They profit from them, but do not derive the same sort of power from them. That's why politicians and cops and prosecutors and corrections officers love criminalization of things everyday people do... well... every day.
Don't want stuff stolen out of your vehicle? Don't leave it in plain view, in an unlocked vehicle in a part of town known for thefts from vehicles. No, she doesn't bear all the responsibility. Yes, she bears some of it.
Many victims actually do share part of the responsibility for what happens to them. In some cases, they bear most of the responsibility. It's illegal to stomp the crap out of someone who didn't physically attack you, but don't tell me that someone walking into a Hell's Angels bar and spitting on the bartender bears no responsibility for being beaten half to death. Nobody is trying to absolve the perpetrator of responsibility, but she bears at least some of it for taking nude pictures of herself and posting them online, protected or not.
China manipulates their currency so that converting USD into Yuan is a net positive for the Chinese business. The rate is higher than the Yuan is worth, so when they convert the Yuan back into USD, they make money for nothing.
It actually would necessarily require that everyone be given the same stipend. Those who want more work. Those who do not don't work.
Transitioning to such a society would certainly be painful though.
If humanity does eventually mechanize most of the labor required to run society, this transition will eventually become a certainty. We're far from that point though.
This is exactly the mentality that escalates to murdering those who work harder than others in order to reap larger rewards. You call everyone who fits that bill "criminals."
Remove money from the equation and it becomes pretty simple. I work twice as long in number of hours tilling fields and planting crops. As a result, I produce twice as much as anyone else. According to you, I'm a criminal for having twice the income.
Money masks the root issues, and is used as a convenient excuse to accuse people of greed. Yes, there are greedy people, and I am entirely supportive of taxing and regulating production of capital simply by manipulation of other capital. The systems that allow it rely entirely on State support, and as a result should not enjoy any of the rights of natural persons (collectives which operate without State support excepted). However, not all motivated people are extracting wealth from others. Plenty of value can be created by trading for materials and adding value. A carpenter who works twice as many hours should not have the excess taken from him simply because the average carpenter works half as long. Substitute any field you like, and the same tends to be true.
If you try to make income "fair" with communism, you do, in fact, have to disincentivize working more than the average. Since the only way communism actually works given human nature, it necessarily requires ruthless dictators to enact.
It would be interesting to see if this could be used as a replacement for surgical anesthesia. If so, no more adverse side effects, or the attendant risks that general anesthesia comes with.
The applicability is in the logic behind the majority ruling, which is spelled out in the dissent. This situation is very much akin to what O'Conner was worried about given that the ruling allows forany property to be seized from one private entity in order to benefit another private entity.
You've either never lived in a decently-sized city, or aren't paying attention if you really need citations to believe it happens. In my city, there are roughly a half-dozen fatal police shootings of unarmed suspects every year. Only one officer has ever been indicted, much less convicted (and is fortunately in prison currently), in the nearly ten years I've lived here.
I'm aware of that as far as political theory goes. Again, I was talking about the cheerleaders of this specific authoritarian act. They're not mostly on the Right. The Right has its own brand of authoritarian mumbo jumbo.
Partisan. I do not think this word means what you think it means.
As for >32oz sodas being a result of governmental collusion with private industry, that's a claim I'd be interested to see backed up with actual evidence.
This post was longer, but I deleted most of it because each point really boils down to the last part of the subsequent paragraph. How it applies to each of the above points should not be my job, because they are quite clear in whether or not the laws applied to each are designed to address an immediate danger to life or property of someone other than the person making the behavioral choice. Anyone unable to do so would not understand what I wrote anyway, so further explanation would be a waste of my time.
DUIs constitute a very real threat of causing loss of life to those around the person engaging in that activity. The law is not intended to stop drinking in general, but intended to stop something which constitutes an immediate risk of harm to people or property. Preventing a clear and present danger is not the same thing as preventing something that will never physically harm anyone but the user.
Germany's power grid isn't significantly more unstable that the grid in the USA (if it even is measurably more unstable in the first place), and Alcoa operates just fine on grid power.
Firstly, it can be boiled down to simple pragmatism: If Senators are elected the same way as Representatives, what is the point of the Senate's existence at all?
