The problem is that the cost of healthcare across the world actually strongly disputes that assertion. In the countries where people know the least about their healthcare costs (because the cost mechanism is totally transparent to them) healthcare expenses are much lower.
His point is that he did the work, and the benefit from that work should not cease with his death.
If, for example, I build houses for a living, what happens if I build a subdivision and then don't manage to sell them before I die? Why should my family not be able to get the benefit of that work I did before my death?
Just as a very simple example, the 'violations' of the 9th and 10th Amendments that he cites are almost certainly based on entirely flawed understandings of what those amendments actually do.
Troxel v. Granville, US Public Workers v. Mitchell, etc, etc, etc.
Finally, from a political science point of view, government is sovereign and the US government is based on split sovereignty. The Federal government has an incredible amount of power- and it must, by simple virtue of its existence.
This is an incredibly dubious piece of legal scholarship, so I must ask you to provide some detailed evidence that this is actually the case. Legal scholars everywhere appear to disagree with you.
They can't force you to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you get charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when requested. Enjoy your prison stay on that charge. I dunno about you, but jail's jail.
The whole concept of rights existing naturally is a silly assertion. What about the right of the government to censor your speech?
No right can 'create' more value than was there originally. That is, every right must take from the greater whole some small, and possibly insignificant, element. Your right not to be murdered in the street takes away from the right of those around you to murder you in the street if they so choose.
The problem is, perhaps ironically, that prosecutors and judges often know each other much better than people expect simply because prosecutors come before the same judges on a regular, continuous basis. A city of millions might have seventy or eighty trial court judges. If you, as a prosecutor, spend every day in Court for a decade, or two decades, it's not at all surprising that you'd be familiar with all the judges and know at least a bit about them.
There's nothing you can do about that unless you'd like to ensure judges and prosecutors never serve terms of any reasonable duration.
Even that doesn't make him a denier (in no pejorative sense, mind) of anthropogenic climate change- it just makes him unsure. (which is what a good scientist should be, without another, better theory to support).
The police selectively enforce all laws, and the prosecutors selectively prosecute them. Discretion is what makes the enforcement of laws possible. Where discretion crosses the line into malicious prosecution, it is generally unlawful. But it's not malicious for the cops to repeatedly enforce the law against you (as opposed to anyone else) if you are, in fact, breaking the law.
You said it yourself- they have to do something, but that something could be showing up, shrugging, and leaving again. They don't have to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime.
A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.
Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.
I love it when people like you, who have absolutely no justification for your beliefs, start spouting out laughable statements about constitutional law.
Why wouldn't you want any coverage at all? What would happen were you to be caught in an accident? Someone would have to pay for that coverage, and, chances are, it wouldn't be you.
Basically, you don't want to pay for coverage. The coverage is still there, and will always be there. You just want other people to pay for it.
No. Everyone's choices should be constrained based on what is best for society. That has nothing to do with how I think they ought to behave.
I don't like guns; if it were up to me, I would ban them. However, this is, statistically, not optimal for society. I therefore do not advocate it as a public policy.
Why is endless growth impossible, or even improbable, for the near future? (I don't think exponential growth is the word you're looking for. 5-10% per year is sufficient.) The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use, and as technology advances, productivity also increases. It's certainly not impossible that human economic output could steadily increase at a 5-10% rate for the foreseeable future.
Having everyone left free to make their own choices is a decidedly non-optimal state for society, however. I can't see a good reason for it to be an end-state we should strive toward.
The problem with ethics is that it's totally relative and therefore irrelevant. You can't measure laws against a moral framework because the moral framework is relative, and therefore constantly in flux. You can't build anything when the framework is always moving.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the cost of healthcare across the world actually strongly disputes that assertion. In the countries where people know the least about their healthcare costs (because the cost mechanism is totally transparent to them) healthcare expenses are much lower.
His point is that he did the work, and the benefit from that work should not cease with his death.
If, for example, I build houses for a living, what happens if I build a subdivision and then don't manage to sell them before I die? Why should my family not be able to get the benefit of that work I did before my death?
