Laws and tyranny

[Vidi]

"Oddball", is a name, subjective? NO? Could therefore be considered name calling

Actually no. It is his chosen name on this board. It is either true or false, but not open to interpretation, thus objective.

Now if one were to same that someones name was fitting to their personality, THAT would be subjective as it is a matter of opinion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Again I would disagree. The right as a given is still a value based concept thus subjective.

I would say that to get beyond it, the hypothesis should accept that laws are subjective but application of law can be and should be objective.

I conceded the right as given was subjective. What I was saying is that the right is subjective but the laws that support that right are objective to the right. See my example.

 

[Vidi]

Again I would disagree. The right as a given is still a value based concept thus subjective.

I would say that to get beyond it, the hypothesis should accept that laws are subjective but application of law can be and should be objective.

I conceded the right as given was subjective. What I was saying is that the right is subjective but the laws that support that right are objective to the right. See my example.

Fair enough. I can accept that condition as stated.

 

[daveman]

So, why do we have bleeding heart laws, though? Just yesterday, folks want to put a company out of business because, in spite of the company following labeling laws, someone still got hurt.

Buckyballs fight back - The Washington Post

How is this not tyranny on its face?

Why are they having to spend money of advertising to keep their freedom to operate?

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

You're ending their state of being alive, not taking it with you. You got a lot of witch doctors in your area or something?

Is that your life to put to an end, Mr. Smartypants?

Ehhh, I think I get it.I don't think i understood right til you phrased it like that.That is, If you're saying that the killer has no right to intervene in an otherwise natural cycle of life.Liike, if a person was left to their on volition then they would either die from killing themselves or an age-related death etc etc etc; but an indivdual killing said person would be a disruption in an otherwise natural life cycle? Similar to how government regulations can interfere with capitalism's otherwise natural "boom&bust" cycle? The context of the other post seemed, to me, like you were saying that when someone kills another person, then that person is having their life stolen from them
Was thinking "to take one's life" was a play on words.
.
..
...
....
Sorry.

 

[Si modo]

There will always be conflict between governments’ efforts to enact legislation both necessary and proper and the individual's right to liberty; and for the most part this is a desirable aspect of a free society.

It is incumbent upon government to enact legislation it believes in good faith to be Constitutional, and it is presumed to be such until determined otherwise in a court of law.

It is likewise incumbent upon each citizen to push back against government excess and compel the state to justify a given measure, that an actual and legitimate governmental interest exists, and require the state to objectively document its rationale.

The legislation passed concerning military funerals, for example, was as much political pandering as ‘feel good legislation,’ if not more so.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

The government isn’t ‘seizing the business,’ the CPSC, part of the Executive Branch, filed an administrative complaint seeking the product not be sold because of possible health risks:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.pdf

Nor is the CPSC violating the Constitution, as the complaint was filed pursuant to Federal law, as cited. The company in question will have ample opportunity to defend its position during the complaint process.

To the first part, I agree.

To the second part, effectively the government IS seizing that business. It's using its authority to cease selling the product that IS its business. And, as one of our principles of this country is the assumption of innocence, the business has to spend money to keep the government from allowing it to operate when no law was broken?

That's pretty fucked up - many civil rights violations going on.

 

[Vidi]

As the validity of the Hypothesis is based the objective/subjective condition, semantics are absolutely necessary.

 

[Si modo]

As the validity of the Hypothesis is based the objective/subjective condition, semantics are absolutely necessary.

No it's not. Just stop.

I've already explicitly described exactly what the point of my OP is a few times now.

You are going way off topic at this point.

Please take it to another thread.

 

[Intense]

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

Not exactly. Consider clarity of purpose, drive. vision.

All exist regardless of regulation, do they not?

Depends on the Person and the circumstances.

 

[Intense]

Just a reminder. The object inside the CDZ is constructive argument, void of put downs, insults, threats, general flames and baiting. Yeah, we all need to adjust. Bottom line, the more we stick to that, the less we will be removing Posts. There have been some really positive changes here.

 

[FA_Q2]

As the validity of the Hypothesis is based the objective/subjective condition, semantics are absolutely necessary.

No it's not. Just stop.

I've already explicitly described exactly what the point of my OP is a few times now.

You are going way off topic at this point.

Please take it to another thread.

But he conceede the point a few posts ago. I was hoping that this debate would continue based off that but I see it has not gone anywhere. Is this now a dead topic

 

[editec]

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Ah yes, the age old question about objective reality and subjective observers...I tend to go with this interpretation

The relational interpretation makes no fundamental distinction between the human experimenter, the cat, or the apparatus, or between animate and inanimate systems; all are quantum systems governed by the same rules of wavefunction evolution, and all may be considered "observers." But the relational interpretation allows that different observers can give different accounts of the same series of events, depending on the information they have about the system.[11] The cat can be considered an observer of the apparatus; meanwhile, the experimenter can be considered another observer of the system in the box (the cat plus the apparatus). Before the box is opened, the cat, by nature of it being alive or dead, has information about the state of the apparatus (the atom has either decayed or not decayed); but the experimenter does not have information about the state of the box contents. In this way, the two observers simultaneously have different accounts of the situation: To the cat, the wavefunction of the apparatus has appeared to "collapse"; to the experimenter, the contents of the box appear to be in superposition. Not until the box is opened, and both observers have the same information about what happened, do both system states appear to "collapse" into the same definite result, a cat that is either alive or dead.

 

[Si modo]

As the validity of the Hypothesis is based the objective/subjective condition, semantics are absolutely necessary.

No it's not. Just stop.

I've already explicitly described exactly what the point of my OP is a few times now.

You are going way off topic at this point.

Please take it to another thread.

But he conceede the point a few posts ago. I was hoping that this debate would continue based off that but I see it has not gone anywhere. Is this now a dead topic

Yes, I thought he had conceded it earlier in the thread, too, but as you see from Just the newest post just prior to this, folks have no desire to stay on the intended topic, especially with this side topic already settled.

OB got sick of that and so did I.

If anyone has any interest in discussing the actual OP, that would be nice. I appreciate your additional comments noticing that annoying deflection, as well.

 

[daveman]

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

Not exactly. Consider clarity of purpose, drive. vision.

All exist regardless of regulation, do they not?

Yes. But the results of their application are dependent on regulation.