There's a 4... to arrest someone that they reasonably believe present and have probable cause to believe committed a crime. So, you know, if they think you're beating your kids (a crime) and they have a reasonable belief that you're in your home, they can come inside and arrest you, even without your permission.
If you are seen beating your kid, you are likely to be arrested. If you aren't seen beating your kid, the cops have no right to break down your door and check.
But they can! You see, any time you make some behavior prohibited, there is a concomitant debate about the scope of law enforcement powers in regard to prosecuting violators of the new law. Consider drugs: now, the "basic state" of US jurisprudence was that, at the federal level, you were protected from arbitrary government searches of you or your personal effects. But drugs! Drugs are bad. So we say, OK, there are cases in which the law enforcement officers can search without conforming with the letter of the 4th Amendment -- specifically, if probable cause and exigent circumstances (you will flush your drugs) exist, then the cops can search you or your home without a warrant.
The remedy for such violations is only 50 years old at this point -- we have less than a century of exclusionary rule jurisprudence for a constitutional principle that's been in existence for almost two and a half centuries! So if we were to make abortion illegal at the federal level, consider: the question then shifts to, "but how much leeway do we give police in investigating potential abortions?" One answer is "very minimal," in which case the law would be a nullity. But consider: the other things we've prohibited on moral grounds (prostitution, drugs, etc.) give police huge leeway in investigation. Even for child abuse, something malum in se, we give police greater leeway when the best interests of the child are at stake. American jurisprudence suggests that if abortion were prohibited, the police forces would be given large discretion in investigation, because you're prevent murder, at least in the eyes of the law.
(1) Again, I'm worried, at a moral level, about the sole motivator being payment. It seems like we're glorifying the wrong thing -- material wealth -- when ultimately, we should have people who want to do this work out of their own humanity. I think that this is a product of a society that stresses material gain over rational respect for autonomous beings.
(2) Even with the FDA, which regulates quality, the pharm companies still gouge in price. Those prices are artificially high, and that's partly the fault of the even-more corrupt insurance agency. The idea that health can be run on a for-profit business is what scares me.
(3) There's no bar in principle to the government being a good provider of services; lots of things are state-run and are handled well. It's a question of personnel, funding and training, really. The CYA attitude of government is due to our political structure, where people want to keep their position more than do something that is useful to society. Of course, that can only change when we have a big societal value change.
Private industry succeeds by exploiting the work of people. The lab rat researchers who work on wages aren't reaping, directly, the benefits of any profit the company makes. That's the execs who don't set foot in a lab. Why should we allow those who contributed nothing but money to benefit? Also, the private sector has to be highly regulated by government to make sure it's not fleecing people -- see, for example, the energy deregulation in Texas or California, or the insurance deregulation in Texas. Government may be subject to corruption as well, but at least it is directly accountable to the public at the polls. Capitalists can always use the market as a shield to protect themselves from people, and something like health care is not an elastic good subject to market forces. People will pay for drugs no matter what the cost because they're necessary.
Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), doesn't it bother you that the motivation of the people developing drugs is only to make themselves rich? I'd rather have a researcher at a non-profit or a university developing my drugs. That way, the only concern she has is my health, not meeting the bottom line of a corporate ledger book. If Enron, Worldcom, et al. have taught us anything, it's that corporations will do anything in the name of their bottom line. I'm not saying that the public sector is without corruption or things that are done wrong, but there is less of a motivation to cut corners when the only benchmark of your success is accomplishing your goal.
Why should private companies be developing drugs any way? Have the government either subsidize or control that industry. Make health for the public good, not to line private coffers.
That would require reading. It's much easier just to pontificate online as if you know what you're talking about than actually, you know, research something. That's what I learned in college!
You mean socialist. The societies you're thinking over are socialist, which is a transitory phase between capitalism and communism. I don't advocate socialism... I think we should go straight to communism.
I think you misunderstand communism, or at the very least, you understand the term as synonymous with Stalinist or Soviet socialism. Under communism, the community owns the means of production so that industry is directed toward the benefit of the community, not the capital-holders. There's nothing in a communist-style system of government that says that what you describe above is going to happen, or even has to happen. You're also assuming the existence of a bureaucracy, which is more akin to socialism than communism. Rather, you would be able to choose your home (much as you do now) based on the availability of homes in your community that is best suited to your needs. That is, if you're a bachelor, you don't need a large house just to yourself. Everything is set up so that individuals have freedom of individual choice up until their choices are against the best interests of the community. No one thinks they know what's best for anyone else; instead, the community comes together to do what's best for everyone. It's very democratic and makes sure that everyone's interests are represented, not just the interests of the rich and powerful.