Might I suggest you actually learn something about the law before you go off on meaningless idiotic rants?
Just as a very simple example, the 'violations' of the 9th and 10th Amendments that he cites are almost certainly based on entirely flawed understandings of what those amendments actually do.
Troxel v. Granville, US Public Workers v. Mitchell, etc, etc, etc.
Finally, from a political science point of view, government is sovereign and the US government is based on split sovereignty. The Federal government has an incredible amount of power- and it must, by simple virtue of its existence.
This is an incredibly dubious piece of legal scholarship, so I must ask you to provide some detailed evidence that this is actually the case. Legal scholars everywhere appear to disagree with you.
They can't force you to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you get charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when requested. Enjoy your prison stay on that charge. I dunno about you, but jail's jail.
Talking out of my hat, i doubt it has anything to do with bank drafts, which are really very different instruments in practice.
The whole concept of rights existing naturally is a silly assertion. What about the right of the government to censor your speech?
No right can 'create' more value than was there originally. That is, every right must take from the greater whole some small, and possibly insignificant, element. Your right not to be murdered in the street takes away from the right of those around you to murder you in the street if they so choose.
The problem is, perhaps ironically, that prosecutors and judges often know each other much better than people expect simply because prosecutors come before the same judges on a regular, continuous basis. A city of millions might have seventy or eighty trial court judges. If you, as a prosecutor, spend every day in Court for a decade, or two decades, it's not at all surprising that you'd be familiar with all the judges and know at least a bit about them.
There's nothing you can do about that unless you'd like to ensure judges and prosecutors never serve terms of any reasonable duration.
Even that doesn't make him a denier (in no pejorative sense, mind) of anthropogenic climate change- it just makes him unsure. (which is what a good scientist should be, without another, better theory to support).
Then nobody will ever be prosecuted for any crime.
In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.
Why would you have a decent defense? You were violating the law. You are not being prosecuted for something you didn't do.
The police selectively enforce all laws, and the prosecutors selectively prosecute them. Discretion is what makes the enforcement of laws possible. Where discretion crosses the line into malicious prosecution, it is generally unlawful. But it's not malicious for the cops to repeatedly enforce the law against you (as opposed to anyone else) if you are, in fact, breaking the law.
You said it yourself- they have to do something, but that something could be showing up, shrugging, and leaving again. They don't have to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime.
A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.
Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.
Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?
Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.
I love it when people like you, who have absolutely no justification for your beliefs, start spouting out laughable statements about constitutional law.
Why wouldn't you want any coverage at all? What would happen were you to be caught in an accident? Someone would have to pay for that coverage, and, chances are, it wouldn't be you.
Basically, you don't want to pay for coverage. The coverage is still there, and will always be there. You just want other people to pay for it.
No. Everyone's choices should be constrained based on what is best for society. That has nothing to do with how I think they ought to behave.
I don't like guns; if it were up to me, I would ban them. However, this is, statistically, not optimal for society. I therefore do not advocate it as a public policy.
Why could I not have read Atlas Shrugged if I am willing to make that statement publicly?
The character is utterly flawed, and the authors ideas about how people, and how the economy, functions are totally incorrect.
May the next life you lead be a slightly less moronic one.
Sibling poster is fairly accurate. John Gault is an idiotic caricature created by someone with zero understanding of economics or human nature.
Why is endless growth impossible, or even improbable, for the near future? (I don't think exponential growth is the word you're looking for. 5-10% per year is sufficient.) The solar system contains a mind-bogglingly huge amount of resources we could use, and as technology advances, productivity also increases. It's certainly not impossible that human economic output could steadily increase at a 5-10% rate for the foreseeable future.
Having everyone left free to make their own choices is a decidedly non-optimal state for society, however. I can't see a good reason for it to be an end-state we should strive toward.
The problem with ethics is that it's totally relative and therefore irrelevant. You can't measure laws against a moral framework because the moral framework is relative, and therefore constantly in flux. You can't build anything when the framework is always moving.