Even if drugs were legalized, I'd still want the FDA drawing a clear line between pharmaceuticals and "others". If you want to shop on the "other" side of the aisle, go nuts.
If you want to place blind trust in the government to make your decisions for you, go nuts! But do it to another government, not ours.
If your LDL goes up, don't worry about it, and ignore your doctor's threats of impending doom. It was never an accurate measure of anything. Recommend Gary Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories to him, and move on.
Last August, I started eating the "paleo diet" and purposely put off all exercise, keeping my lifestyle as sedentary as possible. At the same time, I ate whenever I was hungry. The pounds just flew off, and I was practically skin and bones in couple months. Stick to lots of red meat, fish, cheese, eggs, bacon, milk, cottage cheese, some vegetables. You may have to supplement with omega-3 fish oil if you're buying cheap eggs and meat that are high in omega-6 and low in omega-3.
Get your blood tests with HDL and VLDL / triglycerides to confirm that your blood lipids are improving. Get a check for liver fat deposits before starting the diet, and get another check a couple months later. You'll be shocked at all the improvements. HDL up, VLDL and trigs down, fatty liver gone.
In a legal sense, you have the "right" to do what is permitted under the law.
I am not talking in the legal sense. I am talking in a moral sense - those inalienable rights necessary for a man to live his life, and further his values and goals.
All other rights are philosophical abstractions you've invented
Hmm? I have not invented them. In order for me to live, I must think and use my mind, and so I must be free to do so. Anyone who imposes force on me leads me to think irrationally, in opposition to my life and my values. So it is right for me to use my mind, and it is not right for others to impose force on me. Show me a person who can live and further their values by automatic action alone, as a plant would do.
show me this right of yours that allows you to emit as much carbon into the air as you want.
You mean the carbon that, when plotted next to global temperature, shows that increases in temperature lead to increases in C02, but not vice versa? Oh, but that's beside the point. Show me the health effects on you of my carbon emission, and you can sue me in court, and anyone else for that matter.
So, just to make sure I understand, your view is that we should not have laws that prohibit pollution outright, the problem should be solved entirely through lawsuits.
No, the problem should and would be solved through privatization.
I don't care what you do with your property. I do care if you demand the right to destroy the common areas of the planet for your own short term benefit.
The common areas? You mean, public property? I'm opposed to the entire non-concept of "public property". The sooner we privatize all property, the sooner we will have a healthier environment for people to live in and prosper.
And why do you mention my "short term benefit"? What does that even mean? If it was a long-term benefit (ie, "good intention"), but a rights violation, would that make it justifiable? What was the point of adding that bit, if not to try to make a straw man of my position? That does not constitute an argument.
If you've killed everything down stream and you're dead, how did the market hold you accountable for your actions?
Down stream? Do I own the stream? Then there is no problem. Does someone else? Then they can sue me. Does the government (ie, public park) - then they can sue me. If they choose not to, then count that as a point against public ownership of property. As someone from Cleveland, I can relate to this. (Cuyahoga River)
You don't have the right to demand cheap electricity if the production of that cheap electricity infringes on my right to clean air and water.
"Demand"? You're equivocating. If I'm not *forcing* anyone to do anything, then I in fact *do* have the right to do that, whatever it is you mean by "demand". If that cheap electricity violates your rights to life and property, you can sue the energy producer. You cannot sue me for wanting it.
Your right to low cost energy does not encompass polluting our shared air.
If you can show measurable damage to your health, feel free to sue me and anyone else polluting your air. Until then, we all share this planet and should share in the prosperity of technological innovation.
If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility
By "balanced", you mean compromised, ie violated. Compromise, bipartisanship, "common ground" - these are not good things if they require the rejection of principles. Would you compromise with someone if you knew their arguments and rationale to be totally wrong and ill-founded?
There are other ways to devalue our currency besides printing money. Say, for example, by enforcing overpriced services and enabling monopolies, as in the case of ISPs. High prices, low value.
By "practically free", you mean we all pay for them through the devaluation of our currency. So the money parents are saving for their kid's education is worth less, all to pay for the unconstitutional, forced switchover to digital television. Yay, priorities!
