The prosecutor said that all the evidence presented to the grand jury would be released to the public at the conclusion of his statement. I haven't seen anything yet.

Meanwhile, fivethirtyeight breaks down the statistical improbability of a grand jury not returning an indictment, except in cases involving police:  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/. It's interesting to read to take in context.

For now, all I know is that the only people who heard all the evidence decided there was not enough to file charges. Until I can review the evidence myself when it's made public, I'm reserving judgment on whether they were right or wrong.

The only reason I remarked on the number of regulations was because you brought it up. I was, in effect, using your own example without subscribing to the belief myself. It's a snappy maxim, for sure, but number of regulations is somewhat immaterial to me. Rather, the quality of the regulations is my concern. More freedom and fewer regulations can be correlated, but are not necessarily the same. (As a rather silly example, a law that it is illegal to kill someone with a firearm and a separate law that is illegal to kill someone with a vehicle does not make us less free. While it would be easier to have one law that simply makes killing illegal, having a higher number of regulations that effect the same result would not make us less free, which is why the quality of the regulations matter more than the quantity. I'm concerned with laws that limit freedom.)

As for the examples of curfews, I don't consider familial restrictions by a parent-child relationship a valid analogy, and I view all three curfews imposed by the different levels of government as invalid and unnecessary. The base issue with curfews is the same as with any other issue: does freedom of association give you the right to use force to curtail the freedom of other people? My answer to that is no; that your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property justly derived remain inalienable by all others. Inalienability doesn't end at majority vote. That's what makes it inalienable.

Whoops. Fixed!

I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can: I have no idea what I just read or if there was a cohesive point to it.

It is being reported that the grand jury has reached a decision regarding the officer who shot Michael Brown and press conferences are being scheduled. It sounds like the decision could be announced today.

*Derp Edit: Grand jury reaches decision in case of Ferguson officer

Everyone lives off the sun's energy, but it is by eating food. All food, whether plant or animal, provides energy that originated from the sun. Plants photosynthesize to grow, we eat them. Or plants photosynthesize to grow, animals eat them to grow, we eat them. Don't spread nonsense though. You actually do need food to survive.

The real test of whether Republicans think Obama is acting unconstitutionally will be when they decide whether or not to impeach. If he's as terrible as they make him out to be, it should be easy to impeach, right? What possible justification is there for spending so much time talking about how unconstitutional his actions are and NOT impeaching? Then you're a party to the transgressions by having the power to stop them but choosing not to act. By controlling both houses of Congress, they might even have a shot at removing him from office altogether. But my prediction is they won't even vote to impeach, because this dance the republicans and democrats do is just smoke and mirrors. They're so busy trying to convince us all they're diametrically opposed to each other so we don't pay attention to how ineptly both parties run this country. And when the time comes to act, their true nature will be revealed, and promptly ignored by the public.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin. 

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

Fair on both points!

The difference here is you don't have to have a car. If you have a car, you don't have to drive it. If you have a car, and you drive it, you have to have insurance. That's not the same as health insurance, where you have to have it, period.


No argument here. I agree with you. But that's not the point of my concern. The question is it moral to force someone to buy something they don't want.


If everyone is better off, everyone would already have it. Clearly, the people who don't want to buy it think they're better off without it.


I actually directly disagree with you here. It is tyrannical to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The use of force by the government to enforce its will against the unwilling is tyranny. As for "is everyone morally obliged to get some coverage out of respect for their community," this may a question worth exploring.


Agreed, but then again, that's not very capitalist either. Or perhaps it's "capitalist" but not free-market. Either way, it's corrupted capitalism; crony capitalism.


On the whole, I can see this argument. Individual sacrifice for the common good is classical republicanism, but forced sacrifice isn't noble. Where do you draw the line between letting people decide what is best for the community and forcing the unwilling to comply? Just health care? What about income inequality? Surely it's bad for the society to have so many working poor, so maybe income redistribution is a necessary evil for the greater good. Prohibition is a classic example of a failed "for the common good" initiative. I would say the prohibition on drugs is proving the same.


I agree here. Republican opposition to Obamacare isn't about what's good for the country. It's about what's good for Republicans. And what's good for Republicans is for Democrats to fail, because in the next election, you'll still only have two choices: a Democrat or a Republican. So the majority of American politics is painting the other side as evil or stupid because then you're the only choice left. This is why both fight so hard to keep third parties off the ballot.

On your first point, it's entirely possible. Is it not also possible you don't know all of them? You don't have to go very far into internet comment sections to see conservatives bashing immigrants on the basis of race.

On the second point, as I've already stated I think this action isn't justified. But your example doesn't prove it's unconstitutional. Political posturing does not prove unconstitutionality. If the president has the authority to do something and says "pass this law or I'll use my authority to do it myself," that's not unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional if he doesn't have the authority in the first place. But I think I'm just arguing semantics here. We're in agreement that he shouldn't have done it.

