An unlawful order should not be obeyed. We are citizens, not subjects. The police and even the military are subject to civilians. They are empowered by civilians and charged with performing their duties. They are given authority as a means to an end, but balanced with the burden of responsibility. Having no greater claim to authority than their duty allows, which is the function of law enforcement. They do not have the authority to detain or arrest someone they do not have reason to believe has committed any crime, or issue any order except that instructs a person in abiding by law.
In other words, the only lawful orders are orders which instruct you to comply with law. Disobeying a lawful order would basically be breaking a law AND having been warned about it by an officer.
And if you see an officer obviously using excessive force, you should warn them that they are exceeding the authority you have entrusted to them, and that you have the legal authority to forceably restrain him, by whatever means necessary, from continuing the assault. The law is not on their side when they exceed their authority, and you need to let them know that.
The more you act like a subject, the more you'll become like one, and the more they will become like lords.
If officers do not keep themselves and each other in line, it's up to us. If they watch out for each other, we need to watch out for each other.
You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.
In trade, both parties are enriched, as they both find a greater value in what they got than what they gave. Trade, in itself, automatically benefits society.
Background services? I would voluntarily trade, and pay for such services as I require or see fit. I do so on a daily basis. The fact that the government runs some of these, and so claiming that I would not pay for them because I object to taxation, is a strawman. The government doesn't need to run things. Roads can be privatized (and some are) and I would pay for my use of these roads. Same deal, value for value. And I keep the rest.
A sociopath, or anti-social person, is one who would demand that others contribute to one's benefit through the use of violence. And make no mistake, government force is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force. It is violence. If I choose non-compliance, the government will use force, increasing it's violence up to and including deadly force, asserting their dominion over me. You advocate slavery.
Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.
I don't know what roman was referring to, but if you think "keeping what I earned through my own labor, innovation and investments" = "shitting on my fellow man from a high perch," then I'd love to shit on you all day, every day.
I've scrolled down this far, and no one has mentioned that the GOP and the Democrats each have that magic 10%. So - what does "science" have to say about opposing ideas, or ideologies, colliding? Hmmmm......
Well, they can either (A) take turns holding the majority, or (B) they are fundamentally the same, or (C) both.
Your grandfather should have invested that money not hoarded it. Inflation is good in that it encourages spending.
That is perhaps the greatest fallacy of the modern era: economic strength is in spending.
An increase in economic activity is not an indication of strength. Spending (consumption) is actually a destructive force. If spending and an increase in economic activity were indicative of economic strength, then nations with hyper-inflated currencies are among the strongest in the world, because those people spend all of their income the very same day they get paid.
Power is increased through accumulation (saving), which is reserved not for itself, but for the sake of future spending and investing, whether or not there is a goal in mind for those savings. Whether or not you see it, spending must always come from savings. What about spending on credit? Well that is just a promise that you will save in the future. You are promising future savings for spending today. If you can't learn to save before spending then you will never catch up with your debt, and you will live out the rest of your life as a slave to your debt.
A monetary system that discourages savings by way of inflation will make slaves of all of it's subjects.
Unfortunately, when the population and economy expand, the money supply has to expand with it.
Does it? Numbers are infinitely divisible. We would be discussing the usefulness of the half-penny rather than the discussing doing away with the penny altogether.
We would have a slow and steady deflation rather than inflation. The problems that creates are not necessarily worse, just different.
but using government to force oil companies (or any squatter) to either use or give up their patent rights to alternative energy methods would put a good dent in the problem.
Or, recognizing that things move faster since the industrial age, shorten the lifespan of patents.
It may also have a significant value of the seldom mentioned dimension of debt.
I was thinking of saying that debt is typically described as a depth, and so that's already covered. But then I figured there is another way of expressing it.
Here in the good old US of A, we've gone from being deep in debt to being high on debt.
Don't worry too much about Nebraska farmers. This is one of the states that the recession hasn't really hit hard, yet. We'll start to get worried when you stop buying food.
