Capitalist ParadiseBoard

Capitalist Producers wrote:

And those words still stand. Recent history, especially the last seven years in the United States, shows us that having a "damn solid reason" is not required for people to take a politically opposite position to common sense.

Conversly, having a bad reason is required for people to take a politically opposite position to common sense. Thx for proving mt point :)

Capitalist Producers wrote:

How much you or anyone else values the outcome of this proposal is not relevant to my judgement on the matter. I am judging the proposal on what I think it might to the region. To see how that argument fails, take a look at Obama and all the people that valued the passage of Obamacare.

You misunderstood. By valuing, I meant value judgement. i.e. to me, the tradeoff involved is worth it. If the majority agree, then it should pass. If they don't no problem.

In the case of obamacare, the electorate judged that rising premiums, copayments, deductibles, and insurance scarcity, is worth it to socialize the health insurance. They are willing to bare the cost of their negligence. Value judgements are opinions. There is no right and wrong is the point i was making with that.

Capitalist Producers wrote:

Nothing moral or immoral about it. This is all about trying to predict a future based on the proposal at hand.

You are fallacious logic based on faulty assumptions. E.g. My proposal cannot allow courts to "create" law, it prevents it from doing so. Also, you were the one who brought the "should" into ... it, hence the moral aspect -_- but wtv.

Capitalist Producers wrote:

Not exactly right. The court can rule, for instance, that a law requiring everyone to have a mostly blue flag is unconstitutional. But the court cannot go on to say that law makes no sense therefore everyone must have yellow flags.

My proposal does not give the court the power to say that. It actually prevents it from doing so, since the criteria for repeal are very specific.

Capitalist Producers wrote:

The system works. I see no reason to fix it.

What you're telling me is that this is redundant. If that is the case, then you should have nothing to worry about then. If what you are saying is true, then this law simply puts your customs on paper (so to speak). I see no reason for you to be against it, after all "the system works" eh?

Capitalist Producers wrote:

Exactly. This court, modeled on the United States Supreme Court (thus the name), has the power to reject any case out of hand if we find there is no merit to the complaint. This is a good thing.

Faulty reasoning. You have not defined what the criteria for "no merit" is, unlike my proposal. Therefore, you can pretty much dismiss anything on any basis; you have also admitted that you have an inherent incentive to do so, because - as you put it - "the players behind this game have real lives" eh?

All the more reason to define what "no merit" is.

You say that this is a good thing. It is for you and not for the region, as evidence by you admitting that you have an inherent incentive to dismiss anything on any basis.

Capitalist Producers wrote:

Conducting a trial via telegrams is a screaming pain in the... neck.

And the reason you don't look for alternatives is? Fallacy again.

You are trying to limit how many cases you handle, because you have an inefficient method. By your logic, you should also limit your transportation because walking is hard (god forbid you use a car eh?)

Capitalist Producers wrote:

Seriously. The way your proposal reads, the court would be able to wipe out vast sections of the constitution on a whim.

If this is true, then you are admitting that laws have laws that are unenforceable, unlawful, or conflicts with other laws. If this is the case, then you having proven again the need for voting yes on my proposal Thx!

Also, I think I see what is happening. I think you feel threatened that the results of your hard work may be erased. This is not about your ego, this is about CP -_-

Capitalist Producers wrote:

"The only thing worse then a bad law is a badly written law."
- Me

... yes... hence the need to improve them... thx... for proving my point yet again...

On a separate note capital ist producers

I am worried.

You have admitted me the following:

You enjoy the ability to be able to repeal things with no basis. You have an incentive to dismiss cases with no basis. You feel no need to fix this.

I love how shamelessly you take advantage of the government monopoly on judicial services. I don't blame you as you're being rational. But you are also proving that we cannot expect to always have the right people in power. Imagine if someone with ulterior motivrs were in your position.

Gl lol

Cybernomix wrote:

You enjoy the ability to be able to repeal things with no basis. You have an incentive to dismiss cases with no basis.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Is it? Perhaps you should go back and read the last couple of posts I made on this matter. If that fails you, go back and look at the the last decision the court handed down.[1]

Cybernomix wrote:

I love how shamelessly you take advantage of the government monopoly on judicial services.

Feel free to set up a private binding arbitration service to settle civil matters.

Cybernomix wrote:

Conversly, having a bad reason is required for people to take a politically opposite... <--SNIP to remove a lot of redundant nonsense--> ...my point yet again...

On that, I rest my case.

