Journal Bill Dog's Journal: I am backwards 61
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Leftist politicians say we must move "forward". An AP headline reads "Obama warns of progress reversal if GOP wins".
Yes! That's exactly what I want. Reverse the progress the Progressives have made. "Forward", from a Leftist's frame of reference and from which they speak when they use the term, is exactly the wrong direction, because it's in a direction away from this country's founding principles.
I'd also argue that "forward" is not a direction on a line, but in a plane, and includes not only moving Left, but "down", as in less prosperity and freedom for we the people [for The Greater Good(TM), Lefties would say]. So yes, I want to go "backwards", which is (back) up.
I'd like to start hearing this in campaigns from Right-leaners. "My opponent says we can't keep moving forward if you don't for him. I completely agree. How are you liking this new Amerika we've moved towards so far? Want more of it? Or do you want things the way they used to be? Vote 'backwards' this election!"
I want to be a member of a new political grouping called the Back-Ups. "Tea Party" connotes too little. I don't want to just oppose and protest tyranny, I distinctly want to go somewhere. I don't want revolution, I devolution. The former is to get what you never had, and the latter is for getting back what you already had.
The system of America has been p0wned and is dragging because its being made into a zombie to do the world's bidding, and we need to restore a non-corrupted image from Back-Ups (while there is still storage alive that persists in memory something close to the original image, of a time before most of our subsystems had gotten compromised).
p.s. And if we can ever restore to a clean state, regaining control of our system nation again, then we need to not get complacent again and let our database of Left-wing scheme detection signatures become out-of-date. Because there will always be attackers, trying to wriggle in and root in our institutions, and we must be vigilant with frequent scans that look for even the latest variations of what are really just a standard set of exploits.
Yes and No (Score:2)
I agree with the substance of what you're saying. However, I do want progress. I do want to move forward. Lean forward. The whole deal. But I consider taking away our liberty directly, and indirectly through massive increase in central power structures, to be REgress.
I want to use our collected knowledge of sociology, psychology, economics, science, technology, and so on to find ways to allow more people to live freer, safer, and more peaceful lives.
We have an opportunity now to make the greatest advan
Re: (Score:1)
allow more people to live freer, safer, and more peaceful lives.
One of these is not like the other two. Freer is the only one with which the state should be concerned. It isn't the state's job to ensure an individual's safety or peacefulness beyond the that which they affect others property and life. Perhaps safer and peaceful are your own personal goals, which are admirable, but it should not be the state's role to provide for those goals.
There are certainly ways in which we could proceed which would be considered in line with the original original founder's goals o
Re: (Score:2)
allow more people to live freer, safer, and more peaceful lives.
One of these is not like the other two. Freer is the only one with which the state should be concerned. It isn't the state's job to ensure an individual's safety or peacefulness beyond the that which they affect others property and life.
Not to ENSURE it, no, of course not. But to ENABLE it, yes. Look at the Federalist and other founding documents of this nation: the whole point of the Union itself was peace and safety ... not to guarantee it, but to make it more possible. As Jay wrote in Federalist 3 [federali.st]: "Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. ... I mean only to consider [safety] as it respects security for the preservatio
Re: (Score:1)
Rolling back many of the infringements on liberty, which is what I think Bill is referring to, would certainly be a step in the right direction even if not considered progress by the left.
Establishing, in the minds of the people, that there even have been infringements on liberty, and that that's a bad thing and un-American, would be the first start. Then peeling off the layers and layers of Leftist cruft that have been slathered on this country over the decades and let hardened, would have greater chance o
Re: (Score:2)
However, both you and Bill's...overall sentiments...are a bit puzzling to me. Wouldn't a more effective (and more hopeful) strategy be to use the upcoming Republican resurgence and likely control of Congress to push your party in the direction you want? Again, I understand the apathy you're feeling, but the next 6-12 months is a crucial moment for conservatives such as yourself to
Re: (Score:2)
I understand clearly that the GOP is, for you and millions of Americans, about as useful to you right now as the Democrats.
