Dystopian modern times

[Öö Tiib]

<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are certainly fair ... no doubt there.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in the
USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in medical
experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more civilized
countries.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>
>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if
>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are
>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>
>I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in the
>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in medical
>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more civilized
>countries.

IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

And that affects the argument how?


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>
>>>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>>>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in
>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
>>> civilized>countries.
>>
>>
>> IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
>
>And that affects the argument how?

I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>>>>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>
>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations" are>>
>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in

>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in
>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more
>>>> civilized>countries.
>>>
>>>
>>> IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
>>
>> And that affects the argument how?
>
>
> I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
>

There were venereal disease experiments on prisoners at a US federal
penitentiary:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_Haute_prison_experiments

As an aside there has been a horrific history which shows how states do
vary per treatment of prisoners. After Reconstruction failed with the
nefarious Compromise of 1877 numerous Southern states were able to
re-enslave blacks via the 13th Amendment using dubious means such as
“vagrancy” laws. They would then lease convicts out to private entities and
gain county and state revenue. See _Slavery by Another Name: The
Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II_ by
Douglas A. Blackmon or the PBS documentary by the same name. Alabama was
notorious for this revenue generating practice.

In addition to the sickening legal (Constitutional) practice of convict
leasing there was debt peonage where one could not quit a job if money was
owed to an employer. It has been alleged railroad corporations in Florida
took part in these practices of convict leasing and debt peonage that fell
not only upon blacks but also immigrants. There’s a chapter in _Journalism
and Jim Crow : white supremacy and the black struggle for a new America_
edited by Kathy Roberts Forde and Sid Bedingfield that focuses largely on
Henry Flagler’s railroad building in south Florida and the Keys.

So this aspect of Jim Crow devolved upon the various states but was
dependent upon the 13th amendment which ironically freed the slaves. Also
ironic is at roughly the same time the 14th amendment which was intended to
apply to freed blacks, was co-opted to protect the rights of corporate
“personhood”.

Nowadays the focus is upon private prisons in the US and also mass
incarceration which was a process that dovetailed with the War on Drugs
from the Nixon Era, but bumped up under Reagan and especially after Clinton
signed a crime bill propagandized largely on the black youth
“superpredator” myth. Yes this was at the federal level but inspired the
states. See the Netflix documentary “13th” and _Superpredator: Bill
Clinton’s use and abuse of black america _ by Nathan J. Robinson.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>>>>>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting if>>>>>>
>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade negotiations"

>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common in>>>

>>>>>> USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate in>>>
>>>>> medical>experiments. I don't think that has ever been legal in more>>>
>>>>> civilized>countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIUC most of the laws that govern what is and is not legal wrt
>>>> prisoners in state penitentiaries are established not by the federal
>>>> government but by the separate states, of which there are fifty.
>>>
>>> And that affects the argument how?
>>
>>
>> I suppose that depends on the specific argument. Your expressed claim
>> refers to "USA" as a single entity. My point is that wrt treatment
>> of prisoners, there are many independent entities involved.
>
> Nowhere did I imply that the USA was a single entity.
>

The US is a mess with the way the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated”
onto the states, more recently the 2nd amendment versus 10th amendment
assertions of “states rights” and the ironically named political philosophy
of “federalism” whereby powers devolve to states but the federal government
can coerce via highway funding as happened with the drinking age in the
fabled Reagan Era.

This incarceration reduction organ bill may not pass:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64488678

It is a state initiative, progressive Massachusetts oddly.

If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more
humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and
actually incarcerate far fewer people.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Really? So your comment about "more civilized countries" is...

[jillery]

I was unaware of the above, so thank you for citing it.

This topic raises the spectre of the Tuskeegee Syphilis study, which
was even more egregious, as the test subjects were free citizens, and
treatment for syphilis was withheld, and neither they nor their
families were informed of their condition. All of these specifics
contrast with the Terre Haute study.

The takeaway here is that medical practices of the time ignored legal
niceties about freemen vs prisoners, or federal vs. state prisoners.
The issue remains open whether USA as a nation is and/or was
distinctive in its policies wrt medical experiments on prisoners.

[Zen Cycle]

That depends on what one would call 'progressive'.

>
> If the US were more civilized as a whole we would treat our prisoners more
> humanely and use an actual rehab philosophy instead of retribution and
> actually incarcerate far fewer people.

+1 on incarcerating fewer people.

[jillery]

WRT the issue of state vs federal authority, two policies are
enforced. One is the Commerce Clause, which SCOTUS has broadly
interpreted to give the federal government the authority to regulate
business activities aka commerce between states. The other is the
14th Amendment, which denies states from making or enforcing laws that
abridge the right of citizens of the US. IOW the US Constitution
applies to all citizens from Maine to California, from Washington to
Florida, from Minnesota to Mississippi.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Be that as it may, seen from outside the USA appears far more
homogeneous than Americans like to believe, full of rugged indviduals.
Put pictures of shopping malls in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts and
Hawaii next to one another, it's hard to tell which is which. Anyway, a
few generalizations that apply to most of the USA:

1. Obsession with the national flag;
2. Love of guns;
3. Absence of serious gun control;
4. Absence of free or cheap health coverage for all;
5. Belief of living in the greatest country that has ever existed;
6. Very widespread gerrymandering;
7. Very high rates of incarceration;
8. Largely uncontrolled urban development;
9. Churches everywhere.

How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France,
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?

How many of them are confined to just a few states?

[Mark Isaak]

It's left over from our long history of slavery. Most Americans don't
realize that slavery is still legal in the US. The 13th Amendment
prohibited most slavery, but left it available for people convicted of
crimes. Ergo, people in power started convicting blacks of crimes.
Whether they were guilty or not, of course, was irrelevant.

That does not go on quite so overtly today, but the tradition of huge
prison populations now has its own momentum.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[broger...@gmail.com]

A number of U.S. states have started amending their constitutions to outlaw prison and debt slavery. Until the issue came up on our ballot (here in Vermont) last year, I hadn't known it was still, in principle, legal.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

One I forgot to mention was

10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

I acknowledge AOTA exist in the USA. They are hotly contested issues
within USA, and for that very reason get a lot of media coverage
worldwide. I can't speak about the impressions of people outside USA.
ISTM the fact that these issue are hotly contested shows they are
over-generalizations.

