Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Kurt Gödel claimed that he could prove that the Constitution allows the
gov't. to be a dictatorship. I don't know what his argument was, but
Einstein went with him because he was concerned he would expound upon it
when he went for his citizenship hearing. He did :-)

https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2013...r-citizenship/

I'd heard part of the story before.

Of course a Constitution is only as good as the people who enter politics, who
become judges, and who are the citizens. And one thing we've seen in practice
is that the Supreme Court can do what it likes with the Constitution, but that
possibility was known all along - it was just hoped that it wouldn't happen..

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:59:45 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:29:42 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:54:39 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
edit

NO I would not be
in favor of our government censoring free speech, with or without
popular support.

And YES, I fully support the right of the government to censor free
speech given enough popular support edit

You just contradicted yourself again.

As noted, you are mentally defective. That statement simply provides
additional evidence of your debilities.

You wouldn't support censorship of free speech but if the government and
most other people did support it then you would support it too???

Well, maybe he might support "reasonable" restrictions on free speech that many
other countries, generally considered to be democracies, have in their laws.

Thus, Canada and most European countries have laws against inciting racial
hatred.

My personal position is an intermediate and principled one. I think that we
should not prohibit expression of political views because we find them
objectionable - but while this means an essay arguing the case, say, for a
return to Negro slavery could not be banned, regulating channels of *mass
entertainment* to prevent them from *manipulating emotions* to harmful ends is
something I think licit.

John Savard


Maybe these UK petitions could point the way.


http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/articl...l-ads/1400321#

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 4:33:09 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
There is no need to even involve the SCOTUS. Replacement of the federal income tax with a consumption tax will change the dynamics sufficiently that power will return to state and local governments automatically.

Consumption tax is highly regressive

That is not necessarily true at all. In fact, the more you buy the more consumption tax you pay.

The Koch Brothers thanks you for your support.

Ah, I see your problem... you have a Koch addiction.



It is not absurd to believe that our personal property can be taken away by a stronger force if there is not a body of law to protect it, and a government to enforce it. That is where my tax money goes, to pay for it.

However, that function of government provides no excuse for misappropriating tax money for things that are NOT a proper function of government, according to the Constitution.

The constitution is only a vague outline as to what is the proper function of
government. At the time of their writing they knew nothing of 1's and 0's
which is a fundamental way for people to communicate today. The regulation of
1's and 0's was not even imagined in their wildest dreams back then. Nothing
of electronic communication was known, or whether pigs can fly and the sea is
boiling hot.

Utterly irrelevant.


At the current levels of taxation, the government takes away more in taxes than most people own in property.

I highly doubt that. If you have no income or meager income, you pay no federal taxes.

So?

The more you make, the more you pay, but there is a limit even for billionaires who sometimes pay less than 10% of their earnings.

That sounds fair.


The Constitution provides for national defense, a system of courts, currency, to be handled by the federal government. If poetry festivals are deemed necessary, then state or local governments can, -perhaps-, fund them or better yet individuals can do so.

If poetry festivals are deemed necessary for the proper functioning of this
nation, then indeed the constitution does not disallow money to be spent on such.

Poetry festivals are NOT necessary for proper functioning of this nation. If important in some way to a particular locality, then that local government can certainly raise revenue on its own for that purpose.

I disagree. I believe the arts (and that includes poetry) make for a civilized nation, one with high moral standards and good morale, one who can withstand any external attacks, whether military or ideological from any source. It is part of our heritage, as much as the Stars and Stripes, Military bands, the USO etc.

The US won World War II with poetry. Well, that and the atom bomb.


Again, check Amendment X and read it this time.

Of course I have read it. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what it says.

I, and every other citizen of the US, can decide on what we think it means and vote accordingly. The text is rather simple and easy to understand..

yes of course you can vote according to what you believe.

Glad you agree. I vote for candidates who will appoint justices who uphold the Constitution. You?



What's more interesting is that money is not yours to begin with, it belongs to the US treasury, it is government property, which you are allowed to use to barter and pay debts and taxes.

Incorrect. The government makes coins and paper currency, but wealth is created by the private sector.

I did not say that the government created the wealth. I said that it owns the money, and doles it out for the purpose of commerce.

Or we can just use checks. Or EFT.



What I said is not incorrect. You interpret it as such, but that carries no
weight whatsoever.

An important part of federal government's job in this case, mentioned in the Constitution, is to coin money and ensure that it is not counterfeit. It can't make more wealth. It has no way to do so.

The federal government can stimulate the economy by making money cheaper to borrow.

Unfortunately.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic.

No, many have socialism feeding off of capitalism, like a parasite.

Only when you use your obsolete cold war definition of socialism. All
western democracies are highly capitalistic. Your problem is that you
can't distinguish between a socialistic economy and a modern social
democracy, where the "socialism" is how the social system operates,
not the economy.

Word salad.

And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds,

Then you should provide examples of some.

Their space program? Their vodka industry?

Their space program did not create any wealth. During the "space race" it was mostly kept secret.

Liquor can be made by the private sector, in absence of laws prohibiting it, or even in the presence of laws prohibiting it.

Any more examples you would like to have shot to pieces?


So? Nothing to do with my comment about governments having the ability
to generate wealth.

The capitalistic aspect of the South Korean economy is what increased that country's standard of living.

I'm sure it was important. So what? I'm not arguing against
capitalism. I firmly believe it is the best economic system for
countries.

Capitalism enables countries to indulge themselves in varying degrees of socialism.