I think you don't understand what I am saying. :-)
Wouldn't a more effective (and more hopeful) strategy be to use the upcoming Republican resurgence and likely control of Congress to push your party in the direction you want?
Yes. That is what I am working and hoping for, starting with trying to get Republican John Koster elected as the new Congressman from WA-2 [kosterforcongress.com].
Again, I understand the apathy you're feeling
Really? I expressed no such apathy. Pessimism, perhaps. But it is hard to be optimistic about the GOP at this point. Hopeful, yes; optimistic, no.
I may not give the GOP another chance if they blow this one.
... but the next 6-12 months is a crucial moment for conservatives such as yourself to use that window, however small it is.
I absolutely agree.
Shorter version: Stop moping, you could be the Democrats, who are already depressed AND losing!
I ain't moping. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
But it can't be done through force -- except in using force against those who would use force against others -- because that is anathema to the whole point.
LOL! TNX
Re: (Score:2)
... I don't think you have the point you think you do.
Re: (Score:1)
No, pudgie? And exactly what point is it do you think I think I have that you don't think I think I have? Are you willing to share with the viewing audience? or were you just trying out some snappy comeback?
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. The CORRECT answer would be for you to state what your point is and then, if necessary, describe how it makes sense.
You won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, pudgie, you brought it up.. What's this mystical, magical point you claim I have and deny at the same time? Is this some "zen" phase you're going through? Is it something that offends, or embarrasses you that you can't discuss it?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, are YOU slow. What I wrote was nothing more or less than a challenge for you to explain yourself, and you failed.
Re: (Score:1)
Pudgie, it's all right there... What's to explain?? What are you not getting? You seem to be the only one having any difficulty here. Maybe if you address it specifically, I might be able to help you out. I'm always willing to lend a helping hand to a friend.
Re: (Score:1)
So maybe "backing up" is the best I can hope for.
Your idealism is appreciated, and makes sense if starting from a previous time were possible, but proceeding from today, where the Left almost completely controls the conversations in this country, "reform" is a dangerous idea. Open up some part of our governance to major change, and the major force in this country that wishes to destroy our foundational style of governance, will distort the national discussion over it leading to God-knows-what abominable res
So it's an inclined plane? (Score:1)
founding fathers:
I live in hotels, tear out the walls
I have accountants pay for it all...
I don't like it.. You want to call back a bunch of crazy baldheads to kill off the remaining drunks and reprobates that made the US truly great and unique? What time do you want to back us into? If it's during the war(revolutionary) when most people were dancing and intersexing it up in the saloons with the "degenerate" races, then I'm all for it. Because it's been all downhill ever since the papers were signed... marke
Re: (Score:1)
<looks up the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org]> Alexander Hamilton was evil, being prolly this country's first prominent Progressive-minded person. The federal govt. should never have been allowed to borrow money, and should never have been allowed to levy taxes. It should be funded solely by the states. And insofar as the states don't give it sufficient funding, then it cuts back on what it's chartered to do. And if a state runs up too much debt to fund its share of the national govt., that state can go bankrupt an
Re: (Score:1)
If, by "spirit of America". you mean willing to stand up to authority, and punch a cop in the nose occasionally for being a dick, then yes, every politician since the founding fathers themselves have been working to stamp that out. It's not good.. It's not bad.. It's just normal. It's what they do. The American politician is no different than any other. They never were. They all want the same thing, or they wouldn't run for office. Pretty straightforward. If you want to mitigate the problem, then you have t
Re: (Score:1)
My "spirit of America" includes rugged individualism, not some hippie "kill the pigs" or "stick it to the man" stuff. I mean standing up for oneself, but I don't define it in terms of which groups I should stand up to (which then indicates there are groups you think one should fall in line for). I define it positively -- what we should do for ourselves. And not from a negative frame of reference -- who we should stand up to. I.e. to me America is not so much about opposing a bunch of things as affirming a f
Backwards? (Score:2)
Away from women's rights, women's suffrage, child labor laws, and decent living wages, or worker's rights?