>> How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France,
>> Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
>> Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
>> Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
>>
>> How many of them are confined to just a few states?
>
>One I forgot to mention was
>
>10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.

--

[Mark Isaak]

The US is indisputably the world leader in prison population and gun
ownership. According to World Population Review, the US is also the
most patriotic (in terms of percent of people saying their country is
the best). On religiosity and health care, we are an outlier among
other first-world countries, but not in the world as a whole.
Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere, but on the wider issue of
government corruption, the US scores rather well in comparison to the
rest of the world but worse than most of Europe. I have no idea how
urban development rates, or even how to rate it.

On the other hand, the US also leads the world in quality of college
education.

>>> How many of these apply to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France,
>>> Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
>>> Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana,
>>> Costa Rica, Israel, Singapore?
>>>
>>> How many of them are confined to just a few states?
>>
>> One I forgot to mention was
>>
>> 10. Violent attacks on family-planning centres.
>

--

[Burkhard]

I guess in the same way in which AP instructed its journalists not to use the term "THE French", as this was insulting :o) Or slightly less facetiously, if someone said that "The EU force-sterlised woman of indigenous communities in the 1980s and early 90s, and may still do so", and when challanged pointing at Sweden and Denmark where this is/was the case

[broger...@gmail.com]

.........

> Gerrymandering is not relevant everywhere,

I think the closest thing to gerrymandering in England would be "rotten boroughs" which have mostly or entirely been eradicated by now.

[Burkhard]

More or less by the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832. Ever since there was an ongoing debate, but pretty marginal, on redrawing boundaries to reflect population changes, which has now been resolved by giving the role to the independent Office for National Statistics, and does not require any longer voting in Parliament.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

But obviously, that's *different*!

/sarc
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

Ok, so the topic has pole vaulted from state prisoner policies, to any
and all controversial social and/or political issues being argued
about in the US. I'm shocked... SHOCKED I say... nobody mentioned
rights of indigenous peoples. Gish Gallop much?

IIUC Athel tacitly agreed with my point, that state policies aren't a
valid measure of US as a nation. So AFAIC there's nothing relevant to
add to his OP or this topic.

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:30:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

That's an odd guess coming from someone with a history of posting
about legal, logical, and grammatical distinctions both subtle and
profound.

[jillery]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:49:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Actually it's orthogonal to the OP.

[Burkhard]

sorry, but that was me agreeing with your point?

[Martin Harran]

Up until the 1970s, the British Government tolerated extensive
gerrymandering of electoral areas in Northern Ireland to ensure a
Unionist majority in councils running Nationalist areas. It was one of
the issues that led to the Civil Rights campaign of the late 1960s and
eventually resulted in "The Troubles" there.

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:20:55 -0800, Mark Isaak
> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate

Well we are exceptional, just in quite embarrassing ways.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:33:33 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2/2/23 7:28 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:00:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-02-02 13:30:22 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-02-02 11:30:27 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:23:34 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-02 09:08:07 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 08:52:46 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-02 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-01 17:42:38 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brilliant idea to "buy" something from prisoners. Interesting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive organs also fit the bill? The "trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiations">>>>>> are>>>>>> certainly fair ... no doubt there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be common

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the>USA to get prisoners to "volunteer" to participate

And influenced by MLK they were. It’s been decades since I had read much,
but I do recall the “We Shall Overcome” chant in this movie:

https://youtu.be/bRIJIzXUEcc

[Öö Tiib]

In Sweden and Denmark the forced sterilization of drug addicts and
patient with mental health problems was up to 1975 because of Eugenics.
They regret. In at least two thirds of states of US there was similar
thing but on basis of Racism. And in some Immigration and Customs
Enforcements they do it 2020.

But that Massachusetts project is modern extension: we lack organs so
why not to harvest slaves. It is 2 human generations after Sweden and
Denmark ended sterilizing. Even Russians would be deeply shocked by
such idea.

[Martin Harran]

I wasn't at the Bloody Sunday march but I did sing it at a few
previous Civil Rights protests!

[Burkhard]

Recent inquiries indicate that the forced sterilisation of indigenous Icelandic women was in full swing in the 1980s, and even though officially abandoned, seems to have continued until very recently or may still be continuing -gynaecologists still find women who are unable to conceive, only to find that unbeknownst to them they have contraceptive devices implanted in them, some of them causing persistent pain.

But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 00:05:33 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I can't tell if you're asking me or telling me. If the latter, I
apologize for misinterpreting your comments. Please disregard my
misinterpretation as a late side-effect of posts from others.

[Burkhard]

no problem, and both, in a way - that is I agreed with what I thought your post wanted to say (i.e. that "one state proposes" is insufficient warrant for "The US does", but now I wasn't sure any longer if I had misunderstood yours - in any case we seem in agreement.

[Öö Tiib]

Yes there are always good doctors continuing doing it:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia>
"Though forced sterilization was made illegal, it has continued. From 1997 to 2013, approximately
1,400 inmates were sterilized in California prisons."

>
> But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.

EU carried out and EU regrets and tries to get rid and compensate. USA tries
to extend to organ harvesting.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Well, if "the USA tries to X" is equivalent to "a small group of lawmakers propose...", then I'm sure one can find similarly obnoxious things that "the EU tries to...." based on proposals from the parties of le Pen or Orban or the AfD in Germany. The US has many, many problems and failings, but we do not have a monopoly on authoritarian idiots.

[Öö Tiib]

And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to point at others.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure that's true. The USA's authoritarian idiots are pretty sure they are right about their authoritarian views and make no effort at all to hide them. As to pointing at others, most in the US are sufficiently unfamiliar with European politics that they don't point at them at all.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:

> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee
>> wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard
>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,
>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13
>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at
>> 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02
>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb
>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >
>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01

As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons)
wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't
suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>
>> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee
>>> wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard
>>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,
>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13
>>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at
>>> 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02
>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb
>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >
>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01

When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.

And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
France (think Montgolfier).

[broger...@gmail.com]

It's very true. Just like other great powers with intelligence services (cough, France, Britain, Germany, etc), the US spies on other countries and then complains when those countries spy on the US.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 01:30:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

His first sentence? Yes, or simply irrelevant. Of course, he
did say it was facetious...

