It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
It gets worse: technically, under the European Arrest Warrant rules, any EU country can have you arrested and sent to them for acts illegal in that country (e.g. Hungary) but "committed" in another (e.g. Britain).
Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
Ah, but in a judicial law system traditions and precedents can be overturned in one ruling by a judge deciding that it no longer, or never did, make sense.
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
Re: And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets.
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
The only reason they exist at all is so they can *claim* to be self-regulating whenever external regulation is discussed.
Perhaps because the press SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED!
The phone hacking scandal has actually shown that newspapers are regulated - by the market and laws unrelated to journalism.
The newpaper that was primary culprit no longer exists - that's the market at work.
Most of the "hacking" that took place is hardly worth the name. Is what has been done unethical? Yes. Should it be illegal (with the government dictating journalistic behaviour)? No.
Does anybody really then government and, therefore, police, involvement in journalism and newsworthyness is a good idea?
No, it is the country that didn't bail out its banks but instead let the market do its work. If the rest of the world had followed Iceland's example we'd all be better off.
It looks like they're going for the current trend of writing constitutions outlining all the things the government should be doing for it's people. i.e. the granting of social, legal, rights.
A constitution should be about restricting the power of government. i.e. safeguarding natural, inalienable, rights
The latter is far, far more important than the former.
If you want to hold up the BBC as something to emulate in a "Ministry of Truth" you might want to find out how true people think there "truths" are. Googling "bbc truth" returns a link to http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ on the first page.
On the post: Senator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
As has already been stated charitable giving is higher in countries with lower taxes - the larger the welfare state the less likely people are to give to charity.
On the post: Senator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realise that those that want properly free markets are generally against prohibition, right?
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re:
Just because there are few employees does not mean they are not creating jobs.
On the post: The Lies Of NBCUniversal's Rick Cotton About SOPA/PIPA
Re:
On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK
Re: United (Horror) Kingdom
Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
On the post: Actress Who Wished To Remain Anonymous And Under 40 Is Now Officially Neither
On the post: Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)
Royal Society Copyrights Timetravel
On the post: Righthaven Appeals The Idea That Using Entire Work Could Be Fair Use
Re: Re: Fair use only a defence
On the post: Righthaven Appeals The Idea That Using Entire Work Could Be Fair Use
Re: Fair use only a defence
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
On the post: New Head Of UK's Newspaper Regulators Thinks Bloggers Are A Bigger Problem Than Phone Hacking Tabloids?
Re:
Perhaps because the press SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED!
The phone hacking scandal has actually shown that newspapers are regulated - by the market and laws unrelated to journalism.
The newpaper that was primary culprit no longer exists - that's the market at work.
Most of the "hacking" that took place is hardly worth the name. Is what has been done unethical? Yes. Should it be illegal (with the government dictating journalistic behaviour)? No.
Does anybody really then government and, therefore, police, involvement in journalism and newsworthyness is a good idea?
On the post: Times Change; Dominant Tech Firms Change
Re: Had these been regulated, perhaps they'd have been more cautious:
On the post: Why Didn't UK Deal With Ridiculous Copyright Term Lengths?
Re: For only one of the reasons I thought
On the post: Why Didn't UK Deal With Ridiculous Copyright Term Lengths?
For only one of the reasons I thought
Unfortunately I was correct in my other assumption: the EU. The EU/a> now controls the term lengths in the UK. I think there is a possibility of shortening (slightly) the length of copyright on works published prior to 1995 - but that is all.
On the post: Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?
Re:
It does have to go through a court though, which is one step up from the European Arrest Warrant.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re:
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Rights vs. "Rights"
A constitution should be about restricting the power of government. i.e. safeguarding natural, inalienable, rights
The latter is far, far more important than the former.
On the post: Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth
The BBC's "Truth"
On the post: Supreme Court Says Business Favorable Arbitration Clauses Can Block Class Action Lawsuits
Be careful when advocating the reform of arbitration
On the post: Is It Rude To Link To Someone Without First Asking Permission?
Re: Permission Culture
Next >>