Old Geezer

There are laws requiring caregivers for the elderly and for children to report abuse if it is in any way suspected. While it is clearly morally acceptable to be pro-active in such a situation, is it appropriate for the government to mandate active participation by employees? Why?

For other purposes perhaps not. But one of the rolls of government is to punish criminals... if someone were to knowingly violate someone's rights (I acknowledge this not to be the case in speeding) they have forfeited all of their own, and the government's job at that point is simply determining HOW MUCH of their rights it is cost effective/smart etc to allow back. I acknowledge that Speeding isn't necessarilly a violation of rights etc so this is sort of an aside... Imade my assertion based on our domestic statistics which show that as speed limits are raised deaths go up exponentially. I am inclined to think that the "safer roads" on the Autobahn have more to do with our countrys' infatuation with Alcohol, its geographical size, the demographic shift towards the suburbs, Germany's prohibition of many things not related to driving (such as talking on cell phone), and a few other factors. BTW I am under the impression that the Autobahn has a 130km speed limit

If the standard is say one percent of one's income for a particular crime, would that be different? I dont understand how the second part of that sentence follows from the first. but the increase in traffic accidents is not negligible, its exponential

You violate the rights of the original owners to recover said property as soon as the thief is tracked down. You have no right to obstruct the carrying forth of justice. Also, you have no right to knowingly utilize the products of someone elses effort without their consent. You have not explicitly obtained their consent. (for instance, if you find a cell phone on the street, you have no right to run up a big phone bill with it, even though finding it was not wrong)

Apparently the United States is responsible for tribal fighting that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands....silly me, I would have thought it was the people doing the fighting GRRR....

not true at the tail end of Saddam's regime. By extension anyone purchased anything of value from Iraq would have materially supported Saddam's Regime and therefore bombworthy as you have explained. (buy gas lately?)

The rich are being fined more for violations of the law The goals of punishment are different than the goals of taxation. It can be argued that progressive taxation is immoral because it punishes the producer of wealth. But a punishment must effect the perpetrator in such a way as to have a detterrent effect. it must also pass the litmus test for justice; what are the moral and legal ramifications of progressive punishment?

the irony of the issue for me is that it has now forced smokers to smoke in non private property. so if like some in my family, they are asthmatically sensitive to smoke, they now have to go out of their way to avoid the smoke.

certainly its less restrictive than Ireland's ban on smoking in your own home office! but I suppose thats not much comfort I dont like cigarette smoking and I hate the manipulative tactics the tobacco Companies have used in the past, and I hate that bar owners havent invested more in an improved situation, but that doesn't mean I advocate anything that went down in NY BTW, I think its funny how this adversity has provided us with the "nicotini" has anyone tried it? is it any good? Necessity really is the mother of invention.

HA! That line is signature worthy.... its too bad I only have one

It doesnt necessarilly follow from a correlational relationship that freedom is the cause of unhappiness. (It could be for instance that people feel "guilty" for being "materialistic" etc) I am reffering to research regarding countries with other than economic freedoms, but some socialist policies (mostly across the pond) the question for me isn't "why are they coming here". The question is do they find what they searched for? Why they are financially successfull seems abundantly clear. What is not as clear to me is what is going on that people are not happy about it.

as I understand it the research on happiness does not reflect this. (in fact it shows an inverse relationship) do you have a link?

perhaps some more recent examples would help: Iraq(pre liberation): Baathism=Socialism North Korea=Socialist, etc etc. on a lark,static, why dont you run a correlation equation comparing the number of nationalized industries etc with the number of HR abuses, and ask why such a correlation might exist? PS, I think your tag is particularly appropriate for an advocate of a system which is sure to lead to the preservation of the status quo.

Jesse, how about some "educated insight" into how his points are irrelevant instead of mere attacks on his motives???? Physical reality prevents someone from "discovering"... and when access to physical reality is unjustly denied or manipulated, (as Saddam often did) one is physically prevented from "discovery" of that which is relevant to this discussion to an extent, you are living as a slave, why is it you are not willing to die for that cause? reject yes what do you mean by factor??? it is relevant because unless they were AWARE of unjustices being carried forth on others the only basis on which they would have decided whether Saddam was worth dying for or not was what inustices he carried out that effected them.

