Prev: digital signature without hashing?
Next: Not much from change the from 1930's
From: unruh on 3 Apr 2010 12:25
On 2010-04-03, WTShaw <lurens1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:26?pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > unruh wrote:
>> >> Mok-Kong Shen ?wrote:
>>
>> >>> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering
>> >>> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose
>> >>> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in
>> >>> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of
>> >>> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal
>> >>> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries)
>> >>> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the
>> >>> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here
>> >>> in my humble view.
>>
>> >> Protection of their citizens is a first duty of government. That is why
>> >> they have armies, laws, courts, police. Exactly how far that duty
>> >> extends is one of the debates that has always raged.
>> >> Noone has the knowledge needed in order to protect themselves from all
>> >> possible sources of harm. Thus the duty on those who do have the
>> >> knowledge in some area to protect those that do not in that area.
>> >> This has nothing to do with parents and kids except that parents have
>> >> more knowledge than the kids do of the dangers.
>>
>> > In my personal view, those who have more knowledge also have the
>> > (moral) responsibility to correspondingly render adequate protection
>> > tp those lacking knowledge. This is clearly the case with parents
>> > and children. I think that this is also the case e.g. with pedestrians
>> > when one sees that some blind or almost blind person walks into
>> > a dangerous zone.
>>
>> It may also be people's moral responsibility not to murder their fellow
>> man. Unfortunately people do not always live up to what you consider
>> their moral responsiblity. It has been decided that for the common good,
>> one should also have laws which enforce such moral responsibility, and
>> punish those who do not live up the moral standards. Exactly where one
>> should draw the boundary between moral suasion and legal penalties is
>> one of the contentious aspects of government. What is one person's moral
>> failing is the next one's freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>> > M. K. Shen
>
> Honoring the living constitution here is better that trying to read
> the law like a religious fanatic reads the bible.

Unfortuantely that is also what people like Stalin said about the Soviet
constitution. What is your "living constitution" may be someone else's
"destroying of constitution".

From: unruh on 3 Apr 2010 12:28
On 2010-04-03, WTShaw <lurens1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:26?pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > unruh wrote:
>> >> Mok-Kong Shen ?wrote:
>>
>> >>> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering
>> >>> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose
>> >>> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in
>> >>> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of
>> >>> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal
>> >>> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries)
>> >>> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the
>> >>> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here
>> >>> in my humble view.
>>
>> >> Protection of their citizens is a first duty of government. That is why
>> >> they have armies, laws, courts, police. Exactly how far that duty
>> >> extends is one of the debates that has always raged.
>> >> Noone has the knowledge needed in order to protect themselves from all
>> >> possible sources of harm. Thus the duty on those who do have the
>> >> knowledge in some area to protect those that do not in that area.
>> >> This has nothing to do with parents and kids except that parents have
>> >> more knowledge than the kids do of the dangers.
>>
>> > In my personal view, those who have more knowledge also have the
>> > (moral) responsibility to correspondingly render adequate protection
>> > tp those lacking knowledge. This is clearly the case with parents
>> > and children. I think that this is also the case e.g. with pedestrians
>> > when one sees that some blind or almost blind person walks into
>> > a dangerous zone.
>>
>> It may also be people's moral responsibility not to murder their fellow
>> man. Unfortunately people do not always live up to what you consider
>> their moral responsiblity. It has been decided that for the common good,
>> one should also have laws which enforce such moral responsibility, and
>> punish those who do not live up the moral standards. Exactly where one
>> should draw the boundary between moral suasion and legal penalties is
>> one of the contentious aspects of government. What is one person's moral
>> failing is the next one's freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>> > M. K. Shen
>
> Some times personal responsibility is to enforce the law in lieu of
> official willingness to do so.. Self-defense might involve extreme
> force, but again that would not be murder but justice. It's a shame
> that it does come to this too often when their is a true abrogation of
> responsible enforcement, or why me...again...in that situation?

Ah yes, the weaseling begins. My rights, priviledges, etc are above the
law. What I do is just, by definition. What you do is shameful, and
morally irresponsible. From responsibility to privilidge in one step.

From: spinner on 4 Apr 2010 06:27
unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>On 2010-04-03, WTShaw <lurens1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 1:26?pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > unruh wrote:
>>> >> Mok-Kong Shen ?wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering
>>> >>> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose
>>> >>> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in
>>> >>> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of
>>> >>> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal
>>> >>> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries)
>>> >>> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the
>>> >>> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here
>>> >>> in my humble view.
>>>

A couple of points that europeans (and left wing nutballs) miss about
the US constitution and nanny states.
First of all, government plays the role of defender, banker, and court
of last resort. The LOCAL government (States) take care of their
residents with regard to legal protection, plumbing, and electricity,
States rightly have these power so that residents can vote with their
feet and go somewhere else if they have a better deal, A federated
government provides no such option.

The several states created the federal government to mediate disputes
between the states and nothing else. They gave it no right to reach
into the State and mandate anything - and of course, the States got
bought off with the lure of free federal money for things like roads.

However, once the outlays for stuff exceed the federal payments, you
will see the States realize that the deal sucks, and bail out. The
feds CAN enforce laws in special cases - however they can't enforce
laws in ALL the States all at once.

And lastly, why has nitwit opened up this thread in this group? Has
he run out of troll questions that involve math?
From: WTShaw on 5 Apr 2010 05:13
On Apr 4, 5:27 am, spinner wrote:
> unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >On 2010-04-03, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 1:26?pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >>> > unruh wrote:
> >>> >> Mok-Kong Shen ?wrote:
>
> >>> >>> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering
> >>> >>> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose
> >>> >>> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in
> >>> >>> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of
> >>> >>> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal
> >>> >>> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries)
> >>> >>> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the
> >>> >>> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here
> >>> >>> in my humble view.
>
> A couple of points that europeans (and left wing nutballs) miss about
> the US constitution and nanny states.
> First of all, government plays the role of defender, banker, and court
> of last resort.  The LOCAL government (States) take care of their
> residents with regard to legal protection, plumbing, and electricity,
> States rightly have these power so that residents can vote with their
> feet and go somewhere else if they have a better deal,  A federated
> government provides no such option.
>
> The several states created the federal government to mediate disputes
> between the states and nothing else.  They gave it no right to reach
> into the State and mandate anything - and of course, the States got
> bought off with the lure of free federal money for things like roads.
>
> However, once the outlays for stuff exceed the federal payments, you
> will see the States realize that the deal sucks, and bail out. The
> feds CAN enforce laws in special cases - however they can't enforce
> laws in ALL the States all at once.
>
> And lastly, why has nitwit opened up this thread in this group?  Has
> he run out of troll questions that involve math?

Sorry Europeans, we have nothing to offer you but the worst. You know
what that is and we should too by your history,

Without an honest government, crypto has no fine use, nor is there
much of anything left after the bastards have done their worst. Bad
logic is still bad logic whatever the speciality.
From: WTShaw on 7 Apr 2010 05:16
On Apr 5, 4:13 am, WTShaw <lure...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry Europeans, we have nothing to offer you but the worst.  You know
> what that is and we should too by your history,
>
> Without an honest government, crypto has no fine use, nor is there
> much of anything left after the bastards have done their worst.  Bad
> logic is still bad logic whatever the speciality.

I previously ran out of time to finish what I was wanting to write.
There are fine people in government who support good laws and civil
rights. The pus pockets of the bad local ones ones that even try to
use sovereign immunity as a license to practice bigotry and promote
corruption are my main concern. Promoting the general welfare in the
most specific of meanings is not just a hollow suggestion.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: digital signature without hashing?
Next: Not much from change the from 1930's