No. The security in your own home provision is a protection from arbitrary government intrusion. It applies even when you don't own the property so long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fifth Amendment, on the other hand, does reference real property. Some things will have to be changed, unfortunately, but there's no real reason anyone needs to own real property privately. It should remain the property of society and put toward its most beneficial use to the community.
I should have made a distinction between personal and real property. I only want to abolish the latter. Personal property, and all its attendant rights thereto, can stay.
(3) Seize the means of production held as corporate assets
(4) Gift the means of production to the democratically-chosen heads of workers' and industry' unions and trade associations
(5) Strengthen the 14th Amendment to provide that no political subdivision may abridge the rights and freedoms secured by the United States Constitution
(6) End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide for return of all servicemen and women to the citizenry
(7) Provide for universalized healthcare and education through state run institutions, though I would permit private institutions to continue to offer these services to those that want them
Not to mention that it was sort of the point that more populous states would enjoy greater representation in the House. The Senate is the balance to that.
Not to cramp the style of your joke, but they do have that class. It's Physics 471 -- Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. One of my favorite classes at UT.
The idea of social sanction to enforce moral behavior in games is not a bad idea... if the group we're talking about has any degree of social sophistication. But it's been my experience that gamers, especially the ones who care enough to be actively involved in gaming communities, lack many of the basic necessities of good socialization, such as how to properly express moral disapproval (or even what is and what is not moral, apart from some basic sense of egoism).
Nah; if the law is challenged, the first thing a competent attorney will do is seek an injunction to the law going in to force to preserve the status quo while its constitutionality is challenged. Prior restraints on speech (of which such a law would certainly be one) are presumptively invalid and the government bears the burden of proving their constitutionality.
Hey, I like my Wii (Zelda and Metroid were awesome). But when I beat those two I lent it to my brother-in-law so he could play them and I could focus on my PS3 and 360 games... I think I enjoyed "Heavenly Sword" as much as I've enjoyed a title in the past two years. I like the PS3's controller more than I like the 360s, though I typically buy games for the 360 if I have a choice. For instance, next week I've got Mass Effect (drool) coming out, and I plan on sequestering myself with my 360 for hours on end, to the detriment of social life and school, because it's m-fing Bioware.
But I'll do the same thing when Final Fantasy XIII comes out, because I'm absolutely obsessed with Final Fantasy games.
I'd buy more Wii games if any came out that really interested me. I plan on getting the new Fire Emblem game, but I don't see many others in the pipe that I like, because I mainly like strategy, RPG and SF action-adventure games. The Wii has plenty of fun games, but they're just not games that interest me over some of the titles coming out for the 360 or PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
It's divisible by both one and magic.
There's a 4... to arrest someone that they reasonably believe present and have probable cause to believe committed a crime. So, you know, if they think you're beating your kids (a crime) and they have a reasonable belief that you're in your home, they can come inside and arrest you, even without your permission.
But they can! You see, any time you make some behavior prohibited, there is a concomitant debate about the scope of law enforcement powers in regard to prosecuting violators of the new law. Consider drugs: now, the "basic state" of US jurisprudence was that, at the federal level, you were protected from arbitrary government searches of you or your personal effects. But drugs! Drugs are bad. So we say, OK, there are cases in which the law enforcement officers can search without conforming with the letter of the 4th Amendment -- specifically, if probable cause and exigent circumstances (you will flush your drugs) exist, then the cops can search you or your home without a warrant.
The remedy for such violations is only 50 years old at this point -- we have less than a century of exclusionary rule jurisprudence for a constitutional principle that's been in existence for almost two and a half centuries! So if we were to make abortion illegal at the federal level, consider: the question then shifts to, "but how much leeway do we give police in investigating potential abortions?" One answer is "very minimal," in which case the law would be a nullity. But consider: the other things we've prohibited on moral grounds (prostitution, drugs, etc.) give police huge leeway in investigation. Even for child abuse, something malum in se, we give police greater leeway when the best interests of the child are at stake. American jurisprudence suggests that if abortion were prohibited, the police forces would be given large discretion in investigation, because you're prevent murder, at least in the eyes of the law.
Antisocial personality disorders mixed in with a liberal dose of schizophrenia or Asperger's.
The heat is sort of the point. I don't want a really bright flashlight. I want a "laser."
(2) Even with the FDA, which regulates quality, the pharm companies still gouge in price. Those prices are artificially high, and that's partly the fault of the even-more corrupt insurance agency. The idea that health can be run on a for-profit business is what scares me.
(3) There's no bar in principle to the government being a good provider of services; lots of things are state-run and are handled well. It's a question of personnel, funding and training, really. The CYA attitude of government is due to our political structure, where people want to keep their position more than do something that is useful to society. Of course, that can only change when we have a big societal value change.
This is the greatest slashdot comment ever. As one law student sitting in class talking to another, allow me to say, "Good job."