There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

No, the military is definitely a drain on the economy, as is NASA to a large extent. However, we need a military and we need something like NASA, so we have to bear the opportunity costs of supporting them. Do not be fooled into thinking that either one actually "generates wealth." There is a net loss of wealth.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Not at all. The US would be wealthier without military/NASA/social programs/etc. It is a broken window fallacy to argue otherwise.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do
you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes presumptions and does not reflect reality.

My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were made, or not made, prior to the incident.

Let us know if there are any words in there that you do not understand, palsing.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:31:24 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Kurt Gödel claimed that he could prove that the Constitution allows the
gov't. to be a dictatorship. I don't know what his argument was, but
Einstein went with him because he was concerned he would expound upon it
when he went for his citizenship hearing. He did :-)

https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2013...r-citizenship/

I'd heard part of the story before.

Of course a Constitution is only as good as the people who enter politics, who
become judges, and who are the citizens. And one thing we've seen in practice
is that the Supreme Court can do what it likes with the Constitution, but that
possibility was known all along - it was just hoped that it wouldn't happen.


The system of checks and balances that was designed into the Constitution will tend to, and still can, save the country.

Franklin was rumored to have answered, when asked the question "What kind of government did we get?"... "A republic, if you can keep it."

Unfortunately, too many people are only concerned with a check that they get from the government and do not see that they are shooting themselves in the foot by voting for sleazy politicians who promise them that check.

Maybe Trump will turn the tide back to freedom and prosperity. It's a certainty that the hildebeest won't.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:16:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Maybe these UK petitions could point the way.


http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/articl...l-ads/1400321#

Unfortunately, you will still be suffering under a democracy, rather than prospering under a republic, even if your politicians managed to tell the truth.

You people still seem a bit fuzzy on the concept of free speech, which isn't helping matters much.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:17:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do
you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes presumptions and does not reflect reality.

My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were made, or not made, prior to the incident.

You do not understand this degree of automation. In reality, the
decision is unlikely to be predictable, even by the programmer. The
car's computer isn't going to be making a binary decision, it is going
to be evaluating hundreds of inputs and solving for thousands of
possible solutions. It will be making ethical decisions (really,
cost/benefit decisions) based on complex rules (much more than just
whether kids are worth more or less than adults, for instance). The
final solution is about finding a minimum in terms of harm. Basically,
it's exactly what a person would hope to do, although is generally
incapable of in an actual emergency situation.

Your attempt to frame this as a binary question (as you tend to do
with every question you ask) is unrealistic and doesn't expand on the
discussion.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:13:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Their socialism was almost certainly _a_ weak link. But so what? There
are no socialistic economies in the developed free world. All are
capitalistic.

No, many have socialism feeding off of capitalism, like a parasite.

Only when you use your obsolete cold war definition of socialism. All
western democracies are highly capitalistic. Your problem is that you
can't distinguish between a socialistic economy and a modern social
democracy, where the "socialism" is how the social system operates,
not the economy.

Word salad.

And I'm quite sure that there are plenty of examples of
soviet Russia creating value by spending public funds,

Then you should provide examples of some.

Their space program? Their vodka industry?

Their space program did not create any wealth. During the "space race" it was mostly kept secret.

You know that, do you? How much of that technology spilled out into
other areas? How many private companies were involved (there were
private companies in soviet Russia)? How many people got rich and had
money to spend on luxury products?

Liquor can be made by the private sector, in absence of laws prohibiting it, or even in the presence of laws prohibiting it.

Yes, but how much did government involvement drive the industry?

Any more examples you would like to have shot to pieces?

Pot shots is more like it.

I'm sure it was important. So what? I'm not arguing against
capitalism. I firmly believe it is the best economic system for
countries.

Capitalism enables countries to indulge themselves in varying degrees of socialism.

Again, only because you confuse economic socialism with social
systems.


There are some NASA and military spinoffs, but other examples are practically non-existent.

Good. We agree that governments can generate wealth, which was all I
said. You should have just left out all the irrelevant crap and said
this in the first place.

No, the military is definitely a drain on the economy, as is NASA to a large extent. However, we need a military and we need something like NASA, so we have to bear the opportunity costs of supporting them. Do not be fooled into thinking that either one actually "generates wealth." There is a net loss of wealth.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Not at all. The US would be wealthier without military/NASA/social programs/etc. It is a broken window fallacy to argue otherwise.

Why do you lump NASA and social programs, the first specific and the
latter broad and undefined?

It seems extremely unlikely that the country would be wealthier
without NASA. It has generated vast amounts of the technology that
drives much of our economy today. As for "social programs", that
depends on the program. Things like Head Start boost the economy
because they generate more dollars than they spend. Others don't. That
doesn't mean they aren't necessarily beneficial, of course. Not
everything needs to generate wealth.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:06:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:17:57 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do
you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes presumptions and does not reflect reality.

My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were made, or not made, prior to the incident.

You do not understand this degree of automation. In reality, the
decision is unlikely to be predictable, even by the programmer. The
car's computer isn't going to be making a binary decision, it is going
to be evaluating hundreds of inputs and solving for thousands of
possible solutions. It will be making ethical decisions (really,
cost/benefit decisions) based on complex rules (much more than just
whether kids are worth more or less than adults, for instance). The
final solution is about finding a minimum in terms of harm. Basically,
it's exactly what a person would hope to do, although is generally
incapable of in an actual emergency situation.

Your attempt to frame this as a binary question (as you tend to do
with every question you ask) is unrealistic and doesn't expand on the
discussion.

That's all just word salad, peterson, sophist BS. You have said nothing.

The car won't be able to stop in time, physical laws will prevent that. Swerving is a possible action that can be taken, but who decides to do that or not?