Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

Why shouldn't Face Book give you the news ?

Recommended Posts

INAL but the ACCC actually states that Australia does not have any laws against monopolies as such whereas American law is very specific on the matter, that was how AT&T was broken up.

 

It is indeed necessary to treat a lot of news today from whatever source with skepticism but news is also frequently wrapped in opinion which is much more difficult to dispute because it is just that.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

Yeah I get that. #2 is designed to be a limit of #1. 

 

Those mental gymnastics are right up there with "loving all your children" and then drowning all of them in the bathtub.  Or a Flood.

 

You CAN'T curb an 'unlimited right'. The moment you allow that to happen, it is no longer UNlimited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cybes said:

 

Those mental gymnastics are right up there with "loving all your children" and then drowning all of them in the bathtub.  Or a Flood.

 

You CAN'T curb an 'unlimited right'. The moment you allow that to happen, it is no longer UNlimited.

 

 

🙂

 

You can in Leo's mind...

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cybes said:

 

Those mental gymnastics are right up there with "loving all your children" and then drowning all of them in the bathtub.  Or a Flood.

 

You CAN'T curb an 'unlimited right'. The moment you allow that to happen, it is no longer UNlimited.

 

The way Leo stated it was a "general" unlimited right. Now you could take that word in a couple of ways. You could seeing it as applying to everyone or you could look at it as unlimited in most circumstances like a general rule with specifics that override it. In which case it makes sense. Better wording would clarify it more though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cybes said:

 

Those mental gymnastics are right up there with "loving all your children" and then drowning all of them in the bathtub.  Or a Flood.

 

You CAN'T curb an 'unlimited right'. The moment you allow that to happen, it is no longer UNlimited.

 

Christ Almighty.

 

"The best defence is offence" is another similar concept as limiting an unlimited general right. One you would be familiar with.

 

Let me quote you part of an article from The Age in 2006:

 

"The philosophical basis of our present system provides a more generous and beneficent interpretation of human rights than the most enthusiastic rights activist. I do not derive my rights from a list of specific rights enumerated by government. I possess an inherent and unqualified right to do whatever I please. However, by living in our society, I submit this right to a set of restrictions that are agreed with my fellow citizens through the democratic compact. Rather than having to petition government for particular rights, I hold an absolute, unlimited, general right. Government must petition me, as an elector, for permission to restrict that general right."

 

In very short summary, Libertarians posit that you have an unlimited general right granted to you by virtue of birth. It is not granted by government - it is granted by birthright. IE, free speech is not a government right - it's a natural right.

Government restricts/limits those rights based on a "minimum required" consideration which Libertarians usually draw at negatively impacting the rights of another person.

 

This is not significantly dissimilar from the current system - but our current system typically defines rights we do not have, rights we do have and everything else is kind of in the ether.

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

Let me quote you part of an article from The Age in 2006: 

 

Ok, so you've shifted (or at least illuminated) the source of that set of points. That's an argument from authority - they're still wrong.

 

Don't worry: you shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging being wrong - that's how you get to be right. Einstein was wrong on occasion; Chomsky often; and Shapiro fecking-near always.

 

BTW: "granted by birthright"? Bullshit. Rights are a human concept, and thus awarded by humans. You can claim whatever right you like, but unless someone else agrees that you have it, you don't. It's somehow befitting the Libertarians (big L) that the most effective way to claim a right is by force.

Edited by Cybes
Auto-correct auto-uncorrecting my words.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, anyone is free to do what ever they want in a given situation as long as they are ready to deal with the consequences. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Ok, so you've shifted (or at least illuminated) the source of that set of points. That's an argument from authority - they're still wrong.

 

Don't worry: you shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging being wrong - that's how you get to be right. Einstein was wrong on occasion; Chomsky often; and Shapiro fecking-near always.

 

BTW: "granted by birthright"? Bullshit. Rights are a human concept, and thus awarded by humans. You can claim whatever right you like, but unless someone else agrees that you have it, you don't. It's somehow belittling the Libertarians (big L) that the most effective way to claim a right is by force.


Not my fault you can’t understand that point.


Do you have the same difficulty with “There is nothing worse than going to war except not going to war when required”?


Do you have the same difficulty with “The best defence is offence”

 

The plural of “fish” must be absolutely infuriating 🙂

 

Rights by birthright does not preclude rights from being a human concept. It means libertarians choose to recognise someone’s rights as a function of their birth as a human, not as a function of government. In the Libertarian word view, a government is a necessary evil and limits/restricts nothing to humans other than what we allow it to restrict.

 

In shorter form: right now our rights are spelled out by government. Libertarians want that removed and replaced only with restrictions - everything else is by default allowed.

