The silly idea is that people who win a popularity contest get to decide who can or cannot cross an arbitrary line. Please explain how this make sense from the point of view of natural law.
About not granting immigrants a citizenship status, well... citizenship may be the only thing a government can legitimately grant or deny, like a club membership. And there are no "citizen rights", as you said rights are intrinsic.
You guess wrong. I don't think we should give a dime of tax receipts to the immigrants.
Overall, I do think immigration, especially illegal immigration benefit the economy but even if it didn't, or actually harmed it - like it does in other country with high welfare - that wouldn't justify stopping immigration. The state alone is responsible for the harm done through taxation. The fact that immigration can make this harm more intense does not mean the immigrants are morally responsible for the harm and thus it is illegitimate to oppose them on this ground.
I won't quote because it's a pain in the ass, but I'll answer your points sequentially.
Everyone has equal rights, and he can delegate the exercise of this right to another person. However, there is no such thing as a mass mandate or mandate from the masses. A person can only exercise rights he was mandated for. If I don't give my rights by refusing to give a mandate, I am not subject to political authority.
The laws of the country requiring you to get citizenship to stay and live within the arbitrary borders recognized by the government are irrelevant. The point is: an immigrant is distinct from someone seeking naturalization, so the right of the government to grant naturalization does not by itself imply it's right to regulate immigration.
I don't see how a government can legitimately claim a dominion about property I own. How can they hold property rights if it's my property?
There is no such thing as the people's will. Will is an individual attribute. Therefore a government cannot do "people's will", it doesn't exist. I can't even agree with you, so how come can there be a 300M people "will".
What I do to my land may very well affect everyone, that doesn't mean I don't have ownership of it. Property rights exist to settle dispute arising from the scarcity of resources. A property right merely mean that should a dispute arise over the use of the resource, I should have the legitimate claim for it. Your view is half-assed as it completely ignore the existence of conflicts.
It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.
Of course it has, just like I do, just as everyone does. No more no less. Of course that removes any "right" to tax.
Wikipedia...
I'll trust the Webster. Besides even Wikipedia says "often". This is - often - the case because the governments will generally prevent you from staying if you don't become a citizen. A funny, but mostly irrelevant, conclusion of this is that the US constitution does not really allow the limitation of immigration. Not that I care for the constitution, but RP does, so he faces a big contradiction.
Though shit... Why is it when I discuss the morality of the state, people always fall back to : it's reality live with it. Sure it is, but how does that invalidate my normative point? Besides, murder and rape may be legitimate to many people, that doesn't make them so.
- I don't see how any government has any right or business telling who can cross and not cross an imaginary line. - According to the Webster, an immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. I don't why that would imply citizenship. - I am arguing that people should go and come as they please as long as they do not trespass on people's property. I am also arguing that the "the US" is by no mean the legitimate property of the US government.
Thanks for making my point. Ron Paul's stance on immigration has been breeding the worst kind of legal positivism.
Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was. Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. No amount of bold or italic on the word "illegal" is going to change that.
And why the hell can't Ron Paul fans understand that immigration != naturalization. Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?
While I cannot speak for him, I doubt the grandfather is referring to that.
Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable. Moreover, he does so in a particulary despisable way, implying that "breaking the law" is intrisically evil, invoking concepts of collective responsibility, etc.
There's a very un-sane cult of personality around Ron Paul. By tying good ideas and bad ideas into a person the good ideas will definitely suffer by association.
I would grant every land or home owner the right to remove himself from the United States jurisdiction. Meaning one could, merely by asking, chose to ignore and be ignored by the US government on his property.
In the US black people are more likely to be poor than white people. There's nothing wrong or immoral in stating a fact, but make any general statement on a group of people and you'll be a fucking *ist. Not right or wrong, an immoral evil person.
Hum no. You can already prove that someone is not doing something "wrong", just let a trusted third party keep track of the online purchases and there you have it.
The watermark is not intended here to prove it's yours but to discourage people from releasing their bought copy on the internet... the principle it that most copies of a song originate from the same person generally, so if you crack down on one user, you can get back to the original diffuser. This is the all point of watermarking, threatening the supply rather than the demand. Of course it breaks because one can copy a paid version from an unsuspecting victim and release it at no risk.
Would mod you up but I actually want to praise your message. Corn syrup sodas are not as fizzy as sugar cane. There's nothing like sugar cane for sugar.
There is no need to end secret ballot. Cryptographic procedures allow people to vote secretly while satisfying for a number of constraints such as : - everyone can check if his vote is counted in the final result - no one can have more information on another person's vote than he would by mere statistics
One of the big difference is that, while Yugo was a state planned shit, Tata is actually answering market demand, and is a highly successful firm.
