i don't think any group of humans greater than 1 can exist without laws
I'll grant you norms.
But, does a law require some sort of formal legal apparatus? It seems like you could easily have a large group of people who simply lacked the capacity to establish laws beyond norms. Or maybe i'm splitting hairs on the difference between the two.
Either way I think what Annie was actually saying is that you would not know every law that exists unless you were educated to know they exist. e.g. The infield fly rule.
law doesn't require a legal apparatus
when i say law, it's probably synonymous to when you say norms
maybe Annie's point is that there is no natural law and there are only positive (man-made) laws?
which i would also disagree with
I'm not entirely sure I follow you. If laws don't require a legal apparatus, then what is an ex post facto law? Are all laws manifestations of a law that existed all along?
my point is that when any group of humans live together, laws will be developed whether informally or formally through legislative process
ex post facto really only comes into play with formal law making processes and separate enforcement bodies
Ubik on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
ex post facto lorem ipsome dolar sit amet
Weaver on
0
Options
Foolproofthats what my hearts becomein that place you dare not look staring back at youRegistered Userregular
Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and maybe Belgium (though it's relatively poor) all share a relatively socialistic governing system, with (nearly) free or mandatory subsidised healthcare, cheap or free education all the way up to college,and strong social programs for the poor and elderly. I think that an average early 20th century socialist would be pretty pleased with the minimum standard of living over here.
While all these countries are rich, the USA is just as, if not richer. (I guess that nowadays it depends on how you measure overall wealth, and probably close enough depending on €/$ price). But look at this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html (I'm surprised Germany is so low on that chart. It has it's share of problems, but who knows).
Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and maybe Belgium (though it's relatively poor) all share a relatively socialistic governing system, with (nearly) free or mandatory subsidised healthcare, cheap or free education all the way up to college,and strong social programs for the poor and elderly. I think that an average early 20th century socialist would be pretty pleased with the minimum standard of living over here.
While all these countries are rich, the USA is just as, if not richer. (I guess that nowadays it depends on how you measure overall wealth, and probably close enough depending on €/$ price). But look at this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html (I'm surprised Germany is so low on that chart. It has it's share of problems, but who knows).
Yeah, I think climate might be the determining factor here, not economic policy. Alaska also has effectively no poor people, but that is more likely because it is ridiculously difficult to be poor and also alive in Alaska, not because of Alaska's specific economic policy. In sweden and finland I don't think one would have much better luck.
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
FrankoSometimes I really wish I had four feet so I could dance with myself to the drumbeatRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Scandinavia countries only enjoy perfect governmental systems though because they were successful in kicking out most of their browns
Franko on
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
my point is that when any group of humans live together, laws will be developed whether informally or formally through legislative process
ex post facto really only comes into play with formal law making processes and separate enforcement bodies
Ok, well, I think to some extent we are talking about the difference between socialism and communism, at least I think that's the context Annie brought up his comment in. I remember being forced to read some thousand page historical memoir about the USSR and one of the parts I still remember from it is when Kruschiev promised "socialism in our time." So, the USSR was fully cognizant of itself as a communist society that, at least in theory, was working toward socialism.
In that context, the difference between laws and norms might make more sense. In a socialist society, there might not be a need for specific legislation or enforcement bodies, because there isn't sufficient scarcity to make them relevant. Alternatively, perhaps the individuals that comprise the society can generally work things out with norms and not have to rely on a codified law for the vast majority of situations.
So, laws aren't inherent, at least in that context, although norms are. Of course what I consider a norm you might think of as a natural law, so I might be splitting hairs here, but I think in the context of Annie's disagreement with solar, which I took to be about
a) whether or not a haphazardly organized government was the same as a formally organized one
b) And then the possible inevitability of either given some seizure of the means of production
I confused myself now. hold me ubik......
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I imagine that governments have greater chance of success, the smaller the population and resources are to manage.
I've always been a country of one.
alternatively;
Tell that to malta!!!!!
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and maybe Belgium (though it's relatively poor) all share a relatively socialistic governing system, with (nearly) free or mandatory subsidised healthcare, cheap or free education all the way up to college,and strong social programs for the poor and elderly. I think that an average early 20th century socialist would be pretty pleased with the minimum standard of living over here.
While all these countries are rich, the USA is just as, if not richer. (I guess that nowadays it depends on how you measure overall wealth, and probably close enough depending on €/$ price). But look at this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html (I'm surprised Germany is so low on that chart. It has it's share of problems, but who knows).
