/townhall/ - Townhall

Hypothetical:  A law is passed in 1900.
In 1910, the court rules the law unconstitutional.
After 1910, people violate this currently unconstitutional law in ways that leave evidence, but the state will not punish.
In 1950, the law is judged constitutional again.

Are those violations from the past now subject to prosecution since the law is constitutional?  The law was broken after it was passed, so this is not a clear ex post facto situation.

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?

Will got banned for 10 years

Have you followed the Disney company losing its special legal status in Florida due to the corporation expressing opposition (especially in terms of CEO Bob Chapek's comments) to recent legal changes by the state's sitting Governor on children's education?

Context: https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-reedy-creek-wakeup-call-disney/39859459#

Apparently, millions of dollars are at stake. It's not clear who will be left holding the bag. Disney's previous situation had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of taxpayers.

Do you fundamentally think that corporations should speak out about discrimination and prejudice against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly when it comes to education?

If that does happen, should said company fairly receive pushback from Americans who hold to social traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly parents who don't want inclusive views on minority rights taught to their children?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to local Floridians with the legal changes? Is it a fight worth having for Disney? For the Governor?

I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes

Are you concerned about the proliferation of the H5N1 disease known as "bird influenza"?

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/highly-contagious-bird-flu-detected-person-first-time-us-health-offici-rcna26581

Health experts in the U.S. state that the danger to humans from the afflictions rapidly spreading among avian species is minimal. Are they right? Maybe they're too cautious?

I found this an interesting blog post.  Any thoughts on it?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-fences-on-slippery-slopes

I get a sense of political sentiments on Facebook usually, as it's the site most regular folks seem to use to express these kinds of opinions.  So sometimes you click down to the comments section of news stories.  In these two news stories, I looked at about 30 comments and quickly put them in categories.  I believe they are roughly representative of what I see on Facebook on other stories.  Russia seems to have a fair amount of support.  I come from a little different perspective sentimentally, but perhaps I can ask some open ended questions here to try to understand better and overcome my biases.

Please, if you like, answer which best describes your sense of the Russo-Ukrainian War, especially as escalated a month ago.

a) There is no such war, or there is no reliable way of affirming any significant military force is being used, has been used since 2014, or will be used by Russians in Ukraine.

b) There is some conflict, but it's not significant because Western nations have done so much worse.

c) The conflict is real, but Ukraine is not a legitimate state, so it is really a conflict with Western forces that are attacking Russia through the Ukraine territory, attacking Russians in that territory, or hurting innocents in horrible ways.  The West's evil started this war, basically.

d) The conflict is real, Ukraine is a state, but Russia is responding in self defense to Ukrainian aggression or general evil.  (It is rare to see people believe Ukraine is sufficiently independent for this to be true, but I'll make it an option anyway.)

e) The conflict is real, Ukraine is real, and Russia is the instigator invading a sovereign nation.

What I'd like, if possible, is amplifying information as to why you have your opinion, since I can already access volumes of opinions elsewhere, but they are rather short and repetitive.

Have you followed the harlots losing their ability to terminate lives at will due to a leaked SCOTUS ruling indicating the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Context: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Do you fundamentally think that people should speak out about this restriction of previously liberated sexuality among irresponsible females, pedophiles, and terrorists, when it comes to the inevitable consequences of careless promiscuity?

Should the Supreme Court receive preemptive pushback from left wing individuals in the form of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" to force the Supreme Court to overturn its impending decision, in what would be another legitimate use of "the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives", and thereby defend the inalienable rights of harlots, pedophiles, and terrorists?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to the harlots following these legal changes?  Is it a fight worth having for Leftist pedos?

Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?  What are the factors that determine which cases qualify?

from https://www.mdis.edu.sg/blog/four-types-of-suicides/

According to Emile Durkheim, the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim, which he/she knows will produce this result (Pickering & Walford, 2011). Durkheim identifies four different types of suicide which are egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and fatalistic suicide.

Egoistic suicide is seen as stemming from the absence of social integration. It is committed by individuals who are social outcast and see themselves as being alone or an outsider. These individuals are unable to find their own place in society and have problems adjusting to groups. They received little and no social care. Suicide is seen as a solution for them to free themselves from loneliness or excessive individuation.