And they are probably going to buy Jaguar an Land Rover from ford. 10 years from now, Tata will be everywhere in the US. People making fun of the car are the same person who did it with Japanese cars decades ago.
These are very interesting thoughts, and I do share your belief that hospital should become more stringent in the future.
I'd just like to point out that "it would create jobs" is no argument at all though. In fact if it didn't create any jobs, it would mean hospitals like these rained from heaven and we would all be better off. The least jobs it creates, the cheaper it is to have, the better it is.
I honestly don't care. I'll try to keep it private but if it happens, well so be it... I don't think many people are interested in seeing my penis. If they do, why should I care?
So now the CTO will be selling his inventions to people who decide to buy them with their own money, instead of selling them to captive taxpayers in poor countries. I call this a moral improvement.
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend (yes yes, here's my geek card). Arguments often boil down to who said what. On rare occasions, there is a record of that, email for example, and I can show exhibits and win. I wish I could do it for voice, maybe something that records continuously the last half hour in my apartment.
I for one believe that greater transparency, and more information would lessen rather than increase conflicts. There is a right to keep things private, but there is no "right to privacy". More recording of information = good.
Shhhhhhs of course not. The companies are the one forcing you to use their proprietary format because the alternatives don't look as good, silly you. Please get a lobotomy, and you'll look at antitrust laws like a good/.er
The initial Cyrillic alphabet looked quite different from what is used today in Russia and Bulgaria; the appearance of the modern Cyrillic alphabet is due to a reform by Tzar Peter I of Russia. Peter I imposed visual style similar to the one of the Roman font.
You just proved my point. If he needed to impose a visual style *similar* to the one of the Roman font, it means precisely that the characters are different. A character is more than it's different representation with different fonts, a character is a logical unit and the cyrilic er is not the latin p, although they may have similar and sometimes identical representation.
The fact that they share ancestry does not mean they are historically the same character. Historically French and Spanish have always been distinct, although they both come from latin.
Slashdot Mirror
The silly idea is that people who win a popularity contest get to decide who can or cannot cross an arbitrary line. Please explain how this make sense from the point of view of natural law.
About not granting immigrants a citizenship status, well... citizenship may be the only thing a government can legitimately grant or deny, like a club membership. And there are no "citizen rights", as you said rights are intrinsic.
You guess wrong. I don't think we should give a dime of tax receipts to the immigrants.
Overall, I do think immigration, especially illegal immigration benefit the economy but even if it didn't, or actually harmed it - like it does in other country with high welfare - that wouldn't justify stopping immigration. The state alone is responsible for the harm done through taxation. The fact that immigration can make this harm more intense does not mean the immigrants are morally responsible for the harm and thus it is illegitimate to oppose them on this ground.
I won't quote because it's a pain in the ass, but I'll answer your points sequentially.
Everyone has equal rights, and he can delegate the exercise of this right to another person. However, there is no such thing as a mass mandate or mandate from the masses. A person can only exercise rights he was mandated for. If I don't give my rights by refusing to give a mandate, I am not subject to political authority.
The laws of the country requiring you to get citizenship to stay and live within the arbitrary borders recognized by the government are irrelevant. The point is: an immigrant is distinct from someone seeking naturalization, so the right of the government to grant naturalization does not by itself imply it's right to regulate immigration.
I don't see how a government can legitimately claim a dominion about property I own. How can they hold property rights if it's my property?
There is no such thing as the people's will. Will is an individual attribute. Therefore a government cannot do "people's will", it doesn't exist. I can't even agree with you, so how come can there be a 300M people "will".
What I do to my land may very well affect everyone, that doesn't mean I don't have ownership of it. Property rights exist to settle dispute arising from the scarcity of resources. A property right merely mean that should a dispute arise over the use of the resource, I should have the legitimate claim for it. Your view is half-assed as it completely ignore the existence of conflicts.
It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.
Of course it has, just like I do, just as everyone does. No more no less. Of course that removes any "right" to tax.
Wikipedia...
I'll trust the Webster. Besides even Wikipedia says "often". This is - often - the case because the governments will generally prevent you from staying if you don't become a citizen. A funny, but mostly irrelevant, conclusion of this is that the US constitution does not really allow the limitation of immigration. Not that I care for the constitution, but RP does, so he faces a big contradiction.
Though shit... Why is it when I discuss the morality of the state, people always fall back to : it's reality live with it. Sure it is, but how does that invalidate my normative point? Besides, murder and rape may be legitimate to many people, that doesn't make them so.
- I don't see how any government has any right or business telling who can cross and not cross an imaginary line.