No, but it prevents them from getting what amounts to perceptual information By which to make judgements about the full horror of Saddam's regime. Why Bother educating your children then? Also, why have a philosophy of education if it does not matter how one educates? that wasnt my point RE where Saddam directed his wrath. My point is that people less effected by his wrath would not necessarily choose to kill him, Yes it does... My physically manipulating who was allowed to be where when, he prevented people from discovering via direct sense data, and by physically limiting people's access to anything but false indirect sense data. he limited their ability pass accurate judgements on those particular situations.

That they can understand the evilness of the regime is certainly hindered by several factors. 1. For many people Did not have access to anything other than state run media.(perception) 2. The educational system was so fucked up that "concept formation" was certainly hindered. So too was history etc(Concept formation_) 3. Much of Saddam's wrath was directed at his perceived troublemakers and was 12 years ago, for many others he was just the "prick that is responsible for me having to bribe Dr's"(Judgement) 4. When Blatant incidents happened, Saddam actively tried to distort reality and make it appear as if others were more Certainly there were many people that should have known that not dying was an awful evasion, that wasnt the case for all.

Smart military strategy isn't about resting on one's laurel's it is about accounting for all contingincies. While it is highly unlikely that they could become a threat to our power, it is entirely possible that we will lose control of essential services (as we have to an extent in the illegal arms trade) and it is also possible that they will begin to influence policy

Why all this guess work about "why they hate us"??? The terrorists that have attacked Americans directly have always been clear about the policies they dont like: 1. Support for Israel. 2. Support for Tyrannical Governments in ME 3.Iraq Sanctions 4. "infedels in Sacred Lands" 5. Occupation of Iraq

Wow.... This one isn't as inspiring its kinda fun though.... I was with My Girlfriend one time in New Orleans she had her purse stolen with both our ID's, all our money, and the keys to her locked car (with our "emergency money" in it) we had to wait until we could get a spare set of keys sent from her sister by mail, and we had no food, no money, no ID, no car, and no clue about the city. We went door to door in the pooring rain to just about every establishment in the French Quarters looking for work, any work, to pay us money. Quite literally all we had was the shirt on oour backs. Finally we convinced an owner of a bar to hire her as a cocktail waitress and me as a bouncer (my stature is not exactly Bounceresque, and she had no clue about drinks but she learned pretty fast that night) It was the best date I ever had. things like that bring strength to a relationship like you would never believe.

Thanks RE how come there arent banner adds etc on this site? I cant say I'd mind.

objectivism has enough of a branding/image problem as it is, no need to make the problem worse!

Well I was not talking about homosexual relationships.. I am talking about homosexual marriages... but the only times I have heard research about promiscuity and sexuality, it has suggested that the overall rates of monogymy are about the same, have you heard recent research to the contrary? do you have it available as a link? thanks

A pre-existing condition clause essentially ensures that insurance companies do not take on policies that would not be cost effective. For instance, lets say that I went 40 years without health insurance then found out I had a tumor that requires a $1,000,000 surgery tommorow. Even if I went out and bought the cadilac of insurance that day, they wouldnt pay for my surgery the next day. I would imagine that any Insurance company trying to grab market share of their new market (gay married couples) would probably find the most cost effective solution which would be a battery of STD tests before being insured, which would amount to discriminatory profiling perhaps, but not policy discrimination. but any of those concerns are likely to be neutralized, since the fastest growing risk groups for the most expensive STD's are not gay men, but rather straight women, and the research that originaly suggested that people who are gay are more promiscuous doesnt seem to be panning out very well last I heard... (links would be appreciated)

This is only the case without a "preexisting condition" clause, which most insurance has .

"By the way only Americans are being hired, I don't know where you would get the fact that Saudis are protecting Americans. I sure as hell know we would not allow such a thing." Dyncorps does work for the United States Military, and they Do work for the Saudi Military. Check out the investor relations section of their web page, and check out the link I posted up top. " You seem to be talking about some specific company perhaps that is true for those companies, but we are also hiring these corporations to do things like military operations in SA while they are under contract, this is true... But contracts are open to expiration. and when the private armies are big enough, they are open to flat out breaches,