As for his second sentence, the "less facetious" one, I
disagree that it was orthogonal; both were about fascist (or
communist, a distinction without a difference among
collectivist philosophies) actions by governments, that only
the state is important.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 06:32:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

The point you seem to repeatedly overlook: Massachusetts is
not "the USA"; it's a single state out of 50, as is
California. And *both* are supposedly among the most
"liberal" states, which such policies would seem to refute.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

No, we don't. Europe, like China and most of Eurasia, seems
almost to produce them as a matter of course, and has for at
least a millennium or two. Or more. Authoritarianism seems
impossible to stamp out.

[jillery]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:10:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The OP and Öö Tiib's larger point isn't about governmental
"collectivist philosophies", but instead is a rather mindless
criticism of USA as a nation.

Roman Hruska's infamous wish that mediocre people be represented is
not only fulfilled, but those mediocre people are actual
representatives. Recent events have affirmed those mediocre
representatives have no problem authoring and submitting willfully
stupid bills like the kind cited in the OP. However, a submitted bill
in a state legislature, and from a very small state at that, doesn't
inform the state of USA.

It could be argued that laissez faire theory would accept not just
prisoners but all citizens to sell off their organs. It could and
should be argued that prisoners aren't in a position to legally
negotiate such contracts, any more than minors are in a position to
consent to sexual activity with adults.

In the USA and other countries, there are multiple levels of
government. When discussing individual liberties, "state" may refer
to any and/or all levels of government, and/or societal standards
(think woke culture).

In the USA, "state" may refer to one or collectively all fifty states,
as opposed to federal and/or municipal/county governments, and/or to
all regulatory institutions generally including NGOs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 20:30:10 -0500, the following appeared

>The OP and 嘱 Tiib's larger point isn't about governmental

>"collectivist philosophies", but instead is a rather mindless
>criticism of USA as a nation.
>
>Roman Hruska's infamous wish that mediocre people be represented is
>not only fulfilled, but those mediocre people are actual
>representatives. Recent events have affirmed those mediocre
>representatives have no problem authoring and submitting willfully
>stupid bills like the kind cited in the OP. However, a submitted bill
>in a state legislature, and from a very small state at that, doesn't
>inform the state of USA.
>

No argument; that was essentially my point.

>
>It could be argued that laissez faire theory would accept not just
>prisoners but all citizens to sell off their organs. It could and
>should be argued that prisoners aren't in a position to legally
>negotiate such contracts, any more than minors are in a position to
>consent to sexual activity with adults.
>

Agreed.

>
>In the USA and other countries, there are multiple levels of
>government. When discussing individual liberties, "state" may refer
>to any and/or all levels of government, and/or societal standards
>(think woke culture).
>
>In the USA, "state" may refer to one or collectively all fifty states,
>as opposed to federal and/or municipal/county governments, and/or to
>all regulatory institutions generally including NGOs.
>

Again agreed, which is why I commented elsethread that the
US is comprised of 50 (theoretically) sovereign states, and
that therefore to speak of "the US did 'X' ", unless it
involves laws promulgated by the Federal government, is
vacuous.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:

> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee>>>
>>>> wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard>>>
>>>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,>>>
>>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13>>>
>>>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at>>>
>>>> 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02>>>
>>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb>>>
>>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >>>>
>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01>>>

Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
nation that elected it.

>
> And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
> Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
> France (think Montgolfier).


--

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:23:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

I'll get the popcorn somebody else get the beer?

[jillery]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:23:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:15:35 UTC+2, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee>>>
>>>>> wrote:> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 15:05:13 UTC+2, Burkhard>>>
>>>>> wrote:> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC,>>>
>>>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:> > > > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 18:35:13>>>
>>>>> UTC+2, Burkhard wrote:> > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at>>>
>>>>> 7:55:12 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > > On 2023-02-02>>>
>>>>> 05:42:44 +0000, jillery said:> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb>>>
>>>>> 2023 19:29:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden> > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2023-02-01>>>

That's not the point you and Öö Tiib raised; Massachusetts doesn't
have or use spy planes, and if they did, it would be absurd to judge
the entire USA over it.

Meanwhile, you evade the specific point of your illogical and
inappropriate use of "always".

And since you mention it, yes, USA uses spy planes, as do other
nations. To the best of my knowledge, literally ALL nations spy using
a variety of national means, and have done so ever since there were
nations. Spies have been around far longer than have nations, ever
since there were neighbors.

If you have some specific objection to spying, you haven't mentioned
it. If you have some specific objection to spying with aircraft, that
objection logically would include all overhead vehicles, including
satellites and balloons.

>> And pedantically, USA uses spy satellites, a technology pioneered by
>> Russia (think Sputnik), not spy balloons, a technology pioneered by
>> France (think Montgolfier).

--

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 08:54:00 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'll get the popcorn somebody else get the beer?

Harran has the peanut concession.

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 04:30:23 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 08:54:00 +0000, Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'll get the popcorn somebody else get the beer?
>
>
>Harran has the peanut concession.

But don't eat them, as he pulls them out of his ass.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>>

[snip]

>>
>>
>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>
> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
> nation that elected it.

Same as when U-2s were sent over Cuba that bookended the Cuban Missile
Crisis:

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/the-cuban-missile-crisis-pilot-whose-death-may-have-saved-millions

After U-2 pilot Rudolf Anderson was shot down and we were even closer to
the brink of nuclear exchange:

“Military leaders overwhelmingly urged Kennedy to launch airstrikes against
Cuba’s air defenses the following morning. The president, however,
correctly suspected that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had not authorized
the downing of unarmed reconnaissance planes, and he didn’t want to abandon
diplomacy just yet…”

Kennedy was acting on behalf of the nation just as he did when authorizing
the ill-fated Bay of Bigs fiasco.

And when U-2 singer Bono, himself something of a douche, twisted Dubya to
do more to battle AIDS in Africa, the latter acted on behalf of the US:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna28605888

Of course when Ike’s CIA got involved with ousting Arbenz in Guatemala and
Mosaddegh in Iran that was on behalf of the whole nation as was Ollie
North’s shenanigans during Iran-Contra.

When the Reagan administration strong-armed states using the threat against
highway funds to each raise the drinking age to 21 that shows the quirky
division of powers at play in our gov’t.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:

[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]

>>
>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>
> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
> nation that elected it.

A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
same range.

Politicians know who gets them and keeps them in power, and those are
generally the people they support, or act on behalf of. In the US,
contrary voters have in the past been mixed together well enough that
politicians had to support all of them in order to support their base,
but that has been lessening over the decades as communities
self-segregate. Gerrymandering also contributes; its purpose is to
reduce the number of people that a politician needs to satisfy.

