or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tonton

  They can't. You are free to become part of the government and do anything they can do. So am I.   There's nothing the government can do that you or I can't do if we become part of the government. No one is stopping you, assuming that you're a US citizen of electable age and not a convicted felon.
Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove anything, but there's nothing wrong with using it to express, explain or promote an opinion.
Because certain people like lobbyists and pro-business republicans would politically crucify anyone who tried. It's not at all about difficulty in getting a conviction.
This is far worse than Apple's bug. First, it allows full phone access, not just access to contacts, photos and the dialler. Access to all your messages. Whatsapp. Browser. Everything most private to you that's not protected by a separate password.Second, because of the update procedure, Apple can produce a fix for a flaw like this and make it available to all iPhone users within a week. Samsung, on the other hand, depends on google to give them an updated Android base....
It's the same for journalists actually.The more educated and more informed you are, the more liberal you are likely to become, unless your goal is personal wealth.
Most college professors are liberal because they are well educated and well informed, and have made a career choice that indicates that money is not their primary motivating factor.
Agree. "Too big to fail" is a lie. "Too connected to fail" is the truth.
And there we have it.1. Under a strict interpretation of the NAP, you cannot effectively enforce any laws without violating the NAP by making an arrest or seizing evidence. As I claimed.2. Government is a better way to manage enforcement and adjudication, because of checks and balances, the representative voting system, and open candidacy, as I claimed.Are we done now?
Yes, I was arguing a strict interpretation, because that's what MJ is arguing in his claim that government is fundamentally immoral.In the context of government vs. nongovernment, as you say, we might need to have the ability to detain suspects to collect evidence and hold a trial. Who do you suggest should have this right of detention of suspects? Private enterprises? Nongovernmental social constructs like the ridiculous feudal Irish example? How is that any better than...
Wrong, and wrong.Is the suspect now the aggressor? How on earth do you know? How can you prove it without his cooperation? You can't. So you can't prove he's the aggressor. So how do you bring him to trial, or collect evidence, without initiating force? You can't. So he walks away unless you take initiative force. Which is what I've been arguing all along.It is absolutely impossible to enforce the NAP without violating the NAP.Or is omniscience of guilt part of the NAP plan?
New Posts  All Forums: