Activity Feed
#3343·Zelalem Mekonnen, 10 days agoAll the areas in the US I have lived in have terrible water quality.
Thankfully the US has reverse-osmosis water filtration options pretty much everywhere.
#3342·Dennis HackethalOP, 11 days agomustn’t
Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not
This might be a difference in dialect. I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.” —> “I guess he mustn’t be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
Do you care to be around people that speak your native tongue?
#2342·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoIf America is an option (you mention Austin), the non-coastal Western US could work.
A lot of those states get good water from the Sierra Nevada or the Rocky Mountains.
Those states have either no or low state income tax and largely leave residents alone. (For example, the difference between CA and NV during Covid was night and day.)
Southern NV gets a lot of sun throughout the year. NV has no state income tax.
I’ve heard good things about the area surrounding Las Vegas, though I haven’t been myself.
New Mexico could be good for high altitude (I think).
I second that about Las Vegas. If you don't mind the provocative posters, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Northern Arizona is a great place to be.
#2298·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 2 months agoI want to live in places that are mostly sunny, most of the time. This is for health reasons.
In the US, California!
#2291·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 months agoI want access to good quality food, particularly good quality meat, dairy, and fruit. Ideally the place I live has a growing culture of eating well (for example, in Austin, many restaurants are now making it a point not to use any seed oils in their cooking.)
Avoid the US for this. Food quality is worse than third world countries. The food is no where near as organic. Unpopular opinion, but I don't think food should be industrialized.
#2288·Benjamin DaviesOP, 2 months agoI want superior water quality for drinking, bathing, etc.
This means I need to live somewhere sufficiently advanced to be able to provide and service high quality reverse-osmosis water filters. Otherwise I would need to be somewhere that I can directly access spring water, which I think is much more difficult.
All the areas in the US I have lived in have terrible water quality.
#3339·Benjamin Davies revised 12 days agoMaybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
mustn’t
Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not
#3339·Benjamin Davies revised 12 days agoMaybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have them, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have them, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
#3336·Zelalem Mekonnen, 12 days agoRand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
Yes, unless one find the action fun (like I find jury duty fun). If I didn't find it fun, I'd argue I am in the right for doing things to get out of jury duty.
One has the right to do things he find interesting, no matter how trivial.
#3298·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoA duty is an unchosen obligation. It’s an expression of mysticism. Immanuel Kant is responsible for spreading this anti-concept.
Rand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
#3308·Dennis HackethalOP revised 13 days agoForce means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):
[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.
they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest
Making it voluntary and with pay could fix this problem, but not necessarily. I can imagine a scenario where a juror is looking to get as many duties as possible.
There is no contract with the country. A contract implies consent, the freedom to sign or not sign. A forced signature is null and void.
#3330·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoWho would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
#3330·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoWho would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
#3328·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoI think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
If jury duty were required for a free society to work, that would mean some people would have to be enslaved for a while to ensure freedom for everyone else. In other words, freedom would require some amount of slavery. That’s contradictory.
#3325·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoIf jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)
No, again, if you persuade enough people, you will have a diverse pool to choose from.
If jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)
#3323·Dennis HackethalOP, 13 days agoPeople are ordered to appear for jury duty simply because, if it were a toothless request instead, hardly anyone would show up.
Nonsense. If you persuade people, make it worth their while, they will show up in droves.