Altruistic suicide occurs when social group involvement is too high. Individuals are so well integrated into the group that they are willing to sacrifice their own life in order to fulfil some obligation for the group. Individuals kill themselves for the collective benefit of the group or for the cause that the group believes in.

Anomic suicide is caused by the lack of social regulation and it occurs during high levels of stress and frustration. Anomic suicide stems from sudden and unexpected changes in situations. For example, when individuals suffer extreme financial loss, the disappointment and stress that individuals face may drive them towards committing suicide as a means of escape.

Fatalistic suicide occurs when individuals are kept under tight regulation. These individuals are placed under extreme rules or high expectations are set upon them, which removes a person’s sense of self or individuality. Slavery and persecution are examples of fatalistic suicide where individuals may feel that they are destined by fate to be in such conditions and choose suicide as the only means of escaping such conditions.

I expect there are substantial overlaps, and the categories are not as cut and dry as they might initially seem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

The Biden administration has expressed bipartisan opposition, both in Congress and among the general public, in terms of a recent decision that would ease the ability for individuals to seek asylum in the U.S. by crossing the territorial borders.

Context: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1093529387/as-biden-plans-to-lift-title-42-democrats-want-details-on-how-he-ll-address-influx

My personal opinion is that the legal process of immigration for people who've "stood in line", metaphorically, ought to be streamlined and made more logical. At the same time, I'm concerned about illegal immigration, especially with the rise of organized crime in the context of drug smuggling and other issues. Sending up a "Migrants (Maybe) Welcome!" mat in rhetorical terms, even if practically what's happening is complicated, doesn't strike me as a good idea.

What do you think? Do you oppose the Biden administration on this? Do you have mixed feelings?

<Yes, I did intentionally crop this image to make it 666X666, not that it matters... I just... felt like it for a reason I don't know...>

This is either a big question in the books I've been reading recently, or it is an important side question.

As I always need to be precise, I will ask -- is a state where important decisions are made by the direct vote of voters and/or by representatives selected by the voters superior to other forms of state organization?  Voters here mean humans subject to state authority, generally residents of the state, and legally mature, however not restricted based on other criteria such as race, sex, formal education, wealth, or political affiliation.  Representatives, where used, are to represent a wide range of political options and be rotated frequently enough to be able to minimize the differential between their actions and what the majority wants.  Representative options should not be vetted by some minority prior to being exposed for potential selection.  The state may operate as practical, as millions of decisions have to be made by state agents, but practical administration won't be dedicated to thwarting majority rule.

The problems with majority rule can be summarized, I think:

a) politics is toxic to society
b) elites can better operate a state (each category of elite will have their own argument for why this is so)
c) the majority will oppress minorities, or in libertarian thought, will oppress themselves as well
d) the majority will make irrational reactionary decisions, perhaps making war for a trifle

Where do you stand on this fairly fundamental question in politics?

the government has ruled if you aren't insured you have to pay for testing now

I am kinda staying away from due Fedi wars abd drana

It's a cute picture.  So I've been reading (well, listening to) some books that talk about Charles Koch and David Koch.  These are American business people who also engage in political activism.  I *think* they desire a kind of libertarian state, but if that seems wrong to you I'll take the assertion back.  They seek a kind of government where, for example, a bill of rights would have one item: The Right to Own Private Property.

I think it's easy to create a caricature of this government, which I will try to avoid.  The basic moral idea is that people can currently be grouped into 'makers' and 'takers'.  Makers produce in excess of their government entitlements, takers get more from the government than they produce, so they are net unproductive citizens.  If we remove government entitlements, we remove the incentive to stagnate in state dependency.  If the Koch state became real, there would be a growing period for the takers, certainly, but eventually everyone would be spurred toward individual productivity, and the rising tide of economic activity would raise all to greater wellbeing.

I think through most of American history property supremacy has been either a fringe idea or one carried by people who would not today be viewed as moral authorities, but its appeal has been growing in the past decades.  

Do you think this is a good kind of state, or no?  What is good and/or bad about the idea?