Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

Not forgetting invertebrates, or more simple creatures like bacteria. Though I won't claim to know 100% sure, and would be interested to see scientific claims otherwise. (Honestly; not being cheeky.)

As to the CA aspect, CA has its own ESA-equivalent I'm not terribly familiar with so can't comment there. Like a lot of CA environmental laws it's rather more stringent than the federal one, though.

I'm using CA metaphorically here, this sort of thing takes place in my own homeland of New York, though not usually upstate. However, the Californians have refined it to an art form.

[voliol]

Basically, if you argue that a certain autonomous/sovereign zone is A-OK (or that a response against them would be ”batshit”) then you should also argue that the original holding of that zone is unjustified in itself.

This is false and also, to be honest, mind-numbingly stupid. "I think the original possession was unjustified somehow" and "I just don't care about the change" are different degrees. When land is not owned by anyone (the federal government is not a person and does not deserve rights), nobody lives on it, and nobody is harmed in any way by the adverse use, I just don't care.

On top of that, I also happen to consider settlement a valid form of title. For example, the ownership by settlement of current Americans of American land is entirely valid.

I mean, if you think the federal government doesn’t have the right to own land, you do think the original possession was unjustified. *shrug* I’m not saying you have to have a black-or-white stance on any organization (such as the federal government/its agencies) but faulting them only for wanting to continue existing, and not for their existance/actions in the first place, is rather silly.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, if you think the federal government doesn’t have the right to own land, you do think the original possession was unjustified.

I don't have to? I think we have a different definition of "right". I can justify doing lots of things I don't have a right to, like "going to a store". I don't have a right to go to a store, it's a voluntary transaction the store owners can choose not to participate in if they want. If I had a right to it, that would mean that the store owners would be violating my rights by refusing or not existing.

[voliol]

I mean, if you think the federal government doesn’t have the right to own land, you do think the original possession was unjustified.

I don't have to? I think we have a different definition of "right". I can justify doing lots of things I don't have a right to, like "going to a store". I don't have a right to go to a store, it's a voluntary transaction the store owners can choose not to participate in if they want. If I had a right to it, that would mean that the store owners would be violating my rights by refusing or not existing.

But you, in "When land is not owned by anyone (the federal government is not a person and does not deserve rights)", are heavily implying that the lack of a right means the inability to do whatever the right entails (in this case, owning land), though??? I don't have anything left to say on the matter.

[Maximum Spin]

But you, in "When land is not owned by anyone (the federal government is not a person and does not deserve rights)", are heavily implying that the lack of a right means the inability to do whatever the right entails (in this case, owning land), though??? I don't have anything left to say on the matter.

No, you misunderstand, the operative word there is "anyone". Because "the federal government is not a person", the federal government is not "anyone", so "the land is not owned by anyone". It is owned by the federal government, but, as "the federal government [...] does not deserve rights", I don't care if someone infringes on that ownership.

[McTraveller]

I don't have to? I think we have a different definition of "right". I can justify doing lots of things I don't have a right to, like "going to a store". I don't have a right to go to a store, it's a voluntary transaction the store owners can choose not to participate in if they want. If I had a right to it, that would mean that the store owners would be violating my rights by refusing or not existing.

That's not what rights mean though.  If a store exists and is open for business, you absolutely have a right to go there to shop legally (you don't have a right to go there when it's not open, or to just steal stuff, or to loiter, etc.).

This interestingly is part of the problem of "rights" language.  For example, the "right to education" or "the right to health care."  Those rights don't mean that there will magically be supply of those things for you to obtain.  The "right" to shop, to health care, to education, to vote - means that you cannot be restricted from those things by "unfair" criteria.

There may be rights issues with the criteria, but it's an important distinction!

Here's a trivial example: is it a rights issue if there is a store that has one Widget for sale and two people want to buy it, and both have enough money.  Is it a rights issue if you let one person outbid the other?  What if instead of making "highest bidder" get the limited resource, you use a random lottery at the initial lower price?

How would you feel if this applies to health care?  Education?  Access to internet? Housing?

[WealthyRadish]

Mc, you're talking to a libertarian crank who very likely only supports property rights. He's well aware of the positive/negative rights schtick (we all are) and if anything would go further and disagree with you saying that the owners shouldn't be permitted to discriminate on any basis (and not merely because "should" is verboden generally, as his earlier "hitler did nothing morally wrong" bit illuminated).

