[One Degree]

Not that it matters, but my current thinking is 1000 to 6000 one Degree areas best suited for autonomy be utilized as citystates and the other 90-95% of the earth be used for mutual benefit and treated as nature preserves/resource extraction.

[Crantag]

No, anti-liberalism is a cornerstone of his ideology.

I certainly don't regard myself as a liberal, but his tactics are that way. Hence the spite comment. He is rather pathological in the anti-liberal tact.

[Crantag]

Not that it matters, but my current thinking is 1000 to 6000 one Degree areas best suited for autonomy be utilized as citystates and the other 90-95% of the earth be used for mutual benefit and treated as nature preserves/resource extraction.

This reminds me of that Sifi show Into the Badlands.

[One Degree]

I see a human history of war that only existed because someone wanted to deny autonomy to someone else. That is all it comes down to. I have tried to think of a way to eliminate such self destructive thinking. Agreement to inviolable autonomous areas eliminates war. Especially if they are not adjoining. Resources must be shared however. A town growing up around an agricultural area or mine is no longer needed and is very destructive to the environment. Experts brought in from the various city states to grow crops or mine along accepted environmental practices limits destruction and eliminates unnecessary infrastructure. The US for example complains about our crumbling infrastructure, yet few stop to think it is because we have too much unnecessary infrastructure. No one can afford an infrastructure that is required to expand to anywhere someone chooses to live, unless you also have a population you can not support. It is all based upon a loop of one undesirable thing being required because of another undesirable thing. We need to rationally plan, and we need to quit accepting something is right just because it is how we have always done it.
No one should accept any expansionist ideology because our history proves they are inevitably destructive.

[Drlee]

Agreement to inviolable autonomous areas eliminates war.

Yes. That has worked well throughout the history of mankind. Give me a break.

[One Degree]

:lol:

Yes. That has worked well throughout the history of mankind. Give me a break.

Would it not have to work better than not respecting autonomy? When did it exist in the past? You realize my context included ideological autonomy, not believing others should accept your ‘superior’ view?

[quetzalcoatl]

You mean recognizes that corporations are made up of people.

This is an argument so utterly disingenuous, it's difficult to believe it's made in good faith.

So, no, I don't mean that at all - because they are not the same thing.

If you wan't the rights of a person, simply act as a person - on your own, unshielded by the corporate umbrella.

Note that a corporate person, at the time the republic was founded, had only the rights expressly granted by the legislature. They were, by design, alienable. You seem to forget the founders had a deep and abiding suspicion of corporations, and limited their scope of action quite harshly.* In fact it wasn't until mid-nineteenth century that corporate hegemony overcame the original colonial fear of corporations. Limitations of liability were expressly contingent on the corporate person giving up other rights. Scalia corporate personhood was invented out of whole cloth, and it utterly irreconcilable with originalism - but originalism was always a conservative scam, as you well know.

--------------------------

*Laws varied from state to state, but the following were common:

Prohibition of all political and charitable donations (deemed violation of fiduciary responsibility).

Charters were revoked after its specific reason for formation was achieved.

Charters were revoked for malfeasance.

Prohibition of ownership of land not directly required to advance its charter.

Prohibition of activity not specifically described in its charter.

Prohibition of corporate ownership of other corporations (trusts).

[Godstud]

When did it exist in the past?

Feudalism was essentially what you described, and were humans content with what they have, then that might work, but humans generally want MORE. Your fantasy goes against human nature.

[One Degree]

Feudalism was essentially what you described, and were humans content with what they have, then that might work, but humans generally want MORE. Your fantasy goes against human nature.

I don’t believe it is against human nature. Humans are tribal. It is unnatural to pretend they are not. Letting them pick their tribes and live in peace with one another is a ‘fantasy’ worth pursuing.

[Hong Wu]

I think history is easier to understand if you consider that different people in different places and times thought differently from each other and had different options. Although feudalism is basically the start of western history it is perhaps not the start for every civilization.

[Hong Wu]

We might also ask ourselves why Justice Kennedy, who is clearly a moderate, would deliberately do something that he should know hurts Democrats at the ballot box. They must have done something recently that offends him...

[Albert]

Is it possible he might have been bought? Paid well for his service. How much does it cost to betray progress?

[Hong Wu]

Lol well, not sure if you're being serious but I suspect that he is just not feeling confident about how the Democrats are doing things at the moment.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... t-politics

A year ago, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer spearheaded a filibuster against Neil Gorsuch, nominated by Trump to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Predictably, McConnell changed the rules on a party line vote, so that Gorsuch could be confirmed by a majority vote instead of needing 60 supporters as the Senate had previously required.


If Democrats had bowed to the inevitable Gorsuch confirmation, allowing a doctrinaire conservative to replace another doctrinaire conservative, they would now be in a stronger position to block a replacement for the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote. Had the old rules been left in place, one Republican defector would have the power to stop the change needed to confirm a justice by simple majority.

If the Democrats had allowed this and not been talking about physically harassing people and so-on, I wonder what the Republicans might have done.

[Hong Wu]

WASHINGTON — On paper, Brett Michael Kavanaugh may be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in generations.

Like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas, he has served on the second-most powerful court in the nation. Like Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, he brings more than a decade's experience as a federal appeals court judge. And like Justice Elena Kagan, he has worked at the side of a two-term president.

JACK GRUBER, USA TODAY
But Kavanaugh's 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, combined with his Yale pedigree, Supreme Court clerkship under retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy and top posts under President George W. Bush, give him a résumé the court's current justices can't match.

[blackjack21]

Basically, the only reason they can oppose Kavanaugh is because they clearly want an activist left wing judge. There frankly is no other reason. The 50 years or so of forcing social change through the courts may be coming to a bitter end for the political left. Their fear, however, is that social change will be coming from the right. Just like their abolition of the filibuster, they are afraid that their own tactics will soon be used against them.

#MAGA

[Zagadka]

they clearly want an activist left wing judge.

Well, no shit. What did you expect the left to want? Or the right? As you are fond of repeating, they want winning!

[One Degree]

Boo! Don’t need more justices supporting Stare decisis.

[Finfinder]

Well, no shit. What did you expect the left to want? Or the right? As you are fond of repeating, they want winning!

Hard to tell last week they were apoplectic about separated children....

This week they're freaking out that they may lose their "constitutional right" to murder babies.

[blackjack21]

Or the right?

The right does not require activist judges. Simply enforcing the constitution as is makes for right wing rulings in the left's eyes. The most right wing interpretation to come out of the court really comes from the left's playbook--reading rights into the 14th Amendment that clearly aren't there. In this case, the Citizen's United decision.

This week they're freaking out that they may lose their "constitutional right" to murder babies.

Or gays getting married, which is another power clearly reserved to the states.

Meanwhile, the fake news continues to operate sloppily.
ABC's Nightline Blasts 'Controversial' Nominee Before He’s Even Announced!

[Zagadka]

The right does not require activist judges. Simply enforcing the constitution as is makes for right wing rulings in the left's eyes.

lol, and you talk about idealistic liberals.

You may have heard this term "conservative"... what do you think it means? Almost by definition, liberals are activists, because there is an order to act against, which conservatives struggle to keep.

What, you expect them not to turn over Roe V. Wade? Rule correctly on religious issues? Just because... conservative?

Do they just want to stand around self flaggating over the Constitution? I mean, we had this argument last week. I'm a "liberal activist" wanting to update the Constitution, you are a conservative seeking to follow every comma placed in positions that meant different things 250 years ago.