Zip
-
Posts
2143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Zip
-
-
Unconditionally? No. i could not imagine loving my children if they were child abusers, pedophiles or murderers. It would break my heart, but such a thing proven without a doubt would be enough to destroy my love of them.
-
I think there is a huge dropping of context here. al-Awlaki wasn't acting as a us citizen when he was killed he was an enemy combatant. He was actively engaged in a war against your country and as such he was a legitimate military target, no different than any Taliban terrorist firing his AK at US troops. His citizenship is not protection, nor does it provide an excuse for his direct and violent action against your country.
-
Trebor. I do understand the interconnected nature of rights but there are crimes which primarily concern ones property (theft) ones liberty (Kidnapping) or ones life (murder) and regardless of the philosophical nature of those rights it remains useful to list them in priority (as Rand does) and to use that hierarchy as a basis to determine which crime is deserving of the harsher punishment.
This is a prime example of what happens when that hierarchy is ignored/forgotten...
-
Personally I would place the crimes according to which of the individual rights was violated with the most severe punishments for violations of the right to life, then liberty then property; the first two dealing with actual harm to a person vice a more abstract violation of ones rights to property.
So a person who robs a bank would not (normally) expect a harsher sentence than a person who commits rape, but one who robs a bank at gunpoint would earn a harsher sentence than the unarmed robber because of the added possibility of a violation to the lives and liberty of the others in the bank at the time of the robbery.
Consequently the greater the violation the greater the punishment, a rapist would not normally be subject to the same punishment as a person who tortures and rapes his victims or a murderer
Of course there will be mitigating circumstances in many cases and the context of the crime must be taken into account as well.
*edited for formatting*
-
Being a soldier.
At least in the Canadian Forces it is a way to make quite a good living at a young age and when/if you should release you get a good serverance and perks such as education and/or training grants. I'm fairly certain that the US Army has similar programs but others can probably speak to these better than I.
-
While it may also be improper to give a terse response to a redundant question, it is proper forum etiquette (mentioned on the forum rules page) to search first before starting a new thread.
Point taken but newbies also need to get the feel for a place in order to be comfortable as part of a community like this, and asking an easy question is often a good way to do that.
-
-
People could. And we would all be free to disassociate ourselves from them, to publicly let it be known that they are abusers of defenseless animals. To warn people to not let those others take care of their children or to watch their pets. We could privately censure them for those despicable acts, we could organize and boycott their business if we so choose; because although their acts would be permissible in a free society, they are still morally reprehensible, disgusting, and cruel.
-
With regard to Andrei and Leo ask yourself which is the more honest/moral position...
1. Andrei - I used to believe "X". I have been shown and now understand that it is wrong. I can't live like this any longer I must escape... any way I can.
2. Leo - I believe "Y" but that is not the way things are so, if I can't beat them I might as well join them. Ooh, I can drink myself into oblivion as I do it too.
Yes, I'm prejudiced in Andrei's favor. Andrei is a good example of how an honest man, even if he is completely convinced that he is correct, after being proven wrong will not compromise but change his course 360 degrees to comply with facts and reality.
Even as a Commie Andrei was a better man than Leo.
-
Good guess, Zip. But not so. My point is: cutting (or raising) taxes is irrelevant to freedom. Only cutting spending and regulation advances liberty. Cutting taxes is fool's gold -- or sheer poison.
Interesting POV. I will have to think on this. I'm not sure the two are as separated as you think.
-
Wait, never mind about that. The fact that he referred to ''their barge'' seems to imply that the different governments would rule over different geographical regions, i.e. different islands.
Yes, they are Libertarians. And yes, they plan on having all these "barges" joined together.
Competing Governments... The fun game every power hungry madman can play...
-
Oh... It's ontology spelled incorrectly.
-
Living doesn't merely mean the ability to continue to draw breath and sustain life, it is the enjoyment of our existence with all the chances and even dangers that sometimes includes. Avoiding death isn't ones highest value, living is.
- Sergeant343, aequalsa and ttime
-
3
-
I don't think they could do that if the island was built in international waters.
For what it is worth UNCLOS prohibits any such construct in international waters.
-
It's much more concerning to me that this is being founded on Libertarian principals and that system's lack of a proper central government will lead to anarchy with the strong ruling the weak, and that failure will be laid at the feet of Laissez Faire/capitalism.
-
Why not cut spending, taxes, and regulation? Taxes are amoral so any reduction in taxes is a moral goal.
I think Wotan's point is that the Republicans want to cut Taxes, which historically leads to more money being brought in to government coffers, just to increase the amount of money available for the state to waste on spending. It's not actualy saving any citizen money because when taxes are lower we tend to buy, consume more and produce more wealth, which is then expropriated in smaller (but more frequent) ammounts.
-
-
Take it as you will. I only mentioned it when, the point about re-evaluation of my life was brought up. Don't mistake me doing better in comp sci classes for me doing amazingly well in comp sci classes. I have been reading about, using and fixing computers all of my life. With that said, where I make a C in comp sci classes (or I was proud to have made a B recently) I make a d or f in other classes. I am lucky enough to have a compiler in CMPS classes,so there is no guess work. Also, unlike math or english, I have a program that can be verified to work, not work or act like charles manson on a 4 day meth high. If you objectively believe that someone choose to screw up for 20 years starting at age 3 and is "lazy" for all of that time. There is nothing I can say or do that is going to change your mind.