Yeah, I think climate might be the determining factor here, not economic policy. Alaska also has effectively no poor people, but that is more likely because it is ridiculously difficult to be poor and also alive in Alaska, not because of Alaska's specific economic policy. In sweden and finland I don't think one would have much better luck.
But climate differs a lot between the countries I listed. In the Netherlands snow is rare (I think we average 5cm/year) , Finlands climate is probably nearly equal to Alaska.
I know Dutch figures better then any other for obvious reasons, but the Dutch government raises and spends about 40% of the GDP. The majority of that is social redestribution, collective pension plans, healthcare and education. I think the federal government of the USA is at 19%? And one fifth of that is military spending....
SanderJK on
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
So the Lyndon LaRouche people were out today on the corner. This time they had flyers asking if Obama could have prevented the earthquake in Japan. Something about some professor in god knows where has perfected the method of predicting earthquakes and somehow Obama is undermining it by not funding it or had his dog shot or something. Why he hasn't shared world shattering find with with the greater scientific community was not answered.
They also had the Obama with a Hitler mustache picture out, so I thought I'd ask how they arrived at such a conclusion.
"So uh...what exactly makes him a Nazi or a fascist in general if you prefer?"
I am treated to a blank stare. I think I smell smoke.
"He's giving austerity to the states"
"Uh..okkkk, but seeing as how we're in the midst of a financial crisis that's not entirely unreasonable. That's what a number of the European nations are doing to combat their own debts, what does that have to do with fascism?"
"Where do your allegiances lie?"
"Country first, state second, Patriots third, Red Sox fourth"
"Well right now it's Wall Street first"
"Ok, so that's capitalism run amok, where does that make Obama a Nazi?"
This continued a for a little while and we seemed to be getting nowhere in how Obama was a Nazi, so at that point she handed me a booklet that contains LaRouche's most recent state of the union speech.
"Look, it's all very complex, just read this. It's not something that can really be simplified so easily."
"The Hitler mustache on Obama kinda seems to simplify your message rather clearly, but whatever"
So I read a bit of this booklet. Imagine reading Mein Kampf but swap out the British Empire for the Jews, throw in a Kennedy assassination theory, and an obsession with protecting our fluids and water rights and you basically have this pamphlet. Oh and Barney Frank is in cahoots with Bush and Obama as early as 2007 to keep LaRouche's Homeowner Protection Act from becoming law. Or something like that. I especially liked his call for economic autarky which was last attempted by...the Nazis!!
Sadly there was no mention of his opinion that rock and roll and the Beatles were tools by British intelligence to conduct a psy-war against the US and undermine our very society.
I guess I was grasping at straws, but I thought maybe their own people could at least attempt to explain their message, but that is beyond them entirely.
Dude on my facebook made an update talking about how he hoped a govt. shutdown would make those loafers on welfare sweat for a bit.
I replied that it was hilarious to think people on welfare don't actually work and also deserve to be punished for being poor.
Here is the reply, verbatim
Funny, I turn down opportunities that come my way from headhunters almost weekly. Jobs are available for those that work hard. For those that aren't willing to do the hard things should perish. Get on monster.com or careerbuilder.com. Even in that shithole Toledo there are jobs, but you have to actually be willing to work.
You heard it here first, folks. The answer to the problem of unemployment is for people to get on Monster dot com. Anyone who doesn't should die.
Tell him that if he has any empathy at all, he should educate himself further about the conditions in which other people live before making assumptions, and then remove him from your Facebook.
Dude on my facebook made an update talking about how he hoped a govt. shutdown would make those loafers on welfare sweat for a bit.
I replied that it was hilarious to think people on welfare don't actually work and also deserve to be punished for being poor.
Here is the reply, verbatim
Funny, I turn down opportunities that come my way from headhunters almost weekly. Jobs are available for those that work hard. For those that aren't willing to do the hard things should perish. Get on monster.com or careerbuilder.com. Even in that shithole Toledo there are jobs, but you have to actually be willing to work.
You heard it here first, folks. The answer to the problem of unemployment is for people to get on Monster dot com. Anyone who doesn't should die.
Tell him when Obamacare Death Panels come into full force he will be the first to go.
I don't know about socialism itself, but the people who run the socialist club at my uni (and the socialist club at every other uni) are the biggest dicks.