Yes... because regulations are the only barrier to entry.
It's the only force-backed barrier to entry, yes.
Given that nobody has a right to internet access, there can be no compelling an ISP to offer services in any area where it doesn't want to offer services.
In many cases, the ISPs. Most phone companies (DSL) and cable companies (cable Internet) would only run service in an area on the condition that the government would grant them exclusive access to the right-of-way for that kind of service.
What right does the government have to enforce such a condition? If I tell the mafia that I'll only deal with them if they exclude my competitors from their black market, am I to blame for the black market, or is the mafia?
Of course, if a community of property owners all agreed and signed a contract permitting exclusivity on their properties to one ISP, then they should be bound to that contract. It would have been foolish of them to sign such a contract without some exceptions in case the ISP tries to screw its customers or otherwise degrade service.
In many locations, the only high speed ISPs are those who have public utility status and therefore have access rights that get past some of the technical restrictions barring competitors.
Who does the blame lie with for these circumstances? The ISPs, or the city government? Who is enforcing the monopoly? Should a company be forced to comply with government requests because the government is withholding property for its own purposes and creating the monopoly?
The solution is not to regulate the ISPs further, but to get rid of the regulation preventing competition from existing.
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should not be handling such regulation, however if an ISP decided to enact such a rule as a private policy, I'm all for their right to do that. I would not necessarily be willing to choose that ISP, but no restriction should prevent them from making decisions that cause them to lose customers.
The violations I was referring to were for contracts invalidated by new legislation passed by politicians bought by corporations. The law, the politicians, the force-bearing entity is to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom to violate the rights of others? That would be a contradiction. Rights define freedoms.
Even if drugs were legalized, I'd still want the FDA drawing a clear line between pharmaceuticals and "others". If you want to shop on the "other" side of the aisle, go nuts.
If you want to place blind trust in the government to make your decisions for you, go nuts! But do it to another government, not ours.
So some restrictions on freedoms are okay! .......
If your LDL goes up, don't worry about it, and ignore your doctor's threats of impending doom. It was never an accurate measure of anything. Recommend Gary Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories to him, and move on.
Last August, I started eating the "paleo diet" and purposely put off all exercise, keeping my lifestyle as sedentary as possible. At the same time, I ate whenever I was hungry. The pounds just flew off, and I was practically skin and bones in couple months. Stick to lots of red meat, fish, cheese, eggs, bacon, milk, cottage cheese, some vegetables. You may have to supplement with omega-3 fish oil if you're buying cheap eggs and meat that are high in omega-6 and low in omega-3.
Get your blood tests with HDL and VLDL / triglycerides to confirm that your blood lipids are improving. Get a check for liver fat deposits before starting the diet, and get another check a couple months later. You'll be shocked at all the improvements. HDL up, VLDL and trigs down, fatty liver gone.
Staying in shape is quite easy.
Right, because the body has no means of correcting cellular damage...
In a legal sense, you have the "right" to do what is permitted under the law.
I am not talking in the legal sense. I am talking in a moral sense - those inalienable rights necessary for a man to live his life, and further his values and goals.
All other rights are philosophical abstractions you've invented
Hmm? I have not invented them. In order for me to live, I must think and use my mind, and so I must be free to do so. Anyone who imposes force on me leads me to think irrationally, in opposition to my life and my values. So it is right for me to use my mind, and it is not right for others to impose force on me. Show me a person who can live and further their values by automatic action alone, as a plant would do.
show me this right of yours that allows you to emit as much carbon into the air as you want.
You mean the carbon that, when plotted next to global temperature, shows that increases in temperature lead to increases in C02, but not vice versa? Oh, but that's beside the point. Show me the health effects on you of my carbon emission, and you can sue me in court, and anyone else for that matter.
So, just to make sure I understand, your view is that we should not have laws that prohibit pollution outright, the problem should be solved entirely through lawsuits.
No, the problem should and would be solved through privatization.
I don't care what you do with your property. I do care if you demand the right to destroy the common areas of the planet for your own short term benefit.
The common areas? You mean, public property? I'm opposed to the entire non-concept of "public property". The sooner we privatize all property, the sooner we will have a healthier environment for people to live in and prosper.