In autocracies, the leader needs only to satisfy the army generals and
tax collectors (or other suppliers of enough income to pay the army
generals). They can let the rest go to hell without serious negative
consequences to themselves. That's why dictatorships tend to be so hellish.

These are basic principles of Selectorate theory
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory). I find the subject
attractive as the only example of political science I have encountered
which comes close to justifying the word "science".

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>
>[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
>>>
>>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>>
>> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
>> nation that elected it.
>
>A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
>same range.
>

Another quibble, also important: The number of those
eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
the US, as are (irrelevant, from the OP, which was
specifically about a single state) comments about US spy
activities, by plane or otherwise. That said...

As for the fact that only 60% choose to vote, one can only
assume that voting, and democratic procedures in general,
are unimportant to the others, and that they are willing to
let the 60% choose for them. So in reality 100% of those for
whom voting is important do so, and, due to the lag in
accurate representation caused by the 10-year census cycle,
the number of electoral votes is only close to accurate and
you are correct that the president can be elected with
slightly less than half of the votes cast.

>
>Politicians know who gets them and keeps them in power, and those are
>generally the people they support, or act on behalf of. In the US,
>contrary voters have in the past been mixed together well enough that
>politicians had to support all of them in order to support their base,
>but that has been lessening over the decades as communities
>self-segregate. Gerrymandering also contributes; its purpose is to
>reduce the number of people that a politician needs to satisfy.
>

I'd note that setting up "safe districts" is also
gerrymandering.

>
>In autocracies, the leader needs only to satisfy the army generals and
>tax collectors (or other suppliers of enough income to pay the army
>generals). They can let the rest go to hell without serious negative
>consequences to themselves. That's why dictatorships tend to be so hellish.
>
>These are basic principles of Selectorate theory
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory). I find the subject
>attractive as the only example of political science I have encountered
>which comes close to justifying the word "science".
>

Point; I'd note that "computer science" shares that, in
almost all cases.

[Zen Cycle]

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
> But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.

Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
"The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""

Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
"State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving treatment.”

Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.

[jillery]

"Always" so.

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 13:08:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>>>
>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>>
>> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
>> nation that elected it.
>
>Same as when U-2s were sent over Cuba that bookended the Cuban Missile
>Crisis:

So it's the "same" because Massachusetts sent Kennedy to the White
House? Or is it the "same" because the Star Chamber is based in
Boston?

>https://www.history.com/.amp/news/the-cuban-missile-crisis-pilot-whose-death-may-have-saved-millions
>
>After U-2 pilot Rudolf Anderson was shot down and we were even closer to
>the brink of nuclear exchange:
>
>“Military leaders overwhelmingly urged Kennedy to launch airstrikes against
>Cuba’s air defenses the following morning. The president, however,
>correctly suspected that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had not authorized
>the downing of unarmed reconnaissance planes, and he didn’t want to abandon
>diplomacy just yet…”
>
>Kennedy was acting on behalf of the nation just as he did when authorizing
>the ill-fated Bay of Bigs fiasco.
>
>And when U-2 singer Bono, himself something of a douche, twisted Dubya to
>do more to battle AIDS in Africa, the latter acted on behalf of the US:
>
>https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna28605888
>
>Of course when Ike’s CIA got involved with ousting Arbenz in Guatemala and
>Mosaddegh in Iran that was on behalf of the whole nation as was Ollie
>North’s shenanigans during Iran-Contra.
>
>When the Reagan administration strong-armed states using the threat against
>highway funds to each raise the drinking age to 21 that shows the quirky
>division of powers at play in our gov’t.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 09:42:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 08:09:57 -0800, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
><specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>
>>On 2/4/23 11:23 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>[snipping. Warning: change of subject coming]
>>>>
>>>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>>>
>>> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
>>> nation that elected it.
>>
>>A quibble but an important one: The US government generally acts on
>>behalf of the people who elected it, which is substantially less than
>>the whole nation. In the case of the president, about 72% of Americans
>>are eligible to vote, about 60% of those do vote, and slightly less than
>>half of those can elect the president. Thus the president is elected by
>>about 22% of the nation. In non-presidential elections, winners need
>>50% of the vote of the appx. 40% of eligible voters, for a total in the
>>same range.
>>
>Another quibble, also important: The number of those
>eligible to vote is restricted in *all* nations which allow
>(or require) voting so that is essentially irrelevant WRT
>the US,

I may have got this wrong but from what I have read, it seems that
black people are disproportionally affected by voting restrictions
either brought in by the GOP or that they want to introduce in the
name of "preventing fraud". If so, is that not a form of indirect
gerrymandering?

[Öö Tiib]

As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
illegal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 19:21:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

I'd be very interested in any objective data which shows
that to be true. All I see are rants from both sides.

Decide for yourself; GIYF:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2023 13:08:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-04 17:44:52 +0000, jillery said:
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When anyone says "USA always...", that shows they are either
>>>> incoherently ignorant or deliberately trolling for the sake of it.
>>>
>>> Come on Jillery. You're not that stupid. When the Government of the USA
>>> sent a spy plane over the USSR it was acting on behalf of the whole
>>> nation that elected it.
>>
>> Same as when U-2s were sent over Cuba that bookended the Cuban Missile
>> Crisis:
>
>
> So it's the "same" because Massachusetts sent Kennedy to the White
> House? Or is it the "same" because the Star Chamber is based in
> Boston?
>

Well he was a Senator first who conveniently sat out the McCarthy censure
vote in hospital:

https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=jfk15

Alas I think ideas of political representation and responsibility have been
amply deconstructed and diffused in this thread. For the notion of
deconstruction itself we can blame “people experiencing Frenchness.” (as
“the” French is now PC verboten):
https://www.politico.eu/article/using-labels-the-french-offensive-ap-associated-press-stylebook/

[*Hemidactylus*]

Certainly not the classically liberal way to not do things involving an
activist gov’t. A product of the progressive turn, perhaps peculiar to
USian semantics.

[*Hemidactylus*]

In Florida there may be a bit of the turbocharged race to the bottom where
those holding dystopian MAGAt values have self-selectively migrated to
swamp the swamplands, led toward the siren song of an autocratically
libertarian (yes that’s possible as the Chicago boys showed under Pinochet
in Chile) sociopath. Even The Mouse himself is not safe.

