DavidOdden

You mean like the doofie blondes on MAD TV (Trish? Something like that). Knowledge counts. The fact of genetic relationship is not important, despite rationalisations to the effect that this protects the species. "Incest" between siblings who have no prior relationship and have no knowledge of a genetic connection should not be distinguished from a relation between unrelated strangers. Furthermore, in the context of a non-genetic family (e.g. one child is adopted), incest between two people living under the same roof is not justifiably treated as different from regular old brother-sister incest. The basic question should be whether the relationship is a twisting of reality: misunderstanding one kind of personal relationship for another kind. I think Erik is being overly-moralistic in saying that people who work together shouldn't have romantic relations. But the point about dumping a lover, vs. a sister, is important.

Why not? Are you assuming that there is a single monopolistic legal entity which determines which acts are legal, one which has the power to decide whether a law has been broken, and which uses force to enforce those decisions? Where do these supposed "felonies" come from? Who sets the standard for deciding what evidence is needed to establish that a felony was comitted?

Both. In some contexts it is a form of rape in which case it is wrong. In some contexts it's just plain sex between consenting adults, which has been deemed to be illegal in a particular jurisdiction because of arbitrary laws (consider the "not even the same last name" rule in Chinese society, the willy-nilly way that first cousins are treated). In the latter case, you simply need to determine whether it's right for some two people to have sex, and there is no general, universal rule.

In fact, it doesn't even require that there be harm. The underlying assumption is that "air pollution", whatever that is, automatically harms all people on the planet, whether or not any harm was actually done. It violates a basic assumption of our legal system, namely that guilt must be proven and not assumed automatically.

You are welcome. BTW, we needn't stand on ceremony. No, because that leaves open the interpretation that they have almost complete control, which they don't. More accurately, they have marginal control. As I just indicated, this is a non-issue. You seem to be confused about the concept of "control". North Korea would be the best example of a total-control regime, but even then they do not have total control, because many people manage to escape to freedom. I don't see how your question is relevant. Your argument appears to be that only a perfectly successful fascist dictatorship has a monopoly on force, and that if any crimes occur then the government does not have a monopoly on force. Since there are no such situations, what lesson do we draw from that? None. Now if you would look back at your response to Fred, you will see that you accepted the position that the US has a monopoly on force; given that, plus the fact that a theft has occurred in the US and the implication of your question emphasizing the total nature of this control, then you should understand that you are contradicting yourself by assuming that the US and Sudan both do and do not have monopolies on force. Because it is neither proper, nor a monopoly. It does allow competing governments in its territory. Don't obsess about what's official: the de facto is as important as the de jure. And again, your assumptions regarding the infallibility of the state in forcing all of its citizens to obey all laws is simply wrong, and irrelevant. I think it's generally agreed that Khartom is the safe haven in that country, which is why so many refugees from the south head north. No, I would say that Somalia was and perhaps is anarchy (I reserve judgement regarding the last 6 months). I don't offhand know of a specific term that identifies the Sudanese type of situation, other than a general term like "mess" or "hellhole". Recall that the question is about Sudan, not Khartoum. I will grant you that the militaro-Islamicists have a monopoly on force in Khartoum, so we're obviously talking about Dar For and the southern provinces.

That argument would be more effective if the comparison had involved two monopolies (US vs. Canada) rather than just one (US vs. Sudan).

I think you need to recheck the basics. Subcategorization defines "what's good English", and you've got a basic subcategorization error in your example (check the verb, which is intransitive). The classical example, as you should know, is "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". However, the point of that example is to emphasize the distinction between syntactic well-formedness and semantic well-formedness -- i.e. the classic sentence "doesn't mean anything". Are you suffering under the erroneous misconception that the grammar of English only relates to syntactic well-formedness? Rest assured that that is quite false. That doesn't mean anything. First, the expression "primary vocal gestures" doesn't refer to anything (using standard technical terminology, or compositional semantics). Second, any claims about what is primary vs. secondary in language has to be supported with argument -- it is not at all obvious that sound is the "primary" atom of language. In fact, IMOO the conceptual content of language is primary (most important). You can attach whatever significance you want to the fact that, as a phonologist, I nonetheless assign greater primacy to the semantic aspect. Using sounds, among other things.