I would advise anyone that believes in less red tape and the court's ability to exercise judicial discretion in favor of common sense to vote against this proposal. This proposal is largely redundant and opens a can of worms that future residents of the region will come to despise.

--------------------------------------------------------------
[1] page=rmb/postid=10068283

Capitalist Producers wrote:

By nationalized do you mean:
- The government simply takes the private property belonging to the oil companies stealing that equity from the owners (shareholders)?
- The government condemns the private property, paying the owners of those properties what ever some judge decides, but keeping in mind that amount is rarely fair market value? of the
- The government forces the owners of those private properties to sell their interests in those properties at the fair market value?

Once one of the above three things are accomplished, how do you ensure the government will run those energy businesses in a fair an equitable manner? Right now we have a President in office that routinely goes out of his way to screw the fossil fuels industry. (Coal and oil.) If Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would all be paying $6 a gallon or more for gasoline because he knows that would get people of the roads which would be the Green thing to do. The price would have no relationship to the cost of production.

I can see fuel prices going up and down based on where we are in the election cycle. The incumbent powers will go out of their way to lower prices in the month or two leading up to the election. But Wednesday morning, right after the polls are closed, fuel skyrockets to make up for the artificially low prices to appease the electorate.

Lastly, never forget, even for a minute: Government screws up everything it touches. This law doubles down when the government steps into the private sector.

My fellow justice is absolutely right on this one. When the government produces their own news, some people call that propaganda.

1. I'm not for the government nationalization of anything, much less the government being involved in businesses past a simplistic and sensible regulatory system.

2. If we nationalized our energy sector, we'd become a very big version of Venezula.

Two vote counters are needed for an upcoming legislative action.

Cybernomix wrote:

That gives me an idea. I will look into how I can enable Nations to provide that competitively or in a market.

I've been thinking. Since private arbitration is a set of private arrangements, it would have to be unimpeded by government (if it does then it won't be a private arrangement anymore). I'm thinking that a necessary condition for any set of private arrangements to be effective, binding and long-term is to limit the government's ability to dictate private arrangements. Suppose the Nations in power change, and you have Nations that want to suddenly tell us what we can and cannot do in our private affairs, it would help to have a constitutional limit on that.

Next Proposal!

Cybernomix wrote:

I've been thinking. Since private arbitration is a set of private arrangements, it would have to be unimpeded by government (if it does then it won't be a private arrangement anymore). I'm thinking that a necessary condition for any set of private arrangements to be effective, binding and long-term is to limit the government's ability to dictate private arrangements. Suppose the Nations in power change, and you have Nations that want to suddenly tell us what we can and cannot do in our private affairs, it would help to have a constitutional limit on that.

Why is it that you insist on legislating things we are already free to do?

**The ambassador slaps a bumper sticker on the podium. It reads:

STAMP OUT OVER REGULATION and LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH - VOTE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT PROPOSAL!

Capitalist Producers,

You are in a position of power. And you are false advertising an outright lie about my proposal so you can keep your ability to legislate from the bench.

If you think that we can't see that, you must think we are dumb.

I don't know why, but Capitalist Producers has made it blatantly obvious that he just wants to cover his own hide.

Corruption is yet another reason why we ought to limit his power. Vote FOR this proposal, to PREVENT the court from creating law.

Repentant jihadi wrote:

If there is the evidence of the corruption in the Supreme Court ...this correct place to direct your concern is to The Vocals

Way ahead of you.

Just tell me where to post.

Kaputer wrote:

the court does refrain from legislating from the bench.

This is your custom. I'm simply trying to put it in writing so it is preserved.

This argument that it shouldn't be the law because you already have it as a custom is as logical as saying that crossing a highway shouldn't be illegal because no one does it anyways.

The difference is, you have an inherent incentive to not cross a highway cuz youll friggin die. In the court tho, there is an inherent incentive to dismiss any and all cases for any reason - EVEN THO IT IS NOT THE CASE - because as Capitalist Producers so elegantly put it: you have lives outside of NS.

Because of this perverse incentive, your custom should be preserved in writing since you cant expect customs to remain constant as a function of time and as players change.

------

Different note.

This argument that somehow the court will repal the entire constitution is utter nonsense from start to finish. There are specific criteria for repeal and I have only seen one law so far that fits the criteria requiring a mandate of improvement. (Where the word respectful is used, as noted by my dear friend Capitalist Producers)

But let's suppose they all do.

Are you suggesting that a law that is unenforceable, unlawful, or contrary to previous law should NOT be repealed?

This contradicts the earlier statements that the court DOES in fact repeal such laws anyways. So let's stop kidsing ourselves shall we?