- According to the Webster, an immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. I don't why that would imply citizenship.
- I am arguing that people should go and come as they please as long as they do not trespass on people's property. I am also arguing that the "the US" is by no mean the legitimate property of the US government.
Thanks for making my point. Ron Paul's stance on immigration has been breeding the worst kind of legal positivism. Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was. Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. No amount of bold or italic on the word "illegal" is going to change that. And why the hell can't Ron Paul fans understand that immigration != naturalization. Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?
While I cannot speak for him, I doubt the grandfather is referring to that.
Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable. Moreover, he does so in a particulary despisable way, implying that "breaking the law" is intrisically evil, invoking concepts of collective responsibility, etc.
There's a very un-sane cult of personality around Ron Paul. By tying good ideas and bad ideas into a person the good ideas will definitely suffer by association.
I would grant every land or home owner the right to remove himself from the United States jurisdiction. Meaning one could, merely by asking, chose to ignore and be ignored by the US government on his property.
This has far far reaching implications.
Apparently not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor
Why sure, you just need to ignore statistics.
In the US black people are more likely to be poor than white people. There's nothing wrong or immoral in stating a fact, but make any general statement on a group of people and you'll be a fucking *ist. Not right or wrong, an immoral evil person.
Hum no. You can already prove that someone is not doing something "wrong", just let a trusted third party keep track of the online purchases and there you have it.
The watermark is not intended here to prove it's yours but to discourage people from releasing their bought copy on the internet... the principle it that most copies of a song originate from the same person generally, so if you crack down on one user, you can get back to the original diffuser. This is the all point of watermarking, threatening the supply rather than the demand. Of course it breaks because one can copy a paid version from an unsuspecting victim and release it at no risk.
The music will just be bought by unsuspecting members of a botnet and put on the internet. Then what?
Would mod you up but I actually want to praise your message. Corn syrup sodas are not as fizzy as sugar cane. There's nothing like sugar cane for sugar.
Fortunately, if such behavior really created mispricings in chips, new PC makers would offer AMD only and intel would take a beating.
There is no need to end secret ballot. Cryptographic procedures allow people to vote secretly while satisfying for a number of constraints such as :
- everyone can check if his vote is counted in the final result
- no one can have more information on another person's vote than he would by mere statistics
etc
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreeBallot
The best solution would be to get rid of the ballot altogether though.
One of the big difference is that, while Yugo was a state planned shit, Tata is actually answering market demand, and is a highly successful firm.
And they are probably going to buy Jaguar an Land Rover from ford. 10 years from now, Tata will be everywhere in the US. People making fun of the car are the same person who did it with Japanese cars decades ago.
Before anyone mentions it, some bullets do not pierce the fuselage of the plane. Let the company offer those to the passengers.
Now a bombing remains possible.
that's nothing, I do semiconductor transistors at 45nm for fun during lunchbreak
These are very interesting thoughts, and I do share your belief that hospital should become more stringent in the future.
I'd just like to point out that "it would create jobs" is no argument at all though. In fact if it didn't create any jobs, it would mean hospitals like these rained from heaven and we would all be better off. The least jobs it creates, the cheaper it is to have, the better it is.
I honestly don't care. I'll try to keep it private but if it happens, well so be it... I don't think many people are interested in seeing my penis. If they do, why should I care?
So now the CTO will be selling his inventions to people who decide to buy them with their own money, instead of selling them to captive taxpayers in poor countries. I call this a moral improvement.
(burn karma, burn)
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend (yes yes, here's my geek card). Arguments often boil down to who said what. On rare occasions, there is a record of that, email for example, and I can show exhibits and win. I wish I could do it for voice, maybe something that records continuously the last half hour in my apartment.
I for one believe that greater transparency, and more information would lessen rather than increase conflicts. There is a right to keep things private, but there is no "right to privacy". More recording of information = good.
Shhhhhhs of course not. The companies are the one forcing you to use their proprietary format because the alternatives don't look as good, silly you. Please get a lobotomy, and you'll look at antitrust laws like a good /.er
The initial Cyrillic alphabet looked quite different from what is used today in Russia and Bulgaria; the appearance of the modern Cyrillic alphabet is due to a reform by Tzar Peter I of Russia. Peter I imposed visual style similar to the one of the Roman font.
You just proved my point. If he needed to impose a visual style *similar* to the one of the Roman font, it means precisely that the characters are different. A character is more than it's different representation with different fonts, a character is a logical unit and the cyrilic er is not the latin p, although they may have similar and sometimes identical representation.
The fact that they share ancestry does not mean they are historically the same character. Historically French and Spanish have always been distinct, although they both come from latin.