Dude on my facebook made an update talking about how he hoped a govt. shutdown would make those loafers on welfare sweat for a bit.
I replied that it was hilarious to think people on welfare don't actually work and also deserve to be punished for being poor.
Here is the reply, verbatim
Funny, I turn down opportunities that come my way from headhunters almost weekly. Jobs are available for those that work hard. For those that aren't willing to do the hard things should perish. Get on monster.com or careerbuilder.com. Even in that shithole Toledo there are jobs, but you have to actually be willing to work.
You heard it here first, folks. The answer to the problem of unemployment is for people to get on Monster dot com. Anyone who doesn't should die.
Also tell your buddy that when he receives blanketed emails from recruiting/temp agencies, and hits delete, that's not "turning down an opportunity".
Tell him that if he has any empathy at all, he should educate himself further about the conditions in which other people live before making assumptions, and then remove him from your Facebook.
Dude on my facebook made an update talking about how he hoped a govt. shutdown would make those loafers on welfare sweat for a bit.
I replied that it was hilarious to think people on welfare don't actually work and also deserve to be punished for being poor.
Here is the reply, verbatim
Funny, I turn down opportunities that come my way from headhunters almost weekly. Jobs are available for those that work hard. For those that aren't willing to do the hard things should perish. Get on monster.com or careerbuilder.com. Even in that shithole Toledo there are jobs, but you have to actually be willing to work.
You heard it here first, folks. The answer to the problem of unemployment is for people to get on Monster dot com. Anyone who doesn't should die.
how did he mistake monster.com for facebook
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I'm still going at it with that guy. I have the problem of never being able to let an argument go.
I know this guy and I also used to really look up to him in high-school. He is really funny and I used to hang out with him all the time when i was a freshman and he was a senior.
I also know that his parents are rich as fuck and despite all the mistakes he made he still is doing well because his parents bankrolled his entire college career despite dropping out once. He has zero comprehension of what its like to actually have economic problems. As far as I know he still lives with his parents at age 26.
So I get pretty fucking pissed when a guy who I used to look up and to and who I know has a really cushy life starts suggesting that the unemployed should unironically starve to death if they can't find a job because "the constitution does not guarantee a right to a lifestyle."
Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and maybe Belgium (though it's relatively poor) all share a relatively socialistic governing system, with (nearly) free or mandatory subsidised healthcare, cheap or free education all the way up to college,and strong social programs for the poor and elderly. I think that an average early 20th century socialist would be pretty pleased with the minimum standard of living over here.
While all these countries are rich, the USA is just as, if not richer. (I guess that nowadays it depends on how you measure overall wealth, and probably close enough depending on €/$ price). But look at this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html (I'm surprised Germany is so low on that chart. It has it's share of problems, but who knows).
Yeah, I think climate might be the determining factor here, not economic policy. Alaska also has effectively no poor people, but that is more likely because it is ridiculously difficult to be poor and also alive in Alaska, not because of Alaska's specific economic policy. In sweden and finland I don't think one would have much better luck.
Uh, you realize that Alaska residents (and most of the Scandinavian countries) benefit from energy and natural resource extraction, dividends from which are distributed amongst the citizenry, right?
Posts
my point is that when any group of humans live together, laws will be developed whether informally or formally through legislative process
ex post facto really only comes into play with formal law making processes and separate enforcement bodies
While all these countries are rich, the USA is just as, if not richer. (I guess that nowadays it depends on how you measure overall wealth, and probably close enough depending on €/$ price). But look at this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html (I'm surprised Germany is so low on that chart. It has it's share of problems, but who knows).
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
Challenge: do it without linking to a wall of text somebody else wrote.
At least it's an ethos.
Yeah, I think climate might be the determining factor here, not economic policy. Alaska also has effectively no poor people, but that is more likely because it is ridiculously difficult to be poor and also alive in Alaska, not because of Alaska's specific economic policy. In sweden and finland I don't think one would have much better luck.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
That and because they aren't walking cane accessible.
The joke here is that you are old.
Ok, well, I think to some extent we are talking about the difference between socialism and communism, at least I think that's the context Annie brought up his comment in. I remember being forced to read some thousand page historical memoir about the USSR and one of the parts I still remember from it is when Kruschiev promised "socialism in our time." So, the USSR was fully cognizant of itself as a communist society that, at least in theory, was working toward socialism.
