Quoting the article "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system..." emphasis added. At least one complaint by the countries that wanted UN control was about DNS. It's a stupid argument. That's the only point I was responding to. I actually agree with the holdout countries on content restrictions. I don't find it hard to believe the US government here, because at it's worse it's been better than, for instance, China.
The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.
There are actual reasons to reject the treaty other than the fact that it comes from the UN. Just as an example, it does not have the exemptions for small business that are present in the ADA.
Withdrawal from a treaty is not the same as violating it. The ABM treaty, for instance, had a clause requiring 6 months notice for withdrawal, which the US complied with. There were good reasons for withdrawal, even if you disagree with the final decision to do so.
BWC: from a quick search, we didn't withdraw from the treaty, but did refuse to sign on to an additional protocol for it. Maybe you have a better link.
CWC: we appear to be in the process of destroying the declared stockpile, although we missed the deadline. Where was the the treaty modified for us?
Each of the other treaties has a reason for not signing, and it's quite arguable that guantanamo Bay doesn't actually violate the Geneva Conventions. Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.
Marx's definition of communism requires both authoritarianism and that it not be authoritarian. Communism is inherently inconsistent with itself. As noted above, "according to ability" is intrinsically authoritarian. Even if everyone actually went along with it, there is no freedom of choice to do otherwise.
Can you prove he wouldn't have gotten both diseases as a non-smoker? Some percentage of non-smokers get them both as well. The anti-smoking crusaders like to pretend that every case of lung cancer in a smoker was cause by the smoking, but it simply isn't true.
I read your initial response to raymorris (who presented his argument poorly IMO) as more or less "Communism isn't inherently authoritarian" which I, obviously, disagree with. You then proceeded to concede ground on socialism. Since socialism often has communism as an end goal, it's worth noting that their goals are flawed, not just their current methods.
That's like saying magma is supposed to be cold. Unfortunately, the only way to actually get it is to use a lot of heat... specifically, social ostracism is NOT giving the one ostracized according to his needs. You have to either give up that simple statement of principle or engage in force, once real people are added to the picture.
"From each according to his ability" regardless of choice is authoritarian. "To each according to his ability" instead of according to what others choose to freely provide is authoritarian. Communism's base precepts are authoritarian in nature. The inevitable result of trying to implement them and cope with free riders to the system is a central authority of some nature. Even if it's the collective authority of all but one versus the one, that collective ends up attempting to enforce it's will. Communism is either entirely without teeth, in which case it can't guarantee an even spread of wealth, or it compels others to do it's will.
Filtering the set of decisions I can make IS regulating my decisions. If I want to smoke, so be it. If I want to eat to excess, so be it.
There's a major problem with your invocation of Society giving rights to government is that Society doesn't have rights or preferences, individuals do. You can claim society wants whatever a majority of it's members want, but that doesn't make it so. The averaging function you use (probably majority rule) to ascribe a preference to an abstraction such as society is inherently flawed. Just to give an idea of why I say this, look at the voting paradox sometime. Treating a collection as a unit is quite a useful abstraction, but that is all it is. The map is not the territory.
If they had good grades and test scores and were choosing a lucrative degree, then yes, the banks would be happy to lend to them. If they weren't going to be able to graduate in a degree that would let them pay back a loan, I don't see opting not to burden them with debt that they'll never get rid of as a bad thing.
I'd rather see no government loan backing at all. Loans would only end up going to people that banks actually thought would be willing an able to pay back the loan. If the government is involved at all, I'd rather see pure scholarships, under the hope that they end up paying it back by joining a higher income tax bracket. The current bankruptcy law may prevent people from getting medical degress, declaring bankruptcy, and then seeking a job, but I question how much of a problem that would ever actually be.
If you could press a magic button that increased everyone's actual wealth (purchasing power) by a percent equal to their current income, would you? Those in the 99th percentile would see a 99% increase, while those at the bottom would only see a 1% increase in their standard of living. Anyone who answers no to that is driven by jealousy, not by their care for their fellow human beings. Increasing wealth concentration is not bad in and of itself. It is highly likely in any given trade for one side to benefit more, even if both benefit.
Damn. I completely missed the "if" when reading it the first time. I'm sorry. I have seen numerous people claim that GZ following TM was the start of a fight, and mistakenly assumed your post was another example of that.
I really don't think "death sentence without due process" is a fair way to describe actual self defense. The rest of society doesn't have the right to demand that I let myself be killed so that my attacker can get due process instead of me shooting back.
Stipulating that our lives are equally value, by attacking me, the attacker has declared both our lives to be worthless. he's given up any reasonable protection from me attacking him.
People accidentally die from friendly fist fights. Requiring that I assume you will be lucky enough not to kill me whille beating my face is not reasonable, no matter what your survivor bias tells you.
What major flaws? Zimmerman hasn't significantly changed his story. out of the bushes vs out of nowhere vs from behind a car is not a significant change. They all indicate he didn't know where Trayvon came from.
I would suspect the prosecution tried to portray Trayvon as an innocent, leaving them open to character accusations. Beyond that, the defense has more leeway than the prosecution.
You may be entitled to your own opninions, but not your own facts. Zimmerman did NOT continue following Martin after the operator said he didn't need to follow... because he had already lost him.
How exactly did Zimmerman lie to Martin about what he was doing? Here is the description of events: Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
You are the only one I've seen to claim Zimmerman was turning away and going for his phone. Do you have a source, or did you just invent that to justify asserting that Martin was really acting in self defense? Zimmerman's claims may be full of shit, but his story is consistent with what little physical evidence we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoting the article "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system..." emphasis added. At least one complaint by the countries that wanted UN control was about DNS. It's a stupid argument. That's the only point I was responding to. I actually agree with the holdout countries on content restrictions. I don't find it hard to believe the US government here, because at it's worse it's been better than, for instance, China.