We are on the path toward septic shithole with ideologues like Christopher
Rufo taking control of fledgling liberal arts universities to convert them
into Hillsdale College style wrecking balls against Jefferson’s wall and
modernity itself.

[Mark Isaak]

The term there is "voter suppression", but the aim is much the same. In
the Reconstruction era (through the 1960s at least), the racism was
overt. Today the laws generally target proxies for race, especially income.

[Zen Cycle]

"probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?

[Öö Tiib]

What is the source of your quote? Indeed you are more full
of shit than Glen, and more vulgar, too, but why you mirror
it to me?

[Zen Cycle]

You wrote it, ass hat. "probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing practice".

IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.

[Öö Tiib]

These two expressions differ by meaning, butt lips.

>
> IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
>

Being vulgar makes you an expert, dim wit?

[Burkhard]

No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases prohibit this outright.

There are issues with the proposal, some quite massive. Linking it to a reward is the most obvious mistake they are making - South Carolina tried the same, but backtracked and now is one of the few states where inmates can make voluntary donations.

The second is the widening of the possible pool of beneficiaries - beyond family to also include "friends". That of course could be a slippery slope to treat them as donations into a pool, to be used by whoever is next in line, say after a car accident.

I'm ambivalent about this. On balance, if the rewards are abolished, I'd be in favour. a) because it can save lives, obviously. But b) because I would argue it is in the benefit of the donor too. Full disclosure, I have a half-finished paper on the law and ethics of refusing someone to donate organs. For instance, gay men were excluded from donating blood long after improved testing meant this made no longer sense, medically speaking. It was just one more way of preventing them from fully participating in society. Donating (blood, organs, money, data etc) is one of the way some of us live lives we consider worthwhile, they are something that gives the donor dignity and civic participation. And that means denying someone the ability to donate excludes them from something important and should not be done lightly. So giving inmates the same right that anyone else has, and in this case also helps wider society, seems to me a no-brainer. The issue is the reward system that turns a gift into a sale, and is a bad idea indeed.

[Lawyer Daggett]

It pushes hard on the definition of gerrymandering, but there's some
crazy things going on in NC. They even hired a consultant to work
on ways to "improve GOP voter turnout" which turned out to be not
what it sounds like. The consultant looked into a number of aspects
which included things like which voters did and didn't have driver
licenses or other types of IDs. They found such groups to be far
more likely to be minorities and the poor, and more likely to be
registered as democrats. The consultant also looked at the locations
where one could get an ID. The essential wrote a voter ID bill, and
wrote a "cost saving" bill to close select RMVs.

Normally, such things would never come to light but in this case the
consultant got caught up in a messy divorce and his ex-wife had
possession of his computer and so access to emails. The same
consultant drew up their district maps and absolutely used race as
part of his criteria. This resulted in a districting being thrown out and
a first version of the voter ID bill being thrown out.

However, soon after, what was essentially the same voter photo ID
bill was passed, and essentially the same redistricting which was
reverse engineered to be the same without explicitly using race, and
that survived appeal all the way to SCOTUS.

It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and DNA testing identifies
it as Anas platyrhynchos but SCOTUS didn't learn enough Latin.
If you really need it, I can dig out some refs later.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:50:17 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
...

> No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly
> motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the
> promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are
> typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially
> if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and
> you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal
> prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases
> prohibit this outright.

As a completely useless bit of pedantry, the two letter abbreviation MS
is used for Massachusetts by the US Coast Guard but everybody else
uses MA with MS being Mississippi. The M's are crowded and conflicted.
Maine ME
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA (Coast Guard MS)
Michigan MI (Coast Guard MC)
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS (coast Guard MI)
Missouri MO
Montana MT

And now, for those of maturity, now that you've seen this trivia,
the consequences are set.

The penalty for learning a new thing is forgetting two older things.
And having been made aware of that, you won't be able to avoid
remembering this at the expense of two older things unless you
actually would like to remember the above. In that case you will
not remember the above but will forget something else but remember
the bit about the price of trivial knowledge.

[Burkhard]

This is massively interesting, but who is this "Burkhard" character you are talking to? (and who the ... am I, now that I think about it??)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Misspelling of a famous Swiss historian?

There is a Chevy Chase, MD that is neither comedian nor doctor.

Chevauchee?

https://www.chevychasehistory.org/chevychase/naming-chevy-chase

Maine is full of itself, always about ME, ME, ME!

[jillery]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:47:51 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 7:30:14 PM UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
>> > Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:
>> >
>> > https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
>> > "The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
>> >
>> > Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
>> > "State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving treatment.”
>> >
>> > Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
>> As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
>> practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
>> illegal.
>
>No, we can pretty much rule this out. The initiative was at least partly motivated by inmates wanting to donate organs (even without the promise of rewards) but were told they were not allowed to. These are typically donations to family members - not a general pool. So essentially if you are in prison in MS, and your child needs a kidney transplant and you are a compatible donor, well, you can't save her. If you are in a federal prison by the way, you can - it's only the states that in almost all cases prohibit this outright.

So much for that being an example of what USA "always" does.

>There are issues with the proposal, some quite massive. Linking it to a reward is the most obvious mistake they are making - South Carolina tried the same, but backtracked and now is one of the few states where inmates can make voluntary donations.
>
>The second is the widening of the possible pool of beneficiaries - beyond family to also include "friends". That of course could be a slippery slope to treat them as donations into a pool, to be used by whoever is next in line, say after a car accident.
>
>I'm ambivalent about this. On balance, if the rewards are abolished, I'd be in favour. a) because it can save lives, obviously. But b) because I would argue it is in the benefit of the donor too. Full disclosure, I have a half-finished paper on the law and ethics of refusing someone to donate organs. For instance, gay men were excluded from donating blood long after improved testing meant this made no longer sense, medically speaking. It was just one more way of preventing them from fully participating in society. Donating (blood, organs, money, data etc) is one of the way some of us live lives we consider worthwhile, they are something that gives the donor dignity and civic participation. And that means denying someone the ability to donate excludes them from something important and should not be done lightly. So giving inmates the same right that anyone else has, and in this case also helps wider society, seems to me a no-brainer. The issue is the reward system that turns a gift
>into a sale, and is a bad idea indeed.

