31 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarFor the efficient running of a society especially when citizens are housed in highly dense populated areas, maintaining civil order requires many of your rights to be curtailed. The reality of living in city means that many civil codes and ordinances are forced upon you, to use your language. The problem is not that individual rights are moderated, its the emotive aspect of your language that would imply by extension of logic that great numbers of people somehow coexist peacefully within the boundaries of cities without recourse to laws that coerce conformity under pain of incarceration or monetary penalty.
The question is if the people make the decision or is it being forced upon them? Pure and utter servitude of the US population without a voice.
If therefore we can all accept a limitation on individual rights when we establish public spaces and commons, why are we suddenly challenged and threatened to have that same sense of public commons extended to the environment and find ourselves subject to a guiding principle?
Would you live in a city where it was up to individual choice whether you stopped at intersections, or whether your neighbour placed loud music in his adjoining apartment at 3am?
There are hundreds of examples of you giving up your absolute rights to live amongst other people. If we all share the same environment and are all equally sustained or poisened by its stewardship or wanton neglect, why would you accord more rights to individuals to do as they please in such an important sphere.
Originally posted by kmax87There you have it. You believe the purpose of government is to manage society. I believe the purpose of government is to privide a place for people to choise how they are going to live. You believe in subjects. I believe in citizens.
For the efficient running of a society especially when citizens are housed in highly dense populated areas, maintaining civil order requires many of your rights to be curtailed. The reality of living in city means that many civil codes and ordinances are forced upon you, to use your language. The problem is not that individual rights are moderated, its the em ...[text shortened]... hy would you accord more rights to individuals to do as they please in such an important sphere.
31 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarNo, you believe in subjects, only to a different master.
There you have it. You believe the purpose of government is to manage society. I believe the purpose of government is to privide a place for people to choise how they are going to live. You believe in subjects. I believe in citizens.
Rather than a benevolent government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, you'd have us all subject to the whim of the almighty corporations, who value greed and the love of money over human lives.
31 Dec 16
Originally posted by whodeyHead-in-the-sand, none-so-blind-as-those-who-will-not-see anarchist.
Constitutional Convention?
The Constitution is sooo yesterday.
All you have to do now is write EO's and ignore laws.
Besides, what is there to pass? Ban guns? Take all personal wealth away?
Other than that, you already live in your utopia.
I'm talking about the Republican end-game for the United States of America.
They're one or two states away from the two-thirds they need to call it, and we can all kiss our "liberty" and "freedom" goodbye.
31 Dec 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMany saw the end of Saddam Hussein and Muammur Gadaffi tightly entwined with their call for an end of the monopoly trade of oil in US dollars. This would have signalled the end of the US dollar as world reserve currency. China has echoed Saddam's call for an oil trading bourse in Euros. China has also proposed its own currency as the global reserve currency. China has also been reported as having started to slowly divest itself of US securities, which it is doing very slowly as to not trigger collapse of the US currency given how it will lose. So the symbiotic relationship will continue, but China has made more than enough noises that being free of its US yoke would be preferable to its future. Enter all the apocalyptic scenarios that assert that America will not allow any pivot or transfer of power away from it being at the centre of everything. May we not live in interesting times.
What do you mean by "dumping American debt"? Selling it? Or not buying new bonds when they mature? None of these are really an issue on the short term for the U.S. Treasury.
Institutional investors are usually tied to investing in things with a certain risk associated to them. That's why bond yields have gone down so much - investors look for low-ris ...[text shortened]... ors could also go for even safer bonds (say, German ones) but that would also mean lower yields.