In the vein of what drinkypoo said, I believe that government should not recognize marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business regulating religion. I certainly don't need a piece of paper from the state that says I'm with some one for the long haul.
Leading a bit off topic, there should be no tax breaks for married couples and no exemptions for dependents (hell, I'd almost be for taxing dependents). The argument that the state has a legitimate interest in children having a stable home is laughable. The state has no interest in how children grow up. That is the responsibility of the parents.
They are just actors. I wouldn't think starring in a porno flick would be any more demeaning than playing a rapist or murderer in a movie. In fact all movies turn people into objects. When I watch a movie or show or whatever, the people are there for my enjoyment.
This comes down to you having a personal problem with two people fucking for money. There is nothing intrinsically different between using someone to get off and using someone to clean your house.
But this is a complicated world, and living by such strict moral guidelines can get dicey.
Definitely, which is why I aim at the "stricter" guidelines but allow for flexibility in some cases. I believe it is important to have strong moral guidelines, even if the conclusions they lead to are less than perfect.
Regarding your example, I would probably continue to send the food because it truly is life or death (I would need to know more about the details of the situation to come up with a more concise answer). I would do everything I could to try to stop the government in question from skimming. Perhaps I'd use economic sanctions or other diplomatic leverage as needed.
Getting a bit off topic, it is the responsibility of the Chinese people to overthrow any government that they believe is not organized as they see fit. They are tacitly consenting to their government by not rebelling against it. Of course, I understand that nails that stick up get hammered down, but on the other hand, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
Being a social contract theorist myself, you do bring up very good points. The main problem is that the federal government was mostly an agreement among independent states to regulate each other. It was a "more perfect union" than the old confederacy. The idea that the federal government would be regulating individuals was quite foreign at the time. Of course, now after many amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and the like, this is no longer the case.
In my home state of Ohio, we have to approve the state constitution every 20 years. This makes sense in the framework of social contract theory. If the constitution is given a vote of "no confidence" we vote for delegates to change it. I would be for such a plebicite for the US Constitution as well since it directly regulates us these days.
Regarding what would happen if you had a minority view and you do not agree to the rules of society, I don't have much of an answer. Choosing to remain in the country is a very lame way of trying to prove capitulation to the government. Therefore, I do believe a citizen should be allowed to effectively opt-out of government if s/he wishes to. Of course, that means no taxes, but it also means no services. Have fun getting to work with your private highways.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
You're presupposing conditions that simply weren't true in China. People do know that they are censored. Its not like they magically learned via Google that something actually did happen in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Give the Chinese people a bit more credit.
Furthermore, the 3rd store that cannot exist in China could work with trusted couriers and underground agents (read encryption/anonymizing proxies) to deliver those products that aren't allowed to be sold under Chinese law. That would truly be "doing no evil".
Some of us don't believe that the consequences of an action determine whether or not the action is morally correct. So we simply can't agree based upon this fundamental impasse.
The problem with the consequentialist view, in my opinion, is that it leads to the rationalization of some very serious wrongs. Example:
I am given the job of rounding up political dissidents in a totalitarian state. I know that they will be jailed and tortured once I bring them back to the government. So if someone is going to do it, it might as well be me. Of course, I don't agree with the policy, but maybe I can let a few people escape, and I can try to be as nice to them as possible while their in my custody. If I don't do the job, someone else less scrupulous will do it. Therefore, I am making the morally correct decision by agreeing to assist the government.
Your point is that this is the best possible outcome for both you and the dissidents. My point is that regardless of the outcome, what I will be doing is wrong. It is wrong to assist a totalitarian government to violate its citizens' rights.
Google assisted a totalitarian government. What they did was wrong. It doesn't matter if the Chinese had access to more information with Google. It was still wrong.
Getting off topic, the troll does have a point. Federalism is designed to let different states be different. The fact that I desire universal health care does not mean that everyone should have to go along with it. Perhaps everyone would be better off if we had a limited federal government with increased powers to the states. That way, people in Mississippi can get back to executing homosexuals and the rest of us can forget they exist. In fact the so-called "socialist" states usually end up paying more in federal income tax than they receive. At the end of the day, it is the red states that sponge off of the blue ones when it comes to federal tax money. How's that for personal responsibility?
Power to the states means that people like James Inhofe and Trent Lott have less say in my life. I don't have any say in who backwater hicks elect to Congress. What I can do is minimize the influence their decisions have on me.
And you'd surely defend the right of the Norwegian people to enact laws as they see fit (within a constitutional framework), right? Or do we have to take your judgment at face value that freedom to enter into agreements trumps other rights that the Norwegian people would rather have protected?
