what we call something.
The reason it makes perfect sense to call illegal file sharing "stealing" is that it involves the appropriation of something that does not belong to the person who is appropriating it. To put the point more precisely: For any person S and good x, S steals x if and only if S makes use of x even though some other party has the right that S not make use of x. If we agree that theft just is the violation of property rights, and that IP is a species of property rights, then there is no grounds for refusing to call the infringement of property rights theft. If one does not think theft is the violation of property right, he or she owes us a better account of theft.
Note: This analysis has analogues in tangible property. If I take my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission (infringing his property rights), that's theft (not the euphemistic "borrowing"), even if I return it in exactly the condition it was in when it was taken. The fact that the owner is not deprived of some (tangible or intangible) good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the owners rights are violated.
Slashdot Mirror
The bill has no severability clause. If the mandate is struck down, the whole thing dies (almost certainly--the court could strike down just the mandate, but they won't, for just the reasons you've identified).
I'm actually in favor of an individual mandate, but not this steaming pile of a "pass it to know what's in it" power grab by federal bureaucrats that will politicize every medical decision into the foreseeable future. Don't believe that? Think back to how politicized the mammogram report became when this bill was under discussion. (A taste of that.) We had Congress Critters lining up to denounce the science on both sides of the aisle. That's a preview of what will happen on every medical decision if this law stands as it is. A mandate to carry a high-deductible catastrophic plan makes sense; having the government micromanage healthcare is stupid when there are other options that don't assume godlike knowledge on the part of bureaucrats and politicians. At least, that my judgment now; I'm willing to put it to an experimental test.
Let's experiment with 50 systems and see what all the unintended and unexpected consequences are. Then, if you want to expand the power of the feds to impose such a mandate, there is a procedure for that: constitutional amendment. If the idea is so great, why not put it to the test in a few states before imposing it on everyone? That's how we actually learn something.
To a related point: Wasn't it Barry who said we can't expect to pass something as huge as healthcare reform with 51%?
There was no real "deregulation" of the derivatives market. It emerged without real regulation in the 90s. And the lack of regulation in derivatives would have had relatively little impact were it not for the longstanding incentives of cheap money and pushing mortgages with the implicit incentive of a bailout to Fanny and Freddie. People have to stop looking for simple "it was their fault" answers to these extremely complicated matters. There is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, and the correct lesson is this: No one is smart enough to manage and plan an economy; everything they (and it doesn't matter who "they" are) touch is therefore liable to go to hell. That doesn't mean no regulation; it means regulation has to set clear, enforceable rules that cannot be easily gamed or interpreted away and stop trying to pick winners.
Are you high?? Do you really think the current and recent regulatory regime is "laissez-faire"?? Really???
You're profoundly confused. There's no magic here; Mises and others of the Austrian school simply understood a few things about chaotic systems better than anyone else, especially in economics, long before it was cool. Hayek was predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union while others, e.g., Galbraith, were predicting their victory over capitalism based on their great efficiency. Hayek also predicted the Great Depression. This is not magic; it's just a matter of actually understanding economics instead of imagining we've understood it when we model a toy world.
WTF?? You are not going to win friends and influence people with that sort of casual playing of the race card! What's the matter with you?
Naomi Klein is a vicious, hateful liar. Her absurd claims are exposed here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128903.html. Seriously, she can't be stupid enough to say of the crap in that book, so one can only infer she's maliciously lying. And you're buying it. Disgusting.
Huh? Why wouldn't something work "under bootcamp"?? Bootcamp is not emulation or anything. It's just Windows running on Apple branded PC hardware. Is there a conflict with the drivers or something? That's the only angle that could make any sense, and even there, it seems like there would be a workaround (e.g., most of the Mac hardware is off-the-shelf, and you could install alternative drivers?) I don't get your claim.
Those who invest all that time in something inevitably justify it to themselves. The fact that everyone who tries it claims to be better off for it is no proof at all.
In contrast, the folks who care about the objective facts (e.g., those who could pay to train typists on an alternative and thereby stand to gain/lose based on the truth) have not judged there to be any benefit to alternatives, based on evaluations of actual performance. If they were all wrong, then the first company to get it right would enjoy a competitive advantage and eat their lunch. In the market, you can't just go by your (often distorted) gut feeling on these things, because the truth will be found out and you will literally pay for it!
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens. The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.) Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.
When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.
More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.
From the preamble:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Preamble?? Huh? You seem to have gotten your Declaration of Independence mixed in with your Constitution there, son. If you're going to be a jackass about the text, at least get it right!
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.
As to the substance of your point, the ideals expressed in the Declaration are in no way abridged by treating those who stand outside the law as with respect to us, operating in a declared State of War, in a summary fashion. Civil courts exist when we have mutually accepted their role in civil society. Plainly, lawful combatants do not fit that description. Take a gander at Locke's Second Treatise to get some semblance of a clue on this:
"The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power." -- John Locke
Ever heard of Karl Popper? I didn't think so.
In short, you CANNOT "prove" a scientific theory. There is a fundamental logical problem with the very idea: We make predictions, and sometimes the predictions come true. But 'If H, then P ; P; Therefore, H' is just plain invalid. However, if a prediction fails to come true, we have: 'If H, then P; not-P; Therefore, not-H.' So, hypothesis testing CANNOT prove that a theory is true, but we can submit a theory to testing and prove that it's false, and that's enough to give us confidence in the truth of hypotheses that we haven't been able to falsify. This, in highly abbreviated form, indicates why Popper's view that scientific claims are never proved but must be susceptible of falsification has been so very influential. It's not the last word in philosophy of science, but it's an important point, and one that you should at least understand and take seriously.