[delphonso]

Rightwing Facebook is saying "The people made their decision in 2016 for Trump to choose Justices". Which is unfortunately true, but is somehow their response to McConnell and other Republicans saying one thing when Dems were in the White House and saying something different now.

On the plus side, this seems to be divisive among Republicans, at least looking at the comments on Facebook.

[misko27]

I don't know, Republicans seem pretty united on this

[Frumple]

Rightwing Facebook is saying "The people made their decision in 2016 for Trump to choose Justices". Which is unfortunately true

I mean, it's not, actually. The people didn't make that decision. The smaller minority of a minority of the people able to vote in the right places gave the shitgibbon enough of an electoral college advantage to become president despite millions more people wanting nothing to do with him. The people voted against that fuck, and damn sure didn't decide in 2016 for trump to choose justices.

[wierd]

You can't fool me.

The Republicans are desperate to hold on to power, as they KNOW they are gonna have their asses handed to them in the upcoming elections. If they can stuff the judicial, they get another half-century or more of political leverage, since supreme court judge appointments are for life.

[Iduno]

Rightwing Facebook is saying "The people made their decision in 2016 for Trump to choose Justices". Which is unfortunately true, but is somehow their response to McConnell and other Republicans saying one thing when Dems were in the White House and saying something different now.

On the plus side, this seems to be divisive among Republicans, at least looking at the comments on Facebook.

The Democrats had the opportunity to fight his earlier choices, and went on an early holiday instead. And Biden has gone on record as saying his goal was to get more conservative judges into the court to overturn Roe v Wade. It turns out, the major issue with 2-party systems are both sides work together to keep themselves in power and quickly quit caring what the people want.

[Frumple]

And Biden has gone on record as saying his goal was to get more conservative judges into the court to overturn Roe v Wade

So do you have an actual source for that? I checked, and found nothing, particularly nothing in that direction that's too young to legally drink. His history on the subject is pretty sub-par, but most of the worst of it seems to be as old or older than me.

His current actual stated position is to set roe v wade as straight up federal law, though, near as I can tell. Seems fairly firmly on the "personally uncomfortable, publicly supportive of legal protection" side of things.

[Maximum Spin]

That's not what rights mean though.  If a store exists and is open for business, you absolutely have a right to go there to shop legally (you don't have a right to go there when it's not open, or to just steal stuff, or to loiter, etc.).

Of course you don't. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." The owner has the right to decide if you can or not.

This interestingly is part of the problem of "rights" language.  For example, the "right to education" or "the right to health care."  Those rights don't mean that there will magically be supply of those things for you to obtain.  The "right" to shop, to health care, to education, to vote - means that you cannot be restricted from those things by "unfair" criteria.

It is impossible for anyone to have a right to any of those things. Furthermore, there is no objective definition of "unfair" criteria.

Here's a trivial example: is it a rights issue if there is a store that has one Widget for sale and two people want to buy it, and both have enough money.  Is it a rights issue if you let one person outbid the other?  What if instead of making "highest bidder" get the limited resource, you use a random lottery at the initial lower price?

Of course not. Nobody has a right to buy widgets. Or anything. The person who owns the widget can give it to whomever he or she wants under whatever conditions he or she wants. That's what ownership means.

How would you feel if this applies to health care?  Education?  Access to internet? Housing?

Thrilled on all counts. For example, people operating under your theory caused the housing crisis and are the reason healthcare is unaffordable to most people. Access to internet does work like that already, of course.

[scriver]

That's not what rights mean though.  If a store exists and is open for business, you absolutely have a right to go there to shop legally (you don't have a right to go there when it's not open, or to just steal stuff, or to loiter, etc.).

Of course you don't. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." The owner has the right to decide if you can or not.

This interestingly is part of the problem of "rights" language.  For example, the "right to education" or "the right to health care."  Those rights don't mean that there will magically be supply of those things for you to obtain.  The "right" to shop, to health care, to education, to vote - means that you cannot be restricted from those things by "unfair" criteria.

It is impossible for anyone to have a right to any of those things. Furthermore, there is no objective definition of "unfair" criteria.

That is indeed a non-standard definition of rights.