9,464 karma · joined December 17, 2013
It may be harder to find something. It likely won't be your dream job right after college. Mind you, you probably wouldn't have gotten that anyway. Don't stress too much about it.
That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by collecting and distributing donations citywide; it's more widespread, and donations are less centralized, but there's cost in paying people to actually do the legwork. A government is doing stuff nationwide, distributing unequally based on need (measured in a flawed way, yes, but still requiring measurement, since it's politically untenable to do simple things), and is less efficient still. But that's...to be expected.
You see the same thing in private sector; the larger a company is, the less efficiently it runs. Walmart is the largest private employer; no one is claiming it's a well oiled machine of efficiencies comparable to a lean startup. Necessarily; it's just like with technology, the more distributed the system is, the less efficient it is. Saying that governments are inefficient and just throw money at the problem is like saying distributed systems are inefficient and just throw compute at the problem. While true, it nevertheless is still the only way to solve many problems at that scale, and comparing the 'inefficiencies' of hardware of, say, Google, to the hardware for local search on my home PC, isn't particularly meaningful rhetoric.
>Yes, but that's a wrong and unfair way to define and apply laws.
Sounds like you're interpreting how to define and apply the law there based on what you feel is the right and fair way to do so. Seems a bit paradoxical.
One can hope.
Christ didn't critique Rome. He didn't really have words for Rome at all, beyond "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". The threat he embodied to 'the system' was specifically the Judaic priesthood who didn't view him as the Messiah. Well, arguably he embodied a broader threat to Rome, in that as you say, living in ways counter to Rome (and 'the world' at large) it challenged institutional assumptions and gave way to reform, but that wasn't a threat Rome really recognized, and, key to your point I think, was not trying to affect Roman law, nor lead to it even amongst those who were citizens of Rome.
Other than the aforementioned "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", which certainly doesn't seem to challenge Rome, or indicate any political stance beyond "pay your taxes", can you come up with any time Jesus even -acknowledged- Rome? He didn't even disobey Roman law; both Pilate and Herod Antipas acknowledged they could find "no guilt in him". It was a Jewish affair.
Even Paul didn't seem particular interested in Rome. He was a citizen of Rome, afforded rights, which he availed himself of when it came to who could judge him, but which he never talks about using to vote (despite as a citizen of Rome having that right, at least for local leaders). He doesn't instruct citizens to vote, let alone how they should vote, nor does he instruct them to be active in civics. He does give instruction for how to engage with civic leaders - pray for them, and obey the law.
That hardly paints a picture of getting religion into politics.
More to the point though, what I was referencing was specifically Jesus' and Paul's statements regarding the law. Namely, that all the law could do is condemn. It's part of a broader understanding that one aspect of the Old Testament is that it serves as a demonstration that even God's chosen people are unable to live up to the law; people can't be good enough. Everyone who lived under the law was condemned by the law. That trying to legislate morality just serves to punish people for being immoral. That something different is needed to actually make people righteous (Christ, sanctification through grace, etc etc). It is ironic, then, how many Christians end up deciding that what this culture really needs is more law, morality via legislation, rather than trying to affect the culture by, well, living counter culturally, loving those who persecute you, etc.
If the Christian voting bloc collectively shrugged its shoulders at abortion as a law, while at the same time showing up at abortion centers to love and support those who were there, ensuring their needs as potential mothers, as well as any needs from having an abortion (which is oftentimes still traumatic) were met, voting not to punish and condemn ("you got raped at 14? Too bad; you get to be a single teenage mother now. Have a good life") but instead to enable (mandatory paid maternity leave, welfare programs to ensure children would be taken care of, healthcare coverage, etc, so that having a child wasn't an economic burden), it would likely lead to a much better reception to their message than the current most highly visible tact of political partisanship.
I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.
Which is why Roe v. Wade's recognition of abortion being protected until a fetus is considered viable.
But, that call out is worth also enumerating - a logically consistent position with that would be that it's legally acceptable to remove someone from life support. Potentially regardless of their wishes, depending on the level of nuance.