Seriously, progress hasn't been bad, there's been A LOT of good evolution in this world. Hell, DEMOCRACY was an evolutionary step in the world.
You can't argue for "backwards" without saying what part of progress you want to repeal... Shall we subjugate women again? Shall we remove their rights to vote? Should we return to children working in labor yards, and industrial plants?
Re: (Score:1)
Away from women's rights, women's suffrage, child labor laws, and decent living wages, or worker's rights?
I'm against all that. Child labor laws shouldn't even exist -- that should fall under parental abuse laws. I'm against (govt. setting) decent living wages. There should be no worker's rights or women's rights, just human being's rights. And as for voting, I think we should go back to something like landowners only -- non-stakeholders in this country shouldn't get a say.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are subject to American law, then you are a stakeholder. Instead of requiring land ownership, you should require a decent education.
Re: (Score:1)
If you've got nothing on the line, then you're not a stakeholder. You shouldn't get to have a say in steering this country just by virtue of standing on its soil. (Any more than it should mean your spawn gets automatic citizenship.) You should have to have something at risk. Like property. Or a business. Or being a volunteer in the military. Try voting at a stockholder meeting sometime, when you don't have anything invested in the company.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not getting it. If i am subject to your curfews, inspections, directions, corrections, sanctions, prohibitions, you're damn toonin' I have every right to decide what the rules will be and who will write and enforce them. I would never let any property or business owner take that away. If I can't vote with a ballot, I'll vote with a bullet, like it or not. Imposing a rule such as that could start a real shooting war. Guess which side I'll be on.
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, forgot this:
Try voting at a stockholder meeting sometime, when you don't have anything invested in the company.
Unlike the government, company policy doesn't effect me unless I'm an employee, or downwind. If either were true, I most definitely have a right to vote on policy. And I have the right to call in the authorities or any other representation(for instance, union) if the company becomes abusive.
Re: (Score:1)
And unlike a communist state, this country's rules don't affect you unless you choose to stick around. So you choose to voluntarily subject yourself to this country's rules -- BFD. To me that doesn't mean you deserve anything special. Pay your taxes that fund the enforcement of said rules, and you can stay. Invest and risk, and then you can help steer. Because only when you have something to lose, are you less likely to vote to trash the system. Or be sticking around only to try to milk the system and steal
Re: (Score:1)
Again, I have the right to stay where I please, and I won't hesitate to protect that right. In the US I will use my legal rights as long as they serve me. And if they don't, well, you know the routine... We're only losing our rights because we give them up so easily. And when one person gives up another person's rights, there's going to be a problem. You will not give up my right to vote. And besides, If I don't have a passport, staying is not a matter of choice now, is it? And you know, it's kinda funny th
Re: (Score:1)
That's certainly not a right that I recognize. But then I'm not an open borders/imagine no property rights kind of person.
And I've never told people to go home, just that they can't come here. I can totally sympathize that people want to leave from where it sucks to go where it's better. But then I can also sympathize with the fact that there aren't even enough jobs in this country right now for the people who are already here.
Re: (Score:2)
You're _NOT_ for open borders?
And unlike a communist state, this country's rules don't affect you unless you choose to stick around. So you choose to voluntarily subject yourself to this country's rules...
The only way to make US jurisdiction voluntary, is to make borders fully open. If you want to be subject to US jurisdiction, then you just come on over... if you do not want to be subject to US jurisdiction, then you can just walk away.
As US law currently stands, firstly, to get to another country, you need a passport, which declares you a US citizen. Being recognized as a US citizen means that another country will not allow you to just voluntarily stick around in their count
Re: (Score:1)
Even more clearly on this issue, as a US citizen, even when you're outside of the US, you're still under US jurisdiction (such as drinking age, no sex with under-aged individuals, paying income taxes, etc).