Perhaps you should look at the source of the problem, which is companies in bed with government. This produces subsidies, such as those on corn. This allows producers to use things like corn syrup for far less than it costs to produce. Banning the product at the retail end is idiotic when you've got politicians incentivizing the use at a national level.
Using laws to change social norms is stupid, because it doesn't work without having serious negative consequences which outweigh any possible good results. It's stupid when applied to drugs, it's stupid when applied to romantic relationships between adults, and it's stupid when applied to foods. Nationalizing the cost of dealing with stupid behavior doesn't give those supporting nationalization of the cost the right to dictate the causative behavior. It's like a county stealing a private driveway, giving taxpayers the upkeep cost, and then demanding that the people who used to own the driveway stop driving a truck because it damages the driveway more than a car. Everything has an effect on health; nationalizing healthcare costs doesn't give anyone the right to dictate behavior any more than they could dictate it before the nationalization of costs. Unfortunately, the same forces that mold bad eating habits mold opinions on what 50% +1 of the population can demand of any given minority (or majority, so long as that majority isn't united and/or doesn't vote).
It's funny to watch partisans try to pigeonhole people based on a single position. While I'm not the OP, I actually do wholeheartedly support allowing people to kill themselves because they're too stupid to avoid the behavior that ultimately shortens their lifespan. And no, I'm not a Republican. I'm a pragmatist, which is a type of person who doesn't actually fit into either the Democratic or the Republican parties, as they're both based mostly in Fantasyland.
I'm not talking about Bloomberg, I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through, despite Bloomberg's nonsLeftist stances on other things.
Indeed. Generally, the Left has been known for its opposition to using government to control social behavior. It was one of the last things they were good for. Now they're completely devoid of any value, just like the Right.
Not encouraging those activities; refraining from prohibiting those activities is not anywhere close to encouraging them. l shudder every time someone conflates those two things. Education is utterly devoid of logic these days, which is how this sort of thing spreads. It's like a disease.
Slashdot Mirror
They profit from them, but do not derive the same sort of power from them. That's why politicians and cops and prosecutors and corrections officers love criminalization of things everyday people do ... well ... every day.
Don't want stuff stolen out of your vehicle? Don't leave it in plain view, in an unlocked vehicle in a part of town known for thefts from vehicles. No, she doesn't bear all the responsibility. Yes, she bears some of it.
Many victims actually do share part of the responsibility for what happens to them. In some cases, they bear most of the responsibility. It's illegal to stomp the crap out of someone who didn't physically attack you, but don't tell me that someone walking into a Hell's Angels bar and spitting on the bartender bears no responsibility for being beaten half to death. Nobody is trying to absolve the perpetrator of responsibility, but she bears at least some of it for taking nude pictures of herself and posting them online, protected or not.
The pictures were taken by her. They're selfies.
If there are no jobs for the masses, they can't buy from the rich. As a result, the money the rich have will mean nothing.
China manipulates their currency so that converting USD into Yuan is a net positive for the Chinese business. The rate is higher than the Yuan is worth, so when they convert the Yuan back into USD, they make money for nothing.
It actually would necessarily require that everyone be given the same stipend. Those who want more work. Those who do not don't work.
Transitioning to such a society would certainly be painful though.
If humanity does eventually mechanize most of the labor required to run society, this transition will eventually become a certainty. We're far from that point though.
This is exactly the mentality that escalates to murdering those who work harder than others in order to reap larger rewards. You call everyone who fits that bill "criminals."
Remove money from the equation and it becomes pretty simple. I work twice as long in number of hours tilling fields and planting crops. As a result, I produce twice as
much as anyone else. According to you, I'm a criminal for having twice the income.
Money masks the root issues, and is used as a convenient excuse to accuse people of greed. Yes, there are greedy people, and I am entirely supportive of taxing and regulating production of capital simply by manipulation of other capital. The systems that allow it rely entirely on State support, and as a result should not enjoy any of the rights of natural persons (collectives which operate without State support excepted). However, not all motivated people are extracting wealth from others. Plenty of value can be created by trading for materials and adding value. A carpenter who works twice as many hours should not have the excess taken from him simply because the average carpenter works half as long. Substitute any field you like, and the same tends to be true.
If you try to make income "fair" with communism, you do, in fact, have to disincentivize working more than the average. Since the only way communism actually works given human nature, it necessarily requires ruthless dictators to enact.