Private industry succeeds by exploiting the work of people. The lab rat researchers who work on wages aren't reaping, directly, the benefits of any profit the company makes. That's the execs who don't set foot in a lab. Why should we allow those who contributed nothing but money to benefit? Also, the private sector has to be highly regulated by government to make sure it's not fleecing people -- see, for example, the energy deregulation in Texas or California, or the insurance deregulation in Texas. Government may be subject to corruption as well, but at least it is directly accountable to the public at the polls. Capitalists can always use the market as a shield to protect themselves from people, and something like health care is not an elastic good subject to market forces. People will pay for drugs no matter what the cost because they're necessary.
Statistics. From a peer-reviewed journal. Now.
Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), doesn't it bother you that the motivation of the people developing drugs is only to make themselves rich? I'd rather have a researcher at a non-profit or a university developing my drugs. That way, the only concern she has is my health, not meeting the bottom line of a corporate ledger book. If Enron, Worldcom, et al. have taught us anything, it's that corporations will do anything in the name of their bottom line. I'm not saying that the public sector is without corruption or things that are done wrong, but there is less of a motivation to cut corners when the only benchmark of your success is accomplishing your goal.
Why should private companies be developing drugs any way? Have the government either subsidize or control that industry. Make health for the public good, not to line private coffers.
That would require reading. It's much easier just to pontificate online as if you know what you're talking about than actually, you know, research something. That's what I learned in college!
You mean socialist. The societies you're thinking over are socialist, which is a transitory phase between capitalism and communism. I don't advocate socialism... I think we should go straight to communism.
The "human nature" you describe is not something essential but rather something that is learned by growing up in a capitalist society.
I think you misunderstand communism, or at the very least, you understand the term as synonymous with Stalinist or Soviet socialism. Under communism, the community owns the means of production so that industry is directed toward the benefit of the community, not the capital-holders. There's nothing in a communist-style system of government that says that what you describe above is going to happen, or even has to happen. You're also assuming the existence of a bureaucracy, which is more akin to socialism than communism. Rather, you would be able to choose your home (much as you do now) based on the availability of homes in your community that is best suited to your needs. That is, if you're a bachelor, you don't need a large house just to yourself. Everything is set up so that individuals have freedom of individual choice up until their choices are against the best interests of the community. No one thinks they know what's best for anyone else; instead, the community comes together to do what's best for everyone. It's very democratic and makes sure that everyone's interests are represented, not just the interests of the rich and powerful.
No. The security in your own home provision is a protection from arbitrary government intrusion. It applies even when you don't own the property so long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fifth Amendment, on the other hand, does reference real property. Some things will have to be changed, unfortunately, but there's no real reason anyone needs to own real property privately. It should remain the property of society and put toward its most beneficial use to the community.
I should have made a distinction between personal and real property. I only want to abolish the latter. Personal property, and all its attendant rights thereto, can stay.
(2) Abolish the concept of private property
(3) Seize the means of production held as corporate assets
(4) Gift the means of production to the democratically-chosen heads of workers' and industry' unions and trade associations
(5) Strengthen the 14th Amendment to provide that no political subdivision may abridge the rights and freedoms secured by the United States Constitution
(6) End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide for return of all servicemen and women to the citizenry
(7) Provide for universalized healthcare and education through state run institutions, though I would permit private institutions to continue to offer these services to those that want them
Not to mention that it was sort of the point that more populous states would enjoy greater representation in the House. The Senate is the balance to that.
Don't judge me.
Console -- Mass Effect. Great looking and sounding game, with a fun real-time combat system and a cool space-opera story.
Portable/handheld -- FFXII: Revenant Wings. They said that RTS could not be done on a portable. Then came the DS and Square.
Not to cramp the style of your joke, but they do have that class. It's Physics 471 -- Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. One of my favorite classes at UT.
The idea of social sanction to enforce moral behavior in games is not a bad idea... if the group we're talking about has any degree of social sophistication. But it's been my experience that gamers, especially the ones who care enough to be actively involved in gaming communities, lack many of the basic necessities of good socialization, such as how to properly express moral disapproval (or even what is and what is not moral, apart from some basic sense of egoism).
Nah; if the law is challenged, the first thing a competent attorney will do is seek an injunction to the law going in to force to preserve the status quo while its constitutionality is challenged. Prior restraints on speech (of which such a law would certainly be one) are presumptively invalid and the government bears the burden of proving their constitutionality.
But I'll do the same thing when Final Fantasy XIII comes out, because I'm absolutely obsessed with Final Fantasy games.
I'd buy more Wii games if any came out that really interested me. I plan on getting the new Fire Emblem game, but I don't see many others in the pipe that I like, because I mainly like strategy, RPG and SF action-adventure games. The Wii has plenty of fun games, but they're just not games that interest me over some of the titles coming out for the 360 or PS3.