The tax thing I'm aware of, but the other stuff? That could really suck if customs decides to make me take a piss test when arriving from Amsterdam. I would hope the "when in Rome" thing would apply, where you obey local law. Imagine if Illinois could arrest me for gambling while I'm in Vegas, when I go h
Re: (Score:2)
Even more clearly on this issue, as a US citizen, even when you're outside of the US, you're still under US jurisdiction (such as drinking age, no sex with under-aged individuals, paying income taxes, etc).
The tax thing I'm aware of, but the other stuff? That could really suck if customs decides to make me take a piss test when arriving from Amsterdam. I would hope the "when in Rome" thing would apply, where you obey local law. Imagine if Illinois could arrest me for gambling while I'm in Vegas, when I go home. Now if you are on some nonexistent "neutral" territory, or in space. Then each person would be under their home country's jurisdiction, I suppose. I think that's how they're doing it up in the ISS, and maybe Antarctica?
It's an iffy area. I know the sex with underage individuals outside of the country was made explicitly illegal, and I remember reading about how the US was upset that 18-20 year olds would drive down to Mexico (or up to Canada) and drink. They eventually settled something I believe.
They never did actually take someone in for drinking over in Mexico, it's more of a "we're making this illegal, so we can use leverage against Mexico to stop it." sort of thing.
But yeah... it's not a complete shedding of US ju
Re: (Score:2)
They can, and should. However, punishing someone for something done in a jurisdiction where the action is legal, should only be done for serious offences, and thus would only occur if the laws are VERY different. (i.e. if something is a *serious* offence in one country, while being completely legal in another)
This seldom happens. What happens a lot *more* often, is that stuff that's in principle illegal in both countries, in practice isn't punished in one country. Doing so "back home" can make a lot of sens
Re: (Score:2)
As for "underage" sex, the variation in age of consent isn't huge, mostly it's somewhere between 15 and 18, and it's a subjective issue anyway, so I don't see that as an example where punish-at-home would make sense.
Except for where 12-year olds, or even 5-year olds are in the sex trade in another country.
My example here is not a fictitious one, because the US actively enforces it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for those -- but are there any actual countries where a 12 or 5 year old can legally work in the sex-trade ?
But I agree: if there are countries where that would be legal, it'd be an example of something which seen as severe crime here, and thus something for which punish-at-home could make sense.
I do know there are countries with that low ages of consent, but they tend to be countries that also insist that the partners be married, don't they ? (i.e. I was under the impression that Yemen has suc
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it's even more crazy than the normal US consent laws (which usually have a buffer, or age of consent prior to 18):
Federal law prohibits adult U.S. residents/citizens from engaging in sexual acts with persons under age 18 outside the United States (18 USC 2423). Be aware that any U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident arrested in a foreign country for sexually abusing minors may be subject to return to the United States, and if convicted, can face up to 30 years in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This seems crazy, and I very much doubt it's actually practiced that way.
Imagine a 17-year-old couple from Kansas, or any of the other dozen-or-so states where age of consent is 16, going on a vacation to Canada, where age of consent is also 16.
If your snip, gives the correct impression, this couple could be convicted on their return to usa, for "engaging in sexual acts with persons under age 18 outside the United States". Despite the fact that 17-year-old couples are above age-of-consent both in Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Title 18 Chapter 109a provides this section:
(a) Of a Minor.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who—
(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and
(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;
so, no, two 17 year olds going to Canada and having sex wouldn't qualify.
However, a 22 year old and a 17 year old two days from their 18th birthday would qualify, if the authorities so desired to be assholes about it.
(There are a few incidents of individuals prosecuted and found guilty of "sex crimes against a minor" despite the age difference being negligible.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's much comfort to you, but though our laws are generally saner, there's an example here which is a lot worse.
Age of consent, is 16. *but* porn isn't allowed with actors under 18. So far so good, I have no problem with this rule.