I've heard such stories and have looked into them briefly. Of course, even if it were clearly against state law to approve such an amendment, the law is the law now. It's similar to the case where corporations gained personhood. No judge actually ruled on that, but a legal clerk put such a ruling in the footnotes of the decision. Have fun trying to bring that up in the courts, though.
Dude, we just went over this. "It" says that only a state can issue IDs because:
1) The Constitution did not specifically grant the power to issue IDs to the federal government. 2) The Constitution states that any powers not specifically granted to the feds is reserved to the people (the states).
With regards to Social Security, Medicare, etc. being constitutional... guess what? They aren't! Imagine that. They are all based on a perverse reading of the commerce clause. The federal government was never meant to have much say in the lives of citizens. When they say "Congress shall pass no law", they really, truly meant no law. Passing those laws was your state's prerogative. The 14th amendment really fracked things up regarding the balances between states' rights and federal encroachment on those rights, so the Constitution becomes much harder to interpret (at least, IMO).
You bring up an interesting point, but MSFT would have to be sly to get around GPL restrictions on the kernel. For instance, they'd have problems with non-GPL kernel modules unless they moved to the nVidia method of using a GPL'd shim and then running the binary in userspace. This, of course, is a borderline GPL violation in itself.
If you mean that MSFT will just start giving away a Linux distro and then making Office, etc. paid addons, I must strongly disagree. They'd be losing a lot of money on Windows licences. If they want people to pay for it, they'll have to make most of the operating system closed source. They'll have to do something like port the non-kernel portions of Windows to Linux. So we'd end up having GNU/Linux and Windows/Linux.
Later on you equivocate by saying that "Linux doesn't have the spyware problem Windows does.". The kernel has nothing to do with spyware problems, it is rather that Windows runs as root by default. I can guarantee you that if Linux-based systems had any real market share and if we all ran as root, those systems would have the same spyware problems.
Today's "neocons" love the idea of a big government, so long as it is big in the right areas. They are downright offended by social programs, but they'd have no qualms about spending a few trillion dollars on the military. The idea is to kill social spending. And it'll be the first thing to go because anyone who wants to cut military spending is against the troops and is a traitorous coward.
As an aside, has anybody successfully argued 512(f) in a similar case(i.e. demonstrated actual damages from denial of a free service)
I highly doubt it. The idea is that if you believe your work is non-infringing, you can send a counter notice and the work will stay posted for all to see. At this point, your accuser must file in civil court against you. That proceeding will determine if the work is infringing on a copyright, is a fair use, etc.
The problem is that no one in their right mind is going to risk a costly court battle over something as trivial as posting a clip of Family Guy to Youtube. Even if it is obvious fair use, the copyright holder (most likely a corporation) has nearly unlimited funds in order to make your life hell by dragging out the trial for years in order to get you to take down the offending work.
Well, Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican (and possibly a Libertarian). I can guarantee you he'll vote himself less power. If he was president, I could see him breaking FDR's record for most vetoes in about 2 months.
Also, cutting taxes while increasing spending is something that will increase federal debt, which will decrease the amount of available money in the budget in the next fiscal year due to increased debt maintenance costs.
I and will explain again. I trust mistakes to the very imprecise English language rather than the intelligence of my readers.
Punch card machines are inherently very good counters. The problem is that if there is a so-called "hanging chad" on the ballot, it might run through with the flap open or closed, thereby changing the vote tallied on the machine. In fact, if you kept running the ballots through the machine, you'd get a different count every time. In fact, in Greene county, Kerry gained ~30, Bush ~20, and Badnarik lost 3. The count would be different, but only by a few votes difference each time.
The board in Cuyahoga county decided that they'd try to avoid having to do a manual recount since they were sure that a manual recount on their part would not change the outcome of the election. So they did their best to skirt the law because they were basically too lazy to do their duty.
So, yes, there are problems with the counting of punch card ballots. These have been known for years. The reason why we still use them in some jurisdictions is that they are "close enough". No one really cares how much someone wins by, just so long as the correct person is chosen. Well, no one but me and a few others. Cuyahoga county decided "hey, we know the count might be off by a few, but we're not going to do a whole hand recount just because the machines can't tally perfectly. So we'll rig the count only because we know it won't change the outcome of the election." Obviously this is a dangerous precedent, so I look forward to having that BoE getting prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
In the vein of what drinkypoo said, I believe that government should not recognize marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business regulating religion. I certainly don't need a piece of paper from the state that says I'm with some one for the long haul.