And most of politics is childish. The majority of politics in America is obstructing the other party so they can never have political victories. That's good politics, but terrible for the country.

I'm not saying it's ultimately not a distinction worth making, I'm just saying that when your freedom is being infringed, it matters less who is doing it than the fact that it is happening. I guess I'm taking issue with the reasoning that because a local government is restricting my freedom, I should be more OK with it than if it was the federal government. That doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I accept the idea that states should be allowed to set their own laws. That doesn't make states restricting my freedom more palatable.

Under the maxim you quoted, every regulation would make the government less good, so it would stand to reason that the best governments allow the most freedom through the least number of regulations. So when a regulation is passed about who you can give sandwiches to, it stands to reason that it's a pretty unnecessary restriction of freedom. (At least judged solely by this maxim. I would tend to agree, just for different reasons.)

Maybe I can steer this back on topic.



It seems the plan announced last night is the same as was posited in the OP. There are two questions I'd like to pose.

1) Is this a good plan?

2)  Is this an appropriate use of executive power? (Or, alternately, has the President claimed a legislative power?)

My answer to number 1 is I like the plan more than I don't. When Republicans say "Immigrant," they do so as a pejorative. I don't believe Republicans hate illegal immigrants so much as they hate immigrants. The US has a long history of hating every generation that has just arrived. Despite the popular conservative anecdote, immigrants don't come here for a free ride. They come here to work because they live in areas where there is no opportunity. They understand that working hard and keeping the fruits of your labor is an opportunity that exists in America, and they want that. That's why every generation has come here. So I discount a lot of Republican opposition to the plan as just opposing Obama or opposing immigrants because of the racial undertones. (This is not a fair assessment to those who oppose the plan on its merits, I concede that. So don't prove me right by making your counterargument based on race or stereotypes of immigrants.) This country needs immigrants. It's always been the lifeblood of America: people who want to do well make America great.

My answer to number 2 is I don't think so. As much as I like the plan, I'm uncomfortable with the way it is being implemented. The President's frustration with a deadlocked congress is not a justification for going around them. (Well, it is, but not a valid one.) A technical argument can be made as to whether or not the President seized a "legislative power" in his actions last night. If you were to conclude that he did, it's obviously unconstitutional. If you were to conclude that he did not, then the question still remains as to whether the actions are appropriate. I'm answering this last component. I don't think the actions are appropriate. I don't want the president to have the power to make huge unilateral decisions like this. But I also don't trust the Republicans when they say they don't either, because they object to the plan, not the use of power. They were more than content to let Bush make huge decisions when he was in office while the Democrats complained about abuse of power. Now that the roles are reversed, there is a predictable silence from the Democrats challenging Obama's power moves.

On an off topic note, I know this is the internet, but please try to make your responses to me on point and constructive. I'm interested to see other perspectives, but I will straight up stop reading the moment you start insulting or commanding others to respect your opinion as law. (I've been involved in a thread recently that has devolved to the "I'm right and you're stupid" stage, and it's utterly pointless. Nothing gets accomplished at that point.) Just be respectful, basically, and you have my word that I will be respectful as well.

(Does that mean Florida?)

In response to this here, and also what you just wrote in the other topic about this same subject:


My question then is are you OK with limitations on individual freedom as long as they don't come from the federal level? I suppose I'm trying to find the line between where my absolute right to not be restricted in my actions meets your right to freedom of association, and by extension to use force to restrict actions of mine you don't like.

I personally don't put much emphasis on the distinction between use of force by the feds vs. use of force by the states or local governments. It seems to me either we are free or we are not. The manner by which we are not free (feds vs. local authority) is not very critical.

Ffs man, quit quoting him. If you're not going to do it because you're above such stupid arguments about arguments, then stop it so I don't have to see his pointless posts. If you have nothing constructive to say, why say anything?

I think trying to pin the failure of Detroit singularly on the Democrats is a case of over-simplification. There were far more factors that lead to the downfall of Detroit than the party in power, or the role of unions. (Two groups I am not fans of, btw... I'm not defending them.)

I'm interested to know where you draw the line between people having rights and people having the authority to make laws that affect other people's rights.

My Name Was Taken: stop feeding the troll. Try to find something more productive to do with your time. You've made your point, do you really think you can convince anyone on the internet that their opinion is wrong? Be smarter than that.

Bottom line for me: is it moral for the government to force you to buy something you don't want to buy, or penalize you for not buying it? While the law does a lot of things I might personally agree with (e.g. pre-existing conditions), the base concern remains.

Because I have the right not to. Seems to be the simplest response.