The part where it gets absurd though, is where no exception is made for the actors themselves. That's right, if you're between 16 and 18, you can legally have sex with your boyfriend. But if you, for example, take a *picture* of the activities, then you're now a ch
Re: (Score:2)
This is, offcourse, completely batshit insane. And I've never heard of *anyone* convicted, but the laws themselves, do seem to say this.
A number of kids in the US were at least temporarily charged for doing the same thing... taking a sexually explicit picture of themselves and texting it someone else.
I didn't keep up with what happened, but I believe eventually charges were dropped. But being found guilty of the charge also would have labeled the girls as "sexual predators" and require them to register their personal information with registries for life.
So, even when your laws are insane, our laws have already been there, done that. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, I think laws are like code.
You write a rule for the general case -- in most cases well-intended, and sometimes even wise: "It's illegal to produce porn with underage actors", then the corner-cases come and hit you on the ass - the special cases, which wasn't considered, and where the result of applying the rule blindly, is quite simply a bug.
Having a girl who takes a nudiepic of herself listed as a "sex offender", is a bug in the legal system. If anyone had explicitly suggested that, it would've
Re: (Score:1)
A foundation of laws and legal precedents gets crufty over time like a code base does. Another example might be that as new requirements are envisioned, they're frequently implemented without a cross-checking of how existing, related functionality is already implemented. So you can get weird things like it not being murder to intentionally kill an unborn child, but if your GF is driving you nuts so you decide to run her over with your car, and she's also pregnant, then it's a double murder.
But I don't know
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a double murder in all states. Actually, I think only in a few. In most states it would be one murder, and something akin to "abortion without consent".
Many modules do get reexamined and refactored, the "Restatement of Torts" is like on the 9th edition or something, and it's the general guidelines that states should follow for civil liabilities.
Then there are also the "Uniform Code" projects refactor different areas, like the Uniform Commercial Code, Uniform Probate Code, etc. A bunch of lawyers
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against all that. Child labor laws shouldn't even exist -- that should fall under parental abuse laws. I'm against (govt. setting) decent living wages. There should be no worker's rights or women's rights, just human being's rights. And as for voting, I think we should go back to something like landowners only -- non-stakeholders in this country shouldn't get a say.
The only way that Child Labor Laws can be covered by parental abuse laws, is if they explicitly state that they are covered under parental abuse laws. So, even if Child Labor Laws were under parental abuse laws, they would still be Child Labor Laws.
There should be no worker's rights or women's rights, just human being's rights.
So, how are we going to declare human being's rights, without saying that they cannot be breached on the basis of sex, gender, national origin, etc? Without declaring what cannot be used, that is tacit allowance for breaching human rights under that condition.
Re: (Score:1)
The only way that...
I should step back a bit -- laws protecting children who, say, run away from home and are not being directed by their parents into a given situation, are needed, as that wouldn't be covered by parental abuse laws.
So, how are we going to declare human being's rights, without saying that they cannot be breached on the basis of sex, gender, national origin, etc?
I don't think an enumeration of all of our possible differences is necessary (and, in fact I think it's harmful), instead that cert
Re: (Score:2)
I should step back a bit -- laws protecting children who, say, run away from home and are not being directed by their parents into a given situation, are needed, as that wouldn't be covered by parental abuse laws.
Wait... what? I'm confused here. Only kids that run away from home deserve special protection? Or?
I don't think an enumeration of all of our possible differences is necessary (and, in fact I think it's harmful), instead that certain rights being acknowledged simply by virtue of being a human being, wholly suffices and is the simplest and wisest approach for handling this.
No, since our rights are defined as what may not be done to us (by govt., or by others without govt. protection and/or punishment), period, then similarly as you go on to say parenthetically, the default is no conditions allowed for breaching those rights, unless explicitly stated. It is the exceptions to the rights that should be enumerated (being the smaller and more easily enumerable set), not all the infinite cases in which the rights must be upheld. This should be common sense.
