Search options (Page 42 of 152)

The left-right line lies over the Tragic Vision line.  Thomas Sowell has made a very strong case on the point.  It also tracks the Plato/Aristotle split pretty closely.  These are not new issues.

Common sense does depend on your frame.  If you believe in Rousseau's view of human nature, your commonsense solution to a human problem may be the exact opposite of what it would be if you took the tragic view of human nature.

Averaging 'go north' and 'go south' gets you exactly nowhere.

Without precedent, every case must be decided from first principles and without benefif of prior experience.  No judge would be bound by the precedent of higher courts, and every case would be subject to appeal because no prior legal reasoning would apply to it.

English Common Law is a remarkable achievement and a crown jewel of civiliization, and I saw no evidence in The Federalist, or anywhere else, that the Framers envisioned rebuilding the principles of the judiciary ab novo.  Rather, they chose to fit it into, and subordinate to, the Constitution.

They failed to address who would hear appeals against Acts said to violate the restrictions placed by the Constitution.  It seems to me that this made Marbury v. Madison, or a similar case, inevitable in a government run by men and not by (unfallen) angels.

Sigh.  Did we have a topic here?

Which is a retroactive change to the contract between author and society represented by the monopoly.  It's also a serious obstacle to keeping orphaned works in print.  Consider a minor classic like The World of Suzie Wong.  (This is a what-if example, not a real orphaned work.)  If the author cannot be found, the work cannot be republished or reprinted, whatever its value.  (I recall that Congress was considering laws to address this, but do not know if any were passed.)

ins out diary?

The point isn't that it's a century (or whatever) but that it is perpetually increased, which negates the intention on 'limited time'.

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant monopolies to the creators of works FOR A LIMITED TIME.  But that limited time is increased over and over again at the behest of Disney, creating a de facto perpetual monopoly.  SCOTUS refused to strike it down, but if the pattern continues, it might come before SCOTUS again, and if SCOTUS has four strong textualists or strict constructionists, the result might be different.  But that's years down the road.

Tarentella

Oh, c'mon!  Last time we saw Kirsey he SAID he was going after Melayne.  To save her.

The word 'lampshade' is used as a verb for naming things in ways that announce things.  For example, Girl Genius has villains with names like Lucrezia Mongfish and Zola Anya Telinka Zeblinka Malfeazium.  (I think I'm missing a middle name in there.)  You could have a lampshading contest.

Corra, I think your posting could be condensed into "My discussions with you, Charles, tend to decay into polemic.  I do not like to spend time in polemic, so I'm declining the discussion with you.  Please regard this as an apology if you need one."  Is this a fair summary?

Two US Navy ships and an American freighter?