In that context, the difference between laws and norms might make more sense. In a socialist society, there might not be a need for specific legislation or enforcement bodies, because there isn't sufficient scarcity to make them relevant. Alternatively, perhaps the individuals that comprise the society can generally work things out with norms and not have to rely on a codified law for the vast majority of situations.
So, laws aren't inherent, at least in that context, although norms are. Of course what I consider a norm you might think of as a natural law, so I might be splitting hairs here, but I think in the context of Annie's disagreement with solar, which I took to be about
a) whether or not a haphazardly organized government was the same as a formally organized one
b) And then the possible inevitability of either given some seizure of the means of production
I confused myself now. hold me ubik......
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I've always been a country of one.
alternatively;
Tell that to malta!!!!!
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
But climate differs a lot between the countries I listed. In the Netherlands snow is rare (I think we average 5cm/year) , Finlands climate is probably nearly equal to Alaska.
I know Dutch figures better then any other for obvious reasons, but the Dutch government raises and spends about 40% of the GDP. The majority of that is social redestribution, collective pension plans, healthcare and education. I think the federal government of the USA is at 19%? And one fifth of that is military spending....
:^:
They also had the Obama with a Hitler mustache picture out, so I thought I'd ask how they arrived at such a conclusion.
"So uh...what exactly makes him a Nazi or a fascist in general if you prefer?"
I am treated to a blank stare. I think I smell smoke.
"He's giving austerity to the states"
"Uh..okkkk, but seeing as how we're in the midst of a financial crisis that's not entirely unreasonable. That's what a number of the European nations are doing to combat their own debts, what does that have to do with fascism?"
"Where do your allegiances lie?"
"Country first, state second, Patriots third, Red Sox fourth"
"Well right now it's Wall Street first"
"Ok, so that's capitalism run amok, where does that make Obama a Nazi?"
This continued a for a little while and we seemed to be getting nowhere in how Obama was a Nazi, so at that point she handed me a booklet that contains LaRouche's most recent state of the union speech.
"Look, it's all very complex, just read this. It's not something that can really be simplified so easily."
"The Hitler mustache on Obama kinda seems to simplify your message rather clearly, but whatever"
So I read a bit of this booklet. Imagine reading Mein Kampf but swap out the British Empire for the Jews, throw in a Kennedy assassination theory, and an obsession with protecting our fluids and water rights and you basically have this pamphlet. Oh and Barney Frank is in cahoots with Bush and Obama as early as 2007 to keep LaRouche's Homeowner Protection Act from becoming law. Or something like that. I especially liked his call for economic autarky which was last attempted by...the Nazis!!
Sadly there was no mention of his opinion that rock and roll and the Beatles were tools by British intelligence to conduct a psy-war against the US and undermine our very society.
Please tell me you believe this.
I replied that it was hilarious to think people on welfare don't actually work and also deserve to be punished for being poor.
Here is the reply, verbatim
You heard it here first, folks. The answer to the problem of unemployment is for people to get on Monster dot com. Anyone who doesn't should die.
Tell him when Obamacare Death Panels come into full force he will be the first to go.
Homework shouldn't be monopolised by the individual, it should be distributed fairly among the masses.
This was a few pages back but I TOTALLY misread Koshian and am a bit of a dope. Government run is not the same as socialism and whoooops.
Also tell your buddy that when he receives blanketed emails from recruiting/temp agencies, and hits delete, that's not "turning down an opportunity".
Also, stop visiting his CityVille
how did he mistake monster.com for facebook
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I know this guy and I also used to really look up to him in high-school. He is really funny and I used to hang out with him all the time when i was a freshman and he was a senior.
I also know that his parents are rich as fuck and despite all the mistakes he made he still is doing well because his parents bankrolled his entire college career despite dropping out once. He has zero comprehension of what its like to actually have economic problems. As far as I know he still lives with his parents at age 26.
So I get pretty fucking pissed when a guy who I used to look up and to and who I know has a really cushy life starts suggesting that the unemployed should unironically starve to death if they can't find a job because "the constitution does not guarantee a right to a lifestyle."
Uh, you realize that Alaska residents (and most of the Scandinavian countries) benefit from energy and natural resource extraction, dividends from which are distributed amongst the citizenry, right?
something about how california could be next for earthquakes and blah blah we're first year college students who havent a clue about geology