As far as I can tell, neither you nor GP knows what counts as "real science."
I've heard this point from Australians before and it is annoying and pointlessly self-righteous. Waitstaff often make excellent wages with tips in US (and other places with tipping)--considerably better for a good worker on a good night than they would make without the practice. The gripe about "decent wages" is almost entirely a matter of accounting.
Not every worker prefers security of income over the opportunity to make more at the expense of security. To make one or the other practice out to be normatively superior is to declare the wish to lord it over others by substituting your preferences for theirs. NOTE: I am not saying the practice of tipping is normatively superior either. I'm sure there are waitstaff who would prefer to do without it. (All the same, I know plenty of waiters and waitresses who would be appalled by the idea that you or some other do-gooder wants to do them a "favor" by replacing their AWESOME income with merely "decent wages.")
Finally, to emphasize how this sort of payment practice is ultimately a matter of accounting: I rather like the fact that the waitstaff is being paid by ME for doing ME a service. Why should he/she be paid by the middleman who happens to own the establishment?? By what rationale would that be any morally superior?? (Remember, you don't get to substitute your preferences for income security for others' decisions. These people are grown-ups who can choose for themselves.)
Danish!=Dutch
You're assuming a highly dubious deep distinction between philosophy and science. To understand how dubious it is, just look at the terminal degree in Physics, or consider the full title of Newton's Big Important Book. If you'd have suggested to Newton that we not teach "philosophical" views in science class, he's have been quite puzzled.
Of course, none of this warrants making a readily refuted theory in natural philosophy (i.e., science) part of the curriculum. Then again, Palin didn't advocate making it part of the curriculum. Surely she hits it just right when she says, "You know, don't be afraid of information."
Actually, if I wasn't worried about how badly it would be taught, I would advocate for it being taught, for just these reasons [note added qualification]: "The only place Creationism has in a science classroom is as an object lesson of something that is not [good] science."
The whole concept of copyright is arbitrary. It was arbitrarily decided upon that, to offset the costs of creation, a short term monopoly would be provided on duplication of said creation so that the creator could attempt to recoup the costs of creation, if not make a profit.
Methinks you need to reflect on the precise meaning of "arbitrary."
Any large organization will have its share of idiotic nutjobs, especially in positions of bureaucratic authority. The question is whether the organization is so corrupt and inflexible that one does a greater wrong by engagement or by disengagement. This is a case where, for anyone not entirely ignorant of that actual character and values of actual troops in the actual world, it is obvious that engagement and respectful disagreement with official policy is the better course.
Only someone ignorant of what Scouting is actually like would dismiss it out of hand on the basis of what BSA says and does. It would be like hating all Americans on account of disagreements with the current administration.
By the way, for those who think there is something hypocritical about local troops overlooking certain of the rules from the BSA, there is nothing in the spirit or character of Scouting that endorses stupid rule-mongering. Quite to the contrary, Scouting encourages boys to think for themselves and become self-reliant.
For the record, I am an atheist, and my son is a Scout (which meets in a Church). When I was a Scout, there was a least one boy in our troop who was gay. Those with a knee-jerk reaction against anything that might be a bit wholesome and admirable need to be a bit more reflective and thoughtful.
By the way, Scouts were multiculturalists and promoters of racial and religious tolerance long before these were mainstream values. In fact, one can earn a religious awards in totally non-theist religions like Universalism and Buddhism.
Also, note that your analysis lays the premises for showing that these people are making an idol of the law. It seems that when religion becomes intermingled with law, idolatry directed towards the law itself is a fairly common outcome. Additional examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
The tired notion that a calorie is a calorie is demonstrably false. If it were true, we wouldn't worry about the efficiency of the machines we build! In the case of humans, if we encourage the inefficient use of calories, we can lose more weight while eating more calories. This is not just armchair stuff, it's been empirically demonstrated in more than one study. A few are mentioned here: http://www.locarbrecipes.com/atkinsresearch.html The myth that "A calorie is a calorie" is a matter of thermodynamics is rigorously debunked here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=506782
Before deciding who is the real quack here, perhaps we should look at some actual data. Here's a summary from an AP story: http://www.locarbrecipes.com/atkinsresearch.html Many of these studies are easily checked more rigorously online. I challenge the other side to come up with real studies.
In general, this semantic dispute is pointless and silly, with everyone trying to gain some rhetorical advantage from what we call something. The reason it makes perfect sense to call illegal file sharing "stealing" is that it involves the appropriation of something that does not belong to the person who is appropriating it. To put the point more precisely: For any person S and good x, S steals x if and only if S makes use of x even though some other party has the right that S not make use of x. If we agree that theft just is the violation of property rights, and that IP is a species of property rights, then there is no grounds for refusing to call the infringement of property rights theft. If one does not think theft is the violation of property right, he or she owes us a better account of theft. Note: This analysis has analogues in tangible property. If I take my neighbor's lawnmower without his permission (infringing his property rights), that's theft (not the euphemistic "borrowing"), even if I return it in exactly the condition it was in when it was taken. The fact that the owner is not deprived of some (tangible or intangible) good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the owners rights are violated.