First, I've yet to meet a pro-choice person who didn't actually, you know, want the best outcomes for kids. They don't actually hate children, and there are other reasons to champion choice than "well, if they're born no one will adopt them" (despite what op says, pro-choice people don't ever list "no one will adopt them" as a reason to get an abortion. That whole line of reasoning is only a strawman presented by anti-abortion proponents. As you'll note even with this thread). Not to mention that if we got to "kid zero" with abortion at its current levels, it doesn't mean we'd stay at "kid zero" if you banned it.
Second, op -did- say with the same quality of outcomes for adopted kids as raised by natural parents. If pro-life activists can adopt as many children as they can, for all the wrong reasons, and still lead to equivalent outcomes...I really don't see the problem.
If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe -
It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age, (dis)ability, etc.
Life > personal autonomy, so organ donation is not optional, nor is blood donation. If your kidney is a match for someone who needs one, you're forced to donate, that sort of thing. And expect monthly trips to the blood donation van.
Etc.
Anything else and these are logically inconsistent.
'In the past few years, though, the anti-abortion movement has moved in a different direction. In 2019, Alabama legislators passed an abortion ban that lacked rape and incest exceptions. Nine other states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—have passed similar laws. Courts blocked all the laws but Texas’s; if Roe is overturned, it will be a felony for any Texas doctor to perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. In March, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed an early-abortion ban without rape or incest exemptions.'
I honestly don't care if $85k is the cutoff. I don't care if there is a cutoff at all (but I recognize some people don't like the idea that if a millionaire becomes disabled he'd be eligible for some amount of money from the government). If someone becomes disabled or whatever, and they have money saved from working, why would they not get benefits? Why do they have to deplete their savings first to get shitty benefits? Social security doesn't have an income or asset cutoff; why does disability?
I actually personally agree with the sister post of just...paying people based on their disability, without caring about how much other income they're able to generate, or assets they collect. But I recognize how politically untenable that is.
Neither the group that needs help (and their supporters), nor the group that doesn't want to give hands out to people who refuse to work but could, have reason to object to something like that.
The actual problem is the red meat that welfare/socialism is to our political bases in the US, and the incentives of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to ensure it persists. If you do the obvious thing to actually address the problem, neither side can use it any longer to stir up the base. So the incentive is to not actually fix it.
I think what we have here is a disagreement in terms. There is no such thing as "universal international law". Period. Because unless there's a mutual agreement by all countries to accept some sort of governing body, over their own local law, and to supply enforcement, it can't exist.
That said, there -is- an international body, that has had most countries join, with a charter that stipulates certain things that body can decide, and how those member countries promise to respond.
That body's charter says "Members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". DPRK is a member. Ergo, it agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
A decision of the security council was that the DPRK needs to "suspend all ballistic missile activities" and to "abandon all WMD activities." Ergo, that body has decided the DPRK is prohibited from doing those things (the original discussion, remember?). The DPRK has not done so.
Back to the point of this whole thread, the consequence of their not doing so is that member nations are forbidden from doing certain things for/with the DPRK ("sanctions"). Which is what this document is about. To say "how can it be 'prohibited' for the DPRK to engage in ballistic and WMD activities", -that's how-. That's the point of all of this. The UN prohibited it. And stipulated sanctions, which the US is adhering to.
"Well, that's not -illegal- then!" - what does that even mean in that case? "The DPRK didn't agree to -this- particular rule" - so what? I didn't agree to the speed limit; if I decide not to obey it, the US government can still enforce a punishment on me. I'm not really sure what you're arguing, except that the UN doesn't constitute "universal international law", but I don't even know what that means; certainly, whatever it does mean, given your objection, it doesn't exist, so I'm not sure why you'd think "prohibited" must mean the same thing as it; what are you trying to argue? The DPRK has not upheld the things it agreed to when joining the UN, the UN responded, and that response (and what it means for US based corporations) is obviously what is being referred to in the PDF.