I share your ambivalence and your reasons for it. I do wonder if it's
possible to abolish the rewards. Easy enough to eliminate any
explicit quid pro quo. Harder would be to remove implied benefits, or
even expectations. I imagine most prison administrations and parole
boards would at least consider favorably a prisoner who donated a
kidney and saved a child's life, even if it's just one part of their
overall record.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 14:49:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:

Just a couple of observations:

AFAIK almost every democracy or quasi-democracy in the world
requires ID to vote.

In the US, ID is required to fly, get a driver's license,
purchase alcohol or cigarettes, rent a car, or various other
usual activities.

Make of that what you will.

[Burkhard]

Yes, you are spot on, that's indeed the difficulty - hardly possible to avoid that inference, and would one even want to? There may be also a different agenda in the minds of the proposers. The US is also way off the charts within the west when it comes to incarceration numbers and the percentage of the population that is in prison. (while still also having a significantly higher crime rate than most, so much for the deterrent effect of imprisonment) . This punitive policy seems to have majority support. So from the perspective of the two promotors of the bill, if this is a way that reduces the prison population in a way that the electorate does not object to, so much the better. Ultimately, I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but really badly executed - and for the reasons you state it will be difficult to make it really safe

[Burkhard]

bit of an apple and pear comparison though. First, there are countries like Australia, Belgium or Greece where voting is mandatory - and which for that reason alone have an extremely high coverage of voters in the ID schemes, so we can leave these aside.

And then we have a Napoleon problem - yes, continental European jurisdictions typically require voter ID. But the UK, just like the US, doesn't,, though some of our right wingers are at the moment spreading a lot of lies about voter fraud to get such a system in place - they too did the math. So how can we explain this? Well, continental systems also typically have mandatory ID cards full stop - and mandatory registration at the local authority of residence to boot. And the result is an infrastructure where a) ID is cheap or free (in Germany, it's around $30 for a 10-year ID, free for those on benefits), b) registration offices are ubiquitous and c) a constant, active effort by the state to issue cards and register everybody, (and punishment for non-compliance) , so again coverage is extremely wide, though some people still fall through the gaps, The reason really are the French - ID cards came with the revolutionary armies, which also exported the idea of local elections, and with that the need to know who qualifies for the vote. The Burkean Britsh were shocked at what they saw, and ever since treated state-issued, mandatory ID as anathema. The US inherited and amplified this opposition to centralised and mandatory ID

So, no problems with mandatory voter ID, IF you invest massively in the infrastructure, and not only make them free for citizens, but build an infrastructure where the next office to issue them is just a few streets away, and people are constantly and actively pursued to register, Dagget's story, of course, shows the opposite approach - making it more difficult for some citizens (those less likely to vote republican) to get ID, by selectively defunding the system that issues them. And even leaving aside such massive manipulation, do you think such a mandatory registration system would fly with the US public?

[Zen Cycle]

Only when you attempt silly semantic games like glen. You injected your political confirmation bias into a strawman argument, dumbass.

> >
> > IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
> >
> Being vulgar makes you an expert, dim wit?

Reading up on the subject makes me knowledgeable enough to intelligently comment on the issue without resorting to demonstrably false speculation, asshat. The information regarding the background and status of the legislation was presented and more is readily available. You chose instead to remain ignorant and comment anyway. That's just plain willful fucking stupidity. Blow it out your ass.

[broger...@gmail.com]

And yet, strangely, there seems to be intense resistance to establishing a national ID card of the sort that almost every democracy or quasi democracy in the world issues to its citizens. Make of that what you will.

[Zen Cycle]

'murica!

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 12:00:17 UTC+2, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:55:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 15:40:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:20:16 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 12:35:16 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:30:14 PM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 19:50:14 UTC+2, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 8:05:13 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But this was also not my point, that would have been a bad case of whataboutism. The issue is if the fact that this happened in Denmark and Sweden, states within the EU, would be the right warrant for the claim that "The EU carries out" - in this example as in the Massachusetts example (which btw is only a proposal by a small group of lawmakers) there is a problematic inference from things that happen in member states under their devolved jurisdiction to the federal entity.
> > > > > > > Thank you, Burkhard. I'm glad someone brought up that fact that there is no majority move within the MA state government that would imply this is settled policy. It's a _proposal_ by a few legislators that ran into serious opposition the moment it was introduced. As of this past wednesday:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2023/02/02/a-bill-that-would-let-prisoners-trade-organs-for-a-reduced-sentence-faces-significant-blowback
> > > > > > > "The bill does not have a hearing scheduled yet. House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Democrat, cast doubts on its progress on Wednesday. "It's the first I've ever heard of it ... first reaction is that some of these guys would give their legs to get out,” he said. “I don't know, it's kind of an extreme way to get your sentence reduced. I don't know if it makes much sense.""
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regardless of that, there are issues that the legislation is trying to address regarding organ donations specifically for people of color.
> > > > > > > "State Rep. Carlos González, one of the sponsors, told GBH News on Wednesday " The idea is to broaden the pool of potential donors in an effective way to increase the likelihood of Black and Latino family members and friends receiving life-saving treatment.”
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Implications of dystopia as the OP claims are histrionics.
> > > > > > As it is liberal state probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing
> > > > > > practice like that involuntary steriziation seems to be existing practice despite
> > > > > > illegal.
> > > > > "probably some already legal practice"....How about you figure out what the fuck you're talking about before you post bullshit that would even embarrass glen?
> > > > What is the source of your quote?
> > >
> > > You wrote it, ass hat. "probably they just wanted to legalize some already existing practice".
> > >
> > These two expressions differ by meaning, butt lips.
> Only when you attempt silly semantic games like glen. You injected your political confirmation bias into a strawman argument, dumbass.
>

You confirmed it yourself. It was you who distorted expression to change its
meaning. If you did it because of your chauvinism, imperialism, greed,
vanity, hatred against humankind, dishonesty or stupidity does not really
matter. Still no way to find any reasons to trust in anything. Zero.

> > >
> > > IOW - You're speculating that there is already some practice - legal or not - when you really have no fucking clue.
> > >
> > Being vulgar makes you an expert, dim wit?
> Reading up on the subject makes me knowledgeable enough to intelligently comment on the issue without resorting to demonstrably false speculation, asshat. The information regarding the background and status of the legislation was presented and more is readily available. You chose instead to remain ignorant and comment anyway. That's just plain willful fucking stupidity. Blow it out your ass.
>

Demonstrably? So why only Intellectual level of Nando demonstrated?
It is because you live in society where mistreatment of each other is
everyday norm. Full of criminals and dirty "law enforcement", various
madmen, perverts and school shooters. So can't discuss it, just yell
shit.