A-hem. Well, that is sufficiently wrong that I'll hold off starting a separate thread attacking that. Besides, Ash has made most of the important points. The one that I will add here is that your statement "every linguistic sound has an objective meaning" is completely wrong. Meanings are signalled by a conventional relation to specific sounds (plural). Your apparent cause-and-effect view is wrong, as is your intrinsicist view (which is why the same sound means "step", "all", "father", "give", "in" (etc.) various languages. Actually, I think you don't understand the concept "objective"; I'd recommend reading up on that particular term. It doesn't mean "universally invariant". The interpretation of a rule has to be done according to the meaning of words and phrases at the time the rule is created: that's not hard to do, though over 500 years it might actually prove necessary to re-word the rules to deal with language change (or keep good records on meanings -- but I favor re-writing, to avoid turning ststutes into sacred mystical texts). Yes and no. The literal interpretation is not person-dependent, though it can be dialect dependent. This is why statutes are written in the standard dialect (so that for instance you won't find a law where "bad" means "good"). The rule of lenity does address the resolution of ambiguous statutes; so can you give me an example of where you think there might be a problem? Right, but that's because there are few explicit guidelines governing interpretation. The fact that judges currently take a common-law view on statutory interpretation is the problem, and should be fixed (see Scalia's Tanner lectures). Sure, any system of codifying law objectively has to rely on human intelligence, to apply it to any new case, and there might even arise a situation where a fundamental rule of interpretation itself proves ambiguous. But this doesn't mean that we should give up the search for objective law. As it stands, there is remarkably little attempt to codify a uniform set of interpretive principles, which allows Breyer and Scalia to both be Justices.

Gee, I hate to get started on something and then disappear for a week, but I gotta ask what you mean by "secession". Did former Kanawha, now West Virginia, secede in your sense from Virginia, and did Staten Island secede from New York City? If the UK or some other country in the EU finds that things are not working out for them and they withdraw from the EU, is that a secession? I would agree with your statement only for violent secession. Unless you want to amplify on what constitutes an intolerable violation of rights.

This editorial is one of those rare moments in newspaper life which I thought I'd (selfishly) share.

Well, even if they are trying to establish a freer country, terrorism is not justified.

That puts an interesting spin on this post. The logo on the T-shirt is clearly from Rearden Studios, which apparently was known as Rearden Steel until it changed its name for some reason.

My son does that part-time: the piece of paper isn't necessary. A resume is what counts. You don't need business theory classes to do this (though you will need to learn some legal obscurities so you don't get arrested for tax evasion -- unless that's part of the grand plan). It sounds like you know enough about business for the moment, and need to get clients.

Those would be exactly the right questions to consider. I think the answer would prove to be "you can't rationally support either side".

Do you plan to become an electrical engineer, a chemist, a lawyer or a doctor? If so, you need to go to college. If you plan to go into sales, then usually no. If you plan to go into auto mechanics, definitely not. Start by identifying more clearly what you want to do.

They are an ethnic group, related to the Ingush (in fact, the former independent nation was the Chechen-Ingush Republic) and the Batsi (the group is known as the Nakh). The relation is similar to e.g. the relation of the Germans, Dutch, Swedes and Norwegians. They live in a particular geographical area (called "Chechnya"). If you are asking why they have the right to be free of Russian rule, you're arbitrarily presupposing that Russia has the right to rule that region. Russia has the same right to rule over Chechnya as Russia had to rule Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukrainia, Armenia, Georgia ... namely none. It is no different that the right of Jews to establish an independent country. Which doesn't matter, because the right to be free does not stem from being "a people". It is of course historically relevant when a regime engages in ethnic politics, such as the Chinese practice of trying to wipe the Tibetans off the face of the earth, or Stalin's deportation of the Chechens to Central Asia. Ethnic oppression is not an unfamiliar aspect of Russian politics. The consent of the governed, and no loss of rights, are the basic requirements.

This is profoundly confused. Chechens have a right to an independent country (and the right to support the creation of one). Despite the propoganda that you may see coming out of the Russian press, Chechens are not terrorists. There are terrorists who are Chechen (just as there are terrorists who are Arab, Serb, German, American and so on). Their acts of terrorism are not legitimate, and that cannot be considered legitimate. Hint: the ends do not justify the means.

You should assume that I'd like secession to be mandatory under those circumstances.