>> In any case, if the UNSC did have this power, why would the NPT need to exist
Because ultimately the UNSC will not agree to non-proliferation. The NPT has no enforcement provision for those who do not sign it, but becomes a way to establish international norms for those who do. In short, the NPT is a way for a country to say "I believe non-proliferation should be standard, and will agree to not do it"; it is opt in, only applies to those who opt in, and any country can opt into it (or out of it). The UNSC is force; an agreement there can be decided on even against the wishes of another member state (as happened with the DPRK), just by dint of that other country being a member state, and carries with it penalties such as sanctions.
Resolution 1718 (unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, 2006): - Decides North Korea shall suspend all ballistic missile activities. - Decides North Korea shall abandon all WMD activities.
Resolution 1718’s Principal Sanctions: - Materials and technologies that could contribute to North Korea’s WMD programs and ballistic missile related activities, as set out in prior Security Council documents.
Member states are also required to: - Freeze the funds or financial assets of entities designated by the Security Council as providing support for North Korea’s nuclear, missile, and other WMD program
>> The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign
So there are three things at issue here.
First, you carve out sanctions, well, there are sanctions at play here, as above, and the whole point of the document is to alert corporations that they may fall afoul of those sanctions.
Second, does the UN have 'legal authority' for actions like this? Well, yes, actually. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Becoming a member nation of the UN requires accepting the Charter. Ergo, the DPRK agreed to be bound by decisions made by the security council when it joined the UN as a member nation. Arguing that this is unfair is like saying states shouldn't be bound by federal laws created since their initial joining of the US; no, joining was agreeing to the decisions of the rule making bodies as well. This differs from, say, the TPNW, which is a treaty that the general assembly adopted, and has had some nations who have signed onto, but which does not actually have legal binding even according to the UN's own charter because of that.
Third, does the UN have -enforcement- authority. This is more a pragmatic, rather than legal, concern. And no, it doesn't. It doesn't have a standing army, it isn't in control of any currency, it has no way to enforce a decision if the largest countries don't choose to enforce it for them via some method of coercion. Which is what is happening here; the US accepted the UNSC's decision, and imposed it, and this document is warning that if you don't adhere to that decision within the US' jurisdiction you will be committing a crime that the US will seek to prosecute you for. Which is the context for which "these programs are prohibited" is for.
The UN has explicitly voted on and introduced sanctions against the DPRK for their WMD program, saying "yeah, don't do that" (the US has independently done so as well). That's it. That's the context around "prohibited". That's the answer to your question. Maybe what you mean is "how is that fair", or "why should the DPRK care about what others 'prohibit' them to do when they don't agree to it", and that's a different discussion; you're free to be an apologist for the DPRK, but to try and undermine the use of "prohibited" when the context is given -right there- in TFA is shitty rhetoric.
Also, if you want "specifics", https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-R...
So, that context. The United Nations.
You do stipulate "that the DPRK has ratified" - why does that matter? They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.
It's the age, not the name. Picasso feels like a late 1800s, early 1900s master, but he lived so long he saw the moon landing, and was painting the entire time.
This does presume that that half hour or hour is not a purely editorial function (think Walter Cronkite vs Tucker Carlson), and that the goal is to actually cover the news of the world, not create partisan wedges and glue eyeballs (again, same comparison). But even if it's negative, understanding what is going on matters, and is likely a net gain for society, with a minimal individual cost.
What isn't a net gain is being so consumed by world events (or worse, editorialized versions of world events) that you lose sight on your personal world, and are unable to enjoy the moments around you. A similar effect is at play with social media.
Facebook also demonstrates it - Zuckerberg and a few others (many of whom have given him voting power on their behalf) own 'Class B' stock, which is worth 10 votes (and thus could reasonably be treated as each share being worth 10 of Class A shares). What is sold to everyone else is 'Class A' stock worth 1 vote. Despite owning fewer stock shares, then, Zuckerberg has more votes and thus has effective majority control.
You mention due to stock tiering, but that's just it, those tiers don't remove votes, or even owning a share of the company (your stock still does), it just ensures that majority control stays in the company's control. It doesn't change the claim that stock shares = shares in the company. It just changes the percentage each stock is of the company, so it's not as simple as 1 stock = 1/(# of outstanding shares) control, but it still is (100% stock) = (100% control), and (X% of voting power from stock) = (X% of control).