quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...for your edification. No human sets the appropriate level of consumption, that is done by the finite nature of the environment.

bingo.

scarcity and prices control consumption. there's no 'equilibrium' to be reached.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

If your ability's to discern the future are anything like your grasp of the past,there is little need to worry about your dire predictions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

If your ability's to discern the future are anything like your grasp of the past,there is little need to worry about your dire predictions.

where does my grasp fail?

at woodrow wilson? the man who passed the sedition acts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i don't think you actually read the link. There is, clearly, an equilibrium to be reached in the case of consumption. That balance is the point where we consume no quicker than a given resource is replenished. The economic angle, while pertinent in the short term, is not the most important factor.
There is a saying, descriptive of someone who over-emphasises economics......they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Just to correct you, Wilson signed a sedition act and it wasn't the first. The first US sedition act was enacted in 1798 by John Adams.

So yeah your grasp does fail rather spectacularly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Variation,your first mistake was in calling it the War of Northern aggression....it was the South that fired on Ft.Sumpter...not the other way around....and if you are considering the C.S.A as a separate and sovereign nation,which I am not ready to concede,what does one sovereign nation do when their flag is fired on by another sovereign nation...I have no desire to re fight the Civil War with you....it is far too discordant a note on this fine day.On the other hand I am unable to let such distortions go unchallenged...if you insist and have nothing better to do with your afternoon....perhaps you can start a separate thread,and I will try to accommodate you.Failing that,Good afternoon to you

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is legal,

where does it say that in the Constitution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS


Article 3 sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 establishes the court and the tenure of its members.
section2 defines its jurisdiction  which is both original and appellate.  Original in cases between the states or between the states and the federal government.
The court draws its right of "judicial review" from its oath to uphold the constitution.  This was first expressed by chief justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
 
H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i don't think you actually read the link. There is, clearly, an equilibrium to be reached in the case of consumption. That balance is the point where we consume no quicker than a given resource is replenished. The economic angle, while pertinent in the short term, is not the most important factor.
There is a saying, descriptive of someone who over-emphasises economics......they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I just read your post.

um. no. this is a rather silly idea. think about it, if you've ever consumed anything you are not at the equilibrium level. hell, the second law of thermodynamics shows you can't have an equilibrium.

quote:

let's say I drink a cup of milk a day. well...

a cow can produce 1 milk a day? now are we balanced? no.

why?

well, a cow needs to eat grass. and she has to eat the grass in a way that does not leave her starving as she's eaten it all up. so she manages to do that. but. the grass needs to be watered and needs fertilizer. well, trace this back further and further to a finite system and entropy and bam, you cannot possibly achieve an equilibrium.

quote:

however, through capitalism and the utilization of prices to determine where resources should be traded to, you can slow this process of entropy and resource deterioration just as you can slow down an engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

Mike, in fairness to him, the Bush haters never gave him a chance either. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Variation,your first mistake was in calling it the War of Northern aggression....it was the South that fired on Ft.Sumpter...not the other way around....and if you are considering the C.S.A as a separate and sovereign nation,which I am not ready to concede,what does one sovereign nation do when their flag is fired on by another sovereign nation...I have no desire to re fight the Civil War with you....it is far too discordant a note on this fine day.On the other hand I am unable to let such distortions go unchallenged...if you insist and have nothing better to do with your afternoon....perhaps you can start a separate thread,and I will try to accommodate you.Failing that,Good afternoon to you

where was ft. sumpter located? was it in the south? is expelling soldiers from another nation who are squatting in your territory an aggressive act?

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

If you were the richest person on a life boat in the middle of the ocean do you feel that your wealth would entitle you to more of the food or water than those less wealthy than you?
 
H.

I am not entitled to anything I do not produce myself or trade for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

Mike, in fairness to him, the Bush haters never gave him a chance either.  I haven't been able to go out in public for 8 years without someone sounding exactly like that on the other side.
Give Obama a chance to make true his speech and his promises.  If he can do even 1/2 of what he says he wants to do, people will come around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS


Article 3 sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 establishes the court and the tenure of its members.
section2 defines its jurisdiction  which is both original and appellate.  Original in cases between the states or between the states and the federal government.
The court draws its right of "judicial review" from its oath to uphold the constitution.  This was first expressed by chief justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
 
H.

Section 1 - Judicial powers The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.) In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

hm...I'm not seeing anything about judicial review there. perhaps I am continually missing the part that says courts can define what is and is not constitutional
yes, I'm familiar with marbury v. madison as well...but as I stated earlier, that decision is irrelevent as the constitution does not give them the power of judicial review...they gave it to themselves. sorry, but I don't think that's very just. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

I am not entitled to anything I do not produce myself or trade for.

quote:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

...if you're gong to try and use a physical law to suggest that equilibrium isn't possible then you may want to find one that doesn't actually mention equilibrium as a possible state. The law also best describes an isolated system.......which in your next paragraph you correctly refute. Your logic is a bit all over the place. You can't argue for isolated systems and then argue for interdependent systems and hope to be taken seriously.

quote:

...merely stating something is true doesn't prove it. You haven't proven a thing with this....all you've done is (rightly) point to the interdependence of systems then leapt to a conclusion. A cow eats grass, if a cow eats grass faster than the grass can grow then that is over-consumption. Do you see it yet? Over-consumption is not an abstract human artefact, it's a property of a finite environment.

quote:

...even taking your own logic as true (which i don't) all you've suggested is that entropy can be slowed down a bit by economics. Whoopy-doo-skip.

quote:

The point you signally ignore is that over-consumption can and, almost certainly is, occuring in human populations. It takes no law passed by a human organisation to recognise this. However, ignoring it is a classic demonstration of the Ostritch Position.........clearly, if, say, the US is over-consuming then there may be a problem with the type of society you clearly desire......a sort of terminal problem at that. Die-back, like payback, can be a bitch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Nice try,but it was Federal Property before South Carolina seceeded and it remained Federal Property after secession,perhaps your ficticous new nation might have tried negotiations...before firing on their "former" flag....no mater though,if this is your best response I have more pressing maters to attend to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

That looks a lot like the "Texas two step".
Since you did not produce or trade for your space on the life boat it is time for you to learn to swim.  In the mean time the rest of us on the life boat will share the food and water we had originally planed to share with you.

quote:

By your line of reasoning you are not allowed to drive on public highways since the part you paid for with your fuel tax would not buy a cubic inch of concrete.
You are not entitled to attend public school or private school since both of them have been paid for in some part by someone besides you.
Perhaps you ought to go back and reread Ayn Rand in her entirety.  She speaks not only of individual rights but also of the individual's responsibilities.  Libertarianism is not an "A la cart" philosophy.  You either take it all or none at all.  You are not allowed to pick and choose.