[Lawyer Daggett]

In the US, I never needed an ID for my first 40 years of
voting. I had to fill out the equivalent of a post card
with prepaid postage that included my address. I had
to check some box affirming I was a citizen and eligible
to vote and sign it in blue or black ink. When it came time
to vote, I show up a some school or fire station, tell some
kindly blue haired lady volunteer from the League of Women
voters what street I live on, the number, perhaps an apartment
number. They look me up in their printout, check that I
haven't already voted or requested an absentee ballot, then
hand me my ballot and send me to the little curtained booth
as they mark me off on the roles.

Once I had to correct a volunteer who was apparently hard
of hearing and tried to mark off my son instead of me.

In my recent years I have had to show my ID because my
town is a stickler about filling out our annual local census
where I'm supposed to confirm how many live in my
house and how many pets we have. If I don't fill out the
census (return a postcard) they mark you down as an
inactive voter. If I'm marked as an inactive voter, I have
to show a piece of identification with my name and address
but it need not be a photo ID, a recent utility bill will do.
Mind, this is not really about voting, it's a backhanded
way to press people to fill out the town census.

Australia does not require voter ID. Neither does New Zealand.
They do require registration.

Most nations actually issue every citizen an identity card
to every citizen and track them including a current address.
In many, they send some form of a Right to Vote card
prior to each election with instructions on where to vote.

The problem with the proposals in the US are that there
isn't a free national ID card, and the types of ID allowed
with voter ID laws is --- well interesting. To pick on Texas,
an NRA ID is allowed even though it has no picture but
is just a thin piece of cardboard with a person's name
but a college student ID card with a photo is not. Note that
student ID cards were traditionally allowed. The same
change has happened in a number of states controlled
by the same political party.

I don't mean this to pick on you, or to pick some political
fight. It's just that you asked about evidence.

Many of the aspects of voter ID laws seem like they could
arise innocently enough from people with concerns about
election integrity, even if skepticism about how innocent
those intentions really are readily arise when one observes
the unequal effects on voters on different sides of the
political divide.

That's why the example I cited is so important. It's a bit
like Nixon taping himself while discussing covering up
crimes. Only in this case, we had email exchanges with
the consultant and legislatorial leaders plotting voter
suppression. You have to twist yourself into a knot to
posit innocence when you have a clear record of the
planning of the crime.

[jillery]

To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, my fellow Merkins!

[jillery]

Nature abhors a vacuum, which explains the above *and* why troll posts
are about themselves.

[Mark Isaak]

So that's why I can't remember my passwords!

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 00:35:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

The cost info for the US is available here:

http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf

Since 43 states have costs of $25 or less (26 less than
$15), and since I'd estimate that the usual expiration
period is 5 years or so (I couldn't find anything but
individual state data, and life's too short) isn't out of
line with the NY info I found - 4 to 10 years with fees of
$6.50 to $13.50; hardly enough to break anyone. And for
those who really can't afford even that much fees may be
waived for a number of reasons.

In short, ID is required of everyone who wants to engage in
many common activities and the fees aren't onerous (and can
be waived anyway).

>
>So, no problems with mandatory voter ID, IF you invest massively in the infrastructure, and not only make them free for citizens, but build an infrastructure where the next office to issue them is just a few streets away, and people are constantly and actively pursued to register, Dagget's story, of course, shows the opposite approach - making it more difficult for some citizens (those less likely to vote republican) to get ID, by selectively defunding the system that issues them. And even leaving aside such massive manipulation, do you think such a mandatory registration system would fly with the US public?
>

That all seems a bit beside the point, that ID (generally
picture ID) is *already* required for quite a few
activities, and thus already exists. I guess it's not
"racist" to require ID for anything except voting, at least
no one seems to be ranting about it.

But this thread has gone on long enough, and we'll probably
never agree, so thanks for the discussion, and I'll see you
later. :-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 02:35:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

I suspect that has to do with the rather unique nature of
the US as a voluntary association of sovereign states,
unlike (AFAIK) any European government. The Constitution
spells out pretty clearly the limited nature of the Federal
government, most clearly in Amendment 10.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Yes, I heard that you want to drop it, but this is t.o.
The refrain that ID is needed for so many other activities
anyway isn't really true. Trump infamously claimed that
you need ID to buy groceries, not so and I think he was
confused about buying alcohol. But I don't need an ID
to buy alcohol. Even when I was in my late teens and
early twenties, I almost never got carded. Even 30 years
ago you could write check in many places without an
ID if they had the systems that read the routing numbers
and could verify the account hadn't been flagged. So this
argument about "needing" an ID anyway just isn't true.

And then there are some facts about being poor. Poor
people move more often. If you move you need to update
your ID which is another $15 to $25. There are some varying
provisions for people who are homeless but they tend
to tie people to a city which makes itinerate work more
difficult.

Sure, these are problems for people irrespective of
voting. And they can be overcome, with extra effort.
But voting is a right. Barriers should be minimized.

If there was a real substantiated problem with voter fraud
that was demonstrated, and that could be fixed with photo
IDs, there could be a fair discussion of the trade-off in
access. But instead we get questions about proving that it
really makes things more difficult, or that the intent is really
voter suppression. And when that is addressed with facts
and the tables are turned to ask if there's a real problem of
voter fraud being fixed --- nothing.

That seems out of balance.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I suspect that if the aim of voter ID laws was really to insure that everybody eligible to vote was able to do so and that nobody who was ineligible to vote was able to, then a national photo ID would be a way to do it. It would also simplify immigration enforcement, nominally a high priority for the party that's very keen on voter ID laws. The only drawback would be that it would then be impossible to make it harder for some eligible voters to vote than others.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:55:17 -0800 (PST), the following

OK, if you assume nefarious motives you can always find
them, just like "offensive X".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 09:59:34 -0800 (PST), the following

Correct.

[broger...@gmail.com]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:00:27 -0800 (PST), the following

Agreed, although I suspect we may have different groups in
mind with that aphorism.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
>
>> And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
>> point at others.
>
>As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
>the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons)
>wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't
>suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.