The only impressive thing here is that the judge (or his aides) apparently cracked open a dictionary or maybe even a math textbook to get a basic idea of what "random" means. Unfortunately, the judiciary doesn't always rule on the basis of absolute mathematical or scientific fact, when it is relevant to the case.
I don't get it. What's the deal with distinguishing the difference between the mathematical and dictionary definition of random? The argument that it fits the dictionary definition does not hold water.
To suggest that a process which methodically ignores eligible applications is "without definite aim, direction, rule or method" is erroneous. Excluding applicants that filed after the second day is both a method and quite definite.
More than that. If you buy a product across state lines and pay sales tax in that state, and then you bring that product to your home state and your state has a higher tax rate, you are (generally) subject to a USE TAX for the difference which you are supposed to volunteer in the same manner.
Pick any 5 of your conservative fly-over states. Add up their seats in the house of Representatives. New York has 29. How do the fly-over states compare to New York?
Are you seriously suggesting that, for instance, Representatives of New York are representing the demands of conservative fly-over states?
Don't you dare blame the direction of this country on your fly-over states. We don't have the representation to do much of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. Maybe it isn't Bush's fault after all.
I disagree.
An unlawful order should not be obeyed. We are citizens, not subjects. The police and even the military are subject to civilians. They are empowered by civilians and charged with performing their duties. They are given authority as a means to an end, but balanced with the burden of responsibility. Having no greater claim to authority than their duty allows, which is the function of law enforcement. They do not have the authority to detain or arrest someone they do not have reason to believe has committed any crime, or issue any order except that instructs a person in abiding by law.
In other words, the only lawful orders are orders which instruct you to comply with law. Disobeying a lawful order would basically be breaking a law AND having been warned about it by an officer.
And if you see an officer obviously using excessive force, you should warn them that they are exceeding the authority you have entrusted to them, and that you have the legal authority to forceably restrain him, by whatever means necessary, from continuing the assault. The law is not on their side when they exceed their authority, and you need to let them know that.
The more you act like a subject, the more you'll become like one, and the more they will become like lords.
If officers do not keep themselves and each other in line, it's up to us. If they watch out for each other, we need to watch out for each other.
You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Millon.27s_subtypes ?
* covetous antisocial - variant of the pure pattern where individuals feel that life has not given them their due.
You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.
In trade, both parties are enriched, as they both find a greater value in what they got than what they gave. Trade, in itself, automatically benefits society.
Background services? I would voluntarily trade, and pay for such services as I require or see fit. I do so on a daily basis. The fact that the government runs some of these, and so claiming that I would not pay for them because I object to taxation, is a strawman. The government doesn't need to run things. Roads can be privatized (and some are) and I would pay for my use of these roads. Same deal, value for value. And I keep the rest.
A sociopath, or anti-social person, is one who would demand that others contribute to one's benefit through the use of violence. And make no mistake, government force is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force. It is violence. If I choose non-compliance, the government will use force, increasing it's violence up to and including deadly force, asserting their dominion over me. You advocate slavery.
Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.
I don't know what roman was referring to, but if you think "keeping what I earned through my own labor, innovation and investments" = "shitting on my fellow man from a high perch," then I'd love to shit on you all day, every day.
Do the judges get 1 save to use to override a vote and save their favorite candidate?
I've scrolled down this far, and no one has mentioned that the GOP and the Democrats each have that magic 10%. So - what does "science" have to say about opposing ideas, or ideologies, colliding? Hmmmm......
Well, they can either (A) take turns holding the majority, or (B) they are fundamentally the same, or (C) both.
I believe the correct answer is C.
So how does it get to 10%?
Well, I believe per the summary, it has to be initialized at 10% because if it starts off at 9.9% or less it will never progress.
Steady deflation provides an incentive to keep most of your wealth in savings, rather than invest it.
Only while the typical investment return, after risk, is less than the rate of deflation.
And what exactly is better about robbing the masses of purchasing power by steady inflation and making them slaves to debt?