 

So for example, free speech in a hypothetical America. There shouldn’t be a Free Speech Law. There should be a law that states that incitement to violence is restricted. That’s it.

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

Of course, anyone is free to do what ever they want in a given situation as long as they are ready to deal with the consequences. 


Libertarianism 101 - well at least the social aspect of it 🙂

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Do you have the same difficulty with “There is nothing worse than going to war except not going to war when required”?


Do you have the same difficulty with “The best defence is offence”

 

The plural of “fish” must be absolutely infuriating

 

...Are you fucking special, or just being an intentional fuckwit?

#1: No conflict.

#2: No conflict.

#3: No, that's not a problem.  There are/were many instances of certain words being their own plural - "sheep" for example.  Lexicography be fucked up.

 

Limiting an unlimited right: same category as "moving an immovable object" - completely meaningless.  Either the verb or the adjective must be incorrect.

 

38 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Rights by birthright does not preclude rights from being a human concept. It means libertarians choose to recognise someone’s rights as a function of their birth as a human, not as a function of government.

 

Yes - they choose to grant.  The rights do not exist of themselves.  You can grant them whenever you like, but you are still granting them.

 

51 minutes ago, Leonid said:

There shouldn’t be a Free Speech Law. There should be a law that states that incitement to violence is restricted.

 

Agreed.  Except that that's pretty much what that law says.

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cybes said:

...Are you fucking special, or just being an intentional fuckwit?

#1: No conflict.

#2: No conflict.

#3: No, that's not a problem.  There are/were many instances of certain words being their own plural - "sheep" for example.  Lexicography be fucked up.

 

Limiting an unlimited right: same category as "moving an immovable object" - completely meaningless.  Either the verb or the adjective must be incorrect.

 

I think you identified your own problem with the question above.

 

Somehow you can work your way through "The best defence being offence" despite them being roughly antonyms of each other and thus offence cannot be defined as a defence. Yet you cannot comprehend how an unlimited general right could be limited by act of legislation/government.

10 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Yes - they choose to grant.  The rights do not exist of themselves.  You can grant them whenever you like, but you are still granting them.

 

I just said that. I don't know why you're arguing something you and I agree on?

11 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Agreed.  Except that that's pretty much what that law says.

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech..."

 

Three words: Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A general rule is usually one to which there are exceptions. The use of general as an adjective is why the unlimited part can have qualifiers for certain situations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chrisg said:

INAL but the ACCC actually states that Australia does not have any laws against monopolies as such whereas American law is very specific on the matter, that was how AT&T was broken up.

As in anti-trust laws?  Because that's what MS ran afoul of, not of being a monopoly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I don't want a Bill Of Rights in Australia.

It will be written by fuckwits from the ANU and other overrated hotbeds of Green thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicprObe said:

 

Well, I don't want a Bill Of Rights in Australia.

It will be written by fuckwits from the ANU and other overrated hotbeds of Green thinking.


A bill of rights written by the Greens would be like a child protection document from the Catholic Church.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it should be written by the Liberals and Nationals, staunch defenders of...  *checks notes* government overreach when it's convenient for shoring up their grasp on power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nich... said:

Yes, it should be written by the Liberals and Nationals, staunch defenders of...  *checks notes* government overreach when it's convenient for shoring up their grasp on power.

 

I agree.

There are none to be trusted with writing such a document.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicprObe said:

 

I agree.

There are none to be trusted with writing such a document.

Hang on.

 

We here on atomic could write it

 

Mind, it might take a few decades for us to agree ...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would not be THAT much wrong with adopting the American Bill of Rights, so long as all the gun stuff was omitted.

 

However Westminster Law, which we basically follow, makes such a document rather unnecessary - the Americans were trying to start from a clean sheet.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nich... said:

Yes, it should be written by the Liberals and Nationals, staunch defenders of...  *checks notes* government overreach when it's convenient for shoring up their grasp on power.


It would be better in the LNP wrote the Bill of a Rights than the Greens. It would be like Rolf Harris writing a child protection document relative to the Catholic Church writing one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chrisg said:

There would not be THAT much wrong with adopting the American Bill of Rights, so long as all the gun stuff was omitted.

 

However Westminster Law, which we basically follow, makes such a document rather unnecessary - the Americans were trying to start from a clean sheet.

 

Cheers

 

The Americans were keen to do EVERYTHING different to the Pommies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicprObe said:

 

The Americans were keen to do EVERYTHING different to the Pommies.

 

Dunno about completely different but they did try to pass a wave of common sense over "rights."

 

Whether they succeeded,  well, it is a pretty honest document in the main - guns aside but of course that in itself is an amendment.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×