johker216

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase "nor prohibited by it to the States" exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.

I enjoyed Star Trek 25th Anniversary and the first Starfleet Command with the latter being my favorite.

He also knows Bubbles? Small world!

How many years of Israeli occupation have to go by until it is no longer considered occupation and Israeli land? There has to be a dividing line between the expulsions 1400 years ago and that time where the land became Palestinian, no? Palestinians and Israelis (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, non-religious, etc.) have an equal claim to existence - many of those that want to disband the colonist state of Israel are also advocating genocide. Genocide doesn't always mean killing - it also means the destruction of national identity. It's obvious that a two state solution is necessary to stop and avoid future genocide of both peoples. "River to the sea" never meant coexistence and I think it's about time people stop advocating for a counter-genocide with that slogan.

Bladerunner

The privacy policy at startup links to a very comprehensive version. I think someone may have posted it above.

Isn't this entire thread about "libertarians" vs libertarians? I'm not sure who you're trying to argue with but it certainly isn't me 😁

Sorry, didn't mention the others but generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract 'value'. How does a fire department generate revenue? Or police? They don't and they shouldn't be designed to - they're a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.

No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of 'penalizing' heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.

No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, 'agression' on balance and holistically. What you're describing is used not just by 'libertarians' but by anyone that doesn't want a law to apply to them.

Both are necessary, there's an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I'm not one of those crazy ones 😁

Except these warrants aren't granted for "any reason" and I'm fairly sure you know that as well. Like I implied in my comment, the government is not some monolithic entity where all government employees conspire to deprive you, John Q. Public, of all of your rights.

My claim is only that no matter how well implemented a program may be, certain individuals will still claim corruption where none statistically exists. The whole point of our society is to implement laws, execute those laws, evaluate if those laws are having a positive affect on mitigating the problem it's meant to solve, and change the law to address shortcomings or unnecessary bits.

Of course we should all be skeptical of the process, but arguing against change because we don't feel like the results are going to be what we like is irrational. Past behavior is important to keep in mind but let's not exaggerate and wax hyperbolic. It's simple: If our elected officials aren't implementing and reevaluating laws based on evidence/results, then it is our responsibility to remove those officials from power. If the roadblock to removing those in power are your fellow citizens, it's your responsibility to help gain consensus in your community.

Tearing down, or dismissing, the system is not reasonable; that's partly how in US politics we've become so polarized. People don't have patience anymore for conversation or debate; they want immediate and immaculate change with 100% certainty and that's unrealistic. Change is gradual and is never going to get it right out of the gate.

So come on, if you're French, engage with your community and your elected officials to ensure that this law is implemented (or retracted) as honest as possible and stay engaged. Opinions without reasonable action is how fascism takes hold. I'm not sure how this law will turn out but I'm willing to be surprised that it gets implemented honestly. And if you're not French, well, then I'm pretty sure yours and my opinions on how that citizenry chooses to govern is none of our business (outside of gross universal human rights violations and this is nowhere near the same galaxy).