The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.
There are actual reasons to reject the treaty other than the fact that it comes from the UN. Just as an example, it does not have the exemptions for small business that are present in the ADA.
Withdrawal from a treaty is not the same as violating it. The ABM treaty, for instance, had a clause requiring 6 months notice for withdrawal, which the US complied with. There were good reasons for withdrawal, even if you disagree with the final decision to do so.
BWC: from a quick search, we didn't withdraw from the treaty, but did refuse to sign on to an additional protocol for it. Maybe you have a better link.
CWC: we appear to be in the process of destroying the declared stockpile, although we missed the deadline. Where was the the treaty modified for us?
Each of the other treaties has a reason for not signing, and it's quite arguable that guantanamo Bay doesn't actually violate the Geneva Conventions. Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.
Marx's definition of communism requires both authoritarianism and that it not be authoritarian. Communism is inherently inconsistent with itself. As noted above, "according to ability" is intrinsically authoritarian. Even if everyone actually went along with it, there is no freedom of choice to do otherwise.
Can you prove he wouldn't have gotten both diseases as a non-smoker? Some percentage of non-smokers get them both as well. The anti-smoking crusaders like to pretend that every case of lung cancer in a smoker was cause by the smoking, but it simply isn't true.
I read your initial response to raymorris (who presented his argument poorly IMO) as more or less "Communism isn't inherently authoritarian" which I, obviously, disagree with. You then proceeded to concede ground on socialism. Since socialism often has communism as an end goal, it's worth noting that their goals are flawed, not just their current methods.
That's like saying magma is supposed to be cold. Unfortunately, the only way to actually get it is to use a lot of heat... specifically, social ostracism is NOT giving the one ostracized according to his needs. You have to either give up that simple statement of principle or engage in force, once real people are added to the picture.
"From each according to his ability" regardless of choice is authoritarian. "To each according to his ability" instead of according to what others choose to freely provide is authoritarian. Communism's base precepts are authoritarian in nature. The inevitable result of trying to implement them and cope with free riders to the system is a central authority of some nature. Even if it's the collective authority of all but one versus the one, that collective ends up attempting to enforce it's will. Communism is either entirely without teeth, in which case it can't guarantee an even spread of wealth, or it compels others to do it's will.
Filtering the set of decisions I can make IS regulating my decisions. If I want to smoke, so be it. If I want to eat to excess, so be it.
There's a major problem with your invocation of Society giving rights to government is that Society doesn't have rights or preferences, individuals do. You can claim society wants whatever a majority of it's members want, but that doesn't make it so. The averaging function you use (probably majority rule) to ascribe a preference to an abstraction such as society is inherently flawed. Just to give an idea of why I say this, look at the voting paradox sometime. Treating a collection as a unit is quite a useful abstraction, but that is all it is. The map is not the territory.
If they had good grades and test scores and were choosing a lucrative degree, then yes, the banks would be happy to lend to them. If they weren't going to be able to graduate in a degree that would let them pay back a loan, I don't see opting not to burden them with debt that they'll never get rid of as a bad thing.
I'd rather see no government loan backing at all. Loans would only end up going to people that banks actually thought would be willing an able to pay back the loan. If the government is involved at all, I'd rather see pure scholarships, under the hope that they end up paying it back by joining a higher income tax bracket. The current bankruptcy law may prevent people from getting medical degress, declaring bankruptcy, and then seeking a job, but I question how much of a problem that would ever actually be.
If you could press a magic button that increased everyone's actual wealth (purchasing power) by a percent equal to their current income, would you? Those in the 99th percentile would see a 99% increase, while those at the bottom would only see a 1% increase in their standard of living. Anyone who answers no to that is driven by jealousy, not by their care for their fellow human beings. Increasing wealth concentration is not bad in and of itself. It is highly likely in any given trade for one side to benefit more, even if both benefit.
Apparently it was implemented for compatability with IE (Why????) but at least it can be turned off.
Drugs don't alter DNA.
Damn. I completely missed the "if" when reading it the first time. I'm sorry. I have seen numerous people claim that GZ following TM was the start of a fight, and mistakenly assumed your post was another example of that.
I really don't think "death sentence without due process" is a fair way to describe actual self defense. The rest of society doesn't have the right to demand that I let myself be killed so that my attacker can get due process instead of me shooting back.
Stipulating that our lives are equally value, by attacking me, the attacker has declared both our lives to be worthless. he's given up any reasonable protection from me attacking him.
People accidentally die from friendly fist fights. Requiring that I assume you will be lucky enough not to kill me whille beating my face is not reasonable, no matter what your survivor bias tells you.
What major flaws? Zimmerman hasn't significantly changed his story. out of the bushes vs out of nowhere vs from behind a car is not a significant change. They all indicate he didn't know where Trayvon came from.
I would suspect the prosecution tried to portray Trayvon as an innocent, leaving them open to character accusations. Beyond that, the defense has more leeway than the prosecution.
You may be entitled to your own opninions, but not your own facts. Zimmerman did NOT continue following Martin after the operator said he didn't need to follow... because he had already lost him.
Carrying a gun is not threatening with a gun. He didn't run after him waving his gun around.
How exactly did Zimmerman lie to Martin about what he was doing? Here is the description of events: Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
You are the only one I've seen to claim Zimmerman was turning away and going for his phone. Do you have a source, or did you just invent that to justify asserting that Martin was really acting in self defense? Zimmerman's claims may be full of shit, but his story is consistent with what little physical evidence we have.
Have you actually read Zimmerman's version of events?