tadmjones

How is 'patentless' capitalism any less artificial? Or capitalism for that matter.

re watts example So it wasn't really Watts' gaining a patent that harmed himself and society at large , economically, just his enforcement of it ?

Wright's , Count To A Trillion was great, have yet to get any more of his , but plan to. Neal Stephenson is fantastic.

re second-handedness The idea of being second- handed, as I understand it, is centered around how one values or picks values. A secondhanded person will look to others for the things to value. Right , wrong or indifferent they will value that which others do. They will not choose their own values but rely on what others think and adopt them seemingly unquestionably. Secondhanders lack discretion , they not only 'go with the flow' but actively pursue the flow and and mimic it. Secondhandedness is less than virtuous based on the idea of its lack of integrity, not from any socio-economic status.

DonAthos When reading your post I heard Col Jessup in the back of my mind , "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall". Granted the context was a defense of the warrior 'class' and its function of protecting citizens of a nation from enemies of the nation and not domestic law enforcement, but I think it may speak to what could be meant by 'our present context'. The thin blue line , the policemen 'class' , the idea of an ongoing perpetual war of us vs them and the police as only guardians of civility and that 'they' should be granted certain leeway.

And like Bubba says , it ultimately rests on the meaning of what 'is' is, right Frank?

Are you asking if writing fiction is or is not a worthwhile pursuit, or if the genre is "acceptable "? I think the answer to the former is obvious, and to the latter maybe don't ask who will let you just let them try and stop you

3450~ pages a day read and analyzed, some feat.

From my recollection of the coverage the word charge or charging was the word used by a witness to the shooting and was probably reported to show corroboration of the Wilson's account. In the testimony Wilson says he returned to the station without having contact with any of the witnesses, are you suggesting he planted that word with the witness somehow , it seems more likely that that term was the one used by witness. Do the Staten Island police have any connection with the police force in Fergeson, or is it that all cops in the US are scared of black guys( including the supervising officer in the Garner case)?

How did Wilson assertain that Brown was unarmed, without a search of his person and given his voilent confrontation isn't reasonable for Wilson to at east entertain the possibility that Brown may have been armed? The fact he was unarmed was only determined after the altercation.

Well to be fair, jaywalking shoplifters who assault armed police officers, break contact and then re-engage a police officer who is armed and firing in their direction.

This assailant was fatally shot in the head 10 ft from the officer he was charging, what does that say about the officer's valid options. For that matter, what of the assailant's 'valid options?

So your contention is that had Brown sat down on the curb and admitted that he in fact had just committed a robbery, Wilson would have shot him dead?

DA Just don't forget to factor in the time it takes for a target that is advancing toward the shooter. And the characteristics of firing a pistol multiple times in a specific time period. My understanding of the event was that the officer was reacting to a person who had assualted him and tried to gain control of his weapon , who just happened to be someone who also recently committed a strong arm robbery. Are you trying to characterize the officer's reaction to cigarello thievery, seriously ?

Good philosophy didn't seem a strong enough antidote. Even in the media hype there were messages of 'shouldn't' and mustn't', the woman and those like her lost their property because there werent enough people there saying "Don't"

Being long time married and attending a large family gathering my odds seem fowl at breast.

I was referring to the mechanism that permits voters to vote for certain services to be provided.

My larger point was that your stance necessitates "squaring majority rule" with a government based on the sole function of protecting individual rights.

Given the hypothetical state, one I assume that is based on the principle that the sole purpose of is the protection of individual rights, where does majority rule of acceptable services provided, come in ? And how would government provided services even somehow funded without coercion in any sense , by possible or more desirable then those that would arise from the actions of free individuals in the open market?

lol Louie the agressor and DA the sanctioning victim

Fred May the force be with you, I think I see my exit

Fred re #96 Why would you characterize the actions of the police in that situation as an initiation of force ?

In a societal context, force is either moral or immoral. The initiation of force is immoral, not because it could or may be otherwise, but because of the nature of the act, its identity. Force is not simultaneously both at the same time and then becomes one or the other. The concept of ' the use of force' is amoral, specific actions of specific entities can be either moral or immoral when properly identified.

Fred I misinterptretted your question re #88, no my statement so worded would not make sense. The statement about green makes sense, because of the identity of the color green and the identity of volition. Though perhaps it would be more(?) true to say my understanding of their respective identitites, they definately have identity, but I could have an incorrect understanding

The phenomenon of 'force' in general? or a specific instance of a moral agent 'using force' in regard me ?