Leading a bit off topic, there should be no tax breaks for married couples and no exemptions for dependents (hell, I'd almost be for taxing dependents). The argument that the state has a legitimate interest in children having a stable home is laughable. The state has no interest in how children grow up. That is the responsibility of the parents.
"Fuck everybody but me" is not a moral philosophy. I'd dare say she is the closest thing to evil we've ever seen.
Is there a way I can double friend you or something? :-)
They are just actors. I wouldn't think starring in a porno flick would be any more demeaning than playing a rapist or murderer in a movie. In fact all movies turn people into objects. When I watch a movie or show or whatever, the people are there for my enjoyment.
This comes down to you having a personal problem with two people fucking for money. There is nothing intrinsically different between using someone to get off and using someone to clean your house.
Can you find a source proving that this program is not under the auspices of FISA? I was under the impression it was, but I truly don't know.
Regarding your example, I would probably continue to send the food because it truly is life or death (I would need to know more about the details of the situation to come up with a more concise answer). I would do everything I could to try to stop the government in question from skimming. Perhaps I'd use economic sanctions or other diplomatic leverage as needed.
Getting a bit off topic, it is the responsibility of the Chinese people to overthrow any government that they believe is not organized as they see fit. They are tacitly consenting to their government by not rebelling against it. Of course, I understand that nails that stick up get hammered down, but on the other hand, you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
Being a social contract theorist myself, you do bring up very good points. The main problem is that the federal government was mostly an agreement among independent states to regulate each other. It was a "more perfect union" than the old confederacy. The idea that the federal government would be regulating individuals was quite foreign at the time. Of course, now after many amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and the like, this is no longer the case.
In my home state of Ohio, we have to approve the state constitution every 20 years. This makes sense in the framework of social contract theory. If the constitution is given a vote of "no confidence" we vote for delegates to change it. I would be for such a plebicite for the US Constitution as well since it directly regulates us these days.
Regarding what would happen if you had a minority view and you do not agree to the rules of society, I don't have much of an answer. Choosing to remain in the country is a very lame way of trying to prove capitulation to the government. Therefore, I do believe a citizen should be allowed to effectively opt-out of government if s/he wishes to. Of course, that means no taxes, but it also means no services. Have fun getting to work with your private highways.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Censorship is indeed the fault of the Chinese government. It is also the fault of Google for aiding and abetting China in their censorship program. That is what you really meant. Some of us believe that the correctness of an action is not simply a function of the profit it will generate.
Hey, if there is gonna be censorship going on, it might as well be me doing it. I've gotta eat, you know.
You're presupposing conditions that simply weren't true in China. People do know that they are censored. Its not like they magically learned via Google that something actually did happen in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Give the Chinese people a bit more credit.
Furthermore, the 3rd store that cannot exist in China could work with trusted couriers and underground agents (read encryption/anonymizing proxies) to deliver those products that aren't allowed to be sold under Chinese law. That would truly be "doing no evil".
Some of us don't believe that the consequences of an action determine whether or not the action is morally correct. So we simply can't agree based upon this fundamental impasse.
The problem with the consequentialist view, in my opinion, is that it leads to the rationalization of some very serious wrongs. Example:
I am given the job of rounding up political dissidents in a totalitarian state. I know that they will be jailed and tortured once I bring them back to the government. So if someone is going to do it, it might as well be me. Of course, I don't agree with the policy, but maybe I can let a few people escape, and I can try to be as nice to them as possible while their in my custody. If I don't do the job, someone else less scrupulous will do it. Therefore, I am making the morally correct decision by agreeing to assist the government.
Your point is that this is the best possible outcome for both you and the dissidents. My point is that regardless of the outcome, what I will be doing is wrong. It is wrong to assist a totalitarian government to violate its citizens' rights.
Google assisted a totalitarian government. What they did was wrong. It doesn't matter if the Chinese had access to more information with Google. It was still wrong.
Nothing better to do at 2:31 EST?
Based on my belief on how the Constitution reads, no. Of course, what I believe isn't worth shit because I don't sit on the Supreme Court.
Getting off topic, the troll does have a point. Federalism is designed to let different states be different. The fact that I desire universal health care does not mean that everyone should have to go along with it. Perhaps everyone would be better off if we had a limited federal government with increased powers to the states. That way, people in Mississippi can get back to executing homosexuals and the rest of us can forget they exist. In fact the so-called "socialist" states usually end up paying more in federal income tax than they receive. At the end of the day, it is the red states that sponge off of the blue ones when it comes to federal tax money. How's that for personal responsibility?
