Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Should corporations be above national law? (Score 1) 628

Nothing about "natural right" implies that it enforces itself. Quite the contrary. If rights enforced themselves, they'd be called "laws", surely you're familiar with the law of gravitation.

A right defines what sort of moral or ethical claims you have on other people. If you have the right to free speech, then no one may (lawfully|ethically|morally) use violence against you for speaking. Different people have different ideas on how to protect these rights, of course, but you get the idea.

Comment Re:Should corporations be above national law? (Score 1) 628

The US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech [emphasis mine]

The Constitution didn't create a "freedom of speech", it's protecting one that pre-exists.

Just because people (typically police, but any individual) have been known to abridge the freedom of speech doesn't make it any less of a natural right.

Comment Re:Should corporations be above national law? (Score 1) 628

The point is everyone has the freedom of speech.

The fact that Facebook is in a better position than individuals to resist state coercion to the contrary is besides the point.

People don't magically gain rights because they form together in a group. Employees of Facebook and police in Germany alike don't gain any ability to silence people or kill people, any more than you or I could.

Comment Re:it's just going to get shrugged off? (Score 1) 144

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Anything that congress passes, that they don't have the authority to pass, is null and void: As if it never existed from the very start.

Any executive action that takes place under an unconstitutional statute is just as valid as an executive action that took place without the statute, i.e. not at all.

So yes, anything that is unconstitutional is necessarily illegal.

This is exactly how SCOTUS strikes down laws as unconstitutional: The laws stay on the books, but they're considered as useless as a law that tries to declare the earth flat: They're wholly unenforceable, because the court will refuse to uphold them.

Comment Re:One game, one save (Score 3, Interesting) 70

This isn't always available or desirable.

For instance in Smash Bros., you can fight against your amiibo to give it experience and it'll pick up on your play style. This data is saved back to the NFID chip and can be brought to amiibo tournaments to see whose is the best, which play styles tend to defeat which play styles, etc.

It is quite interesting to see it all in action.

(And good grief, you wouldn't call your D&D minis "dolls" would you? Same thing.)

Comment Re:dump trump (Score 2) 686

Politicians are never scientific for the sake of science, only when they have something to gain. And actually most people, when they have something to gain.

Case in point: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"

The left goes CLIMATE CHANGE AND SCIENCE WOOOOO but then protests genetic modification of crops, nuclear power, oil drilling, known-safe vaccinations, and basically all of economics. Because the science on the latter issues doesn't give them a convenient excuse to legislate the actions of others, but climate change does.

Comment Re:No compelling evidence? (Score 1, Informative) 663

OK, answer me this: How much does a Calorie (kilocalorie) weigh? How much weight do I lose if I burn one kilocalorie, or under which conditions?

(Btw, if you're referring to food Calories, it's always a capital C, or preferably just call it kilocalorie.)

Comment Re:Your basic understandings are wrong. (Score 1) 585

I don't exclude the existence of other systems, there's any number of variables you could include to create an n-dimensional system of economic and political systems. A far more accurate one is, indeed, two dimensional, and splits out economic liberty from civil liberty. You could add even more dimensions, depending on how accurately you want to describe an arbritrary system.

That's not really necessary here, and capitalism can exist in a large number of these systems, there's no One True 'Right' way to do it.

Some societies will define that ordering food means you have to pay for it before you walk out. Some won't. Both can be capitalism.

Some societies will run justice systems differently, some might be Common Law, others Civil Law. It doesn't really matter, Capitalism is just one building block that means one thing, and gives you certain useful characteristics when applied.

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 3, Interesting) 585

No rule of law is Somalia.

Total authoritarian rule is North Korea.

The middle is Capitalism: It proscribes rule of law, things like ownership of resources, voluntary exchange, don't take other people's stuff, enforcement of contracts, and presumes the existence of a justice system.

There's no reason to believe that "rah, rah, [middle of the road] free market capitalism" will lead you to Somalia: Right now it seems to be doing a pretty good job of leading us to corporatism, and at the extreme this becomes fascism.

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.

Working...