Doug Morris

What is your basis for this statement? What is your definition of libertarian?

Does asking people to back up their claims constitute "playing games"? I never try to play games. What grounds do you have for this accusation?

It is the Republicans' responsibility to get out the Republican vote. If the Democrats did a better job, this does not make a stolen election.

A piece of cancer does not have a life, neither actual nor potential, and definitely does not have rights. Also, it does not make sense to talk about taking care of the piece of cancer unless there is a need to study it. Trees and kittens do not have rights the way humans do. A person who brings home a stray kitten, separating it from its mother, and does not intend to provide for it in any way, is within their political rights, but such action does not make sense.

That's not the point. The point is that someone who creates dependency thereby acquires responsibility. If you create a dependent child, you are responsible for that child. If you initiate force against someone in a manner that renders them dependent, you are responsible for paying for their care.

What about the argument that those responsible for bringing a child into existence thereby acquire a responsibility to take care of its needs?

DavidOdden, you have given a good answer to one question. Another question is, can failure to educate a child rise to a level that justifies government intervention to protect the child's rights?

It seems pretty clear that neglecting a child's nutritional needs can rise to the level of abuse or neglect, in extreme cases justifying government intervention to protect the rights of the child. What about the child's educational needs? Are we obligated to see that the child learns the three R's? Are we obligated to see that the child learns anything else?

A somewhat related discussion is in today's email edition of the New York Times: "Probabilistic decision-making tends to be better decision-making, Robert Rubin has learned with help from a yellow pad. "

This would require unanimity to be morally justified. And the justification would cease if the unanimity ceases, if for example someone who does not agree inherits or buys one of the properties.

Governments can act immorally, and noncitizens can be victims of such immoral action. This does not make nation states a priori immoral. Such immorality needs to be remedied by citizens reforming their own government, not by some "morality based entity ‘higher’ than the country’s sovereignty over ‘itself’ and its laws". What does that even mean? It is an infringement on the noncitizens' moral rights, not on their legal rights, which in the morally infringing country are defined by the morally infringing country. In my second sentence I made clear that I was talking about moral rights, not legal rights. The word "may" in the first sentence also refers to morality, not legality.

Did the judges refuse to try the cases at all, or did they merely refuse to grant preliminary injunctions? What exactly did they say?

According to Thomas, the country was “fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. … But we may not be so lucky next time.”

You moved the goalposts,, changing "most" to "more".

There are reasons why someone might win without being most popular, such as being everyone's second choice, or being perceived as having the best chance to beat the main opponent. This applies to both popular choice and rivals dropping out. I don't know how many people, if any, claim Harris was the most popular choice. But she was certainly Biden's choice, for whatever reason.