From what you recall? Got an example?
Your grandfather should have invested that money not hoarded it.
Inflation is good in that it encourages spending.
That is perhaps the greatest fallacy of the modern era: economic strength is in spending.
An increase in economic activity is not an indication of strength. Spending (consumption) is actually a destructive force. If spending and an increase in economic activity were indicative of economic strength, then nations with hyper-inflated currencies are among the strongest in the world, because those people spend all of their income the very same day they get paid.
Power is increased through accumulation (saving), which is reserved not for itself, but for the sake of future spending and investing, whether or not there is a goal in mind for those savings. Whether or not you see it, spending must always come from savings. What about spending on credit? Well that is just a promise that you will save in the future. You are promising future savings for spending today. If you can't learn to save before spending then you will never catch up with your debt, and you will live out the rest of your life as a slave to your debt.
A monetary system that discourages savings by way of inflation will make slaves of all of it's subjects.
Unfortunately, when the population and economy expand, the money supply has to expand with it.
Does it? Numbers are infinitely divisible. We would be discussing the usefulness of the half-penny rather than the discussing doing away with the penny altogether.
We would have a slow and steady deflation rather than inflation. The problems that creates are not necessarily worse, just different.
but using government to force oil companies (or any squatter) to either use or give up their patent rights to alternative energy methods would put a good dent in the problem.
Or, recognizing that things move faster since the industrial age, shorten the lifespan of patents.
It may also have a significant value of the seldom mentioned dimension of debt.
I was thinking of saying that debt is typically described as a depth, and so that's already covered. But then I figured there is another way of expressing it.
Here in the good old US of A, we've gone from being deep in debt to being high on debt.
That's what I was thinking. It can't be 1000 meters high, it's clearly at sea level.
We should all just get along then? We shouldn't object to government wasting taxpayer dollars?
The idea that government is beyond reproach is ignorant, at best. And not addressing it's failings is silent approval.
Get off your high horse.
(Replying to myself, I know.)
Perhaps this requires a government funded study.
Yes, people can die from falling in the bathroom and striking their head on a hard surface. It may even be a daily occurrence.
And occasionally a skydiver may survive a fall where their parachute fails to deploy.
Don't worry too much about Nebraska farmers. This is one of the states that the recession hasn't really hit hard, yet. We'll start to get worried when you stop buying food.
http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2011/07/07/news/ag/13597942.txt
The only impressive thing here is that the judge (or his aides) apparently cracked open a dictionary or maybe even a math textbook to get a basic idea of what "random" means. Unfortunately, the judiciary doesn't always rule on the basis of absolute mathematical or scientific fact, when it is relevant to the case.
I don't get it. What's the deal with distinguishing the difference between the mathematical and dictionary definition of random? The argument that it fits the dictionary definition does not hold water.
To suggest that a process which methodically ignores eligible applications is "without definite aim, direction, rule or method" is erroneous. Excluding applicants that filed after the second day is both a method and quite definite.
More than that. If you buy a product across state lines and pay sales tax in that state, and then you bring that product to your home state and your state has a higher tax rate, you are (generally) subject to a USE TAX for the difference which you are supposed to volunteer in the same manner.
Sounds like some kind of dance.
Pick any 5 of your conservative fly-over states. Add up their seats in the house of Representatives. New York has 29. How do the fly-over states compare to New York?
Are you seriously suggesting that, for instance, Representatives of New York are representing the demands of conservative fly-over states?
Don't you dare blame the direction of this country on your fly-over states. We don't have the representation to do much of anything.
It was the pants-pissing pussies from the conservative fly-over states who demanded these insane forms of action.
Citation?
Nobody I know has any real fear of terrorists, here in this "fly-over" state of Nebraska. You know why? Because we're a fucking "fly-over" state.
Check your facts, dickweed.
I can appreciate it, but an American would not want to eat it
Real chocolate, like what, 85% cocoa? I love it. I don't care for the taste, but the drug-induced euphoria is lovely.
How strong is your chocolate?