It would be interesting to see if this could be used as a replacement for surgical anesthesia. If so, no more adverse side effects, or the attendant risks that general anesthesia comes with.
The applicability is in the logic behind the majority ruling, which is spelled out in the dissent. This situation is very much akin to what O'Conner was worried about given that the ruling allows forany property to be seized from one private entity in order to benefit another private entity.
You've either never lived in a decently-sized city, or aren't paying attention if you really need citations to believe it happens. In my city, there are roughly a half-dozen fatal police shootings of unarmed suspects every year. Only one officer has ever been indicted, much less convicted (and is fortunately in prison currently), in the nearly ten years I've lived here.
Really. Point out a conservative (neo, rather than classical) supporting this, other than Bloomberg.
I'm aware of that as far as political theory goes. Again, I was talking about the cheerleaders of this specific authoritarian act. They're not mostly on the Right. The Right has its own brand of authoritarian mumbo jumbo.
Partisan. I do not think this word means what you think it means.
As for >32oz sodas being a result of governmental collusion with private industry, that's a claim I'd be interested to see backed up with actual evidence.
This post was longer, but I deleted most of it because each point really boils down to the last part of the subsequent paragraph. How it applies to each of the above points should not be my job, because they are quite clear in whether or not the laws applied to each are designed to address an immediate danger to life or property of someone other than the person making the behavioral choice. Anyone unable to do so would not understand what I wrote anyway, so further explanation would be a waste of my time.
DUIs constitute a very real threat of causing loss of life to those around the person engaging in that activity. The law is not intended to stop drinking in general, but intended to stop something which constitutes an immediate risk of harm to people or property. Preventing a clear and present danger is not the same thing as preventing something that will never physically harm anyone but the user.
No, it was probably a dig against the South in general.
Germany's power grid isn't significantly more unstable that the grid in the USA (if it even is measurably more unstable in the first place), and Alcoa operates just fine on grid power.
Unless it's changed recently, MyGoPhone SIM cards are not free. AT&T will doing you for $10 to get one.
Firstly, it can be boiled down to simple pragmatism: If Senators are elected the same way as Representatives, what is the point of the Senate's existence at all?
They are against the initiation of force. If force is initiated by someone else, force in response is not an anti-Libertarian position.
Perhaps you should look at the source of the problem, which is companies in bed with government. This produces subsidies, such as those on corn. This allows producers to use things like corn syrup for far less than it costs to produce. Banning the product at the retail end is idiotic when you've got politicians incentivizing the use at a national level.
Using laws to change social norms is stupid, because it doesn't work without having serious negative consequences which outweigh any possible good results. It's stupid when applied to drugs, it's stupid when applied to romantic relationships between adults, and it's stupid when applied to foods. Nationalizing the cost of dealing with stupid behavior doesn't give those supporting nationalization of the cost the right to dictate the causative behavior. It's like a county stealing a private driveway, giving taxpayers the upkeep cost, and then demanding that the people who used to own the driveway stop driving a truck because it damages the driveway more than a car. Everything has an effect on health; nationalizing healthcare costs doesn't give anyone the right to dictate behavior any more than they could dictate it before the nationalization of costs. Unfortunately, the same forces that mold bad eating habits mold opinions on what 50% +1 of the population can demand of any given minority (or majority, so long as that majority isn't united and/or doesn't vote).
It's funny to watch partisans try to pigeonhole people based on a single position. While I'm not the OP, I actually do wholeheartedly support allowing people to kill themselves because they're too stupid to avoid the behavior that ultimately shortens their lifespan. And no, I'm not a Republican. I'm a pragmatist, which is a type of person who doesn't actually fit into either the Democratic or the Republican parties, as they're both based mostly in Fantasyland.
I'm not talking about Bloomberg, I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through, despite Bloomberg's nonsLeftist stances on other things.
Not the OP, but yes.
Indeed. Generally, the Left has been known for its opposition to using government to control social behavior. It was one of the last things they were good for. Now they're completely devoid of any value, just like the Right.
Thailand.
Not encouraging those activities; refraining from prohibiting those activities is not anywhere close to encouraging them. l shudder every time someone conflates those two things. Education is utterly devoid of logic these days, which is how this sort of thing spreads. It's like a disease.