So... Free Speech is inviolable in all cases? Because you know... the Constitution doesn't give the government any exceptions to restrict it. So, like yelling "Fire" in a theater... saying libelous/slanderous things is our right, and cannot be punished? I have a right against double jeopardy, this means that if I have been tried for a crime and found guilty, that I cannot have a new trial that could find m
Re: (Score:1)
Where does my right to be treated equally in employment?
You have no such right. Only govt. is prohibited from treating us unequally. We, however, should be free (with few exceptions) to treat each other as unequally as we want. That's what freedom is.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does my right to be treated equally in employment?
You have no such right. Only govt. is prohibited from treating us unequally. We, however, should be free (with few exceptions) to treat each other as unequally as we want. That's what freedom is.
Then I should be free to kill you? Answer: no... because then you're harming me. So the question then becomes: why can you harm me with unfairly basing employment decisions on immaterial details to my performance at work?
Re: (Score:1)
You don't have the right to not be harmed. You have the right to live your life as your brains and your ambition and your luck and other peoples' strictly voluntary generosity would have you. I have the right of freedom of association. I get to pick who my friends are, and if I owned a business, I should get to pick who my employees are. You don't have a right to infringe my rights just because some harm comes to you as a result. If you're wrecked on the side of the road while I'm on my way to a job intervi
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing me broken down on the side of the road is not a condition where you have a duty to me. There is no duty for a passerby to render assistance.
However, when you hire me as an employee, you have certain duties, such as to provide a safe working environment.. _AND_ to not base job decisions on specific criteria that we as a public have decided are irrelevant to job performance, and should never be used as a basis in such decisions.
You can argue all you want that this isn't the way the law SHOULD be, but
Re: (Score:1)
You can argue all you want that this isn't the way the law SHOULD be, but this is actually how the law IS.
Correct, and that's what I've been writing in terms of, all this time, going back to my response to your original questioning of this JE, where I use "I'm against", "shouldn't", "should", "I'm against", "should be no", "should go back to", and "shouldn't get", in order. I.e. nothing here about denial of the existing (Left-leaning) reality. Hopefully you're not trying to imply that just because some thin
Re: (Score:2)
You're changing the subject -- we were talking about rights.
I didn't change the subject, YOU did. You are the one whostarted talking about a duty to perform, when you switched to "if I see you broken down on the side of the road."
If I hire someone, I shouldn't have any more duties to that person than I already did
All sorts of relationships carry brand new duties to other people. When you get into a for-hire vehicle, they take a limit duty to provide for your safety. The abundance of places that plaster signs all over the place stating that they do not have a duty to protect your property from theft should be self evident.
Roommates, parents, child
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm not offering a solution. Your business is not my business. I said quit or don't quit, whichever you choose. Just stay the hell out of other people's business. Because their business is not your business.
I think by that they mean for no specific length of time. Like here in California, an at-will employment state, where the employment relationship can be severed by either party at a
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how I've done any such thing. It looks instead like I've given you a glimpse of what real freedom looks like, and you don't like it. Actual freedom means an environment where a "horrible and immoral world" is possible, and all-too-often occuring.
Oh, I already know what anarchy looks like, and I didn't need you to show it to me.
You are correct though that I reject it as a horrible and immoral world. Such a world is not one that I wish to live in, and I do and will actively work to obstruct such a world from coming into being. I see that as my duty as a moral human being.
Additionally, I view the fact that you would like to enact such a world knowing full well that it would enact a world of evil projects such upon you yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
I've become so individualist that I'm practically an anarchist. It may partly be over-reaction to an alarmingly growing totalitarianism of the Left. But then it's caused me to also reject almost all of it from my own side (the Religious Right) as well. As the threat of Leftists wanting to run every aspect of our lives grows, it's awakened me to how others have to feel about Bible-thumpers legislating my morality on other people. And I'm a believer of "do unto others...".
If you choose to believe that this re
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose to believe that this reflects evil on or in me, it's your right. :) I've come to believe that except for a minimal set of rules, imposing one's morality on others is wrong, and two immorals don't make a moral. Or maybe better stated as trying to defeat immorality with immorality does not really rid a situation of immorality.