Just rest assured, whatever lowly opinion you seem to have of me. I probably have worse. I will only say this, if you honestly believe you can pick something up and start doing it for the first time, be my guest. If you don't happen to play video games on a regular basis, go ahead... Try out guild wars. If you don't happen to work out, try running a mile.. not even running really.. Just try to maintain a pace faster than a walk for a mile or two. No matter how "easy" or "simple" something is to do, does not mean you can just pick up a skill and perfect it over night.
You are correct, what I wrote was harsh... and it was supposed to be.
I understand the difference between a physically verifiable right or wrong (as embodied in a Computer that works or doesn't) as opposed to the facts of history or the construction of an english sentence, but in their own way those things are just as falsifyable as the computer, it's just not as easily recognized.
I don't have a low opinion of you, it takes quite a lot to admit that you have these sorts of problems, so many of us don't. But I do find it disturbing that you have (aparently) a low opinion of yourself.
I never said it would be easy to change, never once implied that I find it easy to do everything/anything the first time. I'm not that smart or talented, but your response is telling... All I read was "Oh yeah, well you think you're so smart you go ahead and do it". That is the response of someone who has already, on some level, given up. I might be right out to lunch with that assessment but if I'm not then you have to decide what you are going to do about it.
-
20 years of bad study habits is shooting me in the foot
You realize that YOU are the person in charge of YOUR study habits right?
If you know you have horrible habits then change them. There are plenty of references online that explain how to schedule your study, how to find a stratagem that works for you.
This sounds like nothing more than a cop out.
If it is in you to do well with those subjects that interest you then your problem isn't stupidity, or depression, or anything else, its laziness. You have to direct yourself, you have to integrate the idea that without passing ALL your courses you WILL most likely be left in the situation you dread, without prospects of stable employment, living at a standard below your ideal and possibly even digging ditches, but that would require a heavy machinery operators license so you best set your sights on being the fry guy at McDonald's.
-
The military is a proper function of government, but not at the state level as I understand it.
The federal government determines pensions and compensation for Vets why should a state offer up more? If your state offered the best plan what would stop more vets from moving to your state to take advantage of their (relatively) generous package? People tend to get emotional about Vets pensions and support but remember long gone are the days when an amputation meant begging on the sidewalk. Many people who suffer serious injuries in war now can expect to live relatively normal and productive lives.
As long as the infrastructure is owned and controlled by the state then there is little choice but to allow the state to have the money it needs to maintain it. Having said that I can bet that there are a multitude of government programs that are an absolute waste of money... There should be pressure on government to cut these in order to provide the money for the infrastructure that it is their responsibility to maintain.
-
1. The populace that does not think it necessary to support the freedoms it enjoys through voluntary service does not deserve to enjoy the freedoms it has.
2. If you have to force people to support the state then the state does not deserve to exist.
--
As to (1) - I have a problem with the army. It is fundamentally totalitarian. They try to use totalitarian structures to protect freedom.
Then again, I do not want to kill people.
Ever been in the army? I find that a good deal of what people "believe" about the army (without ever having served or thought of serving) is little more than leftist kool-aid.
The army of a properly governed nation would be just about as much about "killing people" (with all the indiscriminate floating abstractions pumped into that loaded sentence) as the US government is interested in spending less money.
-
As a soldier there are certain things that come to mind with regard to conscription.
1. Although some conscript armies are fairly skilled they still rely on a corps of professionals to make it all work. There is no such thing as a purely conscripted force. In the end the Conscript = cannon fodder and the skilled trades and backbone (leadership) of the unskilled trades rely on a professional troops.
2. In the Canadian Forces it takes about 1.5 years to produce a "trained" armoured Trooper. The period of conscription for most armies is between 2 and 3 years. So by the time the soldier is trained he has already served 3/4 to 1/2 of his service... He does not and will not ever become as proficient as the volunteer.
3. Weapons systems continue to get more and more sophisticated requiring a higher and higher level of training.
From a political/philosophical POV:
1. The populace that does not think it necessary to support the freedoms it enjoys through voluntary service does not deserve to enjoy the freedoms it has.
2. If you have to force people to support the state then the state does not deserve to exist.
3. When it comes down to bullets and bayonets you can not force a man to fight for his country, this is true if he volunteers or if he is forced to volunteer, though obviously more so for the latter.
Conscription is a tool of the statist, of the nationalist and of the tyrant. It has no place in the lives of free men on in the ideals of a country founded on the principal of individual rights... ever.
If a nation is going to exist to champion individual rights first and foremost, then it must do so with not only the consent of the governed but with their action and will as well.
-
Zip, why was it significantly important for him to keep the Swedish citizenship?
I never knew the man well enough to know, or even to ask. I remember meeting him only once, he was a drunk and Dad didn't want to have anything to do with him. Being that Switzerland was his nation of birth I would think that it was some sort of nationalism.
-
"Well, we might be able to imagine such a scenario where refusing to volunteer would be that you are being a "free rider" off the national defense, and you may be condemned morally for doing so."
That was exactly the situation my Paternal Grandfather was in during WW2. Being a Dual Swiss/Canadian citizen he could not fight for Canada against the Germans as he feared losing his Swiss citizenship which is standard. He (and my father in turn) was vilified as either a coward or alternatively because his name was German in origin, was accused of being a closet Nazi.
Loving Children
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted
Possibly; but I've seen the term used in the way I understood it like it was some sort of biological imperative and that is just wrong.