busdriver

Unmask AADs, crack down on 36-2903, no friday shirts or patches, guess we're about due for no civilian clothes at the gym, reflective belts and Rescue back to AFSOC. As the world turns, this too shall pass, and all that....

These people believe in magic.

Couple things for the non rotary folks: Lights with no secondaries are not treated the same as lights with secondaries. Land immediately over water means you're ditching intentionally. Transmission chip detectors have a fuzz burn function that tries to burn up the chip. When that's active, it usually illuminates the chip light (it's completing the circuit). I'm told this is not abnormal on an Osprey. On a 60 it's pretty common on a new transmission, but not once broken in. Repeated fuzz burn is not normal.

You're thinkin about me an awful lot. Tell your mom hi.

Dude, you're railing against straw men. I made no absolutist policy arguments. But the above is the whole point. Have fun. I'm done.

Don't make the mistake in thinking libertarianism is a single coherent political ideology. It isn't. I mean there are people who claim that mantel while being anarcho-commies. I'm not even sure how that makes sense, but whatever. In any event, I am not arguing for anything in particular here at all. I'm simply saying a violation of individual liberty is exactly that. Other people's desires means nothing in that context. If you want to make the argument that good outcomes determine the morality of acts, have fun. I very much disagree, lots of death and suffering throughout history is down the consequentialist path.

Agreed on by whom? If the person to do the fighting doesn't agree, then.... Again see chick at frat party analogy. This line of argument is pure consequentialist utilitarianism. And yes, taxation is clearly theft. However, I nor anyone else has a workable alternative, so we live with an imperfect solution. And a nation facing a perceived existential threat may do some shitty things to survive. Shit happens. But, that doesn't make either un-alloyed good, moral acts.

Limiting this to the US: you are draft eligible the day you turn 18. That's a hell of deadline. Being born and then not leaving is hardly consent. Apply that logic to the the chick at the frat party. You can argue that it's necessary to ensure survival of a nation, sometimes shitty actions can be required, fair enough. But arguing that makes it moral is nothing more than consequentialism. If that's your thing, so be it. We're not actually disagreeing on the ideology part by the way. All ideologies are only useful as temporary lens to look at problems. Being dogmatic about things never leads anywhere productive.

don't confuse bug L with little l. The group of people who think of themselves in something like libertarian are not a movement. It's more like a collection of wierdos, wonks, and philosophers. Many of them very much disagree with one another. And hence why the party itself will never amount to anything. It's not hard dude. You can't enter someone into a contractual agreement without their consent. Conscription is literally that, with unlimited liability. You can have a nut with pedantry around the definition of slavery if you like though.

I wouldn't put that much credit on the Russians here. I have no doubt they're doing their information warfare thing, but Mearsheimer is a very big name in political science and he's vocal. I don't think that video coming back up requires any nefarious action.

Not trying to dogpile you. This point keeps coming up, not just by you. This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point. What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual. Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly. Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome. All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action. No one else has agency. Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival. Russia has always been an expansionist empire. They don't have defensible borders.

The headline of that article is dumb, and not what was ruled. What the 9th circuit is actually saying is a blanket approval of all vaccine mandates is a misapplication of the Jacobson ruling. Jacobson is predicated on a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of a disease. If a vaccine does not do that, then Jacobson doesn't apply. So the biochemical method has nothing to do with it, nor does the "newness" of mRNA vaccines.

Presumption of innocence does not mean anyone is brain washed into thinking the dirt bag Crip is actually a saint. It means the burden of proof is on the state. The standard in court (beyond reasonable doubt) is high because the risk to liberty is high. Police officers act on a much lower standard (probable cause), because the presumption is a much lower risk to liberty. When making arrests the police are not acting on a presumption of guilt, they are acting on probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. If a crime occurred, then there is another party whose rights/liberty were violated, whether that party is an actual accuser or the public at large. Yes, the actual cops think the dude they're grabbing is a complete shit-head. But that is completely different than their authority/place within the common law tradition. It may seem like semantics, but this is very important within the context of how the law is supposed to work.

You're mixing legal concepts with moral ones, and your logic is backwards. You're using a presumption of guilt in your moral balancing act. Then claiming otherwise. Of your examples, the second is a prime example. You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written. The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects. (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.) Aside: No-knock warrants are predicated on the concept of being the safest option for all involved, based on a reasonable assumption that the suspect will fight. If done correctly it's over before anyone has any idea that something is happening. In other words, the state is actually balancing risk and finding the best solution for everyone, including the suspect. This is important since the "criminal" isn't one until due process is complete. Anecdotally, it seems that there is a problem with the way SWAT teams are used in the current "policing culture" (not sure how to word that). Libertarians like to yell about "militarization of police" and point to DRMO of equipment to cops. Which I think misses the mark. I suspect it's actually rooted in balance of risk, and over focus on "officer safety." The latter was an important change from the 1970s, but I suspect like all advocacy and activist cultures, it became self serving.

Lighten up Francis. You entirely missed uhhello's point.

Him Him.

Crisis wasn't a kosher name? Or PA just wanted to church it up?

Him Him

-Not talking estate tax. Just the mechanics of technique. The heir pays the debt rather than allowing the estate to cover it, which makes it gone and frees the burden from the estate and allows the step-up trick to work. Got it. I don't care at all about your last point.

I do. My point is that the executor of the will must pay off legitimate debts before distributing inheritance. Those debts are paid from the assets of the estate. The kiddos don't get anything until the debts are paid.

The executer to the will still has to pay debts from estate assets prior to dishing out inheritance (which is where all the tax bennies are). So capital gains are gonna get paid eventually. Yes? There have been a bunch of proposals to go after this in the past. Taxing gains at death before transfer, and dropping the carryover basis in favor of rollover basis being the two easy ones to remember. Either of these is better than taxing money that doesn't exist. Taxing unrealized gains is taxing money that doesn't exist. This is emotionally driven nonsense.

And how are these loans paid off?

Lighten up Francis. People who ascribe to your line of thinking.

Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding. We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated. So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem. If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say fuck that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation. If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.

If the choice is that or nuclear war, then yes. It would hurt, but hurt them more than us. Based on your previous comments, I'd guess you think along the lines of: "we have a shit track record of not foreseeing blowback and we'd be better off just staying at home and leaving the world to it's own business." France seems eager beaver to do something, which would no doubt drag us back into things. So I assume you also want to withdraw from all treaties and alliances, which is a pre-requisite to staying at home. It's also a pipe-dream, and will never happen. Nothing more than intellectual masturbation. There are no answers, only trade offs.