I cannot speak for the entire left, but _I_ am not trying to legislate any "morality" upon you. (Of course, declaring murder a criminal offense is declaring a morality against others... however, your god didn't seem to have any qualms about imposing a law of capital punishment against murder for the entirety of the human race, so...)
The stuff that I am pushing to restrict, is where one can do real and actual harm upon another. (I see legislating morality as dictating to people what they can and cannot do
Re: (Score:1)
(I thought about these in an order different than you listed them.)
But are you now confusing "basic needs" with "rights"? (Where rights are things that govt. is to see are protected.)
First of all, while food and water and shelter are reasonably considered the basic needs of any species, early man did not have "health care". Health care is a luxury of modern life (in wealthy, developed nation
Re: (Score:2)
Accidentally coming across my money is covered under law by the term "Unjust Enrichment". The remedy prescribed is to return the money you inadvertently obtained. This also covers stuff like, me accidentally fixing your car, thinking it were my car. I am due some return of the effort and costs I put into the vehicle. (However, one in this case is only entitled to what the actual owner would honestly pay for such service to be done.)
The stupid girl who pulled out in front of my car a year ago ended up requiring my vehicle to be replaced. She was determined to be 100% at fault, disputed by no party even remotely related to the incident. What's the cost? Financially she hurt me much more than what was paid to me on her behalf as a mostly "fair" [another nebulous-by-nature word there] settlement.
In your anarchy Utopia, the only way to get the stupid girl to pay would
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, so Jesus was a socialist, eh?
I appreciate the interest in my religion, but I'd be pretty dumb if I let an unbeliever tell me what to think about it, now wouldn't I?
And you also got it all wrong with the "your anarchy Utopia" stuff. (I guess you're tuning me out and not really listening, because you know we don't agree on much.) I'd previously said that I'm, in a sense, *practically* an anarchist, esp. from a Leftist's more authoritarian POV, in that I believe in a minimal set of rules. But not *no* rul
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate the interest in my religion, but I'd be pretty dumb if I let an unbeliever tell me what to think about it, now wouldn't I?
It has nothing to do with me being a believer or not. If I were a believer would you actually take the same argument to heart? I don't think so, because it conflicts with your own predetermined beliefs about how your religion should work.
But really, the argument isn't mine, it's the Bible's. And as with anything, Jesus had a complicated belief system, which has some alignments with socialism and some that don't align. I'm not saying the guy is perfect... I think it's your religion that says that.
I believe in a minimal set of rules. But not *no* rules. So of course I'm not against the police and courts.
Please
Re: (Score:1)
It has everything to do with whether or not someone is a believer, to me. I'm not Catholic or otherwise believe that only certain of the faithful have a monopoly on heavenly insights. I believe that every believer is guided by the Holy Spirit to some degree, and potentially has some tidbits of understanding to share.
I don't think I've ever projected extremism on you and don't think you're an extremist. Just an authoritarian. You admit as much for one of the two categories of issues. For the other, I think y
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've ever projected extremism on you and don't think you're an extremist. Just an authoritarian. You admit as much for one of the two categories of issues. For the other, I think you're more than you like to think you are, but in any event way more than I, so I'd say you're easily more authoritarian overall than not.
Projecting me all the way from social libertarian, to social authoritarian is clearly projecting an extremism onto me.
And there's similarly a problem with basing your principles on whether "harm" is done, that I've tried to point out, because "harm" can be extended to mean just about anything.
I believe I attempted to close that "loophole" by phrasing it as "if you do harm to someone, then you are responsible for rectifying that harm". This is the principle behind the entirety of civil tort law. Of course proving someone actually caused harm to you is more difficult. The definitions and clarifications is what makes law complicated, not the basic concepts.
Leftists these days say you can't eat a Big Mac because bad health raises health care costs for everyone thereby causing collective "harm".
And they're total fucki