suture

I didn’t say two wrongs make a right and didn’t use past violations of the Constitution as justification for anything. I just pointed out that the idea that we are a nation of laws is incorrect and that adherence to the Constitution is not done in a consistent way.

I understand the meaning of “well regulated” and I disagree with the Court’s interpretation of what that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. The Court is not infallible. Indeed, in recent times we see quite clearly how absurd it’s decisions can be. The Court should be ignored when it’s decisions are absurd. All decent governments rely on a consent of the governed and the Supreme Court has clearly overstepped itself in a slew of areas and it has lost its credibility. As such it’s recent decisions should be ignored.

If tomorrow the Court ruled that people have a right to create and use biological weapons I’m certain you’d say that the decision should be ignored. So don’t act as though the notion of ignoring the court is unthinkable or unprincipled or irresponsible. Particularly when there is historic precedent for doing so.

We are not a nation of laws. We have seen our leaders try to overthrow the government with impunity. We have government agencies engage in torture and mass surveillance with impunity. We have police forces that kill legally armed people who have done no wrong with impunity. This is not a nation of laws as you put it. We have a Supreme Court ignore precedent and make up shit with its recent rulings. We recently had a President ignore the Constitution to enrich himself and nothing came of it. We have a Supreme Court decide that it wasn’t important to ensure that the votes for President were counted correctly and appointed Bush as the winner.

The Republic ended when a coup was attempted and nothing happened to the instigators. We will soon live in a country in which a legal act in one city is a death penalty crime in another. We soon will live in a country in which the government can’t meaningfully enforce administrative rules. It’s already over unless the Constitution is drastically rewritten or the Court in its present form is changed.

One child was killed by jarts and they were banned. One person tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. But guns, let’s not ban those. Indeed let’s expand their prevalence.

If lethality and rate of gunfire being much higher today than 250 years ago is not a relevant point then why is it ok to ban machine guns? Shouldn’t I be able to protect my property with a tank or a flamethrower?

Pertaining to your comment on ink jet printers. When they are used for mass killings I’ll be willing to consider proposals for their regulation.

When large numbers of black men walk around with AR-15s there will be calls for gun control. The last time black men overtly armed themselves in 70s there was a call for gun control. Reagan even called for gun control when that happened.

Gun control will quickly occur once black men arm themselves and the courts will concur. Similar to how religious freedom arguments get ignored when the Satanic Church makes them.

The Constitution isn’t going to be changed because there is too much divisiveness. SCOTUS is doing what it can to foment this divisiveness. It’s time to be like Lincoln and ignore the Supreme Court. Strict adherence to words written 250 years ago is not a good way forward for the country. The U.S. is badly in need of reform for how its federal government works.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/30/bahrain-abuse-migrant-wo...

What goal do you wish to accomplish your pedantic nitpicking? You want to get others to believe that my views on national health policies are naive? You want me to realize that in a strict, mathematical sense of the word saying “solved” is incorrect? These are rhetorical questions because I’m not going to read your response. You clearly don’t know much about policy issues and what it means for a society have essentially “solved” an issue (or have found a decent enough solution that it isn’t a dire problem anymore so that some non pedantic people will say it is solved).

Carry forth Don Quixote on your quest to eradicate incorrect usage of what you think “solved” means.

The U.S. per capita spends far more on healthcare than any other OECD country. We don’t get correspondingly better outcomes or coverage. Universal healthcare is a solved problem within the context that every system necessarily involves some sort of rationing since there aren’t enough medical resources in any country to do otherwise.

If you don’t want to use the phrase “solved system” then don’t but don’t pretend the U.S. is any way better other than in anecdotal instances. Below is a source for information on per capita spending for OECD nations. You can easily find information on health our outcomes, life expectancy, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, etc.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/876d99c3-en/index.html?i...

Good luck!

The most basic subject to understand mathematical proofs is Euclidean geometry. There you will learn the basics of proofs and what it means to prove something.

Let’s look at x/a = b/c. You want to show that this equation has the same exact solution set as xc = ab. In order to prove this rigorously you’ll need to prove things about associativity. You’ll also need to prove that a unit isn’t a zero divisor in the real numbers. What we see is that to prove seemingly simple statements requires some machinery and to understand the necessity of this machinery requires mathematical maturity.

But maybe you don’t want to rigorously prove the above. Maybe you just want to understand why it is plausible that this is true. For that, pick up a beginning algebra book and actually read what it says and try to understand it. This is hard to do on your own.

Here’s a plausible explanation for why x/a = b/c has the same solution set as xc=ab. Note that a and c must be nonzero because we can’t divide by zero (this requires proof!). We note that

(x/a) times a

Is the same thing as x times (1/a times a). This is due to associativity. A nonzero number times it’s reciprocal is 1. And 1 times anything is itself. So x/a times a simplifies to x.

So,starting with

x/a = b/c

I can multiply both sides by a. I can do this since a is invertible and multiplying by an invertible element preserves equality (requires proof!). So what I get, after simplifying, is

x = (b/c) times a

I can rearrange things (by associativity) to write this as

x = (ab)/c

Now multiply both sides by c to get (I skipped a step by multiplying and simplifying at the same time)

xc = ab.

Obviously this is false and you can find examples of people being enslaved in countries where it is outlawed. There are plenty of examples of an enslaved person being prevented from escaping even in the presence of laws prohibiting slavery. It’s as if you don’t understand human behavior.

You have a fanciful notion of slavery and what it entails. In another thread you bring up cases where the enslaved had it “good” and act as if this is normative in such circumstances. I am thankful views such are yours are no longer acceptable to most people. Within in your views on this topic one will not find common sense or decency.

That you find it worth your time to try to convince people of the benefits of slavery says much about you and nothing about slavery.

Government regulations can be good and they can be bad. In enlightened countries enough good ones are in place to prevent a minimum wage of 0.

You are free to desire to live in a world where a wage of 0 is a reasonable thing for an employer to pay. Fortunately for me people like you have little chance of seeing this desire come to fruition. There is no point in responding further but I will read and contemplate whatever response you decide to make.

There are lots of instances where regulations fixed a broken system. Government regulations fixed the broke system of using child labor and fixed the broken system of slavery.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-pu...