Power to the states means that people like James Inhofe and Trent Lott have less say in my life. I don't have any say in who backwater hicks elect to Congress. What I can do is minimize the influence their decisions have on me.
And you'd surely defend the right of the Norwegian people to enact laws as they see fit (within a constitutional framework), right? Or do we have to take your judgment at face value that freedom to enter into agreements trumps other rights that the Norwegian people would rather have protected?
I have a hundred slashdot freaks!
And I'm proud to be one of the hundred.
I've heard such stories and have looked into them briefly. Of course, even if it were clearly against state law to approve such an amendment, the law is the law now. It's similar to the case where corporations gained personhood. No judge actually ruled on that, but a legal clerk put such a ruling in the footnotes of the decision. Have fun trying to bring that up in the courts, though.
Dude, we just went over this. "It" says that only a state can issue IDs because:
... guess what? They aren't! Imagine that. They are all based on a perverse reading of the commerce clause. The federal government was never meant to have much say in the lives of citizens. When they say "Congress shall pass no law", they really, truly meant no law. Passing those laws was your state's prerogative. The 14th amendment really fracked things up regarding the balances between states' rights and federal encroachment on those rights, so the Constitution becomes much harder to interpret (at least, IMO).
1) The Constitution did not specifically grant the power to issue IDs to the federal government.
2) The Constitution states that any powers not specifically granted to the feds is reserved to the people (the states).
With regards to Social Security, Medicare, etc. being constitutional
You bring up an interesting point, but MSFT would have to be sly to get around GPL restrictions on the kernel. For instance, they'd have problems with non-GPL kernel modules unless they moved to the nVidia method of using a GPL'd shim and then running the binary in userspace. This, of course, is a borderline GPL violation in itself.
If you mean that MSFT will just start giving away a Linux distro and then making Office, etc. paid addons, I must strongly disagree. They'd be losing a lot of money on Windows licences. If they want people to pay for it, they'll have to make most of the operating system closed source. They'll have to do something like port the non-kernel portions of Windows to Linux. So we'd end up having GNU/Linux and Windows/Linux.
Later on you equivocate by saying that "Linux doesn't have the spyware problem Windows does.". The kernel has nothing to do with spyware problems, it is rather that Windows runs as root by default. I can guarantee you that if Linux-based systems had any real market share and if we all ran as root, those systems would have the same spyware problems.
Either way, thanks for clearing up the difference. I was careless and didn't actually check all of 512.
Today's "neocons" love the idea of a big government, so long as it is big in the right areas. They are downright offended by social programs, but they'd have no qualms about spending a few trillion dollars on the military. The idea is to kill social spending. And it'll be the first thing to go because anyone who wants to cut military spending is against the troops and is a traitorous coward.
I highly doubt it. The idea is that if you believe your work is non-infringing, you can send a counter notice and the work will stay posted for all to see. At this point, your accuser must file in civil court against you. That proceeding will determine if the work is infringing on a copyright, is a fair use, etc.
The problem is that no one in their right mind is going to risk a costly court battle over something as trivial as posting a clip of Family Guy to Youtube. Even if it is obvious fair use, the copyright holder (most likely a corporation) has nearly unlimited funds in order to make your life hell by dragging out the trial for years in order to get you to take down the offending work.
Well, Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican (and possibly a Libertarian). I can guarantee you he'll vote himself less power. If he was president, I could see him breaking FDR's record for most vetoes in about 2 months.
You act as if that wasn't the plan all along.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I and will explain again. I trust mistakes to the very imprecise English language rather than the intelligence of my readers.
Punch card machines are inherently very good counters. The problem is that if there is a so-called "hanging chad" on the ballot, it might run through with the flap open or closed, thereby changing the vote tallied on the machine. In fact, if you kept running the ballots through the machine, you'd get a different count every time. In fact, in Greene county, Kerry gained ~30, Bush ~20, and Badnarik lost 3. The count would be different, but only by a few votes difference each time.
The board in Cuyahoga county decided that they'd try to avoid having to do a manual recount since they were sure that a manual recount on their part would not change the outcome of the election. So they did their best to skirt the law because they were basically too lazy to do their duty.
So, yes, there are problems with the counting of punch card ballots. These have been known for years. The reason why we still use them in some jurisdictions is that they are "close enough". No one really cares how much someone wins by, just so long as the correct person is chosen. Well, no one but me and a few others. Cuyahoga county decided "hey, we know the count might be off by a few, but we're not going to do a whole hand recount just because the machines can't tally perfectly. So we'll rig the count only because we know it won't change the outcome of the election." Obviously this is a dangerous precedent, so I look forward to having that BoE getting prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.