Chechnya was an independent nation until the mid 18th century when it was subdued by the Russian Empire. When the empire collapsed, Chechnya became independent again but Stalin managed to jerk them back under Soviet control in 1936. The Russians have never managed to control Chechnya. The puzzle is why Chechnya was not given its independence at the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan (the list does on) were all given their independence. There is no argument for Russian domination (it's not as though Russia is a great freedom-loving nation), so the cause of Chechen independence is completely valid. At the same time, it's quite possible that Chechnya will go the way of Belarus, but I think that's for the residents of Chechnya to sort out.

Try that. Maybe that's what he wants.

The injustice comes from the means of financing. There is not a shred of moral justification for continuing to tax people for entitlements of any nature. So taxation would be ended immediately, if there were any justice. Then the question is, what should happen to the surplus wealth under the control of the government if taxation were ended -- and the answer is, there isn't any. There is a very large debt which is covered up via creative accounting, and no surplus. I grant that it would suck for a person to work all their lives in the pious hope that the government will take care of them in their old age and then find that the state isn't going to really take care of you. But no rational person in the US can possibly think that SS will be viable in the long term, and you should recognise now that this is just money that has been stolen with little hope of recovery, and plan accordingly. The problem with the "I paid into the system, I just want what's coming to me" argument is that it ignores the well-known reality that the government destroys wealth rather than creating it, and therefore at best you can hope to recover a dime on the dollar. Everybody pays into the system, and you cannot wait on ending taxation for everybody to get their full refund. People have learned to depend on the government to take care of them in their old age, so it might seem cruel to make people face reality, and maybe we should not cut on dependence on the state too quickly. The same with the highway system -- gradually taper off. And farm subsidies: many farmers are dependent on those government handouts, so they should be phased out gradually (not!). I have no doubt that there will be some serious pain coming from a swift end to improper government. Actions have consequences, and the actions of the government over the past 200 years (and really just the past 100 years) will have some significant consequences. Since I don't have any expectation, at this point, that things will get better short of an Atlas-style meltdown, the question is pretty much purely academic.

There is a basic rule of the game in academic philosophy, that any idea has to be minutely dissected with reference to its relationship to all other ideas. Rand did not play the citations game, which is partial license to ignore her work. The upside of her not playing the citations game is that you can actually read and understand her ideas. She also did not publish in (academic) peer-reviewd journals, and there is a basic rule that you don't have to pay attention to anything that comes out in an unrefereed souce.

In this case, there is no difference between legally and morally. The best advice in case of uncertainty, if you want absolute certainty, is to consult a team of copyright specialist lawyers. The "problem" would be between the manufacturer and the estate, not the purchaser, and this is typically sorted out by licensing a usage. For example "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted and to perform the song "publically", you have to get permission (easy to do). But it is not a crime to hear an unlicensed performance -- that would impose an unconscionable burden on the audience member to verify that the proper license was obtained. So buying such a shirt is legal (unless you know that it is an illegal usage), but manufacturing one may not be. The fair use section is an important mishmash of good and bad. It grants exemption from copyright laws for nonprofit educational use (bad), but also recognises that the similarity must be "substantial". Hence, nobody can make a copyright infringement claim based on the occurrence of the phrase "my dog" in some earlier work. In this case, I think the relationship between AS and "Rearden Steel" would be recognised as "substantial similarity", but perhaps not "Reardon Steel" (I don't know if you spelled it wrong or that's what actually is on the shirt). If you could ask the author for permission directly, that would be the best course of action. The law states what the conditions for protection are, and if the creater does not want to be subject to those conditions, they can either come up with a clever technical obfuscation scheme (like the Coke formula), or only license the item (check the software you buy), or not market the product at all. As a respecter of the rights of the person creating the work, you should obey those legal restrictions.

I find it strange that the answer could be "yes". I wouldn't say that I'm ethnically Lutheran even though my ancestors were practicing Lutherans. And if someone asks "Are you Norwegian", I don't say "I'm ethnically Norwegian", I say "Well, I had Norwegian ancestors". or (if I'm being irritable) "No, I was born here". The answer to the question "Are you X" is simple. If you identify with the values of X, then you should say "Yes". Otherwise, say "No".

No, I think that's wrong because it leaves out the mind. The ear is a physical transduction device and only initiates low-end neural activity. Perception does not take place in the ear. Properly, the interaction is in the auditory cortex or, if you want to be more general, the auditory system, but not just the ear.