The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
planes:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>

Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly
exceeds the specified physical dimensions.

WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.

Since the Chinese aircraft doesn't meet these specific exceptions, the
Chicago Convention codifies that sovereign nations can do as they see
fit within their sovereign airspace, including shooting down Chinese
spy craft pretending to be innocent civilian weather balloons.

IOW trolls asserting false equivalences about what USA "always" does
are always worg.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 2:25:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 17:14:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-02-04 15:30:12 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
> >
> >> And most importantly USA always tries to deny what it is doing and to
> >> point at others.
> >
> >As with the Chinese balloon that they're wetting their knickers over at
> >the moment. The USA has always sent spy planes (and probably balloons)
> >wherever it feels like. I'm old enough to remember Gary Powers. I don't
> >suppose he was the only one, but he was the one they caught.
>
>
> The following link is to a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek yet informative
> analysis of the legal issues involved in Chinese balloons vs. USA spy
> planes:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43wVDiZs8k>
>
> Short version: The Chicago Convention, which went into effect in 1947
> and has been ratified by (almost) every UN member state, codifies the
> legal issues involved here. According to it, the Chinese aircraft
> doesn't qualify as a "civilian airship", which would require prior
> notice, or as an aircraft for "meteorological research", as it clearly
> exceeds the specified physical dimensions.

..........................

> WRT "spy planes", these are allowed by specific treaty between NATO
> and Warsaw Pact nations, which went into effect in 1992. However,
> China is not a signatory to that treaty, and so it doesn't apply
> regardless of the specific nature of the Chinese aircraft.

Sure, but just to be pedantically correct, that treaty was not in effect until a couple of decades after the time Gary Powers was shot down over the USSR.

[jillery]

Putting aside for the moment the OP's incorrect "always", and its
respondent's incorrect equivalence, I acknowledge that your comment is
pedantically correct.

In counterpoint to your pedantically correct comment, it's
significantly correct to say the cited video also explains the
significant point that where sovereign airspace begins and outer space
ends has never been explicitly codified.

While that point was pedantic in 1947, it became significant in 1957,
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world's first manmade
orbiting object. During its 3-month flight, Sputnik flew over
multiple nations multiple times.

It's significantly correct to say that Sputnik didn't meet the Chicago
Convention's exceptions for "free balloons", any more than did the
Chinese craft.

Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.

[Burkhard]

Slightly more complicated I think - and a fascinating story in any case. The legal issue is the so called "vertical sovereignty" question, which remains controversial and contested to this day. Sputnik did not rely directly on the Chicago Convention, but on the notion that a state's territory does not extend above its "airspace". This is an interesting use of the "the exception that proves the rule" argument - because the Chicago Convention gives states largely unrestricted control over their airspace (the exception) , everything "above" this is free. Couple of problems with this, even in the 1950s:

- it was contested if in this case that inference was permissible, some, but not all, commentators read it as "States have "at least" full sovereignty over their airspace"

- Chicago does not define where "airspace" actually ends. It defines however "aircraft" as " "any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface." From this some commentators have concluded that airspace too is that part of space where the air is dense enough to supports balloons and combustion engines.

So up to 1957, and indeed still today, nobody knows how far the sovereignty of a state really extends vertically, but one could argue that Sputnik did not violate the law then or now. Or as their lawyer put it: "Sputnik did not penetrate the air space over any territories; rather it is these territories which run under . . . the orbit of the satellite's movement."

Now we come to the interesting part, which is indeed all about hypocrisy, just in a slightly different way. The US position, from at leat 1944 onwards, had already been that full sovereignty was limited to airspace, and that while states in principle had infinite vertical sovereignty, everything above the airspace was subject to a "right of peaceful passage", in analogy to international law of the High Seas. The US proposed to codify this interpretation in 1955 - knowing full well that the Soviet Union would reject this, as their thinking was that such a permission would benefit the technologically most advanced nations most .

And indeed, right up to the launch of Sputnik, the official USSR position was that states exercised full sovereignty also in all of its space, not just airspace, above their territory. But when one looked at the academic commentary coming from the state universities - that miraculously changed in 1956, and very quickly the old position was not so much officially repudiated by simply "photoshopped" as if it never happened. Then came Sputnik, and with that a precedent was set - which is pretty much were we are now. The law remains unclear, but all countries generally tolerate peaceful passage above their airspace, understood as "part where conventional airplanes can operate". Note though that this is just a right to peaceful passage, military uses would not be covered ("fly through" of rockets carrying military equipment is fine however) so for the discussion about spy balloons it does not do much work anyway. There is a theory that Eisenhower intentionally delayed the US effort and let the Russians go first - partly so that there was a credible threat that justified mayor investment, but also partly so that they would establish as precedent a legal position the US had wanted all along.

Legally, that's pretty much were we are now: all academics think it would e neat to have this as a formally adopted legal principle, but in the absence of such a treaty, nobody knows what the extend of a countries vertical sovereignty is - the general toleration isn't quite enough to establish international customary law, but the "de facto" toleration seems to work.

another historical tidbit: The German declaration of War against France form 1914 stated as one of the reasons intrusion by French reconnaissance balloons into German airspace.

[*Hemidactylus*]

If someone is a sovereign citizen can they basically declare infinite
vertical airspace rights and shoot down anything above them wherever they
may roam while they are also avoiding taxes for dodgy reasons? Seems like
the silent black helicopters full of reptilian shape shifting commandos had
it coming if legal to do so.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-02-11 17:39:34 +0000, jillery said:

[ … ]

 

Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly

and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically

provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.

So for you it's OK to refer to "Soviet Union" without mentioning that it had 15 component republics, but not OK to refer to the USA without mentioning that it has 50 states?

-- 

athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[Burkhard]

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 10:30:21 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-11 17:39:34 +0000, jillery said:
>
> [ … ]
> Therefore, it's significantly correct to say that Soviet Union clearly
> and willfully violated the Chicago Convention first, and ironically
> provided a legal counterclaim against Soviet Union.
> So for you it's OK to refer to "Soviet Union" without mentioning that it had 15 component republics, but not OK to refer to the USA without mentioning that it has 50 states?
>

Foreign policy is typically decided by the federal government, and hence properly attributed to the federal state, while penal policy under the US constitution is devolved largely to the state legislatures, and hence attributed to the individual states I'd say