And why do you mention my "short term benefit"? What does that even mean? If it was a long-term benefit (ie, "good intention"), but a rights violation, would that make it justifiable? What was the point of adding that bit, if not to try to make a straw man of my position? That does not constitute an argument.
If you've killed everything down stream and you're dead, how did the market hold you accountable for your actions?
Down stream? Do I own the stream? Then there is no problem. Does someone else? Then they can sue me. Does the government (ie, public park) - then they can sue me. If they choose not to, then count that as a point against public ownership of property. As someone from Cleveland, I can relate to this. (Cuyahoga River)
You don't have the right to demand cheap electricity if the production of that cheap electricity infringes on my right to clean air and water.
"Demand"? You're equivocating. If I'm not *forcing* anyone to do anything, then I in fact *do* have the right to do that, whatever it is you mean by "demand". If that cheap electricity violates your rights to life and property, you can sue the energy producer. You cannot sue me for wanting it.
Your right to low cost energy does not encompass polluting our shared air.
If you can show measurable damage to your health, feel free to sue me and anyone else polluting your air. Until then, we all share this planet and should share in the prosperity of technological innovation.
There's an individual right to pollute now?
Nope. At least not other people's property. Where did you get such a notion?
If individual rights were fairly balanced with responsibility
By "balanced", you mean compromised, ie violated. Compromise, bipartisanship, "common ground" - these are not good things if they require the rejection of principles. Would you compromise with someone if you knew their arguments and rationale to be totally wrong and ill-founded?
Since when is access to cheap and dirty energy a right?
I have the right to use my property as I see fit, so long as I don't violate the rights of others. That includes trading it with others.
We share the same planet.
We live on the same planet. But my property is not yours, and vice versa.
My grandkids have the right to enjoy clean air, water, and a healthy environment that far outweighs your right to pollute it.
If I pollute their water, they/you can sue me. What was your point?
Now, if only good intentions could justify the violation of individual rights, then they would have an argument.
...because it's the right thing to do.
Thank you, federal government, for imposing on me enough force to guide me in the right direction.
There are other ways to devalue our currency besides printing money. Say, for example, by enforcing overpriced services and enabling monopolies, as in the case of ISPs. High prices, low value.
By "practically free", you mean we all pay for them through the devaluation of our currency. So the money parents are saving for their kid's education is worth less, all to pay for the unconstitutional, forced switchover to digital television. Yay, priorities!
No more TV! So much free time! Thank you, government!
Yes... because regulations are the only barrier to entry.
It's the only force-backed barrier to entry, yes.
Given that nobody has a right to internet access, there can be no compelling an ISP to offer services in any area where it doesn't want to offer services.
In many cases, the ISPs. Most phone companies (DSL) and cable companies (cable Internet) would only run service in an area on the condition that the government would grant them exclusive access to the right-of-way for that kind of service.
What right does the government have to enforce such a condition? If I tell the mafia that I'll only deal with them if they exclude my competitors from their black market, am I to blame for the black market, or is the mafia?
Of course, if a community of property owners all agreed and signed a contract permitting exclusivity on their properties to one ISP, then they should be bound to that contract. It would have been foolish of them to sign such a contract without some exceptions in case the ISP tries to screw its customers or otherwise degrade service.
In many locations, the only high speed ISPs are those who have public utility status and therefore have access rights that get past some of the technical restrictions barring competitors.
Who does the blame lie with for these circumstances? The ISPs, or the city government? Who is enforcing the monopoly? Should a company be forced to comply with government requests because the government is withholding property for its own purposes and creating the monopoly?
The solution is not to regulate the ISPs further, but to get rid of the regulation preventing competition from existing.
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that the government should not be handling such regulation, however if an ISP decided to enact such a rule as a private policy, I'm all for their right to do that. I would not necessarily be willing to choose that ISP, but no restriction should prevent them from making decisions that cause them to lose customers.
Apparently in Russia, people have a right to an operating system, but no rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
The violations I was referring to were for contracts invalidated by new legislation passed by politicians bought by corporations. The law, the politicians, the force-bearing entity is to blame.